Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
We will post all information we receive on
We want the final rule to be as effective as possible and the final EA on the proposed action to evaluate all potential issues associated with this action. Therefore, we invite tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested parties to submit comments or recommendations concerning any aspect of this proposed rule and the draft EA. Comments should be as specific as possible.
To issue a final rule to implement this proposed action and to determine whether to prepare a finding of no significant impact or an environmental impact statement, we will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses, if provided to us, will become part of the supporting record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule and draft EA by one of the methods listed in the
We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on
Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in a public hearing should contact the Refuge Manager, Cabeza Prieta NWR, at the address or phone number listed in the
We listed the Sonoran pronghorn subspecies (
Under section 10(j) of the Act, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior can designate reestablished populations outside the species' current range as “experimental.” With the experimental population designation, the relevant population is treated as threatened for purposes of section 9 of the Act, regardless of the species' designation elsewhere in its range. Threatened designation allows us discretion in devising management programs and special regulations for such a population. Section 4(d) of the Act allows us to adopt whatever regulations are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a threatened species. In these situations, the general regulations that extend most section 9 prohibitions to threatened species do not apply to that species, and the 10(j) rule contains the prohibitions and exemptions necessary and appropriate to conserve that species.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we must determine whether the experimental population is
For the purposes of section 7 of the Act, we treat an NEP as a threatened species when the NEP is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National Park Service, and section 7(a)(1) and the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act apply. Section 7(a)(1) requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. When NEPs are located outside a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park Service unit, then for the purposes of section 7, we treat the population as proposed for listing and only two provisions of section 7 apply—section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4). In these instances, NEPs provide additional flexibility because Federal agencies are not required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to be listed. The results of a conference are in the form of conservation recommendations that are optional as the agencies carry out, fund, or authorize activities. Because the NEP is, by definition, not essential to the continued existence of the species, then the effects of proposed actions affecting the NEP will generally not rise to the level of jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. Section 10(j)(2)(c)(ii) precludes the designation of critical habitat for non-essential populations. As a result, a formal conference will likely never be required for Sonoran pronghorn established within the NEP area. Nonetheless, some agencies (
Sonoran pronghorn used to establish an experimental population would come from a captive-rearing pen on Cabeza Prieta NWR, provided appropriate permits are issued in accordance with our regulations (50 CFR 17.22) prior to their removal. The donor population is a captive-bred population derived primarily from wild stock at Cabeza Prieta NWR and from a wild Sonoran pronghorn population in northwestern Sonora, Mexico. The purpose of the captive population is to provide stock for augmenting existing U.S. and Mexican populations of Sonoran pronghorn, as well as supplying founder animals for establishment of an additional U.S. herd(s), in accordance with recovery actions 2.1-2.4 of the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002). The proposed population establishment would involve two phases: (1) Construction and operation of a captive-breeding pen at Kofa NWR, with subsequent releases to establish a second herd; and (2) relocation of excess Sonoran pronghorn from the existing breeding pen at Cabeza Prieta NWR to the eastern portion of the BMGR-E, east of Highway 85 and south of Interstate 8, with the intent of establishing a separate herd in that area, as well.
We have not designated critical habitat for the Sonoran pronghorn. Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat shall not be designated for any experimental population that is determined to be nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot designate critical habitat in areas where we establish an NEP.
The Sonoran subspecies of pronghorn (
Threats to the Sonoran pronghorn include (1) highways, fences, railroads, developed areas, and irrigation canals that block access to essential forage or water resources; (2) a variety of human
Restoring an endangered or threatened species to the point where it is recovered is a primary goal of our endangered species program. Thus, in 1982 we published the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan (Plan) (Service 1982), which was produced by a Recovery Team comprised of representatives from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), Cabeza Prieta NWR, BLM, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPCNM), Commission of Ecology and Sustainable Development for the State of Sonora (CEDES), and National Commission for Protected Natural Areas (CONANP). The Plan was subsequently revised in 1994, 1998, and 2002. Major recovery actions include: (1) Enhance present populations of Sonoran pronghorn by providing supplemental forage and/or water, (2) determine habitat needs and protect present range; (3) investigate and address potential barriers to expansion of presently used range, and investigate, evaluate, and prioritize present and potential future reintroduction sites within the historical range; (4) establish and monitor a new, separate herd(s) to guard against catastrophes decimating the core population; (5) continue monitoring populations and maintain a protocol for a repeatable and comparable survey technique; and (6) examine additional specimen evidence to assist in verification of taxonomic status (Service 1998, pp. iii-iv). The 2002 Supplement did not include delisting criteria; however, eight short-term recovery actions were identified as necessary to downlist the species to threatened. The supplement goes on to say that accomplishing these actions would provide the information necessary to determine delisting criteria. One of the short-term recovery actions was “evaluating potential transplant locations, establishing methodology and protocols, developing interagency agreements (including with Mexico as required), acquiring funding, and initiating reestablishment projects” (Service 2002, p. 38).
After the catastrophic die off of Sonoran pronghorn in 2002, the Service and its partners embarked on a number of aggressive recovery actions to ensure the species' continued existence and to begin to rebuild populations. The cornerstone of these actions was a semi-captive breeding facility, constructed in Childs Valley, Cabeza Prieta NWR, in 2003, and stocked with wild Sonoran pronghorn in 2004. As of March 2009, 63 Sonoran pronghorn reside in the pen. Limited releases from the pen to the U.S. herd occurred in 2007 and 2008; however, the objective is to produce 10 to 25 fawns each year for release to the current U.S. population, to newly established population(s) in the United States, and to augment Mexican populations. This target number of fawn production will likely be met in 2009. A number of other projects are underway to increase availability of green forage and water during dry periods and seasons, offsetting to some extent the effects of drought and barriers that prevent Sonoran pronghorn from accessing greenbelts and water, such as the Gila River and Río Sonoyta. Nine emergency water sources (six on Cabeza Prieta NWR, one on OPCNM, and two on BMGR-West) have been constructed in recent years throughout the range of the U.S. population. Four forage enhancement plots, each consisting of a well, pump, pipelines, and irrigation lines, have been developed to irrigate the desert and produce forage for pronghorn. Another plot is nearing completion, and two additional plots will be installed over the next 5 years. These crucial projects, intended to pull the U.S. population back from the brink of extinction, have been cooperative efforts among the Service, AGFD, Marine Corps Air Station—Yuma, Luke Air Force Base, BLM, and OPCNM, with volunteer efforts from the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Arizona Antelope Foundation, and the Yuma Rod and Gun Club.
The U.S. wild population of Sonoran pronghorn has rebounded from 21 in 2002 to 76 in 2008; this increase has been facilitated by the collaborative recovery efforts for this species. However, at 76 animals currently, the U.S. population is far from being secure. We have begun to work with our Mexican partners on recovery of the Sonoran pronghorn in Sonora; although the number of pronghorn in Sonora (404 animals) is significantly greater than in the United States, the safety net of waters and forage plots are not in place there, and a severe drought could decimate those populations.
An Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), comprised of members of the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team, as well as representatives from land management agencies located in southwestern Arizona, was convened in 2008 to address these and other issues and considerations, and to recommend specific areas for establishing an additional U.S. herd or herds. Development of alternatives for population establishment entailed consideration of three key variables: (1) Geographical areas for establishing populations outside of the current range; (2) potential establishment techniques; and (3) legal status of established populations under the Act. Each of these three key variables had a range of options. The IDT evaluated the three key variables to arrive at the most effective combinations of geographical areas, establishment techniques, and legal status options. The IDT conducted a mapping exercise, to identify areas within the historical range of Sonoran pronghorn in the United States that were under Federal or State ownership and that contained suitable habitat for the species. The result of this exercise was identification of seven potential reestablishment areas, designated Areas A through G. The seven areas were then ranked by the IDT, using seven selection criteria, to determine the best areas for translocation. Area A (King Valley at Kofa NWR, and adjacent portions of primarily Yuma Proving Grounds and BLM lands) and Area D (primarily portions of the BMGR-E, BLM lands, and a portion of the Tohono O'odham Nation, all east of Highway 85) were ranked 1 and 2, respectively. Public scoping for the Sonoran pronghorn population establishment project included three open houses held on successive evenings at Yuma, Tucson, and Phoenix, AZ, and was conducted in November 2008. After consideration of public input, two alternatives were carried forward in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
The NEP encompasses Areas A and D, as well as all areas into which Sonoran pronghorn are likely to disperse. The NEP is defined as follows: In Arizona, an area north of Interstate 8 and south of Interstate 10, bounded by the Colorado River on the west and Interstate 10 on the east; and an area south of Interstate 8, bounded by Highway 85 on the west, Interstates 10 and 19 on the east, and the United States-Mexico border on the south.
Section 10(j) of the Act requires that an experimental population be wholly separate geographically from other wild populations of the same species. The Colorado River; Interstates 8, 10, and 19; and Highway 85, which form the boundaries of the NEP, are barriers to movement. Interstate 8 separates Area A from the current U.S. population, and Highway 85 forms a boundary between Area D and the current U.S. population. We do not expect Sonoran pronghorn to cross these barriers. Brown and Ockenfels (2007, pg. 29) found that high-speed highways with right-of-way fences, such as these, were virtually Sonoran pronghorn-proof due to stringent fencing and high volume traffic and that interstate highways are nothing short of impassable for the species. Only once has a pronghorn been known to cross Interstate 8 (1973, Phelps 1981, p. 27) and only once has a pronghorn been known to cross Highway 85 and its associated right-of-way fences into BMGR-E (2008; Howard 2008, p. 1).
Nonetheless, in the unlikely event that a pronghorn moves outside the NEP, the individual, lone pronghorn does not constitute a population. The Department defines “population” as a potentially self-sustaining group “in common spatial arrangement,” (
The status, as endangered or a member of the NEP, of any dispersing pronghorn that manages to cross Highway 85 or other barriers between the NEP and the current range would be defined geographically. Any Sonoran pronghorn within the NEP area would be considered a member of the nonessential experimental population (including any dispersing animals from within the current range that cross into the NEP area), whereas any Sonoran pronghorn outside of the NEP would be fully protected under the Act as an endangered species.
The geographical extent that we are proposing for NEP designation is larger than needed, as only portions of this proposed NEP area contain suitable habitat. Within the NEP, Sonoran pronghorn habitat is limited to valleys. Mountainous areas, such as the Kofa, Castle Dome, Palomas, and Gila Bend mountains, do not provide habitat for this species; nor do developed areas within the valleys, such as agricultural areas and towns and cities. However, the NEP area represents what we believe to be the maximum geographical extent to which Sonoran pronghorn could move if released in Areas A and D. Once released into these areas, we expect the Sonoran pronghorn population(s) to grow and expand into adjacent suitable habitats, potentially moving to the boundaries of the NEP. However, mountainous areas and developed agriculture and urban areas in the NEP would not be occupied because these areas are not considered habitat for Sonoran pronghorn. In the unlikely event that any of the released Sonoran pronghorn, or their offspring, move across interstate highways or other barriers (
The IDT developed the methods of release of Sonoran pronghorn into Areas A and D with the objective of maximizing the likelihood of success in establishing herds, while minimizing the impact to the source population (the animals in the captive breeding pen at Cabeza Prieta NWR) and limiting
We have determined that these proposed populations are nonessential. This determination has been made for the following reasons:
(a) Wild populations of the Sonoran pronghorn, totaling about 470 animals, currently exist at: (1) Cabeza Prieta NWR, OPCNM, BMGR, and adjacent BLM lands, (2) in the El Pinacate region of Sonora, and (3) south and east of Highway 8 in Sonora.
(b) A captive-breeding pen at Cabeza Prieta NWR maintains a captive population and provides stock to augment the wild populations in Arizona and Sonora. The pen has been highly successful. First stocked with pronghorn in 2004, the original group of 11 animals has grown to 71 as of this writing (October 2009), and another 21 pronghorn have been released from the pen into the wild.
(c) The first priority for use of animals in the captive-breeding pen at Cabeza Prieta NWR is to augment herds within the boundaries of the current range of the species; hence, relocation of Sonoran pronghorn from the captive breeding pen to Kofa NWR would not inhibit the augmentation efforts for the herds within the boundaries of the current range of the species. Sonoran pronghorn produced at the Cabeza Prieta pen that are not needed to augment herds within the current range or to populate the Kofa NWR pen would be used to establish a population in Area D.
(d) The possible failure of this proposed action would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species in the wild because (1) the first priority for use of pronghorn from the captive-breeding pen at Cabeza Prieta NWR is to augment the wild herd, and (2) recovery actions have been implemented in the United States to ameliorate the effects of drought on the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009, p. 9, 18-19).
(e) Through programs of work endorsed by the Canada/Mexico/U.S. Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and AGFD coordinate with Mexican partners on recovery of the Sonoran pronghorn in Mexico.
If this proposal is adopted, we would ensure, through our section 10 permitting authority and the section 7 consultation process, that the use of Sonoran pronghorn from the donor population at Cabeza Prieta NWR for releases in Areas A or D is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species in the wild. Establishment of additional Sonoran pronghorn populations within the species' historical range is a necessary step in recovery (Service 2002, p. 38).
The special rule that accompanies this 10(j) rule is designed to broadly exempt from the section 9 take prohibitions any take of Sonoran pronghorn that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. We provide this exemption because we believe that such incidental take of members of the NEP associated with otherwise lawful activities is necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species, as activities that currently occur or are anticipated in the NEP area are generally compatible with Sonoran pronghorn recovery. For example, in Area A, there are vast expanses of open valleys without major barriers to pronghorn movement that provide suitable habitat. These valleys include King Valley at Kofa NWR, Palomas Plain, the southern end of the Ranegras Plain, and portions of the Yuma Proving Grounds. The La Posa Plain and Castle Dome Plain also provide habitat. Highway 95 runs north-south through those plains, and although it may somewhat inhibit movement to the west side of those plains, it is not a substantial barrier because it lacks right-of-way fences. In Area D, there is considerable habitat in the valleys among the Sauceda, Sand Tank, Batamote, and other mountains in that region. There are existing military activities at Yuma Proving Grounds in Area A and BMGR-E in Area D, but pronghorn have coexisted with military activities for many years at the BMGR (deVos 1989, pp. 15-16; Krausman
Under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, all Federal agencies are mandated to use their authorities to conserve listed species. In addition, the BLM has a written policy of conferring with the Service, under section 7(a)(4), on their actions that may affect proposed species. Some activities would have greater potential to compromise the success of the Sonoran pronghorn reestablishment than those described above. For instance, construction of new highways or new canals in the NEP could create barriers to movement and bisect important pronghorn habitats. There is also the potential for BLM to permit large-scale solar power plants, which would be constructed in the valleys and could eliminate up to tens of thousands of acres of habitat. Other BLM-authorized projects, such as agricultural leases, could also potentially remove large blocks of habitat and perhaps compromise the success of this project. The potential for these projects to impact the reestablishment is probably greatest on BLM lands in the valleys to the east of Kofa NWR. The Service may have the opportunity through the section 7(a)(4) conferring process to work with the BLM to minimize the potential adverse effects of solar plants, agricultural leases, highways, or other projects that may compromise Sonoran pronghorn recovery.
The lands within the NEP area are managed and listed in descending order of acreage within areas A and D as follows: Area A—the Service (Kofa NWR), Department of the Army (Yuma Proving Grounds), BLM, Arizona State Lands Department, private landowners, and Colorado River Indian Tribes; Area D: Tohono O'odham Nation, BLM, Department of the Air Force (BMGR-E), private owners, and Arizona State Land Department. Outside of Areas A and D, but within the NEP, land ownership is similar, but also includes lands within the Gila River Indian Reservation, Ak-Chin Indian Reservation, Pascua Yaqui Indian Reservation, San Xavier Reservation, Buenos Aires NWR, Saguaro National Park, OPCNM, Tucson Mountain Park, and Coronado National Forest. Due to the management flexibility provided by the NEP designation and the special rule, we do not anticipate that establishment of Sonoran pronghorn in Areas A or D and subsequent dispersal of Sonoran pronghorn from the release sites will affect management on Tribal, BLM, National Forest, Department of Defense, State, or private lands. Through section 7 consultations on NWR lands and National Park Service lands, some changes in management may occur to reduce adverse effects to pronghorn, including minimizing the likelihood of incidental take. However, we believe few changes would be needed, because management of these lands already is broadly compatible with Sonoran pronghorn recovery. Other Federal agencies that propose actions on Kofa NWR or National Park Service lands would also be required to consult with us under section 7, if such activities may affect Sonoran pronghorn. For instance, some activities conducted by Yuma Proving Grounds (e.g., overflights of Kofa NWR) would be subject to the consultation requirements. Some Federal agencies, such as BLM, that propose actions outside of Kofa NWR or National Park Service lands may elect to work with the Service voluntarily through the section 7(a)(4) conferring process to ensure that adverse effects of their actions on Sonoran pronghorn in the NEP area are minimized.
The Service (Cabeza Prieta NWR, Kofa NWR, and Ecological Services), AGFD, OPCNM, Luke Air Force Base, BLM, and other partners, in close coordination with the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team, would plan and manage the establishment of new populations of Sonoran pronghorn. This group would closely coordinate on releases, monitoring, and coordination with landowners and land managers, among other tasks necessary to ensure successful population establishment. Management issues related to the Sonoran pronghorn NEP that have been considered include:
In accordance with our policy on peer review, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will provide copies of this proposed rule to three or more appropriate and independent specialists in order to solicit comments on the scientific data and assumptions relating to the supportive biological and ecological information for this proposed NEP designation. The purpose of such review is to ensure that the proposed NEP designation is based on the best scientific information available. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment during the public comment period and will consider their comments and information on this proposed rule during preparation of a final determination.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this proposed rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
(a) Whether the proposed rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b) Whether the proposed rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the proposed rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the proposed rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601
The area that would be affected if this proposed rule is adopted includes the release areas at Kofa NWR and BMGR-E and adjacent areas into which pronghorn may disperse, which over time could include significant portions of the NEP, where valley habitats for the pronghorn occur. Mountainous areas and developed agriculture and urban areas in the NEP would not be occupied because these areas are not considered habitat for Sonoran pronghorn. Because of the regulatory flexibility for Federal agency actions provided by the NEP designation and the exemption for incidental take in the special rule, we do not expect this rule to have significant effects on any activities within Tribal, Department of Defense, BLM, National Wildlife Refuge, National Park Service, State, or private lands within the NEP. On National Wildlife Refuges and units of the National Park System within the NEP, Federal action agencies would be required to consult with us, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, on any of their activities that may affect the Sonoran pronghorn. However, because current management of these areas is consistent with the needs of the pronghorn (see part (d) of
If adopted, this proposal would broadly authorize incidental take of Sonoran pronghorn within the NEP area. The regulations implementing the Act define “incidental take” as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity such as, agricultural activities and other rural development, ranching, military training and testing, camping, hiking, hunting, vehicle use of roads and highways, and other activities in the NEP area that are in accordance with Federal, Tribal, State, and local laws and regulations. Intentional take for purposes other than authorized data collection or recovery purposes would not be permitted. Intentional take for research or recovery purposes would require a section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit under the Act.
The principal activities on private property near the NEP area are agriculture, ranching, rural development, and recreation. We believe the presence of the Sonoran pronghorn would not affect the use of lands for these purposes because there would be no new or additional economic or regulatory restrictions imposed upon States, non-federal entities, or members of the public due to the presence of the Sonoran pronghorn, and Federal agencies would only have to comply with sections 7(a)(2) and 7(a)(4) of the Act in these areas. Therefore, this rulemaking is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts to activities on private lands within the NEP area.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(a) If adopted, this proposal will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. We have determined and certify under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
(b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year (i.e., it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). This proposed NEP designation for the Sonoran pronghorn would not impose any additional management or protection requirements on the States or other entities.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. When populations of federally listed species are designated as NEPs, the Act's regulatory requirements regarding those populations are significantly reduced. Section 10(j) of the Act can provide regulatory relief with regard to the taking of reestablished species within an NEP area. For example, this proposed rule would not prohibit the taking of Sonoran pronghorn in the NEP area outside of National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Service lands when such take is incidental to an otherwise legal activity, such as agricultural activities and other rural development, ranching, military training and testing, camping, hiking, hunting, vehicle use of roads and highways, and other activities that are in accordance with Federal, State, Tribal and local laws and regulations.
A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule (1) will not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical invasion of property and (2) will not deny all economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation and recovery of a listed species) and would not present a barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered whether this proposed rule has significant Federalism effects and have determined that a Federalism assessment is not required. This rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we requested information from and coordinated development of this proposed rule with the affected resource agencies in Arizona. Achieving the recovery goals for this species would contribute to its eventual delisting and its return to State management. No intrusion on State policy or administration is expected; roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments would not change; and fiscal capacity would not be substantially directly affected. The special rule operates to maintain the existing relationship between the State and the Federal government and is being undertaken in coordination with the State of Arizona. Therefore, this rule does not have significant Federalism effects or implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment under the provisions of Executive Order 13132.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and would meet the requirements of sections (3)(a) and (3)(b)(2) of the Order.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
We have prepared a draft EA as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It is available from the Cabeza Prieta NWR (see
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 2, we have consulted with 21 Tribal Nations whose lands or interests might be affected by this rule. The Tohono O'odham Nation participated in scoping meetings and provided comments on draft documents and proposals. The Ak-Chin Indian Community also provided written comments. The only substantial comments from Tribes were related to cultural resource surveys at the specific sites where pens will be constructed, which we will do.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Because this action is not a significant energy action, no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is available upon request from the Cabeza Prieta NWR (
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of Cabeza Prieta NWR and the Service's Arizona Ecological Services Office (
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
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.
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the entry for “Pronghorn, Sonoran” under “MAMMALS” in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
(h) * * *
3. Amend § 17.84 by adding paragraph (v) to read as follows:
(v) Sonoran pronghorn (
(1) The Sonoran pronghorn (