Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Threatened Spikedace (Meda fulgida)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC24

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of

Critical Habitat for the Threatened Spikedace (Meda fulgida)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

habitat for the spikedace (Meda fulgida) under the authority of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The spikedace, a

small fish, was listed as a threatened species under the Act on July 1,

1986 (51 FR 23769); however, final designation of the proposed critical

habitat was postponed at that time. Critical habitat is now being

designated in a total of approximately 154 kilometers (km) (95 miles

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

Mexico; the Verde River in Yavapai 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 Meda fulgida

(Spikedace),'' August 12, 1992, are also available for inspection, by

appointment, during normal business hours at the same location.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Stefferud at the above address

(602/379-4720).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The spikedace is a small, slim fish less than 80 millimeters (3

inches) long. It is characterized by very silvery sides and spines in

the dorsal and pelvic fins. This species is found in moderate to large

perennial streams, where it inhabits shallow riffles with sand, gravel,

and rubble substrates and moderate to swift currents as well as swift

pools over sand or gravel substrates (Barber et al. 1970, Propst et al.

1986, Rinne 1991). Recurrent flooding is very important in maintaining

the habitat of the spikedace and also helps it maintain a competitive

edge over invading non-native fish species (Propst et al. 1986,

Minckley and Meffe 1987).

The spikedace was first collected in 1851 from the Rio San Pedro in

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

is the only species in the genus Meda. The spikedace was once common

throughout much of the Verde, Agua Fria, Salt, San Pedro, San

Francisco, and Gila (upstream from Phoenix) River systems, occupying

suitable habitat in both the mainstreams and moderate gradient

perennial tributaries, up to 1,800 to 1,900 meters (m) (5,900 to 6,200

feet (ft)) elevation. Because of habitat destruction and competition

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

been severely reduced, and it is now restricted to approximately 31 km

(19 mi) of Aravaipa Creek in Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona;

approximately 108 km (67 mi) of the upper Gila River in the Middle Box

canyon, the Cliff/Gila Valley, and the lower end of the West, East, and

Middle forks in Grant and Catron counties, New Mexico; approximately 57

km (35 mi) of the Verde River from the lower end of the Chino Valley

downstream to near the mouth of Sycamore Canyon in Yavapai County,

Arizona; and approximately 40 km (25 mi) of Eagle Creek in Greenlee

County, Arizona (Minckley 1973, Anderson 1978, Barrett et al. 1985,

Bestgen 1985, Propst et al. 1986, Marsh et al. 1990, Propst 1988 to

1992, Minckley et al. 1990 to 1992, Bettaso 1992 to 1993). This present

range is only 9 percent of the historic range of 2,600 km (1,600 mi) of

river.

Critical habitat is being designated for approximately 154 km (95

mi) on rivers currently occupied by spikedace. 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--The BLM administers 4.5 km (2.8 mi) of the Gila River

critical habitat, just downstream from the mouth of the Middle Box

canyon. This is part of a designated Area of Critical Environmental

Concern, a special use designation of the BLM. Twenty-five km (15.5 mi)

of land along the critical habitat in most of the Cliff/Gila Valley and

in the area near Gila Hot Springs are privately owned. 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 administers

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 in 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 34 km (21 mi) of the critical habitat in the Gila River with

sections flowing through three special use areas--Gila Wilderness,

Lower Gila River Bird Habitat Management Area, and Gila River Research

Natural Area.

Verde River--Forty-one km (25.5 mi) of spikedace critical habitat

on the Verde River is located in the Prescott National Forest

administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Fifteen km (9 mi) of privately

owned land is located along the critical habitat below Sullivan Lake or

as a few private inholdings along critical habitat within the U.S.

Forest Service lands. The State of Arizona has 4 km (2.5 mi) of

scattered State lands located along the river below Sullivan Lake.

The spikedace 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 to support listing the species as endangered or threatened.

The Service was petitioned on March 14, 1985, by the American Fisheries

Society (AFS) and on March 18, 1985, by the Desert Fishes Council (DFC)

to list the spikedace as threatened. Because the species was already

under active petition by AFS, the DFC petition was accepted only as a

letter of comment. Evaluation of the AFS petition by the Service

revealed that the petitioned action may be warranted. Finding that the

petitioned action was warranted, the Service published a proposed rule

to list this species as threatened with critical habitat on June 18,

1985 (50 FR 25390). The final rule listing the spikedace as a

threatened species was published on July 1, 1986 (51 FR 23769). 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 25390) 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 twelve letters of comment were received from 109 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-six comments pertaining to the proposed

critical habitat were received at these hearings and are also

summarized below.

Seventy-eight 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 33 oral or

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

habitat, 14 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 Department of Game and Fish, 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, 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, Salt River

Project, 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 spikedace 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: Four 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.

Drs. Dean Hendrickson and Paul Turner recommended that the critical

habitat designation be extended downstream in the Gila River to include

the area between Red Rock, New Mexico, and the mouth of the Middle Box.

Dr. Hendrickson's 1983-84 work (under contract with the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation) and that of Propst et al. (1986) and Anderson (1978)

documented a large population of primarily larval and juvenile

spikedace in the Red Rock to Middle Box area. He believes that the area

may be an important nursery area for spikedace and may contribute

significantly to upstream populations through upstream migration. The

area would be affected by future water development in the Cliff/Gila

Valley upstream.

Response: The Service believes that inclusion of the entire

watershed in 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 spikedace. 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.

In the area of the Gila River between Red Rock and the mouth of the

Middle Box, the majority of spikedace are located at the mouth of the

Middle Box and are included in the critical habitat as proposed. The

remainder are downstream from the critical habitat area but are

nevertheless protected under the jeopardy provisions of section 7 and

the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. The area from the mouth of

the Middle Box to the Arizona/New Mexico border is considered to be

potential recovery area for the spikedace and may be considered for

addition to the critical habitat in future revision of the designation.

Revision would require that an additional proposal be published in the

Federal Register.

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 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 spikedace in the Gila River, the East Fork of 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 spikedace and

then stocked with captive-reared spikedace 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 spikedace and replace them with areas which do not

currently support spikedace, but which, with human manipulation, might

support spikedace 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

spikedace 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 spikedace. 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 spikedace

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 spikedace, 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 the spikedace. The New

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

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) into or near the critical habitat for spikedace.

Other fish currently being stocked into spikedace critical habitat are

the endangered Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius) and the

endangered razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), both native to the

Gila River basin. Game fish are being stocked by the 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 spikedace, and designation of critical habitat is

not expected to change the outcome of those consultations.

Issue 5: Three commenters recommended that various management

techniques, such as habitat improvements, predator control, and

reintroduction of spikedace from the Service's Dexter National Fish

Hatchery, be implemented for spikedace in lieu of designating critical

habitat.

Response: Habitat improvement practices, including predator

control, cannot substitute for designation of critical habitat, unless

such conservation measures alleviate threats to the species to the

point where it no longer requires listing or critical habitat

designation. Many of the threats to the spikedace 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

spikedace 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

spikedace stocks. Facility space is limited, and priority is given to

species whose survival depends heavily upon artificial propagation, a

point the spikedace has not yet reached. Placement of stocks of

spikedace 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

the use of captive stock in alleviating the immediate need for critical

habitat designation. In addition, reintroductions may be more likely to

succeed if the reintroduction area(s) are protected through designation

as critical habitat.

Issue 6: Two commenters expressed concerns regarding the value of

designating critical habitat when there is a significant threat to the

spikedace from predatory and competitive non-native fish. One commenter

believed that the designation of critical habitat without a management

and statutory effort to control undesirable introduced fish species is

not justified. The other commenter believed that critical habitat

designation for the spikedace in the Gila River is futile because of

the impending extinction of the spikedace due to displacement by the

non-native red shiner (Cyprinella (formerly Notropis) lutrensis).

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 spikedace faces

extensive threats to its habitat and will benefit from designation of

critical habitat. The Service is presently working with the State Game

and Fish departments and other agencies on solutions for controlling

the introduction and spread of non-native fish species, including game

fish. Although the red shiner appears to displace the spikedace in some

locations and is considered a serious range-wide threat to the

spikedace, the red shiner populations in the Gila River have remained

small since their initial invasion in the early 1980's. A key factor in

controlling the displacement of spikedace by red shiner is the

protection and enhancement of the habitat. Thus, designation of

critical habitat is expected to be valuable in controlling the threat

from red shiner.

Issue 7: 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

spikedace 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 8: 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 (Souder

1992) 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 9: 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 spikedace is

found are the threatened loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), the endangered

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and a nonessential experimental

population of the Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius).

Nonessential experimental status provides protection equivalent to that

for a proposed species, which includes only limited section 7

protection and thus has little or no economic or other impacts. The

endangered bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occurs near some

spikedace habitat but is not expected to contribute to cumulative

effects for the spikedace. No existing critical habitat designations

are located in any of the areas being designated as spikedace critical

habitat. Designation of critical habitat in areas of spikedace-occupied

streams and adjacent floodplains and riparian vegetation has been

proposed for the loach minnow, the razorback sucker, and the

southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Expected

impacts of designation for the sucker and flycatcher are not yet

available but will be detailed in the economic analyses for those

proposals. Expected impacts of designation for the loach minnow 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 economic impacts 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 10: 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

spikedace habitat.

Response: The Middle Box does provide less overall general aquatic

habitat quality and diversity than other stretches. However, there are

large numbers of spikedace at the upper end of the Middle Box and at

its mouth. The short unoccupied stretch between those two areas is too

small to be omitted from the critical habitat for biological reasons

and provides an essential element to the critical habitat by providing

a channel for water, fish, and gene flow between the two segments.

Alteration or loss of that connection would likely result in

extirpation of spikedace in the lower area. 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, spikedace are scarce or do not exist.

Issue 11: 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 spikedace (Meda fulgida)

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. Verde River, Yavapai County, Arizona. Fifty-seven km (35 mi) of

river extending from 1 km (0.5 mi) below the confluence with Sycamore

Creek upstream to Sullivan Lake.

3. Gila River, Grant and Catron counties, New Mexico. Three

sections of river totaling 73 km (45 mi) in length. The first section

is 50 km (31 mi) long and extends from the mouth of the Middle Box

canyon 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. The last section is 11.5 km (7 mi) long and extends up the

Middle Fork from its mouth to the confluence with Big Bear Canyon.

One change in the critical habitat originally proposed for

spikedace has been made in this final rule. Sycamore Creek, a tributary

of the Verde River in Yavapai County, Arizona, has been removed from

the final critical habitat designation as a result of new biological

information received. The lower 1.5 km (1 mi) of Sycamore Creek was

included in the proposed critical habitat due to erroneous data on the

presence of spikedace. No records of spikedace in Sycamore Creek are

known; thus potential habitat there is limited to the mouth of the

creek.

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 spikedace

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

the species. Several areas currently occupied by the spikedace 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

spikedace. The Service is considering revising critical habitat in the

future to add these areas, including the occupied area recommended for

inclusion as critical habitat in the recovery plan for the species

(USFWS 1991). 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

and Verde 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 one of only two remnants of the south-central portion of the

spikedace's historic range and is under the most protective land

management. The Verde River population is the only remnant of the

northern portion of the historic range. The upper Verde River is

unusual in its relatively stable thermal and hydrologic regime and the

spikedace population there is the most genetically distinct, possibly

to the subspecific or specific level. 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 spikedace and,

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

population of the species.

When designating critical habitat for a species, the Service also

considers the 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 spikedace will

provide the following constituent elements or will be capable, with

rehabilitation, of providing them. Spikedace constituent elements have

been expanded from the proposed rule. The primary constituent elements

include:

--Permanent, flowing, unpolluted water;

--Habitat for adult fish with slow to swift flow velocities (0-100

centimeter (cm) (0-3 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-38 cm (0.1-

1.25 ft) deep) with shear zones where rapid flow borders slower flow,

areas of sheet flow at the upper ends of mid-channel sand/gravel bars,

and eddies at downstream riffle edges;

--Habitat for juveniles with slow to moderate flow velocities (0-60 cm

(0-2 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-70 cm (0.1-2.25 ft) deep) with

moderate amounts of instream cover;

--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

abundant instream cover;

--Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts of

fine sediment and substrate embeddedness;

--Pool, riffle, run, and backwater components in the habitat;

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

--Water temperatures in the approximate range of 1-30 deg. C (35-

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 upper Gila or Verde rivers could adversely

affect 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 or Verde River watersheds could adversely affect

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

vegetation manipulation, timber harvest, prescribed burning, road

construction, livestock grazing, mining, and urban or suburban

development. Any activity that would alter the channel morphology in

Aravaipa Creek or the upper Gila or Verde 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

upper Gila or Verde 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 a 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 spikedace. The Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness is presently

being managed to protect and enhance natural resource values. 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 and Verde 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 spikedace critical habitat

would now address effects to the critical habitat in addition to

effects to the spikedace itself. The primary effect anticipated by the

U.S. Forest Service is possible increased administrative costs due to

consultation requirements. Designation of critical habitat may result

in some increases in mitigation needs for various land use activities.

On Bureau of Land Management lands on the upper Gila River, little

or no effect is expected on present Federal activities because the area

is designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, which

requires management to protect natural resource values.

Water development on the upper Gila and upper Verde rivers, under

the Bureau of Reclamation's Central Arizona Project (CAP), may be

affected by this rule. One informal section 7 conference (USFWS 1986)

and two formal section 7 consultations (one completed (USFWS 1990) and

one not completed) have been conducted on CAP projects and their

likelihood to jeopardize the survival of the spikedace and adversely

modify the proposed critical habitat. No current proposals exist for

CAP water development in either area. 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 spikedace 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 spikedace 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 spikedace 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 spikedace 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

$150,000 (all of which is also attributable to critical habitat

designated for the loach minnow, since the two species share 84 km (52

mi) of critical habitat). 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

Anderson, R.M. 1978. The distribution and aspects of the life

history of Meda fulgida in New Mexico. Unpubl. M.S. thesis. New

Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. 62 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1988. Threatened native wildlife

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

Barber, W.E., D.C. Williams, and W.L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the

Gila spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970:9-18.

Barrett, P.J., W.G. Kepner, J.E. Burton, and M.D. Jakle. 1985. Draft

Upper Verde River aquatic study. Joint study; U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Arizona Game and Fish Dept., U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,

May 1985. Phoenix, AZ. 16 pp.

Bestgen, R.R. 1985. Results of identification of collections of

larval fish made in the upper Salt and Gila Rivers, Arizona. Report

to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 7 pp.

Bettaso, R. 1992 to 1993. Aravaipa Creek monitoring data (unpubl.).

Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Phoenix, AZ.

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.

Marsh, P.C., J.E. Brooks, D.A. Hendrickson, and W.L. Minckley. 1990.

Fishes of Eagle Creek, Arizona, with records for threatened

spikedace and loach minnow (Cyprinidae). Journal of the Arizona-

Nevada Academy of Science 23(2):107-116.

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, AZ.

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

Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe.

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., K.R. Bestgen, and C.W. Painter. 1986. Distribution,

status, and biology of the spikedace (Meda fulgida) in New Mexico.

Endangered Species Report No. 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 93 pp.

Rinne, J.N. 1991. Habitat use by spikedace, Meda fulgida (Pisces:

Cyprinidae) in southwestern streams with reference to probable

habitat competition by red shiner, Notropis lutrensis (Pisces:

Cyprinidae). Southwestern Naturalist 36(1):7-13.

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

Critical Habitat for Meda fulgida (spikedace). U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ. 53 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. 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Biological opinion, Central

Arizona Project, water exchange project, upper Verde River, Arizona.

May 30, 1990. Albuquerque, NM. 48 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Spikedace recovery plan.

Albuquerque, NM. 38 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 spikedace in

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

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

(e) * * *

* * * * *

Spikedace (Meda fulgida)

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

TR08MR94.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

2. Yavapai County: Verde River, approximately 57 km (35 mi) of

river, extending from about 1 km (0.5 mi) below the confluence with

Sycamore Creek (south boundary of the NW\1/4\ sec. 17, T.17N.,

R.3E.) upstream to the Sullivan Lake dam (NE\1/4\ of the NW\1/4\

sec. 15, T.17N., R.2W.).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08MR94.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

New Mexico

1. Grant County: Gila River, approximately 50 km (31 mi) of

river, extending from the mouth of the Middle Box canyon (NW\1/4\ of

the SW\1/4\ sec. 23, T.18S., R.18W.) upstream to the confluence with

Mogollon Creek (NE\1/4\ sec. 31, T.14S., R.16W.).

2. Grant and Catron Counties: 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. Catron County: Middle Fork Gila River, approximately 11.5 km

(7 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

Big Bear Canyon (NW\1/4\ sec. 2, T.12S., R.14W.).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08MR94.004

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 shear zones, sheet flows, and

other appropriate habitat with slow to swift velocities and shallow

depths, over sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low to

moderate amounts of 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. 94-5118 Filed 3-7-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P