Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF36

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed

Determination of Critical Habitat for the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose

designation of critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, as amended (Act), for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl

(Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum). A total of approximately 730,565

acres of riverine riparian habitat and upland habitat are proposed.

Proposed critical habitat is in Pima, Cochise, Pinal, and Maricopa

counties, Arizona. If this proposal is made final, section 7 of the Act

would prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat

by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal

agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other

impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We

solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this

proposal, including data on the economic and other impacts of the

designation. We may revise this proposal to incorporate or address new

information received during the comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments until March 1, 1999. We will hold three

public hearings on this proposed rule; we will publish the dates and

locations of these hearings in the Federal Register and local

newspapers at least 15 days prior to the first hearing.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and information to the Field Supervisor,

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona, 85021-

4951. Comments and materials received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Gatz, Endangered Species

Coordinator, at the above address (telephone 602/640-2720 ext. 240;

facsimile 602/640-2730).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (referred to as ``pygmy-owl'' in

this proposed rule) is in the Order Strigiformes and the Family

Strigidae. It is a small bird, approximately 17 centimeters (6 3/4

inches) long. Males average 62 grams (g) (2.2 ounces (oz)), and females

average 75 g (2.6 oz). The pygmy-owl is reddish-brown overall, with a

cream-colored belly streaked with reddish brown. Some individuals are

grayish brown, rather than reddish brown. The crown is lightly

streaked, and paired black-and-white spots on the nape suggest eyes.

The ears lack tufts, and the eyes are yellow. The tail is relatively

long for an owl and is colored reddish brown with darker brown bars.

The pygmy-owl is diurnal (active during daylight), and its call, heard

primarily near dawn and dusk, is a monotonous series of short notes.

The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl is one of four subspecies of the

ferruginous pygmy-owl. It occurs from lowland central Arizona south

through western Mexico to the States of Colima and Michoacan, and from

southern Texas south through the Mexican States of Tamaulipas and Nuevo

Leon. Only the Arizona population of Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum is

listed as an endangered species.

The pygmy-owl in Arizona occurs in a variety of scrub and woodland

communities, including riverbottom woodlands, woody thickets

(``bosques''), and Sonoran desertscrub. Unifying habitat

characteristics among these communities are fairly dense woody thickets

or woodlands, with trees and/or cacti large enough to provide nesting

cavities. The pygmy-owl occurs at low elevations, generally below 1,200

meters (m) (4,000 feet (ft)) (Swarth 1914, Karalus and Eckert 1974,

Monson and Phillips 1981, Johnsgard 1988, Enriquez-Rocha et al. 1993).

The pygmy-owl's primary habitats were riparian cottonwood (Populus

fremontii) forests, mesquite bosques, and Sonoran desertscrub, but the

subspecies currently occurs primarily in Sonoran desertscrub

associations of palo verde (Cercidium spp.), bursage (Ambrosia spp.),

ironwood (Olneya tesota), mesquite (Prosopis velutina, and

[[Page 71821]]

P. glandulosa), acacia (Acacia spp.), and giant cacti such as saguaro

(Carnegiea giganteus), and organ pipe (Stenocereus thurberi) (Gilman

1909, Bent 1938, van Rossem 1945, Phillips et al. 1964, Monson and

Phillips 1981, Johnson-Duncan et al. 1988, Millsap and Johnson 1988).

Primary prey include various reptiles, insects, birds, and small

mammals (Proudfoot 1996).

Previous Federal Action

We included Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum in our Animal Notice of

Review as a category 2 candidate species throughout its range on

January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554). Category 2 candidates were defined as

those taxa for which we had data indicating that listing was possibly

appropriate but for which we lacked substantial information on

vulnerability and threats to support proposed listing rules. After

soliciting and reviewing additional information, we elevated G. b.

cactorum to category 1 status throughout its range in our November 21,

1991, notice of review (56 FR 58804). Category 1 candidates were

defined as those taxa for which we had sufficient information on

biological vulnerability and threats to support proposed listing rules

but for which issuance of proposals to list were precluded by other

higher-priority listing activities. Beginning with our combined plant

and animal notice of review published in the Federal Register on

February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of

multiple categories of candidates and only taxa meeting the definition

of former category 1 candidates are now recognized as candidates for

listing purposes.

On May 26, 1992, a coalition of conservation organizations (Galvin

et al. 1992) petitioned us to list the pygmy-owl as an endangered

species under the Act. The petitioners also requested designation of

critical habitat. In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, on

March 9, 1993, we published a finding that the petition presented

substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that

listing of the pygmy-owl may be warranted and commenced a status review

of the subspecies (58 FR 13045). As a result of information collected

and evaluated during the status review, including information collected

during a public comment period, we published a proposed rule to list

the pygmy-owl as endangered in Arizona and threatened in Texas on

December 12, 1994 (59 FR 63975). We proposed designation of critical

habitat in Arizona. After a review of all comments received in response

to the proposed rule, we published a final rule on March 10, 1997 (62

FR 10730), listing the pygmy-owl as endangered in Arizona. We

determined that listing in Texas was not warranted. We also determined

that critical habitat designation was not prudent.

On October 31, 1997, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity

filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Arizona against the

Secretary of the Department of the Interior (Secretary) for failure to

designate critical habitat for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl and the

Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva), a plant

(Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary

of the Department of the Interior; CIV 97-704 TUC ACM). On October 7,

1998, Alfredo C. Marquez, Senior U.S. District Judge, issued an order

stating: ``There being no evidence that designation of critical habitat

for the pygmy-owl and water umbel is not prudent, the Secretary shall,

without further delay, decide whether or not to designate critical

habitat for the pygmy-owl and water umbel based on the best scientific

and commercial information available.''

On November 25, 1998, in response to a motion by the Plaintiffs

requesting clarification of the October 7, 1998, order, Judge Marquez

further ordered ``that within 30 days of the date of this Order, the

Secretary shall issue the Proposed Rules for designating critical

habitat for the pygmy-owl and water umbel * * * and that within six

months of issuing the Proposed Rules, the Secretary shall issue final

decisions regarding the designation of critical habitat for the pygmy-

owl and water umbel.''

Absent the court's order, the processing of this proposed rule

would not conform with our Fiscal Year 1998 and 1999 Listing Priority

Guidance, published on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance

clarifies the order in which we will process rulemakings giving highest

priority (Tier 1) to processing emergency rules to add species to the

Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; second priority

(Tier 2) to processing final determinations on proposals to add species

to the lists, processing new listing proposals, processing

administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the lists,

delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limited

number of proposed and final rules to delist or reclassify species; and

third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed and final rules

designating critical habitat. The Service's Southwest Region is

currently working on Tier 2 actions; however, we are undertaking this

Tier 3 action in order to comply with the above-mentioned court order.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the

specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the

time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those

physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of

the species and (II) that may require special management considerations

or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area

occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination

that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are

necessary to bring an endangered species or a threatened species to the

point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to base critical habitat

proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available,

taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant

impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may

exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of

exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas as critical

habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of

the species.

Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation

activities for a listed species by identifying areas, both occupied and

unoccupied, that contain or could develop the essential habitat

features (primary constituent elements described below) and that are

essential for the conservation of a listed species. Designation of

critical habitat alerts the public as well as land-managing agencies to

the importance of these areas.

Critical habitat also identifies areas that may require special

management considerations or protection, and may provide additional

protection to areas where significant threats to the species have been

identified. Critical habitat receives protection from the prohibition

against destruction or adverse modification through required

consultation under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried

out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires

conferences on Federal actions that are likely to result in the adverse

modification or destruction of proposed critical habitat. Aside from

the added protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does

not provide other

[[Page 71822]]

forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat. Because

consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply to activities on

private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve a Federal

action, critical habitat designation would not afford any protection

against such activities.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act prohibits Federal agencies from funding,

authorizing, or carrying out actions likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a threatened or endangered species, or that are likely to

destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. ``Jeopardize the

continued existence'' is defined as an appreciable reduction in the

likelihood of survival and recovery of a listed species. ``Destruction

or adverse modification'' of critical habitat occurs when a Federal

action appreciably reduces the value of critical habitat for the

survival and recovery of the listed species. Thus, the definitions of

``jeopardy'' to the species and ``adverse modification'' of critical

habitat are similar.

Designating critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to recovery

of a listed species. Designation does not create a management plan,

establish numerical population goals, prescribe specific management

actions (inside or outside of critical habitat), or directly affect

areas not designated as critical habitat. Specific management

recommendations for critical habitat are most appropriately addressed

in recovery plans and management plans, and through section 7

consultation.

Critical habitat identifies specific areas, both occupied and

unoccupied, that are essential to the conservation of a listed species

and that may require special management considerations or protection.

Areas that do not currently contain all of the primary constituent

elements but that could develop them in the future may be essential to

the conservation of the species and may be designated as critical

habitat.

Section 3(5)(C) of the Act generally requires that not all areas

potentially occupied by a species be designated as critical habitat.

Therefore, not all areas containing the primary constituent elements

are necessarily essential to the conservation of the species. Areas

that contain one or more of the primary constituent elements, but that

are not included within critical habitat boundaries, may still be

important to a species' conservation and may be considered under other

parts of the Act or other conservation laws and regulations.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at

50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical

habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (primary

constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the

species and that may require special management considerations or

protection. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

Space for individual and population growth, and for normal

behavior;

Food, water, or other nutritional or physiological

requirements;

Cover or shelter;

Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring;

and

Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historic geographical and ecological

distributions of a species.

The primary constituent elements for the pygmy-owl are those

habitat components that are essential for the primary biological needs

of foraging, nesting, rearing of young, roosting, and sheltering. The

primary constituent elements are found, or could develop, in areas that

support or have the potential to support riparian forests, riverbottom

woodlands, xeroriparian (dry riparian) forests, plains and desert

grassland, and the Arizona upland subdivision of Sonoran desertscrub

(Turner and Brown 1982). Within these vegetative communities, specific

plant associations that contain or could develop the primary

constituent elements include those dominated by cottonwood, willow

(Salix spp.), ash (Fraxinus velutina), mesquite, palo verde, ironwood,

saguaro cactus, organ pipe cactus, creosote (Larrea tridentata),

acacia, and/or hackberry (Celtis spp.).

In river floodplains, the presence of surface or subsurface water

is critical in maintaining pygmy-owl habitat. Riverine riparian

woodlands and thickets are dependent on availability of groundwater at

or near the surface. Surface or subsurface moisture may also be

important in maintaining various species comprising the pygmy-owl's

prey base.

Methods

In developing this critical habitat proposal for the pygmy-owl, we

attempted to form an interconnected system of suitable and potential

habitat areas extending from southern Arizona to the northernmost

recent pygmy-owl occurrence. Areas proposed as critical habitat meet

the definition of critical habitat under section 3 of the Act in that

they are areas within the geographical area occupied by the species

that are essential to the conservation of the species and in need of

special management considerations or protection.

In an effort to map areas essential to the conservation of the

species, we used data on known pygmy-owl locations to initially

identify important areas. We then connected these areas based on the

topographic and vegetative features believed most likely to support

resident pygmy-owls and/or facilitate movement of birds between known

habitat areas. Facilitating movement of birds between habitat areas is

important for dispersal and gene flow. In selecting areas, we avoided

private lands to the extent possible, and instead concentrated on

public (State and Federal) lands. However, we are proposing designation

as critical habitat some important privately owned areas, such as the

area northwest of Tucson which supports the greatest known

concentration of pygmy-owls in Arizona.

In selecting areas for inclusion in proposed critical habitat, we

made an effort to avoid developed areas such as towns, agricultural

lands, and other lands unlikely to contribute to pygmy-owl

conservation. Given the short period of time in which we were required

to complete this proposal, we were unable to map critical habitat in

sufficient detail to exclude all such areas. However, within the

delineated critical habitat boundaries, only lands containing, or

having the potential to develop, the primary constituent elements

described above are considered critical habitat. Existing features and

structures within the proposed area, such as buildings, roads,

aqueducts, railroads, and other features, do not contain, and do not

have the potential to develop, the primary constituent elements and are

not considered critical habitat.

In selecting areas to propose as critical habitat, we attempted to

exclude areas believed to be adequately protected, or where current

management is compatible with pygmy-owls and is likely to remain so

into the future. We excluded National Park lands (Organ Pipe Cactus

National Monument and Saguaro National Park) and national wildlife

refuges (Cabeza Prieta and Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuges). We

also excluded non-Federal lands covered by a legally operative

incidental take permit for pygmy-owls issued under section 10(a)(1)(B)

of the Act. However, we did not exclude areas currently managed in a

manner compatible with pygmy-owls where

[[Page 71823]]

such management may not be assured in the future (e.g., county and

State parks).

In addition, lands of the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation are not

included in this proposal. We are aware that pygmy-owls and pygmy-owl

habitat likely exist on the Reservation, and we believe these Tribal

lands are important to the species' continued existence in Arizona.

However, the short amount of time given by the court to propose

critical habitat precluded us from adequately coordinating with the

Tribe to obtain pygmy-owl location and habitat information. In

addition, we were unable to assess whether current or future tribal

management is likely to maintain pygmy-owls into the future, although

the probable existence of both pygmy-owls and pygmy-owl habitat lead us

to believe that current management may be compatible with the species.

In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206: American Indian Tribal

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered

Species Act, subsequent to this proposal, we will coordinate with the

Tribe to determine whether any Tribal lands are essential for the

conservation of the species and require special management

considerations or protection.

We did not propose all pygmy-owl historical habitat as critical

habitat. We proposed those areas that we believe are essential for the

conservation of the pygmy-owl and in need of special management or

protection.

In summary, the proposed critical habitat areas described below,

and protected areas either known or suspected to contain some of the

primary constituent elements but not proposed as critical habitat

(e.g., National Park land, national wildlife refuge lands, etc.),

constitute our best assessment of areas needed for the species'

conservation. As described above, we will coordinate with the Tohono

O'odham Indian Tribe to determine whether any Tribal lands are

essential for the conservation of the species and require special

management considerations or protection. Also, we recently appointed

the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl Recovery Team that will develop a

recovery plan for the species. The experts on this team will conduct a

far more thorough analysis than we were able to conduct in the short

amount of time allowed by the Court Order. Upon the team's completion

of a recovery plan, we will evaluate the plan's recommendations and

reexamine if and where critical habitat is appropriate.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

In determining areas that are essential for the survival and

recovery of the species, we used the best scientific information

obtainable in the time allowed by the court. This information included

habitat suitability and site-specific species information. To date,

limited survey effort or research has been done to identify and define

specific habitat needs of pygmy-owls in Arizona or to determine their

distribution. Only preliminary habitat assessment work has begun over

small portions of the State, primarily on Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) lands. We emphasized areas containing most of the verified pygmy-

owl occurrences, especially recent ones. In order to maintain genetic

and demographic interchange that will help maintain the viability of a

regional metapopulation, we included areas that allow movement between

areas supporting pygmy-owls.

Table 1 shows the approximate acreage of proposed critical habitat

by county and land ownership. Critical habitat proposed for the pygmy-

owl includes river floodplains and Sonoran desertscrub communities in

Pima, Cochise, Pinal, and Maricopa Counties, Arizona. To provide

additional information, we have grouped areas proposed as critical

habitat into critical habitat units (see maps). A brief description of

each unit and reasons for proposing as critical habitat are presented

below.

Table 1.--Approximate Critical Habitat Acreage by County and Land Ownership

[Note: Acreage estimates are from maps cited in legal descriptions]

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

Pima Cochise Pinal Maricopa

County County County County Total

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

Forest Service................................. 0 0 4,160 32,840 37,000

Bureau of Land Management...................... 21,070 0 90,640 0 111,710

State.......................................... 154,750 2,420 258,005 0 420,175

Private........................................ 60,060 2,420 74,400 100 136,980

Other*......................................... 20,700 0 4,000 0 24,700

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

Total...................................... 261,580 4,840 431,205 32,940 730,565

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

* Includes: Bureau of Reclamation, Tucson Mountain County Park, Department of Defense.

Unit 1

This unit lies between Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and

the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation. This unit is primarily State

Trust lands, with some dispersed private ownership, and contains upland

habitats and washes that are suitable for pygmy-owls. This area is

important because it is close to recent pygmy-owl occurrences on the

nearby refuge, and because it would provide additional opportunities

for demographic and genetic interchange between pygmy-owls in Mexico

and the United States as well as expansion of populations for recovery.

Proposed critical habitat in this area, together with protected lands

on the refuge and habitat on the Reservation, constitutes a large block

of pygmy-owl habitat.

Unit 2

This unit connects habitat on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation

to habitat in Saguaro National Park West and Tucson Mountain County

Park. Ownership in this area is primarily BLM, State Trust, Bureau of

Reclamation, Pima County, and some private. The area consists of

Sonoran desertscrub and mesquite bosques interspersed by washes. This

east-west habitat corridor, together with the ``Garcia Strip'' of the

Reservation, includes suitable habitat for occupancy, movement, and

genetic interchange of pygmy-owls between the Reservation and the

western Tucson region.

Unit 3

This unit connects suitable habitat in Unit 2 and Saguaro National

Park West to Unit 4, which has the highest known concentration of

pygmy-owls in Arizona. The land ownership in this area is mostly

private. This area includes a recent pygmy-owl site west of Interstate

10 and provides a possible

[[Page 71824]]

connection to habitat in the northwest Tucson region. Because of

existing and past land management practices and development, this area

contains the narrowest habitat linkage between other areas proposed for

critical habitat. Few options currently exist for movement of pygmy-

owls in this portion of their known range based on our limited

knowledge of their movement between areas at this time (Scott

Richardson, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), pers. comm. 1998).

Unit 4

This unit is located in the northwest portion of Tucson north of

Interstate 10 and contains the highest number of known pygmy-owls in

Arizona. This unit contains mostly private and county lands. The areas

proposed for critical habitat include known locations of pygmy-owls and

adjacent habitats and is bounded by La Cholla Boulevard to the east,

Cortaro Road to the south, Interstate 10 to the west, and the Tortolita

Mountains to the north. In the immediate Tucson area, and to the south

of Unit 4, very little suitable habitat remains due to residential,

commercial and agricultural development. Historically, these upland and

riparian areas may have supported pygmy-owls. The area proposed for

critical habitat contains stands of ironwood and saguaro, mesquite

bosques, and several washes, and includes the most contiguous and

highest quality pygmy-owl habitat based on current information (Scott

Richardson, AGFD, pers. comm. 1998).

Units 5A and 5B

Unit 5 includes two habitat corridors to connect habitat in the

northwest Tucson region to riparian habitats to the north on the Gila

River (5A) and to the east on San Pedro River (5B). Land ownership is

mostly BLM, State Trust, and private. This area also includes recent

pygmy-owl occurrences in southern Pinal County, although only a limited

number of surveys have been conducted to determine if pygmy-owls are

present in this area. Relatively intact riparian woodland habitats

still remain along portions of the Gila and San Pedro rivers. These

units contain historic pygmy-owl locations and/or areas thought to

contain suitable upland habitat (Dave Krueper, BLM, pers. comm. 1998).

Limited habitat assessment has been completed within these

corridors and few historic or current pygmy-owl occurrences have been

documented. However, the BLM has conducted some habitat assessments on

their lands in this area and rated the habitat suitability for pygmy-

owls as moderate to high (David Krueper, pers. comm. 1998). We included

these two corridors because they constitute areas for dispersal and

survival. Where possible, we avoided some of the higher elevation areas

which likely contain lower quality habitat.

We are only beginning to understand the importance of upland

habitat to the pygmy-owl. Although historical observations of pygmy-

owls were almost exclusively in riparian woodlands (Breninger 1898 in

Bent 1938), almost all of the recent records of pygmy-owls have been in

Sonoran desertscrub and mesquite bosque upland areas and washes. Based

on the current information, we believe these two corridors (5A and 5B)

provide the highest potential for supporting resident and dispersing

pygmy-owls through this area. Without these habitat linkages,

demographic and genetic connectivity and exchange may not be maintained

between known populations in the northwest Tucson region and riparian

habitats in the Gila and San Pedro rivers.

Unit 6

This unit includes the riparian woodlands of the middle and lower

San Pedro River and a portion of the Gila River. There were four pygmy-

owls documented in the mid-1980s from lower San Pedro River woodlands.

Similar riparian woodlands and associated upland habitats with saguaro

cactus are present along the San Pedro upstream (to the south) to

approximately the town of Cascabel.

The San Pedro River riparian corridor connects to the Gila River to

the north. This section of the Gila River also contains riparian

woodland habitats which we believe are suitable for pygmy-owls (Roy

Johnson pers. comm. 1998). We are proposing these areas as critical

habitat because of the importance, based on the early records of

naturalists during the late 1800s and early 1900s, of riparian woodland

habitats, the presence of suitable habitat, and the linkage these areas

provide to other historical locations and suitable habitat to the

north.

Unit 7

This unit links riparian habitat on the Gila River to other upland

habitats and ultimately to the remaining woodland habitat along the

Salt River where pygmy-owls were collected in the 1940s and 1950s and

where this species was recorded in the early 1970s. Land ownership in

this area is primarily BLM, State Trust, Forest Service, and some

dispersed private. Although recent surveys have not located pygmy-owls

in riparian areas in this unit, riparian woodland habitats remain along

portions of the Salt River in this area (Roy Johnson pers. comm. 1998).

In delineating this unit, we considered elevation, topographic

features, and existing developed areas and determined that a habitat

linkage that includes Sonoran upland desertscrub will provide

connectivity and suitable habitats between riparian woodland habitats

along the Gila and Salt rivers.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in

conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,

and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be

carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal

agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities involving

listed species are discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as

endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if

any is designated or proposed. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR

part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with us

on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a

proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of

proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed or critical habitat

is designated subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies

to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to

destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action

may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible

Federal agency must enter into consultation with us.

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require

Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to

result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical

habitat. Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to

reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances

where critical habitat is subsequently

[[Page 71825]]

designated. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request

conferencing with us on actions for which formal consultation has been

completed. Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to

assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the

proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference

report are advisory.

We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal

agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain

a biological opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if

critical habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference

report as the biological opinion when the critical habitat is

designated, if no significant new information or changes in the action

alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). We may also

prepare a formal conference report to address the effects on proposed

critical habitat from issuance of an incidental take permit, under

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

Activities on Federal lands that may affect the pygmy-owl or its

critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities on

private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such

as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of

the Clean Water Act, would also be subject to the section 7

consultation process. Federal actions not affecting the species, as

well as actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally funded or

permitted would not require section 7 consultation.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to describe in any proposed

or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities

involving a Federal action that may adversely modify such habitat or

that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may destroy

or adversely modify critical habitat include those that alter the

primary constituent elements to an extent that the value of critical

habitat for both the survival and recovery of the pygmy-owl is

appreciably reduced. We note that such activities may also jeopardize

the continued existence of the species. Activities that, when carried

out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, may destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:

(1) Removing, thinning, or destroying vegetation, whether by

burning or mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., woodcutting,

bulldozing, overgrazing, construction, road building, mining, herbicide

application, etc.);

(2) Water diversion or impoundment, groundwater pumping, or other

activity that alters water quality or quantity to an extent that

riparian vegetation is significantly affected; and

(3) Recreational activities that appreciably degrade vegetation.

If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will

constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field

Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section). Requests for copies of the regulations on listed wildlife and

inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species/Permits, P.O.

Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505-248-6920,

facsimile 505-248-6922).

Designation of critical habitat could affect Federal agency

activities including, but not limited to:

(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States

by the Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water

Act;

(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and

channelization by Federal agencies; and

(3) Regulation of grazing, mining, or recreation by the BLM or

Forest Service.

Economic Analysis

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical

habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information

available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of

designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas

from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such

exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical

habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such

exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We will conduct

an economic analysis for this proposal prior to a final determination.

Public Comments Solicited

It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal

will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments

concerning:

(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined

to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including

whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the

species due to designation;

(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of pygmy-

owls and habitat, and what habitat is essential to the conservation of

the species and why;

(3) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the

subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;

(4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the

proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on

small entities or families; and

(5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical

habitat for the pygmy-owl such as those derived from non-consumptive

uses (e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching, enhanced watershed

protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention, ``existence

values,'' and reductions in administrative costs).

In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate

and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose

of such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on

scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send

these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following

publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer

reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific

assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of

critical habitat.

We will consider all comments and information received during the

60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a

final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this

proposal.

Public Hearings

The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,

if requested. We intend to schedule three public hearings on this

proposal. We will announce the dates, times, and places of those

hearings in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days

prior to the first hearing.

Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/

notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to

make this notice easier to understand including answers to questions

such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the notice clearly

stated? (2) Does the notice contain technical language or jargon that

[[Page 71826]]

interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the notice

(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)

aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the notice in the

``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble helpful in

understanding the notice? What else could we do to make the notice

easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this

notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,

Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address:

E[email protected].

Required Determinations

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this action was submitted

for review by the Office of Management and Budget. Following issuance

of this proposed rule, we will prepare an economic analysis to

determine the economic consequences of designating the specific areas

identified as critical habitat. If our economic analysis reveals that

the economic impacts of designating any area as critical habitat

outweigh the benefits of designation, we will exclude those areas from

consideration, unless such exclusion will result in the extinction of

the species. In the economic analysis, we will address any possible

inconsistencies with other agencies' actions and any effects on

entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and

obligations of their recipients. This rule will not raise novel legal

or policy issues.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of

critical habitat will have a significant effect on a substantial number

of small entities.

3. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of

critical habitat will cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100

million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or

geographic regions in the economic analysis, or (c) any significant

adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,

innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with

foreign-based enterprises.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In the economic analysis, we will address any effects to small

governments resulting from designation of critical habitat and any

Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year.

5. Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have

significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment

is not required. This proposed rule, if made final, will not ``take''

private property and will not alter the value of private property.

Critical habitat designation is only applicable to Federal lands and to

private lands if a Federal nexus exists. We do not designate private

lands as critical habitat unless the areas are essential to the

conservation of a species.

6. Federalism

This proposed rule, if made final, will not affect the structure or

role of States, and will not have direct, substantial, or significant

effects on States. As previously stated, critical habitat is only

applicable to Federal lands and to non-Federal lands when a Federal

nexus exists. If our economic analysis reveals that the economic

impacts of designating any area of State concern as critical habitat

outweigh the benefits of designation, we will exclude those areas from

consideration, unless such exclusion will result in the extinction of

the species.

7. Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the

Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does

not unduly burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The Office of the Solicitor

also will review the final determination for this proposal. We will

make every effort to ensure that the final determination contains no

drafting errors, provides clear standards, simplifies procedures,

reduces burden, and is clearly written such that litigation risk is

minimized.

8. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements

for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act is required.

9. National Environmental Policy Act

We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the

National Environmental Policy Act. We have determined that this rule

does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment. This proposed designation of critical

habitat, and the resulting final determination, will not require any

actions that will affect the environment. No construction or

destruction in any form is required under the provisions of critical

habitat.

10. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,

``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal

Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2: We understand that we must

relate to federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government

basis. Secretarial Order 3206 American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-

Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act states

that ``Critical habitat shall not be designated in such areas [an area

that may impact Tribal trust resources] unless it is determined

essential to conserve a listed species. In designating critical

habitat, the Service shall evaluate and document the extent to which

the conservation needs of a listed species can be achieved by limiting

the designation to other lands.'' Subsequent to this proposal, we will

coordinate with the Tribe and analyze the need to designate critical

habitat on Tribal lands. If, as a result of such coordination and

analysis, we determine that some Tribal lands should be proposed as

critical habitat, we will amend the current proposal or issue a

separate proposal.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is

available upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author. The primary authors of this notice are Mike Wrigley and Tom

Gatz (see ADDRESSES section); and Steve Spangle and Ric Riester,

Southwest Regional Office, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico

87103.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

[[Page 71827]]

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR

part 17 as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Pygmy-owl, cactus

ferruginous'' under ``BIRDS'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species Vertebrate

-------------------------------------------------------- population where When Critical Special

Historic range endangered or Status listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

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

Birds

* * * * * * *

Pygmy-owl, cactus ferruginous.... Glaucidium U.S.A. (AZ, TX), AZ.................. E 600 17.95(b) NA

brasilianum Mexico.

cactorum.

* * * * * * *

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

3. In Sec. 17.95 add critical habitat for the cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum) under paragraph (b) in the

same alphabetical order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11(h), to

read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(b) Birds.

* * * * *

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum)

1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Pima, Cochise, Pinal,

and Maricopa counties, Arizona, on the maps below.

2. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements are

those habitat components that are essential for the primary

biological needs of foraging, nesting, rearing of young, roosting,

and sheltering. The primary constituent elements are found, or could

develop, in areas that support, or have the potential to support,

riparian forests, riverbottom woodlands, xeroriparian forests,

plains and desert grassland, and the Arizona upland subdivision of

Sonoran desertscrub (Turner and Brown 1982). Within these vegetative

communities, specific plant associations that contain, or could

develop, the primary constituent elements include those dominated by

cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow (Salix spp.), ash (Fraxinus

velutina), mesquite (Prosopis velutina, and P. glandulosa), palo

verde (Cercidium spp.), ironwood (Olneya tesota), saguaro cactus

(Carnegiea giganteus), organ pipe cactus (Stenocereus thurberi),

creosote (Larrea tridentata), acacia (Acacia spp.), and/or hackberry

(Celtis spp.).

3. Critical habitat does not include non-Federal lands covered

by a legally operative incidental take permit for cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owl issued under section 10(a) of the Act.

Map Unit 1: Pima County, Arizona. From BLM map Sells, Ariz.

1979, Atascosa Mts., Ariz. 1979. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian,

Arizona: T. 17 S., R. 8 E., secs. 1 to 3, E\1/2\ sec. 4, E\1/2\ sec.

9, secs. 10 to 16, 21 to 36; T. 17 S., R. 9 E., that portion of sec.

1 lying west of St. Hwy 286, secs. 2 to 10, those portions of secs.

11, 12, and 14 lying west of St. Hwy 286, secs. 15 to 22, those

portions of secs. 23 and 26 lying west of St. Hwy 286, secs. 27 to

34, that portion of sec. 35 lying west of St. Hwy 286; T. 18 S., R 7

E., sec. 1, those portions of secs. 2 and 11 lying east of Papago

Indian Reservation Bdy, sec. 12, those portions of secs. 13, 14, 24,

25, and 36 lying east of Papago Indian Reservation Bdy; T. 18 S., R.

8 E., secs. 1 to 36; T. 18 S., R. 9 E., that portion of sec. 2 lying

west of Hwy 286, secs. 3 to 10, those portions of secs. 11 and 14

lying west of St. Hwy 286, secs. 15 to 22, those portions of secs.

23, 26, 27 and 28 lying west and north of St. Hwy 286, secs. 29 to

31, those portions of secs. 32 and 33 lying west and north of St.

Hwy 286; T. 19 S., R. 7 E., those portions of secs. 1, 12, 13, 14,

and 23 lying east of Papago Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 24 and 25,

those portions of secs. 26, 27, and 34 lying east of Papago Indian

Reservation Bdy, secs. 35, 36; T. 19 S., R. 8 E., secs. 1 to 12,

N\1/2\ sec. 13, secs. 14 to 21, W\1/2\ sec. 22, S\1/2\ sec. 26, S\1/

2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 27, secs. 28 to 36; T. 19 S., R. 9 E., sec. 6; T. 20

S., R. 7 E., secs. 1, 2, those portions of secs. 3, 9, and 10 lying

east of Papago Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 11 to 15, those

portions of secs. 16, 17, and 21 lying east of Papago Indian

Reservation Bdy, secs. 22 to 27, those portions of secs. 28, 29, 32,

and 33 lying east of Papago Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 34 to 36;

T. 20 S., R. 8 E., secs. 2 to 11, 14 to 23, 27 to 33; T. 21 S., R. 7

E., secs. 1 to 4, those portions of secs. 5 and 8 lying east of

Papago Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 9 to 16, those portions of

secs. 17 and 20 lying east of Papago Indian Reservation Bdy, secs.

21 to 27, those portions of secs 28 and 29 lying east of Papago

Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 34 to 36; T. 21 S., R. 8 E., secs. 4

to 9; T. 22 S., R. 7 E., secs. 1 to 3, 10 to 15, 22, 23, 24; T. 22

S., R. 8 E., S\1/2\ SW, SW\1/4\ SE\1/4\ sec. 18, W \1/2\ & W \1/2\ E

\1/2\ sec. 19, that portion of sec. 20 outside Buenos Aires NWR Bdy,

secs. 29, 30.

Map Unit 2: Pima County, Arizona. From BLM map Silver Bell Mts.,

Ariz. 1977. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, Arizona: T. 13 S., R.

9 E., secs. 31 to 36; T. 13 S., R. 10 E., secs. 31 to 36; T. 13 S.,

R. 12 E., those portions of secs. 31 to 34 lying within Tucson

Mountain County Park; T. 14 S., R. 9 E., secs. 1 to 12; T. 14 S., R.

10 E., secs. 1 to 12; T. 14 S., R. 11 E., that portion of sec. 1

lying within the Tucson Mountain County Park, secs. 5 to 8, 10, 11,

those portions of secs. 12 and 13 lying within Tucson Mountain

County Park, sec 14 and 15; T. 14 S., R. 12 E., those portions of

secs. 1 to 25 lying within Tucson Mountain County Park; T. 14 S. R.

13 E., those portions of secs. 7, 18, 19, 28, 29, and 30 lying

within Tucson Mountain County Park.

Map Unit 3: Pima County, Arizona. From BLM map Silver Bell Mts.,

Ariz. 1977. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, Arizona: T. 12 S., R.

12 E., those portions of secs. 8 and 9 lying south and west of

Interstate 10, secs. 17, 20, and 29.

Map Unit 4: Pima and Pinal Counties, Arizona. From BLM maps Casa

Grande, Ariz. 1979, Silver Bell Mts., Ariz. 1977. Gila and Salt

Principal Meridian, Arizona: T. 10 S., R. 11 E., secs. 1 to 36; T.

10 S., R. 12 E., secs. 4 to 9, 16 to 21, 28 to 33; T. 11 S., R. 11

E., secs. 1 to 5, 9 to 15, secs. 23, 24; T. 11 S., R. 12 E., secs. 3

to 10, 14 to 30, N\1/2\ sec. 31, secs. 32 to 36; T. 11 S., R. 13 E.,

secs. 19, 28 to 33; T. 12 S., R. 12 E., secs. 1 to 4, those portions

of secs. 8 and 9 lying north and east of Interstate 10, secs. 10 to

14, 23, 24, that portion of sec. 25 lying north of W. Cortaro Farms

Road, that portion of sec. 26 lying north of W. Cortaro Farms Road

and north and east of Interstate 10; T. 12 S., R. 13 E., secs. 4 to

9, 16 to 21, those portions of secs. 29 and 30 lying north of W.

Cortaro Farms Road.

Map Unit 5a: Pinal County, Arizona. From BLM maps Mesa, Ariz.

1979, Casa Grande, Ariz. 1979. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian,

Arizona: T. 5 S., R. 11 E., secs. 1 to 36; T. 6 S., R. 11 E., secs.

1 to 36; T. 7 S., R. 11 E., secs. 1 to 36; T. 8 S., R. 11 E., secs.

1 to 36; T. 9 S., R. 11 E., secs. 1 to 36.

Map Unit 5b: Pinal County, Arizona. From BLM maps Casa Grande,

Ariz. 1979, Mammoth, Ariz. 1986. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian,

Arizona: T. 8 S., R. 15 E., secs. 1 to 36; T. 9 S., R. 12 E., secs.

1 to 36;

[[Page 71828]]

T. 9 S., R. 13 E., secs. 1 to 36; T. 9 S., R. 14 E., secs. 1 to 36;

T. 9 S., R. 15 E., secs. 1 to 12, 14 to 21, 28 to 30.

Map Unit 6: Cochise, Pima, and Pinal Counties, Arizona. From BLM

maps Mesa, Ariz. 1979, Globe, Ariz. 1986, Mammoth, Ariz. 1986, and

Tucson, Ariz. 1979. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, Arizona: T. 4

S., R. 9 E., those portions of secs. 1, 12, 13, and 24 lying east of

U.S. Hwy 89; T. 4 S., R. 10 E., secs. 1 to 5, that portion of sec. 6

lying east of U.S. Hwy 89, secs. 7 to 24; T. 4 S., R. 11 E., secs. 7

to 36; T. 4 S., R. 12 E., secs. 1 to 12; T. 4 S., R. 13 E., that

portion of sec. 1 lying south and west of St. Hwy 177, secs. 2 to

12; T. 4 S., R. 14 E., those portions of secs. 6, 7, 8, 16, and 17

lying south and west of St. Hwy 177, secs. 18, 20, those portions of

secs. 21, 22, 26, and 27, lying south and west of St. Hwy 177, secs.

28, 29, 33, and 34, that portion of sec. 35 lying south and west of

St. Hwy 177, sec. 36; T. 5 S., R. 14 E., those portions of secs. 1

and 2 lying south and west of St. Hwy 177, secs. 3, 11, 12; T. 5 S.,

R. 15 E., those portions of secs. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 lying south and

west of St. Hwy 177, that portion of sec. 14 lying south and west of

the Pinal and Gila counties boundary (all within Pinal County), that

portion of sec. 15 lying south of St. Hwy 177 and west of the Pinal

and Gila counties boundary (all within Pinal County), secs 16 to 22,

that portion of sec. 23 lying south and west of the Pinal and Gila

counties boundary (all within Pinal County), that portion sec. 24

lying west of St. Hwy 77 and south of Pinal and Gila counties

boundary (all within Pinal County), that portion of sec. 25 lying

south and west of St. Hwy 77, secs. 26 and 36; T. 5 S., R. 16 E.,

those portions of secs. 30 and 31 lying south and west of St. Hwy

77; T. 6 S., R. 15 E., sec. 1; T. 6 S., R. 16 E., those portions of

secs. 5 and 6 lying south and west of St. Hwy 77, sec. 7, those

portions of secs. 8, 9, and 17 lying south and west of St. Hwy 77,

secs. 17 and 20, those portions of secs. 21 and 28 lying west of St.

Hwy 77, secs. 29 and 32, that portion of sec. 33 lying west of St.

Hwy 77; T. 7 S., R. 16 E., that portion of sec. 4 lying west of St.

Hwy 77, secs. 5 to 8, those portions of secs. 9, 10, and 15 lying

south and west of St. Hwy 77, secs. 16 to 21, those portions of

secs. 22, 23, 25, and 26 lying south and west of St. Hwy 77, secs.

27 to 35, that portion of sec. 36 lying south and west of St. Hwy

77; T. 8 S., R. 16 E., that portion of sec. 1 lying south and west

of St. Hwy 77, secs. 2 to 12, 15 to 22, 28 to 32; T. 8 S., R. 17 E.,

that portion of sec. 6 south and west of St. Hwy 77, that portion of

section 7 west of St. Hwy 77 and west of River Road, that portion of

sec. 17 lying south and west of River Road, that portion of sec. 18

south and west of River Road and north and east of a line defined by

Camino Rio Road where it runs southeasterly from the west boundary

of sec. 18 to its intersection with St. Hwy 77 then southeasterly

along St. Hwy 77 to its intersection with Old State Hwy 77 then

along Old State Hwy 77 to its intersection with the south boundary

of sec. 18, that portion of sec. 19 lying east of Old State Highway

77, those portions of secs. 20, 28, and 29 lying south and west of

River Road, that portion of sec. 30 lying east of Old State Hwy 77

and St. Hwy 77, sec. 32, that portion of sec. 33 lying west of River

Road; T. 9 S., R. 16 E., secs. 5 to 8; T. 9 S., R. 17 E., those

portions of secs. 3 and 4 lying west of River Road, sec. 9, those

portions of secs. 10, 14, and 15 lying west of River Road, NE 1/4

sec. 22, those portions of secs. 23, 24, and 25 west of River Road;

T. 9 S., R. 18 E., those portions of secs. 30 and 31 west of River

Road; T. 10 S., R. 18 E., those portions of secs. 5, 6, 7, and 8

lying north and east of Redington Road, sec. 9, those portions of

secs. 16, 17, and 21 lying north and east of Redington Road, secs.

22 and 27, those portions of secs. 28 and 33 lying east of Redington

Road, sec. 34; T. 11 S., R. 18 E., sec. 2, those portions of secs. 3

and 10 lying east of Redington Road, secs. 11 and 14, those portions

of secs. 14 and 22 lying east of Redington Road, secs. 23 and 26,

that portion of sec. 27 lying east of Redington Road, that portion

of sec. 34 lying east of Redington Road and west of Cascabel Road,

that portion of sec. 35 lying west of Cascabel Road; T. 12 S., R. 18

E., that portion of sec. 2 west of Cascabel Road, that portion of

sec. 3 lying east of Redington Road, those portions of secs. 11, 12,

and 13 lying west of Cascabel Road; T. 12 S., R. 19 E., those

portions of secs. 19, 29, and 30 lying west of Cascabel Road, sec.

31, that portion of sec. 32 lying west of Cascabel Road; T. 13 S.,

R. 19 E., that portion of sec. 4 lying west of Cascabel Road, sec.

5, those portions of secs. 9, 10, and 15 lying west of Cascabel

Road.

Map Unit 7: Maricopa and Pinal Counties, Arizona. From BLM maps

Theodore Roosevelt Lake, Ariz. 1981 and Mesa, Ariz. 1979. Gila and

Salt Principal Meridian, Arizona: T. 3 N., R. 7 E., that portion of

sec. 33 lying easterly of Salt River Indian Reservation Bdy, secs.

34 to 36; T. 3 N., R. 8 E., secs. 31 to 33; T. 2 N., R. 7 E., secs.

1 to 3, those portions of secs. 4, 5, 6 and 7 lying south and east

of Salt River Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 8 to 17, that portion of

sec. 18 lying south and east Salt River Indian Reservation Bdy,

secs. 19 to 25, E \1/2\ sec. 26, E \1/2\ sec. 35, sec. 37; T. 2 N.,

R. 8 E., secs. 4 to 8, 18, 19, 25 to 36; T. 2 N., R. 9 E., secs. 30,

31; T. 1 N., R. 9 E., secs. 6, 7, 18 to 31, 27 to 30, 34 to 36; T. 1

N., R. 10 E., secs. 31, 32; T. 1 S., R. 9 E., secs. 1 to 3, 10 to

15, 22 to 26, those portions of secs. 27, 35 and 36 lying north and

east of U.S. Hwy 60/89; T. 1 S., R. 10 E., secs. 5 to 8, 17 to 20,

29 to 32; T. 2 S., R. 9 E., that portion of sec 1 lying north and

east of U.S. Hwy 60/89; T. 2 S., R. 10 E., secs. 1 to 5, those

portions of secs. 6, 7 and 8 lying north and east of U.S. Hwy 60/89,

secs. 9 to 16, that portion of sec. 17 lying north and east of U.S.

Hwy 60/89 and south and east of U.S. Hwy 89, that portion of sec. 20

lying east of U.S. Hwy 89, secs. 21 to 28, those portions of secs.

29 and 32 lying east of U.S. Hwy 89, secs. 33 to 36: T. 3 S., R. 10

E., secs. 1 to 4, those portions of secs. 5 and 8 lying east of U.S.

Hwy 89, secs. 9 to 16, those portions of secs. 17, 18, and 19 lying

east of U.S. Hwy 89, secs. 20 to 29, those portions of secs. 30 and

31 lying east of U.S. Hwy 89, secs. 32 to 36.

Note: Maps follow:

BILLING CODE 4310-55 P

[[Page 71829]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.040

[[Page 71830]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.041

[[Page 71831]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.042

[[Page 71832]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.043

[[Page 71833]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.044

[[Page 71834]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.045

[[Page 71835]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.046

[[Page 71836]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.047

[[Page 71837]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.048

[[Page 71838]]

* * * * *

Dated: December 22, 1998.

Donald Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 98-34412 Filed 12-23-98; 3:59 pm]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C