Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Veterans Affairs Department

CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17

RIN ID: RIN 1018-AG29

NOTICE: Part III

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl

DATES: This final rule is effective September 30, 2004.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) (owl). The owl inhabits canyon and forest habitats across a range that extends from southern Utah and Colorado, through Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas, to the mountains of central Mexico. We designate approximately 3.5 million hectares (ha) (8.6 million acres (ac)) of critical habitat in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, on Federal lands. Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. As required by section 4 of the Act, we considered economic and other relevant impacts prior to making a final decision on what areas to designate as critical habitat.

SUMMARY: Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection to Species

In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts of available conservation resources. Additionally, we have also found that comparable conservation can be achieved by implementation of laws and regulations obviating the need for critical habitat. The Service's present system for designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory prescription into a process that provides little real conservation benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology, limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need of protection. Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and Implementing the Act

While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 36 percent (445 species) of the 1,244 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Service have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,244 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, and the section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service believes it is these measures that may make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.

We note, however, that a recent 9th Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, has invalidated the Service's regulation defining destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We are currently reviewing the decision to determine what effect it may have on the outcome of consultations pursuant to Section 7 of the Act.
Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

We have been overwhelmed with lawsuits regarding designation of critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have subjected the Service to an everincreasing series of court orders and courtapproved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically urgent species conservation needs.

The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list critically imperiled species and final listing determinations on existing proposals are all significantly delayed.

The accelerated schedules of court ordered designations have left the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public participation or to ensure a defectfree rulemaking process before making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the risks associated with noncompliance with judiciallyimposed deadlines. This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little additional protection to listed species.

The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all are part of the cost of critical habitat designation. None of these costs result in any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.

Background

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat in this final rule. For more information on the owl, refer to the final listing rule of March 16, 1993 (58 FR 14248), the two previous final critical habitat rules of June 6, 1995 (60 FR 29913) and February 1, 2001 (66 FR 8530), and the [[Page 53183]]
Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Recovery Plan) (Service 1995). However, some of this information is discussed in our analyses below, such as the description of the primary constituent elements.

Two primary reasons were cited for listing the owl as threatened in 1993: (1) Historical alteration of its habitat as the result of timber management practices, specifically the use of evenaged silviculture, and the threat of these practices continuing; and (2) the danger of catastrophic wildfire. The Recovery Plan for the owl outlines management actions that guide land management agencies in efforts to remove recognized threats and recover the owl. This critical habitat designation is based on recovery needs and guidelines identified in the Recovery Plan.

The Recovery Plan provides for three levels of habitat management: protected areas, restricted areas, and other forest and woodland types. We define protected areas to include all known owl sites (Protected Activity Centers [PACs]), and all areas in mixedconifer or pineoak types with slopes greater than 40 percent where timber harvest has not occurred in 20 years, and all legally and administratively reserved lands, such as Wilderness Areas or Research Natural Areas. Protected areas can also include steepwalled canyon habitat. Owl PACs are delineated around known owl sites. PACs include a minimum of 600 acres (ac) (243 hectares [ha]) that includes the best nesting and roosting (i.e., resting) habitat in the area. A PAC contains the nest site, a roost grove commonly used during the breeding season in the absence of a verified nest site, or the best nesting/roosting habitat if both nesting and roosting information are lacking and the most proximal and highly used foraging areas (Service 1995). Areas outside of PACs, including restricted areas, provide additional habitat appropriate for foraging. Restricted areas include mixedconifer forest, pineoak forest, and riparian areas where potential nesting and roosting habitat exist. Canyons may also contain restricted areas. The Recovery Plan provides less specific management guidelines for these areas. The Recovery Plan does not provide owlspecific guidelines for ``other forest and woodland habitat.''

The owl occupies a broad geographical area, but does not occur uniformly throughout its range (Service 1995). Instead, the owl occurs in disjunct localities that correspond to isolated mountain systems and canyons. The owl is frequently associated with mature mixedconifer, pineoak, and riparian forests (Ganey et al. 1988, Skaggs and Raitt 1988, Ganey and Balda 1989, Gutierrez and Rinkevich 1991, Willey 1993, Fletcher and Hollis 1994, Ganey and Dick 1995, Gutierrez et al. 1995, Seamans and Gutierrez, 1995, and Ward et al. 1995). Mature mixed conifer forests are mostly composed of Douglasfir (Psuedotsuga menziesii), white fir (Abies concolor), limber pine (Pinus flexilis) or blue spruce (Picea pungens). Pineoak forests are mostly composed of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Gambel oak (Quercus gambellii). Riparian forests are dominated by various species of broadleaved deciduous trees and shrubs (Service 1995). These riparian forests can be important linkages between otherwise isolated subpopulations of owls (Service 1995).

Owls are also found in canyon habitat dominated by verticalwalled rocky cliffs within complex watersheds including tributary side canyons. Rock walls include caves, ledges, and other areas that provide protected nest and roost sites (Gutierrez and Rinkevich 1991). Canyon habitat may include small isolated patches or stringers of forested vegetation including stands of mixedconifer, ponderosa pine, pineoak, pinyonjuniper, and/or riparian vegetation in which owls regularly roost and forage. Owls are usually found in areas with some type of water source (i.e., perennial stream, creeks, and springs, ephemeral water, small pools from runoff, reservoir emissions) (Gutierrez and Rinkevich 1991). Even small sources of water such as small pools or puddles create humid conditions (Geiger 1965 in Gutierrez and Rinkevich 1991).

Owls are highly selective for roosting and nesting habitat, but forage in a wider array of habitats (Service 1995, Ganey and Balda 1994, and Seamans and Gutierrez 1995). Roosting and nesting habitat exhibit certain identifiable features, including large trees (those with a trunk diameter of 12 inches (in) (30.5 centimeters (cm)) or more (i.e. high tree basal area)), unevenaged tree stands, multistoried canopy, a tree canopy creating shade over 40 percent or more of the ground (i.e. moderate to high canopy closure), and decadence in the form of downed logs and snags (standing dead trees) (Ganey and Balda 1989; Ganey and Dick 1995; Grubb et al. 1997; Tarango et al. 1997; Peery et al. 1999; Ganey et al. 2000; and GeoMarine 2004). Canopy closure is typically greater than 40 percent (Ganey and Balda 1989; Fletcher 1990; Zwank et al. 1994; Grubb et al. 1997; Tanrango et al. 1997; Ganey et al. 1998; Young et al. 1998; Ganey et al. 2000; and Geo Marine 2004).

All nests reported by Zwank et al. (1994), Seamans and Gutierrez (1995), and GeoMarine (2004) were in either mixedconifer or Douglas fir habitat. Roost and nest trees were the oldest and largest within tree stands (Ganey and Balda 1989, 1994, and, Seamans and Gutierrez 1995). Owls use areas that contain a number of large trees of different types including mixedconifer and pineoak with smaller trees under the canopy of the larger trees. These types of areas provide vertical structure and high plant species richness that are important to owls. (FO) (Ganey and Dick 1995; Seamans and Gutierrez 1995; and Ganey et al. 2003). Tarango et al. (1994) and Ganey et al. (2000) recorded seven or more tree species at roost sites. Therefore, we believe that mixed conifer dominated by Douglasfir, pineoak, and riparian forests with high tree diversity are important to the owl.

Juvenile owls disperse in September and October, into a variety of habitats ranging from highelevation forests to pinyonjuniper woodlands and riparian areas surrounded by desert grasslands (Gutierrez et al. 1995; Arsenault et al. 1997; and Willey and C. van Riper 2000). Observations of longdistance dispersal by juveniles provide evidence that they use widely spaced islands of suitable habitat which are connected at lower elevations by pinyonjuniper and riparian forests. As a result of these movement patterns, isolated populations may have genetic significance to the owl's conservation (Keitt et al. 1995; Guteirrez and Harrison 1996; Seamans et al. 1999; and Willey and C van Riper 2000). Owls have been observed moving across open low desert landscapes between islands of suitable breeding habitat (Arsenault et al. 1997; Ganey et al. 1998; and Willey 1998). Owl movements were also observed between ``sky island'' mountain ranges in New Mexico (Gutierrez et al. 1996). Therefore, contiguous stands or islands of suitable mixedconifer, pineoak, and riparian forests are important to the owl.

Owl foraging habitat includes a wide variety of forest conditions, canyon bottoms, cliff faces, tops of canyon rims, and riparian areas (Gutierrez and Rinkevich 1991 and Willey 1993). Ganey and Balda (1994) reported that owls foraged more frequently in unlogged forests containing unevenaged stands of Douglasfir and white fir, with a strong component of ponderosa pine, than in managed forests. The primary owl prey species are woodrats (Neotoma spp.), peromyscid mice (Peromyscus spp.), and microtine voles
[[Page 53184]]
(Microtus spp.) (Service 1995; Young et al. 1997; Delaney et al. 1999; Seamans and Gutierrez 1999). Mexican woodrats (N. mexicana) are typically found in areas with considerable shrub or understory tree cover and high log volumes, or rocky outcrops associated with pinyon juniper woodlands (Sureda and Morrison 1998 and Ward 2001). Sureda and Morrison (1998) and Ward (2001) found deer mice (P. maniculatus) to be more abundant and widespread in the 60 to 100 year old stands of mixed conifer forests. Mexican voles (M. mexicanus) are associated with mountain meadows and high herbaceous cover, primarily grasses; whereas, longtailed voles (M. longicaudus) are found in dry forest habitats with dense herbaceous cover, primarily forbs, many shrubs, and limited tree cover (Ward 2001). High levels of owl reproductive success and production may be due to prey abundance (Delaney et al. 1999). Ward and Block (1995) documented an increase in owl production when moderate to high levels of woodrats, peromyscid mice, and voles, were consumed. A diverse prey base is dependant on availability and quality of diverse habitats. Owl prey species need adequate levels of residual plant cover, understory cover, and high log volume. Therefore, a wide variety of forest and vegetative conditions are important to the owl and its prey.

Historic population size estimates and range of the owl are not known; however, present population size and distribution are thought to be similar (Service 1995). Ninetyone percent of known owls existing in the United States between 1990 and 1993 occurred on land administered by the FS, the primary administrator of lands supporting owls (Service 1995). Most owls have been found within the 11 National Forests of Arizona and New Mexico. It is unknown why Colorado and Utah support fewer owls.

In 2002, FS reported 987 PACs in Arizona and New Mexico (FS 2002). Additional surveys are likely to document more owls on FS and other lands. For example, GeoMarine (2004) reported an additional 26 activity centers not previously designated by the Gila National Forest. Current information suggests there are 15 PACs in Colorado, 105 PACs in Utah, and 43 PACs on National Park Service (NPS) lands in Arizona, therefore, 1,176 PACs have been identified. Based on this number of owl sites, we believe that the total known owl numbers on Federal lands in southwestern United States range from 1,176 or 2,352, depending on whether one bird or a pair occupies the PAC.

Seamans et al. (1999) reported evidence of 10 percent or greater population declines in central Arizona and westcentral New Mexico. Both populations experienced lower survival rates in the late 1990s. Gutierrez et al. (2003) concluded that with four additional years of data on these same populations, the decline observed by Seamans et al. (1999) on the Arizona study area was temporary, whereas the decline in New Mexico appeared to be continuing. Wide population fluctuations may be common for populations of owls (Gutierrez et al. 2003).

The final listing rule for the owl stated that the Southwestern Region of the FS managed timber primarily under a shelterwood harvest regime. A shelterwood cut is an evenaged regeneration cutting in which new tree seedlings are established under the partial shade of remnant seed trees. Thus, this harvest method produces evenaged stands rather than the unevenaged, multilayered stands most often used by the owl for nesting and roosting. In addition, at the time of the listing, the shelterwood silviculture system called for evenaged conditions in perpetuity. In 1996, the Southwest Region of the FS incorporated the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan guidelines as management direction into their Forest Plans. Thus, the management plans for the Southwestern Region of the FS include biological goals consistent with the Recovery Plan for the owl, thereby eliminating one of the primary threats to the owl on FS lands identified in the final listing rule.

Another primary reason cited for listing the owl as threatened in 1993 was the danger of catastrophic wildfire. Bond et al. (2002) described shortterm effects of wildfires on spotted owls throughout the species' range. The authors reported that relatively large wildfires that burned nest and roost areas appeared to have little shortterm (1year) effect on survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success of spotted owls, as rates were similar to estimates independent of fire. However, Elliot (1995), MacCracken et al. (1996), and Gaines et al. (1997) reported in some cases, large stand replacing wildfires appeared to have a negative effect on owls. Jenness (2000) reported low to moderateseverity fires did not adversely affect owls. Bond et al. (2002) hypothesized that spotted owls may withstand the immediate, shortterm effects of fire occurring at primarily low to moderate severities within their territory. The USDA Forest Service (FS) reported similar results following the 2002 Lakes Fire in the Jemez Mountains of northcentral New Mexico. Thus, prescribed burning and other forest management activities could be an effective tool to reduce fire risk and restore forests to natural conditions with perhaps shortterm impacts to owls. For example, prescribed fire may prove useful in the creation or maintenance of habitat for owls or their prey (Gutierrez et al. 2003). Bond et al. (2002) cautioned that programmatic prescribed burning in owl territories could not be justified solely on their observations. Manipulative experiments are needed to evaluate effects of fire (or other forest management activities) on owls (Bond et al. 2002). Previous Federal Actions

We published a final rule listing the owl as a threatened species on March 16, 1993 (58 FR 14248). For more information on the previous critical habitat designations and other actions related to the owl, refer to the final rule published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2001 (66 FR 8530). The final rule excluded all National Forest Service (FS) lands in Arizona and New Mexico and certain Tribal lands and designated critical habitat on approximately 1.9 million ha (4.6 million ac). On August 27, 2001, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint challenging our decision to exclude these lands from the final designation of critical habitat for the owl.

On January 13, 2003, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, (Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civ. No. 01409 TUC DCB), ruled that our final designation of critical habitat for the owl violated the Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). The Court ordered us to repropose critical habitat within 3 months and finalize within 6 months from the date of the order. The Court also stated that the current critical habitat designation for the owl (i.e., that promulgated by 66 FR 8530 and codified at 50 CFR 17.95) shall remain in effect and be enforced until such time as we publish a new final designation of critical habitat for the owl. In a subsequent order, on February 18, 2003, the original deadlines were extended to allow until October 13, 2003, to repropose critical habitat for the owl and until April 13, 2004, to publish a new final designation of critical habitat. On October 10, 2003, the Court ruled that it would permit a limited extension and ordered the parties to meet and confer within 15 days of the order to prepare a reasonable
[[Page 53185]]
timeline for compliance with the January 13, 2003, order. The Court also indicated that a notice reopening the comment period on the July 2000 proposal is appropriate. On October 30, 2003, the parties submitted a Joint Proposed Timeline and Memorandum of Dispute to the Court. On November 12, 2003, the Court adopted our proposed timeline and required us to submit a notice to the Federal Register on November 7, 2003, reopening the comment period on the July 21, 2000, proposed designation of critical habitat for the owl. The parties agreed that this notice would solicit comment regarding all of the lands proposed for designation that were not included in the 2001 final designation. The Court's order also required us to submit the final critical habitat designation to the Federal Register on August 20, 2004.

On November 18, 2003 (68 FR 65020), we reopened the public comment period on our July 21, 2000, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the owl (65 FR 45336). The proposal included approximately 5.5 million hectares (ha) (13.5 million acres (ac)) in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, mostly on Federal lands. On November 12, 2003, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civ. No. 01409 TUC DCB) ordered the Service to submit a final rule for designation of critical habitat for the owl to the Federal Register by August 20, 2004. On March 26, 2004, we published a notice of availability of the final draft economic analysis and the final draft environmental assessment and opened a 30day comment period (69 FR 15777). During this comment period, we held one informational meeting in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to provide an opportunity to the public to ask us questions. We have prepared this designation pursuant to the November 12, 2003, Court order.

We contacted appropriate State and Federal agencies, Tribes, county governments, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment. As noted in the previous designation, we published newspaper notices inviting public comment and announcing the public hearings in newspapers (66 FR 8530). We also held six public hearings on the proposed rule: Sante Fe (August 14, 2000) and Las Cruces (August 15, 2000), New Mexico; Tucson (August 16, 2000) and Flagstaff (August 17, 2000), Arizona; Colorado Springs, Colorado (August 21, 2000); and Cedar City, Utah (August 23, 2000), and an informational meeting in Las Cruces (April 21, 2004), New Mexico. Transcripts of the hearings are available for inspection (see ADDRESSES section).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

As noted above, on November 18, 2003, we reopened the public comment period on the July 21, 2000, proposed rule. In the following section, we categorize and respond to applicable, substantive comments received during all four of the public comment periods.

We solicited seven independent expert ornithologists who are familiar with this species to peer review the proposed critical habitat designation. However, only two of the peer reviewers submitted comments. Both responding peer reviewers supported the proposal. We also received a total of 27 oral and 859 written comments (the majority of written comments were in the form of printed postcards). Of those oral comments, 10 supported critical habitat designation, 14 were opposed to designation, and 3 provided additional information but did not support or oppose the proposal. Of the written comments, 764 supported critical habitat designation, 65 were opposed to designation, and 30 were neutral but provided information. We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new data regarding critical habitat and the owl. We address all comments received during the comment periods and public hearing testimony in the following summary of issues. Comments of a similar nature are grouped into issues. Issue 1: Biological Concerns
(1) Comment: The wording of the attributes of the primary constituent elements is not consistent with the definitions of forest cover types as described in the Recovery Plan, and there is a high potential for confusion over exactly which areas are included in the proposed designation. Do all of the primary constituent elements have to be present for the area to be considered critical habitat, or just one? The constituent elements described are vague (violating 50 CFR Sec. 424.12(c)) and should include the required greater detail defining what constitutes critical habitat. The boundaries are impossible to identify.

Our Response: As stated in the critical habitat designation section, the critical habitat designation is consistent with the Recovery Plan and includes areas within the mapped boundaries that are protected or restricted habitat and include one or more of the primary constituent elements. Protected habitat is areas where owls are known to occur or are likely to occur. Protected habitat includes: (1) 600 acres around known owl sites within mixed conifer forests or (2) pine oak forests with slopes greater than 40 percent and where timber harvest has not occurred in the past 20 years. Restricted habitat includes areas outside of protected habitat which owls utilize for foraging and dispersing. Restricted habitat includes mixed conifer forest, pineoak forest and riparian habitat types.

We also clarified the definitions and use of the terms protected and restricted habitat for the purposes of identifying critical habitat and the primary constituent elements of critical habitat in this rule (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section below). During the comment periods, we requested, but did not receive, any information regarding refinements to the primary constituent elements. However, given the concern expressed by commenters that the primary constituent elements were vague, we reanalyzed existing information and refined the primary constituent elements. This final rule describes the specific areas and primary constituent elements essential to the conservation of the owl based on the best available information.

We did receive information from a variety of sources to allow further analysis on whether particular critical habitat units, or portions thereof, contained or lacked one or more primary constituent elements. This information allowed us to refine our maps (see ``Changes to Proposed Rule'' section below). Further, while we welcome and encourage additional studies on the biological requirements of the owl, we believe the best available information has been used in defining the areas and primary constituent elements necessary for the species' conservation. Nevertheless, we recognize that not all of the developed land areas within the boundaries of the designation will contain the habitat components essential to the conservation of the species. For this reason, some developed lands are excluded by definition (see the ``Regulation Promulgation'' section below).

Critical habitat units are defined by geographic information system coverages and associated Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. This information can be obtained from our Web site at http://ifw2es.fws.gov/mso/ or by contacting our New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
(2) Comment: Some areas proposed as critical habitat units contain a considerable amount of land that is not suitable for or occupied by owls, and
[[Page 53186]]
therefore, the areas should be mapped more accurately. Some commenters also questioned whether 13.5 million acres are needed for owls. Including areas not essential to the owl in designated critical habitat limits management options and diverts scarce resources from meaningful tasks, including efforts which will benefit the recovery of the owl, such as fire abatement projects.

Our Response: All of the areas that are designated as critical habitat contain primary constituent elements and are considered essential for the conservation the species. We clarified the primary constituent element descriptions to assist landowners and managers in identifying areas containing these elements. However, a lack of precise habitat location data and the massive scope of the designation did not allow us to conduct the finescale mapping necessary to physically exclude all of the areas that do not contain primary constituent elements of critical habitat. Nevertheless, we worked with a variety of stakeholders to refine the critical habitat boundaries in many areas (see ``Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule'' section below). Changes in this final rule that decrease the boundaries of many units are based on additional information received during the public comment period. Critical habitat is defined as those areas within the mapped boundaries. However, as described in the ``Section 7 Consultation'' section below, consultation would occur when the action agency determines that activities they sponsor, fund, or authorize may affect areas defined as protected or restricted habitat that contain one or more of the primary constituent elements.
(3) Comment: Lack of forest management has resulted in successional and structural changes to forests throughout the range of owl. Designation and management of critical habitat will place an additional burden on land management agencies, further inhibiting their ability to prevent or suppress catastrophic wildfire, one of the greatest threats to the forest types this species inhabits. The risk and intensity of wildfire will increase. Therefore, designating critical habitat seems contradictory to the owl's recovery. A prohibition on forest management activities will also reduce the amount of water runoff from the watershed.

Our Response: We concur with the commenter that loss of habitat from catastrophic wildfire is one of the main threats to the owl. Consequently, management actions taken to reduce the risk and potential size of highseverity wildfires are recognzed as a vital component of owl recovery (Service 1995). The economic analysis concluded that some projects proposed within the wildland urban interface (WUI) may be delayed because of the Recovery Plan recommendation that fuel treatments occur during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to February 28). For this and other reasons, we are excluding from this final designation of critical habitat for the owl lands defined by the 157 WUI projects and the Penasco WUI project area identified by the FS as the highest priority for fuel treatments because they are ``at imminent risk of catastrophic wildlife.'' These 157 WUI projects were evaluated by us in our programmatic biological opinion and the Penasco WUI project area was evaluated by us under a separate opinion (Service 2001 and Service 2002) (see ``Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of Act'' section). For the areas within the designation that may also be considered for fuel treatment projects, as described in the economic analysis and environmental assessment, critical habitat designation may delay some projects, but has not and is not anticipated to prevent actions that alleviate the risk of wildfire, nor will it have an effect on suppression activities because the Recovery Plan supports and provides guidance on fuel reduction activities. In addition, we also have developed alternative approaches to streamlining section 7 consultation for hazardous fuels treatment projects (Service 2002), including a consideration of the benefits of these activities to the owl and its habitat (Service 2002a).

The maintenance of mature forest attributes in mixed conifer and pineoak habitat types over a portion of the landscape and in areas that support existing owl territories is important to the recovery of the owl; however, critical habitat designation does not emphasize the creation of these features where they do not currently exist. It also does not preclude the proactive treatments necessary to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Clearly, the loss of owl habitat by catastrophic fire is counter to the intended benefits of critical habitat designation.

Section 7 prohibits actions funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Activities that may result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Due to the reliance on guidelines from the Recovery Plan for section 7 consultation standards, it is anticipated that the designation of critical habitat likely will not require any additional restrictions as a result of section 7 consultations, including projects designed to reduce the risk of wildfire (see ``Effects of Critical Habitat Designation'' section below). Furthermore, we expect that some activities may be considered to be of benefit to owl habitat and, therefore, would not be expected to adversely modify critical habitat or place an additional burden on land management agencies. Examples of activities that could benefit critical habitat may include some protective measures such as fire suppression, prescribed burning, brush control, snag creation, and certain silvicultural activities such as thinning. We note that fires are a natural part of the fireadapted ecosystem in which the owl has evolved. The owl Recovery Team and numerous others have recognized the importance of allowing fire to return to southwestern forests, and the policy of widespread fire suppression is well documented as a source of declining forest health.

We agree that many plant communities have undergone successional and structural changes as a result of past and current management practices. These practices include, to varying degrees, the combined effects of longterm and widespread fire suppression, reduction in surface fuels, rates of tree overstory removal and regeneration treatments on cycles shorter than those found in natural disturbance regimes, inadequate control of tree densities responding to fire suppression and tree harvest, and in xeric forest types, decreases in the proportion of the landscape in stands composed of more fire resistant largediameter trees. We also agree that vegetative structural and landscape changes may require proactive management to restore an appropriate distribution of age classes, control regeneration densities, and reintroduce some measure of natural disturbance processes such as fire events. This may include prescribed fire and thinning treatments, restoration of the frequency and spatial extent of such disturbances as regeneration treatments, and implementation of prescribed natural fire management plans where feasible. We consider use of such treatments to be compatible with the ecosystem management of habitat mosaics and the best way to reduce the threats of catastrophic wildfire. We will fully support land management agencies in addressing the management of fire to
[[Page 53187]]
protect and enhance natural resources under their stewardship. (4) Comment: The designation of critical habitat for the owl will conflict with the management objectives of other animal and plant species and ecosystem management. The designation of critical habitat will surely have an impact on many other species of wildlife.

Our Response: Critical habitat management primarily focuses on the maintenance of habitat features in mixed conifer (forest stands with the overstory generally composed of white fir, Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, limber pine, blue spruce, white pine, and quaking aspen) and pineoak habitat types (forest stands that generally exhibit a ponderosa pine or Chihuahua pine overstory and a Gamble's oak understory) that support owls, and the maintenance of good riparian forests (Service 1995). It does not require the creation of these features where they do not currently exist. The methods conserve the desired measure of diversity vary, but are designed to maintain existing mature/old forest characteristics while allowing some degree of timber harvest and management of other objectives such as tree density control and prescribed fire. Older forests provide favorable environments for diverse assemblages of plants and animals. The maintenance of the primary constituent elements of critical habitat will provide and enhance biological diversity. Therefore, critical habitat management does not preclude managing for other objectives or other species. In addition, critical habitat does not preclude adaptive management or the incorporation of new information on the interaction between natural disturbance events and forest ecology. We continue to support sound ecosystem management and the maintenance of biodiversity.

As outlined in our final environmental assessment, in areas that contain owl habitat, native fish, wildlife, and plants may directly or indirectly benefit as a result of ecosystem protections provided through the conservation of the owl and the associated requirements of section 7 of the Act.
(5) Comment: How does the critical habitat designation correspond to the reasons why the owl is listed?

Our Response: The two primary reasons for listing the owl as threatened were historical alteration of its habitat as the result of timber management practices, and the threat of these practices continuing; and the risk of catastrophic wildfire (58 FR 14248). The Recovery Plan outlines management actions that land managers should undertake to remove recognized threats and recover the owl. This critical habitat designation is consistent with the Recovery Plan's goals, and therefore contributes to the reduction in the threats that necessitated listing the owl.
(6) Comment: Your list of constituent elements and condemnation of evenaged silviculture suggests that the constituent elements must occur on every acre of the 13.5 million acres. There appears to be an attempt to idealize and maximize owl populations over a very large area. The owl is flexible, adaptable, and capable of doing well and surviving with less.

Our Response: The determination of primary constituent elements and designation of critical habitat is consistent with the purposes of critical habitat provisions in the Act and the Recovery Plan's goals. In the Recovery Plan, we outline steps necessary to remove the owl from the list of threatened species. The Recovery Plan recognizes that owls nest, roost, forage, and disperse in a diverse array of biotic communities. The Recovery Plan provides realistic goals for the recovery of the species (including a significant increase in owl population numbers), and these goals are flexible in that they provide local land managers discretion to make sitespecific decisions, including silviculture management. Nevertheless, critical habitat does not create the requirement to create primary constituent elements outside of where they currently occur.
(7) Comment: Designation of critical habitat is not needed to conserve the owl, because there is information that shows the spotted owl is doing very well; a year ago you were in the process of delisting the spotted owl, because it was doing well. What happened to that activity?

Our Response: We never proposed nor began the process of delisting the owl. In fact, some populations of owl may be declining (Seamans et al. 1999). Guitierrez (2003) found that the owl population studied by Seamans et al. (1999) in Arizona may be stable, but the New Mexico population in the same study was likely declining. On September 23, 1993, and April 1, 1994, we announced separate 90day findings on two petitions to remove the owl from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife (FR 58 49467 and FR 59 15361, respectively). We found that the petitions did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting the owl was warranted. However, should sufficient information become available to us that warrants a status review or a change in status, we will undertake such efforts as appropriate.
(8) Comment: The designation of critical habitat will not provide any additional conservation benefit to the owl, which is already protected under section 7. Several commenters also questioned whether the designation of critical habitat will improve conservation of the owl because the current Recovery Plan is being implemented.

Our Response: We agree that designation of critical habitat provides little to no additional regulatory benefit in areas already managed compatibly with owl recovery (see ``Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection to Species''). The Recovery Plan for the owl was finalized in December 1995 (Service 1995). This plan recommends recovery goals, strategies for varying levels of habitat protection, population and habitat monitoring, a research program to better understand the biology of the owl, and implementation procedures. In addition, we have continued working with the owl Recovery Team since the plan was finalized. We believe this critical habitat designation is consistent with the Recovery Plan and recommendations of those team members. Nevertheless, many land managers are currently following the Recovery Plan that provides guidance for conserving habitat of the owl. Thus, the designation may provide little regulatory benefit to the species.
(9) Comment: One commenter stated that not enough information is known about the total habitat requirements of the species to define critical habitat. Further study of population trends, habitat requirements, and comprehensive monitoring are necessary to promote longterm conservation and recovery. Other commenters suggested that the designation is based upon flawed and outdated information, and that we should have relied upon recent models that predict owl habitat.

Our Response: Section 4(b) of the Act states ``The Secretary shall make determinations [of critical habitat] * * * solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available * * *'' We considered the best scientific information available to us at this time, as required by the Act. This designation is based upon a considerable body of information on the biology of the owl, as well as effects from land use practices on their continued existence. Based upon newly available information, coordination with land managers and stakeholders, and input received during the public
[[Page 53188]]
comment period, we have made revisions to the areas designated as critical habitat, which are reflected in this final rule (see ``Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule'' section). We are not aware of any reliable information that is currently available to us that was not considered in this designation process. This final determination constitutes our best assessment of areas needed for the conservation of the species. Much remains to be learned about this species; should credible, new information become available which contradicts this designation, we will reevaluate our analysis and, if appropriate, propose to modify this critical habitat designation, depending on available funding and staffing. We must make this determination on the basis of the information available at this time, and we may not delay our decision until more information about the species and its habitat are available (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). Finally, we are also in the process of revising the current Recovery Plan. The Recovery Team anticipates that the revised Recovery Plan will be available during late 2005 (S. Rinkevich, Service, pers. comm., 2004). The revision will likely include much of the same guidance as the current Recovery Plan, but will also include recent information to further assist land managers in reducing the threats to the owl.
(10) Comment: In Colorado, the owl has been found only in canyon habitats and on rocky outcrops. We suggest that narrow, steepwalled canyons (greater than 40 percent slopes) or prominent rocky outcrops less than 9,500 feet (2,896 meters) in elevation be considered constituent elements for critical habitat in Colorado. Much of the area currently proposed as critical habitat does not contain such habitats and does not contribute to the conservation of the species. Pinyon juniper habitat in Colorado is used by owls for roosting, foraging, and wintering. The final designation should include these areas, especially on Fort Carson.

Our Response: Designated critical habitat for the owl in Colorado already encompasses the commenter's suggestion. For example, protected habitat includes areas with slopes greater than 40 percent. Additionally, one of the primary constituent elements for canyon habitat includes canyon walls containing crevices, ledges, or caves. The critical habitat in Colorado is essential for the conservation of the species because it provides landscape connectivity within and among critical habitat units.

The designation only includes lands within protected or restricted areas and includes mixed conifer, pineoak, and riparian habitat types as they are defined in the Recovery Plan (Service 1995). As noted above, we could not enlarge the final designation to add pinyonjuniper habitat that was not included in the proposed rule. Pinyonjuniper habitat falls within other forest and woodland types in the Recovery Plan (Service 1995). It should be noted that the Recovery Plan does not provide specific management guidelines for other forest and woodland types. However, the lack of specific guidelines does not imply that we regard these types as unimportant for the recovery of the owl. These areas would continue to be subject to section 7 consultation requirements if they are used by owls and a project has the potential to affect the species or its habitat.
(11) Comment: The ``Utah'' owls are a subspecies with unique genetic variations that may require different habitat and other life requirements.

Our Response: The Service recognizes that owls use both canyon and forest habitats. This is why the primary constituent elements are provided for both forests and canyons. However, we are not aware of any information in the scientific literature or provided by biologists researching the owl to indicate that owls in Utah are genetically different from Strix occidentalis lucida.
(12) Comment: The Carson National Forest contains highelevation areas within proposed critical habitat that are not occupied by the owl. These areas should be refined or excluded from the designation.

Our Response: Based upon the most recent PAC information, we have refined the final designation to exclude all of the proposed critical habitat units that are not essential to the conservation of the species. This included a large portion of the Carson National Forest where owl surveys have been conducted through 400,000 acres (161,874 hectares) since 1988 and have yet to find an owl outside of the Jicarilla Ranger District (FS 2004). We are designating two critical habitat units on the Jicarilla Ranger District based upon public comments and the best scientific and commercial information. Nevertheless, these two critical habitat units contain WUI project areas that are not included in the designation, because these project areas are specifically excluded due to human health and safety concerns from the imminent risk of catastrophic wildfire (see ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)'' and ``Regulation Promulgation'' sections).

This designation of critical habitat does not mean that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. For example, we recognize that the Carson National Forest is part of the southern Rocky Mountains, New Mexico Recovery Unit (RU) and contains protected and restricted habitat. Although many hypotheses have been suggested as to why the majority of this National Forest is apparently unoccupied (e.g., high elevation, climatic conditions, etc.), we are unable to draw firm conclusions. A great deal of effort has been expended by owl biologists to survey potential habitat in this area and have only documented owls on the Jicarilla Ranger District. Other historic owl records have been difficult to verify, and are currently considered by the FS and others to be ``questionable'' (FS 2004). The most serious threat to the owl in this portion of its range is wildfire, which would be unaffected by a designation of critical habitat (Service 1995). Consequently, we cannot conclude that, outside of the two units we are designating as critical habitat, the remaining proposed critical habitat on the Carson is essential to the conservation of the owl because we have not found PACs in these areas.

Areas outside the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 take prohibition, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action.
Issue 2: Procedural and Legal Compliance
(13) Comment: The designation of critical habitat will place an additional burden on land management agencies above and beyond what the listing of the species would require. The number of section 7 consultations will increase; large areas where no owls are known to occur will now be subject to section 7 consultation and will result in a waste of time and money by the affected agencies. Many Federal agencies have been making a ``no effect'' call within unoccupied suitable habitat. Now, with critical habitat there will be ``may effect'' determinations, and section 7 consultation will be required if any of the constituent elements are present.

Our Response: If a Federal agency funds, authorizes, or carries out an action that may affect either the owl or its critical habitat, the Act requires that
[[Page 53189]]
the agency consult with us under section 7 of the Act. For a project to affect critical habitat, it must affect the primary constituent elements, which are defined in the regulation section in this final rule.

Our view is and has been that any Federal action that affects owl habitat as defined by the Recovery Plan should be considered a situation that ``may affect'' the owl and should undergo section 7 consultation (Service 1996). This is true whether or not critical habitat is designated, even when the particular project site within the larger geographical area occupied by the species is not known to be currently occupied by an individual owl (e.g., projects on the Carson National Forest). All areas designated as critical habitat are essential to the conservation of the species, so Federal actions affecting primary constituent elements of the owl should undergo consultation. As in the past, the Federal action agency will continue to make the determination as to whether their project may affect a species or designated critical habitat.
(14) Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that the Recovery Plan is not being implemented, and that federally funded or authorized activities (i.e., logging, grazing, dam construction, etc.) within owl habitat are not consistent with recovery for the species and/or are not undergoing section 7 consultation for potential impacts to the owl.

Our Response: We are not aware of instances where action agencies have not consulted with us on actions that may affect the species or its habitat. We have consulted with Federal agencies on numerous projects since we issued the Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan recognizes, as do we, that agencies must make management decisions for multiple use objectives. Thus, agencies consult with us under section 7 when they propose actions that are both consistent and inconsistent with Recovery Plan recommendations (i.e., when they propose actions that may affect the species or critical habitat) (Service 1996). However, there have only been two consultations to date that have concluded that a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the owl (i.e., the November 25, 1996, biological opinion on the existing forest plans and the June 13, 1996, biological opinion on the releases of site specific information).
(15) Comment: One commenter believes that the designation of critical habitat for the owl conflicts with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research, and Development Act of 1980, and other State and county policies and plans within the four States.

Our Response: We read through the comments and information provided concerning the various acts and policies; however, the commenter failed to adequately explain the rationale for why they believe critical habitat designation conflicts with the above Federal laws and policies or other State and County policies and plans. We are unaware of any conflicts with the cited laws, policies, and plans. However, we do recognize that significant conservation can be achieved by implementing these laws, which may obviate the need to designate critical habitat, especially when these laws are providing such conservation benefits. (16) Comment: The FS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) provided Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages and requested that we revise or exclude critical habitat units based upon lack of protected or restricted habitat and primary constituent elements. The suggested revisions are based upon digital elevation models, elevation, vegetation, owl surveys, and land management designations (i.e., wilderness study areas). There was an expressed concern that much of the area within the proposed critical habitat boundaries does not contain one or more primary constituent elements to meet the definition of critical habitat and should not be included.

Our Response: We considered the information provided by the commenters and designated only those lands that were determined to be essential for the conservation of the owl (see ``Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule'' section).

Critical habitat is defined as the areas within the mapped boundaries. However, as described in the ``Section 7 Consultation'' section below, consultation would occur when the action agency determines that activities they sponsor, fund, or authorize may affect areas defined as protected or restricted habitat that contain one or more of the primary constituent elements.
(17) Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that there are areas containing owls, but these were not within the critical habitat boundaries. Additional areas not identified in the proposed rule should be designated critical habitat. The Service should designate additional sites in Colorado, specifically Mesa Verde National Park, Boulder Mountain Parks, Red Rocks, Glenwood Canyon, and other deep, narrow canyon systems throughout the State.

Our Response: The critical habitat designation did not include some areas that are known to have widely scattered owl sites, low population densities, and/or unknown or marginal habitat quality, which are not considered to be essential to this species' conservation. Section 3(5) of the Act state that, ``Except in those certain circumstances * * * critical habitat shall not include the entire geographical area which can be ocupied by a species, rather only those areas essential for the conservation of the species. Additionally, section 4(b)(4) of the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) requires that areas designated as critical habitat must first be proposed as such. Thus, we cannot make additions in this final rule to include areas that were not included in the proposed rule. Designation of such areas would require a new or revised proposal and subsequent final rule.
(18) Comment: Why are areas included in the designation that are not presently occupied by the owl?

Our Response: The areas designated are within the geographical area occupied by the species because the critical habitat designation is devised around the majority of known owl nesting sites. The designation includes both protected and restricted habitat, as defined in the Recovery Plan, and contains the primary constituent elements as identified herein. We consider protected areas to be occupied on a more permanent basis and restricted areas are considered to be temporally occupied. We have included these areas in the designation based on information contained within the Recovery Plan that finds them to be essential to the conservation of the species because they currently possess the essential habitat requirements for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal.

In section 3(5)(A) of the Act, critical habitat is defined as ``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found those physical and biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside of the geographical area occupied by the species * * * [that] are essential to the conservation of the species''. Pursuant to the Act and our implementing regulations, we must determine whether the designation of critical habitat for a given species is prudent and determinable. If it is both, then we
[[Page 53190]]
conduct a focused analysis to determine and delineate the specific areas, within the geographical area occupied by the species that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Once these areas are defined, a determination is then made as to whether additional specific areas outside of the geographical area occupied by the species are required for the conservation of the species. In conducting our analyses, we use the best scientific and commercial data available. Our analyses take into consideration specific parameters including (1) space for individual and population growth and normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproductions, rearing of offspring, germination or seed dispersal; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical or ecological distribution of the species (50 CFR 424.12(b)). Consequently, we do take into consideration all available information concerning a species, its habitat, ecology, and threats and conduct an analysis to determine which specific areas are essential to its conservation. This final designation of critical habitat for the owl has been developed using the approach discussed above and constitutes our best assessment of the areas essential to its conservation.
(19) Comment: If land has dual ownership of private and Federal, is it critical habitat? The land in question is under private ownership and the mineral rights are owned by the BLM.

Our Response: The surface ownership is what would contain the primary constituent elements of critical habitat. Because the surface ownership is private and we are not including private land in this designation (see ``Criteria for Identifying Critical Habitat Units'' section below for further explaination), we would not consider the lands to be designated critical habitat. However, if a Federal agency (e.g., BLM) funds, authorizes, or carries out an action (e.g., mineral extraction) that may affect the owl or its habitat, the Act requires that the agency consult with us under section 7 of the Act. This is required whether or not critical habitat is designated for a listed species.
(20) Comment: Fort Carson, Colorado, provided information during the comment period that indicated the owl is not known to nest on the military installation and the species is a rare winter visitor. Protected or restricted habitat is also not known to exist on Fort Carson. In 2003, the Service reviewed and approved Fort Carson's final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) that includes specific guidelines and protection measures for the owl. The INRMP includes measures to provide yearround containment and suppression of wildland fire and the establishment of a protective buffer zone around each roost tree. Other comments indicated that owls frequently use Fort Carson in the winter and the installation is an important winter foraging and roosting area.

Our Response: Fort Carson completed their final INRMP on April 8, 2003, which includes specific guidelines for protection and management for the owl. Thus, we are excluding this area from the final designation of critical habiat for the owl pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
(21) Comment: How will the exclusion of certain lands (e.g., State, private, Tribal) affect recovery and delisting of the owl?

Our Response: In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we are required to base critical habitat designation on the best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that are essential to conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. We designated critical habitat for those lands we determined are essential to conservation of the owl. We did not include certain lands (e.g., State, private, and Tribal) because we determined these areas are not essential to the conservation of the owl or because the benefits of excluding the specific areas pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act outweigh the benefits of their inclusion. Because the majority of owls are known from Federal land, the exclusion of State, private, and Tribal lands in the designation of critical habitat for the owl will not affect the recovery and future delisting of the species. Whether or not a species has designated critical habitat, it is protected both from any actions resulting in an unlawful take and from Federal actions that could jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Moreover, our environmental assessment of this designation pursuant to NEPA found that our existing policy requires consultation on actions in suitable habitat outside of PACs regardless of critical habitat designation. In practice, critical habitat designation is unlikely to trigger section 7 consultations that would not occur in its absence. This is because Federal agencies are following the Recovery Plan and consulting with us on impacts to both protected and restricted habitat.
(22) Comment: The areas proposed as critical habitat in Colorado make up 4.2 percent of the total proposed critical habitat. Much of the areas proposed in Colorado do not contain the primary constituent elements for critical habitat for the owl. It is difficult to understand how the small amount of habitat proposed in Colorado is essential for the survival and recovery of the owl. The current tree stocking levels, species composition, and stand structure of areas proposed as critical habitat in Colorado do not currently, nor are they likely to, meet the definition of restricted ``threshold'' habitat as defined in the Recovery Plan.

Our Response: We carefully reviewed and considered the information provided by the commenter concerning this issue. We agree that not all of the land within the critical habitat boundaries in Colorado or elsewhere supports protected or restricted habitat. To the extent possible, we attempted to exclude from final critical habitat those area that did not support the primary constituent elements for the owl or protected or restricted habtiat. However, we may not have been able to exclude all such areas from the final designation. Federal actions limited to

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Susan MacMullin, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address; telephone 505/3462525, facsimile 505/3462542.