Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF36

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of

Critical Habitat for the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl (Glaucidium

brasilianum cactorum)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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 296,240 hectares

(731,712 acres) of riverine riparian and upland habitat are designated.

Critical habitat is located in Pima, Cochise, Pinal, and Maricopa

counties, Arizona. Section 7 of the Act prohibits destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded,

authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. As required by

section 4 of the Act, the Service considered economic and other

relevant impacts

[[Page 37420]]

prior to making a final decision on the size and configuration of

critical habitat.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The complete administrative record for this rule is on file

at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services

Field Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona

85021-4951. The complete file for this rule is 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 final rule) is in the Order Strigiformes and the Family Strigidae.

It is a small bird, approximately 17 centimeters (cm) (6\3/4\ inches

(in)) 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.

This species lacks ear 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''), Sonoran desertscrub, and semidesert grasslands. 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 historically were in riparian

cottonwood (Populus fremontii) forests, but the subspecies currently

occurs primarily in Sonoran desertscrub associations and mesquite

bosques consisting of palo verde (Cercidium spp.), bursage (Ambrosia

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

Pygmy-owls are considered non-migratory throughout their range by

most authors, and have been reported during the winter months in

several locations, including Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (R.

Johnson, unpubl. data 1976, 1980, Tibbitts, pers. comm. 1997). Major

Bendire collected pygmy-owls along Rillito Creek near Camp Lowell at

present-day Tucson on January 24, 1872. The University of Arizona Bird

Collection contains a female pygmy-owl collected on January 8, 1953

(University of Arizona 1995). Similarly, records exist from Sabino

Canyon documenting pygmy-owls on December 3, 1941, and December 25,

1950 (U.S. Forest Service, unpubl. data). These winter records

demonstrate that pygmy-owls are found within Arizona throughout the

year, and do not appear to migrate southward to warmer climates during

the winter months.

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 for the Arizona population 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

plant, Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva, (Huachuca water umbel)

(Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 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

[[Page 37421]]

proposed rules for designating critical habitat for the pygmy-owl and

water umbel * * * and that within 6 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.''

On December 30, 1998, we proposed 295,775 ha (730,565 ac) as

critical habitat in Arizona for the pygmy-owl (63 FR 71820). On April

15, 1999, we released the draft economic analysis on proposed critical

habitat and reopened the public comment period for 30 days (64 FR

18596).

The processing of the December 30, 1998, proposed rule and this

final rule does not conform with our Listing Priority Guidance for

Fiscal Year 1998 and 1999 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. Our 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.

Habitat Characteristics

According to early surveys referenced in the literature, the pygmy-

owl, prior to the mid-1900s, was ``not uncommon,'' ``of common

occurrence,'' and a ``fairly numerous'' resident of lowland central and

southern Arizona in cottonwood forests, mesquite-cottonwood woodlands,

and mesquite bosques along the Gila, Salt, Verde, San Pedro, and Santa

Cruz rivers and various tributaries (Breninger 1898 in Bent 1938,

Gilman 1909, Swarth 1914). Bendire (1888) noted that he had taken

``several'' along Rillito Creek near Fort Lowell, in the vicinity of

present-day Tucson, Arizona. Records indicate that pygmy-owls were

initially more common in xeroriparian habitats (very dense thickets

bordering dry desert washes) than in more open, desert uplands (Monson

and Phillips 1981, Johnson and Haight 1985, Johnson-Duncan et al. 1988,

Millsap and Johnson 1988, Davis and Russell 1990). The pygmy-owl was

also noted to occur at isolated desert oases supporting small pockets

of riparian and xeroriparian vegetation (Howell 1916, Phillips et al.

1964).

The historical use of Sonoran desertscrub habitats by pygmy-owls is

not as clear. A disproportionately low number of historical records

from desertscrub habitats may be due to the focus of early collection

efforts along rivers where humans tended to concentrate, while the

upland areas received less survey. Historical records of pygmy-owls do

exist for Sonoran desertscrub in areas such as the Santa Catalina

foothills and in ``groves of giant cactus'' near New River, north of

present-day Phoenix. Kimball (1921) reported one pygmy-owl in a

mesquite tree in the foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains. Fisher

(1893) took 2 pygmy-owl specimens near New River, and observed

``several others'' in mesquite and large cacti.

The northernmost historical record for the pygmy-owl is from New

River, Arizona, approximately 56 kilometers (35 miles) north of

Phoenix, where Fisher (1893) reported the pygmy-owl to be ``quite

common'' in thickets of intermixed mesquite and saguaro cactus. Four

eggs were collected in Phoenix, Maricopa County by G.F. Breninger on

May 18, 1898, and R.D. Lusk collected five eggs at Cave Creek on April

12, 1895. Pygmy-owls were also detected in central Arizona at the Blue

Point Cottonwoods area, at the confluence of the Salt and Verde rivers,

in 1897, 1949, 1951, 1964, and 1971 (AGFD unpubl. data, Phillips et al.

1964, Millsap and Johnson 1988). Additionally, pygmy-owls were detected

at Dudleyville on the San Pedro River as recently as 1985 and 1986

(AGFD unpubl. data, Hunter 1988).

The easternmost record for the pygmy-owl is from 1985 at the

confluence of Bonita Creek and the Gila River (Hunter 1988). Other

records from this eastern portion of the pygmy-owl's range include a

1876 record from Camp Goodwin (current day Geronimo) on the Gila River

(Aiken 1937), and a 1978 record from Gillard Hot Springs, also on the

Gila River (Hunter 1988). Pygmy-owls have been found as far west as the

Cabeza Prieta Tanks in 1955 (Monson 1998).

Over the past several decades, pygmy-owls have been primarily found

in Sonoran desertscrub communities in southern and southwestern Arizona

consisting of palo verde, ironwood, mesquite, acacia, bursage, and

columnar cacti (Phillips et al. 1964, Davis and Russell 1984 and 1990,

Monson and Phillips 1981, Johnson and Haight 1985, Johnsgard 1988).

Recently pygmy-owls have also been found in wooded drainages within

semidesert grasslands in southern Arizona (unpubl. data). These sites

are closely associated with xeroriparian habitats.

Historically, pygmy-owls were associated with riparian woodlands in

central and southern Arizona. Plants present in these riparian

communities include cottonwood, willow (Salix spp.), ash (Fraxinus

velutina), and hackberry (Celtis spp.). These trees are suitable for

cavity nesting, while the density of mid- and lower-story vegetation

likely provides necessary protection from predators and an abundance of

prey. Mesquite bosque communities are dominated by mesquite trees, and

are described as mesquite forests due to the density and large size of

the trees. This habitat type provides for all of the necessary habitat

components of the pygmy-owl.

The Arizona upland subdivision of the Sonoran Desert provides an

over-story of mature saguaros which are suitable for cavity nesting, as

well as large mesquites and other trees which may be used for nesting,

as well as perch and cover sites. Saguaro cavities are also used for

roosting, perching, and caching food (Scott Richardson, Arizona Game

and Fish Department, pers. comm. 1998). The mid- and lower-stories are

comprised of a variety of mesquite, palo verde, ironwood, acacia,

graythorn (Ziayphus obtusifola), bursage, cholla (Opuntia spp.),

prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), and annual and perennial grass species. As

in riparian habitat, the larger trees provide perches for foraging and

protection from predators. Adequate vegetation in mid- and lower-

stories appears to be important, and likely provides protection from

predators and a higher density of prey items including lizards, small

birds and mammals, and insects.

In central and southern Arizona, the pygmy-owl's primary habitats

are riparian deciduous forests and woodlands, mesquite bosques, Sonoran

desertscrub, and semidesert and Sonoran savanna grasslands with

drainages lined with mesquite; although most recent observations have

occurred primarily in Sonoran desertscrub associations of palo verde,

bursage, ironwood, mesquite, acacia, and giant cacti such as saguaro

and organ pipe (Gilman 1909, Bent 1938, van Rossem 1945, Phillips et

al. 1964, Monson and Phillips 1981, Johnson-Duncan et al. 1988, Millsap

and Johnson 1988, Aaron Flesch pers. comm. 1999). Farther south in

northwestern Mexico, pygmy-owls occur in Sonoran desertscrub, Sinaloan

thornscrub, and Sinaloan deciduous forest as well as riverbottom

woodlands,

[[Page 37422]]

cactus forests, and thornforest (Enriquez-Rocha et al. 1993).

Pygmy-owls at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument have been

detected primarily in relatively dense, lush Arizona uplands

desertscrub associations on bajadas. Visually dominant plants at the

pygmy-owl sites include saguaros, organ pipe cactus, ironwood,

triangle-leaf bursage, foothill paloverde (C. Microphyllum), mesquite,

whitethorn and catclaw acacia (Acacia constricta and A. greggii),

numerous cholla, prickly pear cacti, ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens),

various Lycium spp., and creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) (Smith 1996).

In addition to the dense bajada desertscrub habitat described above,

pygmy-owls have been documented in several large xeroriparian habitats

in lower bajada or valley floor areas that have dense saguaro stands;

however, some sites have much less dense adjacent upland areas

dominated chiefly by creosotebush. Xeroriparian habitat at these sites

consist of mesquites, foothill and blue paloverde (Cercidium

microphyllum and C. flordum), desert willow (chilopsis lineraris),

catclaw acacia, ironwood, and soapberry (Sapindus saponaria) (Smith

1996).

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 consideration

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

occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 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 that we base critical habitat

proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after

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 within critical

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

the species (section 4(b)(2) of the Act).

Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation

activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the

physical and biological features that are essential for the

conservation of that 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 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 protection

that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other

forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult

with us to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or

endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat. ``Jeopardize the continued

existence'' (of a species) is defined as an appreciable reduction in

the likelihood of survival and recovery of a listed species.

``Destruction or adverse modification'' (of critical habitat) is

defined as a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes

the value of critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the

listed species for which critical habitat was designated. Thus, the

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

of critical habitat are nearly identical (50 CFR Sec. 402.02).

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

consultations.

Critical habitat identifies specific areas 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 the habitat components necessary for the primary biological

needs of a species but are likely to develop them in the future may be

essential to the conservation of the species and may be designated as

critical habitat.

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 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, air, light, minerals or other nutritional or

physiological requirements;

Cover or shelter;

Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring,

germination, or seed dispersal; 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, sheltering, and

dispersal, or the capacity to develop those habitat components. The

primary constituent elements are found in areas that support or have

the potential to support Sonoran riparian deciduous woodlands, Sonoran

riparian scrubland, xeroriparian forests, tree-lined drainages in

semidesert and Sonoran savanna grasslands, and the Arizona upland

subdivision of Sonoran desertscrub (Brown 1994). Within these biotic

communities, specific plant associations that are essential to the

primary biological needs of the pygmy-owl include, but are not limited

to, the following--cottonwood, willow, ash, mesquite, palo verde,

ironwood, hackberry, saguaro cactus, and/or organ pipe cactus.

Specifically, larger diameter trees and cacti provide not only nesting

substrate, but also roosting, perching, foraging, and dispersal

habitat, while smaller trees and shrubs provide for the same functions

except nesting.

In river floodplains, the presence of surface or subsurface water

is important in maintaining pygmy-owl habitat. Riverine riparian

woodlands and thickets are dependent on availability of groundwater at

or near the surface

[[Page 37423]]

(Brown 1994). Surface or subsurface moisture may also be important in

maintaining various prey species.

Methods

In developing this final rule, we formed an interconnected system

of suitable and potential habitat areas extending from the Mexican

border through the northernmost recent pygmy-owl occurrence east of

Phoenix. Areas designated as critical habitat meet the definition of

critical habitat under section 3 of the Act in that they are within the

geographical areas occupied by the species, are essential to the

conservation of the species, and are 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 (Beier and Noss 1998). In

selecting areas, we avoided private lands to the extent possible if

State and Federal lands were present that could meet the conservation

needs of the species. However, we are designating critical habitat in

some largely privately owned areas, such as the area northwest of

Tucson which supports the greatest known concentration of pygmy-owls in

Arizona.

In selecting areas of 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 final rule,

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 are likely to develop, those

habitat components that are essential for the primary biological needs

of the pygmy-owl are considered critical habitat. Existing features and

structures within this area, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts,

railroads, and other features, do not contain, and are not likely to

develop, those habitat components and are not considered critical

habitat.

In selecting areas 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 such management may not be assured in

the future (e.g., county and State parks).

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

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

habitat likely exist on the Nation, and we believe these lands are

important to the species' continued existence in Arizona. However, the

short amount of time given by the court to designate critical habitat

precluded us from adequately coordinating with the Nation 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 led us to believe that current

management may be compatible with the species. As explained in the

``Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule'' section of this final

rule, Tribal grazing allotments have also been excluded.

We did not designate all pygmy-owl historical or potential habitat

as critical habitat. We only designated 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 critical habitat areas described below, and

protected areas either known or suspected to contain some of the

primary constituent elements but not designated as critical habitat

(e.g., National Park land, National Wildlife Refuge lands, etc.),

constitute our best assessment of areas needed for the species'

conservation. Also, we have appointed a 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 areas designated as critical

habitat.

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 completely

quantify 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 recently identified locations. In order to

maintain genetic and demographic interchange that will help maintain

the viability of a regional metapopulation, we included corridor areas

that allow movement between areas supporting pygmy-owls. These

corridors or connecting areas, which have not been well surveyed

connect recent sites and areas where suitable habitat remain. These

corridors or connecting areas, while supporting some habitat suitable

for nesting, were primarily included to facilitate dispersal and may

contain more foraging, perching, and roosting habitat than actual

breeding habitat. While habitat of similar quality occurs outside of

these corridors, we anticipate that the use and importance of these

corridors will increase over time if and when habitat outside of the

corridors becomes unsuitable in the future.

Table 1 shows the approximate acreage of critical habitat

designation by county and land ownership. Critical habitat for the

pygmy-owl includes river floodplains, Sonoran desertscrub, and

semidesert grassland communities in Pima, Pinal, Maricopa, and Cochise

counties, Arizona. To provide additional information, we have grouped

areas designated into critical habitat units (see maps). A brief

description of each unit and our reasons for designating those areas as

critical habitat are presented below.

[[Page 37424]]

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

[Note: acreage estimates are derived from Arizona Land Resource Information System data based on the cited legal

descriptions]

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

County

Ownership ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total

Pima Cochise Pinal Maricopa

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

FS.............................. .............. .............. 5,065 33,323 38,388

BLM............................. 21,913 .............. 69,579 .............. 91,492

STATE........................... 158,974 2,371 273,541 .............. 434,886

PRIVATE......................... 61,830 2,461 71,634 68 135,993

OTHER........................... 18,166 .............. 12,787 .............. 30,953

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

TOTAL....................... 260,883 4,832 432,606 33,391 731,712

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

Unit 1

This unit lies between Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and

the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation, consisting of primarily State Trust

lands, with some dispersed private ownership. This area contains

semidesert and Sonoran savanna grasslands with a series of xeroriparian

washes extending from the Baboquivari Mountains to Altar and Brawley

washes. Uplands primarily consist of grasslands with dispersed mesquite

trees, and a very few isolated saguaros in some areas, mostly occurring

at the extreme north end of the unit. Dominant tree species in riparian

areas include mesquite, ash, and hackberry.

This unit is located in the Altar Valley, which recently has had

several pygmy-owls documented. Not until 1998 had systematic surveys in

this unit and adjacent areas been initiated; as a result, at least nine

new pygmy-owl sites have been found (Harris Environmental Group, Inc.

1998; AGFD unpubl. data; Aaron Flesch, pygmy-owl surveyor, pers. comm.

1999). These new sites are located in riparian and xeroriparian

habitats and wooded drainages within semidesert grassland and Sonoran

savanna grassland communities. Since the turn of the century, many

areas that were historical semidesert and Sonoran savanna grasslands in

the Altar Valley have developed into habitats similar to Sonoran

desertscrub (Brown 1994). It is unclear at this time what role this

transition has played in the distribution of pygmy-owls in the region.

Habitat in Unit 1 is suitable for nesting and dispersal habitat for

pygmy-owls; however, nesting opportunities are generally greater in the

washes because of a higher incidence of large diameter trees that may

provide cavities for nesting. This unit is important for conservation

of the species because it contains several pygmy-owl sites and it is

close to other recent or currently active sites on the nearby refuge.

It also provides opportunities for demographic and genetic interchange

between pygmy-owls in Mexico and the United States as well as expansion

of populations for recovery. Critical habitat in this area, together

with protected lands on the refuges, National Monument, and habitat on

the Nation, constitutes a large block of pygmy-owl habitat.

Unit 2

This unit connects habitat on the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation 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 lands. The area consists of

Sonoran desertscrub, mesquite bosques interspersed by washes, and some

retired agricultural lands. This east-west habitat corridor, together

with the ``Garcia Strip'' of the Nation, includes suitable habitat for

occupancy, movement, and genetic interchange of pygmy-owls between the

Nation and the western Tucson region.

Unit 3

This narrow 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. The area consists of Sonoran desertscrub, mesquite bosques

interspersed by washes, and some retired agricultural lands. This area

includes a recent pygmy-owl site west of Interstate 10 and provides a

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 among other areas of 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 among areas at this time (Scott Richardson, pers. comm. 1998).

The pygmy-owl's flight pattern typically consists of a series of short,

direct flights, perching in trees or shrubs usually less than 100 m

(328 ft) apart (Glenn Proudfoot, pers. comm, 1999 and Scott Richardson,

pers. comm. 1999).

Unit 4

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

Interstate 10 and contains the highest known concentration of pygmy-

owls in Arizona. This unit contains mostly private and County lands.

The area includes 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 of critical habitat contains

stands of ironwood, acacia, and saguaro, mesquite bosques, and several

washes, and includes the most contiguous and highest quality pygmy-owl

habitat based on current information (Scott Richardson, pers. comm.

1998; Wilcox et al. 1999).

Units 5a and 5b

Unit 5 includes 2 habitat corridors that connect habitat in Unit 4

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

much of this area. Relatively intact riparian woodland habitats still

remain along much of these portions of the Gila and San Pedro rivers.

These units contain historical pygmy-owl locations and/or areas thought

to contain suitable upland

[[Page 37425]]

habitat (Dave Krueper, BLM, pers. comm. 1998).

Limited habitat assessment has been completed within these

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

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

their lands in Unit 5a and rated the habitat suitability for pygmy-owls

as moderate to high (Dave Krueper, pers. comm. 1998). We included these

two corridors primarily because they constitute areas for dispersal,

and also for nesting where nesting habitat is present. Upon field

review of habitats present in both of these units, we believe they

could facilitate movement through these areas, which would act as

dispersal corridors. In addition to dispersal habitat, nesting habitat

is also present in uplands with saguaros and in washes where large

diameter trees are present. The majority of the nesting habitat in this

region is in Unit 5a, although some large diameter trees are also

located in some of the washes in Unit 5b, and may contain some

potential nesting cavities. Where possible, we avoided the higher

elevation areas, which likely provide 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, semidesert

grasslands, and washes. Based on the current information, we believe

these two corridors (5a and 5b) provide a high potential for supporting

resident and/or 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 greater 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 (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 (Dr.

Roy Johnson, National Park Service (Retired) pers. comm. 1998). We are

designating 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),

and we cannot rule out pygmy-owl use of the area because pygmy-owls may

use areas only periodically and may not be detected. In delineating

critical habitat in 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

Sec. 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to

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

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into consultation with us.

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR Sec. 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. Conferencing on proposed critical habitat for the pygmy-owl

was not requested by any Federal agency.

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, or a section 402 permit from the Environmental

Protection Agency, will 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 will

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 destroy or 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 the extent that the value of

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

appreciably diminished. We note that such activities may also

jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Such activities may

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.

[[Page 37426]]

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 activities affecting point source pollution

discharges into waters of the United States by the Environmental

Protection Agency under section 402 of the Clean Water Act;

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

channelization by Federal agencies; and

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

Forest Service.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the December 30, 1998, proposed rule, all interested parties

were requested to submit comments or information that might bear on the

designation of critical habitat for the pygmy-owl (63 FR 71820). The

first comment period closed March 1, 1999. The comment period was

reopened from April 15 to May 15, 1999, to once again solicit comments

on the proposed rule and to accept comments on the draft economic

analysis (72 FR 18596). Comments received from March 2 to April 14,

1999, were entered into the administrative record during the second

comment period.

All appropriate State and Federal agencies, county governments,

scientific organizations, and other interested parties were contacted

and invited to comment. In addition, newspaper notices inviting public

comment were published in the following newspapers in Arizona: Arizona

Republic, Tucson Citizen, Arizona Daily Star, Sierra Vista Herald,

Green Valley News and Sun, The Bulletin, The Tombstone Tumbleweed, and

Nogales International. The inclusive dates of these publications were

January 4 to 12, 1999, for the initial comment period; January 26 to

February 4, 1999, to advertise the public hearings; and April 21 to 29,

1999, for the second comment period.

We held three public hearings on the proposed rule, including at

Coolidge (February 10, 1999), Sierra Vista (February 11, 1999), and

Tucson, Arizona (February 12, 1999). The hearings were also held to

solicit comments on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for

the Huachuca water umbel, Lilaeopsis Schaffneriana var. recurva (63 FR

71838). A notice of hearings and locations was published in the Federal

Register on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3923). A total of 89 people

attended the public hearings, including 10 in Coolidge, 28 in Sierra

Vista, and 51 in Tucson. Transcripts of these hearings are available

for inspection (see ADDRESSES section).

We requested four Arizona ornithologists, who are familiar with

this species and were not on the appointed Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl

Recovery Team, to peer review the proposed critical habitat

designation. However, only one of the peer reviewers submitted

comments. He concluded that ``sound scientific information about

habitat requirements and movements is the most essential matter related

to the conservation of the CFPO (pygmy-owl).'' Further, he summarized,

``I oppose this designation because it is not based on adequate

scientific data, and also because it detracts from the path of

gathering good data by wasting public resources on needless, time-

consuming actions related to bureaucratic process, not species

conservation.''

We received a total of 21 oral and 268 written comments during the

2 comment periods. Of those oral comments, 4 supported critical habitat

designation, 16 were opposed to designation, and 1 provided additional

information but did not support or oppose the proposal. Of the written

comments, 59 supported designation, 182 were opposed to it, and 21

provided additional information only, or were nonsubstantive or not

relevant to the proposed designation. In total, oral and written

comments were received from 10 Federal agencies, 7 State agencies, 9

local governments, and 242 private organizations, companies, or

individuals.

All comments received were reviewed for substantive issues and new

data regarding critical habitat and the pygmy-owl. Comments of a

similar nature are grouped into 9 issues relating specifically to

critical habitat. These are addressed in the following summary.

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Primary Constituent Elements

1a) Comment: How could the Service determine areas essential for

conservation of the species since little is known about their habitat

needs? Designation of critical habitat should be delayed until it is

determinable and better information becomes available on the species.

Stale, inaccurate data were used in the proposal.

Service Response: Under sections 4(a)(3)(A) and 4(b)(6)(C) of the

Act, critical habitat must, to the maximum extent prudent and

determinable, be designated at the time of listing. If there is

insufficient information to perform the required impact analysis of

designation, or the biological needs of the species are not

sufficiently known to permit identification of an area as critical

habitat, it may be delayed up to 1 year. On December 12, 1994, we

published a proposed rule to list the pygmy-owl as endangered with

critical habitat (59 FR 63975). On March 19, 1997, we published a final

rule listing this species as endangered. In that final rule, we

determined that designaton of critical habitat was not prudent, because

of the potential harm to the species from publishing precise location

maps as required for critical habitat designation (62 FR 10730). Given

the amount of time since the pygmy-owl was listed as endangered (over

20 months), a ``not determinable finding'' is no longer possible.

Because of the October 7, 1998, court order, we must now designate

critical habitat using the best information currently available.

Although much additional biological information for this species is

needed, some of its biological needs are known. In making this

designation, we reviewed all pygmy-owl records within the historical

range of this subspecies in Arizona. To the extent possible, given the

short time available, we utilized the most current scientific

literature; vegetation descriptions; information from outside sources

such as species experts, agencies, and others; and field reconnaissance

of specific areas in developing this final rule.

1(b) Comment: The Service, in partnership with counties and

municipalities, needs to develop science-based surveys and studies to

determine recovery efforts needed.

Service Response: We agree that additional surveys and ecological

studies are needed. We are currently working with Pima County in their

efforts to conduct comprehensive studies within the County, that will

serve as the foundation for their Habitat Conservation Plan, which is

currently under development. We encourage others to complete surveys

and life history studies on their lands to assist them in managing for

pygmy-owls. We welcome new partnerships with any entity in order to

conserve pygmy-owls.

[[Page 37427]]

1(c) Comments: There is no biological justification or analysis to

designate unoccupied areas or use a ``connect the dots approach'' in

determining areas as critical habitat. Some areas in Units 1, 2, 5b, 6,

and 7 are not connected by habitat and should not be included.

Service Response: Much of the area designated as critical habitat

has never been surveyed for pygmy-owls. Therefore, it is unknown if

owls are currently present. We designated critical habitat in areas

that include sites we believed were essential for the conservation of

the species and those needing special management considerations. Pygmy-

owls may be present in those areas. We also believe areas between

recent sightings play an important role and are essential to

conservation of the species for the following reasons--(1) it is

unknown if owls are in fact using these areas due to the lack of past

survey effort; (2) areas of suitable or potentially suitable habitat

located between areas of known owl occurrence are very important to

allow pygmy-owls to colonize new areas; (3) they provide areas where

pygmy-owls can disperse or facilitate movement between occupied areas

for genetic interchange; and (4) they require special management

considerations.

There are some areas within the critical habitat boundaries that,

by definition of the primary constituent elements, are not critical

habitat. We have provided additional habitat element descriptions where

possible for each mapping unit to assist landowners and managers in

identifying areas containing these elements or where these elements

have the potential to develop on their lands. Refer to the description

of each unit within this final rule.

Much of southern Arizona contains areas that provide potentially

suitable habitat that may support pygmy-owls. However, as directed in

section 3(5)(A)(i and ii) of the Act, we have only designated those

areas that we believe are essential to conservation of the species.

Pygmy-owls may be present in some of those areas, but many areas have

not yet been surveyed.

(1d) Comment: How could the Service determine critical habitat when

it doesn't know what viable populations are necessary to recover the

species?

Service Response: A population viability analysis for this species

has not been undertaken, however, we are required to designate critical

habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable using existing

information. Although population viability information will be useful

in developing a recovery strategy for the species, it is not required

to make this determination of critical habitat. A population viability

analysis is unavailable for many species due to the lack of demographic

information, habitat requirements, and other information required for

an analysis. Studies to determine viable population levels for the

pygmy-owl could not be conducted within the time frame given by the

court and are not required by the Act for designation of critical

habitat.

1(e) Comment: Critical habitat should not be designated until a

recovery plan is completed.

Service Response: Although having a recovery plan in place is

extremely helpful in identifying areas as critical habitat, the Act

does not require a plan be prepared prior to such designation. Section

4(c) specifically requires that critical habitat be designated at the

time a species is listed, or within 1 year if not determinable at

listing. Once a recovery plan is finalized, we may revise the critical

habitat described in this final rule if appropriate, to reflect the

goals and recovery strategy of the recovery plan.

1(f) Comments: Only riparian areas should be designated since

Sonoran desertscrub is only marginal habitat for pygmy-owls in Arizona.

The Service should stress riparian restoration in recovery efforts for

the pygmy-owl.

Service Response: At the time the pygmy-owl was listed, it was

almost exclusively known from historical records to occur in riparian

woodlands and mesquite bosques. Since these early records, all active

sites have been located in Sonoran desertscrub, xeroriparian, or desert

grassland habitats. Based on our current knowledge, both riparian and

other habitat types appear to be important.

1(g) Comments: The habitat assessment key should have been used to

identify areas of critical habitat. Some areas that rated low using

this key were designated critical habitat, such as in Units 1 and 5b.

Why were these two units included since they are of low quality? Why

was Unit 1 designated when there have never been owls present?

Service Response: The BLM developed a habitat assessment key for

its use to prioritize areas to survey that may be suitable for pygmy-

owls. Not enough information is currently known regarding range-wide

habitat requirements to develop a key with specific criteria that would

apply to all habitats. Habitats where pygmy-owls have been found in the

greater Tucson area are vastly different from other areas of the State,

such as Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and the Altar Valley. The

BLM methodology uses specific habitat evaluation criteria to assess

distinct habitats found on their lands within specific regions of the

State. The BLM believes, and we concur, that it would be inappropriate

to use this methodology to identify areas of critical habitat and to

evaluate other habitats throughout the State since many of these

criteria do not apply to other regions. We are not aware of any

completed habitat assessments using the BLM methodology within Units 1

or 5b.

When we originally proposed critical habitat in December, 1998,

there was only one documented record of a pygmy-owl in Unit 1. Although

very few surveys had been completed in this area previously, potential

habitat was present and we believed this area was important to the

species. Since then, intensive surveys have been initiated in this unit

and the nearby refuge. As a result, nine pygmy-owl sites have been

found (Harris Environmental Group 1998; Aaron Flesch, pers. comm. 1999;

AGFD unpubl. data 1999). Therefore, we consider this unit essential for

recovery of the species. Likewise, other areas we have designated have

little survey data to date. Areas where pygmy-owls are not currently

known to exist because of lack of or limited survey efforts may also

have pygmy-owls. We encourage landowners and managers with suitable

habitat described in this rule to conduct surveys for pygmy-owl. We

agree that Unit 5b likely contains limited nesting habitat; however,

the mesquite-lined washes in this unit provide, at a minimum, dispersal

habitat for owls moving between Units 4 and 6.

1(h) Comment: Critical habitat boundaries do not appear to reflect

habitat; rather they follow squared-off, arbitrary lines.

Service Response: We are required to describe critical habitat (50

CFR Sec. 424.12(c)) with specific limits using reference points and

lines as found on standard topographic maps of the area. Due to the

time constraints imposed by the court, the absence of detailed

vegetation maps, we followed roads, railroads, and section or township

lines wherever possible to delineate the critical habitat boundaries.

Some pygmy-owl unsuitable habitat areas may be included in these mapped

areas. Under 50 CFR Sec. 424.12(d), when several habitat areas are

located in proximity to one another, an inclusive area may be

designated as critical habitat.

(1i) Comments: Why are some areas that do not appear to have

suitable pygmy-owl habitat or to contain any of the primary constituent

elements included as critical habitat? Only those areas with these

constituent elements

[[Page 37428]]

should be designated (15 USC Sec. 1532 (5)(A) and 50 CFR Sec. 424.12).

Service Response: As previously stated in this document, due to

time constraints, we were not able to eliminate areas within the

critical habitat boundaries that do not contain, or do not have the

reasonable likelihood of ever containing, the primary constituent

elements necessary for the pygmy-owl. However, any areas that do not,

and cannot, support these elements are, by definition, not considered

to be critical habitat, even though they are within the identified

boundaries.

(1j) Comments: Areas with reduced value as pygmy-owl habitat should

not be included. Commenters cited the following factors as to why their

lands had little value as pygmy-owl habitat--lack of some primary

constituent elements, ``low-quality'' habitat, nearby major roads,

schools, or high-density housing, and lack of saguaros or ironwoods.

Some areas may not be suitable because they are adjacent to planned

developments such as future road-widening projects or housing

developments.

Service Response: We have documented the presence of pygmy-owls

near developed lands, roads, and areas that possess some, but not all,

of the primary constituent elements. Therefore, we are including areas

near developed lands that contain at least some primary constituent

elements as critical habitat because owls use these areas. We believe

these areas also play an important role for pygmy-owls for some of

their life history requirements such as foraging or dispersal. We can

not exclude areas as critical habitat because of projected projects or

proposed activities, unless the economic impact outweighs the benefit

to the species (section 4(b)(2) of the Act). Although ironwoods are

commonly found at sites in the northwest Tucson area (Wilcox et al.

1999), numerous other historical and recent sites lack ironwoods.

Therefore, we do not believe ironwoods are specifically a necessary

component for pygmy-owls. Further research is needed to fully

understand this species' habitat needs and life history requirements.

(1k) Comment: You should not only designate currently occupied

sites, but also sites with suitable or potential habitat that was

previously occupied, and also dispersal habitat.

Service Response: The Act (section 3(5)(C)) states that not all

areas capable of being occupied by the species should be designated as

critical habitat unless we determine that such designation is essential

to the species' conservation. In determining what areas are critical

habitat, we considered areas and constituent elements that are

essential to the conservation of the species and that may require

special protection or management considerations (50 CFR

Sec. 424.12(b)). Thus, not all areas occupied or potentially occupied

by a species are eligible for designation. Our rationale for not

designating all occupied pygmy-owl sites as critical habitat are

discussed in the section entitled ``Critical Habitat Designation.'' Due

to time constraints and because of a lack of survey data to indicate

documented pygmy-owl presence, we cannot assert that pygmy-owls are not

present in a particular area designated as critical habitat. This

critical habitat designation contains areas that may be important for

pygmy-owl dispersals.

(1l) Comments: There was no scientific basis for the constituent

elements described in the proposed rule. The definition of constituent

elements should be expanded to include dispersal habitat such as

creosote bush and grasslands. The constituent elements described are

vague (violating 50 CFR Sec. 424.12(c)) and are overly inclusive, and

should include the required greater detail defining structure, species

richness, and juxtaposition of riparian and xeroriparian areas with

adjacent upland habitat types. Identified corridors are not based on

known movement of owls, and appear to be sheer guesswork.

Service Response: The primary constituent elements described in

this final rule are elements for which we have evidence of use by

pygmy-owls in Arizona. Smaller diameter trees and shrubs, though not

suitable nesting structure, appear suitable for dispersal movements

and/or support prey species for pygmy-owls (Proudfoot, pers. comm.

1999). Pure stands of extensive grassland do not support primary

constituent elements; however, grasslands with scattered mesquites or

other trees or shrubs provide dispersal and foraging habitat and

drainages within grasslands containing trees with cavities may also

provide suitable nesting habitat. Information regarding movement of

pygmy-owls gathered in Arizona and Texas was used to determine

suitability of dispersal corridors.

To date, pygmy-owl habitat studies have been limited to descriptive

studies in the greater Tucson area. Habitat in this study area is

vastly different from sites elsewhere in the State with historical and

recent pygmy-owl sightings. In addition to this Tucson habitat study

(Wilcox et al. 1999), we are aware of two additional habitat studies

that are scheduled to begin in the summer of 1999, which will analyze

habitats where other pygmy-owls are found in the State. These

additional studies will examine habitats used by pygmy-owls in areas

containing very different habitats compared to previous studies. Random

sites will also be studied in the state to determine use versus

availability. These studies will provide valuable information about the

habitat needs of pygmy-owls and will be useful to us and others in

meeting the conservation needs of the species.

As noted earlier, pygmy-owls use a variety of habitats. We have

described in the greatest detail possible in this final rule the

constituent elements important to pygmy-owls known at this time. If new

information later becomes available as a result of the above mentioned

or other studies regarding the habitat needs of this species, we will

then evaluate whether a revision of designated critical habitat is

warranted. In addition, as new habitat information becomes available

that can further refine habitat definitions and descriptions, it will

be used in future section 7 consultations and recovery planning for the

pygmy-owl.

Issue 2: Take of Private Property/Additional Burdens on Private

Landowners

(2a) Comment: The designation of critical habitat would constitute

``taking'' of private property rights; thus a takings implications

assessment, as required by Executive Order 12630, must be conducted.

Service Response: The designation of critical habitat has no effect

on non-Federal actions taken on private land, even if the private land

is within the mapped boundary of designated critical habitat. Critical

habitat has possible effects on activities by private landowners only

if the activity involves Federal funding, a Federal permit, or other

Federal action. If such a Federal nexus exists, we will work with the

landowner and the appropriate Federal agency to ensure that the

landowner's project can be completed without jeopardizing the species

or adversely modifying critical habitat.

Executive Order 12630 requires that Federal actions that may affect

the value or use of private property be accompanied by a takings

implication assessment. As discussed in our response to Issue 9,

(McKenney et al. 1999), the economic analysis found that designation of

critical habitat would have no economic effect above that already

imposed by listing. The primary effect of critical habitat designation

on private property is to identify areas important for the conservation

of the species. In addition, if a Federal action

[[Page 37429]]

occurs on those private lands, such as issuance of a Clean Water Act

section 404 permit, the Federal action agency would be required to

consult with us pursuant to section 7 of the Act if that action may

affect the pygmy-owl or its critical habitat. In Arizona, all private

landowners that have applied for a section 10 take permit to allow them

incidental take of a federally listed species have been issued permits,

and all projects that have completed the section 7 consultation process

have gone forward.

(2b) Comments: The designation of critical habitat would place an

additional burden on landowners above and beyond what the listing of

the species would require. The number of section 7 consultations will

increase; large areas where no pygmy-owls are known to occur will now

be subject to section 7 consultation. Many Federal agencies have been

making a ``no effect'' call within unoccupied suitable habitat. Now,

with critical habitat there will be ``may effect'' determinations, and

section 7 consultation will be required if any of the constituent

elements are present.

Service Response: If a Federal agency funds, authorizes, or carries

out an action that may affect either the pygmy-owl or its critical

habitat, the Act requires that the agency consult with us under section

7 of the Act. For a project to affect critical habitat, it must affect

the habitat features important to the pygmy-owl, which are the primary

constituent elements described in this final rule. Our view is and has

been that any Federal action within the geographic area occupied by the

species that affects these habitat features should be considered a

situation that ``may affect'' the pygmy-owl and should undergo section

7 consultation. This is true whether or not critical habitat is

designated, even when the particular project site within the larger

geographical area occupied by the species is not known to be currently

occupied by an individual pygmy-owl. All areas designated as critical

habitat are within the geographical area occupied by the species, so

Federal actions affecting essential habitat features of the species

should undergo consultation. Thus, the need to conduct section 7

consultation should not be affected by critical habitat designation. As

in the past, the action agency will continue to make the determination

as to whether their project may affect a species even when the

particular site is not known to be currently occupied by an individual

pygmy-owl.

Issue 3: National Environmental Policy Act.

Comment: The designation of critical habitat constitutes a major

Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) should be

prepared.

Service Response: We have determined that Environmental Assessments

(EAs) and EISs, as defined under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), need not be prepared in

connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination

in the Federal Register in October, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Issue 4: Lands with Habitat Conservation Permits to be Excluded

from Critical Habitat.

Comments: It is illegal and unscientific to withdraw critical

habitat designation from land covered by an approved or future Habitat

Conservation Plan (HCP) incidental take permit. Critical habitat

protects land essential for conservation, which is a higher standard

than a HCP permit which only assures that jeopardy would not occur. The

HCP take permit has no public process analysis or scientific

accountability. HCPs should maintain constituent elements. Regional

HCPs are preferred to individual permits. Individual HCPs should not be

approved until a regional HCP is completed in Pima County.

Service Response: Before we issue a section 10 permit, we must

determine that the HCP provides for the conservation of the species. As

a part of the permit evaluation process, we must determine whether our

action of issuing the section 10 permit is likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the species or result in adverse modification of

critical habitat. Thus, when a HCP is approved through a section 10

permit, we will have already determined that critical habitat would not

be adversely modified. HCP permits for lands over 5 acres in size are

required to go through the NEPA process that involves public

participation and comment. Monitoring and adaptive management are

important components of the HCP process to ensure that needed actions

are taken and that actions can be modified, as needed, as new

information is collected.

We agree that maintaining the primary constituent elements is an

important consideration in developing HCPs. In addition, we strongly

support regional multiple-species HCPs such as the one currently under

development by Pima County, and we encourage this broad-based approach

to others within the region. Experience gained from development of

similar plans indicates that because of their complexity, these plans

typically take a year or more to complete. We encourage landowners and

members of the public in the region to participate in this planning

effort; however, we realize that it would be unrealistic for some to

wait until the county's plan is finalized. We cannot preclude any

applicant from pursuing an individual HCP pending the development of a

regional plan.

Issue 5: Section 7 Consultation and Section 9.

(5a) Comments: How will the Service conduct section 7 consultations

on land immediately adjacent to critical habitat; would additional

buffers be required?

Service Response: We address all direct, indirect, inter-related,

and interdependent effects of projects under section 7 consultation,

which could include effects to areas outside of the immediate project

area (downstream effects, for example). However, if a project is

adjacent to, but not within, critical habitat and has no direct or

indirect effect on critical habitat, that would be acknowledged in the

section 7 Biological Opinion, and only effects to the species would be

addressed.

(5b) Comment: Section 9 does not fully protect habitat absent a

critical habitat designation because critical habitat can include

unoccupied habitat. There is a clear distinction between the

``jeopardy'' and ``adverse modification of critical habitat''

prohibitions. In its final rule listing the pygmy-owl as endangered,

the Service states that clearing of unoccupied habitat is not a section

9 ``take.'' The courts have consistently held that for a party to

assert that removal or disturbance of vegetation from an area will

result in take of an endangered species, such a party must demonstrate

that the species is present in the area or otherwise using it for

essential behavioral functions. Where there is no owl, there is no

take.

Service Response: We agree that section 9 does not protect

unoccupied habitat, i.e., areas from which the pygmy-owl has been

extirpated. However, as discussed in our response to comment 2(b)

above, section 7 requires consultation on Federal actions that may

affect a listed species or its critical habitat. An action agency may

determine that a project may affect a species even when the particular

site is not known to be currently occupied by an individual pygmy-owl.

It is our view that actions affecting suitable pygmy-owl habitat within

the known range of the pygmy-owl, whether or not that area has been

designated as critical habitat and whether or not it is known to

[[Page 37430]]

currently support an individual, should undergo review under section 7.

Issue 6: Designation by Specific Land Ownership.

(6a) Comments: Designation of critical habitat is not necessary on

non-Federal lands because vast tracts of Federal and Tribal lands are

already protected. For instance, over 87% of Pima County is owned by

the government; the Service should move the owls to those lands.

Service Response: The Act defines critical habitat as those areas

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

special management considerations or protection. We agree that Federal

lands provide a significant amount of the habitat currently occupied by

the pygmy-owl, and that those lands are essential to the species'

conservation. However, much of the currently occupied habitat is on

non-Federal land, especially in Pima County. As stated in the proposed

rule, we tried to avoid designation on non-Federal lands except when

those lands are, because of their location or the habitat they support,

necessary to ensure pygmy-owl conservation. We do not believe that

Federal and Tribal lands alone, are adequate to ensure the species'

conservation.

(6b) Comments: Exemption of Federal lands such as National Parks

and National Wildlife Refuges is illegal, violating 50 CFR Sec. 424.12,

and draft guidance exhibit 2, pp 5, 11-12, which states that lands must

be evaluated regardless of ownership. None of those lands have an owl

plan, and there is no basis to claim that future management will be

consistent with critical habitat protections. The Service does not have

the statutory authority to exclude areas because it feels their current

management is compatible with pygmy-owls, and the benefits from

exclusion must be greater than that of inclusion.

Service Response: In determining what areas are critical habitat,

we consider physical and biological features that are essential to the

conservation of the species and that may require special management

considerations or protection (50 CFR Sec. 424.14(b)). Organ Pipe Cactus

National Monument, Saguaro National Park, and Buenos Aries and Cabeza

National Wildlife refuges provide important habitat for the pygmy-owl.

These areas were excluded from designation not simply because of

ownership, but because we believe these areas are managed in such a way

that provides for natural values, including protection of threatened

and endangered species. We believe that these specific areas are

managed and likely will continue to be managed in a manner compatible

with pygmy-owl needs, and are therefore not in need of special

management considerations or protection.

(6c) Comments: Exemption of Tribal lands is illegal, and there is

no evidence that current densities on Tribal lands are as high as

historical levels, nor that the population is increasing. The Service

states that, because the owl occurs on the reservation, Tribal

management is compatible with pygmy-owls. Failure to designate critical

habitat on Tribal lands violates the Equal Protection Clause of the

United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act.

Service Response: Given the lack of species' location and habitat

information on Tribal lands available at the time of drafting the

proposed rule, we were unable to thoroughly assess either the status of

the species on those lands, or the management practices currently

employed by the tribes. The court's order required publication of a

proposed rule within only 30 days and a final rule in 6 months. Given

the extensive preparation and review requirements of publishing a

proposed rule, our staff had but a few days to develop the critical

habitat maps and determine what areas are both essential to the

species' conservation and in need of special management considerations

or protection. Further, Secretarial Order 3206 requires significant

coordination with Tribal governments, as well as several specific

determinations, prior to proposing Tribal land as critical habitat. The

30 days allowed by the court precluded the analyses and coordination

that would have been necessary before proposing critical habitat on

Tribal lands. We therefore based our proposal on the best scientific

and commercial information available, as required by the Act.

(6d) Comments: To designate State trust lands because they are

owned by the State is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and

unlawful; they should be treated as private lands. The Service

considers State lands as public lands and therefore assumes that the

limitations of use resulting from designation of critical habitat will

not adversely affect the landowner. The Service did not justify the

assumption that State lands require special management considerations.

Service Response: We first identified areas essential to the

conservation of the species. We looked first to Federal, then State

lands to develop a configuration that would include most occupied

pygmy-owl sites, connected across the species' range. Our reasoning was

that the Act clearly puts the largest share of the burden on Federal

agencies and Federal lands in conserving listed species. The Act also

considers the states to be important partners in species' conservation

efforts. Where possible, we therefore proposed Federal and State lands

as the primary areas to concentrate pygmy-owl recovery, with private

lands included where necessary. As stated in the economic analysis and

this final rule, we do not believe the designation of critical habitat

will have adverse economic effects on any landowner, including the

State of Arizona, above and beyond the effects of listing of the

species (McKenney et al. 1999).

Future management practices of State trust lands are uncertain in

areas we have determined essential to the recovery of this species and

may in some instances not be compatible with conservation efforts;

therefore, we believe that designation of these lands is warranted. We

believe that designation of these and other lands as critical habitat

does not result in additional economic or other effects to the

landowner above that which would occur from listing the species.

Issue 7: Legal and Procedural Comments.

(7a) Comments: The Service did not consult, nor allow for an

appropriate level of involvement with, the State of Arizona, counties,

and cities in areas proposed as critical habitat.

Service Response: In regard to the role of local governments in

decisions to determine critical habitat, the Act requires we ``give

actual notice of the proposed regulation (including the complete text

of the regulation) to * * * each county or equivalent jurisdiction in

which the species is believed to occur, and invite the comment of such

agency, and each jurisdiction'' (section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act).

Due to the limited time allowed by the court and plaintiffs, we were

not able to individually contact all of the entities that could be

affected by this proposal; however, we notified each affected county,

several cities, and many special interest groups of the proposed rule

and draft economic analysis. All entities, including the State and

local municipalities, were given ample opportunity, during two separate

public comment periods and three public hearings, to submit their

concerns and have them addressed in the final rule. Numerous local,

city, county, State, and Federal agencies provided comments during two

public comment periods and three public hearings; we reviewed and

considered these comments in developing this final rule.

(7b) Comments: The court order was not to designate critical

habitat, but

[[Page 37431]]

rather to reconsider whether it was prudent to do so. The court

referred to only 12 of the 28 items of evidence the Service provided in

its original ``not prudent'' determination. Designation of critical

habitat provides no additional benefits to the species and can lead to

increased threats from bird watchers or retaliation against the species

as happened with the Mexican wolf. The Service lacks sufficient

original information and its original not prudent finding was correct

until future research is done.

Service Response: The Act requires the Secretary, ``to the extent

prudent and determinable,'' to designate critical habitat concurrently

with listing a species as threatened or endangered. Regulations under

50 CFR Sec. 424.12(a)(1) state that critical habitat is not prudent

when one or both of the following situations exist--(i) the species is

threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of

critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat,

or (ii) designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the

species.

We determined in our final rule listing the species as endangered

(62 FR 10730) that critical habitat designation would increase the

threat of harassment of owls by bird watchers and increase the

potential for vandalism. The court found this determination to be

arbitrary and capricious, and remanded the ``not prudent'' finding to

us.

As stated in our economic analysis (McKenney et al. 1999), we

believe that designation of critical habitat for the pygmy-owl provides

no significant additional impacts or benefits to the species beyond

that which would occur, or is provided, through listing the species as

endangered. While we believe this argument fits the second argument for

a ``not prudent'' finding, the court order cited a previous finding in

the 9th Circuit (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Department of

Interior; 113 F3d 1121, 1126) that it was Congress' intent that the

imprudence exception be a rare exception. This and other statements in

the court order led us to believe that another ``not prudent'' finding

based on the available information would be inconsistent with the court

order.

(7c) Comment: The biological benefits of critical habitat are

outweighed by the benefits of exclusion.

Service Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 50 CFR Sec. 424.19

requires us to consider excluding areas from critical habitat

designation if we determine that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the

benefits of designating the area as critical habitat, unless that

exclusion will lead to extinction of the species concerned. As

discussed in this final rule, we have determined that no adverse

economic or other effects will result from this critical habitat

designation (McKenney et al. 1999). Therefore, no areas were found

where the benefits of exclusion outweighed the benefits of including

the areas as critical habitat.

(7d) Comments: The Service must consider the entire range,

including Mexico, in determining areas of critical habitat. The Service

has never found that the Arizona population is a distinct population

segment from the Mexican population.

Service Response: Regulations at 50 CFR Sec. 424.12(h) state that

critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in

other areas outside of United States jurisdiction. We agree that the

status of the species in Mexico will be an important consideration in

recovery of the species in Arizona. However, maintenance of a healthy

population in the U.S. also depends on areas within the pygmy-owls'

historical U.S. range, and we have determined that those areas are

essential to the species' conservation.

(7e) Comment: The Service failed to comply with a number of

required determinations, including Executive Orders 12291, 12630,

12866, and 50 CFR Secs. 424.12(c)(d), and Sec. 424.19 as well as the

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Service Response: These Executive Orders and other Acts are

discussed in the ``Required Determinations'' section of this final

rule. Issues pertaining to 50 CFR Sec. 424.14(c)(d) and 424.19 are

addressed elsewhere in this final rule.

(7f) Comment: Critical habitat will have potential impacts on water

resource use by Arizona and local agencies. How has the Service

coordinated with these groups to resolve water resources issues?

Service Response: This final rule does not authorize our

jurisdiction over water rights, and we do not anticipate impact to

local economies or citizens as a result of this designation as we state

elsewhere in this rule. Critical habitat designation does not, in

itself, restrict groundwater pumping or water diversions; nor does it

in anyway restrict or usurp water rights or violate State or Federal

water laws. Local agencies, governments, and individuals have had the

opportunity to provide comments during two comment periods, and three

public hearings. We will work with these groups during the section 7

consultation process as necessary to ensure their activities comply

with the Act and other Federal and State laws.

(7g) Comment: Designation of critical habitat on Arizona State

trust lands violates the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act of 1910.

Service Response: Under the provisions of the Arizona and New

Mexico Enabling Act, in 1910, Congress granted title to certain Federal

lands within the borders of Arizona to the State of Arizona for the

purpose of creating a trust to provide financial support to the Arizona

common schools, universities, and other public institutions operated by

the State. However, the State trust created under the Enabling Act is

not immune from the operation of otherwise applicable Federal law,

including the Endangered Species Act. Further, we do not anticipate

that critical habitat designation will affect the State's ability to

utilize their trust lands in a manner that will provide financial

support to State institutions. Even if there are situations where a

State activity requires Federal authorization or funding, we do not

anticipate any restrictions beyond those that may result from listing

the pygmy-owl as endangered.

(7h) Comments: Critical habitat should not have been proposed

before an economic and other impacts analysis was completed, and the

opportunity to comment on the economic analysis and the proposed rule

was limited. Several requests were received to extend the public

comment period.

Service Response: We are not required to conduct an economic

analysis at the time critical habitat is initially proposed. We

published in the Federal Register (63 FR 71820) the availability of the

proposed rule and invited public comment which we used to develop a

draft economic analysis (McKenney et al. 1999). We invited public

comments for 30 days on this draft analysis, which we believe was

sufficient given the short-time frame ordered by the court. Because of

the court-ordered time frame, we were not able to extend the public

comment period.

(7i) Comment: Maps and descriptions provided are vague and violate

the Act and 50 CFR Sec. 424.12(c).

Service Response: This final rule contains the required legal

descriptions of areas designated as critical habitat. The accompanying

maps are for illustration purposes. If additional clarification is

necessary, contact the Arizona Ecological Service Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section). We identified specific areas referenced by specific

legal description, roads, railroads, and other landmarks, which are

found on standard topographic maps.

[[Page 37432]]

(7j) Comment: Once land is designated as critical habitat it will

likely result in a panoply of Federal, State, and local land use laws,

and restrictions or extra procedures.

Service Response: We are unaware of any information that indicates

any new State or local laws, restrictions, or procedures will result

from critical habitat designation. Should any State or local regulation

be promulgated as a result of this rule, this would be outside of the

authority of the Service under the Act. The comment is correct in that

projects funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies, and

that may affect critical habitat, must undergo consultation under

section 7 of the Act on the effects of the action on critical habitat.

However, as stated elsewhere in this final rule, we do not expect the

result of those consultations to result in any restrictions that would

not be required as a result of listing the pygmy-owl as an endangered

species.

(7k) Comment: Additional areas not identified in the proposed rule

should be designated critical habitat.

Service Response: Section 4(b)(4) of the Act requires that

designation of critical habitat undergo the regulation promulgation

procedures identified under 5 U.S.C. 553. That is, areas designated as

critical habitat must first be proposed as such. Thus, we cannot make

significant additions in the final rule to the areas included in the

proposed rule. Designation of such areas would require new proposed and

final rules. The Act explicitly states that not all suitable or

occupied habitat be designated as critical habitat, rather only those

essential for the conservation of the species (50 CFR Sec. 424.12 (e)).

The pygmy-owl recovery team is currently developing a recovery plan

for this species. During the development of a recovery strategy, the

team will not only closely examine areas designated as critical habitat

but also all lands within the listed population, to determine their

importance and role in the recovery of the species. This process will

allow substantially more in-depth analysis than we were afforded by the

court and plaintiffs to designate critical habitat. If the recovery

team, as a result of new information or analysis, further refines those

areas designated in this final rule or identifies additional areas

which they determine are essential to the conservation of the species,

we will evaluate whether a revision of critical habitat is warranted at

that time.

Issue 8: Specific Projects and Activities.

(8a) Comments: Critical habitat would affect specific projects such

as erosion control measures on Brawley Wash and fire management in the

Altar and Falcon Valley regions. Grazing would be affected by

designation on private lands.

Service Response: Critical habitat designations only apply to

Federal lands, or federally funded or authorized projects on private

lands. If there is no Federal nexus or involvement, then additional

considerations are not necessary (see Issue 2 above). Where a Federal

nexus exists, designation of critical habitat does not preclude

projects or activities such as riparian restoration, erosion control,

fire management, or grazing if they do not cause an adverse

modification of critical habitat. We will work with landowners within

designated critical habitat and Federal agencies that are required to

consult with us under section 7 of the Act to ensure that land

management will not adversely modify critical habitat. We also

encourage landowners to restore riparian habitats including erosion

control measures, and we can provide financial and technical assistance

through our Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.

(8b) Comment: Designation of areas with existing pipelines and

aqueducts would be affected and should be excluded. Routine maintenance

of trails should be excluded.

Service Response: Periodic maintenance of existing pipelines,

roads, trails, or aqueducts would not typically constitute adverse

modification of critical habitat. These areas generally lack the

primary constituent elements described in this rule, and it is our

intention to exclude such areas by definition. If maintenance would

require removal of constituent elements, and Federal involvement is

part of that activity, then section 7 consultation may be necessary.

(8c) Comment: Designation of critical habitat may compromise

wildfire prevention and suppression activities in those areas.

Service response: We agree that wildfire prevention and suppression

activity is very important to protect human life and property, and also

from a resource protection standpoint. Fire protection of areas

designated as critical habitat will be essential to ensure the

conservation of the species. We will work with all landowners and

managers responsible for these activities to ensure adequate fire

prevention and suppression measures are in place and to protect

resource values. Only fire prevention and suppression activity

undertaken or funded by a Federal agency would require consultation

under section 7 of the Act. Non-Federal activities will not be affected

by critical habitat designation.

Issue 9: Economic Impacts.

(9a) Comment: The assumption applied in the economic analysis that

the designation of critical habitat will cause no impacts above and

beyond those caused by listing of the species is faulty, legally

indefensible, and contrary to the ESA. ``Adverse modification'' and

``jeopardy'' are different, will result in different impacts, and

should be analyzed as such in the economic analysis.

Service Response: The designation of critical habitat for the

pygmy-owl has been evaluated in the economic context known as ``with''

and ``without'' the rule. It was found that the survival of the pygmy-

owl makes it necessary that any adverse modification of its habitat

would jeopardize the species. Under this condition, any and all

economic consequences would be due to the jeopardy call under section 7

of the Act, and an adverse modification without a jeopardy call would

not occur. Further, it is our position that both within and outside of

critical habitat, Federal agencies should consult under the jeopardy

standard if a proposed action is (1) within the geographic areas

occupied by the species, whether or not owls have been detected on the

specific project site; (2) the project site contains habitat features

that can be used by the species; and (3) the proposed action is likely

to adversely affect that habitat. The economic consequences identified

during the comment period are all due to the listing of the pygmy-owl

and not the designation of critical habitat. The economic analysis of

designating critical habitat determined that the same regulatory

process is in place ``with'' as well as ``without'' the rule, and

consequently found no economic effects.

(9b) Comment: The proposed designation of critical habitat will

impose economic hardship on private landowners and businesses. There is

an expressed concern that the proposed critical habitat designation

would have serious financial implications for commercial and

residential development businesses. It is suggested that designation

would result in reduced property values, lost tax revenues, lost jobs,

and foregone economic activity.

Service Response: As stated in the economic analysis, the proposed

rule to designate critical habitat for the pygmy-owl is not adding any

new requirements to the current regulatory process. Since the adverse

modification standard for critical habitat and the jeopardy standard

are almost identical, the listing of the pygmy-owl itself initiated the

requirement for consultation. This

[[Page 37433]]

critical habitat designation adds no additional requirements not

already in place due to the species' listing.

(9c) Comment: There is an expressed concern that the delay in

acquiring Federal permits or the inability to acquire permits for

further development, as a result of section 7 consultation, would be an

economic hardship to both developers and homeowner associations.

Service Response: The requirement for Federal agency consultation

under section 7 of the Act for actions they carry out, fund, or

authorize on Federal or non-Federal lands resulted from listing of the

species, and no new requirements are imposed by critical habitat

designation.

(9d) Comment: There is an expressed concern that the value and

security of bonds issued to construct public infrastructure might be

threatened by critical habitat designation.

Service Response: Bonds issued by non-Federal entities that are not

insured by the Federal Government do not constitute a Federal nexus.

However, an incidental take permit issued under section 10 of the Act

would still be required if a taking of the pygmy-owl is possible. The

designation of critical habitat does not add any additional

requirements to the section 10 incidental take permit process.

(9e) Comment: There is an expressed concern that all property

owners who will be adversely affected by the designation of critical

habitat should be provided just compensation.

Service Response: This designation of critical habitat will not add

any additional restrictions and will not affect property owners beyond

those restrictions resulting from the listing of the pygmy-owl as

endangered.

(9f) Comment: Critical habitat may disrupt current and future

Federal, State, and County land management activities and cause

economic losses.

Service Response: Federal agencies are required to consult with us

when a species is listed under the Act. State and County entities are

not required to consult with us unless a Federal nexus exists. The

designation of critical habitat does not add any new requirements or

restrictions.

(9g) Comment: The designation will have harmful impacts on the

quality of life, education, and economic stability of small towns.

There is an expressed concern that the proposed critical habitat

designation will change water diversions, groundwater pumping, road

maintenance and land development.

Service Response: As stated in the economic analysis, the proposed

rule to designate critical habitat for the pygmy-owl is not adding any

new requirements to the regulatory process. Since the adverse

modification standard of critical habitat and the jeopardy standard are

nearly identical, the listing of the pygmy-owl itself placed the

requirement for consultation. This final rule to designate critical

habitat adds no additional requirements that were not already in place

due to the species' listing.

(9h) Comment: There is an expressed concern that the designation

would limit the construction of much needed schools, colleges, and

community and recreation centers, thereby threatening the ability of

small towns affected by the designation to expand and diversify their

economy and to improve education.

Service Response: As previously stated, this final rule designating

critical habitat will not impose additional restrictions on private,

cities, counties, State or Federal lands. Restrictions already in place

due to the listing of the pygmy-owl require consultation with us when

there is a Federal nexus. Any limitations or restrictions on

construction were imposed due to the species' listing. Additional

restrictions are not expected.

(9i) Comment: There is an expressed concern that the economic

stability of the towns of Kearny, Hayden, and Winkelman, as well as

Pinal and Gila counties, depends on the continued operation of their

mining complex, and further regulatory costs would threaten the

corporation.

Service Response: Critical habitat designation will not add new

restrictions beyond those imposed by the listing of the pygmy-owl.

(9j) Comment: The Service's designation of critical habitat has not

adequately considered potential economic implications. There is

opposition to the fact that the Service did not prepare an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis to address potential impact to small

businesses, as required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Service Response: The proposed rule was published under very tight

time constraints by the court order on December 24, 1998. At that time

we prepared a record of compliance (ROC) that the proposed critical

habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on

small entities. A detailed analysis was initiated by a private firm

under contract and subsequently, we distributed a draft of the economic

analysis for a 30-day public comment period ending in May, 1999. The

findings of the economic analysis indicate that the designation of

critical habitat adds no new restrictions on economic activity that

were not due to the listing of the pygmy-owl. Therefore, there are no

economic effects on small entities attributable to this final rule, and

a regulatory impact analysis is not required.

(9k) There is a concern that the different jurisdictions impacted

by critical habitat designation should be addressed separately; impacts

should be addressed as individual cases, not collectively.

Service Response: If the economic analysis would have detected

economic effects attributable to the critical habitat designation, then

those effects would have been enumerated for each of the areas of

critical habitat and would have been estimated for each type of land

and management involved. This information would have been used by the

Secretary of the Department of the Interior to determine if the

benefits of exclusion of the land outweighed the benefits of including

the land as critical habitat. There are no economic effects

attributable to critical habitat designation so the issue of separating

economic effects is a moot point.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

Below is a summary of the changes made to the legal descriptions

for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl critical habitat designation. The

maps included in the proposed rule accurately depicted the critical

habitat proposed by the rule. Based on the comments we received, we

discovered that several areas within the proposed critical habitat were

not accurately described by the legal descriptions in the proposed

rule, although the areas were accurately depicted on the maps. As

discussed below, we are clarifying the legal descriptions in this final

designation to conform to the area depicted by the maps, which remain

unchanged.

Changes in the legal descriptions below are of three types: (1) The

result of typographical errors discovered after publication of the

proposed rule; (2) corrections in sectional descriptions resulting from

the use of more up-to-date Public Land Survey System data obtained from

the Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS) to more closely

reflect mapped information of the proposed rule; and (3) clarification

of the description for Tucson Mountain County Park, the boundary of

which was obtained from Pima County Public Works and is more up-to-date

than that depicted on the BLM map cited in the proposed rule and which

was available from ALRIS.

[[Page 37434]]

Unit 1:

T. 19 S., R. 7 E.

T. 19 S., R. 8 E.

T. 21 S., R. 7 E.

Unit 2:

T. 14 S., R. 11 E.

T. 14 S., R. 12 E.

Unit 5b:

T. 9 S., R. 14 E.

Unit 6:

T. 4 S., R. 14 E.

T. 6 S., R. 15 E.

T. 6 S., R. 16 E.

T. 8 S., R. 16 E.

T. 9 S., R. 18 E.

T. 11 S., R. 18 E.

T. 12 S., R. 19 E.

Unit 7:

T. 1 N., R. 9 E.

As a result of using ALRIS data for ownership, the acres summary in

Table 1 also changed. The total acres increased by about 1% with the

greatest change in Pinal County where BLM's total was reduced and the

``Other'' category picked up that reduction. This is largely due to

acreage originally identified as BLM that was actually Bureau of

Reclamation when the newer data sets were analyzed. The remaining

acreage differences are attributed to the differing methods of

determining acres. For the proposed rule, sections and ownership were

roughly counted and totaled manually by visual inspection of the cited

maps. Subsequently, digital information was obtained from ALRIS and

Pima County, which was used to create the updated version of Table 1

(as well as the legal descriptions).

Finally, as mentioned previously, lands in Tribal grazing

allotments are excluded from critical habitat. We determined that

pygmy-owl conservation could be adequately ensured without designation

of the approximately 240 acres.

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 part of

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

exclusion would result in the extinction of the species concerned.

Economic effects caused by listing the pygmy-owl as endangered and

by other statutes are the baseline upon which critical habitat is

imposed. The economic analysis must then examine the incremental

economic and conservation effects of the critical habitat addition.

Economic effects are measured as changes in national income, regional

jobs, and household income. An analysis of the economic effects of

pygmy-owl critical habitat designation was prepared (McKenney et al.

1999) and made available for public review (April 15-May 15, 1999; 64

FR 18597). The final analysis, which reviewed and incorporated public

comments, concluded that no economic impacts are expected from critical

habitat designation above and beyond that already imposed by listing

the pygmy-owl. The only possible economic effects of critical habitat

designation are on activities funded, authorized, or carried out by a

Federal agency. These activities would be subject to section 7

consultation if they may affect critical habitat. However, activities

that may affect critical habitat may also affect the species, and would

thus be subject to consultation regardless. Also, changes or mitigating

measures that might increase the cost of the project would only be

imposed as a result of critical habitat if the project adversely

modifies or destroys that critical habitat. We believe that any project

that would adversely modify or destroy critical habitat would also

jeopardize the continued existence of the species and that reasonable

and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardizing the species would also

avoid adverse modification of critical habitat. Thus, no regulatory

burden or additional costs would accrue because of critical habitat

above and beyond that resulting from listing.

A copy of the economic analysis and description of the exclusion

process with supporting documents are included in our administrative

record and may be obtained by contacting our office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, we submitted this action

for review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because the economic

analysis identified no economic benefits from excluding any of the

proposed critical habitat areas, we made a determination to designate

all proposed critical habitat units. No inconsistencies with other

agencies' actions and/or effects on entitlements, grants, user fees,

loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients, were

identified in the economic analysis. This rule does not raise novel

legal or policy issues.

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

In the economic analysis we determined that designation of critical

habitat will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of

small entities. As discussed in that document and in this final rule,

designation of critical habitat will not restrict any actions beyond

those already resulting from listing the pygmy-owl. We recognize that

some towns, counties, and private entities are considered small

entities in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, however,

they also are not affected by the designation of critical habitat

because no additional restrictions will result from this action.

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

In the economic analysis we determined that designation of critical

habitat will not 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.

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

In the economic analysis we determined that no effects would occur

to small governments as a result of critical habitat designation.

Takings

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

significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment

is not required. This designation 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.

Federalism

This rule 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, and in the

economic analysis we determined that no economic impacts would result

from critical habitat designation.

[[Page 37435]]

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. We have made every effort to

ensure that this final determination contains no drafting errors,

provides clear standards, simplifies procedures, reduces burden, and is

clearly written such that litigation risk is minimized.

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.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that EAs and EISs, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), need

not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to

section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons

for this determination in the Federal Register in October, 1983 (48 FR

49244).

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, we 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.'' Pygmy-owl critical habitat does not

contain any Tribal lands nor lands that we have identified as impacting

Tribal trust resources.

References Cited

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

available upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

The primary author of this notice is Mike Wrigley (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

For the reasons given in the preamble, we 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 Critical Special

Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific Name threatened

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

Birds

* * * * * * *

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

cactorum. Mexico. (b)

* * * * * * *

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

3. Amend section 17.95(b) by adding critical habitat for the cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum) in the same

alphabetical order as this species occurs in 17.11(h).

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. The maps are for

reference only; the areas in critical habitat are legally described

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,

sheltering, and dispersal or the capacity to develop those habitat

components. The primary constituent elements are found in areas that

support, or have the potential to support, riparian forests,

riverbottom woodlands, xeroriparian forests, and semidesert

grassland, and the Arizona upland subdivision of Sonoran

desertscrub. Within these vegetation communities, specific plant

associations that are essential for the primary biological needs of

the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl include, but are not limited to,

the following vegetation: cottonwood, willow, ash, mesquite, palo

verde, ironwood, hackberry, saguaro cactus, and/or organ pipe

cactus.

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

by a legally operative incidental take permit for the cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl issued under section 10(a) of the Act, nor

Indian Tribal grazing allotments.

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

[[Page 37436]]

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 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 35; 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, that

portion of sec. 33 lying north 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 to 25; 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.

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 secs. 1 and 2

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, secs. 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. (Note: Areas described for

Tucson Mountain County Park do not match the Silver Bell Mts., Ariz.

BLM map cited above. This description is based on more recent

information obtained from Pima County Public Works.)

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.

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.

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.

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; T. 9 S., R. 13 E.,

secs. 1 to 36; T. 9 S., R. 14 E., secs. 1 to 31; T. 9 S., R. 15 E.,

secs. 1 to 12, 14 to 21, 28 to 30.

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. 5, 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; 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 and north and east of San Manuel

Railroad, those portions of secs. 26 and 36 lying north and east of

San Manuel Railroad; 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., that

portion of sec. 1 lying north and east of San Manuel Railroad; T. 6

S., R. 16 E., that portion of sec. 5 lying south and west of St. Hwy

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

north and east of San Manuel Railroad, that portion of sec. 7 lying

north and east of San Manuel Railroad, that portion sec. 8 lying

south and west of St. Hwy 77 and north and east of San Manuel

Railroad, those portions of secs. 9 and 16 lying south and west of

St. Hwy 77, those portions of secs. 17 and 20 lying east of San

Manuel Railroad, those portions of secs. 21 and 28 lying west of St.

Hwy 77, those portions of secs. 29 and 32 lying east of San Manuel

Railroad, 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, that portion of sec. 13 lying east of Camino Rio Road, secs.

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, 31 and 32 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. 15 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. 18, 19,

29, and 30 lying west of Cascabel Road, sec. 31, that portion of

sec. 32 and 33 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.

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

[[Page 37437]]

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. 36; 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 21, 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.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 37438]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY99.027

[[Page 37439]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY99.028

[[Page 37440]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY99.029

Dated: June 30, 1999.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 99-17404 Filed 7-6-99; 1:25 pm]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C