[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 25, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24328-24372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10202]



[[Page 24327]]

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

Part V





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 24328]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF76


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
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).
    We are designating occupied and unoccupied habitat that is 
essential for the recovery of these two species. We are designating as 
critical habitat a total of approximately 1,448 kilometers (km) (898 
miles (mi)) of rivers and creeks for the two species. All of the total 
area is designated as critical habitat for the loach minnow, and 
approximately 1,302 km (807 mi) of that area is also designated as 
critical habitat for the spikedace. 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. Critical habitat includes 
the stream channels within the identified stream reaches and areas 
within these reaches potentially inundated by high flow events. These 
habitat areas provide for the physiological, behavioral, and ecological 
features (primary constituent elements) essential for the conservation 
of the spikedace and the loach minnow. Federal agencies proposing, 
authorizing, or funding 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: The effective date of this rule is May 25, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the complete file for this rule at the 
Arizona Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, by 
appointment, during normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Barrett, 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 and 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 466 km (289 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; Bestgen, 1985; Bettaso et al. 1995; Jakle 
1992; Marsh et al. 1990; Propst et al. 1985; Propst et al. 1986; 
Stefferud and Rinne 1996; Sublette et al. 1990). 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 and strongly blotched with 
darker pigment. The mouth is oblique (slanting) and terminal, and the 
eyes are markedly directed upward (Minckley 1973). This species is 
found in small to large perennial streams, and uses shallow, turbulent 
riffles with primarily cobble substrate and swift currents (Minckley 
1973; Propst and Bestgen 1991; Rinne 1989; Propst et al. 1988). The 
loach minnow uses the spaces between, and in the lee of (sheltered 
side), 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 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 676 km (419 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

[[Page 24329]]

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 the 
critical habitat designations 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., 1994), aff'd, 75 
F3d, 1429 (10th Cir. 1996). 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 (recognition given by the courts of one state or 
jurisdiction of the laws and judicial decisions of another) 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. On October 6, 1999, the court amended the September 20, 1999 
order to require us to make a critical habitat determination rather 
than requiring actual designation. We published our proposed rule to 
designate critical habitat in the Federal Register on December 10, 1999 
(64 FR 69324).
    On December 22, 1999, the court extended the deadline to complete 
our determination until April 21, 2000. Information regarding public 
notifications on the extension and hearing are given in the Summary of 
Comments and Recommendations section later in this rule.
    We completed final recovery plans for spikedace and loach minnow in 
1991 (Service 1991a, 1991b). We developed those plans with the 
assistance of the Desert Fishes Recovery Team and other biologists 
familiar with the species. This 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 may 
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 discussion of our analysis under 4(b)(2) 
of the Act is provided in the Exclusion for Economic and Other Relevant 
Impacts section of this final rule.

Critical Habitat Designation

    In designating critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow, we 
reviewed the overall approach to the conservation of the species since 
the species' listing in 1986. Additionally, we solicited information 
from knowledgeable biologists and recommendations from the Desert 
Fishes Recovery Team. We also

[[Page 24330]]

reviewed the available information pertaining to habitat requirements 
of the two species, including public comments and other material 
received during critical habitat proposals and previous designations.
    We also considered the measures identified as necessary for 
recovery, as outlined in the species' recovery plans. 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 recommend designation of critical habitat for 
all stream reaches proposed as critical habitat in 1985, plus 
consideration of additional stream reaches. Except for Eagle Creek, the 
recovery plans do not identify the specific stream reaches to be 
considered for critical habitat designation due to the lack of 
information available at that time to support such identifications. 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 the 
Gila, Verde, San Pedro, San Francisco, Blue, Tularosa, and White 
Rivers.
    The designated 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 designated 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 designated 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, are 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 designated as critical habitat are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Important factors we considered in selecting areas designated in 
this rule include specific geographic area or complex of areas factors, 
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. We designated 
critical habitat 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 so that 
recovery of these species is possible.
    The ability of the fish to repopulate areas where they are depleted 
or extirpated is vital to recovery. Each complex contains 
interconnected waters so that spikedace and loach minnow can move 
between areas, at least during certain flows or seasons. Some complexes 
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. Each complex includes habitat with a moderate to 
high degree of complexity, thus providing suitable habitat for all life 
stages of spikedace and loach minnow under a wide range of habitat 
fluctuations.
    The areas we selected for critical habitat designation include 
populations 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 American Indian Tribal 
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered 
Species Act later in this rule). Areas selected for critical habitat 
designation include a representation of each major subbasin in the 
historical ranges of the species.
    The 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. However, based on the best available scientific 
information, we believe the areas included in this designation will be 
sufficient to conserve both species.
    In order to provide for genetic variability for the loach minnow, 
the 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, designated 
critical habitat includes currently unoccupied areas that have the 
potential and are important 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 designated 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 danger of extinction, and their status is 
declining. In 1994, we determined 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. It is essential to protect all designated occupied areas 
as well as designated unoccupied areas that will provide habitat for 
reestablishment of the two species.
    Both of the 1986 listing rules for spikedace and loach minnow 
conservatively estimated about 2,600 km (1,600 mi) of stream within the

[[Page 24331]]

species' historical ranges. Using newer techniques, a more current 
estimate is approximately 3,000 km (1,800 mi). This critical habitat 
designation includes approximately half that amount for loach minnow 
and less than half for spikedace. Although this is less than the 
historical ranges for both species, we believe that maintenance of 
viable spikedace and loach minnow populations within the designated 
areas can achieve recovery of these species.
    For each stream reach designated, the up-and downstream-boundaries 
are described below. Critical habitat includes the stream channels 
within the identified stream reaches and areas within these reaches 
potentially inundated during high flow events. Where delineated, this 
will be the 100-year floodplain of the designated waterways as defined 
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). In areas where the 100-year 
floodplain has not been delineated or it is in dispute, the presence of 
alluvial soils (soils deposited by streams), obligate and facultative 
riparian vegetation (requiring and usually occurring in wetlands, 
respectively), abandoned river channels, or known high water marks can 
be used to determine the extent of the floodplain. 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 
provide space for natural flooding patterns and latitude for necessary 
natural channel adjustments to maintain appropriate channel morphology 
and geometry, provide nutrient input and buffering from sediment and 
pollutants, store water for slow release to maintain base flows, and 
provide protected side channels and other protected areas for larval 
and juvenile spikedace and loach minnow.
    Within the delineated critical habitat boundaries, only lands 
containing, or which have the potential to develop, those habitat 
components that are essential for the primary biological needs of the 
species are considered critical habitat. Existing human-constructed 
features and structures within this area, such as buildings, roads, 
railroads, and other features, do not contain, and do not have the 
potential to develop, those habitat components and are not considered 
critical habitat.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the following areas are designated as 
critical habitat for both spikedace and loach minnow (see the 
Regulation Promulgation section of this rule for exact descriptions of 
boundaries). The designation includes portions of 24 and 36 streams for 
spikedace and loach minnow, respectively; however, individual streams 
are not isolated, but are connected with others to form areas or 
``complexes.'' The complexes include those that currently support 
populations of the fishes, as well as some currently unoccupied by the 
species, but which are considered essential for reestablishing 
populations 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 
complex is currently occupied by spikedace. Its tributary streams are 
believed to be currently unoccupied by either species. 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. 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 has a larger flow and was 
thought at the time of the proposal to offer little suitable habitat 
for spikedace or loach minnow. However, this is historical range for 
both species and comments from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) indicate 
this stretch of the river may offer substantial value for spikedace and 
loach minnow recovery. We will seek further information regarding the 
role of this portion of the Verde River for the species and may 
consider its designation in future potential revisions of the critical 
habitat.
    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 and loach minnow habitat at present, except sufficient 
discharge. Discharge is currently diverted for hydropower generation at 
the Childs/Irving Hydropower site. However, operators of the Childs/
Irving Hydropower project have agreed to 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 the spikedace and contains suitable, although 
degraded, habitat for the fishes. Gradient and channel morphology 
changes above Black Mountain Canyon make the upstream area unsuitable 
for either species.
    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 loach minnow and contains 
suitable, although degraded, habitat. Above Casner Canyon, gradient and 
channel morphology changes make the stream unsuitable for either 
species.
    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 the two species 
and contains suitable, although degraded, habitat. Above the unnamed 
tributary, the creek becomes unsuitable for either species 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. 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. In 
response to comments received on the suitability of this complex, we 
have not designated any areas within the complex as critical habitat 
for spikedace. The basis for this deletion from the proposed rule is 
biological, given that spikedace are not known to historically occupy 
areas at this elevation. However, the data on maximum elevation for 
spikedace are

[[Page 24332]]

not definitive and if information becomes available that differs from 
that currently available, the Black River complex may be reevaluated 
for spikedace critical habitat designation. 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.
    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--Loach minnow only: 8 km (5 mi) of river 
extending from the confluence with the West Fork Black River upstream 
to the confluence with Deer Creek. This area is occupied by loach 
minnow, although the downstream extent of the population is not well 
known. This population was only discovered in 1996.
    b. North Fork of the East Fork Black River--Loach minnow only: 18 
km (11 mi) of river extending from the confluence with Deer Creek 
upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary. This area is 
occupied by loach minnow, although the upstream portion of the 
population is not well known. Above the unnamed tributary, the river 
has finer substrate and lacks riffle habitat, making it unsuitable for 
loach minnow.
    c. Beyond Creek--Loach minnow only: 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--Loach minnow only: 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--Loach minnow only: 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.
    3. Tonto Creek complex, Gila County, Arizona. Spikedace are known 
to have occupied Tonto Creek, and loach minnow are presumed to have 
done so although no records exist. 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 spikedace and loach minnow in 
the Salt River subbasin.
    a. Tonto Creek--
    Spikedace: 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 these reaches unsuitable 
for spikedace.
    Loach minnow: 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--(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 and loach minnow 
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 some of the best and most protected spikedace and loach minnow 
populations due to special use designations on Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) land, substantial ownership by The Nature Conservancy, 
and 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 
these 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 either species. Below 
the confluence, the input of the San Pedro provides a sufficiently 
unregulated hydrograph which is a primary constituent element of loach 
minnow and spikedace critical habitat.
    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. It provides 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 
spikedace and loach minnow. Stowe Gulch is the upstream limit of 
sufficient perennial flow for either species.
    d. Turkey Creek--Loach minnow only: 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--Loach minnow only: 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 spikedace or loach minnow. However, the San Pedro River is 
the type locality of spikedace (locality where an individual of a new 
species is found that is chosen to serve as the basis for describing a 
new species or variety), and this complex contains important 
restoration areas.

[[Page 24333]]

    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 is 
expected to have increasing surface flow due to restoration activities, 
including riparian and channel restoration, watershed improvements, and 
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, permanent 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 and 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 
(1993) planning documents as a restoration area for spikedace and loach 
minnow.
    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.
    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 
are the longest stretch of occupied loach minnow habitat unbroken by 
large areas of unsuitable habitat. Management of Federal lands and 
resources in the Gila Box, Bonita Creek, and the Blue River are highly 
compatible with recovery goals, giving restoration of spikedace and 
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 not known to currently support spikedace, but is considered to 
have a high potential for restoration of both species. Both above and 
below the Gila Box, the Gila River is highly modified by agriculture, 
diversions, and urban development.
    b. Bonita Creek--24 km (15 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with Martinez 
Wash. Bonita Creek has suitable habitat for spikedace and loach minnow. 
Bonita Creek above Martinez Wash lies on the San Carlos Apache 
Reservation, which is excluded from this designation.
    c. Eagle Creek--73 km (45 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 lands into the 
San Carlos Apache Reservation and back, it is difficult to separately 
calculate stream mileages 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; however comments 
received on the proposed rule suggest the stretch of Eagle Creek below 
the dam may offer sufficient connective value and habitat value to 
justify its inclusion in critical habitat. This area may be considered 
for critical habitat in future revisions of this designation.
    d. San Francisco River--
    Spikedace: 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 habitat for restoration of the species.
    Loach minnow: 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.
    e. Tularosa River--Loach minnow only: 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 
due to the small size of the stream and a predominance of fine 
substrates.
    f. Negrito Creek--Loach minnow only: 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--Loach minnow only: 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. The Blue River is currently occupied by loach 
minnow but 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.
    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 spikedace or 
loach minnow.
    j. Dry Blue Creek--Loach minnow only: 5 km (3 mi) of creek 
extending from the confluence with Campbell Blue Creek upstream to the 
confluence with Pace Creek.
    k. Pace Creek--Loach minnow only: 1.2 km (0.8 mi) of creek 
extending from the confluence with Dry Blue Creek upstream to a barrier 
falls.
    l. Frieborn Creek--Loach minnow only: 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 spikedace or loach 
minnow, but contains suitable habitat and is considered an important 
restoration area for both species.
    7. Upper Gila River complex, Grant, Catron, and Hidalgo Counties, 
New Mexico. This complex is occupied throughout by spikedace and loach 
minnow and contains the largest remaining populations of both species. 
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.

[[Page 24334]]

    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. Spikedace and 
loach minnow are known to occupy the river into the Duncan-Virden 
Valley (Rinne 1999b).
    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--
    Spikedace: 12 km (8 mi) of river extending from the confluence with 
the West Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence with Big Bear 
Canyon.
    Loach minnow: 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 
spikedace and loach minnow, but the river becomes unsuitable above EE 
Canyon due to gradient and channel morphology.

Primary Constituent Elements

    The habitat features (primary constituent elements) that provide 
for the physiological, behavioral, and ecological requirements 
essential for the conservation of a 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 et al. 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. Habitat devoid of nonnative aquatic species detrimental to 
spikedace, or habitat in which detrimental nonnative species are at 
levels which allow persistence of spikedace.
    The areas we are designating as critical habitat for spikedace 
provide the above primary constituent elements or will be capable, with 
restoration or removal of detrimental nonnative species, of providing 
them. All of the designated 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 et al. 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;
    7. Riffle, run, and backwater components present in the aquatic 
habitat;
    9. Low to moderate stream gradient;
    10. Water temperatures in the approximate range of 1-30 deg.C (35-
85 deg.F), with natural diurnal and seasonal variation;
    11. Abundant aquatic insect food base;
    12. Periodic natural flooding;
    13. 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
    14. Habitat devoid of nonnative aquatic species detrimental to 
loach minnow, or habitat in which detrimental nonnative species are at 
levels which allow persistence of loach minnow.
    The areas we are designating as critical habitat for loach minnow 
provide the above primary constituent elements or will be capable, with 
restoration or removal of detrimental nonnative species, of providing 
them. All of the designated areas require special management 
considerations or protection to ensure their contribution to the 
species' recovery.

Land Ownership

    Table 1 shows land ownership for areas of critical habitat that are 
currently occupied by one or both species, and Table 2 shows land 
ownership for critical habitat that is unoccupied. A general 
description of land ownership in each complex follows.

[[Page 24335]]



        Table 1.--Stream Distances in Kilometers (Miles) of Critical Habitat Occupied by Either Loach Minnow or Spikedace by County and Ownership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Private           State           Federal         Other Gov.         Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Co., AZ.....................................................                0                0       11.3 (7.0)                0       11.3 (7.0)
Cochise Co., AZ....................................................                0                0                0                0                0
Gila Co., AZ.......................................................                0                0                0                0                0
Graham Co., AZ.....................................................       10.3 (6.4)                0        4.7 (2.9)      26.1 (16.2)      41.1 (25.5)
Greenlee Co., AZ...................................................      45.0 (27.9)        2.6 (1.6)     109.5 (67.9)                0     157.1 (97.4)
Pima Co., AZ.......................................................                0                0                0                0                0
Pinal Co., AZ......................................................      58.5 (36.3)        6.8 (4.2)      48.2 (29.9)        1.0 (0.6)     114.5 (71.0)
Yavapai Co., AZ....................................................      56.5 (35.0)        5.8 (3.6)      52.2 (32.4)       *1.6 (1.0)       116.1 (72)
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AZ Total.......................................................    170.0 (105.4)       15.2 (9.4)    225.9 (140.4)      28.7 (17.8)    440.1 (272.9)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Catron Co., NM.....................................................      79.0 (49.0)        5.3 (3.3)     145.2 (90.0)        0.8 (0.5)    230.3 (142.8)
Grant Co., NM......................................................      53.2 (33.0)        2.1 (1.3)      72.9 (45.2)                0     128.2 (79.5)
Hidalgo Co., NM....................................................       10.6 (6.6)                0        7.3 (4.5)                0      17.9 (11.1)
    NM Total.......................................................     142.8 (88.6)        7.4 (4.6)    225.4 (139.7)        0.8 (0.5)    376.4 (233.4)
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total......................................................    312.8 (194.0)      22.6 (14.0)    451.3 (280.4)      29.5 (18.3)   816.5 (506.3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This area is included in the total critical habitat mileages, but is excluded by description.


       Table 2.--Stream Distances in Kilometers (Miles) of Critical Habitat Unoccupied by Either Loach Minnow or Spikedace by County and Ownership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Private           State           Federal         Other Gov.         Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Co., AZ.....................................................        3.4 (2.1)                0      24.1 (15.0)                0      27.6 (17.1)
Cochise Co., AZ....................................................      17.3 (10.7)        5.6 (3.5)      61.2 (38.0)                0      84.1 (52.2)
Gila Co., AZ.......................................................       12.0 (7.5)                0      81.6 (50.6)                0      93.6 (58.1)
Graham Co., AZ.....................................................      21.1 (13.1)       13.9 (8.6)      50.1 (31.1)        5.5 (3.4)      90.6 (56.2)
Greenlee Co., AZ...................................................      30.6 (19.0)        3.9 (2.4)      18.9 (11.7)                0      53.4 (33.1)
Pima Co., AZ.......................................................      70.6 (43.8)        3.2 (2.0)                0                0      73.9 (45.8)
Pinal Co., AZ......................................................                0                0                0                0                0
Yavapai Co., AZ....................................................      55.3 (34.3)        7.1 (4.4)     *95.2 (59.0)                0    *157.6 (97.7)
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AZ Total.......................................................    210.3 (130.5)      33.7 (20.9)    331.1 (205.4)        5.5 (3.4)    580.8 (360.2)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Catron Co., NM.....................................................                0                0                0                0                0
Grant Co., NM......................................................        4.0 (2.5)                0      47.9 (29.7)                0      51.9 (32.2)
Hidalgo Co., NM....................................................                0                0                0                0                0
    NM Total.......................................................        4.0 (2.5)                0      47.9 (29.7)                0      51.9 (32.2)
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total......................................................    214.3 (133.0)      33.7 (20.9)    379.0 (235.1)        5.5 (3.4)   632.7 (392.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Yavapai and Gila Counties share a border at Fossil Creek, the mileage for which is included in Gila County and not here.

    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 (AGFD).
    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 used by the 
San Carlos Apache Tribe.
    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 Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) lands. A 
significant portion of Bonita Creek runs through the City of Safford.
    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 NMDGF, NPS, and State of New Mexico lands.
    Significant private owners, with lands scattered among several of 
the designated critical habitat complexes, include Phelps-Dodge 
Corporation and The Nature Conservancy. A large number of other private 
landowners hold lands within the designated areas. Private lands are 
primarily used for grazing and agriculture, but also include towns, 
small-lot residences, and industrial areas.

Effect of Critical Habitat Designation

    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.

[[Page 24336]]

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 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.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us, to the extent practicable, 
to include 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. According to 
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, 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. In those cases, it is highly unlikely that 
additional modifications to the action would be required as a result of 
designating critical habitat. However, critical habitat may provide 
benefits towards recovery when designated in areas currently unoccupied 
by the species.
    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 facility 
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 Pollution 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 COE. 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 likely 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 developed reasonable and prudent 
alternatives that included changes to projects, and recommended or 
required measures to reduce or eliminate impacts to spikedace and loach 
minnow and to minimize the take of individuals. These alternatives 
removed the likelihood of jeopardy to the species.
    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 
currently occupied by the species may require protections similar to 
those provided to occupied areas under past consultations.
    Any Federal activity that would significantly and detrimentally 
alter the minimum flow or the natural flow regime of any of the 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 Federal activity that would significantly and detrimentally 
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 fire, livestock grazing, mining, 
and urban and suburban development.
    Any Federal activity that would significantly and detrimentally 
alter the channel morphology of any of the 41

[[Page 24337]]

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 Federal activity that would significantly and detrimentally 
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 Federal 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; 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 are 
likely to 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 
designation on the best available scientific information, including the 
recommendations in the species' recovery plans. We utilized the 
economic analysis, and took into consideration comments and information 
submitted during the public hearing and comment period, to make this 
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 an economic 
analysis, which is available for public review. Send your requests for 
copies of the economic analysis to the Arizona Ecological Services 
Office (see ADDRESSES section) or visit our website at http://ifw2es.fws.gov/arizona.

Exclusion for Economic and Other Relevant Impacts

    Based on comments provided by the BLM, our Economic Analysis 
identified Bonita Creek as an area with potential for high economic 
impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat for the 
spikedace and loach minnow. The analysis concluded that ``Immediate 
action is required in case of flood control damage to [the City of 
Safford's] water supply in order to minimize the cost of repair. The 
cost of a stable, alternative water supply is prohibitive. There is a 
high probability of substantial cost to the City of Safford from the 
inability to repair storm damage to their water supply in a timely 
manner due to the requirement of a section 7 consultation if the Creek 
is designated critical habitat.''
    Bonita Creek is an area that is necessary for the recovery of the 
probable unique spikedace gene pool presently occupying Eagle Creek. 
Furthermore, 50 CFR section 402.05 of our regulations provides for 
expedited consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act during 
emergencies. Finally, Bonita Creek is occupied by the razorback sucker 
(Xyrauchen texanus), a species listed as endangered pursuant to the 
Act. Thus, consultation on water supply repair has and will occur 
regardless of the designation of critical habitat for the spikedace and 
loach minnow. In fact, in 1994, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
consulted with us pursuant to section 7 of the Act regarding repairs to 
the City of Safford's water supply system in Bonita Creek. We concluded 
that repairs to the water system were not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the razorback sucker. Impacts to the razorback 
sucker would be very similar to the impacts to the spikedace and thus, 
including Bonita Creek as critical habitat is not likely to change our 
section 7 consultation conclusions. For these reasons we conclude the 
benefits of designating Bonita Creek outweigh the benefits of excluding 
it from critical habitat designation.
    Based on comments provided by Arizona Game and Fish Department 
(AGFD), our Economic Analysis identified the possible discontinuation 
of trout stocking programs as a potential for high economic loss to 
affected county economies. We are presently consulting on the stocking 
program, but because trout are not known to conflict with the recovery 
of either spikedace or loach minnow, we do not expect any impacts to 
the trout stocking program or county economies. Therefore, we conclude 
the benefits of designating critical habitat for the spikedace and 
loach minnow outweigh the benefits of excluding all areas where trout 
stocking occurs.
    No tribal reservation lands are included in this designation, as 
discussed in more detail below. Nor are we including the Black River as 
critical habitat for spikedace in this final determination because 
information received during the comment period leads us to conclude 
that it is not suitable for spikedace recovery. The Black River is, 
however, designated as critical habitat for the loach minnow. After 
gathering economic data and conducting an analysis of the lands 
proposed for critical habitat designation, we determined that no other 
areas should be excluded from this designation for economic or other 
relevant considerations.

American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act

    In accordance with the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
we believe that, to the maximum extent possible, fish, wildlife, and 
other natural resources on tribal lands are better managed under tribal 
authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation 
wherever possible and practicable. Based on this philosophy, we believe 
that, in most cases, designation of tribal lands as critical habitat 
provides very little benefit to threatened and endangered species. This 
is especially true where the habitat is occupied by the species and is 
therefore already subject to protection under the Act. Conversely,

[[Page 24338]]

such designation is often viewed by tribes as unwarranted and unwanted 
intrusion into tribal self governance, thus compromising the 
government-to-government relationship essential to achieving our mutual 
goals of managing for healthy ecosystems upon which the viability of 
threatened and endangered species populations depend.
    As stated previously, section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to 
consider the economic and other relevant impacts of critical habitat 
designation, and authorizes us to exclude areas from designation upon 
finding that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
including the areas as critical habitat, so long as excluding those 
areas will not result in the extinction of the species concerned. In 
the proposed rule for this critical habitat designation we solicited 
information from interested parties on the anticipated economic and 
other relevant impacts of designation.
    We identified stream reaches on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation 
(home of the White Mountain Apache Tribe), the San Carlos Apache 
Reservation, and the Yavapai Apache Reservation as possibly appropriate 
biologically for the designation of critical habitat, i.e., they 
contain the primary constituent elements of the species' critical 
habitat. The San Carlos, Tonto, White Mountain, and Yavapai Apache 
tribes all addressed this issue in their comments on the proposed rule. 
Below we evaluate the benefits of excluding these tribal lands from 
critical habitat and the benefits of including these areas. In 
addition, we assess the anticipated effects that designation of non-
tribal lands can be expected to have on tribal trust resources, such as 
water deliveries.

1. Designation of Critical Habitat on Indian Reservations

    The White Mountain Apache Tribe, which has currently occupied loach 
minnow habitat and potential loach minnow and potential spikedace 
habitat within its reservation boundaries, produced a Native Fishes 
Management Plan. After reviewing this plan, we determined that the 
tribe's management of the species will provide substantial protection 
for the relevant habitat areas, and that designation of critical 
habitat will provide little or no additional benefit to the species, 
particularly since the areas are occupied by the loach minnow.
    Conversely, designation of critical habitat would be expected to 
adversely impact our working relationship with the Tribe, the 
maintenance of which has been extremely beneficial in implementing 
natural resource programs of mutual interest. In 1994 the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and White Mountain Apache Tribe signed a Statement of 
Relationship which formalized our commitment to work cooperatively with 
the tribe in promoting healthy ecosystems. Since that agreement we have 
worked cooperatively with the tribe to the significant benefit of 
threatened and endangered species. In addition to managing the habitats 
of the spikedace and loach minnow, these programs include management of 
the threatened Mexican spotted owl, management of healthy populations 
of threatened Apache trout, and other natural resource programs. After 
weighing the benefits of critical habitat designation on the Fort 
Apache Indian Reservation against the adverse impact on our cooperative 
natural resource programs, we find that the benefits of excluding Fort 
Apache Indian Reservation lands, in terms of the spikedace and loach 
minnow, as well as ecosystems in general, outweigh the benefits of 
including those areas as critical habitat.
    In the case of the San Carlos Indian Reservation, we again believe 
that the principle of tribal self-governance is the overriding 
consideration and believe that Federal regulation through critical 
habitat designation will be viewed as an unwarranted and unwanted 
intrusion into tribal natural resource programs. This, in turn, will 
likely hamper our ability to continue important programs upon which 
endangered and threatened species depend. For example, we are currently 
cooperating with the San Carlos Apache Tribe on a very important spring 
restoration program for the benefit of the severely imperiled Gila 
topminnow. We also are cooperating on programs to benefit the 
endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, the Gila chub (a candidate 
for listing under the Act), and the Mexican spotted owl, among others. 
Given our belief that they are the entity best able to manage habitat 
for the spikedace and loach minnow, the fact that the areas considered 
for designation are already occupied by listed species and therefore 
receive protection under the Act, and the anticipated adverse impacts 
to our cooperative relationship that may result from critical habitat 
designation, we believe that the benefits of excluding areas of the San 
Carlos Apache Reservation from critical habitat outweigh the negligible 
benefits of designating those areas.
    The Yavapai Apache Tribe holds approximately one river-mile of 
potential critical habitat on the Verde River, other parts of which are 
designated as critical habitat. We believe that current management is 
adequate as evidenced by the fact that the spikedace still occurs 
there, and that little benefit would accrue from critical habitat 
designation since the species is already protected under the Act. We 
further believe that tribal management of this reservation land would 
ultimately be of greater benefit to spikedace and loach minnow than 
would the designation of this small segment, since we hope to maintain 
a cooperative working relationship with the Yavapai Apache.
    After carefully balancing the considerations involved in 
determining whether lands should be included or excluded from the 
designation of critical habitat, we determined that the benefits of 
promoting self-determination, allowing the tribes to develop 
conservation management on their lands, and the continued cooperative 
relationship in managing threatened and endangered species and their 
habitats, outweigh the benefits to be obtained from designating 
critical habitat for these two species. Exclusion of these lands from 
the designation will not result in extinction of either species.
    These decisions were made in compliance with Public Law 106-113, 
which prohibits us from using any of our appropriated funds to 
implement two provisions of Secretarial Order 3206 (Secretarial 
Order)--(1) Principle 3(C)(ii), which prohibits the imposition of 
conservation restrictions involving incidental take if the conservation 
purposes of the restriction can be achieved by reasonable regulation of 
non-Indian activities, and (2) Appendix section 3(B)(4), which concerns 
the designation of critical habitat and includes the requirement that 
we consult with affected tribes. The Presidential Memorandum of April 
29, 1994 also requires that we consult with tribes when contemplating 
regulations that may affect them, and the Act requires that we consider 
the relative benefits versus potential adverse consequences of critical 
habitat designations on all lands. Thus, our consultation with the 
tribes and our assessment of the ability to achieve conservation of 
spikedace and loach minnow without regulation of tribal lands were 
undertaken independently of the provisions of Secretarial 3206.

2. Possible Effects on Tribal Trust Resources From Critical Habitat 
Designation on Non-tribal Lands

    We recognized that the Salt River Reservation, Fort McDowell 
Reservation, and Gila River Indian Reservation are all located 
downstream from designated critical habitat and depend on water 
deliveries from

[[Page 24339]]

upstream sources. We do not anticipate that designation of critical 
habitat on non-tribal lands will result in any impact on tribal trust 
resources or the exercise of tribal rights. Many of the tribal lands 
either have major impoundments on their reservations or lie below major 
impoundments, and the release of water from the impoundments is 
regulated by court decree or other actions which may be non-
discretionary. Since non-discretionary actions are not subject to 
consultation under the Act, designation of critical habitat is unlikely 
to have any effect on water deliveries to the reservations. However, in 
complying with our responsibility to communicate with all tribes 
potentially affected by the designation, we solicited information 
during the comment period on potential effects to tribes or tribal 
resources that might result from this critical habitat designation. The 
comments are discussed below; none pointed out specific effects not 
considered in developing this rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the December 10, 1999, proposed rule, all interested parties 
were requested to submit comments or information that might bear on the 
designation of critical habitat for the spikedace and loach minnow (64 
FR 69324). The comment period was initially scheduled to close on 
January 14, 2000. Subsequently, the courts allowed us additional time 
in which to prepare and publish this final designation of critical 
habitat. Therefore on January 12, 2000, we announced in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 1845) extension of the comment period to February 14, 
2000, and scheduling of an additional public hearing. In addition, we 
notified 525 interested parties of the comment period extension and 
additional public hearing by letter.
    We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, Tribes, 
county governments, scientific organizations, and other interested 
parties by mail and invited them to comment on the proposed rule as 
well as the draft economic analysis and Environmental Assessment. In 
addition, newspaper notices inviting public comment were published in 
the following newspapers in Arizona and New Mexico: The Arizona 
Republic, Tucson Citizen, Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), Albuquerque 
Tribune, Albuquerque Journal, Sierra Vista Herald, Eastern Arizona 
Courier, Santa Fe New Mexican, Silver City Daily Press, White Mountain 
Independent, The Verde Independent, Sedona Red Rock News, Cottonwood 
Journal Extra, and Camp Verde Journal. The inclusive dates of these 
publications were December 4-15, 1999, for the initial comment period 
and announcement of the first three public hearings.
    We posted copies of the proposed rule, draft environmental 
assessment, and draft economic analysis on our Internet site and 
distributed them for display and inspection at public libraries in 
Prescott, Chino Valley, Camp Verde, City Of Cottonwood, Sedona, Sierra 
Vista, Huachuca City, Safford City and Graham County, Clifton-Greenlee 
County, Kearny, Tucson, Alpine, Greer, Mammoth, and San Manuel in 
Arizona; and Silver City and Reserve Village Hall in New Mexico.
    We held hearings in Silver City, New Mexico, and Thatcher, Arizona, 
on December 15, 1999, and Camp Verde, Arizona, on December 16, 1999. 
Notices appeared in the previously named newspapers between January 13 
and 19, 2000 to announce the extension of the public comment period 
until February 14, 2000, and the scheduling of an additional public 
hearing in Sierra Vista, Arizona on January 31, 2000. The December 10, 
1999 (64 CFR 69324), and January 12, 2000 (65 CFR 1845), notices also 
announced the time and location of the four public hearings. A total of 
495 people registered at the public hearings including 32 in Silver 
City, 111 in Thatcher, 24 in Camp Verde, and 328 in Sierra Vista. 
Transcripts of these hearings are available for inspection (see 
ADDRESSES section).
    We requested four ichthyologists familiar with the species to peer 
review the proposed critical habitat designation. However, only two 
responded by the close of the comment period. One responded that as a 
member of the Desert Fishes Recovery Team he has provided data, advice, 
and general counsel and supports the proposal on biological grounds. 
The second also generally supported the proposed critical habitat, but 
cited a few areas he suggested be added to the proposal as well as some 
technical corrections to the document.
    We received a total of 126 oral and 315 written comments during the 
comment period. Of those oral comments, 15 supported critical habitat 
designation and 111 were opposed to designation. Of the written 
comments, 35 supported designation, 263 were opposed to it, and 17 
provided additional information only, or were nonsubstantive or not 
relevant to the proposed designation. Oral and written comments were 
received from the government of Mexico, one Congressional 
representative, two state legislators, two Federal agencies, three 
State agencies, nine local governments, five Tribal governments, and 
297 private organizations, companies, or individuals.
    All comments received were reviewed for substantive issues and new 
data regarding critical habitat and the biology and status of spikedace 
and loach minnow. Comments of similar nature are grouped into 7 issues 
relating specifically to critical habitat. These are addressed in the 
following summary.

Issue 1: Procedural and Legal-Compliance

    The following comments and responses involve issues related to 
public involvement in the designation process and compliance with the 
Act and other laws, regulations, and policies. These comments do not 
include those addressing economic issues nor compliance with the NEPA, 
which are addressed under Issues 3 and 5, respectively.
    Comment 1a: The comment period was unreasonably short for the 
public to fully evaluate the proposed rule and associated documents; 
more public hearings were needed.
    Our Response: The initial public comment period was shorter than 
the 60 days required under our regulations (50 CFR 424.16(c)(2)). 
However, the initial schedule we developed to complete this designation 
was the result of a court-ordered deadline. The court originally 
ordered us to publish this final designation by February 17, 2000. To 
meet this deadline and allow time for analysis of public comments and 
preparation of the final rule, we needed to close the public comment 
period on January 14, 2000, resulting in an initial comment period of 
36 days. Fortunately, both the plaintiffs and the court agreed to a 60-
day extension of the deadline. As a result, we announced in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 1845) on January 12, 2000, as well as local newspapers, 
that we were extending the comment period until February 14, 2000, 
resulting in a total comment period of 65 days, thus exceeding the 60-
day regulatory requirement.
    The Act requires that at least one public hearing be held if 
requested. We held four hearings; thus we exceeded the statutory 
requirements.
    Comment 1b: The Service should prepare additional drafts of various 
documents and provide them to the public for review.
    Our Response: Drafts of both the economic analysis and 
Environmental Assessment associated with this designation were made 
available to the

[[Page 24340]]

public for review and comment. The final versions of those documents 
are available to the public (see ADDRESSES).
    Comment 1c: The public should have the opportunity to review 
comments provided by selected experts during the peer review process.
    Our Response: All comments submitted are part of the administrative 
record and, as such, are open to public review. It is also important to 
note that oral testimony at the public hearings, written comments from 
the general public, and comments received during the peer review 
process are considered equally in making our final determination.
    Comment 1d: Designation of portions of the rivers unoccupied by 
either of these fish species is outside the Service's authority and 
contrary to the requirements of the Act.
    Our Response: The definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) 
of the Act includes ``''specific areas outside the geographical 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).
    After weighing the best available information, including the 
species' recovery plans (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991a, 1991b), 
we conclude that the areas designated by this final rule that lie 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time they 
were listed are essential for the recovery of the species and 
subsequent removal from the list of endangered and threatened species. 
We also note that the total area designated only represents 
approximately 45 and 50 percent of the areas believed historically 
occupied by the spikedace and loach minnow, respectively.
    Comment 1e: The Act states that areas outside the area occupied at 
the time of listing can be designated only if those areas are 
determined essential to the conservation of the species. The Service 
instead considered whether areas were occupied at the time of critical 
habitat designation. Therefore, some areas currently occupied, but that 
were not occupied at the time of listing, were not subject to the 
higher standard required of for unoccupied habitat (i.e., that those 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species).
    Our Response: The issue is moot since we determined that all areas 
designated as critical habitat are essential for conservation of these 
two species.
    Comment 1f: The critical habitat proposal represents virtually all 
suitable or potentially suitable habitat within the species' historical 
ranges. The Act prohibits such broad designation.
    Our Response: Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that, except in 
those circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall 
not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by an 
endangered or threatened species. In this case critical habitat is 
designated in an estimated 45 and 50 percent of spikedace and loach 
minnow historical ranges, respectively. With proper restoration and 
management, much of the historical range would be suitable. The 
Secretary of the Interior has determined that the areas designated are 
essential to conserve these species.
    Comment 1g: Private lands should be excluded from critical habitat 
designation.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states ``The Secretary 
shall designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under 
subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best scientific data available 
and after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other 
relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat.'' The Act does not require nor suggest that private lands 
should be excluded from designation, unless we find that the economic 
or other relevant impacts outweigh the benefit of critical habitat 
designation. For further information please see our discussion under 
Issue 3: Economic Comments. Designation of critical habitat on private 
lands would only have an effect in cases where Federal funding or a 
Federal permit is required for a project. For further information 
please see our discussion under Issue 7: Effects of Designation.
    Comment 1h: The critical habitat designation is based on 
insufficient data.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states ``The Secretary 
shall designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under 
subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best scientific data available . 
. .'' Our recommendation is based on a considerable body of information 
on the biology and status of the species, as well as the effects of 
land-use practices on their continued existence. We agree that much 
remains to be learned about these species, and should credible, new 
information become available which contradicts the basis for this 
designation, we will reevaluate our analysis and, if appropriate, 
propose to modify this critical habitat designation. We have considered 
the best scientific information available at this time, as required by 
the Act. Please see more specific information in our response to 
comment 4i.
    Comment 1i: We should not designate critical habitat until specific 
recovery goals are set.
    Our Response: The Act does not allow the indefinite suspension of 
the determination of critical habitat. Thus, in general, we cannot 
delay the determination of critical habitat until final recovery plans 
are produced. However, in the cases of the spikedace and loach minnow, 
recovery plans were finalized in 1991. These plans recommend that 
critical habitat be designated for these species. The plans also 
recommend maintenance of occupied habitat and establishment of new 
populations within the species' historical ranges. In addition, we have 
continued working with the Desert Fishes Recovery Team since the plans 
were finalized, and believe this critical habitat designation is 
consistent with the recommendations of those scientists. We have thus 
met the requirement that the designation be based on the best 
scientific information available.
    Comment 1j: In relying on the Desert Fishes Recovery Team to 
identify which streams and rivers should be designated as critical 
habitat, the Service violated both the ESA and the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA). The ESA exempts Recovery Teams from FACA only for 
the purpose of developing and implementing recovery plans, not advising 
on critical habitat designation. Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. 
Department of Interior, 26 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 1994).
    Our Response: Section 4(f)(2) of the Endangered Species Act 
provides the Fish and Wildlife Service the authority to appoint 
recovery teams, which may consist of non-Federal personnel, for the 
purpose of assisting in the development and implementation of recovery 
plans. That section also exempts recovery teams from the provisions of 
FACA.
    In the case of the spikedace and loach minnow, the Desert Fishes 
Recovery Team (Recovery Team) oversaw development of recovery plans for 
the two species, and suggested mechanisms to facilitate plan 
implementation in order to achieve the plans' conservation goals. Both 
recovery plans recommend designating critical habitat for the two 
species as a mechanism for recovery, and the Recovery Team has provided

[[Page 24341]]

suggestions on which areas should be included in such designation. The 
Recovery Team was acting appropriately within its role in advising on 
recovery plan implementation, and our consideration of Recovery Team 
recommendations is consistent with the Act's requirement that critical 
habitat determination be based on the best scientific information 
available.
    This commenter cited Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. 
Department of Interior, 26 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 1994), as authority for 
its assertion that the Recovery Team's FACA exemption was limited. 
However, Alabama-Tombigbee did not involve a Recovery Team; it involved 
an ``Advisory Team'' assembled to advise the Service on whether listing 
of a species was warranted. The ``Advisory Team'' was never referred to 
as a Recovery Team nor was there any indication in the opinion that 
anyone asserted that the Advisory Team was exempt from FACA under the 
Act.
    Comment 1k: Contrary to statements in the proposed rule, the 
Service was not ordered to designate critical habitat. Rather, the 
amended court order of October 6, 1999, stated that the Service was to 
publish a final determination with respect to whether and to what 
extent critical habitat shall be designated. Thus, the Service should 
reconsider whether and to what extent critical habitat should be 
designated.
    Our Response: The commenter is correct that we cited the original 
court order of September 20, 1999, which ordered us to designate 
critical habitat, and that a subsequent court order amended the 
original order to require us to make a critical habitat determination 
rather than requiring actual designation. In complying with the amended 
court order, we made the determination that critical habitat 
designation is prudent for these two species, and that the areas 
proposed are essential for the species' conservation and thus the 
appropriate extent of critical habitat. The language in this final rule 
clarifies the distinction mentioned by the commenter, although such a 
correction has no material effect on the designation.
    Comment 1l: We failed to comply with the Farm Land Protection Act 
of 1981.
    Our Response: The stated purpose of the Farmland Protection Act of 
1981, Public Law 97-98, 95 Stat. 1343, 7 USC 4201 et seq., was ``to 
minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the 
unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural 
uses * * * ''; however, the Farmland Protection Act recognized that 
there might be instances where other national interests could override 
this provision. While Federal statutes may frequently appear to have 
conflicting provisions, it is the presumed intent of Congress that, to 
the extent possible, all laws be read in a way which allows them to be 
applied together. We do not read the Farmland Protection Act and the 
Endangered Species Act to be incompatible since this designation will 
not result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses and nor 
any significant restrictions on agricultural uses.

Issue 2: Biological Concerns

    The following comments and responses involve issues related to the 
biological basis for the designation.
    Comment 2a. The proposed critical habitat designation is 
substantially greater than critical habitat designated in 1994 and is 
thus excessive.
    Our Response: The 1994 designations of critical habitat were based 
on proposals published in 1985. Since 1985 there have been substantial 
additions to the information on spikedace and loach minnow, their 
habitat needs, and the existing condition and potential of most of the 
streams in the Gila River basin. In addition, in 1985 the concept of 
critical habitat was less developed than it is now, 15 years later. 
Evolution of thinking, along with a number of court decisions regarding 
the definition and uses of critical habitat, have led to the 
recognition that critical habitat may provide the most benefits to 
listed species when it is applied to unoccupied areas essential for 
recovery.
    Of the areas included in this critical habitat designation for 
spikedace that were not included in the 1994 designation, 20 percent 
are based on new information about the species, its distribution, 
abundance, and habitat; 10 percent are to include sparsely occupied 
areas omitted from the 1985 proposal; 69 percent are currently 
unoccupied recovery areas and connecting corridors; and, 1 percent is 
an adjustment due to the increased accuracy of mileage calculations 
using Geographic Information System (GIS) capability. Of the areas 
included in this critical habitat designation for loach minnow that 
were not included in the 1994 designation, 15 percent are based on new 
information; 18 percent are sparsely occupied areas omitted from the 
1985 proposal; 65 percent are currently unoccupied recovery areas and 
connecting corridors; and, 2 percent are an adjustment for GIS figures.
    Comment 2b: Neither spikedace nor loach minnow require the 
protection of the Act. The discovery of new populations since their 
listing should cause both species to be delisted or at least negate the 
need for critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: Both spikedace and loach minnow are listed as 
threatened. Recovery plans were finalized for both species in 1991. In 
1994, we reevaluated the threats to the species and determined the 
status of the species was even more precarious than we had previously 
concluded, even with the discovery of new populations, and that they 
warranted listing as endangered. However, higher listing priorities, 
e.g., reviewing and listing imperiled species that are afforded no 
protection under the Act, have precluded us from reclassifying the 
spikedace and loach minnow as endangered. The status of both spikedace 
and loach minnow are declining.
    Comment 2c: The Service should limit critical habitat to aquatic 
and riparian zones.
    Our Response: In this final rule we have further clarified the 
areas within designated reaches as the stream channels and areas 
potentially inundated by high flow events. Where delineated, this is 
the 100-year floodplain of the designated waterways. This constitutes 
the present and reasonable future aquatic and riparian zones of the 
designated rivers and streams. Furthermore, within the delineated 
critical habitat boundaries, only lands containing, or which are likely 
to develop, those habitat components that are essential for the primary 
biological needs of the species are considered critical habitat. 
Existing human-constructed features and structures within this area, 
such as buildings, roads, railroads, and other features, do not 
contain, and do not have the potential to develop, those habitat 
components and are not considered critical habitat.
    Comment 2e: One commenter questioned the validity of designating 
sufficient critical habitat to protect all known remaining genetic 
diversity within the two species with the exception of fish on certain 
tribal lands.
    Our Response: The exclusion of tribal lands is discussed in the 
section titled American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, and in section 6 of 
these responses to comments.
    The range, numbers, and presumably genetic diversity of the species 
have already been much reduced. The remaining populations exhibit 
distinct genetic differences (Tibbets 1992, Tibbets 1993, A. Tibbets, 
pers. com., March 2000). Noss and Cooperrider (1994) identified reduced 
genetic

[[Page 24342]]

diversity as one of the factors which predispose small populations to 
extinction. Therefore, to conserve and recover the fishes to the point 
where they no longer require the protection of the Act and may be 
delisted, it is important to maintain and protect all remaining 
genetically diverse populations of these two species.
    Comment 2f: The Service did not provide sufficient information on 
the criteria used for including or omitting certain reaches in the 
critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: Please see the ``Critical Habitat Designation'' 
section of this Final Rule. As described in the section titled ``B. 
Primary Constituent Elements'', we identified the habitat features 
(primary constituent elements) that provide for the physiological, 
behavioral, and ecological requirements essential for the conservation 
of each species. Within the historical range of the species, we 
identified areas which either provide the primary constituent elements 
or will be capable, with restoration, of providing them and which met 
the criteria discussed under Critical Habitat Designation in this rule. 
Then, based in part on recommendations from species experts including 
those on the Desert Fishes Recovery Team, we selected qualifying 
reaches within these areas necessary for the conservation of the 
fishes.
    Comment 2g: The definition of the lateral extent of critical 
habitat is undefined. The vague description of lateral extent, along 
with the discussion of what activities might adversely affect critical 
habitat, could be interpreted as including the entire watershed of the 
streams designated as critical habitat. In addition, there are areas 
within what appears to be the designation that do not contain the 
constituent elements, such as buildings or parking lots, that should 
not be included in the critical habitat.
    Our Response: We have clarified the lateral extent of the critical 
habitat in this rule. Although activities within the watershed may 
affect the critical habitat, it is not our intent to designate areas 
outside of the floodplain as critical habitat. We have also clarified 
that existing human-constructed features that do not meet the 
constituent elements are excluded by definition from the critical 
habitat designation.

Issue 3: Economic Analysis.

    There were numerous comments that addressed economic issues.
    Issue 3a: Will critical habitat designation result in more 
consultations than would have occurred without the critical habitat 
designation?
    Our Response: We expect that the designation of critical habitat 
will result in more consultations, especially for activities which may 
affect unoccupied habitat. If these consultations result in any 
increased costs to the applicant, these costs will be attributable to 
critical habitat designation. However, consultations are only required 
of Federal agencies for those projects with a Federal nexus.
    Issue 3b: Are private lands affected by critical habitat 
designation if there is no Federal nexus?
    Our Response: Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 
private lands are not impacted by the designation of critical habitat 
unless there is a Federal nexus.
    Issue 3c: If permit requirements from a Federal agency change, is 
that a critical habitat impact?
    Our Response: There are many reasons why a permit requirement may 
change. Each Federal agency has enabling legislation that determines 
its mission and, consequently, what activities can occur on the land it 
manages, or for what activities the agency can otherwise issue permits. 
As more information becomes available about the environment, public 
activities on Federal land, or activities for which Federal agencies 
otherwise issue permits, may require changes to permit requirements. 
These may be due to the Federal agency's own legislation. In those 
cases, we have attributed any impact to the legislation requiring the 
change and not the Endangered Species Act. If permit requirements 
change on unoccupied habitat as a result of a consultation with us, 
then the impact would be attributable to critical habitat designation.
    Issue 3d: Critical habitat designation will drive away current and 
future businesses.
    Our Response: There is a common misconception that critical habitat 
designation will reduce business activity. Without a Federal nexus, 
there is no direct impact of critical habitat designation on private 
activities or businesses. In addition, restrictions resulting from the 
listing of the species are not attributable to critical habitat 
designation. In areas currently occupied by the species, little or no 
economic impact is expected to result from critical habitat 
designation. In unoccupied areas, some economic impacts may result. Our 
economic analysis considers those anticipated impacts, including 
effects on businesses. However, we believe that the benefits of 
designating critical habitat outweigh the benefits of excluding areas 
from designation.
    Issue 3e: Impacts on land uses next to the river were not evaluated 
in the economic analysis.
    Our Response: At the time of releasing the economic analysis of 
critical habitat designation, very little information was available to 
us on land uses next to the rivers. Subsequently, some Federal and 
State agencies have provided us with their management activities and 
expected changes relative to critical habitat. This new information is 
reflected in the final economic analysis.
    Issue 3f: The draft economic analysis only addresses 5 of the 
streams when the proposal includes many more streams.
    Our Response: The table with the analysis of 5 streams comes from 
study of the previous critical habitat designation. It was included in 
the draft economic analysis to illustrate the kinds of economic impacts 
for which we were seeking additional information. All streams in the 
final designation have been evaluated in the final economic analysis.
    Issue 3g: The Service must prepare an economic analysis that 
considers the total effect of listing and critical habitat.
    Our Response: Congress has stated that the listing of a species be 
based solely on biological considerations. As a result, an economic 
analysis of the listing of a species is not undertaken as part of the 
listing process. The current rule being considered is the designation 
of critical habitat and thus only economic and other relevant impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat are considered. A 
recent court decision on designation of critical habitat for the 
southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax extimus trailli) New Mexico 
Cattle Growers et al. v. USFWS et al., CIV 98-0275 LH/DJs--ACE (D. 
Ariz. 1999) (on appeal) affirmed our approach of considering only the 
economic and other relevant impacts of critical habitat designation 
above and beyond those associated with listing the species.
    Issue 3h: The Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act analyses were inadequate.
    Our Response: There were substantial data gaps that precluded a 
full analysis of the impact on small entities. A more complete analysis 
is in the administrative record for this designation, and is available 
for public review (see ADDRESSES).
    Issue 3i: There needs to be a takings implication assessment 
completed.
    Our Response: A taking implications assessment is in the 
administrative record for this designation, and is

[[Page 24343]]

available for public review (see ADDRESSES).
    Issue 3j: The economic analysis lacks dollar amounts for the impact 
on Agriculture, Recreation, Roads, Water Supply, and Private 
Development on page 26.
    Our Response: The table on page 26 of the draft economic analysis 
was reproduced from an earlier study and the blank entries were in the 
original document. We provide a more complete accounting of the impacts 
in the final economic analysis.
    Issue 3k: No economic analysis was done for the State of New 
Mexico.
    Our Response: The revised economic analysis includes information 
about Grant County, the only county in the State of New Mexico that 
contains critical habitat unoccupied by either the spikedace or the 
loach minnow.
    Issue 3l: An incorrect baseline was used for the economic analysis.
    Our Response: The baseline we used considered the Federal actions 
expected to occur in the absence of critical habitat. Thus, all Section 
7 consultations with Federal agencies and other restrictions resulting 
from the listing of the species are considered part of the baseline and 
are not attributable to critical habitat designation. The only economic 
impacts attributable to critical habitat designation would be those 
resulting from Federal activities in unoccupied designated critical 
habitat and only those activities likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat.
    Issue 3m: The use of IMPLAN is not appropriate below the State 
level.
    Our Response: IMPLAN was not used in the draft economic analysis. 
However, the data sets that come with IMPLAN describe the economic 
activity at the county level, which provide a useful summary of the 
industries in the affected counties.

Issue 4: Site-Specific Issues.

    The following comments and responses involve issues related to the 
inclusion or exclusion of specific streams reaches or our methods for 
selecting appropriate areas for designation as critical habitat.
    Comment 4a: Several commenters pointed out errors in mileages, 
locations, or descriptions in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: Corrections have been made in the final rule to 
reflect these comments, where appropriate.
    Comment 4b: Commenters believed that the areas listed in table 3 
(below) were unsuitable for designation or they recommended some areas 
for exclusion from designation.

                                               Table 3.--Exclusion of Removal Recommendations in Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Conflict
                                                            Not          with                      Nonnative        Not      Special mgmt.   Detrimental
              Stream reach               Not suitable   occupied by    economic,   Insufficient     species    essential or                  to species
                                          for species     species     social, or    information    conflict     no benefit   consideration      mgmt.
                                                                      other uses                                to species     not needed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Complex 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verde River above Valley...............            X             X                                         X                                          X
Verde River in Valley..................            X             X             X                           X             X
Verde River below Valley...............            X             X                                         X             X
Granite Creek..........................                                                      X             X
Oak Creek..............................            X             X             X             X             X             X
Beaver Creek...........................            X             X                           X             X             X
West Clear Creek.......................            X             X             X             X             X             X
Fossil Creek...........................            X             X             X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Complex 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Fork Black River..................            X             X             X                           X
East Fork Black River..................            X                           X                           X
Coyote Creek...........................            X                           X             X             X             X
Boneyard Creek.........................            X                           X             X             X             X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Complex 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonto Creek............................                          X             X             X                           X              X             X
Rye Creek..............................            X             X             X             X             X             X              X             X
Greenback Creek........................                          X             X             X                           X              X             X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Complex 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Gila River......................            X             X             X                           X                                          X
Lower San Pedro River..................            X             X                                         X                                          X
Aravaipa Creek.........................                                                                                                 X             X
Turkey Creek...........................                          X                           X                           X
Deer Creek.............................                          X                           X                           X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Complex 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle San Pedro River.................            X             X             X             X             X             X              X             X
Redfield Canyon........................                          X                           X                           X
Hot Springs & Bass Canyons.............            X             X                           X                           X
Upper San Pedro River..................            X             X             X             X             X             X              X             X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24344]]

 
                                                                        Complex 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gila River at Box......................            X                           X                           X             X
Bonita Creek...........................            X             X             X             X             X             X              X             X
Eagle Creek............................            X             X             X             X             X             X              X             X
Blue River.............................            X                           X             X             X                                          X
Little Blue Creek......................                          X                           X
Campbell Blue Creek....................                                                      X             X
Dry Blue, Frieborn, & Pace Creeks......                                                      X                           X
San Francisco River in AZ..............            X             X             X                           X             X              X
San Francisco River in NM..............                                        X                                         X
Tularosa River.........................                                                                                  X              X
Negrito and Whitewater Creeks..........                                                                                  X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Complex 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Gila River below Mogollon Creek..            X         X \1\             X                           X             X              X             X
Upper Gila River above Mogollon Creek..            X         X \1\                                         X             X              X             X
West Fork Gila River...................            X                                                       X             X              X             X
East Fork Gila River...................            X                                                       X             X              X             X
Middle Fork Gila River.................            X             X                                         X             X              X            X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In part.

    Our Response: We carefully considered the information provided in 
the comments regarding requested exclusions and removals. Two streams 
were removed from the spikedace designation, as described previously. 
Areas suggested for exclusion that were retained, and our rationales, 
are provided in responses 4b1 through 4b19.
    Comment 4b1: There are no records of occurrence of spikedace and 
loach minnow in the Little Blue River, Redfield, Bass, and Hot Springs 
Canyons; Granite, Boneyard, Coyote, Greenback, Rye, Oak, and Bonita 
Creeks: the East, West, and Main Forks of the Black River; and the Gila 
Box. Therefore, these areas are not part of the historical range.
    Our Response: Because early collections of fishes from the Gila 
Basin were rare and occurred mostly along primary exploration and 
settlement travel routes, the complete distribution of most of our 
native fishes cannot be documented with specific museum specimens and 
records. By the time sampling of native fish became common in the 
1960's and 1970's many of the streams had been modified or subjected to 
temporary adverse circumstances (such as total diversion of water or 
mine spills resulting in water-quality problems) to the point that many 
of the native fishes had already been extirpated. Thus, we can never 
know precisely what we have lost. Therefore, we must use the best 
available information to reconstruct the most probable composition of 
the historical ranges of spikedace and loach minnow. If a stream is (1) 
within the Gila basin; and (2) contains suitable or potential habitat 
for the species, or historical records indicate it once sustained such 
habitat, and there are records of those species from nearby areas, and 
there is no other reason to believe that the two species could not have 
occurred there (i.e. an impassable natural barrier); then those areas 
are considered to be part of the historical range of the species.
    Comment 4b2: Deer, Turkey, Wet Beaver/Beaver, and West Clear Creeks 
have no records of spikedace and/or loach minnow.
    Our Response: Deer and Turkey Creeks, tributaries of Aravaipa 
Creek, have recent records of loach minnow (USBLM 1995, University of 
Arizona museum specimens No. ASU 13517). The Beaver Creek complex has 
historical records of both spikedace and loach minnow from 1938 
(Minckley 1993). West Clear Creek has historical records of spikedace 
from 1937 (Minckley 1993).
    Comment 4b3: Spikedace are extirpated from the middle Gila River 
and any spikedace found there were displaced by flooding from Aravaipa 
Creek.
    Our Response: Spikedace were recorded from the middle Gila River 
historically (Minckley 1973) and as recently as 1991 (Jakle 1992) and 
are not considered extirpated. Some commenters believe the 1991 record 
of one spikedace in the middle Gila River near Florence represents a 
fish displaced during some unspecified flood event from Aravaipa Creek, 
50 miles upstream, and does not represent a population in the Gila 
River. However, in the year preceding the October sampling, there was 
only one marginally significant flood, which occurred in March (USGS 
discharge records). It is unlikely that such a relatively minor flood 
would displace spikedace 50 miles downstream and that the displaced 
fish would be surviving 6 months later in what the commenters assume is 
habitat unsuitable to support a resident population of spikedace. In 
addition, it is even more unlikely that, at the precise time of the 
only sampling conducted that year, the displaced fish would be present 
at one of the 7 sites sampled, totaling less than 1 mile of the 50 mile 
reach. Given the sparse sampling in the middle Gila, it is far more 
likely that the 1991 spikedace represents a small population of

[[Page 24345]]

spikedace either permanently resident in that area or which occupy the 
area in a periodically fluctuating pattern dependent upon conditions. 
Documentation of such small populations is very difficult and often 
results in false declarations of extirpation (Mayden and Kuhajda 1996).
    Comment 4b4: Spikedace are extirpated from the Middle Fork Gila 
River.
    Our Response: Spikedace have not been recorded at a long-term study 
site on the middle Fork Gila River since 1995 (Propst and Stefferud, 
unpub. data). No surveys of the rest of the stream have been conducted 
recently and the present status of the spikedace in the Middle Fork is 
uncertain. Failure to record spikedace for four years at a fixed 
sampling station may indicate a low population level but does not 
support a declaration of extirpation from the entire stream.
    Comment 4b5: Spikedace are extirpated from the Verde River.
    Our Response: Spikedace continue to be recorded from the Verde 
River, although since 1996 they have been very rare, with none found in 
1997 and 1998 (Rinne et al. 1999a) and only two found in 1999. This 
dramatic fluctuation is similar to earlier fluctuations, although 
better documented.
    Comment 4b6: Loach minnow are extirpated from Eagle Creek; loach 
minnow found there since 1995 were stocked from elsewhere by 
organizations known to have programs for planting endangered species, 
and the 1994 records of loach minnow in Eagle Creek are not valid 
because they have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
    Our Response: Loach minnow were first recorded from Eagle Creek in 
1950 (Univ. of Michigan museum specimens No. UMMZ 162744). Despite 
frequent sampling (Marsh et al.1990), they were not again recorded 
until 1994 (Knowles 1994, Knowles 1995). This illustrates the need for 
caution in concluding that a population has been extirpated. Fish, 
particularly small species with relatively cryptic habits, are often 
very difficult to locate when population levels are very low.
    Loach minnow had been presumed, incorrectly, to be extirpated from 
Eagle Creek. Loach minnow were not stocked into Eagle Creek by any 
agency or governmental entity. We are not aware of, nor have we 
permitted, any nongovernmental groups to plant listed fish in Arizona. 
Genetic testing has shown the loach minnow in Eagle Creek to be a 
probable unique lineage differing from all other loach minnow. We have 
no evidence that these fish could have been planted from any other 
population (A. Tibbets, pers. comm. March, 2000). Sampling records from 
1994 are considered valid records. Much of the monitoring of 
populations of endangered and threatened species is conducted by 
agencies and is placed into agency reports, such as the one in which 
these records are found. The 1995 Eagle Creek loach minnow records have 
also been vouchered with specimens in the Arizona State University 
Collection of Fishes (No. ASU165).
    Comment 4b7: Both spikedace and loach minnow have been extirpated 
from the upper Gila River below the Middle Box (below Redrock, New 
Mexico) and any spikedace or loach minnow found in that area were 
displaced by flooding from the Cliff-Gila Valley.
    Our Response: Spikedace and loach minnow continue to be found in 
the Gila River below the Middle Box, and depending upon conditions may 
be found from the mouth of the Box downstream to about the Arizona/New 
Mexico boundary. They were recorded near the Middle Box mouth and in 
the Lower Box at Fisherman's Point in 1998 (Propst and Stefferud unpub. 
data, Propst 1998) and at the Virden diversion in 1999 (Rinne et al. 
1999b).
    Comment 4b8: The San Francisco River is not occupied by spikedace 
and is occupied by loach minnow only above the confluence with the Blue 
River.
    Our Response: The San Francisco River is currently occupied by 
loach minnow downstream from the mouth of the Blue River (Anderson and 
Turner 1977, J.M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers 1985, Bagley et al. 
1995). The downstream extent of this population is not known precisely 
and likely fluctuates over time depending upon water and sediment 
levels, flooding, and other factors. However, it is known to extend at 
least 10-15 miles downstream from the confluence with the Blue River. 
Historical records of spikedace downstream (Minckley 1973) and upstream 
(Minckley 1973, Anderson 1978) from the lower San Francisco River, and 
the presence of apparently suitable habitat in that area, support the 
presumption of historical presence of spikedace. Past pollution events 
from the mines in the Clifton area, along with other human-caused 
alterations, caused the lower San Francsico River to be barren of fish 
at one time (Chamberlain 1904), have resulted in fish kills since that 
time (Rathbun 1969 as cited in Minckley and Sommerfeld 1979), and 
likely were a significant factor in the loss of spikedace and loach 
minnow from the lower San Francisco River and adjacent Gila River. The 
amelioration of these pollution events through modern management and 
regulation has eliminated them as a limiting factor to restoration of 
spikedace and other native species in the lower San Francisco River.
    Comment 4b9: The San Pedro River is not now and has never been 
occupied by either spikedace or loach minnow.
    Our Response: The San Pedro River is the type locality for 
spikedace and loach minnow. They were first collected there in 1840 and 
again in 1846 (Miller 1961), and were described from specimens taken 
there in 1851 (Girard 1856). They were taken periodically over the 
years; loach minnow were last recorded from the San Pedro in 1961 
(University of Arizona museum No. UAZ95-190), and spikedace were last 
recorded there in 1966 (Arizona State University museum No. ASU 2282). 
See also responses to comments 4b16(c) and 4b16(j).
    Comment 4b10: It was suggested that areas which are occupied by 
spikedace or loach minnow only under certain conditions or which are 
colonized during periods when streamflows are higher than average 
should not be considered essential to the species and should be omitted 
from the critical habitat.
    Our Response: Spikedace and loach minnow, like many southwestern 
fishes, have a life history pattern of expansion and retraction of 
occupied areas in response to flow and other habitat conditions. To 
ensure the survival and recovery of species with this type of pattern 
it is essential to conserve not only the core habitat into which the 
species shrinks in times of poor conditions, but also the habitat into 
which it expands during times of good conditions (Moyle and Sato 1991, 
Meffe and Carroll 1994). The absence of spikedace and/or loach minnow 
from an area during certain periods or under certain conditions does 
not mean it is in unoccupied habitat.
    Comment 4b11: Several commenters suggested that, since several of 
the proposed streams have portions that dry either seasonally, during 
drought conditions, or for other periodic reasons, therefore those 
streams do not meet the proposed constituent elements description of 
permanent flowing water and so do not qualify as critical habitat for 
spikedace and loach minnow.
    Our Response: Spikedace and loach minnow, along with most of the 
native fishes of the southwest, evolved in stream systems that had 
portions which periodically lost flow. The species are adapted to this 
phenomenon and persist in flowing areas that remain and

[[Page 24346]]

recolonize the dewatered areas once flow resumes. Over the past 150 
years, the extent of areas in the Gila basin that periodically lose 
flow has increased due to human alterations of the watersheds and 
stream channels and diversion of the streamflows.
    Hydrology-based definitions of streams as ``perennial,'' 
``intermittent'' (both spatially and temporally), or ``ephemeral'' are 
confusing, often misused, and may not relate to fish needs. Although a 
stream may be characterized by some as ``intermittent,'' it may still 
have substantial areas where flow is permanent, although those areas 
may not always be in precisely the same location. If sufficient areas 
of flow persist, and if all other habitat needs are met, then the 
stream is suitable for the two fish species whether or not there is 
flow throughout all areas at all times. Aravaipa Creek, one of the best 
remaining habitats for these two species, is an ``intermittent'' 
stream, which seldom flows in the upper half of its course, and often 
does not flow for several miles above its confluence with the San Pedro 
River (Minckley 1981). However, approximately 20-25 mi of stream 
presently flow at all times and support healthy populations of 
spikedace and loach minnow (Bettaso et al. 1995).
    The critical habitat designation also specifically includes many 
areas that lose flow periodically, and some which may be dry during 
most times. Maintenance of those areas in a natural, or only slightly 
modified, state is essential to spikedace and loach minnow. During high 
flows they serve as connecting corridors for movement between the areas 
of permanent flow and because they are important in maintenance of 
natural channel geomorphology. Criteria for what might constitute 
adverse modification of critical habitat may be different for these 
stream reaches than for occupied or perennial flow areas; however, 
their maintenance is essential to the long-term survival and recovery 
of spikedace and loach minnow.
    There are many areas in the critical habitat where flows are 
artificially altered by human diversion and uses, up to and including 
complete loss of flow. In some of these areas, changes in management 
may potentially increase duration of flows and the length of stream 
channel with permanent water, thus making them valuable for recovery 
and survival of spikedace and loach minnow. A good example of this is 
Fossil Creek, where the proposed relicensing of the Childs-Irving 
hydropower plant would involve restoration of some level of flow to the 
lower stream channel.
    Comment 4b12: All streams proposed for designation of critical 
habitat contain some nonnative aquatic species, raising comments from 
many parties that none of the streams proposed meet the proposed 
constituent elements description of few or no predatory or competitive 
nonnative species present, and therefore do not qualify for designation 
as critical habitat. Several commenters went further to state that no 
stream that contains nonnative fish could be considered essential to 
the conservation of spikedace and/or loach minnow.
    Our Response: The constituent elements have been rewritten to 
clarify the role of nonnative aquatic species in the suitability of 
habitat for designation as critical for spikedace and loach minnow. The 
level of nonnative species that may be present in habitat considered to 
be suitable varies depending upon the circumstances. Some nonnative 
species, such as rainbow trout, appear to have little effect on 
spikedace or loach minnow (see response to comment 7b, below). Others, 
such as flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) have serious adverse 
effects. In some streams, the habitat complexity and distribution may 
allow spikedace and loach minnow to coexist with nonnative aquatic 
species when, under other circumstances, that nonnative may eliminate 
the two natives. Some unoccupied streams designated for critical 
habitat may have nonnative species present that will be controlled or 
removed before reestablishment of the two native fishes. Although the 
fewer nonnative aquatic species that are present, the better the 
situation for spikedace and loach minnow, the presence of nonnative 
aquatic species does not eliminate an area from consideration as 
critical habitat.
    Comment 4b13: The upper end of Oak Creek and the Gila River in the 
Duncan-Virden and Safford valleys were not included in the proposed 
critical habitat, in part because of urban development. Therefore, the 
San Francisco River in and below Clifton, the Gila Box, and portions of 
the San Pedro and Verde Rivers do not qualify as critical habitat 
because of urban and other human uses of those areas.
    Our Response: Urban and suburban development alone do not 
necessarily cause a stream to become unsuitable for spikedace or loach 
minnow. For the upper end of Oak Creek, the substantial urban 
development is not the only a factor considered in the omission of that 
area from the proposed designation. Habitat in the portions of upper 
Oak Creek omitted from the proposed designation rapidly becomes 
increasingly unsuitable due to stream gradient, substrate, and other 
inherent ecological factors. Because the adjacent designated habitat is 
unoccupied, and since upper Oak Creek has no value as a movement 
corridor to other suitable or occupied habitat, there are no overriding 
reasons for extending the critical habitat designation to include the 
small additional area that is in the urban zone.
    The Duncan-Virden Valley is substantially altered by agricultural, 
and, to a small extent, urban development, but still supports spikedace 
and loach minnow in its upper portion (Rinne et al. 1996b). Information 
received during the comment period indicates that more of this reach of 
the Gila River may have been appropriate for consideration as critical 
habitat, and its inclusion will be re-evaluated during future revision 
of the critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow.
    The Safford Valley was historically suitable habitat for spikedace 
and loach minnow, but is now highly altered, primarily by agricultural 
practices, and provides only partially suitable habitat with potential 
for improvement with management. Since it is adjacent to unoccupied 
habitat and provides no movement corridor between more suitable areas, 
the added value of including the valley portion of the stream was 
considered low.
    The lower San Francisco River, on the other hand, may be occupied 
and is adjacent to documented occupied habitat. Although altered, it 
still contains substantial areas of suitable habitat, and it provides a 
connection between the occupied area and the unoccupied recovery area 
in the Gila Box. The small amount of urbanization and the alterations 
due to flood control and mining are not significant enough to negate 
the value of the stretch for spikedace and loach minnow survival and 
recovery. The Gila Box is in a National Riparian Conservation Area and 
does not have urban or suburban development. There are no heavily 
urbanized areas along the San Pedro River within the area proposed for 
critical habitat. The Cottonwood-to-Camp Verde stretch of the Verde 
Valley is heavily urbanized but still contains substantial suitable, 
occupied habitat which, if appropriate diversion management takes 
place, could be significantly improved. The area is also a connecting 
corridor between occupied upstream areas and important unoccupied 
downstream recovery areas.

[[Page 24347]]

    Comment 4b14: The habitat in Oak Creek is not suitable for 
spikedace or loach minnow due to heavy recreation use.
    Our Response: We agree that heavy recreation use in Oak Creek may 
be adversely impacting the stream and its fish habitat. However, we 
believe that suitable habitat still exists for spikedace and loach 
minnow and, with proper management, recreation and recovery of these 
two fishes can be compatible.
    Comment 4b15: Some comments contend that the San Francisco River 
below its confluence with the Blue River and the Gila River in the Gila 
Box are too large to be suitable for either spikedace or loach minnow 
because they are larger than the Verde River below Fossil Creek, which 
was not included in the designation. In addition, concern was expressed 
that the Gila Box contains too much sediment to support spikedace and 
loach minnow.
    Our Response: The San Francisco River below its confluence with the 
Blue River and the Gila River below its confluence with the San 
Francisco are well within the historical range of both species and 
contain suitable habitat. Median flows (discharge) at the gauging 
station near Clifton on the San Francisco River are similar to those 
for the Verde River near Clarkdale, within occupied spikedace habitat 
(Pope et al. 1998). Median flows at the gauging station at the head of 
the Safford Valley are about 25 percent less than those in the Verde 
River below Fossil Creek (Pope et al. 1998). In addition, the Verde 
River below Fossil Creek is well within the historical range of 
spikedace and loach minnow and, as some commenters have pointed out, 
has sufficient suitable habitat to meet critical habitat criteria.
    Comment 4b16: Many commenters contend the San Pedro River does not 
have suitable habitat for spikedace and loach minnow based on a number 
of factors. These include--(a) The river was changed dramatically by a 
late 1800's earthquake and no longer has permanent flowing water; (b) 
toxic mine waste spills from Mexico occur periodically and are not 
within our control; (c) the extirpation of spikedace and loach minnow 
from the San Pedro 30 years ago is conclusive evidence that the habitat 
is not suitable; (d) the gradient in the river is too high or too low; 
(e) the substrate is not the appropriate size; (f) the San Pedro River 
does not have a snowmelt hydrograph; (g) recent reestablishment of 
beaver precludes spikedace and loach minnow occupation; (h) there is 
too much water depletion by humans; (i) riparian vegetation is 
destroying the aquatic habitat and increasing nonnative fish; and (j) 
the statement that this is the ``type'' locality is inappropriate 
because it is not the right type of habitat.
    Our Response: (a) The fish of the upper San Pedro River are sampled 
twice yearly, once by the BLM and once by the Bureau of Reclamation 
(Stefferud and Stefferud 1989, 1990, 1998, Girmendonk et al. 1997, 
Clarkson 1998, Marsh 1999). The Middle San Pedro is sampled annually by 
the Bureau of Reclamation. Other, irregular samplings occur. This work 
has confirmed that there is permanent water in the river, that flow 
supports three native and several nonnative fish species, and that 
there is suitable or potentially suitable habitat for spikedace and 
loach minnow in both the upper and middle San Pedro River. Whatever the 
effects of the 1887 earthquake on the habitat and flow of the San Pedro 
River, spikedace and loach minnow were present prior to the earthquake 
and for almost 100 years after the earthquake. Therefore, it is 
unlikely that the earthquake was a definitive factor in the presence or 
absence of habitat for spikedace and loach minnow.
    (b) Toxic flow events in the past from mines near Cananea, Sonora, 
Mexico, have had highly adverse effects to the fauna of the San Pedro 
River (Eberhardt 1981). In fact, it is likely that such events in the 
late 1960's and early 1970's were responsible for extirpating spikedace 
and loach minnow from the San Pedro River. Other human activities in 
the upper San Pedro River in Mexico can potentially adversely affect 
the use of the U.S. portion by spikedace and loach minnow. However, we 
intend to work with the governments of Mexico and Sonora to minimize 
adverse effects.
    (c) The overall gradient of a river doesn't change over 100 years, 
barring serious geologic events. Although there was a substantial 
earthquake in southeastern Arizona in 1887, there is no evidence that 
it altered the overall gradient of the river (DuBois and Smith 1980, 
Hereford 1993). The San Pedro River is the type locality of both 
spikedace and loach minnow and supported both species when first 
sampled in 1840 and for 120 years after that, demonstrating its 
suitability for the two species. Please also see our response to 
comment 4b9.
    (d) Although fine substrate is predominant in most reaches of the 
San Pedro River, the upper river in the Riparian National Conservation 
area has significant areas of riffle habitat with gravel and cobble 
substrates that are capable of supporting spikedace and loach minnow 
(Stefferud and Stefferud 1989, Velasco 1993). The middle San Pedro 
River, at present, has little substrate of suitable size for spikedace 
and loach minnow. However, substrate size is a function of many other 
river variables, such as velocity, flow volume, bank structure, and 
sediment source. Personal observations by our biologists, along with 
discussion with biologists from The Nature Conservancy, AGFD, BLM, and 
the Desert Fishes Recovery Team support a conclusion that this portion 
of the San Pedro River has a strong potential for enhancement to the 
point where it may once again support healthy populations of spikedace 
and loach minnow. One commenter compared average substrate particle 
sizes in the San Pedro River with those in Aravaipa Creek and concluded 
that since the latter were larger, the San Pedro River does not have 
suitable substrate for spikedace and loach minnow. However, fish use 
microhabitats within the overall stream and those microhabitats may 
have substrates, or other constituents, that differ from the 
``average.'' For example, a mile of stream may be primarily a shallow, 
sandy run, but it may also contain deep pools at rock bends and root 
wad overhangs. A fish which requires pools could not survive in the 
average shallow depth and sandy substrate, but may still be present 
because it uses the ``nonaverage'' habitat of pools.
    (f) The role of snowmelt in the hydrograph of the San Pedro River 
has not changed over the past 160 years, and spikedace and loach minnow 
occupied the San Pedro River during at least 120 of those years. This 
information supports a conclusion that a snowmelt hydrograph is not a 
determining factor in suitability of a stream system for spikedace and 
loach minnow.
    (g) The BLM and the AGFD have assured us that the reestablishment 
of beaver can be controlled and managed to prevent severe loss of 
potential recovery for the two fishes. Beaver were native to the San 
Pedro River and historically coexisted with spikedace and loach minnow, 
both here and elsewhere. Given careful management, we believe that 
beaver, spikedace, and loach minnow reestablishments can all succeed in 
the San Pedro River.
    (h) We are working closely with a number of Federal, State, and 
local entities to ensure that flows in the San Pedro River continue.
    (i) Although riparian vegetation does remove a certain portion of 
the surface and subsurface flow of a river through evapotranspiration, 
(the movement through, use of, and evaporation from the surface of 
water by plants) it also provides many irreplaceable benefits to the 
aquatic ecosystem (Auble et al.

[[Page 24348]]

1994, Bagley et al. 1998, Osborne and Kovacic 1997, USBLM 1990). 
Without healthy riparian vegetation a stream is subject to, among other 
things, increased erosion, increased water temperatures, and a decrease 
in instream community diversity formed by streambanks and large woody 
debris. Under some circumstances increased riparian vegetation may 
increase nonnative fish species by increasing the types of habitats 
favored by those species. However, a healthy riparian system will 
provide a higher diversity of aquatic community types, thus allowing a 
greater degree of coexistence between native and nonnative fishes.
    (j) The San Pedro River is the ``type locality'' for spikedace and 
loach minnow. The type locality of a species is simply the area from 
which the ``type specimens'' were taken. Type specimens are those 
preserved specimens that were used to first describe the species. 
Please also see our response to comment 4b9.
    Comment 4b17: There were many comments which contended that Eagle 
Creek does not have suitable habitat for spikedace and loach minnow 
based on a number of factors. These included--(a) it is an artificial 
system with flows coming from a transbasin diversion and groundwater 
pumping; (b) there are several distinct topographic stretches and 
spikedace and loach minnow could not occupy all of those different 
topographic areas; (c) the historical presence of beaver in Eagle Creek 
make the system unsuitable to have ever supported spikedace and loach 
minnow and the continued presence of beaver make the habitat presently 
unsuitable for the two fish species; and (d) neither spikedace nor 
loach minnow were ever present above Sheep Wash due to unsuitable 
habitat historically and any suitable habitat there now will become 
unsuitable as Eagle Creek in that area reverts to a more natural 
system.
    Our Response: (a) Spikedace and loach minnow are both known to have 
historically occurred in Eagle Creek. Although the stream has been 
modified by human augmentation of the flows, that modification has not 
been sufficient to eliminate either species. The continued survival of 
both species in the artificially modified stream supports the position 
that the habitat is suitable. Modification of the stream does not 
automatically disqualify an area from designation as critical habitat 
and consideration as essential to the conservation of the species. The 
artificial augmentation of Eagle Creek flows may help mitigate other 
habitat alterations that have decreased natural flows in the system, 
thus resulting in a system that is more ``natural'' than it would be 
without the artificial augmentation.
    (b) It is true that Eagle Creek has distinct topographic areas, 
including canyon reaches and valley reaches. However, all of the 
topographic areas within the proposed section of Eagle Creek contain 
riffle habitats suitable for spikedace and loach minnow, although in 
varying proportions. As stated in this rule, it is important to protect 
areas of large enough size and connectivity to allow for fluctuations 
in habitat over time and movement of fish between areas.
    (c) Spikedace and loach minnow historically coexisted with beaver 
in most, if not all, of their historical range. There is no evidence to 
indicate that the presence of beaver preclude spikedace and loach 
minnow presence.
    (d) In 1950, Miller recorded loach minnow from near Sheep Wash 
(Marsh et al. 1990). In 1994 and again in 1995, Arizona State 
University personnel recorded loach minnow near Honeymoon Campground, 
about 15 miles upstream from Sheep Wash (Knowles 1994, 1995). Spikedace 
were first collected in 1985 (Bestgen 1985) in lower Eagle Creek. They 
were collected near Sheep Wash through 1987, and have not been 
collected since that time. There is presently suitable habitat for both 
species throughout the upper area of Eagle Creek above Sheep Wash. 
Although upper Eagle Creek has been substantially modified by human 
activities, the topography, geology, and stream geomorphology indicate 
that it is likely the stream in that area historically supported 
suitable habitat for spikedace and loach minnow and that ``reversion'' 
to a more natural state will not prevent the presence of those two 
species.
    Comment 4b18: We received comments that no suitable habitat exists 
on Fossil Creek for spikedace and loach minnow. This was based on a 
1998 USFS NEPA compliance review on an adjacent livestock grazing 
allotment. Commenters also felt the hydropower diversion of Fossil 
Creek is favorable to spikedace and loach minnow because it prevents 
upstream migration of nonnative fish, and believe it is premature to 
assume flows in Fossil Creek will be enhanced as a result of hydropower 
relicensing.
    Our Response: The information on which the USFS finding was based 
was not provided or available, therefore we cannot assess why it 
differs from information in our files and that we have received from 
other sources, including USFS documents regarding the Childs/Irving 
hydropower relicensing.
    The diversion of almost all flow from lower Fossil Creek for 
hydropower does inhibit upstream migration of nonnative fish. However, 
we believe there are more effective ways to prevent nonnative incursion 
than flow diversion. The application of the hydropower licensee to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission includes a proposal to return some 
flow to lower Fossil Creek. In addition, negotiations are ongoing that 
may result in even larger flows in lower Fossil Creek. Either way, the 
stream is expected to recover suitability for spikedace and loach 
minnow.
    Comment 4b19: One commenter felt that Rye Creek did not provide 
suitable habitat for spikedace and loach minnow and that the statement 
in the rule regarding the presence of a native fish community was in 
error.
    Our Response: Rye Creek is poorly sampled, but Abarca and Weedman 
(1993) reported a fish community dominated by two native fishes--
longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster) and desert sucker (Pantosteus 
clarki), and Bancroft et al. (1980) also reported Sonora sucker 
(Catostomus insignis), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), and Gila 
chub (Gila intermedia). In 1995, a sampling recorded all five of those 
native species (Weedman et al. 1996), which is a large number of native 
species remaining compared to most streams in the Gila Basin. Of the 
seventeen native fishes of the Gila River basin, only one stream (Eagle 
Creek) has eight species remaining, three others have seven (upper Gila 
River in New Mexico, upper Verde River, and Aravaipa Creek), and the 
San Francisco and Blue Rivers each have six species remaining. Two 
nonnative species were also reported in Rye Creek in 1980, three in 
1993, and three again in 1995, which composed less than 10 percent of 
the fish present. The presence of this native fish community, plus the 
presence of what is reported by biologists with expertise in spikedace 
and loach minnow to be suitable habitat (J. Stefferud, USFS, pers. com. 
February 2000) is sufficient evidence to include Rye Creek in the 
designation. Suitable areas to recover spikedace and loach minnow in 
the Salt River Basin are very limited and we believe it is important 
that the Tonto Creek complex include more than just the mainstem. 
Information on other suitable tributaries was provided by USFS comments 
on the proposed rule. These tributaries may also provide recovery 
habitat that may be considered for possible designation in a future 
revision of the critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow.

[[Page 24349]]

    Comment 4c: Several commenters recommended additional areas be 
included in the designation of critical habitat. Those areas are listed 
in Table 4.
    Our Response: Because of the requirement for all proposed 
designation to undergo public review and comments, areas normally are 
not added to the designation without an additional proposal. We will 
consider all information provided on additional areas in future 
revision of the critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow. Based 
on the best available science at this time, we determine that the areas 
designated by this rule are sufficient to conserve the species. Our 
responses on individual areas suggested for addition are given in Table 
4.

    Table 4.--Requests for Additions to Critical Habitat and Response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fish and
                                           Reason for        Wildlife
    Complex number       Stream reach     recommended        Service
                                            addition         response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................  Sycamore Creek   Why other Verde  Except at
                        (upper Verde     tributaries      mouth,
                        basin).          but not          gradient too
                                         Sycamore         high and
                                         Creek?           habitat not
                                                          suitable.
1....................  Verde River      Believe is       Will seek
                        from Fossil Ck   suitable for     additional
                        to Sheep         recovery of      information.
                        Bridge.          spikedace and
                                         loach minnow.
1....................  Lower East       Believe is       Believe
                        Verde River.     suitable for     unsuitable--wi
                                         recovery of      ll seek
                                         spikedace and    additional
                                         loach minnow.    information.
1....................  Red Creek......  Believe it       Will seek
                                         suitable for     additional
                                         recovery of      information.
                                         spikedace and
                                         loach minnow.
1....................  Lower Tangle     Believe is       Will seek
                        and Sycamore     suitable for     additional
                        Creeks (middle   recovery of      information.
                        Verde basin).    spikedace and
                                         loach minnow.
3....................  Slate and Gun    May meet         No information
                        Creek.           criteria for     on these
                                         critical         creeks--will
                                         habitat.         seek
                                                          information.
4....................  Mescal Creek...  In spikedace     Could
                                         recovery plan    contribute to
                                         as possible      diversity and
                                         reintroduction   complexity in
                                         site.            complex.
5....................  Babocomari       May meet         Lower and upper
                        River.           criteria for     ends not
                                         critical         suitable
                                         habitat.         habitat, no
                                                          information on
                                                          middle
                                                          portion--will
                                                          seek further
                                                          information.
6....................  Bonita Creek     Has suitable     Information
                        above Martinez   habitat.         from San
                        Wash.                             Carlos Dept.
                                                          of Nat.
                                                          Resources is
                                                          that no
                                                          suitable
                                                          habitat
                                                          exists.
6....................  Eagle Creek      Omission is      Would
                        below Phelps     inconsistent     contribute to
                        Dodge dam.       with emphasis    connectivity,
                                         on continuity    but has little
                                         in critical      habitat due to
                                         habitat.         water
                                                          diversion.
7....................  Mangas Creek...  Believed to      Channel is
                                         have spikedace   highly eroded
                                         population.      and no
                                                          significant
                                                          surface flow
                                                          during most
                                                          times--will
                                                          seek
                                                          information.
None.................  Salome Creek...  May meet         Will seek
                                         criteria for     additional
                                         critical         information.
                                         habitat.
None.................  Cherry Creek...  May meet         Believe too
                                         criteria for     little low to
                                         critical         moderate
                                         habitat.         gradient areas
                                                          are present--
                                                          will seek
                                                          additional
                                                          information.
None.................  White River....  Occupied and     See section on
                                         considered       Tribal issues.
                                         biologically
                                         important.
None.................  Gila River ``as  Has similar      Assuming
                        it flows         potential to     commenter
                        through          areas proposed.  meant Gila
                        Phoenix''.                        River south of
                                                          Phoenix, river
                                                          is diverted
                                                          and dry most
                                                          of time,
                                                          channel highly
                                                          degraded, not
                                                          suitable for
                                                          these fish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4d: Several commenters identified areas they believe have 
no need for critical habitat designation.
    Comment 4d1: Designation of critical habitat on Federal and State 
lands is not needed, according to a number of commenters, because it is 
already protected by a number of laws, regulations, policies, and 
plans. Designation of critical habitat on private lands is also not 
needed because they are privately owned and critical habitat 
designation does not provide any protection.
    Our Response: Although there is management ongoing on most Federal 
lands, and to a limited extent on State and private lands, there 
continue to be many threats to these two fishes. Critical habitat may 
enhance management on Federal lands, and may help prevent adverse 
impacts on private lands due to Federal actions.
    Comment 4f2: Some comments suggested that critical habitat 
designation is not necessary because the threats to the species are 
from native and nonnative fish rather than habitat alteration or loss. 
In support of this a report by Propst et al. (1986) was cited as 
reporting that a nonnative fish, red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), and 
two native fish, longfin dace, and speckled dace, are competitive 
species known or observed to displace spikedace and loach minnow. One 
comment also contends that three other native fish, Gila chub, Sonora 
sucker, and desert sucker are predatory, with the implication they 
consume spikedace and loach minnow to the detriment of those species.
    Our Response: Both habitat alteration and loss and nonnative 
competition, predation, and other effects have contributed 
substantially to the threatened status of spikedace and loach minnow. 
Furthermore, these factors are inextricably intertwined. Habitat 
alteration has been a significant contributor to nonnative fish 
invasion, spread, and adverse effect. In turn, nonnative species have 
been a significant contribution to the inability of native fish to 
thrive in altered habitats. There is no information to indicate that 
either longfin dace or speckled dace adversely affect spikedace or 
loach minnow and the 1986 report does not make those claims (D. Propst, 
New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish; pers. com. March, 2000). All four 
species are native to the Gila River basin and longfin dace and 
speckled

[[Page 24350]]

dace were part of the community of species in which spikedace and loach 
minnow evolved. Differences in their habitat requirements enable the 
four species to coexist in the same stretch of stream. Their relative 
abundance may change due to habitat changes, but is not known to change 
due to interspecific interactions.
    Gila chub, although partly predatory, feeds mostly on organic 
debris and invertebrates and occupies habitat quite different from that 
of spikedace and loach minnow, thus making direct predation of Gila 
chub on either spikedace, loach minnow, or any fish, an unlikely 
occurrence (Weedman et al. 1996). Gila chub distribution has declined 
substantially in the past 100 years and it shares few stream reaches 
with either spikedace or loach minnow. Neither Sonora sucker nor desert 
sucker are known to be predatory; they consume organic debris from the 
substrate (Minckley 1973).
    Comment 4d3: Some of the areas proposed are already included in 
designated critical habitat for other species, such as the southwestern 
willow flycatcher, razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), Huachuca water 
umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva), and cactus ferruginous 
pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum). Therefore, some commenters 
felt the additional protection for spikedace and loach minnow is 
unnecessary and might lead to adverse effects on the species for which 
the area was already designated as critical habitat.
    Our Response: The habitat needs of spikedace and loach minnow are 
not identical to those of the other four species whose designated 
critical habitat overlaps that designated for the two fish. Therefore, 
protection of the habitat of those species will not necessarily suffice 
for spikedace and loach minnow, although we expect that protection of 
the habitat of one species will often result in at least partial or 
total protection for the other species in the same area. Also, the 
critical habitat designation for other species would be removed upon 
the delisting of those species. Thus, the protection provided from the 
one species' designation does not assure the long-term protection for 
others.
    We do not anticipate protection of one of the species for which the 
area is designated as critical habitat as being adverse to any of the 
others. However, during section 7 consultation, we would consider the 
interaction and possible conflict of requirements for different listed 
species. The purpose of the Act is protection of ecosystems and we 
encourage management of areas with listed species on ecosystem 
principles which will ensure benefits to all the species in the area.
    Comment 4e: Some comments compared the critical habitat to the 
recovery plans for spikedace and loach minnow. In particular, a concern 
was raised that some areas proposed for critical habitat were not 
specifically identified in the recovery plans as recovery areas.
    Our Response: Although the recovery plans for the two fishes 
identify some areas specifically as having a strong recovery potential, 
they also call for identification of other reaches with recovery 
potential. That process has been ongoing in the nine years since the 
recovery plans were prepared and discussions among experts on the 
species have assisted us in identifying the areas in the designated 
critical habitat.
    Comment 4f: A number of comments were received that expressed 
concern that designation of critical habitat would have adverse effects 
on spikedace and loach minnow.
    Comment 4f1: The Blue River was not occupied by loach minnow in 
1904 but they became common by 1995 as a result of livestock grazing 
management. Critical habitat designation will change grazing management 
with adverse impacts to loach minnow.
    Our Response: There are no known records of native fish from the 
Blue River prior to 1904. In 1904, Chamberlain conducted a brief survey 
of fishes of the Blue River from its mouth to the confluence with K.P. 
Creek (Chamberlain 1904, Minckley 1999). He did not find loach minnow; 
he found only one native fish, the longfin dace. The reason for the 
scarcity of all other native fish is unknown, but probably relates to 
the human alterations of the stream channel and watershed that led Aldo 
Leopold to call the Blue River ``ruined'' (Leopold 1921, Leopold 1946). 
Although Chamberlain's survey indicated that loach minnow were clearly 
not common in that portion of the Blue River in 1904, it does not 
provide evidence regarding historical occupation of spikedace and loach 
minnow in the Blue River, nor does it alone support a conclusion that 
either species was extirpated from the river. The next records of a 
native fish survey in the Blue River are from 1977, when Anderson and 
Turner found five species of native fish, including loach minnow. In 
the mid-1990's, loach minnow were relatively common in the Blue River, 
although they were the rarest of the five remaining native species 
(AGFD 1994, Bagley et al. 1995).
    We have no data to indicate that grazing management is responsible 
for introducing or enhancing loach minnow in the Blue River. Caution 
must be used in interpreting data from a point-in-time sample such as 
Chamberlain's. Both spikedace and loach minnow exhibit the strong 
fluctuations in population levels typical of small, short-lived 
species, and 1904 may have been a low-point in their population cycles 
for many reasons related or unrelated to livestock grazing or other 
human influences.
    Comment 4f2: A number of commenters alleged that designation of 
critical habitat will be detrimental to spikedace and loach minnow by 
removing human-caused disturbance (particularly livestock grazing) of 
the aquatic ecosystem which will cause the habitat to change into an 
unsuitable condition for spikedace and loach minnow. They believe the 
altered habitat will be highly suitable for nonnative fish, thus 
allowing them to expand and severely reduce or eliminate spikedace and 
loach minnow. They cite the recent Verde River work of John Rinne, of 
the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, which they believe was 
overlooked in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: It is correct that spikedace and loach minnow, along 
with all of the native fish community of the Gila River basin, require 
a certain level and type of disturbance in their habitat. The primary 
factor in its natural disturbance regime is periodic flooding, although 
other natural processes such as fire and erosion also contribute to the 
natural disturbances influencing aquatic systems. These processes are a 
characteristic of healthy dynamic river systems and natural flooding 
and hydrographs are part of the constituent elements described above.
    It is also true that under certain circumstances human-caused 
disturbance may provide benefits to the species, such as rejuvenation 
of spawning gravels or removal of nonnative species. However, there is 
no information that indicates human-caused disturbance can mimic the 
complex natural disturbance processes, with the possible exception of 
prescribed burning.
    We are aware of Dr. Rinne's work in the Verde River and did not 
overlook the papers discussing his work (see our response to comment 
4(g)) Dr. Rinne's work provides speculation on the potential connection 
between the low population levels of spikedace in the Verde River that 
have occurred concurrently with the removal of livestock from the 
riparian corridor (Rinne 1999a, 1999b). Disturbance created by 
livestock grazing or

[[Page 24351]]

bulldozing the stream channel are far different from that caused by 
flooding.
    Comment 4f3: Designation of critical habitat on private lands will 
result in loss of access to those lands and therefore such designation 
cannot be essential to the conservation (recovery) of the spikedace and 
loach minnow.
    Our Response: We will continue to work with any private landowners 
whose lands support habitat occupied by, or presently or potentially 
suitable for, spikedace and loach minnow, and who would like to 
voluntarily cooperate in conservation activities. This would be the 
case with or without critical habitat designation.
    Comment 4f4: One commenter believes that exclusion of San Carlos 
Tribal lands will preclude management of native fish in the middle Gila 
River below the confluence with the San Pedro River due to incompatible 
goals of the San Carlos Apache Tribe.
    Our Response: We are not aware of any provision of the critical 
habitat that would preclude management of native fish in the middle 
Gila River. Furthermore, we do not believe self-management of San 
Carlos Apache Tribal lands will negate the conservation of native 
fishes in the middle Gila River.
    Comment 4f5: Some commenters contend that the designation of 
critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow will prevent flood 
control and human management of riparian vegetation, floodplain, and 
streambank structure. This will prevent or complicate use of best 
management practices and result in a loss of natural river functioning 
and an increase in flooding and flood damage. Other commenters assert 
that designation of critical habitat will hinder proper management of 
native fishes and will prevent or inhibit removal or control of 
undesirable nonnative species.
    Our Response: We do not believe that natural river function 
precludes flood control and human management of riparian vegetation, 
floodplain, and streambank structure. Designation of critical habitat 
will not prevent such human alterations of the ecosystem, but may 
result in modifications of those human actions to ameliorate or avoid 
the most serious of the adverse consequences of those actions to 
spikedace and loach minnow. Designation of critical habitat will not 
increase flooding, although it is hoped that through section 7 
consultation we can ensure watershed management practices that will 
alter flood patterns toward a more natural regime. A more natural 
regime will have lower flood peaks and higher low flows. Increased 
upland, riparian, and stream channel conditions should lead to greater 
infiltration and bank storage, thus lowering flood peaks and increasing 
base flows.
    Critical habitat is not expected to hinder management of native 
fishes. Such a result would be contrary to the purpose of the 
designation. Since recovery of spikedace and loach minnow depends upon 
some control and removal of undesirable nonnative species, we 
anticipate that critical habitat designation will assist that effort by 
identifying areas in need of such management and inhibiting actions 
that increase nonnative introduction and distribution.
    Comment 4f6: Many commenters were concerned about the role of 
nonnative aquatic species, particularly fish, in the recovery of 
spikedace and loach minnow. They believe that rivers within the Gila 
basin cannot be restored for recovery of spikedace and loach minnow due 
to the presence of nonnative species which some suggest cannot be 
removed or controlled. They believe removal of adverse impacts or 
improvement of habitat conditions will always favor nonnative species. 
``Restoration'' will always result in increases in pools and loss of 
riffles, runs and glides. Therefore, no areas of stream needing 
restoration or habitat enhancement should be included in the critical 
habitat.
    Our Response: While restoration may provide enhanced opportunities 
for nonnative species as well as for native species, this problem must 
be dealt with on a site-specific basis. Restoration or enhancement 
plans must consider this issue and provide for mechanisms to prevent 
unacceptable adverse impacts from nonnative species. Nonnative species 
in many cases can be completely removed using a variety of techniques. 
In other cases, control measures can reduce nonnative populations to 
acceptable levels.
    Comment 4g: Several commenters felt that designation of critical 
habitat should be delayed because they believe more information or 
studies are needed for a valid decision. Others felt that the best 
available scientific and commercial information was either not used or 
was not sufficient and that the designation was based on faulty 
information and ``bad science.'' The most commonly cited evidence of 
this was what the commenters felt was failure to consider a body of 
literature by Dr. John Rinne, of the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain 
Research Station. According to the commenters, Dr. Rinne has 
information indicating that the accepted knowledge on spikedace and 
loach minnow and their habitat is incorrect, that there is not clear 
understanding of what spikedace and loach minnow habitat management 
requires, that spikedace have been extirpated from the Verde River due 
to removal of livestock grazing, that human disturbance is necessary to 
the survival of these two fish, and that aquatic vegetation is harmful 
to spikedace.
    Our Response: The Act requires designation of critical habitat 
using the best available information. Delaying designation to obtain 
more information is not legally justified. If significant new 
information arises that calls this designation into question, we can 
revise it through a new proposal and final rule.
    Dr. Rinne is the author of a number of papers, in peer reviewed 
journals and other outlets, on spikedace, loach minnow, and other Gila 
basin native fishes. All of Dr. Rinne's work was considered in our 
analysis leading to the proposed designation (see also comment response 
4f2). Dr. Rinne is a consultant on the Desert Fishes Recovery Team and 
has participated exensively in our work on conservation of spikedace 
and loach minnow. We are not aware of any statement in print by Dr. 
Rinne that spikedace are extirpated from the Verde River, although he 
has stated that spikedace is ``absent'' from the Verde (Rinne et al. 
1999b) and that they are ``rare'' there (Rinne et al. 1999a). Spikedace 
were collected from the Verde River in spring 1999 by AGFD (AGFD unpub. 
data) and there is no information to support a finding of extirpation.
    Dr. Rinne's work does not contain any significant new information 
on distribution, biology, ecology, or other aspects of spikedace and 
loach minnow that contradicts what has been found in earlier work by 
him and other researchers. Dr. Rinne's conclusions regarding the role 
of disturbance in spikedace habitat and the balance between nonnative 
and native fishes has been primarily oriented toward natural flooding 
and low flows (Stefferud and Rinne 1996, Rinne and Stefferud 1997, 
Neary and Rinne 1998). We do not find any conclusion regarding the 
necessity for human-caused disturbance in spikedace or loach minnow 
habitat in any of Dr. Rinne's work. He has speculated on the role of 
livestock grazing in stream habitat conditions and noted the downturn 
in spikedace population that coincided with removal of livestock 
grazing from the riparian corridor (Rinne 1999a). He has stated that he 
believes we do not know enough about livestock grazing impacts on fish 
and their habitat to make valid management decisions (Rinne 1999). Dr.

[[Page 24352]]

Rinne's views on some of these subjects do not necessarily reflect all 
views in the scientific community working on desert fishes (Brooks et 
al. 2000).
    Comment 4h: Some commenters objected to use of any information not 
in the peer-reviewed literature. Some also objected to use of survey or 
study information that was not directly obtained by us. They believe it 
is inappropriate for us to rely on the work of other entities.
    Our Response: Much of the information regarding native fish 
distribution and management is in agency documents and other non-peer 
reviewed literature. This forms part of the best available information 
on the species and it would be biologically unsupportable to make 
decisions which ignore that information. Most of the surveys and 
studies on native fish are conducted by entities other than us. We rely 
heavily on information about these species and their habitats from 
agencies such as the state game and fish agencies and universities.
    Comment 4i: One commenter believes the Service overlooked important 
information that spikedace can bury underground and survive extensive 
periods without water. This person states that spikedace have been 
found by local residents in rainwater puddles in upland areas, such as 
the parking lot at the Duncan, Arizona, high school.
    Our Response: There is no information in the scientific literature 
or within the expertise of biologists working on spikedace to indicate 
that spikedace can either bury underground or survive without water. 
Available evidence indicates that spikedace die only minutes after 
being removed from water. They can, however, survive in only small 
amounts of water. In a streambed, there may be small pockets of water 
between rocks and under overhanging banks or rocks that fish can use to 
survive short periods of no flow. There have been no valid reports of 
which we are aware of spikedace appearing in rainwater puddles in 
upland areas.
    Comment 4j: Some comments addressed the issues of continuity and 
fragmentation. Because certain stretches of the San Pedro were not 
included in the critical habitat designation, thus violating the 
principles of habitat continuity expressed in the draft rule, one 
commenter felt that no portion of the San Pedro River should be 
included in the critical habitat designation. Other commenters believe 
that the designated critical habitat should be broken up into small, 
isolated segments without connecting corridors to help prevent 
nonnative species from invading the critical habitat. They believe 
designation of connecting areas as critical habitat will increase 
nonnative fish movement and adverse effects to spikedace and loach 
minnow.
    Our Response: Although we attempted to designate critical habitat 
areas that were large and diverse enough to provide for connections 
between habitat areas, we omitted certain areas of the San Pedro River. 
The upper San Pedro River in the Riparian National Conservation Area is 
to some extent hydrologically disjunct from the middle San Pedro River 
(see USGS hydrologic data). This, plus the signficant areas of no flow 
and no permanent water and the level of channel alteration and ongoing 
disturbance, led us to omit that area. The exclusion of those areas in 
the critical habitat designation will not, per se, prevent nonnative 
species from using those corridors and inclusion will not provide any 
opportunities for nonnative movement that do not exit without the 
designation. The middle San Pedro River and its tributaries of Redfield 
and Hot Springs canyons form a complex that we think is of sufficient 
size and complexity to justify a unit. The lower San Pedro receives 
most of its flow from Aravaipa Creek and forms a unit more closely 
aligned to Aravaipa Creek and the middle Gila River than to the middle 
San Pedro River, at least under present conditions. If additional 
information becomes available that indicates the omitted areas in the 
San Pedro River should be included in the critical habitat, it may be 
considered in any later revisions of the designation.
    The designation of connecting areas in the critical habitat is, in 
part, to provide the opportunity for spikedace and loach minnow to move 
between stream sections, thus maintaining natural fluctuation patterns 
and providing for recolonization of areas which have become depopulated 
due to temporary conditions. The designation will also help keep those 
areas in a condition where natural hydrographs and channel 
geomorphology are maintained relatively intact.
    Comment 4k: Commenters mentioned a number of pieces of information 
which they felt were omitted from the proposed rule that should be 
provided before any final decision on critical habitat. These included 
the qualifications of Charles Girard to identify the type specimens of 
spikedace and loach minnow from the San Pedro River in 1851; the 
special management considerations or protections which would be needed 
for each stream segment; the restoration measures that would be taken 
to make each segment capable of providing the constituent elements; 
streamflow data on all streams proposed for designation and analyses of 
those data and their relationship to the habitat needs of spikedace and 
loach minnow; an explanation of the science supporting the importance 
of the floodplain in stream ecology; the recent science on ``river 
pooling''; a discussion of fishery-livestock grazing dynamics; and 
detailed genetic data to support the differentiation between 
populations of spikedace and loach minnow.
    Our Response: The proposed rule is a summary of the information 
used to formulate the proposal for critical habitat designation, as 
required by the Act. Detailed information can be obtained from the 
literature cited in the proposed and final rules, the recovery plans 
for these two species, as well as in many other literature sources. We 
can provide assistance in obtaining literature on any of the above 
subjects (see ADDRESSES section).
    Comment 4l: A few commenters suggested that, rather than trying to 
restore spikedace and loach minnow in the unoccupied areas proposed for 
critical habitat, recovery for the species should be accomplished by 
raising the two fish in captivity and selling them commercially for 
aquarium fish and in private ponds.
    Our Response: The purpose of the Act is to conserve listed species 
and the ecosystems on which they depend. Relegating a species to 
captivity does not conserve the ecosystem on which they depend. In 
addition, spikedace and loach minnow require flowing streams, so are 
not easily raised in captivity and do not survive well in aquaria or 
ponds.
    Comment 4m: Some commenters pointed out that spikedace and loach 
minnow were unsuccessfully introduced in Sonoita Creek and Seven 
Springs Wash. They believe this proves they cannot be successfully 
established in any areas other than where they currently exist and 
therefore no unoccupied areas should be included in the critical 
habitat designation as there is no probability they can be used for 
recovery.
    Our Response: The 1968 stocking of spikedace and loach minnow into 
Sonoita Creek and 1970 stocking of both into Seven-Springs Wash failed 
(Minckley and Brooks 1985). The reasons for these failures are unknown; 
however, repatriation techniques and information on these two species 
and their habitat needs has increased substantially since 1970. Neither 
Sonoita Creek nor Seven-Springs Wash have been proposed for critical 
habitat for the two fish. We do not believe the failure of these 
stockings discourages

[[Page 24353]]

future attempts to reestablish the species in areas where they have 
been extirpated.

Issue 5: NEPA Compliance

    Several commenters questioned the adequacy of our Environmental 
Assessment (EA) and other aspects of our compliance with NEPA.
    Comment 5a: The Fish and Wildlife Service should prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this action.
    Our Response: An EIS is required only in instances where a proposed 
Federal action is expected to have a significant impact on the human 
environment. In order to determine whether designation of critical 
habitat would have such an effect, we prepared an EA of the effects of 
the proposed designation. The draft EA was made available for public 
comment on the day the proposed critical habitat rule was published in 
the Federal Register. Following consideration of public comments, we 
prepared a final EA and determined that critical habitat designation 
does not constitute a major Federal action having a significant impact 
on the human environment. That determination is documented in our 
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Both the final EA and FONSI 
are available for public review (see ADDRESSES).
    Comment 5b: Several counties requested Joint Lead Agency or 
Cooperating Agency status in preparation of an EIS for this critical 
habitat designation. Why were those requests denied?
    Our Response: Catron and Hidalgo Counties, New Mexico, each 
requested Joint Lead Agency status to assist us in preparation of an 
EIS on the critical habitat designation. In addition, Cochise County, 
Arizona, requested either Joint Lead Agency or Cooperating Agency 
status. When preparing an EIS, a Joint Lead Agency may be a Federal, 
State, or local agency; however, a cooperating agency may only be 
another Federal agency (40 CFR 1501.5 and 1501.6). In December, 1999, 
we responded to those requests, stating that we were preparing an EA on 
the proposed action and that, should the EA result in a determination 
that an EIS was necessary, we would consider the counties' requests. 
However, since the EA resulted in a FONSI (see response to comment 5a, 
above), the issue of Joint Lead Agency or Cooperating Agency status on 
preparation of an EIS became moot.
    Comment 5c: The Service's range of alternatives considered in the 
draft EA was inadequate.
    Our Response: We reassessed and modified our analysis and believe 
we considered sufficient alternatives in the Final Environmental 
Assessment.

Issue 6: Tribal Issues

    The following comments and responses involve issues related to our 
treatment of Native American lands and properties during the 
designation process.
    Comment 6a: The exclusion of tribal lands places an unfair burden 
on non-tribal lands designated as critical habitat.
    Our Response: We do not agree with this commenter's assessment that 
the exclusion of tribal lands places an unfair burden on non-tribal 
lands within the designation. We are committed to working cooperatively 
with all willing parties--private land owners as well as Federal and 
State land managing agencies and Native American Indian Tribes in 
developing conservation agreements, partnerships, and habitat 
conservation plans which can make further Federal management of those 
lands unnecessary.
    In this case we concluded that the benefits of excluding Tribal 
land from the designation outweighed the benefits of including the 
land. Additionally, the White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe's native 
fishes management plan will provide conservation for the species and 
further Federal management under the critical habitat designation is 
not needed for the species on the reservation. Furthermore, tribal 
management of these native fish resources will also benefit native fish 
management of adjacent non-tribal lands. Although neither the San 
Carlos Apache nor Yavapai Apache tribes have developed conservation 
plans for these species at this time, we believe that the benefits from 
encouraging conservation through tribal self-governance outweighs the 
benefits of inclusion in the critical habitat designation. See the 
section titled ``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' for additional 
discussion concerning the Service's decision regarding tribal lands.
    Comment 6b: When referring to excluding tribal lands from critical 
habitat designation, does this apply to lands owned by the Tribe, or 
only to lands identified as being within the reservation boundary?
    Our Response: All tribal lands containing potential critical 
habitat for the spikedace or loach minnow that were ultimately excluded 
from the designation are within reservation boundaries.

Issue 7: Effects of Designation

    The following comments and responses involve issues related to the 
effects of critical habitat designation on land management or other 
activities.
    Comment 7a: The Service should clarify how critical habitat 
designation will affect specific land uses or management practices.
    Our Response: We intended that the portion of this final rule 
titled ``Effect of Critical Habitat Designation'' serve as a general 
guide to clarify activities that may affect or destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat. However, specific Federal actions will still 
need to be reviewed by the action agency. If the agency determines the 
activity may affect critical habitat, they will consult with us under 
section 7 of the Act. If it is determined that the activity is likely 
to adversely modify critical habitat, we will work with the agency to 
modify the activity to minimize negative impacts to critical habitat. 
We will work with the agencies and affected public early in the 
consultation process to avoid or minimize potential conflicts and, 
whenever possible, find a solution which protects listed species and 
their habitat while allowing the action to go forward in a manner 
consistent with its intended purpose.
    Comment 7b: The Service should clarify how critical habitat will 
affect management of nonnative fish. Will stocking of trout and other 
nonnative fish species be affected by the designation of critical 
habitat on several creeks and streams in Arizona?
    Our Response: We previously consulted on the winter rainbow trout 
fishery in the middle Verde River and on trout stocking in the upper 
Gila River. Trout stocking in those areas has proceeded. While each 
situation must be evaluated on a case by case basis, we anticipate that 
trout stocking may be compatible with recovery of the spikedace and 
loach minnow in most situations because trout are not as predacious as 
are many other nonnative fish, they only persist in the upper reaches 
of these streams, and they do not survive the summer if they move 
downstream into warmer waters. The stocking of nonnative fish species 
other than trout, particularly in areas near, or connected to, habitat 
for these listed species, regardless of critical habitat designation, 
may require additional consultation when a Federal nexus exists and a 
combination of techniques may be necessary to reduce the impacts.
    Comment 7c: The designation of critical habitat will impose section 
9 restrictions against taking of individuals

[[Page 24354]]

of these two species in areas that do not currently have those 
restrictions.
    Our Response: Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits the 
harm or harassment of individuals of listed species. Prohibitions 
against take would be present regardless of whether or not critical 
habitat has been designated. If areas designated as critical habitat do 
not have individuals of the listed species present, no take in the form 
of harm or harassment would occur from activities on these areas and no 
section 9 prohibitions would be in force. However, effects from 
activities in unoccupied habitat that extend downstream to areas 
occupied by a listed species could result in take, regardless of 
whether or not critical habitat has been designated.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    There have been a number of minor changes from the text of the 
proposed rule. We corrected errors in mileages and locations and made 
other minor technical changes, additions, and deletions. We 
incorporated information from comments into the text and have made 
clarifications in response to comments.
    In response to several comments, we clarified the lateral extent of 
critical habitat designation. Where delineated, this will be the 100-
year floodplain of the designated waterways as defined by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers. In areas where the 100-year floodplain has not been 
delineated or it is in dispute, the presence of alluvial soils (soils 
deposited by streams), obligate and facultative riparian vegetation 
(requiring and usually occurring in wetlands, respectively), abandoned 
river channels, or known high water marks can be used to determine the 
extent of the floodplain. We have also clarified that existing human-
constructed features and structures within the critical habitat 
boundaries are not considered part of the critical habitat.
    In response to a comment, we incorporated references to the October 
6, 1999 amendment to the September 20, 1999 court order into this Final 
Rule.
    We added a section titled ``Exclusion for Economic and Other 
Relevant Impacts'' to this Final Rule. We excluded the Fort Apache, San 
Carlos Apache, and Yavapai Apache Indian Reservation lands under the 
provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    We removed all stream reaches in complex 2, the Black River forks, 
from the critical habitat designation for spikedace for biological 
reasons. Comments received pointed out that the area is too high in 
elevation to have sufficient recovery potential for spikedace.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), under Executive Order 12866. We prepared an economic 
analysis of the proposed action to determine the economic consequences 
of designating the specific areas as critical habitat. Table 5 
summarizes the expected impacts of designating critical habitat for 
spikedace and loach minnow. The draft economic analysis was available 
for public review and comment during the comment period on the proposed 
rule. The final economic analysis is available for public review (see 
ADDRESSES section of this rule). We determined that this rule will not 
significantly impact entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or 
the rights and obligations of their recipients (see Exclusion for 
Economic and Other Relevant Impacts section of this final rule). This 
rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues.

                Table 5.--Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Activities potentially
                                     affected by the designation
                                        of critical habitat in        Activities potentially affected by the
      Categories of activities          areas occupied by the      designation of critical habitat in unoccupied
                                      species (above those from                        areas
                                         listing the species)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Activities Potentially       None.......................  Activities such as those affecting waters of
 Affected \1\.                                                     the United States by the Army Corps of
                                                                   Engineers under section 404 of the Clean
                                                                   Water Act; road construction and maintenance,
                                                                   right-of-way designation, and regulation of
                                                                   agricultural activities; construction of
                                                                   roads and fences along the international
                                                                   border with Mexico and associated immigration
                                                                   enforcement activities by the Immigration and
                                                                   Naturalization Service; construction of
                                                                   communication sites licensed by the Federal
                                                                   Communications Commission; and activities
                                                                   funded by any Federal agency.
Private or other non-Federal         None.......................  Activities that require a Federal action
 Activities Potentially Affected                                   (permit, authorization, or funding) and that
 \2\.                                                              involve such activities as removing or
                                                                   destroying spikedace or loach minnow habitat
                                                                   (as defined in the primary constituent
                                                                   elements discussion) whether by mechanical,
                                                                   chemical, or other means (e.g., water
                                                                   diversions, grading, etc.); and that
                                                                   appreciably decrease habitat value or quality
                                                                   through indirect effects (e.g., edge effects,
                                                                   invasion of exotic plants or animals, or
                                                                   fragmentation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Activities initiated by a Federal agency.
\2\ Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that may need Federal authorization or
  funding.

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

    In the economic analysis (under section 4 of the Act), we 
determined that designation of critical habitat will not have a 
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities (see also 
our discussion in the Exclusion for Economic and Other Relevant Impacts 
section of this final rule). We determined that the designation of 
critical habitat will not have any additional effects on these 
activities in areas of critical habitat occupied by the species. We 
also determined that there would be some, but not a significant, 
additional effect for the unoccupied area of critical habitat.

[[Page 24355]]

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 
unfunded mandate on State, local or tribal governments or the private 
sector of more than $100 million or greater in any year. The 
designation does not have a significant or unique effect on State, 
local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. It is not 
necessary to provide a statement of the information required by the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Small governments 
will be affected only to the extent that any programs having Federal 
funds, permits or other authorized activities must ensure that their 
actions will not destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat. 
However, as discussed above, these actions are currently subject to 
equivalent restrictions through the listing protections of the species, 
and no further restrictions are anticipated in areas of occupied 
proposed critical habitat. We expect little additional effect for the 
unoccupied areas of critical habitat, since unoccupied habitat that 
occurs on State or other governmental land (other than Federal) is only 
40 km (24 mi) of stream, or only 6 percent of the unoccupied habitat we 
designated. There is no effect on Tribal land since we are not 
designating any Tribal land as critical habitat.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have 
significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment 
is not required. This designation will not ``take'' private property. 
Critical habitat designation is only applicable to Federal lands and to 
private lands if a Federal nexus exists. We do not designate lands as 
critical habitat unless the areas are essential to the conservation of 
a species. The rule will not increase or decrease the current 
restrictions on private property concerning take of spikedace or loach 
minnow. Due to current public knowledge of the species protection, the 
prohibition against take of these species both within and outside of 
the designated areas, and the fact that critical habitat provides no 
incremental restrictions in areas of occupied critical habitat, we do 
not anticipate that property values will be affected by the critical 
habitat designation. We expect little additional effect for the 
unoccupied area of critical habitat since the land on which we might 
expect some additional effect due to critical habitat designation, 
should a Federal nexus exist (unoccupied nonFederal land), is only 
approximately 17 percent of the total area designated. Additionally, 
critical habitat designation does not preclude development of habitat 
conservation plans and issuance of incidental take permits. Landowners 
in areas that are included in the designated critical habitat will 
continue to have opportunity to utilize their property in ways 
consistent with the survival of the spikedace and loach minnow.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this designation will not 
affect the structure or role of States, and will not have direct, 
substantial, or significant effects on States. A Federalism assessment 
is not required. 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 policy, we requested 
information from and coordinated development of this critical habitat 
designation with appropriate State resource agencies in Arizona and New 
Mexico. In addition, both States have representatives on our recovery 
team for these species. We will continue to coordinate any future 
designation of critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow with the 
appropriate State agencies. The designation of critical habitat in 
areas currently occupied by the spikedace and loach minnow imposes no 
additional restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has 
little incremental impact on State and local governments and their 
activities. The designation of critical habitat in areas unoccupied by 
the spikedace and loach minnow may have some incremental impact on 
State and local governments and their activities that have Federal 
funding, permits, or authorization. The incremental impact would come 
from the need to consult with us under section 7 of the Act to ensure 
that these actions will not destroy or adversely modify the critical 
habitat. The designation may have some benefit to these governments in 
that the areas essential to the conservation of the species are more 
clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat 
necessary to the survival of the species are specifically identified. 
While making this definition and identification does not alter where 
and what federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these 
local governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-
by-case section 7 consultations to occur).

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. We designate critical habitat 
in accordance with the provisions of the Act. We have made every effort 
to ensure that this final determination contains no drafting errors, 
provides clear standards, simplifies procedures, reduces burden, and is 
clearly written such that litigation risk is minimized.

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 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 by 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 ranges of the species include States 
within the Tenth Circuit, such as those 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 must undertake a NEPA analysis for critical habitat 
designation. We have prepared a final Environmental Assessment on this 
action as required by NEPA. As a result of that analysis, we found that 
the designation of critical habitat for the spikedace and loach

[[Page 24356]]

minnow does not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of 
section 102(2)(c) of NEPA. As such, an environmental impact statement 
is not required. Send your requests for copies of the final EA and 
FONSI for this designation to the Arizona Ecological Services Office 
(see ADDRESSES section).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is 
available upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Office (see 
ADDRESSES section). Authors. The primary authors of this final rule are 
Paul J. Barrett and Sally E. Stefferud (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we 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                                                   Special
                                                        Historical range      endangered or        Status     When listed  Critical habitat     rules
           Common name              Scientific name                            threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
             Fishes
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Minnow, loach...................  Tiaroga              U.S.A. (AZ, NM)     entire............  T                      247  Sec.  17.95(e)             NA
                                   (=Rhinichthys)       Mexico.
                                   cobitis.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Spikedace.......................  Meda fulgida.......  U.S.A. (AZ, NM),    entire............  T                      236  Sec.  17.95(e)             NA
                                                        Mexico.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    3. Amend section 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat for the 
spikedace (Meda fulgida) in the same alphabetical order as this species 
occurs in 17.11(h).


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) Fishes.
* * * * *
    Spikedace (Meda fulgida)
    1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Cochise, Gila, 
Graham, Greenlee, 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 described below and areas within these 
reaches potentially inundated by high flow events. Where delineated, 
this is the 100-year floodplain of the designated waterways as 
defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In areas where the 100-
year floodplain has not been delineated or it is in dispute, the 
presence of alluvial soils (soils deposited by streams), obligate 
and facultative riparian vegetation (requiring and usually occurring 
in wetlands respectively), abandoned river channels, or known high 
water marks can be used to determine the extent of the floodplain. 
Within these areas, only lands which provide the primary constituent 
elements or which will be capable, with restoration, of providing 
them, are considered critical habitat. Existing human-constructed 
features and structures such as buildings, roads, etc., are not 
considered critical habitat.
    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, dispersal, 
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) habitat 
devoid of nonnative aquatic species detrimental to spikedace, or 
habitat in which detrimental nonnative species are at levels which 
allow persistence of spikedace.
    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

[[Page 24357]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.003

Spikedace (Meda fulgida)

[[Page 24358]]

Complex 1. Yavapai and Gila Counties, 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., NE\1/
4\ Sec. 25 upstream to Sullivan Dam in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., NW\1/4\ 
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., 
NE\1/4\ Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary 
from the northwest in GSRM, T.11 \1/2\N., 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., SE\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with 
Casner Canyon in GSRM, T.15N., R.6E., NW\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ 
Sec. 20 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary from 
the south in GSRM, T.17N., R.5E., SE\1/4\, NE\1/4\ 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., 
NE\1/4\ Sec. 14 upstream to a spring in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., SW\1/
4\, SW\1/4\, Sec. 13.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.004


[[Page 24359]]



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., 
NW\1/4\ Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with Houston Creek in 
GSRM, T.9N., R.11E., NE\1/4\, 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., NW\1/4\ 
Sec. 8 upstream to Lime Springs in GSRM, T.6N., R.12E., SW\1/4\ 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., SW\1/4\ Sec. 
13 upstream to the confluence with Brady Canyon in GSRM, T.8N., 
R.10E., NE\1/4\ Sec. 14.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.005


[[Page 24360]]



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., NW\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ of the NE\1/4\ Sec. 35.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.006


[[Page 24361]]



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., SW\1/4\ Sec.22 upstream to the confluence with Ash Creek in 
GSRM, T.16S., R.20E., SE\1/4\ 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., SW\1/4\ Sec. 34 upstream to the confluence with 
Sycamore Canyon in GSRM, T.11S., R.20E., NW\1/4\ 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., NE\1/4\ 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., 
NE\1/4\ Sec. 36 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] TR25AP00.007


[[Page 24362]]



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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with 
Owl Canyon in GSRM, T.5S., R.30E., SW\1/4\ 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., 
SE\1/4\ Sec. 21 upstream to the confluence with Martinez Wash in 
GSRM, T.4S., R.27E., SE\1/4\ 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., NW\1/4\ 
Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence of Dry Prong and East Eagle 
Creeks in GSRM, T.2N., R.28E., SW\1/4\ Sec. 20, excluding lands on 
the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation.
    d. San Francisco River for approximately 181.5 km (113.2 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.5S., 
R.29E., SE\1/4\ Sec. 21 upstream to the confluence with the Tularosa 
River in the NMPM, T.7S., R.19W., SW\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of Campbell and 
Dry Blue Creeks in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., SE\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 6 upstream to the confluence with Coleman Creek 
in GSRM, T.4 \1/2\ N., R.31E., SW\1/4\ of the NE\1/4\ 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. 5 upstream to the mouth of a box canyon in GSRM, 
T.1N., R.31E., NE\1/4\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 29.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.008


[[Page 24363]]



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., SE\1/
4\ SW\1/4\ Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of the East and West 
Forks of the Gila River in NMPM, T.13S., R.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., NE\1/4\ 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., SW\1/4\ Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with Big 
Bear Canyon in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., NW\1/4\ 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.009

* * * * *

    4. Amend section 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat for the loach 
minnow (Tiaroga (= Rhinichthys) cobitis) in the same alphabetical order 
as this species occurs in 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 described below and areas within these 
reaches potentially inundated by high flow events. Where delineated, 
this is the 100-year floodplain of the designated waterways as 
defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In areas where the 100-
year floodplain has not been delineated or it is in dispute, the 
presence of alluvial soils (soils deposited by streams), obligate 
and facultative riparian vegetation (requiring and usually occurring 
in wetlands respectively), abandoned river channels, or known high 
water marks can be used to determine the extent of the floodplain. 
Within these areas, only lands which provide the primary constituent 
elements or which will be capable, with restoration, of providing 
them, are considered critical habitat. Existing human-constructed 
features and structures such as buildings, roads, etc., are not 
considered critical habitat.
    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, dispersal, 
and reproduction. These elements include the following: (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 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) habitat devoid of nonnative aquatic 
species detrimental to loach minnow, or habitat in which detrimental 
nonnative species are at levels which allow persistence of loach 
minnow.
    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

[[Page 24364]]

New Mexico Resource Geographic Information System (RGIS)):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.010

LOACH MINNOW (Tiaroga (=Rhinichthys) cobitis)

[[Page 24365]]

Complex 1. Yavapai, and Gila Counties, 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., NE\1/
4\ Sec. 25 upstream to Sullivan Dam in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., NW\1/4\ 
Sec. 15, excluding lands on the Yavapai Apache Indian Reservation.
    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., 
NE\1/4\ Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary 
from the northwest in GSRM, T.11 \1/2\N., 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., SE\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with 
Casner Canyon in GSRM, T.15N., R.6E., NW\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ 
Sec. 20 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary from 
the south in GSRM, T.17N., R.5E., SE\1/4\, NE\1/4\ 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., 
NE\1/4\ Sec. 14 upstream to a spring in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., SW\1/
4\, SW\1/4\, Sec. 13.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.011


[[Page 24366]]



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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 11 upstream to the confluence with 
Deer Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., NW\1/4\ 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., NW\1/4\ 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., SW\1/4\ Sec. 5 upstream to the confluence 
with an unnamed tributary flowing from the east near Clabber City in 
GSRM, T.6N., R.29E., SE\1/4\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 32.
    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., NE\1/4\ Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence 
with an unnamed tributary flowing from the south in GSRM, T.5N., 
R.19E., NW\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 11 upstream to the confluence with 
Hay Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.28E., SE\1/4\, Sec. 19.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.012


[[Page 24367]]



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., 
NW\1/4\ Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with Haigler Creek in 
GSRM, T.10N., R.12E., NW\1/4\, 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., NW\1/4\ 
Sec. 8 upstream to Lime Springs in GSRM, T.6N., R.12E., SW\1/4\ 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., SW\1/4\ Sec. 
13 upstream to the confluence with Brady Canyon in GSRM, T.8N., 
R.10E., NE\1/4\ Sec. 14.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.013


[[Page 24368]]



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., NW\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ of the NE\1/4\ 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., SW\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ 
of the SE\1/4\ Sec. 14 upstream to the boundary of the Aravaipa 
Wilderness at GSRM, T.6S., R.18E., east boundary Sec. 13.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.014


[[Page 24369]]



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., SW\1/4\ Sec. 22 upstream to the confluence with Ash Creek in 
GSRM, T.16S., R.20E., SE\1/4\ 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., SW\1/4\ Sec. 34 upstream to the confluence with 
Sycamore Canyon in GSRM, T.11S., R.20E., NW\1/4\ 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., NE\1/4\ 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., 
NE\1/4\ Sec. 36 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] TR25AP00.015


[[Page 24370]]



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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with 
Owl Canyon in GSRM, T.5S., R.30E., SW\1/4\ 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., 
SE\1/4\ Sec. 21 upstream to the confluence with Martinez Wash in 
GSRM, T.4S., R.27E., SE\1/4\ 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., NW\1/4\ 
Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence of Dry Prong and East Eagle 
Creeks in GSRM, T.2N., R.28E., SW\1/4\ Sec. 20, excluding lands on 
the San Carlos Apache Indian 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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 21 upstream to the mouth of The Box canyon in 
NMPM, T.6S., R.19W., SW\1/4\ of the NW\1/4\ 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., SW\1/4\ 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., 
SW\1/4\ of the NW\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 27 upstream to the confluence with Little 
Whitewater Creek in NMPM, T.11S., R.20W., SE\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of Campbell and 
Dry Blue Creeks in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., SE\1/4\ 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., SE\1/4\ Sec. 6 upstream to the confluence with Coleman Creek 
in GSRM, T.4 \1/2\ N., R.31E., SW\1/4\ of the NE\1/4\ 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., 
SE\1/4\ Sec. 6 upstream to the confluence with Pace Creek in NMPM, 
T.6S., R.21W., SW\1/4\ Sec. 28.
    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., SW\1/4\ 
Sec. 28 upstream to the barrier falls in NMPM, T.6S., R.21W., SW\1/
4\ Sec. 28.
    l. Frieborn Creek for approximately 1.8 km (1.2 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Dry Blue Creek in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., 
SW\1/4\ NW\1/4\ Sec. 5 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed 
tributary flowing from the south in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., NE\1/4\ 
SW\1/4\ 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. 5 upstream to the mouth of a box canyon in GSRM, 
T.1N., R.31E., NE\1/4\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 29.

[[Page 24371]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.016


[[Page 24372]]



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., SE\1/
4\ SW\1/4\ Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of the East and West 
Forks of the Gila River in NMPM, T.13S., R.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., NE\1/4\ 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., SW\1/4\ Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with 
Brothers West Canyon in NMPM, T.11S., R.14W., NE\1/4\ 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP00.017


    Dated: April 18, 2000.
Stephen C. Saunders,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-10202 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P