[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:
Execsec@ios.doi.gov.
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
