[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71820-71838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34412]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF36


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose 
designation of critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (Act), for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 
(Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum). A total of approximately 730,565 
acres of riverine riparian habitat and upland habitat are proposed. 
Proposed critical habitat is in Pima, Cochise, Pinal, and Maricopa 
counties, Arizona. If this proposal is made final, section 7 of the Act 
would prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal 
agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other 
impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We 
solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this 
proposal, including data on the economic and other impacts of the 
designation. We may revise this proposal to incorporate or address new 
information received during the comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments until March 1, 1999. We will hold three 
public hearings on this proposed rule; we will publish the dates and 
locations of these hearings in the Federal Register and local 
newspapers at least 15 days prior to the first hearing.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and information to the Field Supervisor, 
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona, 85021-
4951. Comments and materials received will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above 
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Gatz, Endangered Species 
Coordinator, at the above address (telephone 602/640-2720 ext. 240; 
facsimile 602/640-2730).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (referred to as ``pygmy-owl'' in 
this proposed rule) is in the Order Strigiformes and the Family 
Strigidae. It is a small bird, approximately 17 centimeters (6 3/4 
inches) long. Males average 62 grams (g) (2.2 ounces (oz)), and females 
average 75 g (2.6 oz). The pygmy-owl is reddish-brown overall, with a 
cream-colored belly streaked with reddish brown. Some individuals are 
grayish brown, rather than reddish brown. The crown is lightly 
streaked, and paired black-and-white spots on the nape suggest eyes. 
The ears lack tufts, and the eyes are yellow. The tail is relatively 
long for an owl and is colored reddish brown with darker brown bars. 
The pygmy-owl is diurnal (active during daylight), and its call, heard 
primarily near dawn and dusk, is a monotonous series of short notes.
    The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl is one of four subspecies of the 
ferruginous pygmy-owl. It occurs from lowland central Arizona south 
through western Mexico to the States of Colima and Michoacan, and from 
southern Texas south through the Mexican States of Tamaulipas and Nuevo 
Leon. Only the Arizona population of Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum is 
listed as an endangered species.
    The pygmy-owl in Arizona occurs in a variety of scrub and woodland 
communities, including riverbottom woodlands, woody thickets 
(``bosques''), and Sonoran desertscrub. Unifying habitat 
characteristics among these communities are fairly dense woody thickets 
or woodlands, with trees and/or cacti large enough to provide nesting 
cavities. The pygmy-owl occurs at low elevations, generally below 1,200 
meters (m) (4,000 feet (ft)) (Swarth 1914, Karalus and Eckert 1974, 
Monson and Phillips 1981, Johnsgard 1988, Enriquez-Rocha et al. 1993).
    The pygmy-owl's primary habitats were riparian cottonwood (Populus 
fremontii) forests, mesquite bosques, and Sonoran desertscrub, but the 
subspecies currently occurs primarily in Sonoran desertscrub 
associations of palo verde (Cercidium spp.), bursage (Ambrosia spp.), 
ironwood (Olneya tesota), mesquite (Prosopis velutina, and

[[Page 71821]]

P. glandulosa), acacia (Acacia spp.), and giant cacti such as saguaro 
(Carnegiea giganteus), and organ pipe (Stenocereus thurberi) (Gilman 
1909, Bent 1938, van Rossem 1945, Phillips et al. 1964, Monson and 
Phillips 1981, Johnson-Duncan et al. 1988, Millsap and Johnson 1988). 
Primary prey include various reptiles, insects, birds, and small 
mammals (Proudfoot 1996).

Previous Federal Action

    We included Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum in our Animal Notice of 
Review as a category 2 candidate species throughout its range on 
January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554). Category 2 candidates were defined as 
those taxa for which we had data indicating that listing was possibly 
appropriate but for which we lacked substantial information on 
vulnerability and threats to support proposed listing rules. After 
soliciting and reviewing additional information, we elevated G. b. 
cactorum to category 1 status throughout its range in our November 21, 
1991, notice of review (56 FR 58804). Category 1 candidates were 
defined as those taxa for which we had sufficient information on 
biological vulnerability and threats to support proposed listing rules 
but for which issuance of proposals to list were precluded by other 
higher-priority listing activities. Beginning with our combined plant 
and animal notice of review published in the Federal Register on 
February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of 
multiple categories of candidates and only taxa meeting the definition 
of former category 1 candidates are now recognized as candidates for 
listing purposes.
    On May 26, 1992, a coalition of conservation organizations (Galvin 
et al. 1992) petitioned us to list the pygmy-owl as an endangered 
species under the Act. The petitioners also requested designation of 
critical habitat. In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, on 
March 9, 1993, we published a finding that the petition presented 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing of the pygmy-owl may be warranted and commenced a status review 
of the subspecies (58 FR 13045). As a result of information collected 
and evaluated during the status review, including information collected 
during a public comment period, we published a proposed rule to list 
the pygmy-owl as endangered in Arizona and threatened in Texas on 
December 12, 1994 (59 FR 63975). We proposed designation of critical 
habitat in Arizona. After a review of all comments received in response 
to the proposed rule, we published a final rule on March 10, 1997 (62 
FR 10730), listing the pygmy-owl as endangered in Arizona. We 
determined that listing in Texas was not warranted. We also determined 
that critical habitat designation was not prudent.
    On October 31, 1997, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 
filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Arizona against the 
Secretary of the Department of the Interior (Secretary) for failure to 
designate critical habitat for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl and the 
Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva), a plant 
(Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary 
of the Department of the Interior; CIV 97-704 TUC ACM). On October 7, 
1998, Alfredo C. Marquez, Senior U.S. District Judge, issued an order 
stating: ``There being no evidence that designation of critical habitat 
for the pygmy-owl and water umbel is not prudent, the Secretary shall, 
without further delay, decide whether or not to designate critical 
habitat for the pygmy-owl and water umbel based on the best scientific 
and commercial information available.''
    On November 25, 1998, in response to a motion by the Plaintiffs 
requesting clarification of the October 7, 1998, order, Judge Marquez 
further ordered ``that within 30 days of the date of this Order, the 
Secretary shall issue the Proposed Rules for designating critical 
habitat for the pygmy-owl and water umbel * * * and that within six 
months of issuing the Proposed Rules, the Secretary shall issue final 
decisions regarding the designation of critical habitat for the pygmy-
owl and water umbel.''
    Absent the court's order, the processing of this proposed rule 
would not conform with our Fiscal Year 1998 and 1999 Listing Priority 
Guidance, published on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance 
clarifies the order in which we will process rulemakings giving highest 
priority (Tier 1) to processing emergency rules to add species to the 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; second priority 
(Tier 2) to processing final determinations on proposals to add species 
to the lists, processing new listing proposals, processing 
administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the lists, 
delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limited 
number of proposed and final rules to delist or reclassify species; and 
third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed and final rules 
designating critical habitat. The Service's Southwest Region is 
currently working on Tier 2 actions; however, we are undertaking this 
Tier 3 action in order to comply with the above-mentioned court order.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations 
or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are 
necessary to bring an endangered species or a threatened species to the 
point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to base critical habitat 
proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available, 
taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant 
impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may 
exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas as critical 
habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of 
the species.
    Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation 
activities for a listed species by identifying areas, both occupied and 
unoccupied, that contain or could develop the essential habitat 
features (primary constituent elements described below) and that are 
essential for the conservation of a listed species. Designation of 
critical habitat alerts the public as well as land-managing agencies to 
the importance of these areas.
    Critical habitat also identifies areas that may require special 
management considerations or protection, and may provide additional 
protection to areas where significant threats to the species have been 
identified. Critical habitat receives protection from the prohibition 
against destruction or adverse modification through required 
consultation under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried 
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires 
conferences on Federal actions that are likely to result in the adverse 
modification or destruction of proposed critical habitat. Aside from 
the added protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does 
not provide other

[[Page 71822]]

forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat. Because 
consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply to activities on 
private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve a Federal 
action, critical habitat designation would not afford any protection 
against such activities.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act prohibits Federal agencies from funding, 
authorizing, or carrying out actions likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a threatened or endangered species, or that are likely to 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. ``Jeopardize the 
continued existence'' is defined as an appreciable reduction in the 
likelihood of survival and recovery of a listed species. ``Destruction 
or adverse modification'' of critical habitat occurs when a Federal 
action appreciably reduces the value of critical habitat for the 
survival and recovery of the listed species. Thus, the definitions of 
``jeopardy'' to the species and ``adverse modification'' of critical 
habitat are similar.
    Designating critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to recovery 
of a listed species. Designation does not create a management plan, 
establish numerical population goals, prescribe specific management 
actions (inside or outside of critical habitat), or directly affect 
areas not designated as critical habitat. Specific management 
recommendations for critical habitat are most appropriately addressed 
in recovery plans and management plans, and through section 7 
consultation.
    Critical habitat identifies specific areas, both occupied and 
unoccupied, that are essential to the conservation of a listed species 
and that may require special management considerations or protection. 
Areas that do not currently contain all of the primary constituent 
elements but that could develop them in the future may be essential to 
the conservation of the species and may be designated as critical 
habitat.
    Section 3(5)(C) of the Act generally requires that not all areas 
potentially occupied by a species be designated as critical habitat. 
Therefore, not all areas containing the primary constituent elements 
are necessarily essential to the conservation of the species. Areas 
that contain one or more of the primary constituent elements, but that 
are not included within critical habitat boundaries, may still be 
important to a species' conservation and may be considered under other 
parts of the Act or other conservation laws and regulations.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (primary 
constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and that may require special management considerations or 
protection. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
     Space for individual and population growth, and for normal 
behavior;
     Food, water, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements;
     Cover or shelter;
     Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; 
and
     Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    The primary constituent elements for the pygmy-owl are those 
habitat components that are essential for the primary biological needs 
of foraging, nesting, rearing of young, roosting, and sheltering. The 
primary constituent elements are found, or could develop, in areas that 
support or have the potential to support riparian forests, riverbottom 
woodlands, xeroriparian (dry riparian) forests, plains and desert 
grassland, and the Arizona upland subdivision of Sonoran desertscrub 
(Turner and Brown 1982). Within these vegetative communities, specific 
plant associations that contain or could develop the primary 
constituent elements include those dominated by cottonwood, willow 
(Salix spp.), ash (Fraxinus velutina), mesquite, palo verde, ironwood, 
saguaro cactus, organ pipe cactus, creosote (Larrea tridentata), 
acacia, and/or hackberry (Celtis spp.).
    In river floodplains, the presence of surface or subsurface water 
is critical in maintaining pygmy-owl habitat. Riverine riparian 
woodlands and thickets are dependent on availability of groundwater at 
or near the surface. Surface or subsurface moisture may also be 
important in maintaining various species comprising the pygmy-owl's 
prey base.

Methods

    In developing this critical habitat proposal for the pygmy-owl, we 
attempted to form an interconnected system of suitable and potential 
habitat areas extending from southern Arizona to the northernmost 
recent pygmy-owl occurrence. Areas proposed as critical habitat meet 
the definition of critical habitat under section 3 of the Act in that 
they are areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
that are essential to the conservation of the species and in need of 
special management considerations or protection.
    In an effort to map areas essential to the conservation of the 
species, we used data on known pygmy-owl locations to initially 
identify important areas. We then connected these areas based on the 
topographic and vegetative features believed most likely to support 
resident pygmy-owls and/or facilitate movement of birds between known 
habitat areas. Facilitating movement of birds between habitat areas is 
important for dispersal and gene flow. In selecting areas, we avoided 
private lands to the extent possible, and instead concentrated on 
public (State and Federal) lands. However, we are proposing designation 
as critical habitat some important privately owned areas, such as the 
area northwest of Tucson which supports the greatest known 
concentration of pygmy-owls in Arizona.
    In selecting areas for inclusion in proposed critical habitat, we 
made an effort to avoid developed areas such as towns, agricultural 
lands, and other lands unlikely to contribute to pygmy-owl 
conservation. Given the short period of time in which we were required 
to complete this proposal, we were unable to map critical habitat in 
sufficient detail to exclude all such areas. However, within the 
delineated critical habitat boundaries, only lands containing, or 
having the potential to develop, the primary constituent elements 
described above are considered critical habitat. Existing features and 
structures within the proposed area, such as buildings, roads, 
aqueducts, railroads, and other features, do not contain, and do not 
have the potential to develop, the primary constituent elements and are 
not considered critical habitat.
    In selecting areas to propose as critical habitat, we attempted to 
exclude areas believed to be adequately protected, or where current 
management is compatible with pygmy-owls and is likely to remain so 
into the future. We excluded National Park lands (Organ Pipe Cactus 
National Monument and Saguaro National Park) and national wildlife 
refuges (Cabeza Prieta and Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuges). We 
also excluded non-Federal lands covered by a legally operative 
incidental take permit for pygmy-owls issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) 
of the Act. However, we did not exclude areas currently managed in a 
manner compatible with pygmy-owls where

[[Page 71823]]

such management may not be assured in the future (e.g., county and 
State parks).
    In addition, lands of the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation are not 
included in this proposal. We are aware that pygmy-owls and pygmy-owl 
habitat likely exist on the Reservation, and we believe these Tribal 
lands are important to the species' continued existence in Arizona. 
However, the short amount of time given by the court to propose 
critical habitat precluded us from adequately coordinating with the 
Tribe to obtain pygmy-owl location and habitat information. In 
addition, we were unable to assess whether current or future tribal 
management is likely to maintain pygmy-owls into the future, although 
the probable existence of both pygmy-owls and pygmy-owl habitat lead us 
to believe that current management may be compatible with the species. 
In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206: American Indian Tribal 
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered 
Species Act, subsequent to this proposal, we will coordinate with the 
Tribe to determine whether any Tribal lands are essential for the 
conservation of the species and require special management 
considerations or protection.
    We did not propose all pygmy-owl historical habitat as critical 
habitat. We proposed those areas that we believe are essential for the 
conservation of the pygmy-owl and in need of special management or 
protection.
    In summary, the proposed critical habitat areas described below, 
and protected areas either known or suspected to contain some of the 
primary constituent elements but not proposed as critical habitat 
(e.g., National Park land, national wildlife refuge lands, etc.), 
constitute our best assessment of areas needed for the species' 
conservation. As described above, we will coordinate with the Tohono 
O'odham Indian Tribe to determine whether any Tribal lands are 
essential for the conservation of the species and require special 
management considerations or protection. Also, we recently appointed 
the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl Recovery Team that will develop a 
recovery plan for the species. The experts on this team will conduct a 
far more thorough analysis than we were able to conduct in the short 
amount of time allowed by the Court Order. Upon the team's completion 
of a recovery plan, we will evaluate the plan's recommendations and 
reexamine if and where critical habitat is appropriate.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    In determining areas that are essential for the survival and 
recovery of the species, we used the best scientific information 
obtainable in the time allowed by the court. This information included 
habitat suitability and site-specific species information. To date, 
limited survey effort or research has been done to identify and define 
specific habitat needs of pygmy-owls in Arizona or to determine their 
distribution. Only preliminary habitat assessment work has begun over 
small portions of the State, primarily on Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) lands. We emphasized areas containing most of the verified pygmy-
owl occurrences, especially recent ones. In order to maintain genetic 
and demographic interchange that will help maintain the viability of a 
regional metapopulation, we included areas that allow movement between 
areas supporting pygmy-owls.
    Table 1 shows the approximate acreage of proposed critical habitat 
by county and land ownership. Critical habitat proposed for the pygmy-
owl includes river floodplains and Sonoran desertscrub communities in 
Pima, Cochise, Pinal, and Maricopa Counties, Arizona. To provide 
additional information, we have grouped areas proposed as critical 
habitat into critical habitat units (see maps). A brief description of 
each unit and reasons for proposing as critical habitat are presented 
below.

                   Table 1.--Approximate Critical Habitat Acreage by County and Land Ownership
                       [Note: Acreage estimates are from maps cited in legal descriptions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Pima       Cochise       Pinal       Maricopa
                                                    County       County       County       County       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service.................................            0            0        4,160       32,840       37,000
Bureau of Land Management......................       21,070            0       90,640            0      111,710
State..........................................      154,750        2,420      258,005            0      420,175
Private........................................       60,060        2,420       74,400          100      136,980
Other*.........................................       20,700            0        4,000            0       24,700
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................      261,580        4,840      431,205       32,940     730,565
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes: Bureau of Reclamation, Tucson Mountain County Park, Department of Defense.

Unit 1

    This unit lies between Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and 
the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation. This unit is primarily State 
Trust lands, with some dispersed private ownership, and contains upland 
habitats and washes that are suitable for pygmy-owls. This area is 
important because it is close to recent pygmy-owl occurrences on the 
nearby refuge, and because it would provide additional opportunities 
for demographic and genetic interchange between pygmy-owls in Mexico 
and the United States as well as expansion of populations for recovery. 
Proposed critical habitat in this area, together with protected lands 
on the refuge and habitat on the Reservation, constitutes a large block 
of pygmy-owl habitat.

Unit 2

    This unit connects habitat on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation 
to habitat in Saguaro National Park West and Tucson Mountain County 
Park. Ownership in this area is primarily BLM, State Trust, Bureau of 
Reclamation, Pima County, and some private. The area consists of 
Sonoran desertscrub and mesquite bosques interspersed by washes. This 
east-west habitat corridor, together with the ``Garcia Strip'' of the 
Reservation, includes suitable habitat for occupancy, movement, and 
genetic interchange of pygmy-owls between the Reservation and the 
western Tucson region.

Unit 3

    This unit connects suitable habitat in Unit 2 and Saguaro National 
Park West to Unit 4, which has the highest known concentration of 
pygmy-owls in Arizona. The land ownership in this area is mostly 
private. This area includes a recent pygmy-owl site west of Interstate 
10 and provides a possible

[[Page 71824]]

connection to habitat in the northwest Tucson region. Because of 
existing and past land management practices and development, this area 
contains the narrowest habitat linkage between other areas proposed for 
critical habitat. Few options currently exist for movement of pygmy-
owls in this portion of their known range based on our limited 
knowledge of their movement between areas at this time (Scott 
Richardson, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), pers. comm. 1998).

Unit 4

    This unit is located in the northwest portion of Tucson north of 
Interstate 10 and contains the highest number of known pygmy-owls in 
Arizona. This unit contains mostly private and county lands. The areas 
proposed for critical habitat include known locations of pygmy-owls and 
adjacent habitats and is bounded by La Cholla Boulevard to the east, 
Cortaro Road to the south, Interstate 10 to the west, and the Tortolita 
Mountains to the north. In the immediate Tucson area, and to the south 
of Unit 4, very little suitable habitat remains due to residential, 
commercial and agricultural development. Historically, these upland and 
riparian areas may have supported pygmy-owls. The area proposed for 
critical habitat contains stands of ironwood and saguaro, mesquite 
bosques, and several washes, and includes the most contiguous and 
highest quality pygmy-owl habitat based on current information (Scott 
Richardson, AGFD, pers. comm. 1998).

Units 5A and 5B

    Unit 5 includes two habitat corridors to connect habitat in the 
northwest Tucson region to riparian habitats to the north on the Gila 
River (5A) and to the east on San Pedro River (5B). Land ownership is 
mostly BLM, State Trust, and private. This area also includes recent 
pygmy-owl occurrences in southern Pinal County, although only a limited 
number of surveys have been conducted to determine if pygmy-owls are 
present in this area. Relatively intact riparian woodland habitats 
still remain along portions of the Gila and San Pedro rivers. These 
units contain historic pygmy-owl locations and/or areas thought to 
contain suitable upland habitat (Dave Krueper, BLM, pers. comm. 1998).
    Limited habitat assessment has been completed within these 
corridors and few historic or current pygmy-owl occurrences have been 
documented. However, the BLM has conducted some habitat assessments on 
their lands in this area and rated the habitat suitability for pygmy-
owls as moderate to high (David Krueper, pers. comm. 1998). We included 
these two corridors because they constitute areas for dispersal and 
survival. Where possible, we avoided some of the higher elevation areas 
which likely contain lower quality habitat.
    We are only beginning to understand the importance of upland 
habitat to the pygmy-owl. Although historical observations of pygmy-
owls were almost exclusively in riparian woodlands (Breninger 1898 in 
Bent 1938), almost all of the recent records of pygmy-owls have been in 
Sonoran desertscrub and mesquite bosque upland areas and washes. Based 
on the current information, we believe these two corridors (5A and 5B) 
provide the highest potential for supporting resident and dispersing 
pygmy-owls through this area. Without these habitat linkages, 
demographic and genetic connectivity and exchange may not be maintained 
between known populations in the northwest Tucson region and riparian 
habitats in the Gila and San Pedro rivers.

Unit 6

    This unit includes the riparian woodlands of the middle and lower 
San Pedro River and a portion of the Gila River. There were four pygmy-
owls documented in the mid-1980s from lower San Pedro River woodlands. 
Similar riparian woodlands and associated upland habitats with saguaro 
cactus are present along the San Pedro upstream (to the south) to 
approximately the town of Cascabel.
    The San Pedro River riparian corridor connects to the Gila River to 
the north. This section of the Gila River also contains riparian 
woodland habitats which we believe are suitable for pygmy-owls (Roy 
Johnson pers. comm. 1998). We are proposing these areas as critical 
habitat because of the importance, based on the early records of 
naturalists during the late 1800s and early 1900s, of riparian woodland 
habitats, the presence of suitable habitat, and the linkage these areas 
provide to other historical locations and suitable habitat to the 
north.

Unit 7

    This unit links riparian habitat on the Gila River to other upland 
habitats and ultimately to the remaining woodland habitat along the 
Salt River where pygmy-owls were collected in the 1940s and 1950s and 
where this species was recorded in the early 1970s. Land ownership in 
this area is primarily BLM, State Trust, Forest Service, and some 
dispersed private. Although recent surveys have not located pygmy-owls 
in riparian areas in this unit, riparian woodland habitats remain along 
portions of the Salt River in this area (Roy Johnson pers. comm. 1998). 
In delineating this unit, we considered elevation, topographic 
features, and existing developed areas and determined that a habitat 
linkage that includes Sonoran upland desertscrub will provide 
connectivity and suitable habitats between riparian woodland habitats 
along the Gila and Salt rivers.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups, 
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and 
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal 
agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities involving 
listed species are discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is designated or proposed. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with us 
on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed or critical habitat 
is designated subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies 
to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with us.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require 
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to 
result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical 
habitat. Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to 
reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances 
where critical habitat is subsequently

[[Page 71825]]

designated. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request 
conferencing with us on actions for which formal consultation has been 
completed. Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to 
assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the 
proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference 
report are advisory.
    We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal 
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain 
a biological opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if 
critical habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference 
report as the biological opinion when the critical habitat is 
designated, if no significant new information or changes in the action 
alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). We may also 
prepare a formal conference report to address the effects on proposed 
critical habitat from issuance of an incidental take permit, under 
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect the pygmy-owl or its 
critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities on 
private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such 
as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act, would also be subject to the section 7 
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting the species, as 
well as actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally funded or 
permitted would not require section 7 consultation.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to describe in any proposed 
or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities 
involving a Federal action that may adversely modify such habitat or 
that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may destroy 
or adversely modify critical habitat include those that alter the 
primary constituent elements to an extent that the value of critical 
habitat for both the survival and recovery of the pygmy-owl is 
appreciably reduced. We note that such activities may also jeopardize 
the continued existence of the species. Activities that, when carried 
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Removing, thinning, or destroying vegetation, whether by 
burning or mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., woodcutting, 
bulldozing, overgrazing, construction, road building, mining, herbicide 
application, etc.);
    (2) Water diversion or impoundment, groundwater pumping, or other 
activity that alters water quality or quantity to an extent that 
riparian vegetation is significantly affected; and
    (3) Recreational activities that appreciably degrade vegetation.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field 
Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
section). Requests for copies of the regulations on listed wildlife and 
inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species/Permits, P.O. 
Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505-248-6920, 
facsimile 505-248-6922).
    Designation of critical habitat could affect Federal agency 
activities including, but not limited to:
    (1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States 
by the Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act;
    (2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and 
channelization by Federal agencies; and
    (3) Regulation of grazing, mining, or recreation by the BLM or 
Forest Service.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of 
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas 
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such 
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical 
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such 
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We will conduct 
an economic analysis for this proposal prior to a final determination.

Public Comments Solicited

    It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal 
will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined 
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including 
whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the 
species due to designation;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of pygmy-
owls and habitat, and what habitat is essential to the conservation of 
the species and why;
    (3) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the 
proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on 
small entities or families; and
    (5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical 
habitat for the pygmy-owl such as those derived from non-consumptive 
uses (e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching, enhanced watershed 
protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention, ``existence 
values,'' and reductions in administrative costs).
    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate 
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose 
of such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send 
these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following 
publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer 
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific 
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of 
critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a 
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. We intend to schedule three public hearings on this 
proposal. We will announce the dates, times, and places of those 
hearings in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days 
prior to the first hearing.

Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make this notice easier to understand including answers to questions 
such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the notice clearly 
stated? (2) Does the notice contain technical language or jargon that

[[Page 71826]]

interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the notice 
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) 
aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the notice in the 
``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble helpful in 
understanding the notice? What else could we do to make the notice 
easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, 
DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address: 
E[email protected].

Required Determinations

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this action was submitted 
for review by the Office of Management and Budget. Following issuance 
of this proposed rule, we will prepare an economic analysis to 
determine the economic consequences of designating the specific areas 
identified as critical habitat. If our economic analysis reveals that 
the economic impacts of designating any area as critical habitat 
outweigh the benefits of designation, we will exclude those areas from 
consideration, unless such exclusion will result in the extinction of 
the species. In the economic analysis, we will address any possible 
inconsistencies with other agencies' actions and any effects on 
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of their recipients. This rule will not raise novel legal 
or policy issues.

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

    In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of 
critical habitat will have a significant effect on a substantial number 
of small entities.

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

    In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of 
critical habitat will cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or 
geographic regions in the economic analysis, or (c) any significant 
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises.

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

    In the economic analysis, we will address any effects to small 
governments resulting from designation of critical habitat and any 
Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year.

5. Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have 
significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment 
is not required. This proposed rule, if made final, will not ``take'' 
private property and will not alter the value of private property. 
Critical habitat designation is only applicable to Federal lands and to 
private lands if a Federal nexus exists. We do not designate private 
lands as critical habitat unless the areas are essential to the 
conservation of a species.

6. Federalism

    This proposed rule, if made final, will not affect the structure or 
role of States, and will not have direct, substantial, or significant 
effects on States. As previously stated, critical habitat is only 
applicable to Federal lands and to non-Federal lands when a Federal 
nexus exists. If our economic analysis reveals that the economic 
impacts of designating any area of State concern as critical habitat 
outweigh the benefits of designation, we will exclude those areas from 
consideration, unless such exclusion will result in the extinction of 
the species.

7. Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the 
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does 
not unduly burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The Office of the Solicitor 
also will review the final determination for this proposal. We will 
make every effort to ensure that the final determination contains no 
drafting errors, provides clear standards, simplifies procedures, 
reduces burden, and is clearly written such that litigation risk is 
minimized.

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

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act is required.

9. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. We have determined that this rule 
does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment. This proposed designation of critical 
habitat, and the resulting final determination, will not require any 
actions that will affect the environment. No construction or 
destruction in any form is required under the provisions of critical 
habitat.

10. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2: We understand that we must 
relate to federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government 
basis. Secretarial Order 3206 American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-
Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act states 
that ``Critical habitat shall not be designated in such areas [an area 
that may impact Tribal trust resources] unless it is determined 
essential to conserve a listed species. In designating critical 
habitat, the Service shall evaluate and document the extent to which 
the conservation needs of a listed species can be achieved by limiting 
the designation to other lands.'' Subsequent to this proposal, we will 
coordinate with the Tribe and analyze the need to designate critical 
habitat on Tribal lands. If, as a result of such coordination and 
analysis, we determine that some Tribal lands should be proposed as 
critical habitat, we will amend the current proposal or issue a 
separate proposal.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Author. The primary authors of this notice are Mike Wrigley and Tom 
Gatz (see ADDRESSES section); and Steve Spangle and Ric Riester, 
Southwest Regional Office, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 
87103.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

[[Page 71827]]

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR 
part 17 as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Pygmy-owl, cactus 
ferruginous'' under ``BIRDS'' to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                     Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                         population where                        When      Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range         endangered or          Status        listed      habitat      rules
           Common name                Scientific name                               threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Birds
 
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Pygmy-owl, cactus ferruginous....  Glaucidium            U.S.A. (AZ, TX),      AZ..................  E                       600    17.95(b)          NA
                                    brasilianum           Mexico.
                                    cactorum.
 
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec. 17.95 add critical habitat for the cactus ferruginous 
pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum) under paragraph (b) in the 
same alphabetical order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11(h), to 
read as follows:


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (b) Birds.
* * * * *
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum)

    1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Pima, Cochise, Pinal, 
and Maricopa counties, Arizona, on the maps below.
    2. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements are 
those habitat components that are essential for the primary 
biological needs of foraging, nesting, rearing of young, roosting, 
and sheltering. The primary constituent elements are found, or could 
develop, in areas that support, or have the potential to support, 
riparian forests, riverbottom woodlands, xeroriparian forests, 
plains and desert grassland, and the Arizona upland subdivision of 
Sonoran desertscrub (Turner and Brown 1982). Within these vegetative 
communities, specific plant associations that contain, or could 
develop, the primary constituent elements include those dominated by 
cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow (Salix spp.), ash (Fraxinus 
velutina), mesquite (Prosopis velutina, and P. glandulosa), palo 
verde (Cercidium spp.), ironwood (Olneya tesota), saguaro cactus 
(Carnegiea giganteus), organ pipe cactus (Stenocereus thurberi), 
creosote (Larrea tridentata), acacia (Acacia spp.), and/or hackberry 
(Celtis spp.).
    3. Critical habitat does not include non-Federal lands covered 
by a legally operative incidental take permit for cactus ferruginous 
pygmy-owl issued under section 10(a) of the Act.
    Map Unit 1: Pima County, Arizona. From BLM map Sells, Ariz. 
1979, Atascosa Mts., Ariz. 1979. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, 
Arizona: T. 17 S., R. 8 E., secs. 1 to 3, E\1/2\ sec. 4, E\1/2\ sec. 
9, secs. 10 to 16, 21 to 36; T. 17 S., R. 9 E., that portion of sec. 
1 lying west of St. Hwy 286, secs. 2 to 10, those portions of secs. 
11, 12, and 14 lying west of St. Hwy 286, secs. 15 to 22, those 
portions of secs. 23 and 26 lying west of St. Hwy 286, secs. 27 to 
34, that portion of sec. 35 lying west of St. Hwy 286; T. 18 S., R 7 
E., sec. 1, those portions of secs. 2 and 11 lying east of Papago 
Indian Reservation Bdy, sec. 12, those portions of secs. 13, 14, 24, 
25, and 36 lying east of Papago Indian Reservation Bdy; T. 18 S., R. 
8 E., secs. 1 to 36; T. 18 S., R. 9 E., that portion of sec. 2 lying 
west of Hwy 286, secs. 3 to 10, those portions of secs. 11 and 14 
lying west of St. Hwy 286, secs. 15 to 22, those portions of secs. 
23, 26, 27 and 28 lying west and north of St. Hwy 286, secs. 29 to 
31, those portions of secs. 32 and 33 lying west and north of St. 
Hwy 286; T. 19 S., R. 7 E., those portions of secs. 1, 12, 13, 14, 
and 23 lying east of Papago Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 24 and 25, 
those portions of secs. 26, 27, and 34 lying east of Papago Indian 
Reservation Bdy, secs. 35, 36; T. 19 S., R. 8 E., secs. 1 to 12, 
N\1/2\ sec. 13, secs. 14 to 21, W\1/2\ sec. 22, S\1/2\ sec. 26, S\1/
2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 27, secs. 28 to 36; T. 19 S., R. 9 E., sec. 6; T. 20 
S., R. 7 E., secs. 1, 2, those portions of secs. 3, 9, and 10 lying 
east of Papago Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 11 to 15, those 
portions of secs. 16, 17, and 21 lying east of Papago Indian 
Reservation Bdy, secs. 22 to 27, those portions of secs. 28, 29, 32, 
and 33 lying east of Papago Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 34 to 36; 
T. 20 S., R. 8 E., secs. 2 to 11, 14 to 23, 27 to 33; T. 21 S., R. 7 
E., secs. 1 to 4, those portions of secs. 5 and 8 lying east of 
Papago Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 9 to 16, those portions of 
secs. 17 and 20 lying east of Papago Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 
21 to 27, those portions of secs 28 and 29 lying east of Papago 
Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 34 to 36; T. 21 S., R. 8 E., secs. 4 
to 9; T. 22 S., R. 7 E., secs. 1 to 3, 10 to 15, 22, 23, 24; T. 22 
S., R. 8 E., S\1/2\ SW, SW\1/4\ SE\1/4\ sec. 18, W \1/2\ & W \1/2\ E 
\1/2\ sec. 19, that portion of sec. 20 outside Buenos Aires NWR Bdy, 
secs. 29, 30.
    Map Unit 2: Pima County, Arizona. From BLM map Silver Bell Mts., 
Ariz. 1977. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, Arizona: T. 13 S., R. 
9 E., secs. 31 to 36; T. 13 S., R. 10 E., secs. 31 to 36; T. 13 S., 
R. 12 E., those portions of secs. 31 to 34 lying within Tucson 
Mountain County Park; T. 14 S., R. 9 E., secs. 1 to 12; T. 14 S., R. 
10 E., secs. 1 to 12; T. 14 S., R. 11 E., that portion of sec. 1 
lying within the Tucson Mountain County Park, secs. 5 to 8, 10, 11, 
those portions of secs. 12 and 13 lying within Tucson Mountain 
County Park, sec 14 and 15; T. 14 S., R. 12 E., those portions of 
secs. 1 to 25 lying within Tucson Mountain County Park; T. 14 S. R. 
13 E., those portions of secs. 7, 18, 19, 28, 29, and 30 lying 
within Tucson Mountain County Park.
    Map Unit 3: Pima County, Arizona. From BLM map Silver Bell Mts., 
Ariz. 1977. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, Arizona: T. 12 S., R. 
12 E., those portions of secs. 8 and 9 lying south and west of 
Interstate 10, secs. 17, 20, and 29.
    Map Unit 4: Pima and Pinal Counties, Arizona. From BLM maps Casa 
Grande, Ariz. 1979, Silver Bell Mts., Ariz. 1977. Gila and Salt 
Principal Meridian, Arizona: T. 10 S., R. 11 E., secs. 1 to 36; T. 
10 S., R. 12 E., secs. 4 to 9, 16 to 21, 28 to 33; T. 11 S., R. 11 
E., secs. 1 to 5, 9 to 15, secs. 23, 24; T. 11 S., R. 12 E., secs. 3 
to 10, 14 to 30, N\1/2\ sec. 31, secs. 32 to 36; T. 11 S., R. 13 E., 
secs. 19, 28 to 33; T. 12 S., R. 12 E., secs. 1 to 4, those portions 
of secs. 8 and 9 lying north and east of Interstate 10, secs. 10 to 
14, 23, 24, that portion of sec. 25 lying north of W. Cortaro Farms 
Road, that portion of sec. 26 lying north of W. Cortaro Farms Road 
and north and east of Interstate 10; T. 12 S., R. 13 E., secs. 4 to 
9, 16 to 21, those portions of secs. 29 and 30 lying north of W. 
Cortaro Farms Road.
    Map Unit 5a: Pinal County, Arizona. From BLM maps Mesa, Ariz. 
1979, Casa Grande, Ariz. 1979. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, 
Arizona: T. 5 S., R. 11 E., secs. 1 to 36; T. 6 S., R. 11 E., secs. 
1 to 36; T. 7 S., R. 11 E., secs. 1 to 36; T. 8 S., R. 11 E., secs. 
1 to 36; T. 9 S., R. 11 E., secs. 1 to 36.
    Map Unit 5b: Pinal County, Arizona. From BLM maps Casa Grande, 
Ariz. 1979, Mammoth, Ariz. 1986. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, 
Arizona: T. 8 S., R. 15 E., secs. 1 to 36; T. 9 S., R. 12 E., secs. 
1 to 36;

[[Page 71828]]

T. 9 S., R. 13 E., secs. 1 to 36; T. 9 S., R. 14 E., secs. 1 to 36; 
T. 9 S., R. 15 E., secs. 1 to 12, 14 to 21, 28 to 30.
    Map Unit 6: Cochise, Pima, and Pinal Counties, Arizona. From BLM 
maps Mesa, Ariz. 1979, Globe, Ariz. 1986, Mammoth, Ariz. 1986, and 
Tucson, Ariz. 1979. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, Arizona: T. 4 
S., R. 9 E., those portions of secs. 1, 12, 13, and 24 lying east of 
U.S. Hwy 89; T. 4 S., R. 10 E., secs. 1 to 5, that portion of sec. 6 
lying east of U.S. Hwy 89, secs. 7 to 24; T. 4 S., R. 11 E., secs. 7 
to 36; T. 4 S., R. 12 E., secs. 1 to 12; T. 4 S., R. 13 E., that 
portion of sec. 1 lying south and west of St. Hwy 177, secs. 2 to 
12; T. 4 S., R. 14 E., those portions of secs. 6, 7, 8, 16, and 17 
lying south and west of St. Hwy 177, secs. 18, 20, those portions of 
secs. 21, 22, 26, and 27, lying south and west of St. Hwy 177, secs. 
28, 29, 33, and 34, that portion of sec. 35 lying south and west of 
St. Hwy 177, sec. 36; T. 5 S., R. 14 E., those portions of secs. 1 
and 2 lying south and west of St. Hwy 177, secs. 3, 11, 12; T. 5 S., 
R. 15 E., those portions of secs. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 lying south and 
west of St. Hwy 177, that portion of sec. 14 lying south and west of 
the Pinal and Gila counties boundary (all within Pinal County), that 
portion of sec. 15 lying south of St. Hwy 177 and west of the Pinal 
and Gila counties boundary (all within Pinal County), secs 16 to 22, 
that portion of sec. 23 lying south and west of the Pinal and Gila 
counties boundary (all within Pinal County), that portion sec. 24 
lying west of St. Hwy 77 and south of Pinal and Gila counties 
boundary (all within Pinal County), that portion of sec. 25 lying 
south and west of St. Hwy 77, secs. 26 and 36; T. 5 S., R. 16 E., 
those portions of secs. 30 and 31 lying south and west of St. Hwy 
77; T. 6 S., R. 15 E., sec. 1; T. 6 S., R. 16 E., those portions of 
secs. 5 and 6 lying south and west of St. Hwy 77, sec. 7, those 
portions of secs. 8, 9, and 17 lying south and west of St. Hwy 77, 
secs. 17 and 20, those portions of secs. 21 and 28 lying west of St. 
Hwy 77, secs. 29 and 32, that portion of sec. 33 lying west of St. 
Hwy 77; T. 7 S., R. 16 E., that portion of sec. 4 lying west of St. 
Hwy 77, secs. 5 to 8, those portions of secs. 9, 10, and 15 lying 
south and west of St. Hwy 77, secs. 16 to 21, those portions of 
secs. 22, 23, 25, and 26 lying south and west of St. Hwy 77, secs. 
27 to 35, that portion of sec. 36 lying south and west of St. Hwy 
77; T. 8 S., R. 16 E., that portion of sec. 1 lying south and west 
of St. Hwy 77, secs. 2 to 12, 15 to 22, 28 to 32; T. 8 S., R. 17 E., 
that portion of sec. 6 south and west of St. Hwy 77, that portion of 
section 7 west of St. Hwy 77 and west of River Road, that portion of 
sec. 17 lying south and west of River Road, that portion of sec. 18 
south and west of River Road and north and east of a line defined by 
Camino Rio Road where it runs southeasterly from the west boundary 
of sec. 18 to its intersection with St. Hwy 77 then southeasterly 
along St. Hwy 77 to its intersection with Old State Hwy 77 then 
along Old State Hwy 77 to its intersection with the south boundary 
of sec. 18, that portion of sec. 19 lying east of Old State Highway 
77, those portions of secs. 20, 28, and 29 lying south and west of 
River Road, that portion of sec. 30 lying east of Old State Hwy 77 
and St. Hwy 77, sec. 32, that portion of sec. 33 lying west of River 
Road; T. 9 S., R. 16 E., secs. 5 to 8; T. 9 S., R. 17 E., those 
portions of secs. 3 and 4 lying west of River Road, sec. 9, those 
portions of secs. 10, 14, and 15 lying west of River Road, NE 1/4 
sec. 22, those portions of secs. 23, 24, and 25 west of River Road; 
T. 9 S., R. 18 E., those portions of secs. 30 and 31 west of River 
Road; T. 10 S., R. 18 E., those portions of secs. 5, 6, 7, and 8 
lying north and east of Redington Road, sec. 9, those portions of 
secs. 16, 17, and 21 lying north and east of Redington Road, secs. 
22 and 27, those portions of secs. 28 and 33 lying east of Redington 
Road, sec. 34; T. 11 S., R. 18 E., sec. 2, those portions of secs. 3 
and 10 lying east of Redington Road, secs. 11 and 14, those portions 
of secs. 14 and 22 lying east of Redington Road, secs. 23 and 26, 
that portion of sec. 27 lying east of Redington Road, that portion 
of sec. 34 lying east of Redington Road and west of Cascabel Road, 
that portion of sec. 35 lying west of Cascabel Road; T. 12 S., R. 18 
E., that portion of sec. 2 west of Cascabel Road, that portion of 
sec. 3 lying east of Redington Road, those portions of secs. 11, 12, 
and 13 lying west of Cascabel Road; T. 12 S., R. 19 E., those 
portions of secs. 19, 29, and 30 lying west of Cascabel Road, sec. 
31, that portion of sec. 32 lying west of Cascabel Road; T. 13 S., 
R. 19 E., that portion of sec. 4 lying west of Cascabel Road, sec. 
5, those portions of secs. 9, 10, and 15 lying west of Cascabel 
Road.
    Map Unit 7: Maricopa and Pinal Counties, Arizona. From BLM maps 
Theodore Roosevelt Lake, Ariz. 1981 and Mesa, Ariz. 1979. Gila and 
Salt Principal Meridian, Arizona: T. 3 N., R. 7 E., that portion of 
sec. 33 lying easterly of Salt River Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 
34 to 36; T. 3 N., R. 8 E., secs. 31 to 33; T. 2 N., R. 7 E., secs. 
1 to 3, those portions of secs. 4, 5, 6 and 7 lying south and east 
of Salt River Indian Reservation Bdy, secs. 8 to 17, that portion of 
sec. 18 lying south and east Salt River Indian Reservation Bdy, 
secs. 19 to 25, E \1/2\ sec. 26, E \1/2\ sec. 35, sec. 37; T. 2 N., 
R. 8 E., secs. 4 to 8, 18, 19, 25 to 36; T. 2 N., R. 9 E., secs. 30, 
31; T. 1 N., R. 9 E., secs. 6, 7, 18 to 31, 27 to 30, 34 to 36; T. 1 
N., R. 10 E., secs. 31, 32; T. 1 S., R. 9 E., secs. 1 to 3, 10 to 
15, 22 to 26, those portions of secs. 27, 35 and 36 lying north and 
east of U.S. Hwy 60/89; T. 1 S., R. 10 E., secs. 5 to 8, 17 to 20, 
29 to 32; T. 2 S., R. 9 E., that portion of sec 1 lying north and 
east of U.S. Hwy 60/89; T. 2 S., R. 10 E., secs. 1 to 5, those 
portions of secs. 6, 7 and 8 lying north and east of U.S. Hwy 60/89, 
secs. 9 to 16, that portion of sec. 17 lying north and east of U.S. 
Hwy 60/89 and south and east of U.S. Hwy 89, that portion of sec. 20 
lying east of U.S. Hwy 89, secs. 21 to 28, those portions of secs. 
29 and 32 lying east of U.S. Hwy 89, secs. 33 to 36: T. 3 S., R. 10 
E., secs. 1 to 4, those portions of secs. 5 and 8 lying east of U.S. 
Hwy 89, secs. 9 to 16, those portions of secs. 17, 18, and 19 lying 
east of U.S. Hwy 89, secs. 20 to 29, those portions of secs. 30 and 
31 lying east of U.S. Hwy 89, secs. 32 to 36.

    Note: Maps follow:

BILLING CODE 4310-55 P

[[Page 71829]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.040



[[Page 71830]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.041



[[Page 71831]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.042



[[Page 71832]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.043



[[Page 71833]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.044



[[Page 71834]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.045



[[Page 71835]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.046



[[Page 71836]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.047



[[Page 71837]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.048




[[Page 71838]]


* * * * *
    Dated: December 22, 1998.
Donald Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 98-34412 Filed 12-23-98; 3:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C