Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Threatened Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis)

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) designates critical

habitat for the loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) under the authority of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The loach minnow,

a small fish, was listed as a threatened species under the Act on

October 28, 1986 (51 FR 39468); however, final designation of the

proposed critical habitat was postponed at that time. Critical habitat

is now being designated in approximately 257 kilometers (km) (159 miles

(mi)) of portions of the Gila River in Grant and Catron counties, New

Mexico; the San Francisco and Tularosa rivers and Dry Blue Creek,

Catron County, New Mexico; the San Francisco and Blue rivers and

Campbell Blue Creek, Greenlee County, Arizona; and Aravaipa Creek in

Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona. Federal actions that may affect the

areas designated as critical habitat are now subject to consultation

with the Service, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is April 7, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,

by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arizona Ecological

Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3616 West Thomas,

Suite 6, Phoenix, Arizona 85019. Copies of the ``Analysis of the

Economic Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat for Tiaroga cobitis

(Loach Minnow),'' August 12, 1992, are also available for inspection,

by appointment, during normal business hours, at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Stefferud at the above address

(602/379-4720).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The loach minnow is a small, slender, elongated fish less than 80

millimeters (3 inches) long. It is olivaceous in color with an oblique

terminal mouth and eyes markedly upward-directed. This species is found

in small to large perennial streams, using shallow, turbulent riffles

with primarily cobble substrate and swift currents (Minckley 1973,

Propst et al. 1988, Rinne 1989, Propst and Bestgen 1991). Recurrent

flooding is very important to loach minnow survival in keeping the

substrate free of embedding sediments and helping it maintain a

competitive edge over invading non-native fish species (Minckley and

Meffe 1987, Propst et al. 1988).

The loach minnow was first collected in 1851 from the Rio San Pedro

in Arizona, and was described from those specimens in 1856 by Girard.

The loach minnow was once locally common throughout much of the Verde,

Salt, San Pedro, San Francisco, and Gila (upstream from Phoenix) River

systems, occupying suitable habitat in both the mainstreams and

perennial tributaries, up to about 2,200 meters (m) (7,200 feet (ft))

elevation. Because of habitat destruction and competition and predation

by non-native fish species, its range and abundance have been severely

reduced. It is now restricted to approximately 35 km (22 mi) of

Aravaipa Creek and approximately 1.5 km (1 mi) of Turkey Creek, a

tributary of Aravaipa Creek, Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona;

approximately 120 km (74.5 mi) of the upper Gila River, upstream from

the Middle Box canyon, through the Cliff/Gila Valley, and the area of

the confluence of the West, East, and Middle forks, Grant and Catron

counties, New Mexico; approximately 166 km (103 mi) of the San

Francisco and Tularosa rivers, Catron County, New Mexico; approximately

the lower 1.5 km (1 mi) of Whitewater Creek, a tributary of the San

Francisco River, Catron County, New Mexico; approximately 95 km (59 mi)

of the Blue River and Campbell Blue and Dry Blue creeks, Greenlee

County, Arizona; and 38 km (23.5 mi) of the East and North forks and

mainstem of the White River, Navajo County, Arizona (Barber and

Minckley 1966, Silvey and Thompson 1978, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1979, Britt 1982, Propst et al. 1985, Propst et al. 1988, Propst 1988

to 1992, Papoulius 1989, Minckley et al. 1990 to 1992, Propst and

Bestgen 1991, Bettaso 1992 to 1993). This present range is only 17

percent of the historic range of 2,600 km (1,600 mi) of river.

Critical habitat is being designated for approximately 257 km (159

mi) on rivers currently occupied by loach minnow. Land ownership along

the critical habitat area is mixed and is as follows (distances and

conversions are approximate):

Aravaipa Creek--The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 10

km (6 mi) of the critical habitat as part of the designated Aravaipa

Canyon Wilderness. Thirteen km (8 mi) of the critical habitat above and

below the Wilderness, previously owned by the Defenders of Wildlife's

Whittell Trust, is now owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and

managed as a nature preserve. About 1 km (0.5 mi) of stream is on

privately owned inholdings located within the Preserve.

Gila River--Twenty-eight km (17.2 mi) of privately owned land lie

along the critical habitat in most of the Cliff/Gila Valley, in the

area near Gila Hot Springs, and along the East Fork. Two km (1.2 mi) of

land along the critical habitat upstream from the town of Gila is owned

by TNC. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish owns land along 6 km

(3.8 mi) of the critical habitat on the West and Middle forks of the

Gila River. The New Mexico State Land Office owns land along 0.5 km

(0.2 mi) of the critical habitat in the Cliff/Gila Valley. The National

Park Service's Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument lies along 1 km

(0.5 mi) of the critical habitat on the West Fork. This Monument is

currently being administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The U.S.

Forest Service, Gila National Forest, administers the remaining 55.5 km

(34 mi) of the critical habitat in the Gila River with sections flowing

through three special use areas--the Gila Wilderness, the Lower Gila

River Bird Habitat Management Area, and the Gila River Research Natural

Area.

San Francisco and Tularosa Rivers--The Gila National Forest

administers 27 km (16.8 mi) of the two rivers in the critical habitat.

Privately owned lands occur as scattered inholdings in National Forest

lands along 18 km (11.2 mi) of the critical habitat in both rivers.

Blue River and Campbell and Dry Blue Creeks--The critical habitat

is almost entirely contained within the Apache-Sitgreaves National

Forest, with 75 km (46.5 mi) of forest lands and 20 km (12.5 mi) of

private inholdings.

The loach minnow is included on the State lists of threatened and

endangered species in Arizona and New Mexico (Arizona Game and Fish

Dept. 1988, New Mexico State Game Comm. 1990). It was included as a

Category 1 candidate species in the Service's December 30, 1982,

Vertebrate Notice of Review (47 FR 58454). Category 1 includes those

taxa for which the Service currently has substantial biological

information on hand to support listing the species as endangered or

threatened. A proposed rule to list this species as threatened with

critical habitat was published on June 18, 1985 (50 FR 25380). The

final rule listing the loach minnow as a threatened species was

published on October 28, 1986 (51 FR 39468). The proposed critical

habitat designation was not made final at the time of listing but was

postponed to allow for gathering and analysis of economic data.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the June 18, 1985, proposed rule (50 FR 25380) and associated

notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual

reports or information that might contribute to the development of a

final rule. The original comment period closed on August 19, 1985, but

was reopened on October 7, 1985 (50 FR 37703), to accommodate the

public hearings, and remained open until November 8, 1985. Appropriate

State agencies, county governments, Federal agencies, scientific

organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and

requested to comment. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment

were published in the Courier in Prescott, Arizona; in the Eastern

Arizona Courier in Safford, Arizona; and in the Daily Press in Silver

City, New Mexico, on July 5, 10, and 13, 1985, respectively. One

hundred eleven letters of comment were received from 108 separate

parties and are summarized below. Six requests for a public hearing

were received. Public hearings were held in Silver City, New Mexico;

Safford, Arizona; and Phoenix, Arizona, on October 7, 8, and 9, 1985,

respectively. Interested parties were notified of those hearings, and

notices of the hearings were published in the Federal Register on

September 17, 1985 (50 FR 37703); in the Silver City, New Mexico, Daily

Press on September 24, 1985; in the Phoenix, Arizona, Arizona Republic

on September 26, 1985; in the Prescott, Arizona, Courier on September

27, 1985; and in the Safford, Arizona, Eastern Arizona Courier on

October 2, 1985. Thirty-five comments pertaining to the proposed

critical habitat were received at these hearings and are also

summarized below.

Seventy-seven letters of comment were received in support of the

proposed critical habitat, 21 in opposition to the proposal, and an

additional 13 which expressed neither support nor opposition or which

furnished economic information regarding the effects of the proposal.

The 3 public hearings were attended by 107 people, with 32 oral or

written statements given--16 in support of the proposed critical

habitat, 13 in opposition, and 3 neither in support nor opposition. In

addition, three other parties asked questions regarding the proposed

critical habitat. The hearings accepted formal oral and written

statements and also included an informal question and answer session.

Many of the comments addressed concerns regarding specific water-

development or flood-control projects. These comments will not be

addressed here unless they requested or resulted in specific changes to

the rule or to the rule procedure. Economic information supplied in

these comments was incorporated into the economic analysis on proposed

critical habitat (Souder 1992). That analysis is available upon

request, as are copies of hearing transcripts and all letters received

during the comment period (see ADDRESSES section).

Comments in support of the proposed critical habitat were received

from the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Arizona

Game and Fish Department, Arizona Nature Conservancy, Arizona State

University Wildlife Society Chapter, Arizona Wildlife Federation,

Audubon Society Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, Defenders of

Wildlife, Desert Fishes Council, George Whittell Wildlife Trust,

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources (now known as the World Conservation Union), Maricopa Audubon

Society, New Mexico Nature Conservancy, Northern Arizona Paddlers Club,

Prescott Audubon Society, Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club,

Southern New Mexico Conservation Coalition, Southern New Mexico Sierra

Club, The Nature Conservancy's Rocky Mountain Natural Heritage Task

Force, Tucson Audubon Society, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Yuma

Audubon Society, 3 members of the New Mexico Interstate Stream

Commission, and 63 biologists and private citizens.

Comments in opposition to the proposed critical habitat were

received from the Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Arizona Division

of Emergency Services, Arizona Mining Association, City of Prescott,

Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona, Coronado Resource Conservation and

Development Board, County of Greenlee, Gila Fish and Gun Club, Gila

Valley Natural Resource Conservation Board, Graham County Board of

Supervisors, Grant County Chamber of Commerce, Hooker Dam Association,

New Mexico State Engineer Office, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Pleasanton

Eastside Ditch Company, Southwest New Mexico Industrial Development

Corporation, Town of Safford, Town of Silver City, Town of Thatcher,

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Soil Conservation Service New Mexico State

Office, Upper Gila River Association, and six private citizens.

Nonsubstantive comments or comments containing only economic

information were received from the Arizona State Clearinghouse, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Federal Highway Administration, New Mexico

Game and Fish Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Soil

Conservation Service Arizona State Office, and two private citizens.

Summaries of all substantive comments addressing the issue of

critical habitat for the loach minnow are provided in the following

discussion. Comments of similar content are grouped in a number of

general issues with the Service's response to those issues and

comments.

Issue 1: Three commenters recommended that additional areas be

included in the designation of critical habitat. Two commenters

recommended that the critical habitat designation be changed to include

the watersheds of the rivers being designated, as well as the rivers

themselves.

Dr. Dean Hendrickson questioned why the proposed critical habitat

does not include several areas where loach minnow occur in the San

Francisco River (above the mouth of the Blue River) nor the population

in the White River.

Response: The Service believes that the inclusion of the entire

watershed in a critical habitat designation for this fish is not

necessary to provide adequate protection for the species. However, the

Service recognizes the importance of the watersheds in maintaining

quality habitat for the loach minnow. Any Federal activities in the

watersheds of streams designated as critical habitat that would affect

the critical habitat would be subject to section 7 of the Act. The

Service recognizes that limiting the proposed critical habitat to only

the stream itself may not clearly indicate the importance of the

streambanks and channel to the maintenance of the critical habitat.

Therefore, future revision of the critical habitat to include a portion

of the riparian zone or floodplain may be considered. Such a revision

would require an additional proposed rule and public comment period.

The Service is considering future revision of the critical habitat

designation for loach minnow to include other areas occupied by the

species as well as unoccupied areas that may be critical to recovery of

the species. The population in the White River was believed to have

been extirpated at the time of the proposed designation of critical

habitat and was therefore not included in the proposal. Additional

information on the distribution and status of the White River habitat

and population is now available and the Service believes that portions

of the East and North forks and mainstem White River may qualify for

addition to the critical habitat designation. Populations of loach

minnow found in the areas of stream not included in the critical

habitat are nevertheless protected under the jeopardy provisions of

section 7 and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act.

Issue 2: Four of the commenters recommended that the area of the

Gila River that was being considered in 1985 for damming or other water

development under the Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Upper Gila

Water Supply Study (UGWSS) be excluded from the critical habitat

designation. Such an exclusion could be made under the provisions of

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, which provides that the Secretary of the

Interior may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines

that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying

such area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such

area as critical habitat would result in the extinction of the species.

The four commenters stated that the benefits of the water supply, flood

control, and other associated economic and recreational benefits of the

UGWSS, and Conner Dam in particular, far outweigh the benefits of

critical habitat. One commenter also suggested that areas presently

unoccupied by loach minnow in the Gila River and other streams could be

designated as critical habitat to replace the excluded UGWSS area. The

commenter suggested that such unoccupied areas could then be modified

and managed to provide habitat for loach minnow and then stocked with

captive-reared loach minnow to provide increased populations and

habitat for the species.

Response: Planning for the UGWSS was suspended in 1987 (U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation 1987a, 1987b) due to various economic, environmental,

and water supply factors. Further planning was deferred until the year

2010 when it is predicted the need for the water supply will occur.

Prior to that suspension, discussions between the Bureau of Reclamation

and the Service on tentative alternatives for the UGWSS study indicated

that development of the required water supply would likely be possible

without adversely modifying the proposed critical habitat. Therefore,

no economic or other impacts were anticipated to the UGWSS and no

economic benefits would accrue from exclusion from critical habitat

designation of the Conner Dam and Reservoir area, or any other area

being considered under the UGWSS.

Regarding the suggestion to replace occupied areas in the critical

habitat designation with unoccupied areas of the Gila River--the

Service is considering a possible future revision to the critical

habitat which may contain some presently unoccupied areas as potential

recovery habitat. However, this would be an addition to the critical

habitat, not a substitution. The Service does not believe it would

further the conservation of the species to remove from the protection

of critical habitat designation areas known to support long-term

populations of loach minnow and replace them with areas which do not

currently support loach minnow, but which, with human manipulation,

might support loach minnow in the future. However, the primary

unoccupied area identified by the commenter as a replacement for the

occupied areas is the canyon wilderness between Mogollon Creek and the

East Fork Gila River (above the Cliff/Gila Valley), which probably

never supported loach minnow and does not appear to contain potential

habitat for recovery of the species. The knowledge, expertise, and

physical capability do not exist to modify such areas of non-suitable

habitat into suitable habitat for loach minnow. In addition, such

modification might cause major irreparable harm to other native fish

and aquatic organisms, riparian plant and wildlife communities, and

wilderness values.

Issue 3: Two commenters requested that critical habitat be limited

to areas that would not hinder the construction of flood-control

facilities for the areas of Clifton, Duncan, and Safford, Arizona. As

in Issue 2, this request for exclusion of specific areas was made under

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

Response: The economic analysis (Souder 1992) did not show there to

be significant economic or other benefits of excluding any area for

flood control. Such a limitation of critical habitat is not expected to

be necessary to allow for flood-control measures on the Gila and San

Francisco rivers. Any such projects or activities, if they are

federally funded, authorized, or carried out, would be subject to the

provisions of section 7 regarding both the survival of the loach minnow

and the adverse modification or destruction of its critical habitat.

The Service expects that alternatives and plan modifications formulated

through consultation will allow adequate flood-control measures to be

taken while safeguarding the species and its habitat.

Issue 4: One commenter recommended limiting designated critical

habitat to areas that would not prevent the stocking of sport fish. The

commenter pointed out that many of the non-native fish identified as

predators on loach minnow, such as catfish and trout, provide

recreation for local residents and create revenue from sport fishing

recreation. As in Issues 2 and 3, this request for exclusion of

specific areas is made under the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the

Act.

Response: The designation of critical habitat as proposed is not

expected to have significant effects on recreational fishing. The

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) does not stock game fish in any

of the waters proposed as critical habitat for loach minnow. The New

Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMGF) stocks only rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) into or near the critical habitat for loach

minnow. Game fish are being stocked by AGFD, NMGF, and the Service into

waters connected to the proposed critical habitat. These stockings must

comply with section 7 consultation requirements for their effects on

the loach minnow, and designation of critical habitat is not expected

to change the outcome of those consultations.

Issue 5: The Pleasanton Eastside Ditch Company, of Glenwood, New

Mexico, requested that its stretch of river be excluded from critical

habitat.

Response: The Pleasanton area of the San Francisco River was not

part of the proposed designation of critical habitat and is not a part

of this final designation. Therefore, no exclusion can or need be made.

Issue 6: Three commenters recommended that various management

techniques, such as habitat improvements, predator control, and

reintroduction of loach minnow from the Service's Dexter National Fish

Hatchery, be implemented for loach minnow in lieu of listing and

designating critical habitat.

Response: Habitat improvement practices, including predator

control, cannot substitute for the listing of a species which meets the

criteria for threatened or endangered status or for designation of its

critical habitat, unless such practices will alleviate all threats to

the species to the point where it no longer requires listing or

critical habitat designation. Many of the threats to the loach minnow

cannot be alleviated by habitat improvements but can be controlled

through designation of critical habitat and through the provisions of

sections 7 and 9 of the Act. Too little is known about the specific

habitat needs of the loach minnow to ensure that habitat improvement

practices and reintroductions would secure the survival of this fish.

Habitat enhancement and reintroduction are measures that are being

considered in the recovery of this species. Extensive study will be

needed to ensure the success of such work.

The Dexter National Fish Hatchery does not presently maintain

stocks of loach minnow. Facility space is limited, and priority is

given to species whose survival depends heavily upon artificial

propagation, a point the loach minnow has not yet reached. Placement of

stocks of loach minnow into that facility may be considered in the

future; however, a number of years are often needed to develop the

techniques required to successfully propagate a given species in

captivity, thus precluding use of captive stock in alleviating the

immediate need for listing and critical habitat designation. In

addition, reintroductions may be more likely to succeed if the

reintroduction area is protected through designation as critical

habitat.

Issue 7: A commenter expressed concerns regarding the value of

designating critical habitat when there is a significant threat to the

loach minnow from predatory and competitive non-native fish species.

The commenter believed that the designation of critical habitat without

a management and statutory effort to control undesirable introduced

fish species is not justified.

Response: The existence of threats to a listed species from other

organisms, such as non-native fishes, does not relieve the Service of

its responsibility to protect the species' habitat. The loach minnow

faces extensive threats to its habitat and will benefit from the

designation of critical habitat. The Service is presently working with

the State Game and Fish departments and other agencies on solutions to

controlling the introduction and spread of non-native fish species,

including game fish.

Issue 8: Three commenters objected to the deferral of analysis of

economic and other impacts of critical habitat designation until the

time of the final rule. They believed such analysis should be done

prior to the proposal and contended that deferral is ``improper both

legally, procedurally and in failing to follow reasonable and necessary

rulemaking steps,'' is ``certainly unreasonable and probably illegal,''

and does not allow the public access to essential information needed to

comment on the impacts and review the adequacy of the Service's

analysis. They further contended that a Regulatory Impact Analysis,

under Executive Order 12291, must be prepared for the critical habitat

proposal.

Response: The economic analysis (Souder 1992) of the proposed loach

minnow critical habitat designation was prepared following the

publication of the proposed rule and prior to the final decision on the

proposed critical habitat designation. This procedure is based upon the

specific requirement of the Act exempting listing actions from economic

considerations. When a listing and critical habitat designation are

proposed concurrently, as is required (with certain exceptions) by the

Act, the economic analysis is not conducted prior to proposal to avoid

illegally influencing or delaying the listing. Because Executive Order

12291 was rescinded on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), a Regulatory

Impact Analysis is not required.

Issue 9: Three commenters stated that an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS), under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

should be prepared for this critical habitat proposal. They contended

that the 1981 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' Pacific Legal Foundation v.

Andrus decision, which found that an EIS is not required for listings

under the Endangered Species Act, is not applicable to the current

critical habitat proposal. Their reasons for this contention include--

the Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus decision addressed only listing

and not critical habitat designation, the Act now requires the

consideration of economic and other relevant impacts of specifying an

area as critical habitat, and the Act also now requires the Secretary

of the Interior to determine whether the benefits of excluding an area

from critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of specifying

such area as part of the critical habitat.

Response: The Service's position on NEPA compliance for any

regulations adopted pursuant to section (4)(a) of the Act (listing,

critical habitat designation, reclassification, delisting) is set forth

in the Federal Register of October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). In addition

to Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, the Service's position on NEPA

compliance is based on the recommendation of the Council on

Environmental Quality, the fact that the Act stipulates a process to be

followed in promulgating such rules and limits Secretarial discretion

in altering the critical habitat designation, and on the experience of

10 years of preparation of Environmental Assessments on section 4(a)

actions. In those 10 years, 120 Environmental Assessments were

prepared, none of which resulted in a finding of significant impact and

consequent preparation of an EIS.

Analysis of economic impacts for critical habitat designations is

required by Executive Order 12866 and section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered

Species Act, and the Service has prepared an economic analysis in

compliance with those authorities. When the economic analysis is added

to the administrative record generated through the public comment

process, it provides the functional equivalent of NEPA documentation

and satisfies the information-gathering, analytical, and environmental

goals of NEPA.

Issue 10: Three commenters recommended that, in assessing the

economic impacts of proposed critical habitat, the Service should

consider the cumulative effects of all past species listings and

critical habitat designations and all such actions that are or may be

under consideration in the area to be affected by proposed critical

habitat. They believed that the economic effects caused by past and

future actions for other species are relevant in determining economic

and other impacts in the proposed critical habitat area.

Response: In assessing the impacts of a critical habitat

designation, the Service considers in its baseline the cumulative

effects resulting from earlier listings and critical habitat

designations to the extent that such effects can be determined. Effects

of this critical habitat designation were calculated incrementally

above the baseline of other species listings and critical habitat, as

well as other environmental and land-management regulations.

Consideration is limited to known impacts and does not include

theoretical or hypothetical impacts. Currently, the only other

federally listed species present in streams in which the loach minnow

is found are the threatened spikedace (Meda fulgida) and endangered

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). The endangered bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occurs near some loach minnow habitat but is

not expected to contribute to cumulative effects for the loach minnow.

No existing critical habitat designations are located in any of the

areas being designated as loach minnow critical habitat. Designation of

critical habitat in areas of loach minnow-occupied streams and adjacent

floodplains and riparian vegetation has been proposed for the spikedace

and the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus).

Expected impacts of designation for the flycatcher are not yet

available but will be detailed in the economic analysis for that

proposal. Expected impacts of designation for the spikedace become

available with the publication of final critical habitat for that

species, concurrent with this rule (in this separate part of the

Federal Register). Cumulative effects may be expected only in areas of

non-overlap where alternative sites for projects may be affected by one

species in one area and the other species in other areas or from

differences in constituent elements for the southwestern willow

flycatcher as compared to the fishes.

Issue 11: One commenter questioned the inclusion of the Middle Box

in proposed critical habitat. The commenter based the question on a

report by the Service's Albuquerque Ecological Services Field Office

(USFWS 1985), which stated that the area of the Middle Box (proposed

site of Conner Dam and Reservoir) has the lowest habitat value for

aquatic species and general ecology in the portion of the Gila River

from Mogollon Creek downstream through the Red Rock area. The report

also stated that the greatest habitat value to the native fishes is

found in the Cliff/Gila/Riverside Valley. That valley has a large

concentration of existing manmade structures. The commenter asked for a

clarification of the apparent contradiction between the low habitat

rating of the Middle Box and its inclusion in the proposed critical

habitat, and of the apparent contradiction between the high habitat

rating of the Cliff/Gila/ Riverside Valley and the statements in the

proposed rule regarding the adverse effects of human activities on

loach minnow habitat.

Response: The Middle Box does provide less overall general aquatic

habitat quality and diversity than other stretches. The critical

habitat proposed for the loach minnow does not include any of the

Middle Box proper; however, the upper end of the Middle Box ``reach''

(as defined by the 1985 Service report) supports a large number of

loach minnow. That area is included in the critical habitat. The

comparatively high habitat value of the Gila/Cliff/ Riverside Valley is

not inconsistent. All manmade structures are not equally destructive of

habitat values. Most of the structures in the Gila/Cliff/Riverside area

are small and have localized impacts on the aquatic habitat. In the

localized areas of those impacts, loach minnow are scarce or do not

exist.

Issue 12: The Graham County (Arizona) Manager asked if the

designation of critical habitat will affect the availability of Federal

money for studies by the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers on dam projects in the area.

Response: Designation of critical habitat will not automatically

alter or stop any studies or projects in the area. Rather, any project

that is federally funded, authorized, or carried out will be subject to

the provisions of section 7 of the Act. These provisions are explained

in this final rule. Studies or projects can be carried out by the

Bureau of Reclamation or Corps of Engineers if those studies or

projects do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat or

jeopardize any listed species.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat, as defined by section 3 of the Act, means--(i)

the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species,

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

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

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

considerations or protection, and (ii) specific areas outside the

geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,

upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation

of the species.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that critical habitat be

designated to the maximum extent prudent and determinable concurrently

with the determination that a species is endangered or threatened.

Critical habitat is being designated for the loach minnow (Tiaroga

cobitis) in the following areas (distances and conversions are

approximate):

1. Aravaipa Creek, Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona. Twenty-four

km (15 mi) of stream extending from the N\1/2\ of the SW\1/4\ sec. 26,

T.6S., R.17E. upstream to the W\1/2\ of the NE\1/4\ sec. 35, T.6S.,

R.19E.

2. Gila River, Grant and Catron counties, New Mexico. Four sections

of river totaling 93 km (57 mi) in length. The first section is 37 km

(23 mi) long and extends from the north side of St. Peter's Rock (south

boundary of sec. 21, T.17S., R.17W.) upstream to the confluence with

Mogollon Creek. A second section, of 11.5 km (7 mi), extends up the

West Fork from its confluence with the East Fork to the west boundary

of sec. 22, T.12S., R.14W. A third section, of 18 km (11 mi), extends

up the Middle Fork from its mouth to the confluence with Brothers West

Canyon. The fourth section is 26 km (16 mi) long and extends up the

East Fork from the confluence with the West Fork to the north boundary

of sec. 11, T.12S., R.13W.

3. San Francisco River, Catron County, New Mexico, and Greenlee

County, Arizona. Two sections of river totaling 21 km (13 mi) in

length. The first section is 15 km (9 mi) long and extends from the

U.S. Highway 180 bridge upstream to Kelly Flat. The other section is 6

km (4 mi) long and extends from the confluence with Hickey Canyon

upstream to the confluence with the Blue River.

4. Tularosa River, Catron County, New Mexico. Twenty-four km (15

mi) of river from the confluence with Negrito Creek upstream to the

town of Cruzville.

5. Blue River, Greenlee County, Arizona, and Catron County, New

Mexico. Seventy-eight km (48 mi) of river from its confluence with the

San Francisco River upstream to the confluence of Dry Blue Creek and

Campbell Blue Creek.

6. Campbell Blue Creek, Greenlee County, Arizona, and Catron

County, New Mexico. Fourteen km (9 mi) of stream from its junction with

Blue River upstream to the confluence with Coleman Creek.

7. Dry Blue Creek, Catron County, New Mexico. Three km (2 mi) of

stream from its confluence with the Blue River upstream to the springs

located in sec. 32, T.6S., R.21W.

The Service is required to base critical habitat proposals on the

best available scientific information (50 CFR 424.12). In determining

what areas to propose as critical habitat, the Service considers those

physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation

of the species and that may require special management considerations

or protection. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, the

following--(1) space for individual growth; (2) food, water, air,

light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of

offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and, generally, (5) habitats

that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the

historic geographical and ecological distributions of the species.

The areas being designated as critical habitat for the loach minnow

possess the necessary factors for survival, growth, and reproduction of

the species. Several areas currently occupied by the loach minnow were

not included in the 1985 proposal for various reasons. Although these

areas were not proposed for designation as critical habitat, they are

considered important for the long-term survival and recovery of the

loach minnow. The Service is considering revising critical habitat in

the future to add these areas. In addition, the Service is considering

adding certain unoccupied areas considered vital for recovery of the

species.

Maintenance of the widely separated populations found in the Gila,

San Francisco, Tularosa, White and Blue rivers and in Aravaipa Creek as

independent entities is critical to buffer against threats to each

individual population. Each of the remnant populations proposed for

critical habitat designation has unique characteristics which

contribute to ensuring this species' future. Genetic studies in

progress indicate that the populations are genetically distinctive

(Tibbets 1992). The Aravaipa Creek population is the only remnant of

the south-central portion of the loach minnow's historic range and is

under the most protective land management. The Blue River (including

Campbell and Dry Blue creeks and the San Francisco River below the

mouth of the Blue) is remote and at present is also relatively secure

from major threats, although damaged by past degradation. It is the

longest stretch of occupied loach minnow habitat unbroken by large

areas of unsuitable habitat. The West and Middle forks of the Gila

River have a relatively low degree of habitat threat and may contribute

genetically to the Cliff/Gila Valley population. The Cliff/Gila

population is the largest existing population of loach minnow and,

although faced with numerous threats, may represent the ``core''

population of the species. Habitat losses in the San Francisco and

Tularosa rivers have resulted in a highly fragmented loach minnow

population in those streams; however, the distribution of remaining

habitat in those rivers may provide valuable information on habitat

requirements of the loach minnow and the causes of the loach minnow's

decline.

When designating critical habitat for a species, the Service also

considers primary constituent elements of critical habitat, which may

include, but are not limited to, the following--roost sites, nesting

grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland,

water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator, geological

formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types. The areas

being designated as critical habitat for loach minnow will provide the

following constituent elements or will be capable, with rehabilitation,

of providing them. Loach minnow constituent elements have been expanded

from the proposed rule. The primary constituent elements include:

--Permanent, flowing, unpolluted water;

--Habitat for adult fish with moderate to swift flow velocities (15-100

centimeters (cm) (0.5-3 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-40 cm (0.1-

1.5 ft) deep) with gravel, cobble, and rubble substrates;

--Habitat for juveniles with moderate to swift flow velocities (15-100

cm (0.5-3 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-40 cm (0.1-1.5 ft) deep)

with sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble substrates;

--Habitat for larval stage with slow to moderate flow velocities (0-30

cm (0-1 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-30 cm (0.1-1 ft) deep) with

sand, gravel, and cobble substrates and abundant instream cover;

--Habitat for spawning with slow to swift flow velocities (3-85 cm

(0.1-2.75 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-30 cm (0.1-1 ft) deep)

with uncemented cobble and rubble substrate;

--Low amounts of fine sediment and substrate embeddedness;

--Riffle, run, and backwater components in the habitat;

--Low to moderate stream gradient (generally 0.5-1.5 percent);

--Water temperatures in the approximate range of 4-30 deg. C (40-

85 deg. F) with natural diurnal and seasonal variation;

--Abundant aquatic insect food base;

--Periodic flooding;

--A natural, unregulated hydrograph;

--Few or no predatory or competitive non-native species present;

--A healthy, intact, riparian community; and

--Moderate to high bank stability.

Section 4(b)(8) requires, for any proposed or final regulation that

designates critical habitat, a description and evaluation of those

activities (public or private) that may adversely modify such habitat

or may be affected by such designation. Any activity that would lessen

the amount of the minimum flow or would alter the natural flow regime

in Aravaipa Creek or the San Francisco, Tularosa, Blue, or upper Gila

rivers could adversely affect the critical habitat. Such activities

include, but are not limited to, groundwater pumping, impoundment, and

water diversions. Any activity that would alter watershed

characteristics of the Aravaipa Creek or upper Gila, San Francisco,

Tularosa, or Blue River watersheds could adversely affect the critical

habitat. Such activities include, but are not limited to, vegetation

manipulation, timber harvest, road construction, prescribed burning,

livestock grazing, mining, and urban or suburban development. Any

activity that would alter the channel morphology in Aravaipa Creek, the

San Francisco, Tularosa, Blue, or upper Gila rivers could adversely

affect the critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not

limited to, channelization, impoundment, deprivation of substrate

source, destruction and alteration of riparian vegetation, and

excessive sedimentation from mining, livestock grazing, road

construction, timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and other watershed

disturbances. Any activity that would alter the water chemistry in

Aravaipa Creek or the San Francisco, Tularosa, Blue, or upper Gila

Rivers could adversely affect the critical habitat. Such activities

include, but are not limited to, release of chemical or biological

pollutants into the waters at a point source or by dispersed release

(non-point). Any activity that would introduce, spread, or augment non-

native fish species in the Gila River basin could adversely affect the

critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not limited to,

stocking of game fish, use of live bait fish, stocking for biological

control, aquaculture, dumping of pet or aquarium fish, construction and

operation of canals, and interbasin water transfers.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to consider

economic and other impacts of designating a particular area as critical

habitat. The Service has considered the critical habitat designation in

light of all additional relevant information obtained during the public

comment period and public hearings. All additional information received

has been addressed in the ``Summary of Comments'' section of this rule

or in the economic documents prepared on the rule. The economic

analysis (Souder 1992) is available upon request; its conclusions are

summarized in the ``Summary of Economic Analysis'' section of this

rule.

Available Conservation Measures

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to

evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as

endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat.

Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal

agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed

species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a

Federal action may affect the listed species or its critical habitat,

the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with

the Service.

No Federal activities on Bureau of Land Management lands on

Aravaipa Creek are expected to be affected by designation of critical

habitat for loach minnow. The Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness is presently

being managed to protect and enhance natural resource values, including

loach minnow. However, if existing or increased recreational use within

the canyon results in streambank degradation and increased sediment or

pollution load in the stream, then section 7 consultation may be

necessary.

On U.S. Forest Service lands on the Gila, San Francisco, Tularosa,

and Blue rivers, little effect on Federal activities is expected as a

result of this rule. Section 7 consultations for grazing, mining,

timber harvest, recreation, or other activities affecting loach minnow

critical habitat would now address effects to the critical habitat in

addition to effects to the loach minnow itself. The primary effect

anticipated by the U.S. Forest Service is possibly increased

administrative costs due to consultation requirements. Designation of

critical habitat may result in some increases in mitigation needs for

various land use activities.

Water development on the upper Gila River, under the Bureau of

Reclamation's Central Arizona Project (CAP), Upper Gila Water Supply

Study, may be affected by this rule. An informal conference (USFWS

1986) and an uncompleted formal consultation pursuant to section 7 have

been conducted on this CAP project and its likelihood to jeopardize the

survival of the loach minnow and adversely modify the proposed critical

habitat. No current proposals exist for CAP water development in any

areas of the designated critical habitat. The potential for designation

of critical habitat to affect future water-development plans is

dependent upon the level and type of adverse effects to the loach

minnow and its habitat. Those effects would depend upon the location,

size, method, and other specifics of the proposed water development. If

major adverse effects on critical habitat are expected, changes in

water-development plans may be required. However, only those changes in

addition to any changes required as a result of section 7 consultation

on the species would be attributable to critical habitat.

Known Federal activities on private lands that might be affected by

this rule would be future flood control funded by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency or carried out by the Soil Conservation Service or

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, future highway and bridge

construction funded, authorized, or carried out by the Federal Highway

Administration, or future federally funded irrigation projects. Private

activities within the stream channels that may require permits under

sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act may also be affected by

this rule. Effects are expected to be limited to administrative costs

for section 7 consultation and costs for altering proposed projects to

minimize or avoid effects to loach minnow and its critical habitat.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and

Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in

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

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the

Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The

Department of the Interior has determined that designation of critical

habitat for the loach minnow will not have a significant economic

effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on the information

discussed in this rule concerning public projects and private

activities within the critical habitat areas, it is not expected that

significant economic impacts will result from the critical habitat

designation. In addition, there are a limited number of actions on

private land that have Federal involvement through funds or permits

that would affect or be affected by the critical habitat designation;

the potential economic impact of the critical habitat designation on

these actions will be minor. Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs,

or information collection or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on

small entities by this designation. This action does not impose any

recordkeeping requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980.

Summary of Economic Analysis

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

critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and

to consider the economic impact and any other relevant impact of

specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary of

the Interior (Secretary) may exclude any area from critical habitat if

he determines that the benefits of such exclusions outweigh the

benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat,

unless it is determined, based on the best scientific and commercial

data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical

habitat would result in the extinction of the species concerned. The

Secretary has delegated this authority to the Director of the Service.

The Act thus requires the Service to evaluate those economic and other

effects likely to take place due to the designation of critical

habitat, and to consider whether to exclude any critical habitat.

The economic analysis (Souder 1992) of the potential impacts of

critical habitat designation for the loach minnow concluded that

economic impacts are expected on only three Federal actions--Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) cost-shares to rebuild irrigation

diversions after major flood events; additional fencing and alternative

water developments to prevent cattle grazing in the riparian zones on

the National Forest; and limited preventive measures at developed

recreation sites. The estimated maximum identifiable added costs are

$406,500 ($150,000 of which is attributable to the 84 km (52 mi) of

river that forms part of the critical habitat designated for both the

loach minnow and spikedace). With the exception of $8,412 in local

cost-share for FEMA-eligible irrigation diversion reconstruction

(should a flood occur), any added costs would be to the Federal

government. The Director of the Service has not found it necessary to

exclude from designation any of the areas proposed for designation on

the basis of economic effects.

References Cited

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1988. Threatened native wildlife

in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Publ., Phoenix, AZ. 32 pp.

Barber, W.E., and W.L. Minckley. 1966. Fishes of Aravaipa Creek,

Graham and Pinal Counties, Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 11:313-

324.

Bettaso, R. 1992 to 1993. Aravaipa Creek monitoring data. Arizona

Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, AZ.

Britt, K.D., Jr. 1982. The reproductive biology and aspects of life

history of Tiaroga cobitis in southwestern New Mexico. Unpubl. M.S.

thesis. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

Girard, C. 1856. Researches upon the cyprinoid fishes inhabiting the

fresh waters of the United States of America, west of the

Mississippi Valley, from specimens in the Museum of the Smithsonian

Institution. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of

Philadelphia 8:165-213.

Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Dept. of Game and

Fish. Phoenix, AZ. 293 pp.

Minckley, W.L., and G.K. Meffe. 1987. Differential selection by

flooding in stream fish communities of the arid American southwest.

Pages 93-104 in W.J. Matthews and D.E. Heins (eds.). Evolutionary

and community ecology of North American stream fishes. University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Minckley, W.L., T. Velasco, and C. Reimus. 1990 to 1992. Monitoring

reports for Aravaipa Creek. Arizona State University, Tempe.

New Mexico State Game Commission. 1990. Regulation No. 82. New

Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Santa Fe, NM.

Papoulius, D., K. Valenciano, and D.A. Hendrickson. 1989. A fish and

riparian survey of the Clifton Ranger District. Arizona Game and

Fish Department Publ. Phoenix, AZ. 165 pp.

Propst, D.L. 1988 to 1992. Results of October (fall) fish count

monitoring of Gila, San Francisco, and Tularosa Rivers. New Mexico

Department of Game and Fish. Santa Fe, NM.

Propst, D.L., and K.R. Bestgen. 1991. Habitat and biology of the

loach minnow, Tiaroga cobitis, in New Mexico. Copeia 1991(1):29-38.

Propst, D.L., K.R. Bestgen, and C.W. Painter. 1988. Distribution,

status, biology, and conservation of the loach minnow (Tiaroga

cobitis) in New Mexico. Endangered Species Report No. 17. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 75 pp.

Propst, D.L., P.C. Marsh, and W.L. Minckley. 1985. Arizona survey

for spikedace (Meda fulgida) and loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis):

Fort Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations and Eagle

Creek, 1985. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 5, 1985.

8 pp.

Rinne, J.N. 1989. Physical habitat use by loach minnow, Tiaroga

cobitis (Pisces:Cyprinidae), in southwestern desert streams.

Southwestern Naturalist 34(1):109-117.

Silvey, W.T., and M.S. Thompson. 1978. The distribution of fishes in

selected streams on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Arizona

Department of Game and Fish. Phoenix, AZ. 49 pp.

Souder, J. 1992. Analysis of the Economic Impacts of Designating

Critical Habitat for Tiaroga cobitis (loach minnow). U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ. 64 pp. + appendices.

Tibbets, C.A. 1992. Allozyme variation in populations of the

spikedace Meda fulgida and the loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis.

Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 24(1992):37.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987a. Upper Gila water supply study,

special report on alternatives. October 1987. Boulder City, NV. 15

pp.+appendices.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987b. Letter from Commissioner to

Senator John C. Stennis, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on

Appropriations, regarding deferral of upper Gila water supply study.

November 5, 1987. Washington, D.C. 3 pp.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1979. Habitat study of

roundtail chub (Gila robusta), loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis). Gila

National Forest, Silver City, New Mexico. November 1979. Final

Report Contract No. RFQ-R3-6-79-lOB. 45 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Planning Aid Memorandum for

the Upper Gila Water Supply Study, Catron, Grant and Hidalgo

Counties, New Mexico. January 4, 1985. Albuquerque, NM. 29 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Endangered Species Act,

section 7 conference report--Upper Gila Water Supply Study and Verde

River Diversions. April 14, 1986. Albuquerque, NM. 11 pp.

Author

The primary author of this rule is S.E. Stefferud (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

2. Amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat of loach minnow

in the same alphabetical order as the species occurs in 17.11(h).

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

(e) * * *

* * * * *

Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis)

Arizona:

1. Graham and Pinal Counties: Aravaipa Creek, approximately 24

km (15 mi) of stream extending from the N\1/2\ of the SW\1/4\ sec.

26, T.6S., R.17E. upstream to the W\1/2\ of the NE\1/4\ sec. 35,

T.6S., R.19E.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08MR94.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-c

2. Greenlee County:

a. Blue River, approximately 78 km (48 mi) of river, extending

from the confluence with the San Francisco River (SE\1/4\ sec. 31,

T.2S., R.31E.) upstream to the confluence of Campbell Blue and Dry

Blue creeks (SE\1/4\ sec. 6, T.7S., R.21W.) in Catron County, New

Mexico.

b. Campbell Blue Creek, approximately 14 km (9 mi) of stream,

extending from the confluence with the Blue River (SE\1/4\ sec. 6,

T.7S., R.21W.) upstream to the confluence with Coleman Creek (SW\1/

4\ of the NE\1/4\ sec. 32, T.4 \1/2\N., R.31E.). Approximately 0.7

km (0.5 mi) of this stretch is located in Catron County, New Mexico.

c. San Francisco River, approximately 6 km (4 mi) of river,

extending from the confluence with Hickey Canyon (west boundary of

sec. 12, T.3S., R.30E.) upstream to the confluence with the Blue

River (SE\1/4\ sec. 31, T.2S., R.31E.).

New Mexico:

1. Catron County:

a. Dry Blue Creek, approximately 3 km (2 mi) of stream,

extending from the confluence with the Blue River (SE\1/4\ sec. 6,

T.7S., R.21W.) upstream to the west boundary of the SE\1/4\ sec. 32,

T.6S., R.21W.

b. San Francisco River, approximately 15 km (9 mi) of river,

extending from the U.S. Highway 180 bridge (NE\1/4\ of the SW\1/4\

sec. 8, T.1OS., R.20W.) upstream to the east boundary sec. 14,

T.9S., R.20W.

c. Tularosa River, approximately 24 km (15 mi) of river,

extending from the confluence with Negrito Creek (SW\1/4\ of the

NW\1/4\ sec. 19, T.7S. R.18W.) upstream to the town of Cruzville

(south boundary sec. 1, T.6S., R.18W.).

d. Middle Fork Gila River, approximately 18 km (11 mi) of river,

extending from the confluence with the West Fork (SW\1/4\ sec. 25,

T.12S., R.14W.) upstream to the confluence with Brothers West Canyon

(NE\1/4\ sec. 33, T.11S., R.14W.).

2. Grant and Catron Counties:

a. East Fork Gila River, approximately 26 km (16 mi) of river

extending from the confluence with the West Fork (center of sec. 8,

T.13S., R.13W.) upstream to the north boundary of sec. 11, T.12S.,

R.13W.

b. West Fork Gila River, approximately 11.5 km (7 mi) of river

extending from the confluence with the East Fork (center of sec. 8,

T.13S., R.13W.) upstream to the west boundary sec. 22, T.12S.,

R.14W.

3. Grant County: Gila River, approximately 37 km (23 mi) of

river, extending from the south boundary sec. 21, T.17S., R.17W.

upstream to the confluence with Mogollon Creek (NE\1/4\ sec. 31,

T.14S., R.16W.).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08MR94.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Known constituent elements, for all areas of critical habitat,

include permanent, flowing, unpolluted streams with low to moderate

gradient supporting adequate areas of moderate to swift velocities

and shallow depths, over gravel, cobble, and rubble substrates with

little fine sediment. Adequate areas of slower velocities, shallower

depths, and abundant cover are required for early life stages. Known

constituent elements for all areas also include periodic flooding; a

natural, unregulated hydrograph; healthy riparian vegetation;

moderate to high bank stability; and an absence of or few non-native

fishes present.

* * * * *

Dated: February 2, 1994.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 94-5117 Filed 3-7-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P