[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39129-39147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19209]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB97


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final 
Determination of Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow 
Flycatcher

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) designates 
critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax 
traillii extimus), a species federally listed as endangered under the 
authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 
Fish and Wildlife Service has identified 18 critical habitat units 
totaling 964 river kilometers (km) (599 river miles) in Arizona, 
California, and New Mexico. As required by section 4 of the Act, the 
Service considered economic and other relevant impacts prior to making 
a final decision on the size and configuration of critical habitat.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete administrative record for this rule is on file 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services 
Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021. The 
complete file for this rule will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sam F. Spiller, Field Supervisor, 
Arizona Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at 
the above address (Telephone 602/640-2720).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Ecological Considerations

    The southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) is 
a small passerine bird, approximately 15 centimeters (cm) (5.75 inches) 
in length. It is one of four subspecies of the willow flycatcher 
recognized in North America (Hubbard 1987, Unitt 1987, Browning 1993). 
The southwestern willow flycatcher's breeding range includes southern 
California, Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas, southwestern Colorado, 
southern portions of Nevada and Utah, and extreme northwestern Mexico 
(Hubbard 1987, Unitt 1987, Wilbur 1987). During the breeding season, 
the species occurs in riparian habitats along rivers, streams, open 
water, cienegas, marshy seeps, or saturated soil where dense growths of 
willows (Salix sp.), Baccharis, arrowweed (Pluchea sp.), tamarisk 
(Tamarix sp.) or other plants are present, sometimes with a scattered 
overstory of cottonwood (Populus sp.) (Grinnell and Miller 1944, 
Phillips 1948, Zimmerman 1970, Whitmore 1977, Hubbard 1987, Unitt 1987, 
Whitfield 1990, Brown and Trosset 1989, Brown 1991, Sogge et al. 1997). 
These riparian communities, which tend to be rare and widely separated, 
provide nesting, foraging, and migratory habitat for the southwestern 
willow flycatcher. Empidonax traillii extimus is an insectivore that 
forages within and occasionally above dense riparian vegetation, taking 
insects on the wing and gleaning them from foliage (Wheelock 1912, Bent 
1960).
    Empidonax traillii extimus nests in dense riparian vegetation 
approximately 4-7 meters (m) (13-23 feet) tall, often with a high 
percentage of canopy cover. Historically, E. t. extimus nested 
primarily in willows, with a scattered overstory of cottonwood 
(Grinnell and Miller 1944, Phillips 1948, Whitmore 1977, Unitt 1987, 
Sogge et al. 1997). In addition to nesting in riparian woodland 
vegetation consisting of willows, arrowweed, tamarisk ``or other 
species'', southwestern willow flycatchers nest almost exclusively in 
coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) on the Upper San Luis Rey River in 
San Diego County, California, which may be defined as an oak ``riparian 
woodland.'' Following modern changes in riparian plant communities in 
the southwest, E. t. extimus still nests in willows where available but 
is also known to nest in areas dominated by tamarisk and Russian olive 
(Zimmerman 1970, Hubbard 1987, Brown 1988). Sedgewick and Knopf (1992) 
found that sites selected as song perches by male willow flycatchers 
exhibited higher variability in shrub size than did nest sites and 
often included large central shrubs. Habitats not selected for either 
nesting or singing were narrower riparian zones, with greater distances 
between willow patches and individual willow plants.
    Large scale losses of southwestern wetlands have occurred, 
particularly the cottonwood-willow riparian habitat of the southwestern 
willow flycatcher (Phillips et al. 1964, Johnson and Haight 1984, 
Katibah 1984, Johnson et al. 1987, Unitt 1987, General Accounting 
Office 1988, Dahl 1990, State of Arizona 1990). Changes in the riparian 
plant community have reduced, degraded and eliminated nesting habitat 
for the willow flycatcher, curtailing its

[[Page 39130]]

distribution and numbers (Serena 1982, Cannon and Knopf 1984, Taylor 
and Littlefield 1986, Unitt 1987, Schlorff 1990). Habitat losses and 
changes have occurred (and continue to occur) because of urban, 
recreational and agricultural development, fires, water diversion and 
impoundment, channelization, livestock grazing, and replacement of 
native habitats by introduced plant species (see 58 FR 39495 and 
Tibbitts et al. 1994 for detailed discussions of threats and impacts).
    Brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) is 
another significant and widespread threat to the southwestern willow 
flycatcher (Rowley 1930, Garret and Dunn 1981, Unitt 1987, Sogge 1995a 
and 1995b, Whitfield and Strong 1995, Sferra et al. 1997). Although 
some host species seem capable of simultaneously raising both cowbirds 
and their own chicks, such is not the case with southwestern willow 
flycatchers. Of all the nests monitored throughout the southwest 
between 1988 and 1996, there are only two cases known where 
southwestern willow flycatchers successfully fledged both flycatchers 
and cowbirds. In all other cases, parasitism caused complete nest 
failure or the successful rearing of only cowbird chicks (Brown 1988, 
Whitfield 1990, Whitfield and Strong 1995, Sogge 1995a and 1995b, 
Maynard 1995, Sferra et al. 1997).
    In a review of historical and contemporary records of Empidonax 
traillii extimus throughout its range, Unitt (1987) noted that the 
species has ``declined precipitously * * *'' and that ``the population 
is clearly much smaller now than 50 years ago.'' He believed the total 
was ``well under'' 1000 pairs, more likely 500 (Unitt 1987). Nesting 
groups monitored since that time have continued to decline (Whitfield 
1990, Brown 1991, Sogge and Tibbitts 1992, Whitfield and Laymon, 
unpubl. data). Since 1992, more than 800 historic and new locations 
have been surveyed range wide to document the status of the 
southwestern willow flycatcher (USFWS, unpubl. data). The current known 
population of southwestern willow flycatchers is estimated at between 
300 and 500 pairs (Sogge et al. 1997). This indicates a critical 
population status, with more than 75 percent of the locations where 
flycatchers are found having five or fewer territorial birds and up to 
20 percent of the locations having single, unmated individuals. The 
distribution of breeding groups is highly fragmented, with groups often 
separated by considerable distances (e.g., approximately 88 kilometers 
(km) (55 miles) straight-line distance between breeding flycatchers at 
Roosevelt Lake, Gila County, Arizona, and the next closest breeding 
groups known on either the San Pedro River (Pinal County) or Verde 
River (Yavapai County). Additional survey effort, particularly in 
southern California, may discover additional small breeding groups. 
However, rangewide survey efforts have yielded positive results in 
fewer than 10 percent of surveyed locations. Moreover, survey results 
reveal a consistent pattern range wide; the southwestern willow 
flycatcher population as a whole is comprised of extremely small, 
widely-separated breeding groups or unmated flycatchers.
    For a thorough discussion of the ecology and life history of the 
southwestern willow flycatcher, see Sogge et al. (1997), the proposed 
rule to list the southwestern willow flycatcher as endangered with 
critical habitat (58 FR 39495) or the final rule listing the 
southwestern willow flycatcher as endangered (60 FR 10694).

Previous Federal Actions

    On January 25, 1992, a coalition of conservation organizations 
petitioned the Service, requesting listing of Empidonax traillii 
extimus as an endangered species, under the Act. The petitioners also 
appealed for emergency listing, and designation of critical habitat. On 
September 1, 1992, the Service published a finding that the petition 
presented substantial information indicating that listing may be 
warranted and requested public comments and biological data on the 
species (57 FR 39664). On July 23, 1993, the Service published a 
proposal to list E. t. extimus as endangered with critical habitat (58 
FR 39495), and again requested public comments and biological data on 
the species. The Service published a final rule to list E. t. extimus 
as endangered on February 27, 1995 (60 FR 10694). The Service deferred 
the designation of critical habitat for this endangered species until 
July 23, 1995, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(b)(6)(C), citing issues 
raised in public comments, new information, and the lack of the 
economic information necessary to perform the required economic 
analysis. The Service reopened the comment period on the proposal to 
designate critical habitat. During and following the listing moratorium 
and a series of rescissions of listing funds imposed by Congress from 
April 1995 to April 1996, the Service took no action on the proposal to 
designate critical habitat due to resource constraints. On March 20, 
1997, the U.S. District Court of Arizona, in response to a suit by the 
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, ordered the Service to 
designate critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher 
within 120 days. On July 3, 1997, the Court clarified that order, 
noting that the 120-day timeframe was provided for the Service to make 
a decision as to whether or not to designate critical habitat and not 
to make a substantive determination of designation.
    The Service has not previously designated critical habitat for the 
flycatcher because, as discussed in detail below, critical habitat 
designation provides little or no conservation benefit despite the 
great cost to put it in place. The Service's conclusion in this regard 
is reflected in its Listing Priority Guidance (61 FR 64475), under 
which designation of critical habitat is accorded the lowest priority 
among the Service's various listing activities. In accordance with the 
Listing Priority Guidance, since the lifting of the moratorium the 
Service has spent the scarce resources available to it for listing 
activities on meeting other requirements of the Act that provide 
significantly more conservation benefit. Nonetheless, the Service has 
been ordered to make a final determination with regard to critical 
habitat in an exceedingly short period of time. This final rule is 
issued to comply with that order. The rule meets the technical 
requirements of the Act; however, because of the unprecedented time 
constraints resulting from the court order, the Service was not able to 
provide the level of analysis and completeness that it has in the past 
on such rules. The Service is designating critical habitat for the 
southwestern willow flycatcher as it was proposed in 1993, with the 
deletion of some minor areas that were found to have been proposed in 
error because they have little or no potential for flycatcher habitat 
(see Issue 4 in Summary of Comments and Recommendations). The Service 
concedes that there may be additional areas that could be excluded 
because they no longer require special management considerations or 
protection due to ongoing management agreements, such as that with 
respect to Camp Pendleton. Similarly, the Service has been unable to 
consider additional areas for inclusion in this rule in response to the 
comments received.
    Even promulgating this rule stripped down to its essentials has 
placed an enormous burden on the Service. The Service had no option but 
to disrupt significant work at the Field Office, Regional, and National 
levels in order to provide the resources to generate this

[[Page 39131]]

final rule. The Service intends to further articulate its views 
concerning critical habitat, and to provide the public with an 
opportunity to comment on those views, in the development of a specific 
critical habitat policy in the very near future. However, the below 
analysis is provided to elaborate on why the Service has placed 
critical habitat designation among the lowest priorities in the Listing 
Priority Guidance, and therefore why critical habitat for the 
flycatcher was not designated prior to this time.

Critical Habitat

    Designation of critical habitat for endangered or threatened 
species has been among the most costly and controversial classes of 
administrative actions undertaken by the Service in administering the 
Act. Over 20 years of experience in designating critical habitat and 
applying it as a tool in conserving species leads the Service to 
seriously question its utility and the value it provides in comparison 
to the monetary, administrative, and other resources it absorbs. 
Although the Service is, in this case, designating critical habitat 
pursuant to a Court order that requires the Service to make a final 
determination, the Service believes that critical habitat is not an 
efficient or effective means of securing the conservation of species. 
An analysis supporting this conclusion is presented below.

The Designation Process

    When the Service lists a species as threatened or endangered, the 
Act requires that it specify, ``to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable,'' the species' critical habitat. If critical habitat is 
not considered determinable at the time a final rule is adopted to list 
a species, it must be designated ``to the maximum extent prudent'' 
within 1 additional year. Thus the ultimate test in determining whether 
or not critical habitat is designated for a species is one of prudence. 
The basis for the Court order directing the present designation was the 
Service's failure to either designate critical habitat or to find that 
its designation would not be prudent within 1 year of the listing of 
the southwestern willow flycatcher as an endangered species.
    The Act's definitions of ``critical habitat'' and ``conservation'' 
are central to any interpretation of critical habitat's attributes and 
effects. Critical habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the Act as 
``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the 
conservation of the species and (II) that may require special 
management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is 
listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.'' The term ``conservation,'' as defined in 
section 3(3) of the Act, means ``. . . to use and the use of all 
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered 
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.'' A designation 
of critical habitat thus implies not only specific knowledge of the 
habitat needs of a species, but also an idea of what would be needed in 
the way of habitat protection and management to bring about the 
species' recovery.
    The Act also requires a consideration of economic and other 
consequences as part of the designation process, with the option of 
excluding areas from designation if the benefits of such exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation, and if exclusion would not result 
in the extinction of the species. A good understanding of the effects 
of designation, both in general and for particular cases, is required 
to carry out this analytic requirement and to provide a basis for the 
consideration of potential exclusions.
    At the time a species is listed, there is generally no detailed 
understanding of the management measures that will be required for its 
recovery, so that designation at this time can only crudely reflect its 
conservation needs. Meanwhile, the required analysis is necessarily 
highly speculative in that it must incorporate assumptions regarding 
future economic activity that may be difficult to characterize, and it 
is aimed at the increment of effect on these activities attributable to 
designation over and above those consequent to the species' listing. 
Finally, the economic balancing that is the object of the analysis is 
only possible to the extent that these two sets of effects can be 
differentiated, and the limit on this balancing (i.e., that exclusion 
may not cause extinction) is not meaningful if the failure to designate 
critical habitat cannot plausibly have this effect.
    In determining the extent to which designation of critical habitat 
is prudent, Congress directed the Service to consider whether the 
designation would be of benefit to the species concerned. In recent 
years, the Service has foregone designating critical habitat for most 
species it has listed on the basis that it would not provide any net 
benefit to their conservation.

Designation by regulation

    Critical habitats are designated in the Code of Federal Regulations 
and can be altered only through a rulemaking process that commonly 
requires over a year from start to finish. In fact, revision is a 
sufficiently complex undertaking that the Service has never revised a 
critical habitat designation, in spite of it being possible to do so. 
The range and habitat use of a species do not necessarily remain 
unchanged over time or change so slowly as to be readily tracked by 
costly and time-consuming regulatory amendments.

The Consequences of Designation

    Section 7 of the Act requires that Federal agencies refrain from 
contributing to the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. This requirement is in addition to the prohibition against 
jeopardizing the continued existence of a listed species, and it is the 
only mandatory legal consequence of a critical habitat designation. An 
understanding of the interplay of the ``jeopardy'' and ``adverse 
modification'' standards is necessary to the proper evaluation of the 
prudence of designation as well as the conduct of consultation under 
section 7. Implementing regulations (50 CFR part 402) define 
``jeopardize the continued existence of'' and ``destruction or adverse 
modification of'' in virtually identical terms. Jeopardize the 
continued existence of means to engage in an action ``that reasonably 
would be expected * * * to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both 
the survival and recovery of a listed species.'' Destruction or adverse 
modification means an ``alteration that appreciably diminishes the 
value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a 
listed species.'' Common to both definitions is an appreciable 
detrimental effect on both survival and recovery of a listed species, 
in the case of critical habitat by reducing the value of the habitat so 
designated. Thus, actions satisfying the standard for adverse 
modification are nearly always found to also jeopardize the species 
concerned, and the existence of a critical habitat designation does not 
materially affect the outcome of consultation. This is in contrast to 
the public perception that the adverse modification standard sets a 
lower threshold for violation of section 7 than that for jeopardy. In 
fact, biological opinions which conclude that a Federal agency action 
is likely to adversely

[[Page 39132]]

modify critical habitat but not to jeopardize the species for which it 
is designated are extremely rare historically, and none have been 
issued in recent years.

Scope of Analysis

    Given the difficulty of separating the independent incremental 
effects of designation of critical habitat from those associated with 
the listing of a species, it should not be surprising that the approach 
to economic analysis is problematic. A recent analysis for the 
designation of nearly 4 million acres of critical habitat for the 
marbled murrelet concluded, in part, that the designation ``is not 
likely to restrict the activities of any federal agency'' and that it 
``will not cause these agencies (the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management) to manage federal lands in a manner that will have 
immediate, direct impacts on the flow of goods and services from these 
lands.'' Critics have complained that economic analyses of critical 
habitat designations greatly underestimate the effects of the ESA on 
the economy, or alternatively that environmental benefits are generally 
given cursory coverage. Both points of view have elements of validity. 
On the one hand, the effects of the ESA on society stem overwhelmingly 
from the protection afforded by the listing of species, but the tenuous 
effects of critical habitat designation are the only ones subject to 
the requirement of economic analysis. On the other hand, the object of 
the analysis is an examination of areas for possible exclusion from 
critical habitat, leading to a focus on possible deleterious economic 
effects that might provide grounds for exclusion, rather than the 
benefits society derives from the operation of the ESA.

The Cost of Designation

    In a recent declaration filed in a Federal District Court, the 
Service's Assistant Director estimated that economic analyses alone for 
the designation of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet (quoted 
above) and Mexican spotted owl cost in excess of $100,000 each. The 
total cost of other recent designations, as those for the desert 
tortoise and Colorado River fishes, have been estimated at 
approximately $1,000,000 each. The Service currently has on hand 
information sufficient to propose nearly 200 candidate species for 
listing, and several hundred other species are known to require status 
surveys to determine whether they qualify. The resources required to 
designate a critical habitat typically are ten times what would be 
required to list a backlogged candidate species. On conservation 
grounds, the Service cannot justify devoting resources to a critical 
habitat designation that would otherwise be available to afford basic 
protection to ten or more candidate species. Critical habitat 
designations have too little effect on the way land and water is 
managed for the conservation of species to justify the drain they 
represent on Federal resources.

Public Perception of Designation

    Controversy over critical habitat designation arises in substantial 
part from public misunderstanding of the effects designation has on 
potential resource uses. The common public perception is that critical 
habitat is an inviolate preserve within which human activities are 
excluded entirely or drastically curtailed. It is not difficult to 
understand this misperception given the common-sense meaning of 
``critical habitat.'' In fact, the designation of critical habitat may 
provide some benefits to a species by identifying areas important to 
the species' conservation, particularly until a recovery plan is 
adopted, including habitat that is not presently occupied and that may 
require restoration efforts to support recovery. However, these 
benefits are minor, apply only where there is Federal agency 
involvement, and consume considerable funds that could be spent 
elsewhere to much greater benefit.

Identification of Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow 
Flycatcher

    Empidonax traillii extimus is endangered by extensive loss of 
nesting habitat and is now extirpated across much of its former 
breeding range. A neotropical migratory bird, E. t. extimus is present 
in its breeding habitat from late April until August or September. It 
then migrates to wintering grounds in Mexico, Central America, and 
perhaps northern South America (Gorski 1969, McCabe 1991). Little is 
known about threats in its wintering grounds. However, even during the 
nonbreeding season when the species is not present, nesting habitat and 
especially potentially recoverable nesting habitat remain vulnerable. 
Conserving and enhancing the constituent elements of current and 
potential nesting habitat is necessary to facilitate recovery of the 
species. The Service may designate as critical habitat areas outside 
the geographical area presently occupied by a species when a 
designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure 
the conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12(e)). Such a situation 
exists for the southwestern willow flycatcher, for which recovery of 
the physical and biological features and constituent elements of 
nesting habitat and space for population growth are needed to ensure 
the conservation and recovery of the species.

Primary Constituent Elements

    The Service is required to base critical habitat determinations on 
the best available scientific information (50 CFR 424.12). In 
determining what areas to designate as critical habitat, the Service 
considers those physical and biological features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species and that may require special management 
considerations or protection. Such requirements include but are not 
limited to the following: (1) Space for individual and population 
growth; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for 
breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed 
dispersal; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species. The Service is proposing to designate as 
critical habitat areas which provide or with rehabilitation will 
provide the above five physical and biological features and primary 
constituent elements.
    For all areas of critical habitat designated here, these physical 
and biological features and primary constituent elements are provided 
or will be provided by dense thickets of riparian shrubs and trees 
(native and exotic species). This vegetation, by definition, occurs 
near rivers, streams, open water, cienegas, marshy seeps, or saturated 
soil. Constituent elements of critical habitat include the riparian 
ecosystem within the 100-year floodplain, including areas where dense 
riparian vegetation is not present, but may become established in the 
future. The species composition of vegetation ranges from nearly 
monotypic stands (i.e., single species) to stands with multiple species 
(see Sogge et al. 1997). Vegetation structure ranges from simple, 
single stratum patches as low as 3 meters (9 feet) in height and 
lacking a distinct overstory to complex patches with multiple strata 
and canopies nearing 18 meters (60 feet) in height. Vegetation patches 
may be uniformly dense throughout, or occur as a mosaic of dense 
thickets interspersed with small openings, bare soil, open water, or 
shorter/sparser vegetation. Riparian patches used by breeding 
flycatchers vary in size and shape, and may be relatively dense, linear 
contiguous

[[Page 39133]]

stands or irregularly-shaped mosaics of dense vegetation with open 
areas. The size of vegetation patches or habitat mosaics used by 
southwestern willow flycatchers varies considerably and ranges from as 
small as 0.8 hectares (2 acres) to several hundred hectares. However, 
narrow linear riparian patches only one to two trees deep that have no 
potential (absent limiting factors) to increase in depth are not 
considered breeding habitat, although they may be used by southwestern 
willow flycatchers during migration.
    A total of approximately 964 km (599 miles) of stream and river are 
being designated as critical habitat. The areas described were chosen 
for critical habitat designation because they contain the remaining 
known southwestern willow flycatcher nesting sites, and/or formerly 
supported nesting southwestern willow flycatchers, and/or have the 
potential to support nesting southwestern willow flycatchers. All areas 
contain or with restoration will contain suitable nesting habitat in a 
patchy, discontinuous distribution. This distribution is partially the 
result of natural regeneration patterns of riparian vegetation (e.g. 
cottonwood-willow). The distribution of these habitat patches is 
expected to shift over time. Because of this spatial and temporal 
distribution of habitat patches, it is important that the entirety of 
the proposed river reaches be considered critical habitat. All areas 
contain some unoccupied habitat or former (degraded) habitat, needed to 
recover ecosystem integrity and support larger southwestern willow 
flycatcher numbers during the species' recovery. A number of separate, 
protected, healthy populations of southwestern willow flycatchers are 
needed to protect the species from extinction by functioning as 
population sources (Pulliam 1988). Protection of this proposed critical 
habitat should ensure sufficient quantity and quality of habitat to 
stabilize and recover this species. The southwestern willow flycatcher 
is already extirpated from a significant portion of its former range.
    Critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher will 
include riparian areas within the 100-year floodplain along streams and 
rivers in southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico (Figure 1). 
Descriptions and maps of each area are located in this rule under 
``Regulation Promulgation.''
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.010


[[Page 39134]]



Available Conservation Measures

    Because Empidonax traillii extimus is a listed species, the Act 
provides conservation measures, including recognition, recovery 
actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against 
certain practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results 
in conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, 
groups, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition 
and cooperation with the States and authorizes recovery plans for all 
listed species. The protection required of Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified in 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into 
formal consultation with the Service.
    The U.S. Marine Corps and Service have worked together to develop a 
comprehensive, ecosystem-oriented wildlife conservation management plan 
covering all riparian and coastal wetland habitat areas on the base at 
Camp Pendleton. This effort culminated in a mutually agreed upon 
conservation strategy and implementation program that was endorsed by 
the Secretary of the Interior and Service at a signing ceremony with 
the Commanding General in October 1995. The conservation program has 
contributed substantially to the protection and recovery of the least 
Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and other listed species 
(i.e., arroyo toad, tidewater goby, California least tern, and western 
snowy plover) found in riparian and coastal wetland habitats along the 
Santa Margarita River and Pacific Ocean. Indeed, the Department of 
Defense awarded Camp Pendleton the Department's Natural Resources Award 
for 1996 largely because of the successful implementation of the 
riparian and coastal wetland conservation program. The Service does not 
intend the designation of critical habitat to result in the imposition 
of any additional restrictions for actions taken at Camp Pendleton 
which are consistent with the conservation measures outlined under the 
management plan. Thus, for example, if the Marine Corps needed a permit 
under the Clean Water Act for an activity which was consistent with the 
conservation management plan, the Service would not view such activity 
as adversely modifying or destroying critical habitat for the willow 
flycatcher.
    On other Federal lands, various ongoing activities within riparian 
areas may benefit the flycatcher. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management have focused attention on modifying livestock grazing 
practices in recent years, particularly as they affect riparian 
ecosystems. The Bureau of Land Management's San Pedro National Riparian 
Conservation Area in Arizona has excluded livestock for 10 years which 
has resulted in significant restoration of riparian habitats and 
increased populations of bird species associated with riparian habitat, 
including the willow flycatcher. The Forest Service, in cooperation 
with others, is monitoring the southwestern willow flycatcher 
population on the San Luis Rey River on Forest Service lands, and has 
an on-going brown-headed cowbird trapping program on the San Luis Rey 
River and other streams within the Cleveland National Forest. As 
mitigation for other projects impacting riparian habitats, the Bureau 
of Reclamation is engaged in a cowbird management program and riparian 
habitat restoration projects in several areas in the range of Empidonax 
traillii extimus, including some historical nesting locations. Riparian 
habitat rehabilitation is also underway at several National Wildlife 
Refuges in the breeding range of E. t. extimus, which are managed by 
the Service. Grand Canyon National Park has instituted a seasonal 
recreation closure at the remaining site with nesting willow 
flycatchers in the Grand Canyon.
    In addition to conservation on Federal lands, in 1991, the State of 
California established the Natural Communities Conservation Planning 
(NCCP) Program to address conservation needs of natural ecosystems 
throughout the State. The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) 
in southwestern San Diego County is one of the first subregional plans 
under the NCCP to be developed. The MSCP planning area consists of 12 
jurisdictions and several water districts, each of which will develop 
subarea plans to implement the MSCP within their boundaries. The City 
of San Diego has approved the MSCP and finalized their subarea plan. 
The remaining jurisdictions and the Otay Water District are expected to 
finalize their subarea plans within the near future.
    The southwestern willow flycatcher is considered a covered species 
under the MSCP based on the proposed level of conservation. The MSCP 
will preserve over 9,000 acres or 75 percent of the remaining riparian 
habitats within the planning boundary. Impacts to riparian areas 
outside of the preserve will be avoided, minimized, and mitigated under 
local guidelines and ordinances, and existing State and Federal wetland 
regulations. Thus, no net loss of acreage of riparian habitat is 
proposed within the MSCP, and no additional restrictions are 
anticipated as a result of critical habitat designation.
    All of the designated critical habitat for the southwestern willow 
flycatcher along the San Dieguito, San Diego, and Tijuana Rivers will 
be conserved and managed within the MSCP preserve system. The MSCP 
assures permittees that compliance with the Federal policy of ``no net 
loss'' of wetland functions and values, the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's section 404(b)(1) guidelines, and the requirements 
of the MSCP and local subarea plan will constitute the full extent of 
mitigation measures directed specifically at the incidental take of 
covered species recommended by the Service pursuant to the Act and the 
National Environmental Policy Act. In addition, the Service has agreed 
that, if the subarea plans for each jurisdiction under the MSCP are 
properly functioning, the Service will not require that permittees or 
third party beneficiaries commit additional land, additional land 
restrictions, or additional financial compensation beyond that provided 
in each implementing agreement should critical habitat for a covered 
species be designated.
    The approved NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan for the Central and 
Coastal Subregions of Orange County, California, provides benefits to 
the southwestern willow flycatcher. The plan establishes an 
approximately 37,300-acre nature preserve and requires surveys for the 
southwestern willow flycatcher to ensure that occupied habitat with 
potentially significant long-term conservation value will be conserved. 
The adaptive management program for the preserve includes monitoring, 
cowbird control, and habitat enhancement measures for the flycatcher. 
Again, the Service anticipates that no additional restrictions will 
apply to activities undertaken in accordance with the

[[Page 39135]]

approved Orange County NCCP plan as a result of this critical habitat 
designation.
    The Audubon Society manages one of the largest remaining flycatcher 
populations in California, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) manages 
several areas with high recovery potential. TNC maintains a cowbird 
trapping program in Orange County that provides indirect benefits to 
potential nesting habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher.
    In addition to public and private lands, critical habitat occurs on 
land belonging to the Yavapai-Apache Tribe in Arizona and on land 
belonging to the Pala Mission Tribe in California. Pursuant to Tribal 
sovereignty and the Service's associated responsibilities, as well as 
the recent Secretarial Order for American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, 
the Service has consulted with both tribes prior to completion of this 
rule in order to ensure that tribal cultural values, and reserved 
hunting, fishing, gathering and other rights were considered in this 
designation. The Service will continue to work cooperatively with the 
tribes and remain available to assist in development of conservation 
plans for the area that meet both the intent of the Act and Tribal 
needs.
    It is the policy of the Service to identify to the maximum extent 
practicable at the time of listing those activities that would or would 
not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the listing on 
proposed or on-going activities. These activities are listed in the 
final rule listing the southwestern willow flycatcher (60 FR 10694). 
Likewise, section 4(b)(8) requires, for any proposed or final 
regulation that designates critical habitat, a brief description and 
evaluation of those activities (public or private) that may adversely 
modify such habitat or may be affected by such designation. Such 
activities may include:
    (1) Removing, thinning or destroying riparian vegetation. 
Activities which remove, thin, or destroy riparian vegetation, by 
mechanical, chemical (herbicides or burning), or biological (grazing) 
means reduce constituent elements for southwestern willow flycatcher 
sheltering, feeding, breeding, and migrating.
    (2) Surface water diversion or impoundment, groundwater pumping, or 
any other activity which may alter the quantity or quality of surface 
or subsurface water flow. Activities which alter the quantity or 
quality of surface or subsurface water flow may affect riparian 
vegetation, food availability, or the general suitability of the site 
for nesting or migrating.
    (3) Destruction/alteration of the species' habitat by discharge of 
fill material, draining, ditching, tiling, pond construction, and 
stream channelization (i.e., due to roads, construction of bridges, 
impoundments, discharge pipes, stormwater detention basins, etc.).
    (4) Overstocking of livestock. Excessive use of riparian areas and 
uplands for livestock grazing may affect the volume and composition of 
riparian vegetation, may physically disturb nests, may alter floodplain 
dynamics such that regeneration of riparian habitat is impaired or 
precluded, and may facilitate brood parasitism by brown-headed 
cowbirds.
    (5) Development of recreational facilities and off-road vehicle 
operation. Activities which facilitate recreational activities and off-
road vehicle use may affect riparian vegetation, result in compaction 
of soils degrading areas where riparian vegetation is established or 
would become established, alter floodplain dynamics such that riparian 
regeneration is impaired or precluded, promote fires in riparian 
habitats, reduce space for individual and population growth, and 
inhibit normal behavior.
    In general, activities that do not remove or degrade constituent 
elements of habitat for Empidonax traillii extimus are not likely to 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Each proposed action will 
be examined pursuant to section 7 of the Act in relation to its site-
specific impacts.
    The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands 
outside of critical habitat do not play an important role in the 
conservation of Empidonax traillii extimus. Federal activities outside 
of critical habitat are still subject to review under section 7 if they 
may affect E. t. extimus. Prohibitions of Section 9 also continue to 
apply both inside and outside of designated critical habitat.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the July 23, 1993, proposed rule to list the Empidonax traillii 
extimus as endangered with critical habitat (58 FR 39495), all 
interested parties were requested to submit comments or information 
that might bear on the listing of or designation of critical habitat 
for the southwestern willow flycatcher. The comment period was 
originally scheduled to close October 21, 1993, but was extended to 
November 30, 1993. Appropriate State agencies, Federal agencies, county 
governments, scientific organizations, and other interested parties 
were contacted and requested to comment. Newspaper notices inviting 
public comment were published in the following newspapers: In 
California, the Los Angeles Times, L.A. Watts Times, Kern Valley Sun, 
and San Diego Union-Tribune; in Arizona, the Arizona Daily Sun, Arizona 
Republic, Tucson Daily Citizen, White Mountain Independent, and Arizona 
Daily Star; in New Mexico, the Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque 
Tribune, Santa Fe New Mexican, Carlsbad Current-Argus, Silver City 
Daily Press; in Nevada, the Las Vegas Sun; in Colorado, the Durango 
Herald; in Utah, the Daily Spectrum; and in Texas, the El Paso Times. 
The inclusive dates of publications were August 31 through September 
13, 1993, for the initial comment period and October 28 through 
November 5, 1993, for the public hearings and extension of public 
comment period.
    The Service held six public hearings. Three of these were held in 
anticipation of interest in the proposed rule, and three additional 
were held in response to requests from the public. A notice of the 
hearing dates and locations was published in the Federal Register on 
October 18, 1993 (58 FR 53702). Approximately 424 people attended the 
hearings. Approximately 17 people attended the hearing in Tucson, AZ; 
27 in Flagstaff, AZ; 10 in Las Cruces, NM; 12 in Albuquerque, NM; 350 
in Lake Isabella, CA; and 8 in San Diego, CA. Transcripts of these 
hearings are available for inspection (see ADDRESSES section).
    A second public comment period was held from February 27, 1995, to 
April 28, 1995, during which comments were solicited on proposed 
critical habitat. A total of 3,240 written and oral responses was 
received during the two public comment periods. All comments received 
were reviewed for substantive issues and new data regarding critical 
habitat and the southwestern willow flycatcher. Comments of a similar 
nature are grouped into a number of general issues. Ten general issues 
were identified relating specifically to proposed critical habitat. 
These are addressed in the following summary.
    Issue 1: Development of conservation agreements would be more 
effective in providing a net benefit to the southwestern willow 
flycatcher than designation of critical habitat, and existing 
agreements make designation of critical habitat unnecessary in some 
areas.

[[Page 39136]]

    Service Response: The Service agrees that implementation of 
comprehensive conservation agreements could effectively protect and 
enhance both occupied and unoccupied habitat for the southwestern 
willow flycatcher, and also have the potential to provide for recovery 
of the species. Toward this end, the U.S. Marine Corps and the State of 
California have both worked with the Service to develop ecosystem-
oriented conservation plans that the Service believes will be highly 
effective in providing for the conservation needs of the southwestern 
willow flycatcher at Camp Pendleton and in portions of San Diego and 
Orange counties. Unfortunately, due to imposed time constraints and 
lack of funding, at this time the Service is not able to undertake 
further analysis with regard to critical habitat designation although 
such analysis might ultimately negate the need for designation in areas 
such as these.
    Issue 2: Designation of critical habitat would offer no additional 
protection above listing; critical habitat can only be designated for 
areas on which essential biological and physical features are currently 
found.
    Service Response: The designation of critical habitat may provide 
some benefits to the southwestern willow flycatcher by identifying for 
the public areas important to the species' conservation and 
highlighting areas important to the species until a recovery plan is 
adopted, including habitat that is not presently occupied by 
flycatchers and that may require restoration efforts to support 
recovery. The areas included in this designation are believed to be 
justified as providing biological and physical features essential to 
the flycatcher's conservation. Nevertheless, the Service generally 
agrees that the protection afforded by the designation of critical 
habitat is marginal in comparison to the protective measures provided 
by the species' listing. Regardless of the perceived benefit of this 
designation, however, the Service is required to comply with the Court 
order requiring a final determination on designation within a specified 
time limit.
    Issue 3: Critical habitat would not improve the status of the 
southwestern willow flycatcher because cowbirds, rather than habitat, 
are the limiting factor.
    Service Response: The Service recognizes that cowbird parasitism is 
a major threat to the viability of the southwestern willow flycatcher. 
That threat is exacerbated by the small size and highly fragmented 
nature of extant riparian habitats. Habitat suitability for cowbirds, 
and thus cowbird abundance and rates of parasitism, appear to decrease 
as habitat size and extent increases, ostensibly because patches with 
higher ratios of interior to edge habitat are more difficult for 
cowbirds to penetrate. In addition, larger habitat patches should have 
more host species. Thus, increasing the size and extent of riparian 
habitat on a local scale should reduce the rate of cowbird parasitism 
on southwestern willow flycatchers by decreasing habitat suitability 
for the cowbird and by increasing the number of non-flycatcher host 
species that can be parasitized. In many of the small riparian stands 
inhabited by flycatchers the number of cowbirds may outnumber host 
species, including the flycatcher. In those areas cowbird management 
programs will be needed to increase flycatcher reproductive success in 
the short-term. The Service believes, however, that over the long-term 
the most effective strategy to reduce the rate and extent of cowbird 
parasitism is to reduce riparian habitat fragmentation on a regional 
scale and to vastly increase the size and extent of riparian habitat on 
a local scale.
    Issue 4: The proposed critical habitat includes areas with little 
potential for appropriate habitat and omits areas with known flycatcher 
breeding groups or areas with high potential for occupancy by 
flycatchers.
    Service Response: The Service received many comments from Federal, 
State, and private entities recommending deletions and additions to 
proposed critical habitat. In response to public comments, some areas 
that were included in the proposed rule were found to be proposed in 
error because they have little or no potential for flycatcher habitat, 
and were omitted from the final designation. These include: 
Approximately 5 miles of shoreline at Lake Isabella downstream of the 
South Fork Wildlife Area, removed due to a lack of potential for 
habitat to develop along the lakeshore (Kern County, CA); Peck's Lake, 
removed due to a lack of potential for habitat to develop around 
shoreline (Yavapai County, AZ); approximately 5 miles along the upper 
portion of Wet Beaver Creek, removed due to lack of potential for 
suitable habitat to develop (Yavapai County, AZ); approximately 14 
miles along the upper portion of West Clear Creek, removed due to lack 
of potential for suitable habitat to develop (Yavapai County, AZ); 
approximately 20 miles along the Rio Grande, removed due to lack of 
potential for suitable habitat to develop (Bernalillo County, NM).
    The Service did not consider omissions for other reasons or 
additions to the critical habitat proposed in 1993 because imposed time 
constraints and lack of resources made this impracticable. This does, 
not, however, preclude the Service from considering further omissions 
and additions to critical habitat for this species at some time in the 
future as resources allow.
    Issue 5: Existing regulatory mechanisms and agency management plans 
targeted at listed species provide adequate protection.
    Service Response: The Service agrees that some existing regulatory 
mechanisms and management plans provide conservation benefits to the 
flycatcher. As mentioned in Issue 1, the U.S. Marine Corps and the 
State of California have both worked with the Service to develop 
ecosystem-oriented conservation plans that the Service believes will be 
highly effective in providing for the conservation needs of the 
southwestern willow flycatcher at Camp Pendleton and in portions of San 
Diego and Orange counties. Although designation of critical habitat 
should not impose any additional restrictions on actions consistent 
with the management agreements in these areas now or in the future, 
they do not cover sufficient area to provide adequate protection for 
the species as a whole. Furthermore, the Service is obliged to comply 
with a Court order to designate critical habitat for the flycatcher.
    Provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act do not 
specifically protect the southwestern willow flycatcher or its habitat, 
but do provide some protection to the aquatic and riparian ecosystems 
of which it is a part. Section 404 also provides for mitigation for 
destruction of these habitats, although even temporary destruction and 
subsequent replacement of important riparian habitat may adversely 
affect the southwestern willow flycatcher. Regardless of the possible 
conservation benefits of the Clean Water Act, however, this designation 
is required by Court order.
    Issue 6: The Service is required to comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act in designating critical habitat.
    Service Response: An Environmental Assessment (EA) and a draft 
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) have been prepared for this 
rule in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.3 (see following section entitled 
National Environmental Policy Act). The EA and FONSI are available upon 
request from the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES above).

[[Page 39137]]

    Issue 7: Designation of critical habitat would result in loss of 
revenues that local communities derive from use of public lands; 
critical habitat will adversely affect State, Municipal, and private 
lands.
    Service Response: Critical habitat only applies to Federal actions 
on Federal lands or Federally-permitted actions on private lands. The 
economic analysis provided in this final rule demonstrates that there 
will be no adverse economic effects above the effects that would result 
from the listing of the species.
    Issue 8: Riparian habitats are in a constant state of change, 
making any boundaries established under critical habitat also subject 
to change; lateral boundaries of critical habitat do not meet 
regulatory requirements because they are difficult to interpret and 
change seasonally; the constituent elements of critical habitat for the 
southwestern willow flycatcher have not been adequately described.
    Service Response: The upstream/downstream boundaries established 
with this final rule, to a limited extent, incorporated the dynamic 
nature of riparian habitats that commentors referred to and that is 
discussed under issue number two. The Service agrees, however, that the 
lateral boundaries of critical habitat are inadequate and do not 
incorporate the dynamic nature of riparian systems. For example, 
changes in the distribution of riparian habitats in response to natural 
flooding events, or changes in stream flow due to droughts, 
impoundments, etc., sometimes leave suitable habitat more than 100 
meters from surface water. To alleviate this inadequacy, the lateral 
boundaries of critical habitat were established by the 100-year 
floodplain, which is delineated on maps available at county offices and 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    Issue 9: The Service is focusing management efforts for the 
southwestern willow flycatcher too narrowly on factors affecting the 
species only on its breeding grounds.
    Service Response: The Service agrees that factors affecting the 
southwestern willow flycatcher during the non-breeding season could be 
playing a significant role in the status of this species. To that end 
the Service has supported work currently funded by the Bureau of 
Reclamation to identify the distribution of the southwestern willow 
flycatcher during the non-breeding season. If research demonstrates 
adverse effects outside of the United States, the Secretary has the 
authority under section 8 of the Act to provide assistance to foreign 
governments in developing management programs necessary for the 
conservation of the southwestern willow flycatcher. This opportunity, 
however, does not eliminate, reduce, or change the obligations of 
Federal agencies under sections 7 and 9 of the Act, nor does it change 
the obligations of citizens under section 9 of the Act.
    Issue 10: The goal of the critical habitat designation is 
protection of riparian habitat, not protection of the flycatcher.
    Service Response: Section 2(b) of the Act states, ``(t)he purposes 
of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which 
endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to 
provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and 
threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to 
achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in 
subsection (a) of this section.'' The purpose established in section 
2(b) of the Act explicitly recognizes the critical role of ecosystems 
and, therefore, habitat, in the protection of endangered species. In so 
far as the southwestern willow flycatcher is a neotropical migratory 
bird species that is dependent solely on riparian areas to carry out 
the portion of its life cycle devoted to breeding, the Service 
acknowledges and supports the concept of protecting habitat in order to 
conserve the southwestern willow flycatcher. However, the goal of the 
critical habitat designation for the southwestern willow flycatcher is 
to protect areas essential to the conservation of this species. Other 
riparian areas that were not found to be essential to the conservation 
of the flycatcher have been omitted from this final rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection 
requirements.

Economic Effects

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to consider 
economic and other impacts of designating a particular area as critical 
habitat. The Secretary may exclude areas from critical habitat if the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the area in 
critical habitat, unless failure to designate a specific area would 
result in extinction of the species. The economic analysis assists in 
making that determination by examining how the designation may affect 
Federal lands, and any non-Federal activity with some Federal 
involvement. Activities on private or State-owned lands that do not 
involve Federal permits, funding or other Federal actions are not 
restricted by the designation of critical habitat.
    Economic effects caused by the listing of the flycatcher as 
endangered and by other statutes are the baseline upon which critical 
habitat is imposed. The analysis examines the incremental economic and 
conservation effects of the critical habitat addition. Economic effects 
are measured as changes in National income, and regional jobs and 
household income.
    Fourteen counties in three States are affected by the designation 
of critical habitat: Cochise, Pima, Pinal, Yavapai, Gila, Coconino, and 
Apache counties in Arizona; Kern, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San 
Diego counties in California; and Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo counties 
in New Mexico. In total, nearly 964 river km (599 miles) are being 
designated as critical for the southwestern willow flycatcher. The 
percent of total length of rivers in each State affected by critical 
habitat designation is relatively small: 12.4 percent for Arizona; 0.5 
percent for California; and 6.6 percent for New Mexico. A high 
percentage of public access to rivers and streams exists in all three 
States.
    By focusing attention on a certain area, designating critical 
habitat may result in minor economic benefits provided directly by the 
species and indirectly by its habitat, including aesthetic or scenic 
beauty, biodiversity, ecosystem and passive use (existence) values. 
Quantitative or monetary values for such benefits are not now possible 
due to data limitations.
    The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of 
Reclamation, Marine Corps, and Army Corps of Engineers manage areas of 
proposed critical habitat for the flycatcher. The Corps of Engineers 
and other Federal agencies that may be involved with funding or permits 
for projects in the critical habitat areas may also be affected. 
Because the Service believes that virtually all ``adverse 
modification'' calls would also result in ``jeopardy'' calls under 
section 7 of the Act, designation of critical habitat for the 
flycatcher is not expected to result in any incremental restrictions on 
agency activities. Critical habitat designation will, therefore, result 
in no additional protection for the flycatcher nor any additional 
economic effects beyond those that may have been caused by listing and 
by other statutes. Additionally, all previously completed biological 
opinions would not require reinitiation to reconsider any critical 
habitat designated in this rulemaking.

[[Page 39138]]

    If no Federal agency is involved in management, funding, or by 
other means of non-Federal areas with critical habitat for the 
flycatcher, they are not subject to the section 7 consultation process 
for critical habitat.
    Economic effects caused by the listing of the flycatcher as 
endangered and by other statutes are the baseline upon which critical 
habitat is imposed. The analysis examines the incremental economic and 
conservation effects of the critical habitat addition. Economic effects 
are measured as changes in national income, and regional jobs and 
household income. Of the 14 counties where critical habitat is 
proposed, 9 would qualify as small businesses. However, because 
critical habitat designation is not expected to cause additional 
habitat restrictions in any biological opinions issued under the Act, 
there are no incremental economic effects attributable to the 
designation. A copy of the economic analysis and description of the 
exclusion process with supporting documents are included in the 
Service's administrative record and may be obtained by contacting the 
Service (see ADDRESSES section).
    The Service reviewed the proposal to designate critical habitat for 
the flycatcher and the assessment of associated benefits and costs. 
Because the economic analysis identified no economic benefits from 
excluding any of the areas, the Service has made a determination to 
designate all of the 18 areas as critical habitat for the southwestern 
willow flycatcher.
    In addition, the Service has determined that this rulemaking would 
not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities 
in the area, such as businesses, organizations and governmental 
jurisdictions, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.). This rulemaking was reviewed under Executive Order 12866.

Unfunded Mandates

    The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded 
Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not 
impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or 
State governments or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform

    The Department has determined that these final regulations meet the 
applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 
Order 12988.

National Environmental Policy Act Compliance

    An Environmental Assessment (EA) and a draft Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) have been prepared for the final rule to 
designate critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher 
(Empidonax traillii extimus), in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.3. The EA 
and FONSI are available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES above).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, 
is available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological 
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES above).
    Author: The primary author of this final rule is Sam Spiller, 
Arizona Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES above).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

Sec. 17.11  [Amended]

    2. Section 17.11 (h) is amended by revising the ``Critical 
habitat'' entry for ``Flycatcher, southwestern willow,'' under Birds, 
to read ``17.95(b)'.
    3. Section 17.95(b) is amended by adding critical habitat for the 
Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), in the 
same alphabetical order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11(h).


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (b) Birds.
* * * * *

[[Page 39139]]

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)
    California: Areas of land and water as follows:
    1. Santa Ana River, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties: from 
Rio Road (T2S, R5W, no surveyed section but at 34 deg. 59' 00'' 
North, 117 deg. 25' 15'' West) downstream to Prado Flood Control 
Basin Dam (T3S, R7W, Section 20). Approximately 25 km (16 miles). 
The boundaries include areas within the 100-year floodplain where 
thickets of riparian trees and shrubs occur or may become 
established as a result of natural floodplain processes or 
rehabilitation.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.011


[[Page 39140]]


    2. Santa Margarita River, San Diego County: from the unnamed 
trail at T8S, R3W, Section 34) downstream to northbound Interstate 5 
(T11S, R5W, Section 19). Approximately 33 km (20 miles). The 
boundaries include areas within the 100-year floodplain where 
thickets of riparian trees and shrubs occur or may become 
established as a result of natural floodplain processes or 
rehabilitation.
    3. San Luis Rey River, San Diego County: from Mission Road (T9S, 
R2W, Section 27) downstream to northbound Interstate 5 (T11S, R5W, 
Section 22). Approximately 39 km (24 miles). The boundaries include 
areas within the 100-year floodplain where thickets of riparian 
trees and shrubs occur or may become established as a result of 
natural floodplain processes or rehabilitation.
    4. San Diegito River, San Diego County: from southbound 
Interstate 15 (T13S, R2W, no section surveyed, but at 33 deg. 3' 
45'' North, 117 deg. 4' 00'' West) downstream to northbound 
Interstate 5 (T14S, R4W, Section 12). Approximately 24 km (15 
miles). The boundaries include areas within the 100-year floodplain 
where thickets of riparian trees and shrubs occur or may become 
established as a result of natural floodplain processes or 
rehabilitation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.012


[[Page 39141]]


    5. San Diego River, San Diego County: from Carlton Hills 
Boulevard (T15S, R1W, no section surveyed, but at 32 deg. 50' 45'' 
North, 117 deg. 59' 30'' West) downstream to the Second San Diego 
Aqueduct T15S, R2W, no section surveyed, but at 32 deg. 49' 30'' 
North, 117 deg. 3' 45'' West). Approximately 8 km (5.5 miles). The 
boundaries include areas within the 100-year floodplain where 
thickets of riparian trees and shrubs occur or may become 
established as a result of natural floodplain processes or 
rehabilitation.
    6. Tijuana River, San Diego County: from Larsen Field (T19S, 
R2W, Section 1) downstream to the windmill at T19S, R2W, Section 4. 
Approximately 5.5 km (3.3 miles). The boundaries include areas 
within the 100-year floodplain where thickets of riparian trees and 
shrubs occur or may become established as a result of natural 
floodplain processes or rehabilitation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.013


[[Page 39142]]


    7. South Fork of the Kern River, Kern County: from the 
confluence of Canebrake Creek (T25S, R36E, Section 30) downstream to 
a line running north-south between Lyme Dyke and Lime Point 
encompassing the South Fork Wildlife Area at the eastern end of Lake 
Isabella (T26S, R34E, Sections 13 and 14). Approximately 26 km (16 
miles). The boundaries include areas within the 100-year floodplain 
where thickets of riparian trees and shrubs occur or may become 
established as a result of natural floodplain processes or 
rehabilitation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.014

    Arizona: Areas of land and water as follows:
    1. San Pedro River, Cochise County: from the Hereford Bridge 
(T23S, R22E, Section 9), downstream to eastbound Interstate 10 
bridge at Benson (T17S R20E, Section 11). Approximately 87 km (54 
miles). The boundaries include areas within the 100-year floodplain 
where thickets of riparian trees and shrubs occur or may become 
established as a result of natural floodplain processes or 
rehabilitation.
    2. San Pedro River, Cochise, Pima and Pinal Counties: from the 
Gaging Station near Aguaja Canyon (T12S, R18E, Section 19), 
downstream to the confluence with the Gila River (T5S, R15E, Section 
23). Approximately 106 km (66 miles). The boundaries include areas 
within the 100-year floodplain where thickets of riparian trees and 
shrubs occur or may become established as a result of natural 
floodplain processes or rehabilitation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.015


[[Page 39143]]


    3. Verde River, Yavapai and Gila Counties: from Sob Canyon 
(T17N, R3E, Section 29) to its inflow into Horseshoe Reservoir (T8N, 
R6E, Section 15), including Tavasci Marsh and Ister Flat. 
Approximately 145 km (90 miles). The boundaries include areas within 
the 100-year floodplain where thickets of riparian trees and shrubs 
occur or may become established as a result of natural floodplain 
processes or rehabilitation.
    4. Wet Beaver Creek, Yavapai County: from the gauging station 
upstream of the Beaver Creek Ranger Station (T15N, R6E, Section 24), 
downstream to the confluence of Beaver Creek and the Verde River 
(T14N, R5E, Section 30). Approximately 32 km (20 miles). The 
boundaries include areas within the 100-year floodplain where 
thickets of riparian trees and shrubs occur or may become 
established as a result of natural floodplain processes or 
rehabilitation.
    5. West Clear Creek, Yavapai County: from the section line 
dividing sections 18 and 17 in T13N, R6E downstream to the 
confluence with the Verde River (T13N, R5E, Section 17). 
Approximately 14 km (9 miles). The boundaries include areas within 
the 100-year floodplain where thickets of riparian trees and shrubs 
occur or may become established as a result of natural floodplain 
processes or rehabilitation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.016


[[Page 39144]]


    6. Colorado River, Coconino County: from river mile 39 (T35N, 
R5E, Section 16) downstream to river mile 71.5 (T31N, R5E Section 
8). (River mile 0 = Lee's Ferry). Approximately 52 km (32 miles). 
The boundaries include areas within the 100-year floodplain where 
thickets of riparian trees and shrubs occur or may become 
established as a result of natural floodplain processes or 
rehabilitation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.017


    7. Little Colorado River, and the West, East, and South Forks of 
the Little Colorado River, Apache County: from the diversion ditch 
at T8N, R28E, Section 16, upstream to Forest Road 113 on the West 
Fork (T7N, R27E, Section 33), upstream to Forest Road 113 on the 
East Fork (T6N, R27E, Section 10), and upstream to Joe Baca Draw on 
the South Fork (T8N, R28E, Section 34). Approximately 48 km (30 
miles). The boundaries include areas within the 100-year floodplain 
where thickets of riparian trees and shrubs occur or may become 
established as a result of natural floodplain processes or 
rehabilitation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.018


[[Page 39145]]


    New Mexico: Areas of land and water as follows:
    1. Gila River and the East and West Forks of the Gila River, 
Catron and Grant Counties: from El Rincon on the Gila River (T13S, 
R14W, S36) upstream to Hell's Hole Canyon on the West Fork of the 
Gila River T12S, R15W, S4), and upstream to the confluence of Taylor 
Creek and Beaver Creek on the East Fork of the Gila River (T11S, 
R12W, S17). Approximately 63 km (39 miles). The boundaries include 
areas within the 100-year floodplain where thickets of riparian 
trees and shrubs occur or may become established as a result of 
natural floodplain processes or rehabilitation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.019


[[Page 39146]]


    2. Gila River, Grant and Hidalgo Counties: from the confluence 
of Hidden Pasture Canyon (T14S, R16W, Section 14) downstream to the 
confluence of Steeple Rock Canyon (T18S, R21W, Section 33). 
Approximately 90 km (56 miles). The boundaries include areas within 
the 100-year floodplain where thickets of riparian trees and shrubs 
occur or may become established as a result of natural floodplain 
processes or rehabilitation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.020

    3. San Francisco River, Catron County: from the confluence of 
Trail Canyon (T6S, R20W, Section 4) downstream to San Francisco Hot 
Springs, near the confluence with Box Canyon (T12S, R20W, Section 
23). Approximately 105 km (65 miles). The boundaries include areas 
within the 100-year floodplain where thickets of riparian trees and 
shrubs occur or may become established as a result of natural 
floodplain processes or rehabilitation.
    4. Tularosa River and Apache Creek, Catron County: from the 
confluence of the Tularosa and San Francisco Rivers (T7S, R19W, 
Section 23) upstream, to the source of the Tularosa River near the 
continental divide (T4S, R15W, Section 33), and upstream on Apache 
Creek to the confluence with Whiskey Creek (T4S, R18W, Section 25). 
Approximately 60 km (37 miles). The boundaries include areas within 
the 100-year floodplain where thickets of riparian trees and shrubs 
occur or may become established as a result of natural floodplain 
processes or rehabilitation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY97.021


[[Page 39147]]


    Dated: July 16, 1997.
Joseph E. Doddridge,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 97-19209 Filed 7-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C