March 13, 2015

Via the Federal eRulemaking Portal

Docket No. Attn: Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0011; 4500030114

Public Comments Processing

Division of Policy and Directives Management

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Main Office 300 E. University Blvd., #120 Tucson AZ 85705 4401 N. Fairfax Drive TEL 520.629.0510 FAX 520.623.3476 MS 2042–PDM Tucson Audubon’s Mason Center 3835 W Hardy Road Arlington, VA 22203 Tucson AZ 85742

Karen Fogas Executive Director TEL 520.209.1801 Re: Proposed Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo Critical Habitat Designation [email protected]

Dear Director Ashe:

Established in 1949, the Tucson Audubon Society (Tucson Audubon) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit conservation organization. We are the third largest local Audubon chapter in the nation and write to you on behalf of our membership in excess of 5,000 citizens. Tucson Audubon promotes the protection and stewardship of southeast Arizona’s biological diversity through the study and enjoyment of birds and the places they live. Tucson Audubon advocates statewide for the sustainability, resilience, preservation, restoration and connectivity of habitats utilized by birds and other wildlife, with special emphasis on riparian habitats and their associated uplands.

Tucson Audubon Society appreciates the opportunity to respond to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) request for comments on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the federally threatened Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis - WYBC). See: Fed. Reg. Vol 79 No. 158 50 CFR Part 17 (August 15, 2014). Due to recent staffing changes at Tucson Audubon, we submit our comments to you after the deadline stated in the Federal Register notice. However, we hope that our comments have arrived in time to be fully considered and to contribute to your deliberations. In addition to the comments provided herein, Tucson Audubon concurs with comments submitted on the proposed CHD by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), Audubon Arizona et al., the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance (LSPWA), Cascabel Conservation Association (CCA) and Friends of the San Pedro River (FSPR).

Background

The rapid population decreases and range reductions of the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo prompted petitions for the western distinct population segment to be listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as early as 1998 (e.g., Center for Biological Diversity, 1998). A settlement agreement with WildEarth Guardians, approved by the District Court in September 2011 and affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeals in 2013, requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to address 252 candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act before the end of FY 2016. The WYBC is one of these candidate species. In accordance with the settlement agreement, on October of 2014, the FWS issued a final determination that listed the Western DPS of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo as a threatened species under the ESA (79 FR 59991 60038).

In western North America, large declines in distribution and abundance of WYBC have occurred as a result of loss, degradation, and fragmentation of riparian habitat by agriculture and residential development (Dobkin 1994), flood control (Laymon and Halterman 1987, 1989), invasion by less desirable salt cedar (Tamarix spp.; Hughes 1999), mining, dams, water withdrawals, pesticides, stochastic extinctions and low colonization rates.

In Arizona, WYBCs were relatively widespread 50 years ago (Phillips et al., 1964). Today, WYBC are well documented breeding regularly in relatively isolated populations along the Gila, San Pedro, Bill Williams, Salt, Verde, and Colorado Rivers.

Southwestern riparian habitats, the lush ribbons of vegetation running along our streams and rivers, contain the highest density and diversity of bird species outside of tropical rain forests. The vast majority of riparian bottomland forests in the southwestern United States have been modified or lost, and these alterations and losses are attributable to the synergistic impacts of woodcutting, urban and agricultural encroachment, water diversion and impoundment, channelization, groundwater pumping, livestock overgrazing, and hydrologic changes resulting from various land-use practices (Carothers 1977, pp. 2–3; Kusler 1985, p. 6; Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie 1988, pp. 17–36; USGAO 1988, p. 8; Szaro 1989, pp. 73–81; State of Arizona 1990, pp. 1–5; Bahre 1991, pp. 119–151). The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) stated that 90 percent of the Arizona’s riparian habitat had been lost in their November 1988 issue of Wildlife Views (AGFD 1988).

Riparian areas are critical elements where biological diversity is at its highest and are valued for their higher water availability, vegetation density, and biological productivity. They are the main

2 arteries for hydro-geological and biological processes and facilitate landscape-level habitat connectivity for a wide variety of wildlife. Therefore, the final CHD should reflect the WYBC’s need for biological connectivity at landscape and regional scales.

Law, Regulation and Procedural Guidance Governing Critical Habitat Designation

The designation of critical habitat must be made on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may only exclude an area from critical habitat if he or she determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation and that the failure to designate the area as critical habitat will not result in the extinction of the species.

Critical habitat shall include “the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species… on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A). It also must include areas outside the area occupied by the species at the time of listing if such areas are “essential for the conservation of the species.” Id.

“Conservation” is in turn defined as “the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.” Id. § 1532(3). Courts have construed this definition of conservation, and thus the requirements for critical habitat, to require steps to promote the recovery of the species and not merely avoid jeopardy. See, e.g., Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2007).

Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the ESA and its implementing regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 424.12, require FWS, when determining areas to propose as critical habitat, to consider areas containing the physical and biological features (PBFs) that are essential to the conservation of the species and may require special management considerations or protection. 78 Fed. Reg. at 18006. These features are the specific primary constituent elements (PCEs)—laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species—and they include, but are not limited to:

3

(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

(3) Cover or shelter;

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and

(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.

50 C.F.R. § 424.12(b). Any one or more of the identified PCEs sufficient to support the life history processes of the species may qualify an area for designation as critical habitat.

The FWS Listing Handbook further instructs the agency to, among other things:

1. Carefully evaluate the biology, status, and needs of the species, then determine what areas will best serve the species as critical habitat. These areas can include the entire known range, portions thereof, and/or additional suitable habitat or areas in need of restoration.

2. Critical habitat boundaries and size should be determined using great care and attention to detail. Keep them as simple as possible, yet accurate.

3. Carefully consider population or range variations over time. Be sure all included areas are thoroughly justified by one or more of the criteria in 424.12(b). Few species have static distributions. Allow for species dynamics in the critical habitat. If the species requires ephemeral habitats, consider where the future habitats might be relative to the present ones.

Endangered Species Listing Handbook: Procedural Guidance for the Preparation and Processing of Rules and Notices Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, Fourth Edition (March 1994), at 103 (emphasis added)1

Tucson Audubon takes the position that the proposed WYBC critical habitat designation is a solid starting point, but should be expanded to more comprehensively reflect WYBC occupancy

1 Available online at: http://training.fws.gov/EC/Resources/ES_Listing_and_Candidate_Assessment/ESA%20Folder/FWS%20Listing%20Handbook.pdf

4 at the time of listing, as well as additional suitable habitats. In addition to documented breeding habitat, the final designation should encompass lands and waters that provide stop-over sites, important habitat for foraging, dispersal and habitat connectivity, to include key tributaries and distinct sky island habitats. These additional lands will play an important role in the survival, expansion and adaptation of WYBC populations in the face of ongoing habitat degradation, pollution, long-term drought, and hotter and drier conditions that are predicted to occur in the Southwest as a result of climate change. Furthermore, the final CHD should reflect and encourage ongoing efforts to restore suitable WYBC habitat along major riparian corridors in the Southwest, such is already occurring along portions of the Colorado and San Pedro Rivers.

We organize our comments according to the topical areas (in bold italics) solicited by the August 2014 Federal Register Notice of the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo (79 FR 48547 48652; “FWS CHD Notice”).

The western yellow-billed cuckoo’s biology and range; habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering; and the locations of any additional populations.

Tucson Audubon concurs with the American Bird Conservancy’s overarching recommendations:

“1. all current and recently (within past 50 years) occupied habitat be designated by FWS as critical habitat; 2. FWS identify and designate critical habitat for additional areas of unoccupied areas with the restoration potential to form large blocks of suitable cuckoo habitat 100 acres or larger; 3. FWS prohibit use of pesticides in critical habitat, and 4. FWS identify and designate critical habitat along the cuckoo’s migratory pathways in order to address the threat of collisions with communications towers and other tall structures.”

The WYBC CHD Notice cites the following as the first Primary Constituent Element (PCE):

“(1) Primary Constituent Element 1—Riparian woodlands. Riparian woodlands with mixed willow- cottonwood vegetation, mesquite-thorn forest vegetation, or a combination of these that contain habitat for nesting and foraging in contiguous or nearly contiguous patches that are greater than 325 ft (100 m) in width and 200 ac (81ha) or more in extent. These habitat patches contain one or more nesting groves, which are generally willow dominated, have above average canopy closure (greater than 70 percent), and have a cooler, more humid environment than the surrounding riparian and upland habitats.”

5

Tucson Audubon concurs with the American Bird Conservancy’s comments regarding occupied habitat, patch (or habitat block) size, and width:

“…the FWS’s critical habitat proposal for the western population of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo does not provide the necessary habitat protection for the imperiled bird species whose numbers have plummeted in recent decades. The proposed rule does not protect all currently occupied habitat nor does it designate enough habitat for the bird’s future recovery by limiting designations to blocks of riparian habitat greater than 200 acres in extent and 325 feet in width.”

The Best Available Scientific Data

Tucson Audubon respectfully disagrees with the limitations imposed on the CHD by PCE #1. While the most widely cited scientific literature over the last four decades indicates that in some regions WYBC show a preference for relatively large patches of riparian gallery forest (i.e. > 200 acres in extent and 325 feet in width), this PCE does not adequately reflect current WYBC use of smaller forest, woodland, desert scrub and/or shrub habitat patches for stop-over sites during migration, and as foraging and breeding sites. An overemphasis on larger patch sizes and corridor widths arbitrarily excludes many habitats that support the life cycle and migration of WYBC, particularly in desert environments. In a Technical Conservation Assessment for the Yellow-billed Cuckoo, the US Forest Service states, “. . . in California at least, there appears to be little territoriality, with neighboring pairs often utilizing overlapping habitat with little sign of conflict (Laymon 1980). Laymon (1998) reported territory sizes ranging from 8 to 40 ha (20 to 100 acres) on the Kern River, California. On the Colorado River, territory size is thought to average smaller, as pairs often occupy woodland patches as small as 4 ha (10 acres; Laymon and Halterman 1989, emphasis added)."2 If territory sizes for breeding pairs can be as small as 10 acres (and can overlap with other territories), the > 200 acre habitat patch size criteria given by PCE #1 is clearly not scientifically justifiable. Furthermore, habitat patch sizes are difficult to delineate accurately for all vegetation types, fail to reliably account for vertical habitat structure and understory or low-stature vegetation, and are metrics that are constantly changing through time. For example, in less than a decade, especially in the context of restoration sites, two relatively smaller habitat patches may grow together to create a larger contiguous habitat patch, or a river may change its course and floodplain configuration and width. If habitat patch size is to be used as a primary constituent element, we recommend including a greater diversity of suitable habitat types (as discussed in detail below), and setting

2 Wiggins, D., 2005. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus): a Technical Conservation Assessment.. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/yellowbilledcuckoo.pdf [02/27/2015].

6 the minimum patch size at ≥ 10 acres of suitable habitat, which is consistent with the best available science.

In our spatial analysis of the Arizona’s Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) WYBC records by block, as well as eBird occurrences in Arizona in relation to the proposed CHD, it is clearly apparent that the proposed CHD does not include all currently occupied and/or suitable habitat in Arizona. FWS should remedy this by: 1) Including habitats associated with HDMS records (especially clusters of records); 2) Including habitats associated with WYBC detections from other surveys and observations, to include those discussed in detail below; and 3) Expanding the PBF and PCE definitions to include a greater diversity of habitat types and topographies that are supporting WYBC survival, migration and reproduction; particularly in the sky islands of southeast Arizona (See Figures 1-4 and Table 1).

Audubon’s Important Bird Areas (IBA) Program in Arizona has conducted bird community investigations within the southern half of the BHP riparian corridor lands along the lower San Pedro River near San Manuel, Arizona since 2008. This study area is part of the Audubon IBA Science Committee identified “Lower San Pedro River Global Important Bird Area”. The predominant vegetation types within the immediate vicinity of our detections (< 50 m) were in cottonwood-willow-tamarisk and cottonwood-mesquite. Multiple WYBC nest territories have consistently been documented in this Important Bird Area. In 2014, Tucson Audubon found 14 WYBC territories along a 7 mile stretch of the Lower San Pedro. This IBA is included in the proposed CHD, and we affirm that this area should remain a part of the CHD along the lower San Pedro River.

In southeast Arizona, WYBC have been documented in major riparian corridors such as the San Pedro, Gila and Santa Cruz Rivers, as well as the major drainages and adjacent uplands of sky island mountain ranges, including but not limited to: the Blue Range, Chiricahua, Galiuro, Huachuca, Patagonia, Quinlan, Peloncillo, Santa Catalina, Santa Rita, Patagonia and Tumacocori Highlands mountain ranges and mountain range complexes (AZ HDMS, AZ IBA and eBird verified occurrences, and several personal communications; See Figures 1-4; HDMS blocks excluded per data use agreement).

It is our understanding that WYBC surveys have not been systematically conducted in the sky islands. WYBC typically show up so late in the season that they are likely missed by biologists

7 who usually conduct bird surveys earlier in the season. Both of these factors account for the dearth of documentation and scientific literature on WYBC utilization of sky island habitats.

A subset of the WYBC occurrences we are aware of in the Sky Island Ecoregion of southeast Arizona have been documented in conjunction with Tucson Audubon’s partnerships with the Arizona Important Bird Area program surveys, USGS Breeding Bird Survey, and the yearly Tucson Bird Count and Tucson Bird and Wildlife Festival. In addition to these official surveys and birding events, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the National Audubon Society maintain the online eBird system, which houses an impressive, citizen science-driven database of observations, including 3,621 WYBC observations in Arizona (See Figures 1, 3, 4 and Table 1). Collectively, these observations represent credible scientific data that should inform the final CHD extent and configuration. While eBird observations are likely biased towards popular birding areas and areas with easier physical access, they are still informative. Table 1 summarizes the results of a spatial analysis we conducted of eBird WYBC observations as they relate to USGS vegetation/landcover types. This analysis demonstrates the wide range of habitat types that are being utilized by WYBC in Arizona.

From our exploration of the best scientific data available in southeast Arizona and Northern Sonora, Mexico, the WYBC appears to have a much wider ecological niche than the dated, most often cited research conducted in other portions of the WYBC’s range would suggest. In this region, vegetation composition and structure appear to be important drivers of habitat selection.

WYBC have been documented in southeast Arizona and northern Sonora utilizing a diversity of sky island vegetation communities. For example, in northern Sonora between 2001-2006, of 87 sites where WYBC were detected, 45% were in Sinaloan Thornscrub, 30% were in the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert, 21% were in Semidesert Grasslands, 3% were in Madrean Evergreen Woodland, and 1% were in Plains Grasslands (Tropical Deciduous Forests were not among the habitat types surveyed). Between May and July of 2010, a survey of birds and habitat conducted in ten sky island mountain ranges in northern Sonora, Mexico also documented WYBC in the Cucurpe and El Tigre sky island mountain ranges at elevations ranging from 3,774 to 6,903 feet, and according to the survey report were “presumed breeding”

8

(Flesch et al. 2010)3. Many of the WYBC observations by Flesch et al. were located outside of the more typical deciduous broadleaf riparian woodlands in a variety of habitats, including areas of mesquite and acacia scrub, in desert scrub and semidesert grasslands, and areas dominated by montane shrubs and dense, low deciduous growth in Madrean evergreen woodlands and even montane conifer forest with a shrub component. This research demonstrates that WYBC utilize a variety of microphyllous woodlands and scrub habitats that have not yet been described in the literature (Dr. Aaron Flesch, personal comm. 2/10/15, 02/11/15 and 02/20/15).

Since 2010, four WYBC have been documented in dense pine-oak vegetation on Kitt Peak at an elevation of 6,500 in feet fairly steep terrain. These detections were located near a road and buildings, within proximity to a reservoir and ephemeral springs. However, breeding status has not been established at this site. Also, in 2014 WYBC were detected along a dry wash on the Tohono O’odham in desert scrub with nearby mesquite stands (Karen Howe, personal comm., 02/26/15).

Kunzmann et al. summarize earlier studies of WYBC habitat characteristics, and also suggests WYBC have a wider ecological niche than has been previously understood or documented in the literature, “Dense broadleaf gallery riparian forests with abundant shrub understory are presumed to form an ideal habitat in Arizona. Yet cuckoos are found resident in pecan orchards and other stands that appear to be less than ideal . . . most studies indicate that some combination of community floristics, specific plant species, and or community age play a large role in defining habitat requirements. For example, cottonwood/willow (Populus fremontii/Salix gooddingii) communities are often thought of as primary indicators of "preferred" yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. Undoubtedly this may be true, but upon examination of the data (and as more ecological data becomes available) one finds that yellow-billed cuckoos often have a wider ecological "niche" than originally presumed. Preliminary data in this study suggest that different floristic and synusia combinations are important. However, statistical significance of each variable is dependent upon numerous ecological factors, including but not limited to, the synusia complexity, the relative proportions and extent of the vertical vegetation structures and associated

3 Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264120173_Distribution_abundance_habitat_and_biogeography_of_breeding_birds_in_th e_Sky_Islands_and_adjacent_Sierra_Madre_Occidental_of_northwest_Mexico

9

canopies, floristic composition, hydrological/ riparian moisture gradients responsible for the establishment and maintenance of hydro- and meso-riparian communities . . .”4

One of our own recent WYBC observations substantiates that a variety “non-traditional” floristic and synusia combinations may be suitable as nesting habitat. During the Tucson Bird and Wildlife Festival on August 16, 2014 Tucson Audubon documented an active WYBC nest in a mature oak tree located in Montosa Canyon in the Santa Rita Mountains at 4,275 feet in elevation (Jennie MacFarland, personal comm. 02/02/15; see Figure 5). Montosa Canyon is a typical sky island ephemeral canyon drainage. The occupied nest was located approximately 30 feet from the dry creek bed and near a road. At the time of this nest detection, there was not running surface water in Montosa Canyon. The habitat surrounding the nest site was comprised of mostly oak with some mesquite and nearby sycamores and had a complex understory vegetation structure comprised of various native shrubs and grasses.

Between June and August of 2012, WestLand Resources, Inc. conducted a WYBC survey in several canyons in the Patagonia Mountains for Arizona Minerals Inc. to provide baseline data to support the Coronado National Forest evaluation of the Arizona Minerals, Inc. Hermosa Drilling Project near Patagonia, in Santa Cruz County, Arizona. The report for this survey documented the following results: “WestLand detected YBCU along each of the three transects at a total of eight separate locations during this survey: four detections along Harshaw Creek, four along Corral Canyon, and two along the Hermosa Canyon. Repeat detections in successive surveys, a possible indication of breeding activity (Halterman et al. 2009), did occur along Corral Canyon. However, we did not observe any YBCU breeding behavior during this survey. Therefore, although YBCU could be breeding in the vicinity of the Project, we cannot confirm breeding from this survey. The vegetation associated with locations of YBCU detections was not consistent with the well-developed riparian cottonwood, willow, ash, and mesquite vegetation where YBCU are typically found (Halterman et al. 2009); YBCU detections in our survey were associated with areas that consisted mostly of oak (Quercus spp.) and juniper (Juniperus spp.), and a few scattered sycamore (Plantus wrightii) trees . . . These locations were largely associated with oak, juniper, and sycamore vegetation along drainages. However, we also detected YBCU in upland areas dominated by non-riparian associated shrubs and oak trees.”

4 Kunzmann et al. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Habitat Identification using GPS and GIS Based Survey Information. Available online at: http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP429/p429.htm

10

Collectively, these disparate surveys confirm and corroborate that a subset of WYBC are utilizing a variety of vegetation associations in sky island mountain ranges during their life cycle; both well-developed riparian vegetation, as well as a diversity of non-riparian or upland vegetation associations including Madrean oak, pine-oak, well-developed shrub and desert scrub. While WYBC use of these “non-traditional” habitats is not as well studied as is the “well- developed riparian cottonwood, willow, ash and mesquite vegetation where YBCU are typically found”, the best available science provides a significant body of evidence that supports significantly expanding the CHD into sky island canyon drainages and adjacent uplands. This body of evidence also supports implementing a systematic survey for WYBC in the sky islands.

Levick et al. 2008, describe the importance of intermittent and ephemeral water sources: “Ephemeral and intermittent streams make up approximately 59% of all streams in the United States (excluding Alaska), and over 81% in the arid and semi-arid Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and California) according to the U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset…Ephemeral and intermittent streams provide the same ecological and hydrological functions as perennial streams by moving water, nutrients, and sediment throughout the watershed. When functioning properly, these streams provide landscape hydrologic connections; stream energy dissipation during high-water flows to reduce erosion and improve water quality; surface and subsurface water storage and exchange; ground-water recharge and discharge; sediment transport, storage, and deposition to aid in floodplain maintenance and development; nutrient storage and cycling; wildlife habitat and migration corridors; support for vegetation communities to help stabilize stream banks and provide wildlife services; and water supply and water-quality filtering. They provide a wide array of ecological functions including forage, cover, nesting, and movement corridors for wildlife. Because of the relatively higher moisture content in arid and semi-arid region streams, vegetation and wildlife abundance and diversity in and near them is proportionally higher than in the surrounding uplands.”

We hypothesize that even in the absence of a perennially flowing stream, some montane canyon habitats within the Sky Island Ecoregion have moist enough conditions and the right combination of vegetation composition and structure to support adequate nesting sites and the high insect prey levels that WYBC key in on when selecting their nesting sites.

11

The Federal Register notice does not include any mention of WYBC use or nesting in vegetation types characteristic of sky island drainages and adjacent uplands. However, the FWS CHD Notice states, “In the extreme southern portion of their range in the States of Sonora (southern quarter) and Sinaloa, Mexico, western yellow-billed cuckoos also nest in upland thorn scrub and dry deciduous habitats away from the riparian zone (Russell and Monson 1988, p. 131), though their densities are lower in these habitats than they are in adjacent riparian areas.” Research has shown that for 2-3 weeks before breeding, WYBC may occupy upland vegetation, including pinyon, oak, juniper, and manzanita (Hamilton and Hamilton 1965; Hughes 1999). We suspect a variety of vegetation communities in sky islands of southeast Arizona may be utilized by WYBC in a similar fashion. Such occupancy in adjacent uplands prior to, during or between breeding attempts is an important factor to consider in the delineation of critical habitat boundaries.

It is important to consider that in general, sky island habitats are not as dramatically modified by agriculture as lower elevation floodplains with more developed soils are. Likewise, in the United States, sky island habitats are largely free from the application of pesticides, which are a persistent threat to WYBC and their prey populations lower in the watershed. Therefore, sky islands represent refugia for WYBC from these threats. On the other hand, certain sky island mountain ranges and the downstream creeks and rivers they feed, such as the Santa Rita and Patagonia Mountain ranges and associated watersheds, are threatened by large scale mining proposals.

In conclusion, it is clear from the best scientific information available that some WYBC are indeed utilizing sky island habitats for portions of their life cycles, including prior to breeding, during the breeding season, and even possibly between successive nesting attempts. Therefore, in order to adequately represent the full geographic and ecological distribution of WYBC and safeguard against persistent and emerging threats, we recommend the final CHD be expanded to include and adequately represent vegetation associations in sky island drainages, tributaries and adjacent uplands where WYBC have been detected.

Considerations for Habitat Restoration

Simulation modeling demonstrates that populations of fewer than 10 pairs are very unstable and always become extinct in a short period of time (Richter-Dyn and Goel 1972, Roth 1974); a minimum number of 25 pairs in a subpopulation with interchange to other subpopulations should

12 be reasonably safe from extinction by stochastic events (Hughes 1999). WYBC may recolonize an area if suitable habitat is restored. On experimentally replanted sites (11 hectares) in southern California, WYBC foraged in the second year and nested in the third year following replanting, provided that cottonwood growth averaged 3 meters per year. Sites with growth of 2 meters per year or less were not utilized for foraging or nesting by the third year (Anderson and Laymon 1989), though it is unknown if those habitats were later utilized. Riparian vegetation propagation and site management techniques are outlined in Anderson and Laymon (1989).

In the West, conservation recommendations summarized in Laymon (1980) include: determine the numbers and locations of remnant populations; improve existing, and acquire new riparian habitats; eliminate pesticide spraying adjacent to riparian areas - pesticide load and source should be investigated as significant eggshell thinning and low to moderate levels of DDT and DDE have been detected (Laymon, pers. comm); and investigate feasibility of captive breeding and reintroduction to naturally regenerated or reforested habitat. It is imperative that WYBCs receive adequate regulatory protective status so that conservation measures such as preserves, federal and state imposed land-use limitations, habitat protection and restoration can be implemented (Hughes 1999). Grazing should be removed to allow natural regeneration and encourage increased density of cottonwoods and willows (Laymon 1980).

It is essential to preserve and restore those areas which provide connectivity for species such as the WYBC. Without adequate regulatory mechanisms protecting, conserving, enhancing and restoring those xero, meso and hydroriparian areas connecting the areas already identified in the CHD, Tucson Audubon remains seriously concerned regarding the potential for conservation, restoration, or recovery of the WYBC and the habitats upon which it depends. As it is, the status of Threatened, as opposed to Endangered, while an improvement over candidate status, may not adequately address the needs of the current population of the WYBC, let alone its resurgence.

The FWS WYBC Threatened listing determination discusses habitat restoration in Arizona: “Some restoration projects, especially where existing poor quality, tamarisk-dominated habitat that is occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoo is being removed and higher quality, willow-cottonwood or mesquite habitat is being planted, may require consultation with the Service in order to jointly develop appropriate measures to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects to the western yellow billed cuckoo. However, the

13

process of listing a species as threatened under the Act is not designed to curtail projects that have the potential to benefit that species, and it is unlikely that beneficial tamarisk removal and riparian restoration projects would be negatively impacted from listing the western yellow-billed cuckoo. It is more likely that listing the western yellow- billed cuckoo will complement the recovery efforts and potentially provide additional sources of funding through section 6 of the Act . . . Most locations in Arizona that have western yellow-billed cuckoo populations have not been surveyed regularly enough to provide population trend information. The only two locations with semi-regular monitoring (the Bill Williams River and the San Pedro River) both show downward trends in western yellow-billed cuckoo populations. The western yellow-billed cuckoo population on the Colorado River on the Arizona California border appears to be increasing with the riparian restoration activities at that location. More years of survey data are needed to determine whether or not that is a long-term trend. While the results of the riparian restoration work on the Lower Colorado River are promising, based on the scientific information available we conclude that it is too soon to tell what effect this planned restoration will have on western yellow-billed cuckoo populations. As population goals for recovery of the western yellow-billed cuckoo have not yet been established, it is not known what the overall effect of an addition of the 40 or so pairs of western yellow-billed cuckoos on the Lower Colorado River will have on the overall status of the yellow-billed cuckoo in the West. In addition, so far it appears that western yellow-billed cuckoos nesting on restoration sites tend to have lower nesting success than western yellow- billed cuckoos nesting in areas still containing healthy native riparian forests (McNeil et al. 2012, p. 53).”

The final CHD should encompass reaches along major riparian corridors in the Southwest that have ongoing, planned or anticipated restoration projects and/or hydrologic regimes with the potential to support native riparian forests. Such restoration sites are crucial for future WYBC recolonization and recovery and should therefore be included in the final CHD.

In a journal article reporting on research to improve predictive habitat models for WYBC in Arizona, Villarreal et al. (2014)5 conclude:

5 Villarreal, M.L., C. van Riper, R.E. Petrakis, 2014. Conflation and aggregation of spatial data improve predictive models for species with limited habitats: A case of the threatened yellow-billed cuckoo in Arizona, USA Applied Geography, Volume 47, Pages 57-69

14

“Using the highest performing models, we assessed cuckoo habitat preference and distribution in Arizona and found that major watersheds containing high-probable habitat are fragmented by a wide swath of low-probability habitat. Focus on riparian restoration in these areas could provide more breeding habitat for the threatened cuckoo, offset potential future habitat losses in adjacent watershed, and increase regional connectivity for other threatened vertebrates that also use riparian corridors . . . Nearly all of the models indicate an east-west band of low habitat watersheds (primarily the Lower Gila, Middle Gila and Upper and Lower Salt River watersheds) that divides two core areas of high-probability habitat (the San Pedro and Verde watersheds), effectively fragmenting the north from the south. This fragmentation is in part related to land-cover change and groundwater use in and around the Phoenix metropolitan area that extirpated riparian habitat over the last several decades. Prioritization of habitat restoration along river reaches within these low-habitat watersheds could strengthen cuckoo populations in the state of Arizona and ameliorate losses if watersheds with abundant habitat faced declining conditions. For example, the San Pedro River was identified as containing a substantial amount of high yellow-billed cuckoo habitat, but the riparian habitat is in jeopardy. The San Pedro is one of the last free-flowing rivers in the Southwest whose riparian area now faces potentially catastrophic losses due to a recent Arizona Department of Water Resources decision to allow increased groundwater pumping to support urban growth in nearby Sierra Vista (Karp, 2013). If these changes were to materialize, small riparian restoration and conservation efforts in adjacent and more rural watersheds identified as important with our models might possibly offset these potential losses to yellow-billed cuckoo habitat on the San Pedro.”

The FWS Threatened determination for the WYBC comes to a similar conclusion, “In summary, despite efforts to protect and restore riparian habitat along the Sacramento River and Colorado River and elsewhere in the range of the western yellow-billed cuckoo, these efforts offset only a small fraction of historical habitat that has been lost. Therefore, the threats resulting from the species’ behavioral response to the multiple, combined effects of small and widely separated habitat patches exacerbate the effect of other threats within a large portion of the range of the western yellow-billed cuckoo.” Therefore, we recommend that the Villarreal et al. study and associated models should inform the extent and configuration of the final CHD in Arizona. Again, we refer to the FWS Endangered Species Listing Handbook guidance: “Few species have static distributions. Allow for species dynamics in the critical habitat. If the species requires

15 ephemeral habitats, consider where the future habitats might be relative to the present ones.” And, “These areas can include the entire known range, portions thereof, and/or additional suitable habitat or areas in need of restoration.” Because the primary threat to WYBC is extensive habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, and also because WYBC generally have low site fidelity and can move among habitats seasonally or breed in different locations from year to year (Villerreal 2014, Hughes 1999), the final CHD should include areas where “future habitats might be relative to the present ones”, and “areas in need of restoration.”

Some commenters have suggested that designating critical habitat in ongoing or future restoration sites could hamper restoration projects from moving forward. Tucson Audubon does not anticipate this would be a limitation. Rather, we anticipate that consultation with the FWS triggered by project proposals located in designated critical habitat will help to avoid and minimize any unintentional negative impacts to WYBC (and also listed species such as the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher) and will likely improve overall restoration project design, implementation and monitoring. Federal funding through Section 6 of the ESA may also be more likely to be prioritized in or adjacent to designated critical habitat.

The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical habitat’’ under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), including whether there are threats to the western yellow-billed cuckoo from human activity that can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.

We provide the following reasons from authoritative sources as to why FWS should designate critical habitat for the WYBC:

Some 80 percent of vertebrate species in the arid southwest region are dependent on riparian areas for at least part of their life cycle; over half of these cannot survive without access to riparian areas (Noss and Peters 1995). Arizona and New Mexico have lost 90 percent of pre- settlement riparian ecosystems (Fig 3e, Noss et al. 1995). The Nature Conservancy lists the Fremont cottonwood-Gooding willow riparian community as highly imperiled. In Arizona and New Mexico, more than 100 federally and state listed species are associated with cottonwood- willow bosques (Noss and Peters 1995).

16

The American Bird Conservancy’s report on the “Top Twenty Most Threatened Bird Habitats in the United States” lists Southwestern Riparian Habitat as the fifth most threatened in the nation. This increasingly rare habitat type, epitomized by the Lower San Pedro River watershed, is described as occupying only a tiny fraction of the land area while supporting the largest concentrations of animal and plant life, and the majority of species diversity in the desert southwest, a designated “hotspot” of biological diversity. The report states “The scarcity of water in the Southwest makes rivers and streams particularly important for sustaining the region’s communities. This dependence places a severe strain on natural ecosystems. Achieving riparian habitat conservation depends on public agency buy-in to broad-scale land management plans and the successful provision of incentives to private property owners to restore their degraded land. Riparian areas take time to recover . . . Currently, though efforts to restore riparian areas are being considerably outpaced by the rate at which they are being lost, making these vibrant ecosystems an ever-rarer feature of the Southwest.”6

The Arizona Partners in Flight (AzPIF) Bird Conservation Plan states, “Riparian woodlands comprise a very limited geographical area that is entirely disproportionate to their landscape importance, recreational value, and immense biological interest (Lowe and Brown 1973). It has been estimated that only 1% of the western United States historically constituted this habitat type, and that 95% of the historic total has been altered or destroyed in the past 100 years (Krueper 1993, 1996) . . . Riparian woodlands are among the most severely threatened habitats within Arizona . . . Maintenance of existing patches of this habitat, and restoration of mature riparian deciduous forests should be among the top conservation priorities in the state”.7

Riparian woodlands in the desert southwest are an extremely important resource because they constitute <1% of the desert landscape, yet typically support >50% of the breeding birds. Indeed, the positive effects of even a degraded riparian area in central Arizona extend up to 1 km into the adjacent uplands (Szaro and Jakle 1985). Riparian woodlands also provide shelter and critical food resources for dozens of species of migratory birds that stop in these woodlands during their spring and fall migrations. From 2006 – 2008, Kirkpatrick et al found that riparian areas contained 68% more species and 75% more individual birds compared to adjacent uplands, with this pattern holding true for both the breeding and non-breeding bird communities. They state:

6 American Bird Conservancy report “Top Wenty Most Threatened Bird Habitats in the United States”. Available online at: http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/habitatreport.pdf 7 Arizona Partners In Flight, Bird Conservation Plan. Available online at: http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/partners_flight/APIF%20Conservation%20Plan.1999.Final.pdf 17

“First, should long-term drought conditions persist and/or ground water levels fall to the point where surface water flows are reduced or eliminated, populations of breeding (e.g., Black Phoebe, Common Yellowthroat, Yellow Warbler, Song Sparrow, and Lesser Goldfinch) and migrant (e.g., Yellow-rumped Warbler and Wilson’s Warbler) species are likely to decline. Second, should long-term drought conditions persist and/or ground water levels fall to the point that riparian vegetation is negatively affected, populations of breeding species such as Bell’s Vireos, Yellow Warblers, and others are likely to decline . . . Three species that inhabit low- elevation riparian woodland are considered Arizona PIF priority species: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extremus), Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), and Lucy’s Warbler (Vermivora luciae). The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo are considered wildlife of special concern in Arizona . . . and are federally listed as endangered and candidate species, respectively (Federal Register 1996) . . . An additional 8 species that inhabit low-elevation riparian woodland are considered Arizona PIF preliminary priority species: Brown-crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus tyrannulus), Northern Beardless-tyrannulet (Camptostoma imberbe), Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii), Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia), Rufous-winged Sparrow (Aimophila carpalis), Abert’s Towhee (Pipilo aberti), and Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra).”

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), pursuant to A.C.C. R18-11-112, has designated “unique waters” or “Outstanding Arizona Waters” (OAWs) as having exceptional recreational or ecological significance and/or providing habitat for threatened or endangered species. There are only 22 OAWs in the entire state of Arizona and the designation includes a “no degradation” standard. Both Davidson Canyon Creek and Cienega Creek are formally designated OAWs. The Davidson Creek and Cienega Creek watershed provides one fifth of the groundwater recharge for the Tucson basin. Other designations include Aravaipa Creek from its confluence with Stowe Gulch to the downstream boundary of Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Area (Aravaipa Canyon and Lower San Pedro basins) and Buehman Canyon Creek from its headwaters to approximately 9.8 miles downstream (Lower San Pedro Basin). The designation of critical habitat for these outstanding waters will reinforce the protection of these OAWs and the WYBC habitat they support.

The CHD should not be limited to sites where WYBC breeding is currently documented. Areas that provide foraging habitat, stop-over sites, as well as current and future habitat connectivity should be included in the CHD. Without adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect, conserve,

18 enhance and restore those riparian areas adjacent to and connecting the units identified in the proposed CHD, we remain concerned regarding the prospects for recovery of the WYBC and the habitats upon which it depends. Therefore, an inclusive, comprehensive CHD for the WYBC across its full range is not only defensible, it is crucial in order to ensure consultation occurs with FWS on developments with a federal nexus with the potential to affect WYBC and to encourage the implementation of effective conservation and mitigation measures. As discussed above, the final CHD should include reaches of riparian corridors where ecological restoration can readily create future WYBC habitat and improve overall habitat health and landscape-level connectivity.

Threats

All of the well-documented anthropogenic influences that threaten WYBC with extinction should be considered in both the delineation and management of the final CHD.

Water Impoundment and Diversion

Among US Federal register notices listing plants and animals as endangered species, water impoundment and diversion are among the most frequently cited threats mentioned. Inundating vegetation in reservoirs behind dams and changes in river flow are among the most severe pressures on threatened plants and nesting birds in the US/Mexico borderlands. The regional decline of 36 of the 82 breeding bird species which formerly used riparian woodlands is a case in point. In combination with water diversion, groundwater pumping has affected nearly all river valleys in Arizona’s portion of the Sonoran Desert. In the heart of agricultural areas, groundwater overuse has been most precipitous, leading to ground subsidence, salinization and the demise of riparian forests (Nabhan and Holdsworth 1998, p. 2).

A controversial water diversion project proposed for the Gila River has been recently approved by New Mexico’s Interstate Stream Commission. The diversion project comes under the Arizona 2004 Water Settlements Act, which gives New Mexico the right to develop an additional 14,000 acre feet of water on the Gila River. Tucson Audubon is opposed to the proposed Gila River diversion project because of its potential negative impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats of the Gila River corridor, especially threatened species such as the WYBC. Such water diversions in New Mexico will invariably reduce flows downstream, which in turn will rob water crucial to the maintenance of riparian forests and woodlands that comprise WYBC critical habitat. Diversions on the Gila in New Mexico, in tandem with predicted megadrought,

19 spell potential disaster for water availability and riparian habitats downstream on the Gila and Lower Colorado Rivers.

Ongoing water diversion occurring in Aravaipa Canyon poses a similar threat to the maintenance of riparian habitats and aquatic life downstream on Aravaipa Creek and the Lower San Pedro River. The best available science supports the designation of critical habitat along the entire length of Aravaipa Canyon, all the way to its confluence with the Lower San Pedro River. The west-most boundary of the proposed Aravaipa Canyon unit currently ends just upstream from the confluence of Javelina Canyon and Aravaipa Creek. However, the USGS animal habitat model for the WYBC indicates the reach of Aravaipa Creek between its confluence with Javelina Canyon, and its confluence with the Lower San Pedro River, supports an extensive string of suitable WYBC habitat that should be included in the final CHD. Our spatial analysis also determined that there is a HDMS block just downstream from Aravaipa Creek's confluence with Cave Canyon, as well as one eBird observation in that same reach.

Habitat connectivity and hydrologic connectivity at this major confluence should be an important consideration in the delineation of the final critical habitat boundaries. Both the proposed San Pedro and Aravaipa critical habitat units are directly connected by hydrology, and therefore the delineation of the critical habitat boundaries should reflect this connectivity. While we recognize designating critical habitat along this reach may be politically sensitive, the final CHD should adhere to and be based upon the best available science standard, as required by the Endangered Species Act. It is the only legally defensible position for the Service to take.

Agriculture

Perhaps the most important current and past stressor on the population viability of WYBCs in the desert southwest has been agriculture, particularly grazing of riparian areas. Many of the WYBC breeding subpopulations that remain in the southwest are on land protected from grazing. It is imperative that WYBCs receive adequate regulatory protective status so that conservation measures such as preserves, federal and state imposed land-use limitations, habitat protection and restoration can be implemented (Hughes 1999). Grazing should be removed to allow natural regeneration and encourage increased density of cottonwoods and willows (Laymon 1980). The application of pesticides should also be restricted in and adjacent to designated critical habitat, as pesticides can cause direct mortality to nestlings and can dramatically reduce WYBC prey populations, creating an ecological trap whereby WYBC are attracted because of habitat characteristics but are abandoned due to lack of sufficient prey.

20

Mining

 Resolution Copper Project (Rio Tinto): This proposed, massive block-cave mining project threatens surface and subsurface water availability (and quality), that supports WYBC habitat on Queen Creek, Mineral Creek and at the confluence of Devil’s Canyon with Hackberry Creek and Oak Creek.  Rosemont Copper Project (HudBay): This proposed open pit copper mine located in the Santa Rita Mountains has the potential to directly destroy WYBC habitat in Barrel and McCleary Canyons and the potential to reduce water quantity and quality and thus degrade WYBC habitat located downstream in Davidson Canyon and Cienega Creek, both OAWs.  Hermosa (Wildcat Silver) and Sunnyside (Regal Resources) Projects: These proposed mineral exploration and associated mining projects located in the Patagonia Mountains have the potential to directly and indirectly adversely impact WYBC habitat in Harshaw Creek, Sonoita Creek, Corral Canyon, Hermosa Canyon and Humboldt Canyon.  Copper Creek (Red Hawk and Angloamerican): Currently undergoing exploratory work. If mineral resources are proved, this could develop into a large mining proposal that could adversely affect WYBC habitat and the integrity of the watersheds of nearby Aravaipa Canyon and the San Pedro River.

Invasion of Tamarisk

The FWS determination of the WYBC as a Threatened species concludes, “ . . . because of the absence or near absence of nesting by western yellow-billed cuckoos in nearly monotypic stands of tamarisk and other nonnative vegetation, the available literature suggests that conversion of native or mixed (native and nonnative) riparian woodlands to nearly monotypic stands of tamarisk and other nonnative vegetation, coupled with the inability of native vegetation to regenerate under altered hydrological conditions, is a significant threat to the western yellow billed cuckoo now and in the future. Nonnative vegetation, such as tamarisk, occurs across most of the range of the western yellow-billed cuckoo; its establishment can be caused by altered hydrology or other disturbances, which are widespread throughout the range. We expect nonnative vegetation to increasingly modify and curtail habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo within a majority of its range in the United States and northern Mexico into the future.” Therefore, riparian habitats that have not been completely taken over by exotic tamarisk are particularly critical for the continued nesting success of WYBC.

21

Mesquite Clearing – Senate Bill 1478 In 2014, the Arizona Legislature and Governor passed Senate Bill 1478, which authorized the use of Arizona Water Protection Fund monies for the removal of mesquite trees under the auspices of water conservation. This misguided bill was passed into law despite the fact that its water conservation premise has been discredited with scientific data, and was opposed by prominent conservation organizations. Unfortunately, this new state law does not distinguish between upland scrub mesquite and riparian woodland, nor does it recognize the habitat and conservation value of the native velvet mesquite for imperiled species such as WYBC. It is unclear at this time whether the WYBC CHD will have any impact whatsoever upon the amount of riparian mesquite bosque habitat that is cleared and/or converted to other ground cover types in Arizona. However, it is clear that this law and the funding stream it creates for clearing native mesquite bosque habitat is an emerging threat to the WYBC and other listed species, such as the SWWF. As discussed in detail above, riparian woodlands are a highly endangered forest type in the Southwest. Riparian mesquite not only supports a diverse range of wildlife species, including WYBC, it is a drought-tolerant shade tree that will become increasingly important to maintain in the face of a predicted hotter and drier climate. Therefore, the removal of mesquite, particularly in and adjacent to designated critical habitats should be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible. The Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance has more detailed information available on this topic at http://www.lowersanpedro.org.

Long-term Drought and Climate Change Because of their reliance on mature riparian gallery forests, WYBC are vulnerable to the effects of long-term drought and climate change. Riparian forests are reliant upon the availability of sufficient surface and subsurface water, which will invariably be strained by increasingly hot and dry conditions associated with prolonged droughts and climate change predicted for the desert Southwest. See page 30 for further discussion.

Specific information on: (a) The amount and distribution of western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat;

(b) What areas occupied at the time of listing (i.e., are currently occupied), that contain features essential to the conservation of the western yellow-billed cuckoo, should be included in the critical habitat designation and why;

22

As discussed above, the available data show that some WYBC are selecting sky island canyon habitats and adjacent uplands for at least some portion of their life cycle. While less survey data exists in sky island habitats, WYBC presence and breeding behavior has been documented. Sky island canyon habitats where WYBC are being detected are distinct from the more typical WYBC habitat (i.e. riparian gallery forests and woodlands associated with wide, lower elevation floodplains). Despite limited data, sky island habitats clearly support the life history processes of the species. Therefore, we urge the FWS to consider expanding the definitions of the primary constituent elements to include sky island habitats, and to expand the final CHD accordingly to include major sky island drainages and adjacent uplands where WYBC have been documented.

We especially call to your attention the additional areas recommended for inclusion in the CHD as well as correction of mapping errors mentioned by the ABC, LSPWA, CCA and the US Forest Service.

Based upon our spatial analysis of the proposed CHD in relation to WYBC occurrences in the Arizona Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Important Bird Area Surveys, eBird sightings, and the USGS SWReGAP Yellow-billed cuckoo Animal Habitat Model, we recommend the FWS revisit the following areas and consider including additional units or expanding existing units in the final CHD:

 Patagonia Mountains: 13 HDMS blocks and eBird observations along Sonoita Creek, Harshaw Creek, Hermosa Canyon, Corral Canyon, Goldbaum Canyon, Willow Spring Canyon, Washington Gulch and other observations in Flux Canyon

 Chiricahua Mountains: 2 HDMS blocks and EBird observations on Cave, Silver and East Turkey Creeks

 2 HDMS blocks along Babomocari River near Elgin and at the confluence of the Babomocari River and Turkey Creek; and 4 HDMS blocks, EBird locations and USGS modeled habitat along O’Donnell Canyon and Turkey Creek

 Tanque Verde Creek from Coronado Forest and Saguaro National Park east almost to Harrison Road, encompassing the pond at Tanque Verde Guest Ranch, where planning for a proposed additional 178 residential units is underway, and the spring and lake nearby at the La Cebadilla development

23

 Santa Cruz River: South of Speedway Blvd to Congress; south of Valencia centered on Los Reales Road; north of the Avra Valley Airport in Marana; North of the confluence of the Santa Cruz River with the Robles Wash and the Blanco Wash; Green Valley/Sahuarita area east of I-10 along the Continental Rd alignment along confluence with Madera Canyon Wash; 4 HDMS blocks, USGS modeled habitat and EBird observations near Amado along the Santa Cruz River near confluence with Montosa Canyon and further south towards Tubac and beyond in Santa Cruz County, 1 HDMS block and USGS modeled habitat along the Sopori Wash. Corrida de Toros and Camino Agua Fria, between the wash that parallels Paseo Mexico and the Santa Cruz/Portrero sewage treatment ponds, and the two HDMS blocks just north of Nogales along Portrero creek and the Santa Cruz River; 2 HDMS blocks at Sweetwater Wetlands; 2 HDMS blocks on the Santa Cruz River just north of the US/Mexico international border.

 HDMS block west of Wilmot southeast of Littletown near Interstate 10

 Santa Rita Mountains: HDMS blocks, USGS modeled habitat and EBird observation in the Elephant Head/Chino Canyon area, Madera Canyon, Barrel Canyon, McCleary Canyon, Montosa Canyon, Casa Blanca Canyon, Agua Caliente Canyon and Gardner Canyon. The proposed Florida Canyon unit should be expanded to encompass all adjacent suitable WYBC habitats both upstream and downstream (e.g. USGS modeled habitat downstream and eBird observations upstream)

 Huachuca Mountains: HDMS and eBird locations in McClure Canyon, Garden Canyon and unnamed canyons south of Rock Springs Canyon and Garden Ridge; EBird locations in Scotia Canyon, Scheelite Canyon, Huachuca Canyon, Ramsey Canyon, Carr Canyon, Miller Canyon and Montezuma Canyon

 Tributaries located south of Ruby Rd (289) and south of the lake, Sycamore Creek near the international border and northwards toward Ruby Rd. Numerous EBird sitings south of the Ruby Road along Oro Blanco drainages, California Gulch, Warsaw Canyon and Glory Canyon

 Location west of proposed critical habitat unit along Aravaipa Creek – The final CHD should be expanded to encompass the entire length of Aravaipa Canyon, all the way from the currently proposed western boundary at the Javelina Creek confluence to Aravaipa Creek’s confluence with the Lower San Pedro River (see discussion, page 18)

24

 HDMS block southeast of Superior along Oak, Rancho Rio and Hackberry Creeks, Devil’s Canyon confluence area

 3 HDMS blocks in the Mineral Creek, Potters Wash, Tillman’s Wash and Milky Wash confluence area

 2 HDMS blocks on Campaign Creek

 4 HDMS blocks and USGS modeled habitat west of the Salt River unit on the southeastern end of Theodore Roosevelt Lake near confluence with Griffin Wash

 HDMS block and USGS modeled habitat at Coon and Dry creek confluence with the Salt River

 HDMS block on Cherry Creek near De Vore Spring and confluence with Dagger Canyon

 HDMS block on Queen Creek near the Whitlow Ranch Flood Control Basin, and eBird locations and USGS modeled habitat on Queen Creek south of SR 60 near confluence with Silver King Wash

 Horseshoe Dam Unit needs to be expanded both north to encompass HDMS block at confluence of Verde River, Tangle Creek and Sycamore Creek and to the south to encompass HDMS blocks, USGS modeled habitat and eBird observation near Hell Canyon confluence / below Sunset Mountain as well as an HDMS block and USGS modeled habitat further south at the confluence with Davenport Wash

 3 HDMS blocks and USGS modeled habitat located southwest and east of the confluence of Verde River, along the Salt River. A new CHD unit should be created to encompass this major confluence, which provides hydrologic and habitat connectivity

 Pinal Creek unit should be expanded to encompass 2 HDMS blocks to the south at the confluence of Pinal Creek and Hicks Wash and Horseshoe Bend Wash

 2 HDMS blocks along Red Creek

 HDMS block and USGS modeled habitat at the confluence of Houston Creek, Squaw Creek, East Verde and Verde Rivers

 Oak Creek Unit should be expanded southward to include 2 HDMS blocks and USGS modeled habitat on Oak Creek near Cornville

25

 2 HDMS blocks on Dry Beaver Creek southwest of Highway 179

 HDMS block at the confluence of Butte, Miller and Granite Creeks in Prescott and eBird observations and USGS modeled habitat at Granite Creek north of Watson Lake

 HDMS block near the confluence of Arrastre Creek and Hassayampa River

 2 HDMS blocks on Agua Fria river southwest of Black Canyon City

 HDMS block and USGS modeled habitat east of Agua Fria unit on Silver Creek

 HDMS block near the confluence of Cow, Cottonwood and Humbug Creeks

 2 HDMS blocks and USGS modeled habitat on Antelope Creek

 HDMS block on Agua Fria River south of confluence with Slate Creek

 HDMS Block and USGS modeled habitat near Cave Creek and Cottonwood Creek confluence

 HDMS blocks and eBird locations on Tonto Creek, and at confluence of Brady Canyon and Rye Creek

 2 HDMS units at confluence of Ash Creek and South Fork Ash Creek

 4 HDMS blocks at Dos Cabezas, along Mascot, Philadelphia and Bean Canyons

 South of the Colorado River: HDMS locations and USGS modeled habitat between proposed southern boundary and the US / Mexico border

 Colorado River 1 Unit should be expanded to encompass numerous contiguous HDMS blocks, USGS modeled habitat and eBird locations southeast of the Colorado River’s bend near Palo Verde / Cibola, to include suitable habitat and tributaries such as Crazy Woman Wash

 HDMS block on Pia Oik Wash near Menager’s Lake

 Two HDMS blocks and USGS modeled habitat east of Black Draw unit on Hay Hollow Wash

 Two HDMS blocks on the Little Colorado River and tributaries north of Springerville

 HDMS block in area near St John’s along Little Colorado River

26

 Two HDMS blocks on Puerco River in Apache County south of I-40 east of Petrified Forest

 Area along tributary east of Highway 89 along Townsend Winona Rd north of I-40; include eBird observations

(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in areas we are proposing as critical habitat, including managing for the potential effects of climate change;

We recommend the following recommendations for management consideration:  Develop mechanisms with stakeholders that incentivize the protection, maintenance and/or restoration of sources of surface and subsurface water. Important water sources include springs, seeps, shallow groundwater areas, and sources of reclaimed wastewater. For example, a water market system, to include conservation-dedicated leases and water banks, could provide mechanisms to allocate sufficient water to maintain native habitat, particularly for the more drought-intolerant species such as Cottonwood and willow.  Restrict groundwater pumping in the CHD and develop mechanisms to proactively protect shallow groundwater areas from over-pumping in adjacent areas connected to the CHD by hydrology.  Avoid, minimize and/or adequately mitigate for all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts from mining, to include habitat destruction and modification, disturbance, as well as downstream water quantity and quality.  Discourage cattle grazing (particularly overgrazing) in riparian corridors and adjacent uplands located in and adjacent to the CHD. Create grass banks in conjunction with stakeholders to allow for degraded riparian areas and adjacent uplands to be rested in response to range conditions and stream health. Assist with the maintenance of cattle fencing designed to keep stray cattle from entering established riparian habitats, potential habitat, restoration sites and/or other conservation lands.  Develop programs to reduce and or eliminate pesticide application within CHD boundaries, as well as in adjacent lands that are directly connected by hydrology, such that point and non-point sources of the most harmful pesticides are adequately considered.

27

 Avoid to the greatest extent practicable the clearing of native riparian forest, woodland and shrubland in association with mining, agricultural production or development projects. Where it is unavoidable, mitigation should take the form of restoration, including the procurement of water rights and conservation easements as close as possible to the area of impact in like habitat.  Prohibit / strongly discourage the clearing of mesquite in the CHD and develop educational programs to discourage this practice both in the CHD and in adjacent lands that comprise occupied and potential WYBC habitat.  Avoid routing roads, transmission or pipelines, and recreational trails and other developments adjacent to or through known or suspected nesting habitats.  Encourage the construction of low impact, natural channel design structures in conjunction with vegetation restoration projects to improve water infiltration, enhance soil moisture, reduce or reverse down-cutting and excessive erosion, and support the development and maintenance of native vegetation.

(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the western yellow-billed cuckoo and why.

As mentioned above in our discussion of critical habitat in the context of restoration, degraded floodplains along major rivers and watercourses dominated by tamarisk may not have been occupied by WYBC at the time of listing. However, such reaches, especially those with hydrologic regimes that can support and/or would benefit from the restoration and maintenance of native vegetation, are clearly essential for the conservation of the WYBC.

Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and for those specific areas whether the benefits of potentially excluding them outweigh the benefits of including them, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For specific lands that we should consider for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, please provide us management plans, conservation easements, agreements, habitat conservation plans (HCP), or other appropriate information, that describe the commitment and assurances of protection of the physical or biological features of western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat; property boundaries; western yellow-billed cuckoo status, distribution, and abundance;

28 and management actions to protect the physical or biological features of the western yellow-billed cuckoo.

As of this writing, Pima County’s Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan is still in draft form, and therefore WYBC habitats that would ostensibly be covered under this HCP should not be excluded from the CHD. Similarly, both the City of Tucson and the Town of Marana have developed draft HCP’s that have not been approved or adopted, and therefore WYBC habitats located in these jurisdictions should not be excluded.

Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas, and their possible impacts on the proposed critical habitat.

 Important Bird Area Designations  Ongoing and proposed habitat restoration projects, including tamarisk removal/control projects  Clean Water Act (potential West-wide review of jurisdictional waters)  Outstanding Arizona Waters Designations  Designated and Qualified Wild and Scenic Rivers  Pima County’s Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation Lands System and Draft MSCP  City of Tucson Water Department Draft MSCP  Town of Marana Draft MSCP  Southwest Willow Flycatcher Critical Habitat Designation  San Pedro RNCA  Las Cienegas NCA  Sierra Vista development and associated groundwater pumping  Proposed mines and mining exploration projects (Resolution Copper, Rosemont Copper, Hermosa, Sunnyside, Copper Creek, etc.)  Planned electric transmission corridors (e.g. SunZia, the Nogales Interconnect and Southline)  Mesquite clearing, particularly in Arizona in relation to SB 1478  Areas of shallow groundwater (less than or equal to 50 feet from the surface)  Proposed housing developments (e.g. Tanque Verde Guest Ranch, Sopori, etc.)  Proposed and ongoing water diversion projects (e.g. recently approved Gila River diversion project, ongoing water diversions in Aravaipa Creek, etc.)

29

Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the western yellow-billed cuckoo and proposed critical habitat.

NASA and NOAA confirmed that globally, and specifically in Arizona, 2014 was the hottest year in the modern record.8 Increased temperatures result in increased evaporation, and thus greater soil desiccation, which in turn may result in the loss of riparian vegetation and/or contribute to undesirable vegetation type conversions, exotic species invasions and devastating wildfires.

In February 2012, University of Arizona’s Institute of the Environment climate expert Gregg Garfin, deputy director for science translation and outreach, assistant specialist, and assistant professor of climate, natural resources and policy in the School of Natural Resources and the Environment, said signs of climate change in the region already are prevalent in the Southwest: rising temperatures, earlier snowmelt, record-setting drought, plummeting Colorado River reservoir storage, widespread vegetation mortality, and more large wildfires.(Garfin et al 2014)9.

Seager et al (2007) projects a transition to a sustained drier climate that begins in the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the southwestern United States and parts of northern Mexico where the American Southwest experiences a severe drying. Seager explains the drying that is imminent or already under way is unlike any climate state we have seen in the instrumental record. It is also distinct from the multidecadal megadroughts that afflicted the American Southwest during Medieval times. The most severe future droughts will still occur during persistent La Niña events, but they will be worse than any since the Medieval period, because the La Niña conditions will be perturbing a base state that is drier than any state experienced recently (Seager et al, Science, 25 May 2007, Vol. 316, pp. 1181-1184).

A study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate predicts that we have a 30-50% chance of experiencing a devastating “megadrought” in southeast Arizona in the coming century. According to the study by Cornell University, the University of Arizona and the U.S. Geological Service, southeast Arizona is among the regions of the Southwest that have the highest level of megadrought risk. Megadroughts can last more than 35 years and can bring extreme temperatures that further desiccate already parched landscapes. On June 23, 1999, the Arizona Division of Emergency Management declared a statewide drought emergency

8 See online at: http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VO9vVfnF-So

9 See also online at: http://environment.arizona.edu/news/tucson-climate-plan

30

(PCA99006) which remains in effect as a “current open disaster” at the time of this writing over 15 years later.

Echoing Seager et al, a new study, "Unprecedented 21st-Century Drought Risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains," states that future droughts could far exceed those of the Medieval period. The current drought directly affects more than 64 million people in the Southwest and Southern Plains, according to NASA, and many more are indirectly affected because of the impacts on agricultural regions. "Even when selecting for the worst megadrought-dominated period, the 21st century projections make the megadroughts seem like quaint walks through the Garden of Eden." said Jason E. Smerdon, a co-author and climate scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, part of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

"The surprising thing to us was really how consistent the response was over these regions, nearly regardless of what model we used or what soil moisture metric we looked at," said lead author Benjamin I. Cook of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Lamont- Doherty Earth Observatory. "It all showed this really, really significant drying."10

The best available science clearly indicates that climate change is both a current and foreseeable stressor for WYBC populations. Historically, WYBC have nested as far north as British Columbia and as far south as Mexico, indicating some flexibility and adaptability in their climatic requirements (ABC 2005). This same flexibility and adaptability is also evidenced by the wide range of habitats WYBC have been documented utilizing in the greater Sky Island / Sonoran desert Ecoregion. WYBC have relatively low site fidelity, which provides this subspecies with an inherent ability to adapt to changing habitat conditions from year to year— conditions that are driven in large part by climactic events and trends. In a megadrought scenario, reduced and/or patchy precipitation, dramatically increased evaporation and evapotranspiration, in addition to human diversions and unsustainable groundwater pumping and increasing use of reclaimed water for human uses, will collectively contribute to the drying of springs, creeks, and rivers in the West. Therefore, areas higher up in the watersheds of mountain ranges, which receive greater amounts of precipitation and will have cooler temperatures, may become increasingly important for WYBC and their prey populations.

10 Benjamin I. Cook, Toby R. Ault, Jason E. Smerdon. Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Science Advances, 12 February 2015 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400082

31

In a 2005 report to the Environmental Protection Agency by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), modeling results suggest that even with no change in climate, a decrease in coverage by pioneer woody vegetation across the floodplain of the upper San Pedro River will occur over the next 100 years. In particular, coverage of cottonwood/willow patches may decline. Recruitment of cottonwood/willow depends heavily on the formation of moist, mineral seedbeds by channel migration and on the timing of floods. Hence, the influence of climate change on pioneer riparian communities will depend largely on how precipitation regimes change. Warmer and drier conditions will favor: the replacement of the cottonwood/willow riparian forest by grasslands and mesquite scrubland that are better adapted to mesic or xeric conditions; an increase in the representation of the invasive shrub saltcedar in the basin; and higher fire frequencies. If there is no change or if warmer, drier scenarios prevail, ABC projects a reduction of about 25% in the overall avian biodiversity of the SPRNCA. Furthermore, this 25% is comprised largely of the rarer species with restricted distributions such as the Western yellow-billed cuckoo, Grey hawk and Green kingfisher that attract most of the ecotourism visitors to the area (ABC 2005).

Van Riper et al modeled projected adaptation to climate change in the arid southwestern US for a variety of avian and reptile species and found that virtually all recent extirpations have been the result of direct human causes, including over-harvest and the destruction of critical habitats such as native riparian corridors (Collar and others, 1997; Czech and Krausman, 1997). Water is limited and quite influential in this semi-arid to arid region, and riparian areas, rivers, and streams have been dramatically altered to serve human purposes other than the conservation of biodiversity (Reisner, 1986; Barnett and others, 2008).

In 2012, the Coronado National Forest (CNF) produced “An Assessment of Climate Change and the Vulnerability of Wildlife in the Sky Islands of the Southwest”.11 The WYBC’s climate change vulnerability ranking was 8.4, on a scale that ranged from -20 to +20. This ranking is a composite ranking that is based upon anticipated effects of climate change upon WYBC habitat, physiology and phenology. Of the thirty species evaluated, WYBC tied as the 5th most vulnerable species. The CNF report utilizes available scientific literature to inform these rankings. In terms of habitat on southeast Arizona, the report states, “Riparian habitats are predicted to decline due to decreased stream flows on average (increased aridity and decreased snowpack), increased fire frequency, and possible changes to the flood regime (earlier peak flows) . . . Decrease in average annual stream flows (from reduced precipitation)

11 An Assessment of Climate Change and the Vulnerability of Wildlife in the Sky Islands of the Southwest. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr273.pdf

32 likely to increase distance to water and reduce suitably sized trees.” WYBC winter primarily in South America. The CNF assessment states, “Overall, preferred wintering habitat for yellow- billed cuckoos (woody vegetation near water) in northern South America is likely to decline due to drying conditions and expected decrease of mangroves.” In terms of potential effects upon phenology, the CNF report states, “Typically, increases in insect abundance (a critical resource) occur in spring; changes in the timing of precipitation and increases in temperature have the potential to alter the timing of insect availability and abundance and, hence, fecundity . . . Anders and Post (2006) suggested that warmer winters may lead to earlier spring peaks in the abundance of Lepidoptera species that the yellow-billed cuckoos feed on which could lead to it missing the peak in food abundance since individuals arrive fairly late to the breeding grounds.”

Therefore, the final CHD for the WYBC should take into consideration the potentially serious impacts climate change will have upon WYBC physiology and phenology, especially as they relate to breeding, foraging, stop-over and dispersal habitats and prey populations. One way the proposed CHD can better factor in climate change is to include key tributaries where WYBC have been detected at the time of listing, incorporate habitat and hydrologic connectivity, areas with high potential for ecological restoration, and adequately represent unique, higher elevation sky island habitats that may serve as refugia from extremely dry and hot conditions, and may also potentially function as important breeding sites in a hotter, drier future.

Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating as critical habitat any particular area that may be included in the final designation and the benefits of including or excluding areas where these impacts occur.

Positive Economic Impacts of Ecosystem Services

Birds contribute irreplaceable ecosystem services: according to the American Bird Conservancy’s 2007 report, “Birds play an important role in maintaining the ecosystems on which humans depend to maintain our quality of life and civilization. For example, birds eat billions of insects each year that left unchecked could decimate our crops. Birds also play an important role as pollinators, providing a fundamental service to agricultural production that simply cannot be replaced by other means. According to the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, birds eat up to 98% of budworms and up to 40% of all non-outbreak insect species in eastern forests. The value of this insect control has been estimated to be as much as $5,000 per year per square mile of forest.”

33

“Birds are also superb “canaries in the coal mine”, or indicators of environmental health and change. Rapid declines in bird numbers have alerted us to the harm being caused to humans and the environment by toxic chemicals. And birds, by virtue of their insect control services, can help prevent the spread of insect-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, both formerly prevalent in the wetlands of the arid southwest. The knowledge we gain from birds directly affects our quality of life and our understanding of how economic development can be made more environmentally sustainable.”12

Maintaining sustainable rural and urban landscapes is important for the public health, safety, and quality of life of all Arizonans and New Mexicans. The results from the 2012 Colorado College State of the Rockies Conservation in the West poll find that Arizona and New Mexico voters across the political spectrum—from Tea Party supporters to those who identify with the Occupy Wall Street movement and voters in-between—support upholding and strengthening protections for clean air, clean water, natural areas and wildlife. Voters also view Arizona’s and New Mexico’s parks and public lands as essential to their state’s economy and quality of life.13 Sustainable forestry, agriculture and ranching practices can help to maintain and restore the vitality of our communities while also helping to preserve our culture, natural landscapes and ecosystems. It only makes common sense that it should be our general policy to support the maintenance, enhancement and restoration of ecosystem values and services throughout the state, focusing on the protection of land, water, air, soil and native flora and fauna upon which our human health and safety depend.

Positive Economic Impacts of Habitat Protection

Audubon members enjoy birding, hiking, wildlife viewing, and photography and think it is critically important to protect wildlife habitat and ensure sustainable populations of the full spectrum of native wildlife species. Income from tourism is a sustainable source of income, but requires that the resource is managed and protected.

Outdoor recreation, natural resources conservation and historic preservation in the United States all have measurable economic impacts. According to a 2011 study by the National Fish &

12 Available online at: http://www.abcbirds.org/habitatreport.pdf 13 Available online at: http://www2.coloradocollege.edu/stateoftherockies/conservationinthewestsurvey_media_coverage.html 34

Wildlife Foundation14, a minimum estimate of the combined value of outdoor recreation, nature conservation and historic preservation shows that over 9.4 million jobs were created while $107 billion was generated by local, state and federal tax revenues resulting in a minimum total economic impact nationally of $1.6 trillion! Outdoor recreation sales (gear and trips combined) of $325 billion per year are greater than annual returns from pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing ($162 billion), legal services ($253 billion), and power generation and supply ($283 billion).

IBAs such as the Upper and Lower San Pedro River and the Willcox Playa, the Sulphur Springs Valley and associated environs, all Outstanding Arizona Waters, all represent well-known ecotourism hot-spots in the region. According to Radeloff et al, 2009, home owners near parks and protected areas are repeatedly seen to have property values more than 20% higher than similar properties elsewhere.15

Birders in particular come from all over the world to bird these unique and special places. One such example is the annual Wings Over Willcox Birding and Nature Festival. The annual Wings Over Willcox Birding and Nature Festival (WOW) alone has infused the local economy with about $2 million over the last 20 years, according to a study conducted by Dr. Gyan Nyaupane, an associate professor and graduate program director with ASU’s School of Community Resources and Development. He and local organizers are researching better ways to capture the economic impacts of walk-ins and others who do not register for the Festival.16 Ecotourism does not just benefit larger cities and towns but also positively impacts various smaller communities, from San Simon to Willcox, Bisbee and Douglas to Benson, and on to Red Rock. Ecotourism is especially important for dispersed rural communities.

In Arizona, overall, 1.6 million people participated in some form of residential or non-residential watchable wildlife recreation in 2011. Total trip and equipment expenditures were calculated to be $848,690,708 and watchable wildlife recreation supported approximately 12,900 full and part-time jobs with salaries and wages estimated at $463.6 million.

14 Available online at: http://www.nfwf.org/Content/ContentFolders/NationalFishandWildlifeFoundation/HomePage/Con servationSpotlights/TheEconomicValueofOutdoorRecreation.pdf 15 Housing growth in and near United States protected areas limits their conservation value. Volker C. Radeloffa,1, Susan I. Stewartb, Todd J. Hawbakera,2, Urs Gimmia,3, Anna M. Pidgeona, Curtis H. Flatherc, Roger B. Hammerd, and David P. Helmersa Edited by B. L. Turner, II, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and approved November 27, 2009 16 For more information online, see: https://scrd.asu.edu/news/2-million-infused-in-local-economy-in-20-years-of-wings-over-willcox

35

Original expenditures made by watchable wildlife recreationists generate rounds of additional spending throughout the economy. This results in additional indirect and induced impacts that are commonly called the multiplier effect. Economic activity associated with both the direct spending and multiplier effects impacts is the total economic contribution resulting from the original expenditures. The total economic effect from 2011 watchable wildlife activities in Arizona was estimated at $1.4 billion. 2011 Economic Contributions of All Watchable Wildlife Recreation in Arizona, by County, include:

Cochise County - Retail Sales $14,190,743; Total Multiplier Effect $24,130,389; Salaries and Wages $7,651,115; Full & Part-Time Jobs 234; State & Local Tax Revenue $1,570,931; Federal Tax Revenue $1,769,276.

Graham County - Retail Sales $7,283,288; Total Multiplier Effect $12,292,101; Salaries and Wages $3,977,764; Full & Part-Time Jobs 105; State & Local Tax Revenue $806,268; Federal Tax Revenue $908,067.

Pima County - Retail Sales $179,459,718; Total Multiplier Effect $304,368,133; Salaries and Wages $97,947,943; Full & Part-Time Jobs 2736; State & Local Tax Revenue $19,866,395; Federal Tax Revenue $22,374,716.

Pinal County - Retail Sales $52,631,795; Total Multiplier Effect $89,450,156; Salaries and Wages $28,733,395; Full & Part-Time Jobs 812; State & Local Tax Revenue $5,826,399; Federal Tax Revenue $6,562,038.17

Ecosystem Services: The Case for the San Pedro River

According to Webb, Leake, & Turner (2007, The Ribbon of Green, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, p. 223), "Riparian vegetation has generally increased along the [San Pedro] river north of the U.S.-Mexico border . . . [and] closely follows the alternating pattern of perennial-ephemeral flow that characterizes this watercourse along its greater than 150-mile length in Arizona " Moreover, " . . . the case of riparian vegetation change on the San Pedro River represents one

17 See also online at: http://www.tucsonaudubon.org/images/stories/News/TUCSON AUDUBON-AZ-WildlifeWatching- Analysis- 2011-130718.pdf

36 of the largest increases in woody riparian vegetation in the Southwest. Many researchers have noted that this river, once swampy, now sustains a verdant forest."

Scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the New Mexico State University (NMSU) and others have recently modeled the San Pedro River watershed, mapping metrics reflecting ecosystem services and biodiversity features using U.S. Geological Survey Gap Analysis Program data, including land cover, land stewardship, and deductive habitat models for terrestrial vertebrate species The San Pedro River watershed supports significant biodiversity, especially avian, and significantly surpasses even the Middle Rio Grande River in biodiversity (See Figures 6-9).18

It is widely understood that the human condition is intrinsically linked to the quality of the environment and the services it provides. Ecosystem services, i.e., "services provided to humans from natural systems," have become a key issue of this century in resource management, conservation, human well-being, and environmental decision analysis.

Metrics are derived from species-of-greatest-conservation-need, threatened and endangered species, harvestable species (i.e., upland game, big game), total species richness, and taxon richness.

Based on the recent biometrics study illustrated above, the San Pedro watershed's extraordinary ecosystem services provide tremendous biodiversity at the confluence of four different ecosystems. The entire river is a "keystone" transition zone. Perhaps most importantly in the context of the proposed CHD, a globally significant number of Western Yellow-billed Cuckoos breed along the San Pedro River (Arias Rojo et al., 1999).

Conclusion

The proposed (draft) WYBC critical habitat designation is a solid starting point. However, our review of the best available scientific data indicates that the CHD should be expanded to: more comprehensively reflect WYBC occupancy at the time of listing; include suitable habitat patches ≥ 10 acres, areas suitable for restoration, and additional suitable habitats/vegetation associations utilized by WYBC that are not adequately described in the literature or the draft CHD PBFs and PCEs. The final CHD should encompass lands and waters that provide stop- over sites, important habitat for foraging, dispersal and habitat connectivity, to include key tributaries, confluences, uplands and distinct sky island habitats.

18 See online at: http://fws-case-12.nmsu.edu/case/es/

37

Based upon our spatial analysis of the proposed CHD in relation to WYBC occurrences in the Arizona Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Important Bird Area Surveys, eBird sightings, and the USGS SWReGAP Yellow-billed cuckoo Animal Habitat Model, we recommend the FWS revisit all of the areas we have identified, and consider including additional units and expanding existing proposed units in the final CHD. These additional lands and waters will play an increasingly important role in the survival, expansion and adaptation of WYBC populations in the face of habitat degradation, pollution, long-term drought, and hotter and drier conditions that are predicted to occur in the Southwest as a result of climate change. Furthermore, the final CHD should reflect and encourage ongoing efforts to restore networks of suitable WYBC habitat along riparian corridors in the Southwest.

To comply with laws, regulations and guidance governing critical habitat designations, FWS should build upon the draft WYBC CHD by: 1) Including habitats associated with HDMS records (especially clusters of records); 2) Including habitats associated with WYBC detections from other surveys and observations, to include those discussed in detail above; and 3) Expanding the PBF and PCE definitions to include suitable habitat patches ≥ 10 acres, as well as a greater diversity of habitat types and topographies that are supporting WYBC survival, migration and reproduction; particularly in the sky islands of southeast Arizona.

All of the well-documented anthropogenic influences that threaten WYBC with extinction should be considered in both the delineation and management of the final CHD, especially: water impoundments and diversions, grazing, agriculture and pesticide use, mining, development, tamarisk invasion, mesquite clearing and climate change.

In particular, the final CHD should take into consideration the serious impacts climate change will have upon WYBC breeding, foraging and dispersal habitats, as well as the cuckoo’s physiology and phenology. One way the proposed CHD can better factor in climate change is to include key tributaries and confluences where WYBC have been detected, areas with high potential for ecological restoration, important areas that facilitate habitat connectivity, and to adequately represent unique, higher elevation sky island habitats that may serve as refugia and important breeding sites in a hotter, drier future.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and are available to answer any questions you might have.

38

Sincerely,

Matt Clark Conservation Policy Analyst

Christina McVie Conservation Chair

39

Figure 1. This map depicts the relationship between proposed WYBC critical habitat designation and E- Bird occurrences (all years). Note the clusters of occurrences in sky islands not covered by the draft CHD.

40

Figure 2. This map depicts the relationship between proposed WYBC CHD and USGS WYBC modeled habitat in SE Arizona. While some areas have a high level of concurrence, others areas do not.

41

Figure 3. This map depicts E-Bird WYBC Occurrence Frequency by block for all available years. Blocks with lighter purple indicate lower frequency, while darker blocks indicate higher frequency.

Figure 4. This map depicts WYBC E-Bird occurrences in southern Arizona, southeastern California, southwestern New Mexico and northern Sonora, Mexico. Note the clusters of WYBC occurrences located in the sky island mountain ranges of southern Arizona.

42

Table 1. This bar chart, based upon a spatial analysis of eBird WYBC observation locations as they relate to USGS SWReGAP landcover/vegetation classes, demonstrates WYBC are utilizing a wider range of habitat types in Arizona than has been previously described in the literature. It is acknowledged that this analysis may be limited by: data accuracy, vegetation mapping and classification issues, bias of eBird locations towards popular birding areas and areas with easier physical access, etc.

43

Figure 5. This photo documents an active Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo nest documented in an oak tree in Montosa Canyon, which is located on the west side of the Santa Rita Mountains in southeast Arizona.

44

Figure 6. This map depicts total species richness in the San Pedro River watershed. 19

Figure 7. This map depicts bird species richness in the San Pedro River watershed.19

45

Figure 8. This map depicts biodiversity Metrics for Southwest Region portrayed as a Radar Graph.19

19 Maps courtesy of Dr. William Kepner, EPA, May 2011.

46