69324 federal register /vol. 64, no. 237/friday, december ... · 69324 federal register/vol. 64,...

69324 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF76

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Proposed Designation ofCritical Habitat for the Spikedace andthe Loach Minnow

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (Service), proposedesignation of critical habitat pursuantto the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended (Act), for the spikedace(Meda fulgida) and the loach minnow(Tiaroga = (Rhinichthys) cobitis). Thisproposal is made in response to a courtorder in Southwest Center for BiologicalDiversity v. Clark CIV 98–0769 M/JHG,directing us to complete designation ofcritical habitat for the spikedace andloach minnow by February 17, 2000.

We are proposing as critical habitat atotal of approximately 1,443 kilometers(km) (894 miles (mi)) of rivers andcreeks for the two species. The entiredesignation is proposed as criticalhabitat for the loach minnow, andapproximately 1,325 km (822 mi) ofthose miles are also proposed as criticalhabitat for the spikedace. Proposedcritical habitat includes portions of theGila, San Francisco, Blue, Black, Verde,and San Pedro rivers, and some of theirtributaries, in Apache, Cochise, Gila,Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, andYavapai Counties in Arizona; andCatron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties inNew Mexico.

If this proposed rule is finalized,Federal agencies proposing actions thatmay affect the areas designated ascritical habitat must consult with us onthe effects of the proposed actions,pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.DATES: We will consider all commentson the rule, the draft EconomicAnalysis, and draft EnvironmentalAssessment received from interestedparties by January 14, 2000. We willhold public hearings in Thatcher,Arizona, and Silver City, New Mexicoon December 15, 1999, and in CampVerde, Arizona, on December 16, 1999.ADDRESSES: 1. Send your comments onthe rule, the draft Economic Analysis,and draft Environmental Assessment tothe Arizona Ecological Services Office,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 W.Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix,Arizona 85021.

2. The complete file for this rule willbe available for public inspection, byappointment, during normal businesshours at the Arizona Ecological ServicesOffice, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103,Phoenix, Arizona 85021.

3. We will hold the Thatcher hearingat Eastern Arizona College ActivityCenter, Lee Little Theater, 1014 N.College Avenue, Thatcher, Arizona. Wewill hold the Silver City hearing atWestern New Mexico University, WhiteHall Auditorium, 1000 College Street,Silver City, New Mexico. We will holdthe Camp Verde hearing at the CampVerde Unified Schools Multi-UseComplex Theater, 280 Camp LincolnRoad, Camp Verde, Arizona. We willstart all hearings promptly at 7:00 p.m.and end them no later than 9:00 p.m.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Field Supervisor, Arizona EcologicalServices Office, at the above address;telephone 602/640–2720, facsimile 602/640–2730.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

SpikedaceThe spikedace is a small, slim fish

less than 80 millimeters (mm) (3 inches(in)) long. It is characterized by verysilvery sides and by spines in the dorsaland pelvic fins (Minckley 1973). Thisspecies is found in moderate to largeperennial streams, where it inhabitsshallow riffles with sand, gravel, andrubble substrates and moderate to swiftcurrents as well as swift pools over sandor gravel substrates (Barber et al. 1970;Propst et al. 1986; Rinne 1991). Specifichabitat for this species consists of shearzones where rapid flow borders slowerflow, areas of sheet flow at the upperends of mid-channel sand/gravel bars;and eddies at downstream riffle edges(Propst et al. 1986; Rinne and Kroeger1988). Recurrent flooding and a naturalhydrograph (physical conditions,boundaries, flow, and relatedcharacteristics of waters) are veryimportant in maintaining the habitat ofspikedace and in helping the speciesmaintain a competitive edge overinvading nonnative aquatic species(Propst et al. 1986; Minckley and Meffe1987).

The spikedace was first collected in1851 from the Rio San Pedro in Arizonaand was described from thosespecimens in 1856 by Girard. It is theonly species in the genus Meda. Thespikedace was once commonthroughout much of the Gila Riverbasin, including the mainstem GilaRiver upstream of Phoenix, and theVerde, Agua Fria, Salt, San Pedro, and

San Francisco subbasins. It occupiessuitable habitat in both the mainstreamreaches and moderate-gradientperennial tributaries, up to about 2,000meters (m) (6,500 feet (ft)) elevation(Miller 1960; Chamberlain 1904; Gilbertand Scofield 1898; Cope and Yarrow1875).

Habitat destruction and competitionand predation by nonnative aquaticspecies have severely reduced its rangeand abundance. It is now restricted toapproximately 445 km (276 mi) ofstream in portions of the upper GilaRiver (Grant, Catron, and HidalgoCounties, NM), middle Gila River (PinalCounty, AZ), lower San Pedro River(Pinal County, AZ), Aravaipa Creek(Graham and Pinal Counties, AZ), EagleCreek (Graham and Greenlee Counties,AZ), and the Verde River (YavapaiCounty, AZ) (Anderson 1978; Jakle1992; Sublette et al. 1990; Bestgen,1985; Marsh et al. 1990; Bettaso et al.1995; Propst et al. 1986; Propst et al.1985; Stefferud and Rinne 1996). Itspresent range is only about 10–15percent of the historical range, and thestatus of the species within occupiedareas ranges from common to very rare.At present, the species is common onlyin Aravaipa Creek and some parts of theupper Gila River in New Mexico.

Loach MinnowThe loach minnow is a small, slender,

elongated fish less than 80 mm (3 in.)long. It is olivaceous in color with anoblique (slanting) terminal mouth andeyes markedly directed upward(Minckley 1973). This species is foundin small to large perennial streams,using shallow, turbulent riffles withprimarily cobble substrate and swiftcurrents (Minckley 1973; Propst andBestgen 1991; Rinne 1989; Propst et al.1988). Loach minnow uses the spacesbetween, and in the lee of, largersubstrate for resting and spawning. It israre or absent from habitats where finesediments fill the interstitial spaces(small, narrow spaces between rocks orother substrate) (Propst and Bestgen1991). Recurrent flooding and a naturalhydrograph are very important inmaintaining the habitat of loachminnow and in helping the speciesmaintain a competitive edge overinvading nonnative aquatic species(Propst et al. 1986; Propst and Bestgen1991).

The loach minnow was first collectedin 1851 from the Rio San Pedro inArizona and was described from thosespecimens in 1865 by Girard. The loachminnow was once locally commonthroughout much of the Gila Riverbasin, including the mainstem GilaRiver upstream of Phoenix, and the

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2

69325Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

Verde, Salt, San Pedro, and SanFrancisco subbasins. It occupies suitablehabitat in both the mainstream reachesand moderate-gradient perennialtributaries, up to about 2,500 m (8,200ft) elevation. Habitat destruction andcompetition and predation by nonnativeaquatic species have severely reducedits range and abundance. It is nowrestricted to approximately 645 km (400mi) of stream in portions of the upperGila River (Grant, Catron, and HidalgoCounties, NM), the San Francisco andTularosa Rivers and their tributariesNegrito and Whitewater Creeks (CatronCounty, NM), the Blue River and itstributaries Dry Blue, Campbell Blue,Little Blue, Pace, and Frieborn Creeks(Greenlee County, AZ and CatronCounty, NM), Aravaipa Creek and itstributaries Turkey and Deer Creeks(Graham and Pinal Counties, AZ), EagleCreek (Graham and Greenlee Counties,AZ), the White River (Apache, Gila, andNavajo Counties, AZ), and the BlackRiver (Apache and Greenlee Counties,AZ) (Bagley et al. 1998; Bagley et al.1996; Barber and Minckley 1966;Bettaso et al. 1995; Britt 1982; Leon1989; Marsh et al. 1990; Propst 1996;Propst and Bestgen 1991; Propst et al.1985; Springer 1995). The present rangeis only 15–20 percent of its historicalrange, and the status of the specieswithin occupied areas ranges fromcommon to very rare. At present, thespecies is common only in AravaipaCreek, the Blue River, and limitedportions of the San Francisco, upperGila, and Tularosa Rivers in NewMexico.

Previous Federal ActionsThe spikedace was included as a

Category 1 candidate species in ourDecember 30, 1982, Vertebrate Notice ofReview (47 FR 58454). Category 1included those taxa for which we hadsubstantial biological information tosupport listing the species asendangered or threatened. We werepetitioned on March 14, 1985, by theAmerican Fisheries Society (AFS) andon March 18, 1985, by the Desert FishesCouncil (DFC) to list the spikedace asthreatened. Because the species wasalready under active petition by AFS,the DFC petition was considered a letterof comment. Our evaluation of the AFSpetition revealed that the petitionedaction was warranted, and we publisheda proposed rule to list this species asthreatened with critical habitat on June18, 1985 (50 FR 25390). We publishedthe final rule listing the spikedace as athreatened species on July 1, 1986 (51FR 23769). We did not finalize theproposed critical habitat designation atthe time of listing but postponed the

designation to allow us to gather andanalyze economic data, in compliancewith section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

We included the loach minnow as aCategory 1 candidate species in theDecember 30, 1982, Vertebrate Notice ofReview (47 FR 58454). On June 18, 1985(50 FR 25380) we published a proposedrule to list this species as threatenedwith critical habitat. We published thefinal rule listing the loach minnow as athreatened species on October 28, 1986(51 FR 39468). We did not finalize theproposed critical habitat designation atthe time of listing but postponed thedesignation to allow us to gather andanalyze economic data.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requiresthat, to the maximum extent prudentand determinable, the Secretarydesignate critical habitat at the time aspecies is determined to be endangeredor threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR424.12(a)(2)) state that critical habitat isnot determinable if informationsufficient to perform required analysesof the impacts of the designation islacking or if the biological needs of thespecies are not sufficiently well knownto permit identification of an area ascritical habitat. At the time of listing ofthe spikedace and loach minnow, wefound that critical habitat was notdeterminable because we hadinsufficient information to perform therequired analyses of the impacts of thedesignation. As part of a settlementorder of January 18, 1994, in GreaterGila Biodiversity Project v. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service CIV 93–1913 PHX/PGR, we finalized critical habitatdesignation for both the spikedace andloach minnow on March 8, 1994 (59 FR10906 and 10898 respectively).

Critical habitat for spikedace andloach minnow was set aside by courtorder in Catron County Board ofCommissioners, New Mexico v. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service CIV No. 93–730 HB (D.N.M., Order of October 13,1994). The court cited our failure toanalyze the effects of critical habitatdesignation under the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) as itsbasis for setting aside critical habitat forthe two species. The United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Arizonarecognized the effect of the CatronCounty ruling as a matter of comity inthe Southwest Center for BiologicalDiversity v. Rogers CV 96–018–TUC–JMR (D. Ariz., Order of December 28,1996). As a result of these court rulings,we removed the critical habitatdescription for spikedace and loachminnow from the Code of FederalRegulations on March 25, 1998 (63 FR14378).

On September 20, 1999, the UnitedStates District Court for the District ofNew Mexico, Southwest Center forBiological Diversity v. Clark, CIV 98–0769 M/JHG, ordered us to completedesignation of critical habitat for thespikedace and loach minnow byFebruary 17, 2000.

We completed final recovery plans forspikedace and loach minnow in 1991(Service 1991a, 1991b). We developedthose plans under the oversight of theDesert Fishes Recovery Team and otherbiologists familiar with the species. Thisproposed rule is based, in part, onrecommendations offered in thoserecovery plans.

Critical HabitatCritical habitat is defined in section

3(5)(A) of the Act as—(i) the specificareas within the geographic areaoccupied by a species, at the time it islisted in accordance with the Act, onwhich are found those physical orbiological features (I) essential to theconservation of the species and (II) thatmay require special managementconsiderations or protection and; (ii)specific areas outside the geographicarea occupied by a species at the timeit is listed, upon a determination thatsuch areas are essential for theconservation of the species. The term‘‘conservation,’’ as defined in section3(3) of the Act, means ‘‘to use and theuse of all methods and procedureswhich are necessary to bring anyendangered species or threatenedspecies to the point at which themeasures provided pursuant to this Actare no longer necessary’’ (i.e., thespecies is recovered and removed fromthe list of endangered and threatenedspecies).

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires thatwe base critical habitat proposals uponthe best scientific and commercial dataavailable, taking into consideration theeconomic impact, and any otherrelevant impact, of specifying anyparticular area as critical habitat. Wecan exclude areas from critical habitatdesignation if we determine that thebenefits of exclusion outweigh thebenefits of including the areas as criticalhabitat, provided the exclusion will notresult in the extinction of the species.

A. Proposed Critical HabitatDesignation

In proposing critical habitat forspikedace and loach minnow, wereviewed the overall approach to theconservation of the species undertakenby local, State, Tribal, and Federalagencies and private individuals andorganizations since the species’ listingin 1986. We also considered the



measures identified as necessary forrecovery, as outlined in the species’recovery plans. Additionally, wesolicited information fromknowledgeable biologists andrecommendations from the DesertFishes Recovery Team. We alsoreviewed the available informationpertaining to habitat requirements of thetwo species, including material receivedduring previous critical habitatproposals and designations.

Due to the need for additionalinformation on the two species, habitats,threats, controllability of threats,restoration potentials, and other factors,no quantitative criteria for delistingspikedace and loach minnow were setforth in the recovery plans. However,the recovery plans recommendprotection of existing populations,enhancement and restoration of habitatsoccupied by depleted populations, andreestablishment of the two species intoselected streams within their historicalranges.

Both recovery plans call fordesignation of critical habitat for allstream reaches identified in the 1985proposed rule as well as forconsideration of additional streamreaches. Except for Eagle Creek, therecovery plans do not identify thespecific streams to be considered forcritical habitat designation due to thelack of information to support suchidentifications available at that time.The recovery plans do identify potentialareas for reestablishment of spikedaceand loach minnow including the SanPedro River and its tributaries, the SanFrancisco River, Mescal Creek (a middleGila River tributary), and Bonita Creek.The recovery plans also recommendevaluation and selection of otherpotential sites.

Recovery Team discussions since1991 identified the need for criticalhabitat designation in Hot Springs andRedfield Canyons; Aravaipa, Eagle,Bonita, Beaver, West Clear, CampbellBlue, and Dry Blue Creeks; and Gila,Verde, San Pedro, San Francisco, Blue,Tularosa, and White Rivers.

The proposed critical habitatdescribed below constitutes our bestassessment of areas needed for theconservation of spikedace and loachminnow and is based on the bestscientific and commercial informationavailable. The proposed areas areessential to the conservation of thespecies because they either currentlysupport populations of spikedace and/orloach minnow, or because theycurrently have, or have the potential fordeveloping, the necessary requirementsfor survival, growth, and reproductionof the spikedace and/or loach minnow

(see description of primary constituentelements, below). All of the proposedareas require special managementconsideration and protection to ensuretheir contribution to the species’recovery.

Because of these species’ precariousstatus, mere stabilization of spikedaceand loach minnow at their presentlevels will not achieve conservation.Recovery through protection andenhancement of the existingpopulations, plus reestablishment ofpopulations in suitable areas ofhistorical range, is necessary for theirsurvival. The recovery plans for bothspecies state, ‘‘One of the most criticalgoals to be achieved toward recovery isestablishment of secure self-reproducingpopulations in habitats from which thespecies has been extirpated’’ (Service1991a, 1991b). We, therefore, determinethat the unoccupied areas proposed ascritical habitat are essential for theconservation of the species.

This proposed designation differssubstantially from the critical habitatdesignation we proposed in 1986 andmade final in 1994, and which wassubsequently withdrawn under courtorder. The differences reflect newinformation we gathered on distributionof spikedace and loach minnow. Thechanges also reflect the need to considerareas in addition to those designated in1994. As stated in the 1994 final rules,‘‘The Service is considering revisingcritical habitat in the future to add theseareas [referring to newly discoveredoccupied areas]. In addition, the Serviceis considering adding certainunoccupied areas considered vital forrecovery of the species.’’ For spikedace,in the 1994 final critical habitat rule, westated the same but, in addition,specifically recognized the recoveryplan recommendation for inclusion ofEagle Creek.

Important considerations in selectionof areas proposed in this rule includefactors specific to each geographic areaor complex of areas, such as size,connectivity, and habitat diversity, aswell as rangewide recoveryconsiderations, such as genetic diversityand representation of all major portionsof the species’ historical ranges. Theproposed critical habitat reflects theneed for complexes of sufficient size toprovide habitat for spikedace and/orloach minnow populations large enoughto be self-sustaining over time, despitefluctuations in local conditions.

Each complex containsinterconnected waters so that spikedaceand loach minnow can move betweenareas, at least during certain flows orseasons. The ability of the fish torepopulate areas where they are

depleted or extirpated is vital torecovery. Some complexes may includestream reaches that do not havesubstantial spikedace- or loach minnow-specific habitat, but which providemigration corridors as well as play avital role in the overall health of theaquatic ecosystem and, therefore, theintegrity of upstream and downstreamspikedace and loach minnow habitats.

The areas we selected for proposedcritical habitat designation include areascontaining all known remaining geneticdiversity within the two species, withthe possible exception of the fish oncertain tribal lands, which we believeare capable of persistence withoutcritical habitat designation (seediscussion under Secretarial Order 3206later in this proposed rule). Informationon spikedace and loach minnowindicates a high degree of geneticdifferentiation among the remnantpopulations (Tibbets 1993), makingconservation of each remainingpopulation vital to recovery (Tibbets1992). It is also important that the areasselected for proposed critical habitatdesignation include a representation ofeach major subbasin in the historicalrange of the species.

The proposed designation includes allcurrently known populations ofspikedace and loach minnow, exceptthose on tribal lands. Uncertainty onupstream and downstreamdistributional limits of somepopulations may result in small areas ofoccupied habitat being excluded fromthe designation. For loach minnow, theproposed designation includes at leastone remnant population for each majorsubbasin except the Verde subbasin,from which it has been completelyextirpated. For spikedace, no remnantpopulations exist in the Agua Fria, Salt,and San Francisco/Blue subbasins. Inthose subbasins where no populationsof spikedace or loach minnow currentlyexist, the proposed critical habitatincludes currently unoccupied areas forrestoration of the species, with theexception of the Agua Fria subbasinwhere no suitable areas are known toremain.

The inclusion of both occupied andcurrently unoccupied areas in theproposed critical habitat for spikedaceand loach minnow is in accordancewith section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, whichprovides that areas outside thegeographical area currently occupied bythe species may meet the definition ofcritical habitat upon a determinationthat they are essential for theconservation of the species. Bothspikedace and loach minnow are inserious danger of extinction, and theirstatus is declining. In 1994, we made a



finding on a petition thatreclassification of spikedace and loachminnow from threatened to endangeredwas warranted; however,reclassification was precluded by otherhigher priority listing actions (59 FR35303–35304). Although additionalpopulations of loach minnow have beenfound since that time, they are smalland their contribution to the status ofthe species is offset by declines in otherpopulations.

Both of the 1986 listing rules forspikedace and loach minnowconservatively estimated about 2,600km (1,600 mi) of stream within thespecies’ historical ranges. This proposalincludes approximately half thatamount for loach minnow and slightlyless than half for spikedace. Althoughthis amount is less than the historicalranges for both species, we believe thatconservation of spikedace and loachminnow within the proposed areas canachieve long-term survival and recoveryof these species.

For each stream reach proposed fordesignation, the up- and downstreamboundaries are described below.Proposed critical habitat includes thestream channels within the identifiedstream reaches and areas within thesereaches potentially inundated duringhigh flow events. This proposal takesinto account the naturally dynamicnature of riverine systems andrecognizes that floodplains are anintegral part of the stream ecosystem. Arelatively intact floodplain, along withthe periodic flooding in a relativelynatural pattern, are important elementsnecessary for long-term survival andrecovery of spikedace and loachminnow. Among other things, thefloodplain and its riparian vegetationprovides space for natural floodingpatterns and latitude for necessarynatural channel adjustments to maintainappropriate channel morphology andgeometry, provides nutrient input andbuffering from sediment and pollutants,stores water for slow release to maintainbase flows, and provides protected sidechannel and backwater habitats forlarval and juvenile spikedace and loachminnow.

SpikedaceWe propose the following areas as

critical habitat for spikedace (see theRegulation Promulgation section of thisrule for exact descriptions ofboundaries). The proposed designationincludes 31 reaches found withinportions of 26 streams; however,individual streams are not isolated, butare connected with others to form 7areas or ‘‘complexes.’’ The complexesinclude those that currently support

populations of spikedace, as well assome currently unoccupied byspikedace, but which are consideredessential for reestablishing populationsof spikedace to achieve recovery. Thedistances and conversions below areapproximate; more precise estimates areprovided in the RegulationPromulgation section of this rule.

1. Verde River complex, YavapaiCounty, Arizona. The Verde River iscurrently occupied by spikedace. Itstributary streams are believed to becurrently unoccupied by spikedace. TheVerde River complex is unusual in thata relatively stable thermal andhydrologic regime is found in the upperriver and in Fossil Creek. Also,spikedace in the Verde River aregenetically (Tibbets 1993) andmorphologically (Anderson andHendrickson 1994) distinct from allother spikedace populations.

a. Verde River—171 km (94 mi) ofriver extending from the confluencewith Fossil Creek upstream to SullivanDam, but excluding lands belonging tothe Yavapai Apache Tribe. SullivanDam is at the upstream limit ofperennial flow in the mainstem VerdeRiver. Perennial flow results from aseries of river-channel springs and fromGranite Creek. Below Fossil Creek, theVerde River becomes larger due to theinput of Fossil Creek and changescharacter to an extent that it may notprovide sufficient suitable habitat forspikedace.

b. Fossil Creek—8 km (5 mi) of creekextending from the confluence with theVerde River upstream to the confluencewith an unnamed tributary. The lowerportion of Fossil Creek contains allelements of spikedace habitat at present,except sufficient discharge. Discharge iscurrently diverted for hydropowergeneration at the Childs/IrvingHydropower site. Relicensing of theChilds/Irving Hydropower project willprovide enhanced flows into lowerFossil Creek, although the amount ofthat flow restoration is still undernegotiation.

c. West Clear Creek—12 km (7 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the Verde River upstream to theconfluence with Black MountainCanyon. The lower portion of WestClear Creek was historically known tosupport spikedace and containssuitable, although degraded, habitat.Gradient and channel morphologychanges above Black Mountain Canyonmake the upstream area unsuitable forspikedace.

d. Beaver/Wet Beaver Creek—33 km(21 mi) of creek extending from theconfluence with the Verde Riverupstream to the confluence with Casner

Canyon. Beaver Creek, and its upstreamextension in Wet Beaver Creek,historically supported spikedace andcontain suitable, although degraded,habitat. Above Casner Canyon, gradientand channel morphology changes makethe stream unsuitable for spikedace.

e. Oak Creek—54 km (34 mi) of creekextending from the confluence with theVerde River upstream to the confluencewith an unnamed tributary (near theYavapai/Coconino County boundary).The lower portion of Oak Creek is partof the historical range of spikedace andcontains suitable, although degraded,habitat. Above the unnamed tributary,the creek becomes unsuitable due tourban and suburban development and toincreasing gradient and substrate size.

f. Granite Creek—2.3 km (1.4 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the Verde River upstream to aspring. As a perennial tributary of theupper Verde River, Granite Creek isconsidered an important expansion areafor spikedace recovery.

2. Black River complex, Apache andGreenlee Counties, Arizona. The SaltRiver subbasin is a significant portion ofspikedace historical range and has noexisting population of spikedace. Largeareas of the subbasin are unsuitable,either because of topography or becauseof reservoirs, stream channel alterationby humans, or overwhelming nonnativespecies populations. Recovery forspikedace includes reestablishingpopulations in the subbasin. The Eastand West Forks Black River containsuitable habitat, and the continuingpresence of loach minnow in the EastFork is evidence that it may supportreestablishment of spikedace, whichhistorically occurred with loachminnow in most streams in the GilaRiver basin. The following are some ofthe most suitable areas forreestablishment of spikedace.

a. East Fork Black River—8 km (5 mi)of river extending from the confluencewith the West Fork Black Riverupstream to the confluence with DeerCreek.

b. North Fork of the East Fork BlackRiver—18 km (11 mi) of river extendingfrom the confluence with Deer Creekupstream to the confluence withBoneyard Creek.

c. West Fork Black River—10 km (6mi) of river extending from theconfluence with the East Fork BlackRiver upstream to the confluence withHay Creek. Above Hay Creek thegradient and channel morphology areunsuitable for spikedace.

3. Tonto Creek complex, Gila County,Arizona. Tonto Creek was historicallyoccupied by spikedace and loachminnow. Suitable habitat still exists,



although degradation has occurred dueto watershed uses, water diversion,agriculture, roads, and nonnativespecies introduction. The presence ofsubstantial areas of U.S. Forest Service(USFS) lands make this one of the mostpromising areas for reestablishment ofspikedace in the Salt River subbasin.

a. Tonto Creek—47 km (29 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith Greenback Creek upstream to theconfluence with Houston Creek. Theinfluence of Roosevelt Lake belowGreenback Creek, and gradient andsubstrate changes above Houston Creek,make the stream unsuitable forspikedace.

b. Greenback Creek—14 km (8 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith Tonto Creek upstream to LimeSprings.

c. Rye Creek—2.1 km (1.3 mi) of creekextending from the confluence withTonto Creek upstream to the confluencewith Brady Canyon. This area of RyeCreek still supports a native fishcommunity indicating high potential forspikedace reestablishment.

4. Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek complex, Pinal andGraham Counties, Arizona. Thiscomplex is occupied by spikedace withits population status ranging from rareto common. Aravaipa Creek supportsone of the best and most protectedspikedace populations due to specialuse designations on Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) land and tosubstantial ownership by The NatureConservancy as well as plannedconstruction of fish barriers to preventinvasion of nonnative fish species.Enhancement of downstream habitats inthe San Pedro and Gila Rivers wouldcontribute substantially to recovery ofthis species.

a. Gila River—63 km (39 mi) of riverextending from Ashurst-Hayden Damupstream to the confluence with the SanPedro River. A small population ofspikedace currently occupies this area.At Ashurst-Hayden Dam, all water isdiverted into a canal. Above theconfluence with the San Pedro River,flow in the Gila River is highlyregulated by San Carlos Dam andbecomes marginally suitable forspikedace.

b. San Pedro River—21 km (13 mi) ofriver extending from the confluencewith the Gila River upstream to theconfluence with Aravaipa Creek. Thisarea is currently occupied by spikedace.Existing flow in the river comesprimarily from surface and subsurfacecontributions from Aravaipa Creek.

c. Aravaipa Creek—45 km (28 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the San Pedro River upstream to

the confluence with Stowe Gulch.Aravaipa Creek supports a substantialpopulation of spikedace. Stowe Gulch isthe upstream limit of sufficientperennial flow for spikedace.

5. Middle-Upper San Pedro Rivercomplex, Cochise, Graham, and PimaCounties, Arizona. None of the habitatin this complex is currently occupied byspikedace. However, the San PedroRiver is the type locality of spikedace,and this complex contains importantrestoration area.

a. San Pedro River—74 km (46 mi) ofriver extending from the confluencewith Alder Wash (near Redfield)upstream to the confluence with AshCreek (near the Narrows). This middleportion of the river has increasingsurface flow due to restorationactivities, primarily groundwaterpumping reductions.

b. Redfield Canyon—22 km (14 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the San Pedro River upstream tothe confluence with Sycamore Canyon.Above Sycamore Canyon, perennialwater becomes too scarce, and thehabitat becomes unsuitable.

c. Hot Springs Canyon—19 km (12 mi)of creek extending from the confluencewith the San Pedro River upstream tothe confluence with Bass Canyon. HotSprings Canyon is currently unoccupiedbut contains suitable habitat forrestoration of spikedace.

d. Bass Canyon—5 km (3 mi) of creekextending from the confluence with HotSprings Canyon upstream to theconfluence with Pine Canyon. BassCanyon is an extension of the HotSprings Canyon habitat.

e. San Pedro River—60 km (37 mi) ofriver extending from the confluencewith the Babocomari River upstream tothe U.S./Mexico border. Althoughcurrently unoccupied, this area isidentified in BLM (BLM 1993) planningdocuments as a high-potentialrestoration area for spikedace.

6. Gila Box/San Francisco Rivercomplex, Graham and GreenleeCounties, Arizona and Catron County,New Mexico. The only spikedacepopulation remaining in the complex isin Eagle Creek. Substantial restorationpotential for spikedace exists in theremainder of the complex. This complexhas the largest area of habitat suitablefor spikedace restoration. In addition,management in the Gila Box, BonitaCreek, and the Blue River are highlycompatible with recovery goals, givingrestoration of spikedace in this complexa high likelihood of success.

a. Gila River—36 km (23 mi) of riverextending from the Brown Canaldiversion, at the head of the SaffordValley, upstream to the confluence with

Owl Canyon, at the upper end of theGila Box. The Gila Box is not known tocurrently support spikedace, but isconsidered to have a high potential forrestoration of the species. Both aboveand below the Gila Box, the Gila Riveris highly modified by agriculture,diversions, and urban development.

b. Bonita Creek—19 km (12 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the Gila River upstream to theconfluence with Martinez Wash. BonitaCreek has no spikedace at present buthas suitable habitat. Bonita Creek aboveMartinez Wash lies on the San CarlosApache Reservation, which is notincluded in this proposed designation.

c. Eagle Creek—74 km (46 mi) of creekextending from the Phelps-DodgeDiversion Dam upstream to theconfluence of Dry Prong and East EagleCreeks, but excluding lands of the SanCarlos Apache Reservation. Because thecreek repeatedly flows from private orUSFS land into the San CarlosReservation and back, it is difficult toseparately calculate stream mileage ontribal lands. Therefore, the abovemileage covers the entire streamsegment and is not corrected for tribalexclusions. Eagle Creek supports a smallpopulation of spikedace. Below thePhelps-Dodge Diversion Dam, the creekis often dry.

d. San Francisco River—182 km (113mi) of river extending from theconfluence with the Gila River upstreamto the confluence with the TularosaRiver. Habitat above the Tularosa Riverdoes not appear suitable for spikedace.The San Francisco River washistorically occupied by spikedace andis important recovery habitat forrestoration of the species.

e. Blue River—82 km (51 mi) of riverextending from the confluence with theSan Francisco River upstream to theconfluence of Campbell Blue and DryBlue creeks. The Blue River is notcurrently occupied by spikedace, butplanning among several State andFederal agencies for restoration of nativefishes in the Blue River is under way.

f. Campbell Blue Creek—13 km (8 mi)of creek extending from the confluenceof Dry Blue and Campbell Blue Creeksupstream to the confluence withColeman Canyon. Above ColemanCanyon, the creek changes and becomessteeper and rockier, making itunsuitable for spikedace.

g. Little Blue Creek—5 km (3 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the Blue River upstream to themouth of a box canyon. Little BlueCreek is not currently occupied byspikedace, but contains suitable habitatand is considered an importantrestoration area for the species.



7. Upper Gila River complex, Grantand Catron Counties, New Mexico. Thiscomplex is occupied by the largestremaining population of spikedace. It isconsidered to represent the ‘‘core’’ ofwhat remains of the species. Because ofthe remoteness of the area, there is arelatively low degree of habitat threats.

a. Gila River—164 km (102 mi) ofriver extending from the confluencewith Moore Canyon (near the Arizona/New Mexico border) upstream to theconfluence of the East and West Forks.Below Moore Canyon, the river issubstantially altered by agriculture,diversion, and urban development, thusmaking it unsuitable for spikedace.

b. East Fork Gila River—42 km (26 mi)of river extending from the confluencewith the West Fork Gila River upstreamto the confluence of Beaver and TaylorCreeks.

c. Middle Fork Gila River—12 km (8mi) of river extending from theconfluence with the West Fork GilaRiver upstream to the confluence withBig Bear Canyon.

d. West Fork Gila River—12 km (8 mi)of river extending from the confluencewith the East Fork Gila River upstreamto the confluence with EE Canyon. Thislower portion of the West Fork isoccupied by spikedace, but the riverbecomes unsuitable for spikedace aboveEE Canyon due to gradient and channelmorphology.

Loach MinnowWe propose the following areas as

critical habitat for loach minnow (seethe Regulation Promulgation section ofthis rule for exact descriptions ofboundaries). The proposed designationincludes 41 reaches found withinportions of 26 streams; however,individual streams are not isolated butare connected with others to form 7complexes. The complexes includethose that currently support populationsof loach minnow as well as somecurrently unoccupied by loach minnowbut that are considered essential forreestablishing populations of loachminnow to achieve recovery.Substantial overlap occurs with theproposed critical habitat for spikedace;7 complexes and 26 streams areincluded in the proposed designationfor both species. The distances andconversions below are approximate;more precise estimates are provided inthe Regulation Promulgation section ofthis rule.

1. Verde River complex, YavapaiCounty, Arizona. Historically knownfrom the Verde River and some of itstributaries, the loach minnow isbelieved to be extirpated in thiscomplex. The Verde complex is unusual

in that a relatively stable thermal andhydrologic regime is found in the upperriver and in Fossil Creek. Thecontinuing presence of spikedace andthe existence of suitable habitat create ahigh potential for restoration of loachminnow to the Verde system.

a. Verde River—171 km (106 mi) ofriver extending from the confluencewith Fossil Creek upstream to SullivanDam, but excluding lands belonging tothe Yavapai Apache Tribe. SullivanDam is at the upstream limit ofperennial flow in the mainstem VerdeRiver. Perennial flow results from aseries of river-channel springs and fromGranite Creek. Below Fossil Creek, theVerde River becomes larger due to theinput of Fossil Creek and changescharacter to an extent that it may notprovide sufficient suitable habitat forloach minnow.

b. Fossil Creek—8 km (5 mi) of creekextending from the confluence with theVerde River upstream to the confluencewith an unnamed tributary. The lowerportion of Fossil Creek contains allelements of loach minnow habitat atpresent, except sufficient discharge.Discharge is currently diverted forhydropower generation at the Childs/Irving Hydropower site. Relicensing ofthe Childs/Irving Hydropower projectwill provide enhanced flows into lowerFossil Creek, although the amount ofthat flow restoration is still undernegotiation.

c. West Clear Creek—12 km (7 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the Verde River upstream to theconfluence with Black MountainCanyon. The lower portion of WestClear Creek contains suitable, althoughdegraded, habitat for loach minnow.Gradient and channel morphologychanges above Black Mountain Canyonmake the upstream area unsuitable forloach minnow.

d. Beaver/Wet Beaver Creek—33 km(21 mi) of creek extending from theconfluence with the Verde Riverupstream to the confluence with CasnerCanyon. Beaver Creek, and its upstreamextension in Wet Beaver Creek,historically supported spikedace andcontain suitable, although degraded,habitat. Above Casner Canyon, gradientand channel morphology changes makethe stream unsuitable for loach minnow.

e. Oak Creek—54 km (34 mi) of creekextending from the confluence with theVerde River upstream to the confluencewith an unnamed tributary (near theYavapai/Coconino County boundary).The lower portion contains suitable,although degraded, habitat for loachminnow. Above the unnamed tributary,the creek becomes unsuitable due to

urban and suburban development and toincreasing gradient and substrate size.

f. Granite Creek—2.3 km (1.4 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the Verde River upstream to aspring. Below the spring, whichsupplies much of the base flow ofGranite Creek, there is suitable habitatfor loach minnow.

2. Black River complex, Apache andGreenlee Counties, Arizona. The SaltRiver subbasin is a significant portion ofloach minnow historical range, butloach minnow have been extirpatedfrom all but a small portion in the Blackand White Rivers. As the onlyremaining population of loach minnowon public lands in the Salt River basin,the Black River complex is consideredvital to survival and recovery of thespecies.

a. East Fork Black River—8 km (5 mi)of river extending from the confluencewith the West Fork Black Riverupstream to the confluence withBoneyard Creek. This area is occupiedby loach minnow, although thedownstream end of the population isnot well known. This population wasonly discovered in 1996.

b. North Fork of the East Fork BlackRiver—18 km (11 mi) of river extendingfrom the confluence with Deer Creekupstream to the confluence withBoneyard Creek. This area is occupiedby loach minnow, although theupstream portion of the population isnot well known. Above Boneyard Creek,the river character makes it unsuitablefor loach minnow.

c. Boneyard Creek—2.3 km (1.4 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the East Fork Black River upstreamto the confluence with an unnamedtributary. Although no loach minnowhave been found in Boneyard Creek,they are probably present based on thepattern of occupation of lower portionsof small tributaries in other parts of theloach minnow range.

d. Coyote Creek—3 km (2 mi) of creekextending from the confluence with theEast Fork Black River upstream to theconfluence with an unnamed tributary.Loach minnow are thought to use thelower portion of this creek as part of thepopulation in the East Fork Black River.

e. West Fork Black River—10 km (6mi) of river extending from theconfluence with the East Fork BlackRiver upstream to the confluence withHay Creek. Above Hay Creek, thegradient and channel morphology areunsuitable for loach minnow. The WestFork Black River is not known to beoccupied by loach minnow at present.However, it is considered important forconservation of the Black River remnantof the Salt River subbasin population.



3. Tonto Creek complex, Gila County,Arizona. Tonto Creek was historicallyoccupied by spikedace and loachminnow. Suitable habitat still exists,although degradation has occurred dueto watershed uses, water diversion,agriculture, roads, and nonnativespecies introduction. The presence ofsubstantial areas of USFS lands makethis one of the most promising areas forreestablishment of loach minnow in theSalt River subbasin.

a. Tonto Creek—70 km (44 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith Greenback Creek upstream to theconfluence with Haigler Creek. Theinfluence of Roosevelt Lake aboveGreenback Creek and changes inchannel morphology above HaiglerCreek make those portions of the streamunsuitable for loach minnow.

b. Greenback Creek—14 km (8 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith Tonto Creek upstream to LimeSprings.

c. Rye Creek—2.1 km (1.3 mi) of creekextending from the confluence withTonto Creek upstream to the confluencewith Brady Canyon. This area of RyeCreek still supports a native fishcommunity, indicating high potentialfor loach minnow reestablishment.

4. Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek complex, Pinal andGraham Counties, Arizona. Thiscomplex currently has loach minnowonly in Aravaipa Creek and itstributaries. Aravaipa Creek supports oneof the best and most protected spikedacepopulations due to special usedesignations on Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) land and tosubstantial ownership by The NatureConservancy as well as plannedconstruction of fish barriers to preventinvasion of nonnative fish species.Enhancement of downstream habitatsand expansion of the Aravaipa Creekpopulation into the San Pedro and GilaRivers would contribute substantially torecovery of this species. Expansion ofthis population is important to recoveryof the species.

a. Gila River—63 km (39 mi) of riverextending from Ashurst-Hayden Damupstream to the confluence with the SanPedro River. At Ashurst-Hayden Dam,all water is diverted into a canal. Abovethe confluence with the San PedroRiver, flow in the Gila River is highlyregulated by San Carlos Dam andbecomes marginally suitable for loachminnow.

b. San Pedro River—21 km (13 mi) ofriver extending from the confluencewith the Gila River upstream to theconfluence with Aravaipa Creek. Thissection of river is an importantconnection between the existing

population of loach minnow inAravaipa Creek and the recovery habitatin the Gila River. Existing flow in theriver comes primarily from surface andsubsurface contributions from AravaipaCreek.

c. Aravaipa Creek—45 km (28 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the San Pedro River upstream tothe confluence with Stowe Gulch.Aravaipa Creek supports a substantialpopulation of loach minnow. StoweGulch is the upstream limit of sufficientperennial flow for loach minnow.

d. Turkey Creek—4 km (3 mi) of creekextending from the confluence withAravaipa Creek upstream to theconfluence with Oak Grove Canyon.This creek is occupied by loachminnow. A substantial portion of theflow in Turkey Creek comes from theOak Grove Canyon tributary.

e. Deer Creek—4 km (3 mi) of creekextending from the confluence withAravaipa Creek upstream to theboundary of the Aravaipa Wilderness.This stream is occupied by loachminnow. Suitable habitat extends to theWilderness boundary.

5. Middle-Upper San Pedro Rivercomplex, Cochise, Graham, and PimaCounties, Arizona. None of the habitatin this complex is currently occupied byloach minnow. However, the San PedroRiver is the type locality of loachminnow, and this complex containsimportant restoration areas. a.

San Pedro River—4 km (46 mi) ofriver extending from the confluencewith Alder Wash (near Redfield)upstream to the confluence with AshCreek (near the Narrows). This middleportion of the river has increasingsurface flow due to restorationactivities, primarily groundwaterpumping reductions.

b. Redfield Canyon—22 km (14 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the San Pedro River upstream tothe confluence with Sycamore Canyon.Above Sycamore Canyon, perennialwater becomes too scarce, and thehabitat becomes unsuitable.

c. Hot Springs Canyon—20 km (12 mi)of creek extending from the confluencewith the San Pedro River upstream tothe confluence with Bass Canyon. HotSprings Canyon contains suitablehabitat for restoration of loach minnow.

d. Bass Canyon—5 km (3 mi) of creekextending from the confluence with HotSprings Canyon upstream to theconfluence with Pine Canyon. BassCanyon is an extension of the HotSprings Canyon habitat.

e. San Pedro River—60 km (37 mi) ofriver extending from the confluencewith the Babocomari River upstream tothe U.S./Mexico border. Although

currently unoccupied, this area isidentified in BLM planning documents(BLM 1993) as a high-potentialrestoration area for loach minnow.

6. Gila Box /San Francisco Rivercomplex, Graham and GreenleeCounties, Arizona and Catron County,New Mexico. Most of this complex isoccupied by loach minnow, althoughthe status varies substantially from oneportion to another. Only Bonita Creek,Little Blue Creek, and the Gila River arecurrently unoccupied. The Blue Riversystem and adjacent portions of the SanFrancisco River is the longest stretch ofoccupied loach minnow habitatunbroken by large areas of unsuitablehabitat. Management in the Gila Box,Bonita Creek, and the Blue River arehighly compatible with recovery goals,giving restoration of loach minnow inthis complex a high likelihood ofsuccess.

a. Gila River—36 km (23 mi) of riverextending from the Brown Canaldiversion, at the head of the SaffordValley, upstream to the confluence withOwl Canyon, at the upper end of theGila Box. The Gila Box is considered tohave a high potential for restoration ofthe loach minnow, and populations arelocated shortly upstream in both EagleCreek and the San Francisco River. Bothabove and below the Gila Box, the GilaRiver is highly modified by agriculture,diversions, and urban development.

b. Bonita Creek—36 km (23 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the Gila River upstream to theconfluence with Martinez Wash.Suitable habitat for loach minnow existsin Bonita Creek. Bonita Creek aboveMartinez Wash lies on the San CarlosApache Reservation, which is not beingproposed for designation at this time.

c. Eagle Creek—74 km (46 mi) of creekextending from the Phelps-DodgeDiversion Dam upstream to theconfluence of Dry Prong and East EagleCreeks, but excluding lands of the SanCarlos Apache Reservation. Because thecreek repeatedly flows from private orUSFS land into the San CarlosReservation and back, it is difficult toseparately calculate stream mileage ontribal lands. Therefore, the abovemileage covers the entire streamsegment and is not corrected for tribalexclusions. Below the Phelps-DodgeDiversion Dam, the creek is often dry.

d. San Francisco River—203 km (126mi) of river extending from theconfluence with the Gila River upstreamto the mouth of The Box, a canyonabove the town of Reserve. Loachminnow in the San Francisco River varyfrom common to rare throughout thelength of the river.



e. Tularosa River—30 km (19 mi) ofriver extending from the confluencewith the San Francisco River upstreamto the town of Cruzville. AboveCruzville, the habitat becomesunsuitable.

f. Negrito Creek—7 km (4 mi) of creekextending from the confluence with theSan Francisco River upstream to theconfluence with Cerco Canyon. Abovethis area, gradient and channelmorphology make the creek unsuitablefor loach minnow.

g. Whitewater Creek—2 km (1 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the San Francisco River upstreamto the confluence with Little WhitewaterCreek. Upstream gradient and channelchanges make the portion above LittleWhitewater Creek unsuitable for loachminnow.

h. Blue River—82 km (51 mi) of riverextending from the confluence with theSan Francisco River upstream to theconfluence of Campbell Blue and DryBlue Creeks. Planning is under way byseveral State and Federal agencies torestore native fishes in the Blue River.

i. Campbell Blue Creek—13 km (8 mi)of creek extending from the confluenceof Dry Blue and Campbell Blue Creeksupstream to the confluence withColeman Canyon. Above ColemanCanyon, the creek changes and becomessteeper and rockier, making itunsuitable for loach minnow.

j. Dry Blue Creek—5 km (3 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith Campbell Blue Creek upstream tothe confluence with Pace Creek.

k. Pace Creek—1.2 km (0.8 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith Dry Blue Creek upstream to abarrier falls.

l. Frieborn Creek—1.8 km ( 1.1 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith Dry Blue Creek upstream to anunnamed tributary.

m. Little Blue Creek—5 km (3 mi) ofcreek extending from the confluencewith the Blue River upstream to themouth of a box canyon. Little BlueCreek is not currently occupied by loachminnow but contains suitable habitatand is considered an importantrestoration area for the species.

7. Upper Gila River complex, Grantand Catron Counties, New Mexico. Thiscomplex is occupied by loach minnowthroughout. It contains what isconsidered to be the ‘‘core’’ of theremaining populations of the species.Because of the remoteness of the area,there is a relatively low degree of habitatthreats.

a. Gila River—164 km (102 mi) ofriver extending from the confluencewith Moore Canyon (near the Arizona/New Mexico border) upstream to the

confluence of the East and West Forks.Below Moore Canyon, the river issubstantially altered by agriculture,diversion, and urban development, thusmaking it unsuitable for loach minnow.

b. East Fork Gila River—42 km (26 mi)of river extending from the confluencewith the West Fork Gila River upstreamto the confluence of Beaver and TaylorCreeks.

c. Middle Fork Gila River—19 km (12mi) of river extending from theconfluence with the West Fork GilaRiver upstream to the confluence withBrothers West Canyon.

d. West Fork Gila River—12 km (8 mi)of river extending from the confluencewith the East Fork Gila River upstreamto the confluence with EE Canyon. Thislower portion of the West Fork isoccupied by loach minnow, but theriver becomes unsuitable above EECanyon due to gradient and channelmorphology.

B. Primary Constituent ElementsThe habitat features (primary

constituent elements) that provide forthe physiological, behavioral, andecological requirements essential for theconservation of the species aredescribed at 50 CFR 424.12, andinclude, but are not limited to, thefollowing:

Space for individual and populationgrowth, and for normal behavior;

Food, water, or other nutritional orphysiological requirements;

Cover or shelter;Sites for breeding, reproduction, or

rearing of offspring; andHabitats that are protected from

disturbance or are representative of thehistorical geographical and ecologicaldistributions of a species.

SpikedaceWe determined the primary

constituent elements for spikedace fromstudies on their habitat requirementsand population biology including, butnot limited to, Barber et al. 1970;Minckley 1973; Anderson 1978; Barberand Minckley 1983; Turner andTaffanelli 1983; Barrett et al. 1985;Propst et al. 1986; Service 1989; Hardy1990; Douglas et al. 1994; Stefferud andRinne 1996; Velasco 1997. Theseprimary constituent elements include:

1. Permanent, flowing, unpollutedwater;

2. Living areas for adult spikedacewith slow to swift flow velocities inshallow water with shear zones whererapid flow borders slower flow, areas ofsheet flow at the upper ends of mid-channel sand/gravel bars, and eddies atdownstream riffle edges;

3. Living areas for juvenile spikedacewith slow to moderate flow velocities in

shallow water with moderate amountsof instream cover;

4. Living areas for larval spikedacewith slow to moderate flow velocities inshallow water with abundant instreamcover;

5. Sand, gravel, and cobble substrateswith low to moderate amounts of finesediment and substrate embeddedness;

6. Pool, riffle, run, and backwatercomponents present in the aquatichabitat;

7. Low stream gradient;8. Water temperatures in the

approximate range of 1–30°C (35–85°F),with natural diurnal and seasonalvariation;

9. Abundant aquatic insect food base;10. Periodic natural flooding;11. A natural, unregulated hydrograph

or, if the flows are modified orregulated, then a hydrograph thatdemonstrates an ability to support anative fish community; and

12. Few or no predatory orcompetitive nonnative species present.

The areas we are proposing fordesignation as critical habitat forspikedace provide the above primaryconstituent elements or will be capable,with restoration, of providing them. Allof the proposed areas require specialmanagement considerations orprotection to ensure their contributionto the species’ recovery.

Loach MinnowWe determined the primary

constituent elements for loach minnowfrom studies on their habitatrequirements and population biologyincluding, but not limited to, Barber andMinckley 1966; Minckley 1973;Schreiber 1978; Britt 1982; Turner andTaffanelli 1983; Service 1988; Rinne1989; Hardy 1990; Vives and Minckley1990; Propst and Bestgen 1991; Douglaset al. 1994; Velasco 1997. These primaryconstituent elements include:

1. Permanent, flowing, unpollutedwater;

2. Living areas for adult loachminnow with moderate to swift flowvelocities in shallow water with gravel,cobble, and rubble substrates;

3. Living areas for juvenile loachminnow with moderate to swift flowvelocities in shallow water with sand,gravel, cobble, and rubble substrates;

4. Living areas for larval loachminnow with slow to moderatevelocities in shallow water with sand,gravel, and cobble substrates andabundant instream cover;

5. Spawning areas for loach minnowwith slow to swift flow velocities inshallow water with uncemented cobbleand rubble substrate;

6. Low amounts of fine sediment andsubstrate embeddedness;



7. Riffle, run, and backwatercomponents present in the aquatichabitat;

8. Low to moderate stream gradient;9. Water temperatures in the

approximate range of 1–30°C (35–85°F),with natural diurnal and seasonalvariation;

10. Abundant aquatic insect foodbase;

11. Periodic natural flooding;12. A natural unregulated hydrograph

or, if flows are modified or regulated,

then a hydrograph that demonstrates anability to support a native fishcommunity; and

13. few or no predatory or competitivenonnative species present.

The areas we are proposing fordesignation as critical habitat for loachminnow provide the above primaryconstituent elements or will be capable,with restoration, of providing them. Allof the proposed areas require specialmanagement considerations or

protection to ensure their contributionto the species’ recovery.

C. Land Ownership

Table 1 shows land ownership forareas proposed as critical habitat thatare currently occupied by one or bothspecies, and Table 2 shows landownership for proposed critical habitatthat is unoccupied. A generaldescription of land ownership in eachcomplex follows.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

1. Verde River complex—There arelarge blocks of USFS lands in the upperand lower reaches, with significantareas of private ownership in the VerdeValley and along the lower portions ofOak, Beaver, and West Clear Creeks.There are also lands belonging to theNational Park Service (NPS), ArizonaState Parks, and the Arizona Game andFish Department.

2. Black River complex—Theownership is predominantly USFS, witha few small areas of private land.

3. Tonto Creek complex—Land here ismostly USFS on the upper end, butsignificant areas of private ownershipoccur in the lower reaches.

4. Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek complex—This areaincludes extensive BLM land as well asextensive private land, some State ofArizona lands, and a small area ofallotted land owned by the San CarlosApaches.

5. Middle-Upper San Pedrocomplex—The BLM is the largest

landowner, and there are large areas ofprivate ownership and smaller areas ofState of Arizona lands.

6. Gila Box/San Francisco Rivercomplex—This complex containsextensive USFS land, some BLM land,and scattered private, State of Arizona,and New Mexico Game and FishDepartment (NMGFD) lands. A portionof Eagle Creek is on the San CarlosApache Reservation, but this area is notproposed as critical habitat at this time.The City of Safford holds significantportions of Bonita Creek.

7. Upper Gila River complex—Thelargest areas are on USFS land, withsmall private inholdings. There are largeareas of private lands in the Cliff-GilaValley, and the BLM administerssignificant stretches upstream of theArizona/New Mexico border. There arealso small areas of NMGFD, NPS, andState of New Mexico lands.

Significant private owners, with landsscattered among several of the proposedcritical habitat complexes, include

Phelps-Dodge Corporation and TheNature Conservancy. A large number ofother private landowners hold landswithin the proposed designation.Private lands are primarily used forgrazing and agriculture, but also includetowns, small-lot residences, andindustrial areas.

D. Effect of Critical Habitat Designation

The designation of critical habitatdirectly affects only Federal agencies.The Act requires Federal agencies toensure that actions they fund, authorize,or carry out do not destroy or adverselymodify critical habitat to the extent thatthe action appreciably diminishes thevalue of the critical habitat for thesurvival and recovery of the species.Individuals, organizations, States, localand Tribal governments, and other non-Federal entities are only affected by thedesignation of critical habitat if theiractions occur on Federal lands, requirea Federal permit, license, or other



authorization, or involve Federalfunding.

Section 7(a) of the Act requiresFederal agencies to evaluate theiractions with respect to any species thatis proposed or listed as endangered orthreatened and with respect to itsproposed or designated critical habitat.Regulations implementing thisinteragency cooperation provision of theAct are codified at 50 CFR part 402.Section 7(a)(4) of the Act andregulations at 50 CFR 402.10 requireFederal agencies to confer with us onany action that is likely to jeopardizethe continued existence of a proposedspecies or to result in destruction oradverse modification of proposedcritical habitat.

If a species is subsequently listed orcritical habitat is designated, thensection 7(a)(2) requires Federal agenciesto ensure that activities they authorize,fund, or carry out are not likely tojeopardize the continued existence ofsuch a species or destroy or adverselymodify its critical habitat. To that end,if a Federal action may affect a listedspecies or its critical habitat, theresponsible Federal agency must enterinto consultation with us. Regulations at50 CFR 402.16 also require Federalagencies to reinitiate consultation ininstances where we have alreadyreviewed an action for its effects on alisted species if critical habitat issubsequently designated.

Conference on proposed criticalhabitat results in a report that mayprovide conservation recommendationsto assist the action agency ineliminating or minimizing adverseeffects to the proposed critical habitatthat may be caused by the proposedagency action. Our conservationrecommendations in a conference reportare advisory. If we subsequently finalizethe proposed critical habitat,consultation on agency actions that mayaffect the critical habitat will result ina biological opinion as to whether theproposed action is likely to destroy oradversely modify critical habitat. If wefind the proposed agency action is likelyto destroy or adversely modify thecritical habitat, our biological opinionmay also include reasonable andprudent alternatives to the action thatare designed to avoid destruction oradverse modification of critical habitat.

As a result of conferencing on theproposed critical habitat, we may issuea formal conference report if requestedby a Federal agency. Formal conferencereports on proposed critical habitatcontain a biological opinion that isprepared according to 50 CFR 402.13, asif critical habitat were designated asfinal. We may adopt the formal

conference report as the biologicalopinion when the critical habitatdesignation is made final, if nosignificant new information or changesin the action alter the content of theopinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires usto describe in any proposed or finalregulation that designates criticalhabitat, a description and evaluation ofthose activities involving a Federalaction that may adversely modify suchhabitat or that may be affected by suchdesignation. Activities that may destroyor adversely modify critical habitatinclude those that alter the primaryconstituent elements (defined above) toan extent that the value of criticalhabitat for both the survival andrecovery of the spikedace or loachminnow is appreciably reduced.

To properly portray the effects ofcritical habitat designation, we mustfirst compare the section 7 requirementsfor actions that may affect criticalhabitat with the requirements foractions that may affect a listed species.Section 7 prohibits actions funded,authorized, or carried out by Federalagencies from jeopardizing thecontinued existence of a listed speciesor destroying or adversely modifying thelisted species’ critical habitat. Actionslikely to ‘‘jeopardize the continuedexistence’’ of a species are those thatwould appreciably reduce thelikelihood of the species’ survival andrecovery. Actions likely to ‘‘destroy oradversely modify’’ critical habitat arethose that would appreciably reduce thevalue of critical habitat for the survivaland recovery of the listed species.

Common to both definitions is anappreciable detrimental effect on bothsurvival and recovery of a listed species.Given the similarity of these definitions,actions likely to destroy or adverselymodify critical habitat would almostalways result in jeopardy to the speciesconcerned, particularly when the area ofthe proposed action is occupied by thespecies concerned. In those cases,critical habitat provides little additionalprotection to a species, and theramifications of its designation are fewor none.

Actions on Federal lands that wereviewed in past consultations onspikedace and loach minnow includeland management plans; landacquisition and disposal; road andbridge construction, maintenance, andrepair; water diversion anddevelopment; reservoir construction;off-road vehicle use; livestock grazingand management; fencing; prescribedburning; powerline construction andrepair; recovery actions for spikedaceand loach minnow; game fish stocking;

timber harvest; access easements; floodrepair and control; groundwaterdevelopment; channelization; and canaland other water transport facilitiesconstruction and operation. Federalagencies involved with these activitiesinclude the USFS, BLM, Service, andBureau of Reclamation.

Federal actions taken on private,State, or tribal lands on which weconsulted in the past for spikedace andloach minnow include irrigationdiversion construction andmaintenance; flood repair and control;game fish stocking; timber harvest;water diversion and development;reservoir construction; water qualitystandards; and riparian habitatrestoration. Federal agencies involvedwith these activities include the NaturalResources Conservation Service, Bureauof Reclamation, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Bureau of IndianAffairs, Indian Health Services, FederalEmergency Management Agency, andthe Service.

Federal actions involving issuance ofpermits to private parties on which weconsulted in the past for spikedace andloach minnow include issuance ofNational Discharge Elimination Systempermits by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency and issuance ofpermits under section 404 of the CleanWater Act for dredging and filling inwaterways by the Army Corps ofEngineers. Private actions for which 404permits were sought include road andbridge construction, repair andmaintenance; flood control and repair;and water diversion construction andrepair.

Since the original listing of spikedaceand loach minnow in 1986, only threeconsultations ended in a finding that theproposed action would jeopardize thecontinued existence of spikedace and/orloach minnow. An additional fourproposed actions received draft findingsof jeopardy, but for three of those, therequests for consultation werewithdrawn and the fourth is still inprogress. For the three jeopardyfindings, we included changes toprojects and recommended or requiredmeasures to reduce or eliminate impactsto spikedace and loach minnow and tominimize the potential for take ofindividuals as follows: Use of availablealternative water sources, waterconservation measures, development ofalternative water quality criteria;toxicity studies with surrogate species;construction and maintenance ofbarriers to upstream fish movement;monitoring of fish populations; fundingnonnative species control and listed fishrecovery work; and information andeducation programs.



In the many biological opinions weprepared that did not result in findingsof jeopardy to spikedace and loachminnow, we recommended nonbindingmeasures to reduce or eliminate impactsto the two species, plus requiredmeasures for the purpose of minimizingthe potential for take of individuals.Both our recommended and requiredmeasures included such things asadjustment in timing of projects to avoidsensitive periods for the species or theirhabitats; replanting of riparianvegetation; minimization of work andvehicle use in the wetted channel;restriction of riparian and uplandvegetation clearing; fencing to excludelivestock and limit recreational use; useof alternative livestock managementtechniques; monitoring of riparianvegetation, channel morphology, andfish populations; sign installation;protection of buffer zones; avoidance ofpollution; cooperative planning efforts;minimization of ground disturbance inthe floodplain; use of alternativematerials sources; storage of equipmentand staging of operations outside thefloodplain; use of block nets to excludefish from the work site; use of sedimentbarriers; removal of fish from the projectarea; access restrictions; and use of bestmanagement practices to minimizeerosion.

As stated above, designation ofcritical habitat in areas occupied byspikedace or loach minnow is notexpected to result in regulatory burdenabove that already in place due to thepresence of the listed species. However,areas designated as critical habitat thatare not occupied by the species mayrequire protections similar to thoseprovided to occupied areas under pastconsultations.

Any activity that would alter theminimum flow or the natural flowregime of any of the 41 stream segmentslisted above could destroy or adverselymodify the critical habitat of either orboth species. Such activities include,but are not limited to, groundwaterpumping, impoundment, waterdiversion, and hydropower generation.

Any activity that would significantlyalter watershed characteristics of any ofthe 41 stream segments listed abovecould destroy or adversely modify thecritical habitat of either or both species.Such activities include, but are notlimited to, vegetation manipulation,timber harvest, road construction andmaintenance, human-ignited prescribedand naturally ignited fire, livestockgrazing, mining, and urban andsuburban development.

Any activity that would significantlyalter the channel morphology of any ofthe 41 stream segments listed above

could destroy or adversely modify thecritical habitat of either or both species.Such activities include, but are notlimited to, channelization,impoundment, road and bridgeconstruction, deprivation of substratesource, destruction and alteration ofriparian vegetation, reduction ofavailable floodplain, removal of gravelor floodplain terrace materials, andexcessive sedimentation from mining,livestock grazing, road construction,timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, andother watershed and floodplaindisturbances.

Any activity that would significantlyalter the water chemistry in any of the41 stream segments listed above coulddestroy or adversely modify the criticalhabitat of either or both species. Suchactivities include, but are not limited to,release of chemical or biologicalpollutants into the surface water orconnected groundwater at a pointsource or by dispersed release (non-point).

Any activity that would introduce,spread or augment nonnative aquaticspecies could destroy or adverselymodify the critical habitat of either orboth species. Such activities include,but are not limited to, stocking for sport,aesthetics, biological control, or otherpurposes; use of live bait fish,aquaculture, or dumping of aquariumfish or other species; construction andoperation of canals; and interbasinwater transfers.

In some cases designation of criticalhabitat may assist in focusingconservation activities by identifyingareas that contain essential habitatfeatures (primary constituent elements),regardless of whether they are currentlyoccupied by the listed species. Thisidentification alerts the public and landmanagement agencies to the importanceof an area in the conservation of thatspecies. Critical habitat also identifiesareas that may require specialmanagement considerations orprotection.

If you have questions regardingwhether specific activities will likelyconstitute destruction or adversemodification of critical habitat, contactthe Field Supervisor, Arizona EcologicalServices Office (see ADDRESSES section).Requests for copies of the regulations onlisted wildlife and inquiries aboutprohibitions and permits may beaddressed to the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Division of EndangeredSpecies, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque,New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505–248–6920; facsimile 505–248–6788).

Economic Analysis

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires thatwe designate critical habitat on the basisof the best scientific and commercialinformation available and consider theeconomic and other relevant impacts ofdesignating a particular area as criticalhabitat. We based this proposal on thebest available scientific information,including the recommendations in thespecies’ recovery plan. We will utilizethe economic analysis, and take intoconsideration all comments andinformation submitted during the publichearing and comment period, to make afinal critical habitat designation. Wemay exclude areas from critical habitatupon a determination that the benefitsof such exclusions outweigh the benefitsof specifying such areas as criticalhabitat. We cannot exclude such areasfrom critical habitat when suchexclusion will result in the extinction ofthe species. We completed a drafteconomic analysis, which is availablefor public review and comment. Sendyour requests for copies of the economicanalysis to the Arizona EcologicalServices Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Secretarial Order 3206: AmericanIndian Tribal Rights, Federal-TribalTrust Responsibilities, and theEndangered Species Act

The stated purpose of SecretarialOrder 3206 (Secretarial Order) is to‘‘clarif(y) the responsibilities of thecomponent agencies, bureaus, andoffices of the Department of the Interiorand the Department of Commerce, whenactions taken under authority of the Actand associated implementingregulations affect, or may affect, Indianlands, tribal trust resources, or theexercise of American Indian tribalrights.’’ The Secretarial Orderacknowledges the government-to-government relationship with tribes,and the trust responsibility and treatyobligations of the United States towardIndian tribes.

In keeping with the principles cited inthe Secretarial Order, we are committedto assisting Indian tribes in developingand expanding tribal programs so thathealthy ecosystems are promoted andconservation regulations, such asdesignation of critical habitat, on triballands are unnecessary (Principle 3). Inaddition to affirmatively assistingIndian tribes who wish assistance withconservation programs, we recognizethat tribes are appropriate governmentalentities to manage their lands and tribaltrust resources and support tribalmeasures that preclude the need forconservation regulations.



The Secretarial Order also requires usto consult with Indian tribes that mightbe affected by the designation of criticalhabitat in an area that might impacttribal trust resources, tribally owned feelands, or the exercise of tribal rights. Inour deliberations over this criticalhabitat proposal, we identified twocategories of possible effects to tribes ortribal resources. These include: (1)effects resulting from designation ofcritical habitat on Indian lands; and (2)effects on tribal resources, such as waterdeliveries, resulting from designation ofcritical habitat on non-tribal lands. Weidentified the Indian Reservations of theWhite Mountain, San Carlos, andYavapai Apache Tribes as containingstream reaches that may be appropriatefor designation of critical habitat.Additionally, several tribes, includingthe Salt River, Ft. McDowell, and GilaRiver Indian Tribes, are locateddownstream from designated criticalhabitat and depend on water deliveriesfrom upstream sources.

Public Law 106–113 and H.R. 3423prohibit us from using any of ourappropriated funds to implement twoprovisions of the Secretarial order:Principle 3(C)(ii) (prohibiting theimposing of conservation restrictionsinvolving incidental take if theconservation purposes of the restrictioncan be achieved by reasonableregulation of non-Indian activities) andAppendix section 3(B)(4) (regardingdesignation of critical habitat, includingthe requirement that the Service consultwith affected tribes). However, portionsof Principle 3(C) unaffected by PublicLaw 106–113 and H.R. 3423 requireconsultation with affected tribes prior toimplementation of any conservationrestriction. Moreover, PresidentialMemorandum of April 29, 1994, alsorequires us to consult with the tribes [onmatters that affect them], and section4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to gatherinformation regarding the designation ofcritical habitat and the effects thereoffrom all relevant sources, including thetribes. Therefore, although we will notconsult pursuant to Appendix section3(B)(4) of the Secretarial Order, we willconsult with the tribes to the extentpossible in the time allowed by thecourt order pursuant to these otherauthorities.

1. Designation of Critical Habitat onIndian Reservations

Appendix 3(B)(4) of the SecretarialOrder also states: ‘‘Critical habitat shallnot be designated [on tribal lands]unless it is determined essential toconserve a listed species. In designatingcritical habitat, the Services shallevaluate and document the extent to

which the conservation needs of thelisted species can be achieved bylimiting the designation to other lands.’’Again, pursuant to Public Law 106–113and H.R. 3423, we may not expendfunds to implement these requirements.However, we must still determinewhether all relevant areas, includingtribal lands, in fact qualify as criticalhabitat pursuant to Section 3(5) of theAct. With respect to currently occupiedhabitat, that provision limits criticalhabitat to areas ‘‘on which are foundthose physical and biological features (I)essential to the conservation of thespecies and (II) which may requirespecial management considerations andprotection.’’ Moreover, pursuant toSection 4(b)(2) of the Act, we mustdetermine whether to exclude particularareas from designation because thebenefits of exclusion outweigh thebenefits of including the areas as criticalhabitat. We spoke with representativesof the White Mountain Apache, SanCarlos Apache, and Yavapai ApacheTribes, the three tribes which may havecritical habitat for spikedace or loachminnow on their reservations. However,we do not have information on which tobase an assessment of whethervoluntary tribal measures are adequateto achieve conservation of spikedaceand loach minnow on tribal lands. Inaddition, the short time allowed by thecourt to complete this critical habitatdesignation precludes us from engagingin a level of consultation with the tribeson a government-to-government basis,which would enable us to make thisrequired determination.

Given the above, we are not proposingcritical habitat on the Fort Apache, SanCarlos Apache, or Yavapai ApacheIndian Reservations at this time.However, Eagle Creek and the Verdeand White Rivers on these reservationsmay be critical habitat for the spikedaceand loach minnow. As provided undersection 4(b)(2) of the Act, we aresoliciting information as to whetherthese areas should be designated ascritical habitat and will be discussingwith the tribes whether their voluntarymeasures are adequate to conserve thesespecies on tribal lands. We will considerthis information in determining which,if any, tribal land should be included inthe final designation as critical habitatfor spikedace or loach minnow.

2. Effects on Tribal Trust Resourcesfrom Critical Habitat Designation onNon-Tribal Lands

We do not anticipate that proposal ofcritical habitat on non-tribal lands willresult in any impact on tribal trustresources or the exercise of tribal rights.However, it is essential in complying

with our responsibilities under theSecretarial Order to communicate withall tribes potentially affected by thedesignation. As stated above, the SaltRiver, Ft. McDowell, and Gila RiverIndian Tribes as well as the WhiteMountain, San Carlos, and YavapaiApache Tribes are all locateddownstream from proposed criticalhabitat for the spikedace and loachminnow. However, many of these tribeseither have major impoundments ontheir reservations or lie below majorimpoundments, and release of waterfrom such impoundments may beregulated by court decree or otherconsiderations. Therefore, we aresoliciting information during thecomment period on potential effects totribes or tribal resources that may resultfrom critical habitat designation.

Public Comments SolicitedIt is our intent that any final action

resulting from this proposal will be asaccurate and as effective as possible.Therefore, we solicit comments orsuggestions from the public, otherconcerned governmental agencies, thescientific community, industry, or anyother interested party concerning thisproposed rule. We particularly seekcomments concerning:

(1) The reasons why any habitatshould or should not be determined tobe critical habitat as provided by section4 of the Act, including whether thebenefits of excluding areas willoutweigh the benefits of including areasas critical habitat;

(2) Specific information on theamount and distribution of spikedaceand loach minnow habitat, and whathabitat is essential to the conservationof the species and why;

(3) Land use practices and current orplanned activities in the subject areasand their possible impacts on proposedcritical habitat;

(4) Any foreseeable economic or otherimpacts resulting from the proposeddesignation of critical habitat, inparticular, any impacts on small entitiesor families; and

(5) Economic and other valuesassociated with designating criticalhabitat for the spikedace and the loachminnow, such as those derived fromnonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking,camping, birding, enhanced watershedprotection, increased soil retention,‘‘existence values,’’ and reductions inadministrative costs).

Executive Order 12866 requires eachagency to write regulations and noticesthat are easy to understand. We inviteyour comments on how to make thisproposed rule easier to understandincluding answers to questions such as



the following: (1) Are the requirementsin the document clearly stated? (2) Doesthe proposed rule contain technicallanguage or jargon that interferes withthe clarity? (3) Does the format of theproposed rule (grouping and order ofsections, use of headings, paragraphing,etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is thedescription of the proposed rule in the‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section ofthe preamble helpful in understandingthe document? (5) What else could wedo to make the proposed rule easier tounderstand?

Our practice is to make comments,including names and home addresses ofrespondents, available for public reviewduring regular business hours.Individual respondents may request thatwe withhold their home address fromthe rulemaking record, which we willhonor to the extent allowable by law.There also may be circumstances inwhich we would withhold from therulemaking record a respondent’sidentity, as allowable by law. If youwish us to withhold your name and/oraddress, you must state thisprominently at the beginning of yourcomment. However, we will notconsider anonymous comments. Wewill make all submissions fromorganizations or businesses, and fromindividuals identifying themselves asrepresentatives or officials oforganizations or businesses, availablefor public inspection in their entirety.

In accordance with our policypublished on July 1, 1994 (59 FR34270), we will seek the expert opinionsof at least three appropriate andindependent specialists regarding thisproposed rule. The purpose of suchreview is to ensure listing decisions arebased on scientifically sound data,assumptions, and analyses. We willsend copies of this proposed ruleimmediately following publication inthe Federal Register to these peerreviewers. We will invite these peerreviewers to comment, during thepublic comment period, on the specificassumptions and conclusions regardingthe proposed designation of criticalhabitat.

We will consider all comments andinformation received during thecomment period on this proposed ruleduring preparation of a finalrulemaking. Accordingly, the finaldecision may differ from this proposal.

Public Hearings

We have scheduled three publichearings at the following places andtimes:

December 15, 1999, from 7:00–9:00p.m.

1. Eastern Arizona College ActivityCenter, Lee Little Theater, 1014 N.College Avenue, Thatcher, Arizona

2. Western New Mexico University,White Hall Auditorium, 1000 CollegeStreet, Silver City, New MexicoDecember 16, 1999, from 7:00–9:00

p.m.Camp Verde Unified Schools, Multi-

Use Complex Theater, 280 CampLincoln Road, Camp Verde, Arizona

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with the criteria inExecutive Order 12866, this rule is asignificant regulatory action. The Officeof Management and Budget reviewedthis document. We prepared a drafteconomic analysis of this proposedaction to determine the economicconsequences of designating the specificareas as critical habitat. The drafteconomic analysis is available for publicreview and comment during thecomment period on this proposed rule(see ADDRESSES section of this rule). Theproposed rule, if made final, will notsignificantly impact entitlements,grants, user fees, loan programs, or therights and obligations of their recipients.This rule will not raise novel legal orpolicy issues.

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

In the economic analysis, wedetermined that designation of criticalhabitat will not have a significant effecton a substantial number of smallentities.

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

In our economic analysis, wedetermined that designation of criticalhabitat will not cause (a) any effect onthe economy of $100 million or more,(b) any increases in costs or prices forconsumers; individual industries;Federal, State, or local governmentagencies; or geographic regions, or (c)any significant adverse effects oncompetition, employment, investment,productivity, innovation, or the abilityof U.S.-based enterprises to competewith foreign-based enterprises.

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

As outlined in our economic analysis,this rule does not impose an unfundatedmandate on State, local or tribalgovernments or the private sector ofmore than $100 million or greater in anyyear. The proposed rule, if made final,does not have a significant or uniqueeffect on State local or tribal

governments or the private sector. Astatement containing the informationrequired by the Unfunded MandatesReform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is notrequired.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order12630, this rule does not havesignificant takings implications, and atakings implication assessment is notrequired. This proposed rule, if madefinal, will not ‘‘take’’ private property.However, we will evaluate whether thevalue of private property is altered by itbeing designated as critical habitat on acase by case basis. Critical habitatdesignation is only applicable to Federallands and to private lands if a Federalnexus exists. We do not designateprivate lands as critical habitat unlessthe areas are essential to theconservation of a species.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order13132, this proposed rule, if made final,will not affect the structure or role ofStates, and will not have direct,substantial, or significant effects onStates. As previously stated, criticalhabitat is applicable to Federal landsand to non-Federal lands only when aFederal nexus exists.

In keeping with Department of theInterior and Department of Commercepolicy, the Service requestedinformation from and coordinateddevelopment of this critical habitatproposal with appropriate Stateresource agencies in Arizona and NewMexico, as well as during the listingprocess. In addition, both States haverepresentatives on our recovery team forthis species. We will continue tocoordinate any future designation ofcritical habitat for spikedace and loachminnow with the appropriate Stateagencies.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order12988, the Department of the Interior’sOffice of the Solicitor determined thatthis rule does not unduly burden thejudicial system and meets therequirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)of the Order. The Office of the Solicitorwill review the final determination forthis proposal. We will make every effortto ensure that the final determinationcontains no drafting errors, providesclear standards, simplifies procedures,reduces burden, and is clearly writtensuch that litigation risk is minimized.



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

This rule does not contain anyinformation collection requirements forwhich Office of Management andBudget approval under the PaperworkReduction Act is required.

National Environmental Policy Act

It is our position that, outside theTenth Circuit, we do not need toprepare environmental analyses asdefined by the NEPA in connection withdesignating critical habitat under theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended. We published a noticeoutlining our reasons for thisdetermination in the Federal Registeron October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Thisassertion was upheld in the courts of theNinth Circuit (Douglas County v.Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore.1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).However, when the range of the speciesincludes States within the Tenth

Circuit, such as that of the spikedaceand loach minnow, pursuant to theTenth Circuit ruling in Catron CountyBoard of Commissioners v. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10thCir. 1996), we undertake a NEPAanalysis for critical habitat designation.Send your requests for copies of thedraft environmental assessment for thisproposal to the Arizona EcologicalServices Office (see ADDRESSES section).

References Cited

A complete list of all references citedin this proposed rule is available uponrequest from the Arizona EcologicalServices Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this notice isPaul J. Barrett (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amendpart 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title50 of the Code of Federal Regulations asset forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17continues 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. Amend § 17.11(h), by revising theentry for ‘‘minnow, loach’’ and‘‘spikedace’’ under ‘‘FISHES’’ to read asfollows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatenedwildlife.

* * * * *(h) * * *

SpeciesHistoric range

Vertebrate popu-lation where endan-gered or threatened

Status When listed Criticalhabitat

SpecialrulesCommon name Scientific name

* * * * * * **

FISHES* * * * * * *

*Minnow, loach .......... Tiaroga (=

Rhinichthys)cobitis.

U.S.A. (AZ, NM),Mexico.

entire ....................... T 247 § 17.95(e) NA

* * * * * * **

Spikedace ................ Meda fulgida ........... U.S.A. (AZ, NM),Mexico.

entire ....................... T 236 § 17.95(e) NA

* * * * * * **

3. Amend § 17.95(e) by adding criticalhabitat for the spikedace (Meda fulgida)in the same alphabetical order as thisspecies occurs in § 17.11(h).

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(e) Fishes.* * * * *

SPIKEDACE (Meda fulgida)

1. Critical habitat units are depicted forApache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee,Navajo, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties,Arizona, and Catron, Grant, and HidalgoCounties, New Mexico, on the maps and asdescribed below.

2. Critical habitat includes the streamchannels within the identified stream reachesindicated on the maps below and areaswithin these reaches potentially inundatedby high flow events.

3. Within these areas, the primaryconstituent elements include, but are notlimited to, those habitat components that areessential for the primary biological needs offoraging, sheltering, and reproduction. Theseelements include the following: (1)Permanent, flowing, unpolluted water; (2)living areas for adult spikedace with slow toswift flow velocities in shallow water withshear zones where rapid flow borders slowerflow, areas of sheet flow at the upper endsof mid-channel sand/gravel bars, and eddiesat downstream riffle edges; (3) living areas forjuveniles with slow to moderate watervelocities in shallow water with moderateamounts of instream cover; (4) living areasfor the larval stage with slow to moderateflow velocities in shallow water withabundant instream cover; (5) sand, gravel,and cobble substrates with low to moderateamounts of fine sediment and substrateembeddedness; (6) pool, riffle, run, andbackwater components of the streams; (7) lowstream gradient; (8) water temperatures in the

approximate range of 1–30 °C (35–85 °F) withnatural diurnal and seasonal variation; (9)abundant aquatic insect food base; (10)periodic natural flooding; (11) a natural,unregulated hydrograph, or if flows aremodified or regulated, then a hydrograph thatdemonstrates an ability to support a nativefish community; and (12) few or no predatoryor competitive nonnative species present.

4. Arizona (Gila and Salt River Meridian(GSRM) and New Mexico (New MexicoPrincipal Meridian (NMPM)): Areas of landand water as follows (physical features wereidentified using USGS 7.5′ quadrangle maps;river reach distances were derived fromdigital data obtained from Arizona LandResources Information System (ALRIS) andNew Mexico Resource GeographicInformation System (RGIS)):



SPIKEDACE (Meda fulgida)

Complex 1. Yavapai County, Arizona

a. Verde River for approximately 171.3 km(106.5 mi), extending from the confluencewith Fossil Creek in GSRM, T.11N., R.6E.,NE1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to Sullivan Dam inGSRM, T.17N., R.2W., NW1/4 Sec. 15.

b. Fossil Creek for approximately 7.6 km(4.7 mi), extending from the confluence withthe Verde River in GSRM, T.11.N., R.6E.,NE1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to the confluencewith an unnamed tributary from the

northwest in GSRM, T.11 1/2N., R.7E., centerSec. 29.

c. West Clear Creek for approximately 11.6km (7.2 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Verde River in GSRM, T.13N., R.5E.,center Sec. 21, upstream to the confluencewith Black Mountain Canyon in GSRM,T.13N., R.6E., SE1/4 Sec. 17.

d. Beaver Creek/Wet Beaver Creek forapproximately 33.4 km (20.8 mi), extendingfrom the confluence with the Verde River inGSRM, T.14N., R.5E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstream

to the confluence with Casner Canyon inGSRM, T.15N., R.6E., NW1/4 Sec. 23.

e. Oak Creek for approximately 54.4 km(33.8 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Verde River in GSRM, T.15N., R.4E.,SE1/4 Sec. 20 upstream to the confluencewith an unnamed tributary from the south inGSRM, T.17N., R.5E., SE1/4, NE1/4 Sec. 24.

f. Granite Creek for approximately 2.3 km(1.4 mi), extending from the confluence withthe Verde River in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W.,NE1/4 Sec. 14 upstream to a spring in GSRM,T.17N., R.2W., SW1/4, SW1/4, Sec. 13.



Complex 2. Apache and Greenlee Counties,Arizona

a. East Fork Black River for approximately8.2 km (5.1 mi), extending from theconfluence with the West Fork Black River inGSRM, T.4N., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream

to the confluence with Deer Creek in GSRM,T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30.

b. North Fork of the East Fork Black Riverfor approximately 11.6 km (7.2 mi),extending from the confluence of the EastFork Black River and Deer Creek in GSRM,T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to the

confluence with Boneyard Creek in GSRM,T5N, R29E, SW1/4 Sec. 5.

c. West Fork Black River for approximately10.3 km (6.4 mi), extending from theconfluence with the East Fork Black River inGSRM, T.4N, R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstreamto the confluence with Hay Creek in GSRM,T.5N., R.28E., SE1/4, Sec. 19.



Complex 3. Gila County, Arizona

a. Tonto Creek for approximately 47.0 km(29.2 mi), extending from the confluencewith Greenback Creek in GSRM, T.5N.,R.11E., NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to the

confluence with Houston Creek in GSRM,T.9N., R.11E., NE1/4, Sec. 18.

b. Greenback Creek for approximately 13.5km (8.4 mi), extending from the confluencewith Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E.,NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to Lime Springs inGSRM, T.6N., R.12E., SW1/4 Sec. 20.

c. Rye Creek for approximately 2.1 km (1.3mi), extending from the confluence withTonto Creek in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/4Sec. 24 upstream to the confluence withBrady Canyon in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/4 Sec. 14.



Complex 4. Graham and Pinal Counties,Arizona

a. Gila River for approximately 62.8 km(39.0 mi), extending from Ashurst-HaydenDam in GSRM, T.4S., R.11E., NW1/4 Sec. 8upstream to the confluence with the San

Pedro River in GSRM, T.5S., R.15E., centerSec. 23.

b. San Pedro River for approximately 21.4km (13.3 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Gila River in GSRM, T.5S., R.15E.,center Sec. 23 upstream to the confluencewith Aravaipa Creek in GSRM, T.7S., R.16E.,center Sec. 9.

c. Aravaipa Creek for approximately 45.3km (28.1 mi), extending from the confluencewith the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.7S.,R.16E., center Sec. 9 upstream to theconfluence with Stowe Gulch in GSRM,T.6S., R.19E., SE1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec. 35.



Complex 5. Cochise, Graham, and PimaCounties, Arizona.

a. San Pedro River for approximately 73.6km (45.8 mi), extending from the confluencewith Alder Wash in GSRM, T.10S., R.18E.,SW1/4 Sec.22 upstream to the confluencewith Ash Creek in GSRM, T.16S., R.20E.,SE1/4 Sec. 6.

b. Redfield Canyon for approximately 22.3km (13.9 mi), extending from the confluencewith the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.11S.,

R.18E., SW1/4 Sec. 34 upstream to theconfluence with Sycamore Canyon in GSRM,T.11S., R.20E., NW1/4 Sec. 28.

c. Hot Springs Canyon for approximately19.1 km (11.8 mi), extending from theconfluence with the San Pedro River inGSRM, T.13S., R.19E., west center Sec. 23upstream to the confluence with Bass Canyonin GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., NE1/4 Sec. 36.

d. Bass Canyon for approximately 5.1 km(3.2 mi), extending from the confluence with

Hot Springs Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E.,NE1/4 Sec. upstream to the confluence withPine Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.21E., centerSec. 20.

e. San Pedro River for approximately 60.0km (37.2 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Babocomari River in the San Juande las Boquillas y Nogales land grantupstream to the U.S. border with Mexico inGSRM, T.24S., R.22E., Sec. 19.



Complex 6. Graham and Greenlee Counties,Arizona and Catron County, New Mexico

a. Gila River for approximately 36.3 km(22.6 mi), extending from the Brown Canaldiversion at the head of the Safford Valley inGSRM, T.6S., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstreamto the confluence with Owl Canyon inGSRM, T.5S., R.30E., SW1/4 Sec. 30.

b. Bonita Creek for approximately 23.5 km(14.6 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Gila River in GSRM, T.6S., R.28E.,SE1/4 Sec. upstream to the confluence withMartinez Wash in GSRM, T.4S., R.27E.,SE1/4 Sec.27.

c. Eagle Creek for approximately 72.8 km(45.2 mi), extending from the Phelps-Dodge

diversion dam in GSRM, T.4S., R.28E., NW1/4 Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence of DryProng and East Eagle Creeks in GSRM, T.2N.,R.28E., SW1/4 Sec. 20; but excluding landsof the San Carlos Apache Reservation.

d. San Francisco River for approximately181.5 km (118.2 mi), extending from theconfluence with the Gila River in GSRM,T.5S., R.29E., SE1/4 Sec. 21 upstream to theconfluence with the Tularosa River in theNMPM, T.7S., R.19W., SW1/4 Sec. 23.

e. Blue River for approximately 81.9 km(51.0 mi), extending from the confluencewith the San Francisco River in GSRM, T.2S.,R.31E., SE1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to theconfluence of Campbell and Dry Blue Creeksin NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6.

f. Campbell Blue Creek for approximately13.1 km (8.2 mi), extending from theconfluence with Dry Blue Creek in NMPM,T.7S., R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6 upstream to theconfluence with Coleman Creek in GSRM,T.4 1/2 N., R.31E., SW1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec.32.

g. Little Blue Creek for approximately 4.5km (2.8 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Blue River in GSRM, T.1S., R.31E.,center Sec. upstream to the mouth of a boxcanyon in GSRM, T.1N., R.31E., NE1/4SE1/4 Sec. 29.



Complex 7. Grant and Catron Counties, NewMexico.

a. Gila River for approximately 164.4 km(102.2 mi), extending from the confluencewith Moore Canyon in NMPM, T.18S.,R.21W., SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to theconfluence of the East and West Forks of theGila River in NMPM, T.13S., T.13W., centerSec. 8.

b. East Fork Gila River for approximately42.1 km (26.1 mi), extending from theconfluence with the West Fork Gila River inNMPM, T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8upstream to the confluence of Beaver andTaylor Creeks in NMPM, T.11S., R.12W.,NE1/4 Sec. 17.

c. Middle Fork Gila River forapproximately 12.3 km (7.7 mi), extending

from the confluence with the West Fork GilaRiver in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., SW1/4 Sec.25 upstream to the confluence with Big BearCanyon in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., NW1/4Sec. 2.

d. West Fork Gila River for approximately12.4 km (7.7 mi), extending from theconfluence with the East Fork Gila River inNMPM, T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8upstream to the confluence with EE Canyonin NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., east boundary ofSec. 21.

* * * * *4. Amend § 17.95(e) by adding critical

habitat for the loach minnow (Tiaroga(=Rhinichthys) cobitis) in the samealphabetical order as this species occurs in§ 17.11(h):

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.

* * * * *(e) Fishes.

* * * * *

LOACH MINNOW (Tiaroga (=Rhinichthys)cobitis)

1. Critical habitat units are depicted forApache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee,Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona,and Catron and Grant Counties, New Mexicoon the maps and as described below.

2. Critical habitat includes the streamchannels within the identified stream reachesindicated on the maps below and areaswithin these reaches potentially inundatedby high flow events.



3. Within these areas, the primaryconstituent elements include, but are notlimited to, those habitat components that areessential for the primary biological needs offoraging, sheltering, and reproduction. Theseelements include the following: (1)Permanent flowing, unpolluted water; (2)living areas for adults with moderate to swiftflow velocities in shallow water with gravel,cobble, and rubble substrates; (3) living areasfor juveniles with moderate to swift flowvelocities in shallow water with sand, gravel,cobble, and rubble substrates; (4) living areasfor larval loach minnow with slow tomoderate velocities in shallow water with

sand, gravel, and cobble substrates andabundant instream cover; (5) spawning areaswith slow to swift flow velocities in shallowwater with uncemented cobble and rubblesubstrate; (6) low amounts of fine sedimentand substrate embeddedness; (7) riffle, run,and backwater components present in theaquatic habitat; (8) low to moderate streamgradient; (9) water temperatures in theapproximate range of 1–30°C (35–85°F) withnatural diurnal and seasonal variation; (10)abundant aquatic insect food base; (11)periodic natural flooding; (12) a natural,unregulated hydrograph, or if flows aremodified or regulated, then a hydrograph that

demonstrates a retained ability to support anative fish community; and (13) few or nopredatory or competitive nonnative speciespresent.

4. Arizona (Gila and Salt River Meridian(GSRM)) and New Mexico (New MexicoPrincipal Meridian (NMPM)): Areas of landand water as follows (physical features wereidentified using USGS 7.5’ quadrangle maps;river reach distances were derived fromdigital data obtained from Arizona LandResources Information System (ALRIS) andNew Mexico Resource GeographicInformation System (RGIS)):

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



LOACH MINNOW (Tiaroga (=Rhinichthys)cobitis)

Complex 1. Yavapai County, Arizona

a. Verde River for approximately 171.3 km(106.5 mi), extending from the confluencewith Fossil Creek in GSRM, T.11N., R.6E.,NE1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to Sullivan Dam inGSRM, T.17N., R.2W., NW1/4 Sec. 15.

b. Fossil Creek for approximately 7.6 km(4.7 mi), extending from the confluence withthe Verde River in GSRM, T.11N., R.6E.,NE1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence

with an unnamed tributary from thenorthwest in GSRM, T.11 1/2N., R.7E., centerSec. 29.

c. West Clear Creek for approximately 11.6km (7.2 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Verde River in GSRM, T.13N., R.5E.,center Sec. 21, upstream to the confluencewith Black Mountain Canyon in GSRM,T.13N., R.6E., SE1/4 Sec. 17.

d. Beaver Creek/Wet Beaver Creek forapproximately 33.4 km (20.8mi), extendingfrom the confluence with the Verde River inGSRM, T.14N., R.5E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstream

to the confluence with Casner Canyon inGSRM, T.15N., R.6E., NW1/4 Sec. 23.

e. Oak Creek for approximately 54.4 km(33.8 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Verde River in GSRM, T.15N., R.4E.,SE1/4 Sec. 20 upstream to the confluencewith an unnamed tributary from the south inGSRM, T.17N., R.5E., SE1/4, NE1/4 Sec. 24.

f. Granite Creek for approximately 2.3 km(1.4 mi), extending from the confluence withthe Verde River in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W.,NE1/4 Sec. 14 upstream to a spring in GSRM,T.17N., R.2W., SW1/4, SW1/4, Sec. 13.

Complex 2. Apache and Greenlee Counties,Arizona

a. East Fork Black River for approximately8.2 km (5.1 mi), extending from theconfluence with the West Fork Black River inGSRM, T.4N., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstreamto the confluence with Deer Creek in GSRM,T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30.

b. North Fork of the East Fork Black Riverfor approximately 18.0 km (11.2 mi),extending from the confluence of the EastFork Black River and Deer Creek in GSRM,T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to theconfluence with an unnamed tributaryflowing from the east in GSRM, T.6N.,R.29E., center Sec. 30.

c. Boneyard Creek for approximately 2.3km (1.4 mi), extending from the confluencewith the North Fork of the East Fork BlackRiver in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., SW1/4 Sec. 5upstream to the confluence with an unnamedtributary flowing from the east near ClabberCity in GSRM, T.6N., R.29E., SE1/4 SE1/4Sec. 32.



d. Coyote Creek for approximately 3.1 km(2.0 mi), extending from the confluence withthe North Fork of the East Fork Black Riverin GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., NE1/4 Sec. 8upstream to the confluence with an unnamed

tributary flowing from the south in GSRM,T.5N., R.19E., NW1/4 Sec. 10.

e. West Fork Black River for approximately10.3 km (6.4 mi), extending from theconfluence with the East Fork Black River in

GSRM, T.4N., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstreamto the confluence with Hay Creek in GSRM,T.5N., R.28E., SE1/4, Sec. 19.

Complex 3. Gila County, Arizona

a. Tonto Creek for approximately 70.3 km(43.7 mi), extending from the confluencewith Greenback Creek in GSRM, T.5N.,R.11E., NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to the

confluence with Haigler Creek in GSRM,T.10N., R.12E., NW1/4, Sec. 14.

b. Greenback Creek for approximately 13.5km (8.4 mi), extending from the confluencewith Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E.,NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to Lime Springs inGSRM, T.6N., R.12E., SW1/4 Sec. 20.

c. Rye Creek for approximately 2.1 km (1.3mi), extending from the confluence withTonto Creek in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/4Sec. 24 upstream to the confluence withBrady Canyon in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/4 Sec. 14.



Complex 4. Graham and Pinal Counties,Arizona

a. Gila River for approximately 62.8 km(39.0 mi), extending from Ashurst-HaydenDam in GSRM, T.4S., R.11E., NW1/4 Sec. 8upstream to the confluence with the SanPedro River in GSRM, T.5S., R.15E., centerSec. 23.

b. San Pedro River for approximately 21.4km (13.3 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Gila River in GSRM, T.5S., R.15E.,

center Sec. 23 upstream to the confluencewith Aravaipa Creek in GSRM, T.7S., R.16E.,center Sec. 9.

c. Aravaipa Creek for approximately 45.3km (28.1 mi), extending from the confluencewith the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.7S.,R.16E., center Sec. 9 upstream to theconfluence with Stowe Gulch in GSRM,T.6S., R.19E., SE1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec. 35.

d. Turkey Creek for approximately 4.3 km(2.7 mi), extending from the confluence with

Aravaipa Creek in GSRM, T.6S., R.19E.,center Sec. 19 upstream to the confluencewith Oak Grove Canyon in GSRM, T.6S.,R.19E., SW1/4 Sec. 32.

f. Deer Creek for approximately 3.6 km (2.3mi), extending from the confluence withAravaipa Creek in GSRM, T.6S., R.18E., SE1/4 of the SE1/4 Sec. 14 upstream to theboundary of the Aravaipa Wilderness atGSRM, T.6S., R.18E., east boundary Sec. 13.



Complex 5. Cochise, Graham, and PimaCounties, Arizona

a. San Pedro River for approximately 73.6km (45.8 mi), extending from the confluencewith Alder Wash in GSRM, T.10S., R.18E.,

SW1/4 Sec. 22 upstream to the confluencewith Ash Creek in GSRM, T.16S., R.20E.,SE1/4 Sec. 6.

b. Redfield Canyon for approximately 22.3km (13.9 mi), extending from the confluencewith the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.11S.,

R.18E., SW1/4 Sec. 34 upstream to theconfluence with Sycamore Canyon in GSRM,T.11S., R.20E., NW1/4 Sec. 28.

c. Hot Springs Canyon for approximately19.1 km (11.8 mi), extending from theconfluence with the San Pedro River in



GSRM, T.13S., R.19E., west center Sec. 23upstream to the confluence with Bass Canyonin GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., NE1/4 Sec. 36.

d. Bass Canyon for approximately 5.1 km(3.2 mi), extending from the confluence withHot Springs Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E.,

NE1/4 Sec. upstream to the confluence withPine Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.21E., centerSec. 20.

e. San Pedro River for approximately 60.0km (37.2 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Babocomari River in the San Juan

de las Boquillas y Nogales land grantupstream to the U.S. border with Mexico inGSRM, T.24S., R.22E., Sec. 19.

Complex 6. Graham and Greenlee Counties,Arizona and Catron County, New Mexico

a. Gila River for approximately 36.3 km(22.6 mi), extending from the Brown Canal

diversion at the head of the Safford Valley inGSRM, T.6S., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstreamto the confluence with Owl Canyon inGSRM, T.5S., R.30E., SW1/4 Sec. 30.

b. Bonita Creek for approximately 23.5 km(14.6 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Gila River in GSRM, T.6S., R.28E.,SE1/4 Sec. upstream to the confluence with



Martinez Wash in GSRM, T.4S., R.27E.,SE1/4 Sec. 27.

c. Eagle Creek for approximately 72.8 km(45.2 mi), extending from the Phelps-Dodgediversion dam in GSRM, T.4S., R.28E.,NW1/ 4 Sec. 23 upstream to the confluenceof Dry Prong and East Eagle Creeks in GSRM,T.2N., R.28E., SW1/4 Sec. 20; but excludinglands of the San Carlos Apache Reservation.

d. San Francisco River for approximately203.3 km (126.3 mi), extending from theconfluence with the Gila River in GSRM,T.5S., R.29E., SE1/4 Sec. 21 upstream to themouth of The Box canyon in NMPM, T.6S.,R.19W., SW1/4 of the NW1/4 Sec. 2.

e. Tularosa River for approximately 30.0km (18.6 mi), extending from the confluencewith the San Francisco River in NMPM,T.7S., R.19W., SW1/4 Sec. 23 upstream toNMPM, T.6S., R.18W, south boundary Sec. 1.

f. Negrito Creek for approximately 6.8 km(4.2 mi), extending from the confluence withthe Tularosa River in NMPM, T.7S., R.18W.,SW1/4 of the NW1/4 Sec. 19 upstream to the

confluence with Cerco Canyon in NMPM,T.7S., R.18W., west boundary Sec. 22.

g. Whitewater Creek for approximately 1.8km (1.2 mi), extending from the confluencewith the San Francisco River in NMPM,T.11S., R.20W., SE1/4 Sec. 27 upstream tothe confluence with Little Whitewater Creekin NMPM, T.11S., R.20W., SE1/4 Sec. 23.

h. Blue River for approximately 81.9 km(51.0 mi), extending from the confluencewith the San Francisco River in GSRM, T.2S.,R.31E., SE1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to theconfluence of Campbell and Dry Blue Creeksin NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6.

i. Campbell Blue Creek for approximately13.1 km (8.2 mi), extending from theconfluence with Dry Blue Creek in NMPM,T.7S., R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6 upstream to theconfluence with Coleman Creek in GSRM,T.4 1/2 N., R.31E., SW1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec.32.

j. Dry Blue Creek for approximately 4.7 km(3.0 mi), extending from the confluence withCampbell Blue Creek in NMPM, T.7S.,

R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6 upstream to theconfluence with Pace Creek in NMPM, T.6S.,R.21W., SW1/4 Sec.

k. Pace Creek for approximately 1.2 km (0.8mi), extending from the confluence with DryBlue Creek in NMPM, T.6S., R.21W.,SW1/4 Sec. 28 upstream to the barrier fallsin NMPM, T.6S., R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 29.

l. Frieborn Creek for approximately 1.8 km(1.1 mi), extending from the confluence withDry Blue Creek in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W.,SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 5 upstream to theconfluence with an unnamed tributaryflowing from the south in NMPM, T.7S.,R.21W., NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 8.

m. Little Blue Creek for approximately 4.5km (2.8 mi), extending from the confluencewith the Blue River in GSRM, T.1S., R.31E.,center Sec. upstream to the mouth of a boxcanyon in GSRM, T.1N., R.31E., NE1/4SE1/4 Sec. 29.



Complex 7. Grant and Catron Counties, NewMexico

a. Gila River for approximately 164.4 km(102.2 mi), extending from the confluencewith Moore Canyon in NMPM, T.18S.,R.21W., SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to theconfluence of the East and West Forks of theGila River in NMPM, T.13S., T.13W., centerSec. 8.

b. East Fork Gila River for approximately42.1 km (26.1 mi), extending from theconfluence with the West Fork Gila River in

NMPM, T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8upstream to the confluence of Beaver andTaylor Creeks in NMPM, T.11S., R.12W.,NE1/4 Sec. 17.

c. Middle Fork Gila River forapproximately 19.1 km (11.8 mi), extendingfrom the confluence with the West Fork GilaRiver in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., SW1/4 Sec.25 upstream to the confluence with BrothersWest Canyon in NMPM, T.11S., R.14W.,NE1/4 Sec. 33.

d. West Fork Gila River for approximately12.4 km (7.7 mi), extending from the

confluence with the East Fork Gila River inNMPM, T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8upstream to the confluence with EE Canyonin NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., east boundary ofSec. 21.

Dated: November 30, 1999.Donald J. Barry,Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife andParks.[FR Doc. 99–32019 Filed 12–7–99; 10:20 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P


69324 federal register /vol. 64, no. 237/friday, december ... · 69324 federal register/vol. 64,...

Documents