Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Spikedace and the Loach Minnow

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose

designation of critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, as amended (Act), for the spikedace (Meda fulgida) and the

loach minnow (Tiaroga = (Rhinichthys) cobitis). This proposal is made

in response to a court order in Southwest Center for Biological

Diversity v. Clark CIV 98-0769 M/JHG, directing us to complete

designation of critical habitat for the spikedace and loach minnow by

February 17, 2000.

We are proposing as critical habitat a total of approximately 1,443

kilometers (km) (894 miles (mi)) of rivers and creeks for the two

species. The entire designation is proposed as critical habitat for the

loach minnow, and approximately 1,325 km (822 mi) of those miles are

also proposed as critical habitat for the spikedace. Proposed critical

habitat includes portions of the Gila, San Francisco, Blue, Black,

Verde, and San Pedro rivers, and some of their tributaries, in Apache,

Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties in

Arizona; and Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties in New Mexico.

If this proposed rule is finalized, Federal agencies proposing

actions that may affect the areas designated as critical habitat must

consult with us on the effects of the proposed actions, pursuant to

section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

DATES: We will consider all comments on the rule, the draft Economic

Analysis, and draft Environmental Assessment received from interested

parties by January 14, 2000. We will hold public hearings in Thatcher,

Arizona, and Silver City, New Mexico on December 15, 1999, and in Camp

Verde, Arizona, on December 16, 1999.

ADDRESSES: 1. Send your comments on the rule, the draft Economic

Analysis, and draft Environmental Assessment to the Arizona Ecological

Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 W. Royal Palm

Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021.

2. The complete file for this rule will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arizona

Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 W.

Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021.

3. We will hold the Thatcher hearing at Eastern Arizona College

Activity Center, Lee Little Theater, 1014 N. College Avenue, Thatcher,

Arizona. We will hold the Silver City hearing at Western New Mexico

University, White Hall Auditorium, 1000 College Street, Silver City,

New Mexico. We will hold the Camp Verde hearing at the Camp Verde

Unified Schools Multi-Use Complex Theater, 280 Camp Lincoln Road, Camp

Verde, Arizona. We will start all hearings promptly at 7:00 p.m. and

end them no later than 9:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological

Services Office, at the above address; telephone 602/640-2720,

facsimile 602/640-2730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Spikedace

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

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

spines in the dorsal and pelvic fins (Minckley 1973). 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). Specific habitat for this

species consists of 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 (Propst et al. 1986; Rinne and

Kroeger 1988). Recurrent flooding and a natural hydrograph (physical

conditions, boundaries, flow, and related characteristics of waters)

are very important in maintaining the habitat of spikedace and in

helping the species maintain a competitive edge over invading nonnative

aquatic 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 Gila River basin, including the mainstem Gila

River upstream of Phoenix, and the Verde, Agua Fria, Salt, San Pedro,

and San Francisco subbasins. It occupies suitable habitat in both the

mainstream reaches and moderate-gradient perennial tributaries, up to

about 2,000 meters (m) (6,500 feet (ft)) elevation (Miller 1960;

Chamberlain 1904; Gilbert and Scofield 1898; Cope and Yarrow 1875).

Habitat destruction and competition and predation by nonnative

aquatic species have severely reduced its range and abundance. It is

now restricted to approximately 445 km (276 mi) of stream in portions

of the upper Gila River (Grant, Catron, and Hidalgo Counties, NM),

middle Gila River (Pinal County, AZ), lower San Pedro River (Pinal

County, AZ), Aravaipa Creek (Graham and Pinal Counties, AZ), Eagle

Creek (Graham and Greenlee Counties, AZ), and the Verde River (Yavapai

County, AZ) (Anderson 1978; Jakle 1992; Sublette et al. 1990; Bestgen,

1985; Marsh et al. 1990; Bettaso et al. 1995; Propst et al. 1986;

Propst et al. 1985; Stefferud and Rinne 1996). Its present range is

only about 10-15 percent of the historical range, and the status of the

species within occupied areas ranges from common to very rare. At

present, the species is common only in Aravaipa Creek and some parts of

the upper Gila River in New Mexico.

Loach Minnow

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

mm (3 in.) long. It is olivaceous in color with an oblique (slanting)

terminal mouth and eyes markedly directed upward (Minckley 1973). This

species is found in small to large perennial streams, using shallow,

turbulent riffles with primarily cobble substrate and swift currents

(Minckley 1973; Propst and Bestgen 1991; Rinne 1989; Propst et al.

1988). Loach minnow uses the spaces between, and in the lee of, larger

substrate for resting and spawning. It is rare or absent from habitats

where fine sediments fill the interstitial spaces (small, narrow spaces

between rocks or other substrate) (Propst and Bestgen 1991). Recurrent

flooding and a natural hydrograph are very important in maintaining the

habitat of loach minnow and in helping the species maintain a

competitive edge over invading nonnative aquatic species (Propst et al.

1986; Propst and Bestgen 1991).

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

in Arizona and was described from those specimens in 1865 by Girard.

The loach minnow was once locally common throughout much of the Gila

River basin, including the mainstem Gila River upstream of Phoenix, and

the

[[Page 69325]]

Verde, Salt, San Pedro, and San Francisco subbasins. It occupies

suitable habitat in both the mainstream reaches and moderate-gradient

perennial tributaries, up to about 2,500 m (8,200 ft) elevation.

Habitat destruction and competition and predation by nonnative aquatic

species have severely reduced its range and abundance. It is now

restricted to approximately 645 km (400 mi) of stream in portions of

the upper Gila River (Grant, Catron, and Hidalgo Counties, NM), the San

Francisco and Tularosa Rivers and their tributaries Negrito and

Whitewater Creeks (Catron County, NM), the Blue River and its

tributaries Dry Blue, Campbell Blue, Little Blue, Pace, and Frieborn

Creeks (Greenlee County, AZ and Catron County, NM), Aravaipa Creek and

its tributaries Turkey and Deer Creeks (Graham and Pinal Counties, AZ),

Eagle Creek (Graham and Greenlee Counties, AZ), the White River

(Apache, Gila, and Navajo Counties, AZ), and the Black River (Apache

and Greenlee Counties, AZ) (Bagley et al. 1998; Bagley et al. 1996;

Barber and Minckley 1966; Bettaso et al. 1995; Britt 1982; Leon 1989;

Marsh et al. 1990; Propst 1996; Propst and Bestgen 1991; Propst et al.

1985; Springer 1995). The present range is only 15-20 percent of its

historical range, and the status of the species within occupied areas

ranges from common to very rare. At present, the species is common only

in Aravaipa Creek, the Blue River, and limited portions of the San

Francisco, upper Gila, and Tularosa Rivers in New Mexico.

Previous Federal Actions

The spikedace was included as a Category 1 candidate species in our

December 30, 1982, Vertebrate Notice of Review (47 FR 58454). Category

1 included those taxa for which we had substantial biological

information to support listing the species as endangered or threatened.

We were 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 considered a letter of

comment. Our evaluation of the AFS petition revealed that the

petitioned action was warranted, and we published a proposed rule to

list this species as threatened with critical habitat on June 18, 1985

(50 FR 25390). We published the final rule listing the spikedace as a

threatened species on July 1, 1986 (51 FR 23769). We did not finalize

the proposed critical habitat designation at the time of listing but

postponed the designation to allow us to gather and analyze economic

data, in compliance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

We included the loach minnow as a Category 1 candidate species in

the December 30, 1982, Vertebrate Notice of Review (47 FR 58454). On

June 18, 1985 (50 FR 25380) we published a proposed rule to list this

species as threatened with critical habitat. We published the final

rule listing the loach minnow as a threatened species on October 28,

1986 (51 FR 39468). We did not finalize the proposed critical habitat

designation at the time of listing but postponed the designation to

allow us to gather and analyze economic data.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent

prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at

the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) state that critical habitat is not

determinable if information sufficient to perform required analyses of

the impacts of the designation is lacking or if the biological needs of

the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of

an area as critical habitat. At the time of listing of the spikedace

and loach minnow, we found that critical habitat was not determinable

because we had insufficient information to perform the required

analyses of the impacts of the designation. As part of a settlement

order of January 18, 1994, in Greater Gila Biodiversity Project v. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service CIV 93-1913 PHX/PGR, we finalized critical

habitat designation for both the spikedace and loach minnow on March 8,

1994 (59 FR 10906 and 10898 respectively).

Critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow was set aside by

court order in Catron County Board of Commissioners, New Mexico v. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service CIV No. 93-730 HB (D.N.M., Order of October

13, 1994). The court cited our failure to analyze the effects of

critical habitat designation under the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) as its basis for setting aside critical habitat for the two

species. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona

recognized the effect of the Catron County ruling as a matter of comity

in the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Rogers CV 96-018-

TUC-JMR (D. Ariz., Order of December 28, 1996). As a result of these

court rulings, we removed the critical habitat description for

spikedace and loach minnow from the Code of Federal Regulations on

March 25, 1998 (63 FR 14378).

On September 20, 1999, the United States District Court for the

District of New Mexico, Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v.

Clark, CIV 98-0769 M/JHG, ordered us to complete designation of

critical habitat for the spikedace and loach minnow by February 17,

2000.

We completed final recovery plans for spikedace and loach minnow in

1991 (Service 1991a, 1991b). We developed those plans under the

oversight of the Desert Fishes Recovery Team and other biologists

familiar with the species. This proposed rule is based, in part, on

recommendations offered in those recovery plans.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as--(i)

the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at

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

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

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

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

geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a

determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the

species. The term ``conservation,'' as defined in section 3(3) of the

Act, means ``to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are

necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the

point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer

necessary'' (i.e., the species is recovered and removed from the list

of endangered and threatened species).

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we base critical habitat

proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available,

taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant

impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We can

exclude areas from critical habitat designation if we determine that

the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas

as critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the

extinction of the species.

A. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

In proposing critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow, we

reviewed the overall approach to the conservation of the species

undertaken by local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and private

individuals and organizations since the species' listing in 1986. We

also considered the

[[Page 69326]]

measures identified as necessary for recovery, as outlined in the

species' recovery plans. Additionally, we solicited information from

knowledgeable biologists and recommendations from the Desert Fishes

Recovery Team. We also reviewed the available information pertaining to

habitat requirements of the two species, including material received

during previous critical habitat proposals and designations.

Due to the need for additional information on the two species,

habitats, threats, controllability of threats, restoration potentials,

and other factors, no quantitative criteria for delisting spikedace and

loach minnow were set forth in the recovery plans. However, the

recovery plans recommend protection of existing populations,

enhancement and restoration of habitats occupied by depleted

populations, and reestablishment of the two species into selected

streams within their historical ranges.

Both recovery plans call for designation of critical habitat for

all stream reaches identified in the 1985 proposed rule as well as for

consideration of additional stream reaches. Except for Eagle Creek, the

recovery plans do not identify the specific streams to be considered

for critical habitat designation due to the lack of information to

support such identifications available at that time. The recovery plans

do identify potential areas for reestablishment of spikedace and loach

minnow including the San Pedro River and its tributaries, the San

Francisco River, Mescal Creek (a middle Gila River tributary), and

Bonita Creek. The recovery plans also recommend evaluation and

selection of other potential sites.

Recovery Team discussions since 1991 identified the need for

critical habitat designation in Hot Springs and Redfield Canyons;

Aravaipa, Eagle, Bonita, Beaver, West Clear, Campbell Blue, and Dry

Blue Creeks; and Gila, Verde, San Pedro, San Francisco, Blue, Tularosa,

and White Rivers.

The proposed critical habitat described below constitutes our best

assessment of areas needed for the conservation of spikedace and loach

minnow and is based on the best scientific and commercial information

available. The proposed areas are essential to the conservation of the

species because they either currently support populations of spikedace

and/or loach minnow, or because they currently have, or have the

potential for developing, the necessary requirements for survival,

growth, and reproduction of the spikedace and/or loach minnow (see

description of primary constituent elements, below). All of the

proposed areas require special management consideration and protection

to ensure their contribution to the species' recovery.

Because of these species' precarious status, mere stabilization of

spikedace and loach minnow at their present levels will not achieve

conservation. Recovery through protection and enhancement of the

existing populations, plus reestablishment of populations in suitable

areas of historical range, is necessary for their survival. The

recovery plans for both species state, ``One of the most critical goals

to be achieved toward recovery is establishment of secure self-

reproducing populations in habitats from which the species has been

extirpated'' (Service 1991a, 1991b). We, therefore, determine that the

unoccupied areas proposed as critical habitat are essential for the

conservation of the species.

This proposed designation differs substantially from the critical

habitat designation we proposed in 1986 and made final in 1994, and

which was subsequently withdrawn under court order. The differences

reflect new information we gathered on distribution of spikedace and

loach minnow. The changes also reflect the need to consider areas in

addition to those designated in 1994. As stated in the 1994 final

rules, ``The Service is considering revising critical habitat in the

future to add these areas [referring to newly discovered occupied

areas]. In addition, the Service is considering adding certain

unoccupied areas considered vital for recovery of the species.'' For

spikedace, in the 1994 final critical habitat rule, we stated the same

but, in addition, specifically recognized the recovery plan

recommendation for inclusion of Eagle Creek.

Important considerations in selection of areas proposed in this

rule include factors specific to each geographic area or complex of

areas, such as size, connectivity, and habitat diversity, as well as

rangewide recovery considerations, such as genetic diversity and

representation of all major portions of the species' historical ranges.

The proposed critical habitat reflects the need for complexes of

sufficient size to provide habitat for spikedace and/or loach minnow

populations large enough to be self-sustaining over time, despite

fluctuations in local conditions.

Each complex contains interconnected waters so that spikedace and

loach minnow can move between areas, at least during certain flows or

seasons. The ability of the fish to repopulate areas where they are

depleted or extirpated is vital to recovery. Some complexes may include

stream reaches that do not have substantial spikedace- or loach minnow-

specific habitat, but which provide migration corridors as well as play

a vital role in the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem and,

therefore, the integrity of upstream and downstream spikedace and loach

minnow habitats.

The areas we selected for proposed critical habitat designation

include areas containing all known remaining genetic diversity within

the two species, with the possible exception of the fish on certain

tribal lands, which we believe are capable of persistence without

critical habitat designation (see discussion under Secretarial Order

3206 later in this proposed rule). Information on spikedace and loach

minnow indicates a high degree of genetic differentiation among the

remnant populations (Tibbets 1993), making conservation of each

remaining population vital to recovery (Tibbets 1992). It is also

important that the areas selected for proposed critical habitat

designation include a representation of each major subbasin in the

historical range of the species.

The proposed designation includes all currently known populations

of spikedace and loach minnow, except those on tribal lands.

Uncertainty on upstream and downstream distributional limits of some

populations may result in small areas of occupied habitat being

excluded from the designation. For loach minnow, the proposed

designation includes at least one remnant population for each major

subbasin except the Verde subbasin, from which it has been completely

extirpated. For spikedace, no remnant populations exist in the Agua

Fria, Salt, and San Francisco/Blue subbasins. In those subbasins where

no populations of spikedace or loach minnow currently exist, the

proposed critical habitat includes currently unoccupied areas for

restoration of the species, with the exception of the Agua Fria

subbasin where no suitable areas are known to remain.

The inclusion of both occupied and currently unoccupied areas in

the proposed critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow is in

accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, which provides that

areas outside the geographical area currently occupied by the species

may meet the definition of critical habitat upon a determination that

they are essential for the conservation of the species. Both spikedace

and loach minnow are in serious danger of extinction, and their status

is declining. In 1994, we made a

[[Page 69327]]

finding on a petition that reclassification of spikedace and loach

minnow from threatened to endangered was warranted; however,

reclassification was precluded by other higher priority listing actions

(59 FR 35303-35304). Although additional populations of loach minnow

have been found since that time, they are small and their contribution

to the status of the species is offset by declines in other

populations.

Both of the 1986 listing rules for spikedace and loach minnow

conservatively estimated about 2,600 km (1,600 mi) of stream within the

species' historical ranges. This proposal includes approximately half

that amount for loach minnow and slightly less than half for spikedace.

Although this amount is less than the historical ranges for both

species, we believe that conservation of spikedace and loach minnow

within the proposed areas can achieve long-term survival and recovery

of these species.

For each stream reach proposed for designation, the up- and

downstream boundaries are described below. Proposed critical habitat

includes the stream channels within the identified stream reaches and

areas within these reaches potentially inundated during high flow

events. This proposal takes into account the naturally dynamic nature

of riverine systems and recognizes that floodplains are an integral

part of the stream ecosystem. A relatively intact floodplain, along

with the periodic flooding in a relatively natural pattern, are

important elements necessary for long-term survival and recovery of

spikedace and loach minnow. Among other things, the floodplain and its

riparian vegetation provides space for natural flooding patterns and

latitude for necessary natural channel adjustments to maintain

appropriate channel morphology and geometry, provides nutrient input

and buffering from sediment and pollutants, stores water for slow

release to maintain base flows, and provides protected side channel and

backwater habitats for larval and juvenile spikedace and loach minnow.

Spikedace

We propose the following areas as critical habitat for spikedace

(see the Regulation Promulgation section of this rule for exact

descriptions of boundaries). The proposed designation includes 31

reaches found within portions of 26 streams; however, individual

streams are not isolated, but are connected with others to form 7 areas

or ``complexes.'' The complexes include those that currently support

populations of spikedace, as well as some currently unoccupied by

spikedace, but which are considered essential for reestablishing

populations of spikedace to achieve recovery. The distances and

conversions below are approximate; more precise estimates are provided

in the Regulation Promulgation section of this rule.

1. Verde River complex, Yavapai County, Arizona. The Verde River is

currently occupied by spikedace. Its tributary streams are believed to

be currently unoccupied by spikedace. The Verde River complex is

unusual in that a relatively stable thermal and hydrologic regime is

found in the upper river and in Fossil Creek. Also, spikedace in the

Verde River are genetically (Tibbets 1993) and morphologically

(Anderson and Hendrickson 1994) distinct from all other spikedace

populations.

a. Verde River--171 km (94 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with Fossil Creek upstream to Sullivan Dam, but excluding

lands belonging to the Yavapai Apache Tribe. Sullivan Dam is at the

upstream limit of perennial flow in the mainstem Verde River. Perennial

flow results from a series of river-channel springs and from Granite

Creek. Below Fossil Creek, the Verde River becomes larger due to the

input of Fossil Creek and changes character to an extent that it may

not provide sufficient suitable habitat for spikedace.

b. Fossil Creek--8 km (5 mi) of creek extending from the confluence

with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with an unnamed

tributary. The lower portion of Fossil Creek contains all elements of

spikedace habitat at present, except sufficient discharge. Discharge is

currently diverted for hydropower generation at the Childs/Irving

Hydropower site. Relicensing of the Childs/Irving Hydropower project

will provide enhanced flows into lower Fossil Creek, although the

amount of that flow restoration is still under negotiation.

c. West Clear Creek--12 km (7 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with Black

Mountain Canyon. The lower portion of West Clear Creek was historically

known to support spikedace and contains suitable, although degraded,

habitat. Gradient and channel morphology changes above Black Mountain

Canyon make the upstream area unsuitable for spikedace.

d. Beaver/Wet Beaver Creek--33 km (21 mi) of creek extending from

the confluence with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with

Casner Canyon. Beaver Creek, and its upstream extension in Wet Beaver

Creek, historically supported spikedace and contain suitable, although

degraded, habitat. Above Casner Canyon, gradient and channel morphology

changes make the stream unsuitable for spikedace.

e. Oak Creek--54 km (34 mi) of creek extending from the confluence

with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with an unnamed

tributary (near the Yavapai/Coconino County boundary). The lower

portion of Oak Creek is part of the historical range of spikedace and

contains suitable, although degraded, habitat. Above the unnamed

tributary, the creek becomes unsuitable due to urban and suburban

development and to increasing gradient and substrate size.

f. Granite Creek--2.3 km (1.4 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the Verde River upstream to a spring. As a perennial

tributary of the upper Verde River, Granite Creek is considered an

important expansion area for spikedace recovery.

2. Black River complex, Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona. The

Salt River subbasin is a significant portion of spikedace historical

range and has no existing population of spikedace. Large areas of the

subbasin are unsuitable, either because of topography or because of

reservoirs, stream channel alteration by humans, or overwhelming

nonnative species populations. Recovery for spikedace includes

reestablishing populations in the subbasin. The East and West Forks

Black River contain suitable habitat, and the continuing presence of

loach minnow in the East Fork is evidence that it may support

reestablishment of spikedace, which historically occurred with loach

minnow in most streams in the Gila River basin. The following are some

of the most suitable areas for reestablishment of spikedace.

a. East Fork Black River--8 km (5 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the West Fork Black River upstream to the confluence

with Deer Creek.

b. North Fork of the East Fork Black River--18 km (11 mi) of river

extending from the confluence with Deer Creek upstream to the

confluence with Boneyard Creek.

c. West Fork Black River--10 km (6 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the East Fork Black River upstream to the confluence

with Hay Creek. Above Hay Creek the gradient and channel morphology are

unsuitable for spikedace.

3. Tonto Creek complex, Gila County, Arizona. Tonto Creek was

historically occupied by spikedace and loach minnow. Suitable habitat

still exists,

[[Page 69328]]

although degradation has occurred due to watershed uses, water

diversion, agriculture, roads, and nonnative species introduction. The

presence of substantial areas of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands make

this one of the most promising areas for reestablishment of spikedace

in the Salt River subbasin.

a. Tonto Creek--47 km (29 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with Greenback Creek upstream to the confluence with Houston

Creek. The influence of Roosevelt Lake below Greenback Creek, and

gradient and substrate changes above Houston Creek, make the stream

unsuitable for spikedace.

b. Greenback Creek--14 km (8 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with Tonto Creek upstream to Lime Springs.

c. Rye Creek--2.1 km (1.3 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with Tonto Creek upstream to the confluence with Brady

Canyon. This area of Rye Creek still supports a native fish community

indicating high potential for spikedace reestablishment.

4. Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek complex, Pinal and

Graham Counties, Arizona. This complex is occupied by spikedace with

its population status ranging from rare to common. Aravaipa Creek

supports one of the best and most protected spikedace populations due

to special use designations on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and

to substantial ownership by The Nature Conservancy as well as planned

construction of fish barriers to prevent invasion of nonnative fish

species. Enhancement of downstream habitats in the San Pedro and Gila

Rivers would contribute substantially to recovery of this species.

a. Gila River--63 km (39 mi) of river extending from Ashurst-Hayden

Dam upstream to the confluence with the San Pedro River. A small

population of spikedace currently occupies this area. At Ashurst-Hayden

Dam, all water is diverted into a canal. Above the confluence with the

San Pedro River, flow in the Gila River is highly regulated by San

Carlos Dam and becomes marginally suitable for spikedace.

b. San Pedro River--21 km (13 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with Aravaipa

Creek. This area is currently occupied by spikedace. Existing flow in

the river comes primarily from surface and subsurface contributions

from Aravaipa Creek.

c. Aravaipa Creek--45 km (28 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with

Stowe Gulch. Aravaipa Creek supports a substantial population of

spikedace. Stowe Gulch is the upstream limit of sufficient perennial

flow for spikedace.

5. Middle-Upper San Pedro River complex, Cochise, Graham, and Pima

Counties, Arizona. None of the habitat in this complex is currently

occupied by spikedace. However, the San Pedro River is the type

locality of spikedace, and this complex contains important restoration

area.

a. San Pedro River--74 km (46 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with Alder Wash (near Redfield) upstream to the confluence

with Ash Creek (near the Narrows). This middle portion of the river has

increasing surface flow due to restoration activities, primarily

groundwater pumping reductions.

b. Redfield Canyon--22 km (14 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with

Sycamore Canyon. Above Sycamore Canyon, perennial water becomes too

scarce, and the habitat becomes unsuitable.

c. Hot Springs Canyon--19 km (12 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with

Bass Canyon. Hot Springs Canyon is currently unoccupied but contains

suitable habitat for restoration of spikedace.

d. Bass Canyon--5 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the confluence

with Hot Springs Canyon upstream to the confluence with Pine Canyon.

Bass Canyon is an extension of the Hot Springs Canyon habitat.

e. San Pedro River--60 km (37 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the Babocomari River upstream to the U.S./Mexico

border. Although currently unoccupied, this area is identified in BLM

(BLM 1993) planning documents as a high-potential restoration area for

spikedace.

6. Gila Box/San Francisco River complex, Graham and Greenlee

Counties, Arizona and Catron County, New Mexico. The only spikedace

population remaining in the complex is in Eagle Creek. Substantial

restoration potential for spikedace exists in the remainder of the

complex. This complex has the largest area of habitat suitable for

spikedace restoration. In addition, management in the Gila Box, Bonita

Creek, and the Blue River are highly compatible with recovery goals,

giving restoration of spikedace in this complex a high likelihood of

success.

a. Gila River--36 km (23 mi) of river extending from the Brown

Canal diversion, at the head of the Safford Valley, upstream to the

confluence with Owl Canyon, at the upper end of the Gila Box. The Gila

Box is not known to currently support spikedace, but is considered to

have a high potential for restoration of the species. Both above and

below the Gila Box, the Gila River is highly modified by agriculture,

diversions, and urban development.

b. Bonita Creek--19 km (12 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with Martinez

Wash. Bonita Creek has no spikedace at present but has suitable

habitat. Bonita Creek above Martinez Wash lies on the San Carlos Apache

Reservation, which is not included in this proposed designation.

c. Eagle Creek--74 km (46 mi) of creek extending from the Phelps-

Dodge Diversion Dam upstream to the confluence of Dry Prong and East

Eagle Creeks, but excluding lands of the San Carlos Apache Reservation.

Because the creek repeatedly flows from private or USFS land into the

San Carlos Reservation and back, it is difficult to separately

calculate stream mileage on tribal lands. Therefore, the above mileage

covers the entire stream segment and is not corrected for tribal

exclusions. Eagle Creek supports a small population of spikedace. Below

the Phelps-Dodge Diversion Dam, the creek is often dry.

d. San Francisco River--182 km (113 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with the

Tularosa River. Habitat above the Tularosa River does not appear

suitable for spikedace. The San Francisco River was historically

occupied by spikedace and is important recovery habitat for restoration

of the species.

e. Blue River--82 km (51 mi) of river extending from the confluence

with the San Francisco River upstream to the confluence of Campbell

Blue and Dry Blue creeks. The Blue River is not currently occupied by

spikedace, but planning among several State and Federal agencies for

restoration of native fishes in the Blue River is under way.

f. Campbell Blue Creek--13 km (8 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence of Dry Blue and Campbell Blue Creeks upstream to the

confluence with Coleman Canyon. Above Coleman Canyon, the creek changes

and becomes steeper and rockier, making it unsuitable for spikedace.

g. Little Blue Creek--5 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the Blue River upstream to the mouth of a box canyon.

Little Blue Creek is not currently occupied by spikedace, but contains

suitable habitat and is considered an important restoration area for

the species.

[[Page 69329]]

7. Upper Gila River complex, Grant and Catron Counties, New Mexico.

This complex is occupied by the largest remaining population of

spikedace. It is considered to represent the ``core'' of what remains

of the species. Because of the remoteness of the area, there is a

relatively low degree of habitat threats.

a. Gila River--164 km (102 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with Moore Canyon (near the Arizona/New Mexico border)

upstream to the confluence of the East and West Forks. Below Moore

Canyon, the river is substantially altered by agriculture, diversion,

and urban development, thus making it unsuitable for spikedace.

b. East Fork Gila River--42 km (26 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the West Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence of

Beaver and Taylor Creeks.

c. Middle Fork Gila River--12 km (8 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the West Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence

with Big Bear Canyon.

d. West Fork Gila River--12 km (8 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the East Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence

with EE Canyon. This lower portion of the West Fork is occupied by

spikedace, but the river becomes unsuitable for spikedace above EE

Canyon due to gradient and channel morphology.

Loach Minnow

We propose the following areas as critical habitat for loach minnow

(see the Regulation Promulgation section of this rule for exact

descriptions of boundaries). The proposed designation includes 41

reaches found within portions of 26 streams; however, individual

streams are not isolated but are connected with others to form 7

complexes. The complexes include those that currently support

populations of loach minnow as well as some currently unoccupied by

loach minnow but that are considered essential for reestablishing

populations of loach minnow to achieve recovery. Substantial overlap

occurs with the proposed critical habitat for spikedace; 7 complexes

and 26 streams are included in the proposed designation for both

species. The distances and conversions below are approximate; more

precise estimates are provided in the Regulation Promulgation section

of this rule.

1. Verde River complex, Yavapai County, Arizona. Historically known

from the Verde River and some of its tributaries, the loach minnow is

believed to be extirpated in this complex. The Verde complex is unusual

in that a relatively stable thermal and hydrologic regime is found in

the upper river and in Fossil Creek. The continuing presence of

spikedace and the existence of suitable habitat create a high potential

for restoration of loach minnow to the Verde system.

a. Verde River--171 km (106 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with Fossil Creek upstream to Sullivan Dam, but excluding

lands belonging to the Yavapai Apache Tribe. Sullivan Dam is at the

upstream limit of perennial flow in the mainstem Verde River. Perennial

flow results from a series of river-channel springs and from Granite

Creek. Below Fossil Creek, the Verde River becomes larger due to the

input of Fossil Creek and changes character to an extent that it may

not provide sufficient suitable habitat for loach minnow.

b. Fossil Creek--8 km (5 mi) of creek extending from the confluence

with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with an unnamed

tributary. The lower portion of Fossil Creek contains all elements of

loach minnow habitat at present, except sufficient discharge. Discharge

is currently diverted for hydropower generation at the Childs/Irving

Hydropower site. Relicensing of the Childs/Irving Hydropower project

will provide enhanced flows into lower Fossil Creek, although the

amount of that flow restoration is still under negotiation.

c. West Clear Creek--12 km (7 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with Black

Mountain Canyon. The lower portion of West Clear Creek contains

suitable, although degraded, habitat for loach minnow. Gradient and

channel morphology changes above Black Mountain Canyon make the

upstream area unsuitable for loach minnow.

d. Beaver/Wet Beaver Creek--33 km (21 mi) of creek extending from

the confluence with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with

Casner Canyon. Beaver Creek, and its upstream extension in Wet Beaver

Creek, historically supported spikedace and contain suitable, although

degraded, habitat. Above Casner Canyon, gradient and channel morphology

changes make the stream unsuitable for loach minnow.

e. Oak Creek--54 km (34 mi) of creek extending from the confluence

with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with an unnamed

tributary (near the Yavapai/Coconino County boundary). The lower

portion contains suitable, although degraded, habitat for loach minnow.

Above the unnamed tributary, the creek becomes unsuitable due to urban

and suburban development and to increasing gradient and substrate size.

f. Granite Creek--2.3 km (1.4 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the Verde River upstream to a spring. Below the spring,

which supplies much of the base flow of Granite Creek, there is

suitable habitat for loach minnow.

2. Black River complex, Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona. The

Salt River subbasin is a significant portion of loach minnow historical

range, but loach minnow have been extirpated from all but a small

portion in the Black and White Rivers. As the only remaining population

of loach minnow on public lands in the Salt River basin, the Black

River complex is considered vital to survival and recovery of the

species.

a. East Fork Black River--8 km (5 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the West Fork Black River upstream to the confluence

with Boneyard Creek. This area is occupied by loach minnow, although

the downstream end of the population is not well known. This population

was only discovered in 1996.

b. North Fork of the East Fork Black River--18 km (11 mi) of river

extending from the confluence with Deer Creek upstream to the

confluence with Boneyard Creek. This area is occupied by loach minnow,

although the upstream portion of the population is not well known.

Above Boneyard Creek, the river character makes it unsuitable for loach

minnow.

c. Boneyard Creek--2.3 km (1.4 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the East Fork Black River upstream to the confluence

with an unnamed tributary. Although no loach minnow have been found in

Boneyard Creek, they are probably present based on the pattern of

occupation of lower portions of small tributaries in other parts of the

loach minnow range.

d. Coyote Creek--3 km (2 mi) of creek extending from the confluence

with the East Fork Black River upstream to the confluence with an

unnamed tributary. Loach minnow are thought to use the lower portion of

this creek as part of the population in the East Fork Black River.

e. West Fork Black River--10 km (6 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the East Fork Black River upstream to the confluence

with Hay Creek. Above Hay Creek, the gradient and channel morphology

are unsuitable for loach minnow. The West Fork Black River is not known

to be occupied by loach minnow at present. However, it is considered

important for conservation of the Black River remnant of the Salt River

subbasin population.

[[Page 69330]]

3. Tonto Creek complex, Gila County, Arizona. Tonto Creek was

historically occupied by spikedace and loach minnow. Suitable habitat

still exists, although degradation has occurred due to watershed uses,

water diversion, agriculture, roads, and nonnative species

introduction. The presence of substantial areas of USFS lands make this

one of the most promising areas for reestablishment of loach minnow in

the Salt River subbasin.

a. Tonto Creek--70 km (44 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with Greenback Creek upstream to the confluence with Haigler

Creek. The influence of Roosevelt Lake above Greenback Creek and

changes in channel morphology above Haigler Creek make those portions

of the stream unsuitable for loach minnow.

b. Greenback Creek--14 km (8 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with Tonto Creek upstream to Lime Springs.

c. Rye Creek--2.1 km (1.3 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with Tonto Creek upstream to the confluence with Brady

Canyon. This area of Rye Creek still supports a native fish community,

indicating high potential for loach minnow reestablishment.

4. Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek complex, Pinal and

Graham Counties, Arizona. This complex currently has loach minnow only

in Aravaipa Creek and its tributaries. Aravaipa Creek supports one of

the best and most protected spikedace populations due to special use

designations on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and to substantial

ownership by The Nature Conservancy as well as planned construction of

fish barriers to prevent invasion of nonnative fish species.

Enhancement of downstream habitats and expansion of the Aravaipa Creek

population into the San Pedro and Gila Rivers would contribute

substantially to recovery of this species. Expansion of this population

is important to recovery of the species.

a. Gila River--63 km (39 mi) of river extending from Ashurst-Hayden

Dam upstream to the confluence with the San Pedro River. At Ashurst-

Hayden Dam, all water is diverted into a canal. Above the confluence

with the San Pedro River, flow in the Gila River is highly regulated by

San Carlos Dam and becomes marginally suitable for loach minnow.

b. San Pedro River--21 km (13 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with Aravaipa

Creek. This section of river is an important connection between the

existing population of loach minnow in Aravaipa Creek and the recovery

habitat in the Gila River. Existing flow in the river comes primarily

from surface and subsurface contributions from Aravaipa Creek.

c. Aravaipa Creek--45 km (28 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with

Stowe Gulch. Aravaipa Creek supports a substantial population of loach

minnow. Stowe Gulch is the upstream limit of sufficient perennial flow

for loach minnow.

d. Turkey Creek--4 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the confluence

with Aravaipa Creek upstream to the confluence with Oak Grove Canyon.

This creek is occupied by loach minnow. A substantial portion of the

flow in Turkey Creek comes from the Oak Grove Canyon tributary.

e. Deer Creek--4 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the confluence

with Aravaipa Creek upstream to the boundary of the Aravaipa

Wilderness. This stream is occupied by loach minnow. Suitable habitat

extends to the Wilderness boundary.

5. Middle-Upper San Pedro River complex, Cochise, Graham, and Pima

Counties, Arizona. None of the habitat in this complex is currently

occupied by loach minnow. However, the San Pedro River is the type

locality of loach minnow, and this complex contains important

restoration areas. a.

San Pedro River--4 km (46 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with Alder Wash (near Redfield) upstream to the confluence

with Ash Creek (near the Narrows). This middle portion of the river has

increasing surface flow due to restoration activities, primarily

groundwater pumping reductions.

b. Redfield Canyon--22 km (14 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with

Sycamore Canyon. Above Sycamore Canyon, perennial water becomes too

scarce, and the habitat becomes unsuitable.

c. Hot Springs Canyon--20 km (12 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with

Bass Canyon. Hot Springs Canyon contains suitable habitat for

restoration of loach minnow.

d. Bass Canyon--5 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the confluence

with Hot Springs Canyon upstream to the confluence with Pine Canyon.

Bass Canyon is an extension of the Hot Springs Canyon habitat.

e. San Pedro River--60 km (37 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the Babocomari River upstream to the U.S./Mexico

border. Although currently unoccupied, this area is identified in BLM

planning documents (BLM 1993) as a high-potential restoration area for

loach minnow.

6. Gila Box /San Francisco River complex, Graham and Greenlee

Counties, Arizona and Catron County, New Mexico. Most of this complex

is occupied by loach minnow, although the status varies substantially

from one portion to another. Only Bonita Creek, Little Blue Creek, and

the Gila River are currently unoccupied. The Blue River system and

adjacent portions of the San Francisco River is the longest stretch of

occupied loach minnow habitat unbroken by large areas of unsuitable

habitat. Management in the Gila Box, Bonita Creek, and the Blue River

are highly compatible with recovery goals, giving restoration of loach

minnow in this complex a high likelihood of success.

a. Gila River--36 km (23 mi) of river extending from the Brown

Canal diversion, at the head of the Safford Valley, upstream to the

confluence with Owl Canyon, at the upper end of the Gila Box. The Gila

Box is considered to have a high potential for restoration of the loach

minnow, and populations are located shortly upstream in both Eagle

Creek and the San Francisco River. Both above and below the Gila Box,

the Gila River is highly modified by agriculture, diversions, and urban

development.

b. Bonita Creek--36 km (23 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with Martinez

Wash. Suitable habitat for loach minnow exists in Bonita Creek. Bonita

Creek above Martinez Wash lies on the San Carlos Apache Reservation,

which is not being proposed for designation at this time.

c. Eagle Creek--74 km (46 mi) of creek extending from the Phelps-

Dodge Diversion Dam upstream to the confluence of Dry Prong and East

Eagle Creeks, but excluding lands of the San Carlos Apache Reservation.

Because the creek repeatedly flows from private or USFS land into the

San Carlos Reservation and back, it is difficult to separately

calculate stream mileage on tribal lands. Therefore, the above mileage

covers the entire stream segment and is not corrected for tribal

exclusions. Below the Phelps-Dodge Diversion Dam, the creek is often

dry.

d. San Francisco River--203 km (126 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the Gila River upstream to the mouth of The Box, a

canyon above the town of Reserve. Loach minnow in the San Francisco

River vary from common to rare throughout the length of the river.

[[Page 69331]]

e. Tularosa River--30 km (19 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the San Francisco River upstream to the town of

Cruzville. Above Cruzville, the habitat becomes unsuitable.

f. Negrito Creek--7 km (4 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the San Francisco River upstream to the confluence with

Cerco Canyon. Above this area, gradient and channel morphology make the

creek unsuitable for loach minnow.

g. Whitewater Creek--2 km (1 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the San Francisco River upstream to the confluence with

Little Whitewater Creek. Upstream gradient and channel changes make the

portion above Little Whitewater Creek unsuitable for loach minnow.

h. Blue River--82 km (51 mi) of river extending from the confluence

with the San Francisco River upstream to the confluence of Campbell

Blue and Dry Blue Creeks. Planning is under way by several State and

Federal agencies to restore native fishes in the Blue River.

i. Campbell Blue Creek--13 km (8 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence of Dry Blue and Campbell Blue Creeks upstream to the

confluence with Coleman Canyon. Above Coleman Canyon, the creek changes

and becomes steeper and rockier, making it unsuitable for loach minnow.

j. Dry Blue Creek--5 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with Campbell Blue Creek upstream to the confluence with

Pace Creek.

k. Pace Creek--1.2 km (0.8 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with Dry Blue Creek upstream to a barrier falls.

l. Frieborn Creek--1.8 km ( 1.1 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with Dry Blue Creek upstream to an unnamed tributary.

m. Little Blue Creek--5 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the

confluence with the Blue River upstream to the mouth of a box canyon.

Little Blue Creek is not currently occupied by loach minnow but

contains suitable habitat and is considered an important restoration

area for the species.

7. Upper Gila River complex, Grant and Catron Counties, New Mexico.

This complex is occupied by loach minnow throughout. It contains what

is considered to be the ``core'' of the remaining populations of the

species. Because of the remoteness of the area, there is a relatively

low degree of habitat threats.

a. Gila River--164 km (102 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with Moore Canyon (near the Arizona/New Mexico border)

upstream to the confluence of the East and West Forks. Below Moore

Canyon, the river is substantially altered by agriculture, diversion,

and urban development, thus making it unsuitable for loach minnow.

b. East Fork Gila River--42 km (26 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the West Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence of

Beaver and Taylor Creeks.

c. Middle Fork Gila River--19 km (12 mi) of river extending from

the confluence with the West Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence

with Brothers West Canyon.

d. West Fork Gila River--12 km (8 mi) of river extending from the

confluence with the East Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence

with EE Canyon. This lower portion of the West Fork is occupied by

loach minnow, but the river becomes unsuitable above EE Canyon due to

gradient and channel morphology.

B. Primary Constituent Elements

The habitat features (primary constituent elements) that provide

for the physiological, behavioral, and ecological requirements

essential for the conservation of the species are described at 50 CFR

424.12, and include, but are not limited to, the following:

Space for individual and population growth, and for normal

behavior;

Food, water, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

Cover or shelter;

Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and

Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative

of the historical geographical and ecological distributions of a

species.

Spikedace

We determined the primary constituent elements for spikedace from

studies on their habitat requirements and population biology including,

but not limited to, Barber et al. 1970; Minckley 1973; Anderson 1978;

Barber and Minckley 1983; Turner and Taffanelli 1983; Barrett et al.

1985; Propst et al. 1986; Service 1989; Hardy 1990; Douglas et al.

1994; Stefferud and Rinne 1996; Velasco 1997. These primary constituent

elements include:

1. Permanent, flowing, unpolluted water;

2. Living areas for adult spikedace with slow to swift flow

velocities in shallow water 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;

3. Living areas for juvenile spikedace with slow to moderate flow

velocities in shallow water with moderate amounts of instream cover;

4. Living areas for larval spikedace with slow to moderate flow

velocities in shallow water with abundant instream cover;

5. Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts

of fine sediment and substrate embeddedness;

6. Pool, riffle, run, and backwater components present in the

aquatic habitat;

7. Low stream gradient;

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

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

9. Abundant aquatic insect food base;

10. Periodic natural flooding;

11. A natural, unregulated hydrograph or, if the flows are modified

or regulated, then a hydrograph that demonstrates an ability to support

a native fish community; and

12. Few or no predatory or competitive nonnative species present.

The areas we are proposing for designation as critical habitat for

spikedace provide the above primary constituent elements or will be

capable, with restoration, of providing them. All of the proposed areas

require special management considerations or protection to ensure their

contribution to the species' recovery.

Loach Minnow

We determined the primary constituent elements for loach minnow

from studies on their habitat requirements and population biology

including, but not limited to, Barber and Minckley 1966; Minckley 1973;

Schreiber 1978; Britt 1982; Turner and Taffanelli 1983; Service 1988;

Rinne 1989; Hardy 1990; Vives and Minckley 1990; Propst and Bestgen

1991; Douglas et al. 1994; Velasco 1997. These primary constituent

elements include:

1. Permanent, flowing, unpolluted water;

2. Living areas for adult loach minnow with moderate to swift flow

velocities in shallow water with gravel, cobble, and rubble substrates;

3. Living areas for juvenile loach minnow with moderate to swift

flow velocities in shallow water with sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble

substrates;

4. Living areas for larval loach minnow with slow to moderate

velocities in shallow water with sand, gravel, and cobble substrates

and abundant instream cover;

5. Spawning areas for loach minnow with slow to swift flow

velocities in shallow water with uncemented cobble and rubble

substrate;

6. Low amounts of fine sediment and substrate embeddedness;

[[Page 69332]]

7. Riffle, run, and backwater components present in the aquatic

habitat;

8. Low to moderate stream gradient;

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

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

10. Abundant aquatic insect food base;

11. Periodic natural flooding;

12. A natural unregulated hydrograph or, if flows are modified or

regulated, then a hydrograph that demonstrates an ability to support a

native fish community; and

13. few or no predatory or competitive nonnative species present.

The areas we are proposing for designation as critical habitat for

loach minnow provide the above primary constituent elements or will be

capable, with restoration, of providing them. All of the proposed areas

require special management considerations or protection to ensure their

contribution to the species' recovery.

C. Land Ownership

Table 1 shows land ownership for areas proposed as critical habitat

that are currently occupied by one or both species, and Table 2 shows

land ownership for proposed critical habitat that is unoccupied. A

general description of land ownership in each complex follows.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.004

[[Page 69333]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.005

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

1. Verde River complex--There are large blocks of USFS lands in the

upper and lower reaches, with significant areas of private ownership in

the Verde Valley and along the lower portions of Oak, Beaver, and West

Clear Creeks. There are also lands belonging to the National Park

Service (NPS), Arizona State Parks, and the Arizona Game and Fish

Department.

2. Black River complex--The ownership is predominantly USFS, with a

few small areas of private land.

3. Tonto Creek complex--Land here is mostly USFS on the upper end,

but significant areas of private ownership occur in the lower reaches.

4. Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek complex--This area

includes extensive BLM land as well as extensive private land, some

State of Arizona lands, and a small area of allotted land owned by the

San Carlos Apaches.

5. Middle-Upper San Pedro complex--The BLM is the largest

landowner, and there are large areas of private ownership and smaller

areas of State of Arizona lands.

6. Gila Box/San Francisco River complex--This complex contains

extensive USFS land, some BLM land, and scattered private, State of

Arizona, and New Mexico Game and Fish Department (NMGFD) lands. A

portion of Eagle Creek is on the San Carlos Apache Reservation, but

this area is not proposed as critical habitat at this time. The City of

Safford holds significant portions of Bonita Creek.

7. Upper Gila River complex--The largest areas are on USFS land,

with small private inholdings. There are large areas of private lands

in the Cliff-Gila Valley, and the BLM administers significant stretches

upstream of the Arizona/New Mexico border. There are also small areas

of NMGFD, NPS, and State of New Mexico lands.

Significant private owners, with lands scattered among several of

the proposed critical habitat complexes, include Phelps-Dodge

Corporation and The Nature Conservancy. A large number of other private

landowners hold lands within the proposed designation. Private lands

are primarily used for grazing and agriculture, but also include towns,

small-lot residences, and industrial areas.

D. Effect of Critical Habitat Designation

The designation of critical habitat directly affects only Federal

agencies. The Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they

fund, authorize, or carry out do not destroy or adversely modify

critical habitat to the extent that the action appreciably diminishes

the value of the critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the

species. Individuals, organizations, States, local and Tribal

governments, and other non-Federal entities are only affected by the

designation of critical habitat if their actions occur on Federal

lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other

[[Page 69334]]

authorization, or involve Federal funding.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as

endangered or threatened and with respect to its proposed or designated

critical habitat. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation

provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4)

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require Federal agencies to

confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a proposed species or to result in destruction or adverse

modification of proposed critical habitat.

If a species is subsequently listed or critical habitat is

designated, then section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure

that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat. To that end, if a Federal action

may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible

Federal agency must enter into consultation with us. Regulations at 50

CFR 402.16 also require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation in

instances where we have already reviewed an action for its effects on a

listed species if critical habitat is subsequently designated.

Conference on proposed critical habitat results in a report that

may provide conservation recommendations to assist the action agency in

eliminating or minimizing adverse effects to the proposed critical

habitat that may be caused by the proposed agency action. Our

conservation recommendations in a conference report are advisory. If we

subsequently finalize the proposed critical habitat, consultation on

agency actions that may affect the critical habitat will result in a

biological opinion as to whether the proposed action is likely to

destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. If we find the proposed

agency action is likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical

habitat, our biological opinion may also include reasonable and prudent

alternatives to the action that are designed to avoid destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat.

As a result of conferencing on the proposed critical habitat, we

may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal agency.

Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain a

biological opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.13, as if

critical habitat were designated as final. We may adopt the formal

conference report as the biological opinion when the critical habitat

designation is made final, if no significant new information or changes

in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to describe in any proposed

or final regulation that designates critical habitat, a description and

evaluation of those activities involving a Federal action that may

adversely modify such habitat or that may be affected by such

designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical

habitat include those that alter the primary constituent elements

(defined above) to an extent that the value of critical habitat for

both the survival and recovery of the spikedace or loach minnow is

appreciably reduced.

To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we

must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may

affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may

affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded,

authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the

continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely

modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to

``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that

would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and

recovery. Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' critical

habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical

habitat for the survival and recovery of the listed species.

Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on

both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of

these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify

critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species

concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is

occupied by the species concerned. In those cases, critical habitat

provides little additional protection to a species, and the

ramifications of its designation are few or none.

Actions on Federal lands that we reviewed in past consultations on

spikedace and loach minnow include land management plans; land

acquisition and disposal; road and bridge construction, maintenance,

and repair; water diversion and development; reservoir construction;

off-road vehicle use; livestock grazing and management; fencing;

prescribed burning; powerline construction and repair; recovery actions

for spikedace and loach minnow; game fish stocking; timber harvest;

access easements; flood repair and control; groundwater development;

channelization; and canal and other water transport facilities

construction and operation. Federal agencies involved with these

activities include the USFS, BLM, Service, and Bureau of Reclamation.

Federal actions taken on private, State, or tribal lands on which

we consulted in the past for spikedace and loach minnow include

irrigation diversion construction and maintenance; flood repair and

control; game fish stocking; timber harvest; water diversion and

development; reservoir construction; water quality standards; and

riparian habitat restoration. Federal agencies involved with these

activities include the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bureau

of Reclamation, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Indian

Affairs, Indian Health Services, Federal Emergency Management Agency,

and the Service.

Federal actions involving issuance of permits to private parties on

which we consulted in the past for spikedace and loach minnow include

issuance of National Discharge Elimination System permits by the

Environmental Protection Agency and issuance of permits under section

404 of the Clean Water Act for dredging and filling in waterways by the

Army Corps of Engineers. Private actions for which 404 permits were

sought include road and bridge construction, repair and maintenance;

flood control and repair; and water diversion construction and repair.

Since the original listing of spikedace and loach minnow in 1986,

only three consultations ended in a finding that the proposed action

would jeopardize the continued existence of spikedace and/or loach

minnow. An additional four proposed actions received draft findings of

jeopardy, but for three of those, the requests for consultation were

withdrawn and the fourth is still in progress. For the three jeopardy

findings, we included changes to projects and recommended or required

measures to reduce or eliminate impacts to spikedace and loach minnow

and to minimize the potential for take of individuals as follows: Use

of available alternative water sources, water conservation measures,

development of alternative water quality criteria; toxicity studies

with surrogate species; construction and maintenance of barriers to

upstream fish movement; monitoring of fish populations; funding

nonnative species control and listed fish recovery work; and

information and education programs.

[[Page 69335]]

In the many biological opinions we prepared that did not result in

findings of jeopardy to spikedace and loach minnow, we recommended

nonbinding measures to reduce or eliminate impacts to the two species,

plus required measures for the purpose of minimizing the potential for

take of individuals. Both our recommended and required measures

included such things as adjustment in timing of projects to avoid

sensitive periods for the species or their habitats; replanting of

riparian vegetation; minimization of work and vehicle use in the wetted

channel; restriction of riparian and upland vegetation clearing;

fencing to exclude livestock and limit recreational use; use of

alternative livestock management techniques; monitoring of riparian

vegetation, channel morphology, and fish populations; sign

installation; protection of buffer zones; avoidance of pollution;

cooperative planning efforts; minimization of ground disturbance in the

floodplain; use of alternative materials sources; storage of equipment

and staging of operations outside the floodplain; use of block nets to

exclude fish from the work site; use of sediment barriers; removal of

fish from the project area; access restrictions; and use of best

management practices to minimize erosion.

As stated above, designation of critical habitat in areas occupied

by spikedace or loach minnow is not expected to result in regulatory

burden above that already in place due to the presence of the listed

species. However, areas designated as critical habitat that are not

occupied by the species may require protections similar to those

provided to occupied areas under past consultations.

Any activity that would alter the minimum flow or the natural flow

regime of any of the 41 stream segments listed above could destroy or

adversely modify the critical habitat of either or both species. Such

activities include, but are not limited to, groundwater pumping,

impoundment, water diversion, and hydropower generation.

Any activity that would significantly alter watershed

characteristics of any of the 41 stream segments listed above could

destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of either or both

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

manipulation, timber harvest, road construction and maintenance, human-

ignited prescribed and naturally ignited fire, livestock grazing,

mining, and urban and suburban development.

Any activity that would significantly alter the channel morphology

of any of the 41 stream segments listed above could destroy or

adversely modify the critical habitat of either or both species. Such

activities include, but are not limited to, channelization,

impoundment, road and bridge construction, deprivation of substrate

source, destruction and alteration of riparian vegetation, reduction of

available floodplain, removal of gravel or floodplain terrace

materials, and excessive sedimentation from mining, livestock grazing,

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

watershed and floodplain disturbances.

Any activity that would significantly alter the water chemistry in

any of the 41 stream segments listed above could destroy or adversely

modify the critical habitat of either or both species. Such activities

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

pollutants into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point

source or by dispersed release (non-point).

Any activity that would introduce, spread or augment nonnative

aquatic species could destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat

of either or both species. Such activities include, but are not limited

to, stocking for sport, aesthetics, biological control, or other

purposes; use of live bait fish, aquaculture, or dumping of aquarium

fish or other species; construction and operation of canals; and

interbasin water transfers.

In some cases designation of critical habitat may assist in

focusing conservation activities by identifying areas that contain

essential habitat features (primary constituent elements), regardless

of whether they are currently occupied by the listed species. This

identification alerts the public and land management agencies to the

importance of an area in the conservation of that species. Critical

habitat also identifies areas that may require special management

considerations or protection.

If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will

likely constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical

habitat, contact the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services

Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations

on listed wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be

addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered

Species, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505-

248-6920; facsimile 505-248-6788).

Economic Analysis

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical

habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information

available and consider the economic and other relevant impacts of

designating a particular area as critical habitat. We based this

proposal on the best available scientific information, including the

recommendations in the species' recovery plan. We will utilize the

economic analysis, and take into consideration all comments and

information submitted during the public hearing and comment period, to

make a final critical habitat designation. We may exclude areas from

critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such

exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical

habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such

exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We completed a

draft economic analysis, which is available for public review and

comment. Send your requests for copies of the economic analysis to the

Arizona Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Secretarial Order 3206: American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-

Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act

The stated purpose of Secretarial Order 3206 (Secretarial Order) is

to ``clarif(y) the responsibilities of the component agencies, bureaus,

and offices of the Department of the Interior and the Department of

Commerce, when actions taken under authority of the Act and associated

implementing regulations affect, or may affect, Indian lands, tribal

trust resources, or the exercise of American Indian tribal rights.''

The Secretarial Order acknowledges the government-to-government

relationship with tribes, and the trust responsibility and treaty

obligations of the United States toward Indian tribes.

In keeping with the principles cited in the Secretarial Order, we

are committed to assisting Indian tribes in developing and expanding

tribal programs so that healthy ecosystems are promoted and

conservation regulations, such as designation of critical habitat, on

tribal lands are unnecessary (Principle 3). In addition to

affirmatively assisting Indian tribes who wish assistance with

conservation programs, we recognize that tribes are appropriate

governmental entities to manage their lands and tribal trust resources

and support tribal measures that preclude the need for conservation

regulations.

[[Page 69336]]

The Secretarial Order also requires us to consult with Indian

tribes that might be affected by the designation of critical habitat in

an area that might impact tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee

lands, or the exercise of tribal rights. In our deliberations over this

critical habitat proposal, we identified two categories of possible

effects to tribes or tribal resources. These include: (1) effects

resulting from designation of critical habitat on Indian lands; and (2)

effects on tribal resources, such as water deliveries, resulting from

designation of critical habitat on non-tribal lands. We identified the

Indian Reservations of the White Mountain, San Carlos, and Yavapai

Apache Tribes as containing stream reaches that may be appropriate for

designation of critical habitat. Additionally, several tribes,

including the Salt River, Ft. McDowell, and Gila River Indian Tribes,

are located downstream from designated critical habitat and depend on

water deliveries from upstream sources.

Public Law 106-113 and H.R. 3423 prohibit us from using any of our

appropriated funds to implement two provisions of the Secretarial

order: Principle 3(C)(ii) (prohibiting the imposing of conservation

restrictions involving incidental take if the conservation purposes of

the restriction can be achieved by reasonable regulation of non-Indian

activities) and Appendix section 3(B)(4) (regarding designation of

critical habitat, including the requirement that the Service consult

with affected tribes). However, portions of Principle 3(C) unaffected

by Public Law 106-113 and H.R. 3423 require consultation with affected

tribes prior to implementation of any conservation restriction.

Moreover, Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, also requires us

to consult with the tribes [on matters that affect them], and section

4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to gather information regarding the

designation of critical habitat and the effects thereof from all

relevant sources, including the tribes. Therefore, although we will not

consult pursuant to Appendix section 3(B)(4) of the Secretarial Order,

we will consult with the tribes to the extent possible in the time

allowed by the court order pursuant to these other authorities.

1. Designation of Critical Habitat on Indian Reservations

Appendix 3(B)(4) of the Secretarial Order also states: ``Critical

habitat shall not be designated [on tribal lands] unless it is

determined essential to conserve a listed species. In designating

critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document the extent

to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved

by limiting the designation to other lands.'' Again, pursuant to Public

Law 106-113 and H.R. 3423, we may not expend funds to implement these

requirements. However, we must still determine whether all relevant

areas, including tribal lands, in fact qualify as critical habitat

pursuant to Section 3(5) of the Act. With respect to currently occupied

habitat, that provision limits critical habitat to areas ``on which are

found those physical and biological features (I) essential to the

conservation of the species and (II) which may require special

management considerations and protection.'' Moreover, pursuant to

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must determine whether to exclude

particular areas from designation because the benefits of exclusion

outweigh the benefits of including the areas as critical habitat. We

spoke with representatives of the White Mountain Apache, San Carlos

Apache, and Yavapai Apache Tribes, the three tribes which may have

critical habitat for spikedace or loach minnow on their reservations.

However, we do not have information on which to base an assessment of

whether voluntary tribal measures are adequate to achieve conservation

of spikedace and loach minnow on tribal lands. In addition, the short

time allowed by the court to complete this critical habitat designation

precludes us from engaging in a level of consultation with the tribes

on a government-to-government basis, which would enable us to make this

required determination.

Given the above, we are not proposing critical habitat on the Fort

Apache, San Carlos Apache, or Yavapai Apache Indian Reservations at

this time. However, Eagle Creek and the Verde and White Rivers on these

reservations may be critical habitat for the spikedace and loach

minnow. As provided under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are soliciting

information as to whether these areas should be designated as critical

habitat and will be discussing with the tribes whether their voluntary

measures are adequate to conserve these species on tribal lands. We

will consider this information in determining which, if any, tribal

land should be included in the final designation as critical habitat

for spikedace or loach minnow.

2. Effects on Tribal Trust Resources from Critical Habitat Designation

on Non-Tribal Lands

We do not anticipate that proposal of critical habitat on non-

tribal lands will result in any impact on tribal trust resources or the

exercise of tribal rights. However, it is essential in complying with

our responsibilities under the Secretarial Order to communicate with

all tribes potentially affected by the designation. As stated above,

the Salt River, Ft. McDowell, and Gila River Indian Tribes as well as

the White Mountain, San Carlos, and Yavapai Apache Tribes are all

located downstream from proposed critical habitat for the spikedace and

loach minnow. However, many of these tribes either have major

impoundments on their reservations or lie below major impoundments, and

release of water from such impoundments may be regulated by court

decree or other considerations. Therefore, we are soliciting

information during the comment period on potential effects to tribes or

tribal resources that may result from critical habitat designation.

Public Comments Solicited

It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal

will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments

concerning:

(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined

to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including

whether the benefits of excluding areas will outweigh the benefits of

including areas as critical habitat;

(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of

spikedace and loach minnow habitat, and what habitat is essential to

the conservation of the species and why;

(3) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the

subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;

(4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the

proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on

small entities or families; and

(5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical

habitat for the spikedace and the loach minnow, such as those derived

from nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, birding, enhanced

watershed protection, increased soil retention, ``existence values,''

and reductions in administrative costs).

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and

notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to

make this proposed rule easier to understand including answers to

questions such as

[[Page 69337]]

the following: (1) Are the requirements in the document clearly

stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon

that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed

rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing,

etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the proposed

rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble

helpful in understanding the document? (5) What else could we do to

make the proposed rule easier to understand?

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home

addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular

business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold

their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to

the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which

we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity,

as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or

address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your

comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make

all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals

identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations

or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate

and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose

of such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on

scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send

copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the

Federal Register to these peer reviewers. We will invite these peer

reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific

assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of

critical habitat.

We will consider all comments and information received during the

comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this

proposal.

Public Hearings

We have scheduled three public hearings at the following places and

times:

December 15, 1999, from 7:00-9:00 p.m.

1. Eastern Arizona College Activity Center, Lee Little Theater, 1014 N.

College Avenue, Thatcher, Arizona

2. Western New Mexico University, White Hall Auditorium, 1000 College

Street, Silver City, New Mexico

December 16, 1999, from 7:00-9:00 p.m.

Camp Verde Unified Schools, Multi-Use Complex Theater, 280 Camp

Lincoln Road, Camp Verde, Arizona

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule

is a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and Budget

reviewed this document. We prepared a draft economic analysis of this

proposed action to determine the economic consequences of designating

the specific areas as critical habitat. The draft economic analysis is

available for public review and comment during the comment period on

this proposed rule (see ADDRESSES section of this rule). The proposed

rule, if made final, will not significantly impact entitlements,

grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of

their recipients. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy

issues.

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

In the economic analysis, we determined that designation of

critical habitat will not have a significant effect on a substantial

number of small entities.

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

In our economic analysis, we determined that designation of

critical habitat will not cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100

million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers;

individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or

geographic regions, or (c) any significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the

ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based

enterprises.

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

As outlined in our economic analysis, this rule does not impose an

unfundated mandate on State, local or tribal governments or the private

sector of more than $100 million or greater in any year. The proposed

rule, if made final, does not have a significant or unique effect on

State local or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement

containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have

significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment

is not required. This proposed rule, if made final, will not ``take''

private property. However, we will evaluate whether the value of

private property is altered by it being designated as critical habitat

on a case by case basis. Critical habitat designation is only

applicable to Federal lands and to private lands if a Federal nexus

exists. We do not designate private lands as critical habitat unless

the areas are essential to the conservation of a species.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule, if

made final, will not affect the structure or role of States, and will

not have direct, substantial, or significant effects on States. As

previously stated, critical habitat is applicable to Federal lands and

to non-Federal lands only when a Federal nexus exists.

In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of

Commerce policy, the Service requested information from and coordinated

development of this critical habitat proposal with appropriate State

resource agencies in Arizona and New Mexico, as well as during the

listing process. In addition, both States have representatives on our

recovery team for this species. We will continue to coordinate any

future designation of critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow

with the appropriate State agencies.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the

Interior's Office of the Solicitor determined that this rule does not

unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The Office of the Solicitor

will review the final determination for this proposal. We will make

every effort to ensure that the final determination contains no

drafting errors, provides clear standards, simplifies procedures,

reduces burden, and is clearly written such that litigation risk is

minimized.

[[Page 69338]]

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

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements

for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act is required.

National Environmental Policy Act

It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need

to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection

with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this

determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR

49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit

(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert.

denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). However, when the range of the species

includes States within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of the spikedace

and loach minnow, pursuant to the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County

Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429

(10th Cir. 1996), we undertake a NEPA analysis for critical habitat

designation. Send your requests for copies of the draft environmental

assessment for this proposal to the Arizona Ecological Services Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is

available upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this notice is Paul J. Barrett (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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. 17.11(h), by revising the entry for ``minnow, loach''

and ``spikedace'' under ``FISHES'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species Vertebrate

-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special

Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

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

* * * * * * * *

FISHES

* * * * * * * *

Minnow, loach.................... Tiaroga (= U.S.A. (AZ, NM), entire............. T 247 Sec. 17.95 NA

Rhinichthys) Mexico. (e)

cobitis.

* * * * * * * *

Spikedace........................ Meda fulgida........ U.S.A. (AZ, NM), entire............. T 236 Sec. 17.95 NA

Mexico. (e)

* * * * * * * *

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

3. Amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat for the spikedace

(Meda fulgida) in the same alphabetical order as this species occurs in

Sec. 17.11(h).

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(e) Fishes.

* * * * *

SPIKEDACE (Meda fulgida)

1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Apache, Cochise,

Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties,

Arizona, and Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties, New Mexico, on the

maps and as described below.

2. Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the

identified stream reaches indicated on the maps below and areas

within these reaches potentially inundated by high flow events.

3. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include,

but are not limited to, those habitat components that are essential

for the primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, and

reproduction. These elements include the following: (1) Permanent,

flowing, unpolluted water; (2) living areas for adult spikedace with

slow to swift flow velocities in shallow water 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; (3) living areas for juveniles with slow to moderate

water velocities in shallow water with moderate amounts of instream

cover; (4) living areas for the larval stage with slow to moderate

flow velocities in shallow water with abundant instream cover; (5)

sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts of

fine sediment and substrate embeddedness; (6) pool, riffle, run, and

backwater components of the streams; (7) low stream gradient; (8)

water temperatures in the approximate range of 1-30 deg.C (35-85

deg.F) with natural diurnal and seasonal variation; (9) abundant

aquatic insect food base; (10) periodic natural flooding; (11) a

natural, unregulated hydrograph, or if flows are modified or

regulated, then a hydrograph that demonstrates an ability to support

a native fish community; and (12) few or no predatory or competitive

nonnative species present.

4. Arizona (Gila and Salt River Meridian (GSRM) and New Mexico

(New Mexico Principal Meridian (NMPM)): Areas of land and water as

follows (physical features were identified using USGS 7.5'

quadrangle maps; river reach distances were derived from digital

data obtained from Arizona Land Resources Information System (ALRIS)

and New Mexico Resource Geographic Information System (RGIS)):

[[Page 69339]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.006

[[Page 69340]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.007

SPIKEDACE (Meda fulgida)

Complex 1. Yavapai County, Arizona

a. Verde River for approximately 171.3 km (106.5 mi), extending

from the confluence with Fossil Creek in GSRM, T.11N., R.6E., NE1/4

Sec. 25 upstream to Sullivan Dam in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., NW1/4 Sec.

15.

b. Fossil Creek for approximately 7.6 km (4.7 mi), extending

from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.11.N., R.6E.,

NE1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary

from the northwest in GSRM, T.11 1/2N., R.7E., center Sec. 29.

c. West Clear Creek for approximately 11.6 km (7.2 mi),

extending from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.13N.,

R.5E., center Sec. 21, upstream to the confluence with Black

Mountain Canyon in GSRM, T.13N., R.6E., SE1/4 Sec. 17.

d. Beaver Creek/Wet Beaver Creek for approximately 33.4 km (20.8

mi), extending from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM,

T.14N., R.5E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with Casner

Canyon in GSRM, T.15N., R.6E., NW1/4 Sec. 23.

e. Oak Creek for approximately 54.4 km (33.8 mi), extending from

the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.15N., R.4E., SE1/4

Sec. 20 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary from

the south in GSRM, T.17N., R.5E., SE1/4, NE1/4 Sec. 24.

f. Granite Creek for approximately 2.3 km (1.4 mi), extending

from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W.,

NE1/4 Sec. 14 upstream to a spring in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., SW1/4,

SW1/4, Sec. 13.

[[Page 69341]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.008

Complex 2. Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona

a. East Fork Black River for approximately 8.2 km (5.1 mi),

extending from the confluence with the West Fork Black River in

GSRM, T.4N., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream to the confluence with

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

b. North Fork of the East Fork Black River for approximately

11.6 km (7.2 mi), extending from the confluence of the East Fork

Black River and Deer Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30

upstream to the confluence with Boneyard Creek in GSRM, T5N, R29E,

SW1/4 Sec. 5.

c. West Fork Black River for approximately 10.3 km (6.4 mi),

extending from the confluence with the East Fork Black River in

GSRM, T.4N, R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream to the confluence with

Hay Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.28E., SE1/4, Sec. 19.

[[Page 69342]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.009

Complex 3. Gila County, Arizona

a. Tonto Creek for approximately 47.0 km (29.2 mi), extending

from the confluence with Greenback Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E.,

NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with Houston Creek in GSRM,

T.9N., R.11E., NE1/4, Sec. 18.

b. Greenback Creek for approximately 13.5 km (8.4 mi), extending

from the confluence with Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E., NW1/4

Sec. 8 upstream to Lime Springs in GSRM, T.6N., R.12E., SW1/4 Sec.

20.

c. Rye Creek for approximately 2.1 km (1.3 mi), extending from

the confluence with Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/4 Sec.

24 upstream to the confluence with Brady Canyon in GSRM, T.8N.,

R.10E., NE1/4 Sec. 14.

[[Page 69343]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.010

Complex 4. Graham and Pinal Counties, Arizona

a. Gila River for approximately 62.8 km (39.0 mi), extending

from Ashurst-Hayden Dam in GSRM, T.4S., R.11E., NW1/4 Sec. 8

upstream to the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.5S.,

R.15E., center Sec. 23.

b. San Pedro River for approximately 21.4 km (13.3 mi),

extending from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.5S.,

R.15E., center Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence with Aravaipa

Creek in GSRM, T.7S., R.16E., center Sec. 9.

c. Aravaipa Creek for approximately 45.3 km (28.1 mi), extending

from the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.7S., R.16E.,

center Sec. 9 upstream to the confluence with Stowe Gulch in GSRM,

T.6S., R.19E., SE1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec. 35.

[[Page 69344]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.011

[[Page 69345]]

Complex 5. Cochise, Graham, and Pima Counties, Arizona.

a. San Pedro River for approximately 73.6 km (45.8 mi),

extending from the confluence with Alder Wash in GSRM, T.10S.,

R.18E., SW1/4 Sec.22 upstream to the confluence with Ash Creek in

GSRM, T.16S., R.20E., SE1/4 Sec. 6.

b. Redfield Canyon for approximately 22.3 km (13.9 mi),

extending from the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM,

T.11S., R.18E., SW1/4 Sec. 34 upstream to the confluence with

Sycamore Canyon in GSRM, T.11S., R.20E., NW1/4 Sec. 28.

c. Hot Springs Canyon for approximately 19.1 km (11.8 mi),

extending from the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM,

T.13S., R.19E., west center Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence with

Bass Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., NE1/4 Sec. 36.

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

the confluence with Hot Springs Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., NE1/

4 Sec. upstream to the confluence with Pine Canyon in GSRM, T.12S.,

R.21E., center Sec. 20.

e. San Pedro River for approximately 60.0 km (37.2 mi),

extending from the confluence with the Babocomari River in the San

Juan de las Boquillas y Nogales land grant upstream to the U.S.

border with Mexico in GSRM, T.24S., R.22E., Sec. 19.

[[Page 69346]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.012

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

Mexico

a. Gila River for approximately 36.3 km (22.6 mi), extending

from the Brown Canal diversion at the head of the Safford Valley in

GSRM, T.6S., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with

Owl Canyon in GSRM, T.5S., R.30E., SW1/4 Sec. 30.

b. Bonita Creek for approximately 23.5 km (14.6 mi), extending

from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.6S., R.28E.,

SE1/4 Sec. upstream to the confluence with Martinez Wash in GSRM,

T.4S., R.27E., SE1/4 Sec.27.

c. Eagle Creek for approximately 72.8 km (45.2 mi), extending

from the Phelps-Dodge diversion dam in GSRM, T.4S., R.28E., NW1/4

Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence of Dry Prong and East Eagle

Creeks in GSRM, T.2N., R.28E., SW1/4 Sec. 20; but excluding lands of

the San Carlos Apache Reservation.

d. San Francisco River for approximately 181.5 km (118.2 mi),

extending from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.5S.,

R.29E., SE1/4 Sec. 21 upstream to the confluence with the Tularosa

River in the NMPM, T.7S., R.19W., SW1/4 Sec. 23.

e. Blue River for approximately 81.9 km (51.0 mi), extending

from the confluence with the San Francisco River in GSRM, T.2S.,

R.31E., SE1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of Campbell and Dry

Blue Creeks in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6.

f. Campbell Blue Creek for approximately 13.1 km (8.2 mi),

extending from the confluence with Dry Blue Creek in NMPM, T.7S.,

R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6 upstream to the confluence with Coleman Creek

in GSRM, T.4 1/2 N., R.31E., SW1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec. 32.

g. Little Blue Creek for approximately 4.5 km (2.8 mi),

extending from the confluence with the Blue River in GSRM, T.1S.,

R.31E., center Sec. upstream to the mouth of a box canyon in GSRM,

T.1N., R.31E., NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 29.

[[Page 69347]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.013

Complex 7. Grant and Catron Counties, New Mexico.

a. Gila River for approximately 164.4 km (102.2 mi), extending

from the confluence with Moore Canyon in NMPM, T.18S., R.21W., SE1/4

SW1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of the East and West Forks

of the Gila River in NMPM, T.13S., T.13W., center Sec. 8.

b. East Fork Gila River for approximately 42.1 km (26.1 mi),

extending from the confluence with the West Fork Gila River in NMPM,

T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence of Beaver

and Taylor Creeks in NMPM, T.11S., R.12W., NE1/4 Sec. 17.

c. Middle Fork Gila River for approximately 12.3 km (7.7 mi),

extending from the confluence with the West Fork Gila River in NMPM,

T.12S., R.14W., SW1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with Big

Bear Canyon in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., NW1/4 Sec. 2.

d. West Fork Gila River for approximately 12.4 km (7.7 mi),

extending from the confluence with the East Fork Gila River in NMPM,

T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with EE

Canyon in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., east boundary of Sec. 21.

* * * * *

4. Amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat for the loach

minnow (Tiaroga (=Rhinichthys) cobitis) in the same alphabetical

order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11(h):

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(e) Fishes.

* * * * *

LOACH MINNOW (Tiaroga (=Rhinichthys) cobitis)

1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Apache, Cochise,

Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona,

and Catron and Grant Counties, New Mexico on the maps and as

described below.

2. Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the

identified stream reaches indicated on the maps below and areas

within these reaches potentially inundated by high flow events.

[[Page 69348]]

3. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include,

but are not limited to, those habitat components that are essential

for the primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, and

reproduction. These elements include the following: (1) Permanent

flowing, unpolluted water; (2) living areas for adults with moderate

to swift flow velocities in shallow water with gravel, cobble, and

rubble substrates; (3) living areas for juveniles with moderate to

swift flow velocities in shallow water with sand, gravel, cobble,

and rubble substrates; (4) living areas for larval loach minnow with

slow to moderate velocities in shallow water with sand, gravel, and

cobble substrates and abundant instream cover; (5) spawning areas

with slow to swift flow velocities in shallow water with uncemented

cobble and rubble substrate; (6) low amounts of fine sediment and

substrate embeddedness; (7) riffle, run, and backwater components

present in the aquatic habitat; (8) low to moderate stream gradient;

(9) water temperatures in the approximate range of 1-30 deg.C (35-

85 deg.F) with natural diurnal and seasonal variation; (10) abundant

aquatic insect food base; (11) periodic natural flooding; (12) a

natural, unregulated hydrograph, or if flows are modified or

regulated, then a hydrograph that demonstrates a retained ability to

support a native fish community; and (13) few or no predatory or

competitive nonnative species present.

4. Arizona (Gila and Salt River Meridian (GSRM)) and New Mexico

(New Mexico Principal Meridian (NMPM)): Areas of land and water as

follows (physical features were identified using USGS 7.5'

quadrangle maps; river reach distances were derived from digital

data obtained from Arizona Land Resources Information System (ALRIS)

and New Mexico Resource Geographic Information System (RGIS)):

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.015

[[Page 69349]]

LOACH MINNOW (Tiaroga (=Rhinichthys) cobitis)

Complex 1. Yavapai County, Arizona

a. Verde River for approximately 171.3 km (106.5 mi), extending

from the confluence with Fossil Creek in GSRM, T.11N., R.6E., NE1/4

Sec. 25 upstream to Sullivan Dam in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., NW1/4 Sec.

15.

b. Fossil Creek for approximately 7.6 km (4.7 mi), extending

from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.11N., R.6E.,

NE1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary

from the northwest in GSRM, T.11 1/2N., R.7E., center Sec. 29.

c. West Clear Creek for approximately 11.6 km (7.2 mi),

extending from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.13N.,

R.5E., center Sec. 21, upstream to the confluence with Black

Mountain Canyon in GSRM, T.13N., R.6E., SE1/4 Sec. 17.

d. Beaver Creek/Wet Beaver Creek for approximately 33.4 km

(20.8mi), extending from the confluence with the Verde River in

GSRM, T.14N., R.5E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with

Casner Canyon in GSRM, T.15N., R.6E., NW1/4 Sec. 23.

e. Oak Creek for approximately 54.4 km (33.8 mi), extending from

the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.15N., R.4E., SE1/4

Sec. 20 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary from

the south in GSRM, T.17N., R.5E., SE1/4, NE1/4 Sec. 24.

f. Granite Creek for approximately 2.3 km (1.4 mi), extending

from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W.,

NE1/4 Sec. 14 upstream to a spring in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., SW1/4,

SW1/4, Sec. 13.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.016

Complex 2. Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona

a. East Fork Black River for approximately 8.2 km (5.1 mi),

extending from the confluence with the West Fork Black River in

GSRM, T.4N., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream to the confluence with

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

b. North Fork of the East Fork Black River for approximately

18.0 km (11.2 mi), extending from the confluence of the East Fork

Black River and Deer Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30

upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary flowing from

the east in GSRM, T.6N., R.29E., center Sec. 30.

c. Boneyard Creek for approximately 2.3 km (1.4 mi), extending

from the confluence with the North Fork of the East Fork Black River

in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., SW1/4 Sec. 5 upstream to the confluence with

an unnamed tributary flowing from the east near Clabber City in

GSRM, T.6N., R.29E., SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 32.

[[Page 69350]]

d. Coyote Creek for approximately 3.1 km (2.0 mi), extending

from the confluence with the North Fork of the East Fork Black River

in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., NE1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with

an unnamed tributary flowing from the south in GSRM, T.5N., R.19E.,

NW1/4 Sec. 10.

e. West Fork Black River for approximately 10.3 km (6.4 mi),

extending from the confluence with the East Fork Black River in

GSRM, T.4N., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream to the confluence with

Hay Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.28E., SE1/4, Sec. 19.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.017

Complex 3. Gila County, Arizona

a. Tonto Creek for approximately 70.3 km (43.7 mi), extending

from the confluence with Greenback Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E.,

NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with Haigler Creek in GSRM,

T.10N., R.12E., NW1/4, Sec. 14.

b. Greenback Creek for approximately 13.5 km (8.4 mi), extending

from the confluence with Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E., NW1/4

Sec. 8 upstream to Lime Springs in GSRM, T.6N., R.12E., SW1/4 Sec.

20.

c. Rye Creek for approximately 2.1 km (1.3 mi), extending from

the confluence with Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/4 Sec.

24 upstream to the confluence with Brady Canyon in GSRM, T.8N.,

R.10E., NE1/4 Sec. 14.

[[Page 69351]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.018

Complex 4. Graham and Pinal Counties, Arizona

a. Gila River for approximately 62.8 km (39.0 mi), extending

from Ashurst-Hayden Dam in GSRM, T.4S., R.11E., NW1/4 Sec. 8

upstream to the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.5S.,

R.15E., center Sec. 23.

b. San Pedro River for approximately 21.4 km (13.3 mi),

extending from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.5S.,

R.15E., center Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence with Aravaipa

Creek in GSRM, T.7S., R.16E., center Sec. 9.

c. Aravaipa Creek for approximately 45.3 km (28.1 mi), extending

from the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.7S., R.16E.,

center Sec. 9 upstream to the confluence with Stowe Gulch in GSRM,

T.6S., R.19E., SE1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec. 35.

d. Turkey Creek for approximately 4.3 km (2.7 mi), extending

from the confluence with Aravaipa Creek in GSRM, T.6S., R.19E.,

center Sec. 19 upstream to the confluence with Oak Grove Canyon in

GSRM, T.6S., R.19E., SW1/4 Sec. 32.

f. Deer Creek for approximately 3.6 km (2.3 mi), extending from

the confluence with Aravaipa Creek in GSRM, T.6S., R.18E., SE1/4 of

the SE1/4 Sec. 14 upstream to the boundary of the Aravaipa

Wilderness at GSRM, T.6S., R.18E., east boundary Sec. 13.

[[Page 69352]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.019

Complex 5. Cochise, Graham, and Pima Counties, Arizona

a. San Pedro River for approximately 73.6 km (45.8 mi),

extending from the confluence with Alder Wash in GSRM, T.10S.,

R.18E., SW1/4 Sec. 22 upstream to the confluence with Ash Creek in

GSRM, T.16S., R.20E., SE1/4 Sec. 6.

b. Redfield Canyon for approximately 22.3 km (13.9 mi),

extending from the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM,

T.11S., R.18E., SW1/4 Sec. 34 upstream to the confluence with

Sycamore Canyon in GSRM, T.11S., R.20E., NW1/4 Sec. 28.

c. Hot Springs Canyon for approximately 19.1 km (11.8 mi),

extending from the confluence with the San Pedro River in

[[Page 69353]]

GSRM, T.13S., R.19E., west center Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence

with Bass Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., NE1/4 Sec. 36.

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

the confluence with Hot Springs Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., NE1/

4 Sec. upstream to the confluence with Pine Canyon in GSRM, T.12S.,

R.21E., center Sec. 20.

e. San Pedro River for approximately 60.0 km (37.2 mi),

extending from the confluence with the Babocomari River in the San

Juan de las Boquillas y Nogales land grant upstream to the U.S.

border with Mexico in GSRM, T.24S., R.22E., Sec. 19.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.020

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

Mexico

a. Gila River for approximately 36.3 km (22.6 mi), extending

from the Brown Canal diversion at the head of the Safford Valley in

GSRM, T.6S., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with

Owl Canyon in GSRM, T.5S., R.30E., SW1/4 Sec. 30.

b. Bonita Creek for approximately 23.5 km (14.6 mi), extending

from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.6S., R.28E., SE1/

4 Sec. upstream to the confluence with

[[Page 69354]]

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

c. Eagle Creek for approximately 72.8 km (45.2 mi), extending

from the Phelps-Dodge diversion dam in GSRM, T.4S., R.28E., NW1/ 4

Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence of Dry Prong and East Eagle

Creeks in GSRM, T.2N., R.28E., SW1/4 Sec. 20; but excluding lands

of the San Carlos Apache Reservation.

d. San Francisco River for approximately 203.3 km (126.3 mi),

extending from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.5S.,

R.29E., SE1/4 Sec. 21 upstream to the mouth of The Box canyon in

NMPM, T.6S., R.19W., SW1/4 of the NW1/4 Sec. 2.

e. Tularosa River for approximately 30.0 km (18.6 mi), extending

from the confluence with the San Francisco River in NMPM, T.7S.,

R.19W., SW1/4 Sec. 23 upstream to NMPM, T.6S., R.18W, south boundary

Sec. 1.

f. Negrito Creek for approximately 6.8 km (4.2 mi), extending

from the confluence with the Tularosa River in NMPM, T.7S., R.18W.,

SW1/4 of the NW1/4 Sec. 19 upstream to the confluence with Cerco

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

g. Whitewater Creek for approximately 1.8 km (1.2 mi), extending

from the confluence with the San Francisco River in NMPM, T.11S.,

R.20W., SE1/4 Sec. 27 upstream to the confluence with Little

Whitewater Creek in NMPM, T.11S., R.20W., SE1/4 Sec. 23.

h. Blue River for approximately 81.9 km (51.0 mi), extending

from the confluence with the San Francisco River in GSRM, T.2S.,

R.31E., SE1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of Campbell and Dry

Blue Creeks in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6.

i. Campbell Blue Creek for approximately 13.1 km (8.2 mi),

extending from the confluence with Dry Blue Creek in NMPM, T.7S.,

R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6 upstream to the confluence with Coleman Creek

in GSRM, T.4 1/2 N., R.31E., SW1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec. 32.

j. Dry Blue Creek for approximately 4.7 km (3.0 mi), extending

from the confluence with Campbell Blue Creek in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W.,

SE1/4 Sec. 6 upstream to the confluence with Pace Creek in NMPM,

T.6S., R.21W., SW1/4 Sec.

k. Pace Creek for approximately 1.2 km (0.8 mi), extending from

the confluence with Dry Blue Creek in NMPM, T.6S., R.21W., SW1/4

Sec. 28 upstream to the barrier falls in NMPM, T.6S., R.21W., SE1/4

Sec. 29.

l. Frieborn Creek for approximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi), extending

from the confluence with Dry Blue Creek in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., SW1/

4 NW1/4 Sec. 5 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary

flowing from the south in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 8.

m. Little Blue Creek for approximately 4.5 km (2.8 mi),

extending from the confluence with the Blue River in GSRM, T.1S.,

R.31E., center Sec. upstream to the mouth of a box canyon in GSRM,

T.1N., R.31E., NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 29.

[[Page 69355]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.021

Complex 7. Grant and Catron Counties, New Mexico

a. Gila River for approximately 164.4 km (102.2 mi), extending

from the confluence with Moore Canyon in NMPM, T.18S., R.21W., SE1/4

SW1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of the East and West Forks

of the Gila River in NMPM, T.13S., T.13W., center Sec. 8.

b. East Fork Gila River for approximately 42.1 km (26.1 mi),

extending from the confluence with the West Fork Gila River in NMPM,

T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence of Beaver

and Taylor Creeks in NMPM, T.11S., R.12W., NE1/4 Sec. 17.

c. Middle Fork Gila River for approximately 19.1 km (11.8 mi),

extending from the confluence with the West Fork Gila River in NMPM,

T.12S., R.14W., SW1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with

Brothers West Canyon in NMPM, T.11S., R.14W., NE1/4 Sec. 33.

d. West Fork Gila River for approximately 12.4 km (7.7 mi),

extending from the confluence with the East Fork Gila River in NMPM,

T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with EE

Canyon in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., east boundary of Sec. 21.

Dated: November 30, 1999.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 99-32019 Filed 12-7-99; 10:20 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P