13356 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU33 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Spikedace (Meda 

fulgida) and the Loach Minnow 

(Tiaroga cobitis) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for the 

spikedace (Meda fulgida) and loach 

minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) pursuant to 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). In total, approximately 

522.2 river miles (mi) (840.4 kilometers 

(km)) are designated as critical habitat. 

Critical habitat is located in Catron, 

Grant, and Hidalgo Counties in New 

Mexico, and Apache, Graham, Greenlee, 

Pinal, and Yavapai Counties in Arizona. 

DATES: This final rule is effective April 

20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological 

Services Field Office, 2321 West Royal 

Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 

85021–4951. The final rule, economic 

analysis, environmental assessment, and 

more-detailed color maps of the critical 

habitat designation are also available via 

the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ 

arizonaes/. Geographic Information 

System (GIS) files of the critical habitat 

maps are also available via the Internet 

at http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven L. Spangle, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 

West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, 

Phoenix, AZ 85021–4951 (telephone 

602–242–0210; facsimile 602–242– 

2513). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339, 7 

days a week and 24 hours a day. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to designation of 

critical habitat in this rule. For more 

information on the spikedace or the 

loach minnow, refer to the previous 

final critical habitat designation for the 

spikedace and loach minnow published 

in the Federal Register on April 25, 

2000 (65 FR 24328). 

Spikedace 

Description and taxonomy. The 

spikedace is a member of the minnow 

family Cyprinidae. 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 is a small, slim fish less 

than 3 inches (in) (75 millimeters (mm) 

in length (Sublette et al. 1990, p. 136). 

It is characterized by an olive gray to 

brownish back and silvery sides with 

vertically elongated black specks. 

Spikedace have spines in the dorsal fin 

(Minckley 1973, pp. 82, 112, 115). 

Distribution and Habitat. Spikedace 

are found in moderate to large perennial 

streams, where they inhabit shallow 

riffles (shallow areas in a streambed 

causing ripples) with sand, gravel, and 

rubble substrates (Barber and Minckley 

1966, p. 321; Propst et al. 1986, p. 12; 

Rinne and Kroeger 1988, p. 1). 

Recurrent flooding and a natural 

hydrograph (physical conditions, 

boundaries, flow, and related 

characteristics of water) are very 

important in maintaining the habitat of 

spikedace and in helping the species 

maintain a competitive edge over 

invading nonnative aquatic species 

(Minckley and Meffe 1987, p. 103–104; 

Propst et al. 1986, pp. 3, 81, 85). 

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 mainstem 

reaches and moderate-gradient 

tributaries, up to approximately 6,500 

feet (ft) (2,000 meters (m)) in elevation 

(Chamberlain 1904, p. 8; Cope and 

Yarrow 1875, pp. 641–642; Gilbert and 

Scofield 1898, pp. 487, 497; Miller 1960 

and Hubbs, pp. 32–33). 

Habitat destruction and competition 

and predation by nonnative aquatic 

species have severely reduced its range 

and abundance. It is now restricted to 

portions of the upper Gila River and the 

East, West, and Middle Forks of the Gila 

River in New Mexico and the middle 

Gila River, lower San Pedro River, 

Aravaipa Creek, Eagle Creek, and the 

Verde River in Arizona (Anderson 1978, 

pp. 14–17, 61–62; Bestgen 1985, p. 6; 

Jakle 1992, p. 6; Marsh et al. 1989, pp. 

2–3; Paroz et al. 2006, pp. 26, 37–41, 

62–67; Propst et al. 1986, p. 1; Sublette 

et al. 1990, pp. 138–139), and is only 

commonly found in surveys of Aravaipa 

Creek and some parts of the upper Gila 

River in New Mexico (Arizona Game 

and Fish Department (AGFD) 2004; 

Arizona State University 2002; Propst 

2002, pp. 4, 16–33, Appendix II—Table 

2; Propst et al. 1986, p. iv; Rienthal 

2006, p. 2). Based on the available maps 

and survey information, we estimate its 

present range to be approximately 10 to 

15 percent or less of its historical range, 

and the status of the species within 

occupied areas ranges from common to 

very rare. Recent data indicate the 

population in New Mexico has declined 

in recent years (Paroz et al. 2006, p. 56). 

Table 1 summarizes critical habitat 

areas designated as critical habitat in 

this final rule for spikedace, as well as 

potential threats and records of 

spikedace within those areas. 

Loach Minnow 

Description and taxonomy. The loach 

minnow is a member of the minnow 

family Cyprinidae. 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 

(pp. 191–192). The loach minnow is a 

small, slender, elongated fish less than 

3 in (80 mm) in length. It is olive 

colored overall, with black mottling or 

splotches. Breeding males have vivid 

red to red-orange markings on the bases 

of fins and adjacent body, on the mouth 

and lower head, and often on the 

abdomen (Minckley 1973, p. 134; 

Sublette et al. 1990, p. 186). 

Distribution and Habitat. Loach 

minnow are found in small to large 

perennial streams, and use shallow, 

turbulent riffles with primarily cobble 

on the bottom in areas of swift currents 

(Minckley 1973, p. 134; Propst and 

Bestgen 1991, p. 32; Propst et al. 1988, 

pp. 36–43; Rinne 1989, p. 111). The 

loach minnow uses the space between, 

and in the lee (sheltered) side of rocks 

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; p. 33). 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 and Bestgen 1991, pp. 33, 37). 

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 (Minckley 1973, p. 

133–134; Lee et al. 1980, p. 365). It 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13357 

occupies suitable habitat in both the 

mainstem reaches and moderategradient tributaries, up to about 8,200 ft 

(2,500 m) in elevation. Habitat 

destruction and competition and 

predation by nonnative aquatic species 

have severely reduced its range and 

abundance (Carlson and Muth 1989, pp. 

232–233; Fuller et al. 1990, p. 1; 

Lachner et al. 1970, p. 22; Miller 1961, 

pp. 365, 377, 397–398; Minckley 1973, 

p. 135; Moyle 1986, pp. 28–34; Moyle et 

al. 1986, pp. 416–423; Ono et al. 1983, 

p. 90; Propst et al. 1988, p. 2, 64). It is 

now restricted to portions of the upper 

Gila, the San Francisco, and Tularosa 

rivers in New Mexico; and the Blue 

River and its tributaries Dry Blue, 

Campbell Blue, Little Blue, Pace, and 

Frieborn creeks; Aravaipa Creek and its 

tributaries Turkey and Deer creeks; 

Eagle Creek; East Fork White River; and 

the Black River and the North Fork East 

Fork Black River in Arizona (Bagley et 

al. 1998, pp. 3–6, 8; Bagley et al. 1995, 

multiple survey records; Barber and 

Minckley 1966, p. 321; Britt 1982, pp. 

6–7; Leon 1989, p. 1; Marsh et al. 1989, 

pp. 7–8; Paroz et al. 2006, pp. 26, 37–

41, 62–67; Propst et al. 1988, pp. 12–17; 

Propst and Bestgen 1991, p. 29; Propst 

1996, multiple survey records; Springer 

1995, pp. 6–7, 9–10), and is only 

common in Aravaipa Creek and the Blue 

River in Arizona, and limited portions 

of the upper San Francisco River, the 

upper Gila River, and Tularosa River in 

New Mexico (Paroz et al. 2006, pp. 55–

60; Propst and Bestgen 1991, pp. 29, 37). 

The present range of the loach minnow 

is estimated at 10 percent of its 

historical range (Propst et al. 1988, p. 

12), and the status of the species within 

occupied areas ranges from common to 

very rare. Table 1 summarizes critical 

habitat areas designated for loach 

minnow, as well as potential threats and 

records of loach minnow within those 

areas. 

TABLE 1.—LOCATIONS OF SPIKEDACE AND LOACH MINNOW STREAM SEGMENTS DESIGNATED AS CRITICAL HABITAT, 

THREATS TO THE SPECIES, LAST YEAR OF DOCUMENTED OCCUPANCY, AND SOURCE OF OCCUPANCY INFORMATION

Spikedace and/or loach 

minnow critical habitat 

areas 

Threats Last year occupancy 

confirmed 

Critical habitat distance 

in mi (km) Source 

Complex 1—Verde River 

Verde River—Spikedace Nonnative fish species, 

grazing, water diversions.

1999 ................................ 43.0 mi (69.2 km) ............ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002; 

Brouder 2002, p. 1. 

Complex 2—Black River Complex 

Boneyard Creek—Loach 

minnow.

Recreational pressures, 

nonnative fish species, 

recent fire and related 

retardant application, 

ash, and sediment.

1996 ................................ 1.4 mi (2.3 km) ................ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002. 

East Fork Black—Loach 

minnow.

Recreational pressures, 

nonnative fish species, 

recent fire and related 

retardant application, 

ash, and sediment.

2004 ................................ 12.2 mi (19.7 km) ............ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002. 

North Fork East Fork 

Black—Loach minnow.

Recreational pressures, 

nonnative fish species, 

recent fire and related 

retardant application, 

ash, and sediment.

2004 ................................ 4.4 mi (7.1 km) ................ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002; 

Bagley et al. 1995, multiple 

surveys; Lopez 2000, p. 1. 

Complex 3—Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek 

Aravaipa Creek— 

Spikedace and Loach 

minnow.

Fire, some recreational 

pressure, nonnative 

pressures, water diversion, contaminants.

2005 ................................ 28.1 mi (45.3 km) ............ ADEQ 2006; AGFD 2004; ASU 

2002; Rienthal 2006, pp. 2– 

3. 

Deer Creek—Loach minnow.Fire, some recreational 

pressure, low nonnative 

pressures.

2005 ................................ 2.3 mi (3.6 km) ................ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002; 

Rienthal 2006, p. 2. 

Turkey Creek—Loach 

minnow.

Fire, some recreational 

pressure, nonnative 

pressures.

2005 ................................ 2.7 mi (4.3 km) ................ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002; 

Rienthal 2006, p. 2. 

Gila River—Ashurst-Hayden Dam to San Pedro 

Spikedace ................. Water diversions, grazing, 

nonnative fish species.

1991 ................................ 39.0 mi (62.8 km) ............ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002; Jakle 

1992, p. 6. 

San Pedro River (lower)— 

Spikedace.

Water diversions, grazing, 

nonnative fish species, 

mining.

1966 (directly connected 

to Aravaipa Creek, with 

records from 2005).

13.4 mi (21.5 km) ............ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002. 

Complex 4—San Francisco and Blue Rivers 

Eagle Creek—Loach minnow.Grazing, nonnative fish 

species, water diversions, mining.

1997 ................................ 17.7 mi (28.5 km) ............ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002; 

Bagley and Marsh 1997, pp. 

1–2; Knowles 1994, pp. 1–2, 

5; Marsh et al. 2003, pp. 

666–668. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13358 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—LOCATIONS OF SPIKEDACE AND LOACH MINNOW STREAM SEGMENTS DESIGNATED AS CRITICAL HABITAT, 

THREATS TO THE SPECIES, LAST YEAR OF DOCUMENTED OCCUPANCY, AND SOURCE OF OCCUPANCY INFORMATION—

Continued 

Spikedace and/or loach 

minnow critical habitat 

areas 

Threats Last year occupancy 

confirmed 

Critical habitat distance 

in mi (km) Source 

San Francisco River—

Loach minnow.

Grazing, water diversions, 

nonnative fish species, 

road construction and 

maintenance, channelization.

2005 ................................ 126.5 mi (203.5 km) ........ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002; Paroz 

et al. 2006, p. 67; Propst 

2002, p. 13; Propst 2005, p. 

10; Propst 2006, p. 2. 

Tularosa River—Loach 

minnow.

Grazing, watershed disturbances.2002 ................................ 18.6 mi (30.0 km) ............ ASU 2002; Propst 2002, p. 9; 

Propst 2005, p. 6. 

Frieborn Creek—Loach 

minnow.

Dispersed livestock grazing.1998 ................................ 1.1 mi (1.8 km) ................ ASU 2002. 

Negrito Creek—Loach 

minnow.

Grazing, watershed disturbances.1998 ................................ 4.2 mi (6.8 km) ................ Miller 1998, pp. 4–5. 

Whitewater Creek—Loach 

minnow.

Grazing, watershed disturbances.1984 (directly connected 

to the San Francisco 

River, with records 

from 2005).

1.1 mi (1.8 km) ................ ASU 2002; Propst et al. 1988, 

p.15. 

Blue River—Loach minnow.Water diversions, nonnative fish species, 

livestock grazing, road 

construction.

2004 ................................ 51.1 mi (82.2 km) ............ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002; Carter 

2005; Propst 2002, p. 4. 

Campbell Blue Creek—

Loach minnow.

Grazing, nonnative fish 

species.

2004 ................................ 8.1 mi (13.1 km) .............. AGFD 2004; ASU 2002; Carter 

2005. 

Little Blue Creek—Loach 

minnow.

Grazing, nonnative fish 

species.

1981 (directly connected 

to the Blue River, with 

records from 2004).

2.8 mi (4.5 km) ................ AGFD 2004; ASU 2002. 

Dry Blue Creek—Loach 

minnow.

Grazing ............................ 2001 ................................ 3.0 mi (4.8 km) ................ ASU 2002; Propst 2006, p. 2. 

Pace Creek—Loach minnow.Grazing, nonnative fish 

species.

1998 ................................ 0.8 mi (1.2 km) ................ ASU 2002. 

Complex 5—Upper Gila River 

East Fork Gila River—

Spikedace and Loach 

minnow 

Grazing, nonnative fish 

species, ash flows from 

wildfires.

2000, 1998 ...................... 26.1 mi (42.0 km) ............ ASU 2002; Propst 2002, p. 27; 

Propst et al. 1998, p.14–15; 

Propst 2006, pp. 2. 

Upper Gila River—

Spikedace and Loach 

minnow.

Recreation, roads, grazing, nonnative fish species, water diversion.2005 ................................ 94.9 mi (152.7 km) .......... ASU 2002; Propst 2002, pp. 4, 

31. 

Middle Fork Gila River—

Spikedace and Loach 

minnow.

Nonnative fish species, 

Grazing, ash flows from 

wildfires.

1995, 1998 ...................... 7.7 mi (12.3 km), 11.9 mi 

(19.1 km).

ASU 2002; Paroz et al. 2006, 

p. 63; Propst 2002, p. 22; 

Propst, 2006, p. 2. 

West Fork Gila River—

Spikedace and Loach 

minnow.

Nonnative fish species, 

roads, ash flows from 

wildfires.

2005, 2002 ...................... 7.7 mi (12.4 km) .............. ASU 2002; Paroz et al. 2006, 

p. 64; Propst 2002, p. 18; 

Propst 2006, p. 2. 

Previous Federal Actions 

We previously published a final 

critical habitat designation on April 25, 

2000 (65 FR 24328). In New Mexico 

Cattle Growers’ Association and 

Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico 

Counties for Stable Economic Growth v. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

CIV 02–0199 JB/LCS (D.N.M), the 

plaintiffs challenged the April 25, 2000, 

critical habitat designation for the 

spikedace and loach minnow because 

the economic analysis had been 

prepared using the same methods which 

the Tenth Circuit had held to be invalid. 

The Center for Biological Diversity 

joined the lawsuit as a DefendantIntervenor. The Service agreed to a 

voluntary vacatur of the critical habitat 

designation, except for the Tonto Creek 

Complex. On August 31, 2004, the 

United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico set aside the 

April 25, 2000, critical habitat 

designation in its entirety and remanded 

it to the Service for preparation of a new 

proposed and final designation. On 

December 20, 2005, we published a 

proposed critical habitat designation (70 

FR 75546). 

For more information on previous 

Federal actions concerning the 

spikedace and loach minnow, including 

listing documents published in 1985 

and 1986 (50 FR 25380, June 18, 1985; 

51 FR 39468, October 28, 1986; 51 FR 

23769, July 1, 1986) as well as the first 

critical habitat designation in 1994 (59 

FR 10898, March 8, 1994; 59 FR 10906, 

March 8, 1994), refer to the critical 

habitat designation published in the 

Federal Register on April 25, 2000 (65 

FR 24328). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for the spikedace and 

loach minnow on December 20, 2005 

(70 FR 75546), and in two notices to 

reopen the comment period on June 6, 

2006 (71 FR 32496) and October 4, 2006 

(71 FR 58574). We also contacted 

appropriate Federal, State, and local 

agencies; scientific organizations; and 

other interested parties and invited 

them to comment on the proposed rule. 

We requested information on the 

current status, distribution, and threats 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13359 

to the spikedace and loach minnow, as 

well as information on the status of 

other aquatic species in the historical 

range of the spikedace and loach 

minnow. We requested this information 

in order to make a final critical habitat 

determination based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data. We also requested information on 

proposed exclusions of various areas 

from the final critical habitat 

designation. In addition, we held public 

hearings on June 13 and 20, 2006, in 

Silver City, NM, and Camp Verde, AZ, 

respectively, to solicit comments on the 

proposed rule. We published newspaper 

articles inviting public comment and 

announcing these public hearings in the 

Arizona Republic, Arizona Daily Star, 

Camp Verde Bugle, Sierra Vista Herald, 

Tucson Citizen, Verde Independent, and 

White Mountain Independent in 

Arizona, and the Albuquerque Journal, 

Albuquerque Tribune, and Silver City 

Daily Press in New Mexico. 

During the first public comment 

period, which opened on December 20, 

2005, and closed on February 21, 2006, 

we received 23 comments directly 

addressing the proposed critical habitat 

designation (e-mails, letters, and faxes). 

Of these, we received two comments 

from peer reviewers, three from Federal 

agencies, five from Tribes, one from a 

State agency, seven from organizations, 

and five from individuals. We also 

received two requests for public 

hearings. During the second comment 

period, which opened on June 6, 2006, 

and closed on July 6, 2006, we received 

39 comments. Of these latter comments, 

2 were from Federal agencies, 3 from 

State agencies, and 34 from 

organizations or individuals. During the 

third comment period, which opened on 

October 4, 2006, and closed on October 

16, 2006, we received 11 comment 

letters. Of these comments, three were 

from Federal agencies and eight from 

organizations and individuals. 

Of the written comments received 

during the first comment period, four 

supported, eight were opposed, and six 

included comments or information but 

did not express support for or 

opposition to the proposed critical 

habitat designation. Of the written 

comments received during the second 

comment period, nine supported, 23 

were opposed, and seven included 

comments or information but did not 

express support for or opposition to the 

proposed listing and critical habitat 

designation. Written comments received 

during the third comment period were 

specific to the proposals to exclude 

portions of various streams due to 

receipt of management plans for those 

streams. Of these written comments, 

two supported exclusions in Eagle Creek 

and the upper Gila River, three opposed 

these exclusions, four proposed 

additional exclusions in other areas, and 

three included comments or information 

but did not express support for or 

opposition to the proposed exclusions. 

We also received numerous comments 

on the content and soundness of the 

environmental assessment and 

economic analysis. For the 

environmental assessment, comments 

focused on the adequacy of completing 

an environmental assessment rather 

than an environmental impact 

statement, the inadequacy of the 

comment period and opportunities for 

public participation, the use of the 300- 

foot buffer for the lateral extent of the 

designation, the application of the 

destruction or adverse modification 

language, the adequacy of the 

discussion of impacts of the proposed 

action to water use and water rights, the 

range of alternatives covered, and the 

economic information provided in the 

environmental assessment. 

Comments on the economic analysis 

included the suggestion that we failed to 

estimate benefits of the proposed 

designation; the adequacy and scope of 

the analysis; impacts to small business 

entities, ranching and farming 

communities, and water use and water 

rights; the Regulatory Flexibility Act; 

the Verde River and estimated costs and 

benefits of including it in the final 

designation; and Tribal lands and 

impacts to Tribes. 

Responses to comments were grouped 

into three categories below. Peer review 

comments are listed first, followed by 

comments received from the States. 

Comments received from the public are 

listed last. Because staff from the New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

(NMDGF) responded as peer reviewers, 

their comments are listed in the peer 

review section, while those of the AGFD 

are listed under State comments. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from 13 knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. These individuals 

represented Federal agencies, State 

agencies, university researchers, or 

themselves as private individuals. We 

received responses from two of the peer 

reviewers, one as a private individual 

and the other in the capacity of an 

individual who works for the New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 

Peer review comments focused on the 

reduction in the proposed critical 

habitat designation from previous 

designations, the area encompassed by 

critical habitat, and potential threats to 

the species, including the need to 

expand ‘‘nonnative fish’’ to include 

‘‘nonnative aquatic species.’’

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding critical habitat for 

the spikedace and loach minnow, and 

addressed them in the following 

summary. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

(1) Comment: The reduction in stream 

miles of critical habitat proposed for 

designation from that previously 

designated for the spikedace and loach 

minnow provides no incentive for land 

and resource management agencies to 

launch projects that would restore 

conditions for the enhancement of 

spikedace and loach minnow. All of the 

major stream course and complexes, and 

many of the smaller tributaries, have 

potential to provide elements necessary 

for the recovery of these species and 

should be included in critical habitat. 

Our response: The Service’s process 

for designating critical habitat has 

evolved since prior designations of 

critical habitat for the spikedace and 

loach minnow. As required by section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

in determining areas for designation as 

critical habitat. 

(2) Comment: In primary constituent 

element (PCE) 4, ‘‘nonnative fish’’

should be modified to include any and 

all nonnative aquatic species, including 

the current component of nonnative 

fishes and those that may become 

established in the future, as well as 

crayfishes, macroinvertebrates, 

parasites, and disease-causing 

pathogens. 

Our response: We agree and we have 

changed ‘‘nonnative aquatic fishes’’ in 

the final rule to ‘‘nonnative aquatic 

species.’’ In addition, language has been 

added addressing additional nonnatives 

and their sources, as well as their 

potential effects on the native fish 

community. 

(3) Comment: Designating critical 

habitat serves positive purposes. The 

prohibition against adverse modification 

is a powerful tool to protect unoccupied 

seasonal or migratory habitat and 

unoccupied habitat for population 

expansion as part of recovery. The most 

effective benefit from designating 

critical habitat is the impetus it provides 

to agencies and people to initiate 

conservation activities for the target 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13360 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

species and voluntarily curtail adverse 

impacts. No evidence is provided 

concluding that the (1) jeopardy 

standard is sufficient to protect habitat 

better than a critical habitat designation, 

(2) that critical habitat designation 

provides no education benefits better 

obtained otherwise, or (3) that 

conservation can be better achieved 

through implementing management 

plans rather than through implementing 

section 7 and other provisions of the 

Act. 

Our response: Designation of critical 

habitat is one tool for managing listed 

species habitat. In addition to the 

designation of critical habitat, we have 

determined that other conservation 

mechanisms including the recovery 

planning process, section 6 funding to 

States, section 7 consultations, 

management plans, Safe Harbor 

agreements, and other on-the-ground 

strategies contribute to species 

conservation. We believe these other 

conservation measures provide greater 

incentives and often greater 

conservation. Please see ‘‘Exclusions 

under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ for 

additional discussion. 

(4) Comment: The Service should 

reclassify both species to endangered 

status, as a warranted but precluded 

finding was published in 1994. Both 

species have experienced significant 

reductions in range and abundance 

since that time, and their status in the 

wild continues to deteriorate. 

Reclassification would recognize the 

precarious status of the species and give 

higher priority for recovery actions. 

Our response: We agree and in the 

2006 Candidate Notice of Review 

(CNOR) (71 FR 53756; September 12, 

2006) we resubmit our 12-month finding 

where we determine that reclassification 

of both the spikedace and loach minnow 

is warranted but precluded by other 

higher priority listing actions. The 2006 

CNOR provides a detailed discussion of 

why these listing actions are precluded 

by other higher priority listing actions. 

We note that Federal and State agencies 

and other cooperators are continuing 

with recovery actions for the spikedace 

and loach minnow in a concerted effort 

to improve the status of these two fish. 

(5) Comment: No information is 

presented on effects of wildfire on 

habitats (PCEs) each species occupies. 

Since 2000, wildfires have burned much 

of the West Fork Gila River watershed, 

fine sediment deposition has increased 

noticeably, and abundance of both 

spikedace and loach minnow have 

declined substantially at a permanent 

site on West Fork Gila River that is 

annually sampled. 

Our response: We have added wildfire 

to the threats discussion within the unit 

descriptions below and within Table 1 

as a threat to the West Fork Gila River. 

(6) Comment: The lateral extent of the 

areas proposed for critical habitat is 

logical considering the dynamic nature 

of streams in the Gila River basin, and 

the scientific understanding of the role 

flood plains play in stream course 

functioning. Defining a measurable 

width that is wide enough to 

incorporate flood flows beyond the 

bankfull width is reasonable. 

Our response: We agree with the 

commenter on this point. 

State Comments 

(7) Comment: We suggest a rewording 

of the statement regarding water quality 

in the PCE section for both spikedace 

and loach minnow to not require low 

levels of pollutants in the water. As 

written, these statements could be 

interpreted to mean that low levels of 

pollutants are needed. 

Our response: We agree with this 

comment, and have revised the wording 

in the discussion of PCEs in the final 

rule to indicate that suitable water 

quality for spikedace and loach minnow 

will contain no or only minimal 

pollutant levels. 

(8) Comment: The Arizona 

Department of Transportation requests 

that the Service provide estimated 

acreages of proposed critical habitat for 

each habitat complex. The total mileage 

figures are inconsistent and total miles 

should be provided for spikedace and 

loach minnow. The total mileages in 

Table 3 for New Mexico and Arizona are 

reversed. 

Our response: Because fishes occupy 

stream habitat, we have determined it is 

more appropriate to quantify the 

delineation in terms of stream miles 

rather than total acres. All mileage 

figures throughout the rule and in the 

tables have been checked for 

consistency and adjusted where 

necessary. 

General Comments Issue 1: Biological 

Concerns 

(9) Some commentors have noted that 

we have misinterpreted or overextrapolated information from various 

sources, in particular the proposed rule 

did not appear to include any studies 

that specifically define ranges for ‘‘fine 

sediment’’ or ‘‘substrate 

embeddedness’’; therefore, the phrase 

‘‘low or moderate amounts’’ appears 

open to subjective interpretation. 

Our response: For purposes of critical 

habitat designation, low to moderate 

amount of substrate embeddedness 

means embeddedness that does not 

preclude deposition of eggs among sand 

and gravel for spikedace, or on the 

undersurfaces of large rocks for loach 

minnow. Please see the discussion 

under ‘‘Substrates’’ for both spikedace 

and loach minnow for additional 

information. 

(10) Comment: The statement within 

the proposed rule that ‘‘Flooding, as 

part of a natural hydrograph, 

temporarily removes nonnative fish 

species, which are not adapted to 

flooding’’ is an over-generalization. 

Minckley and Meffe (1987) concluded 

that nonnative fishes fared poorly in 

canyon reaches by noting that some 

nonnative species like green sunfish and 

smallmouth bass rebounded quickly 

from floods because they were streamadapted. Flooding may also kill or 

displace native fishes. Some native 

fishes exhibit the potential to reproduce 

quickly after flooding, which could 

account for some of the effects reported 

by Minckley and Meffe (1987). 

Our response: We have adjusted the 

text to better reflect Minckley and Meffe 

(1987). 

(11) Comment: The most thriving 

populations of these fishes tend to be in 

flood blasted, warm, shallow, braided 

channel refugia and at places where 

vehicles splashed through streams, 

inside corrals (through which streams 

flowed), and in river channels within 

mine sites which are regularly 

bulldozed. The loach minnow is 

thriving on private land at a mine where 

heavy trucks cross the road several 

times a day, resulting in an area that is 

shallow and full of sediment. 

Our response: We disagree with this 

conclusion. While spikedace and/or 

loach minnow are sometimes found in 

association with low water crossings, 

and while flooding is an important 

component of habitat maintenance for 

these species, we are not aware of any 

locations where they occur in streams 

flowing through corrals or within mine 

sites which are regularly bulldozed. We 

currently have survey records dating 

from the late 1800s to the present for 

these species, as well as numerous 

studies that detail the habitat 

requirements for the species, all of 

which indicate that they occur in 

habitat different than that described by 

the commenter. 

(12) Comment: The Gila River is not 

critical habitat for the minnows because 

extreme flood waters may kill small 

fish. Small streams are better suited for 

small fish, because large fish will 

predate on the smaller fish. 

Our response: Please refer to the 

discussion on ‘‘Flooding’’ below under 

the PCE discussion for spikedace. As 

noted in that discussion, Minckley and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13361 

Meffe (1987, p. 99–100) studied the 

differential responses of native and 

nonnative fishes in seven unregulated 

and three regulated streams or stream 

reaches that were sampled before and 

after major flooding. They noted that 

fish faunas of canyon-bound reaches of 

unregulated streams invariably shifted 

from a mixture of native and nonnative 

fish species to predominantly, and in 

some cases exclusively, native forms 

after large floods. 

(13) Comment: One commenter notes 

that many of these minnows can be seen 

in the Gila River. 

Our response: While spikedace and 

loach minnow do occur in the Gila 

River, it is important to note that the 

‘‘minnows’’ seen in the Gila River may 

or may not be spikedace or loach 

minnow. There are approximately 235 

species of fishes that are within the 

minnow family, Cyprinidae, in North 

America (Bond 1979, p. 170). Spikedace 

and loach minnow are members of this 

family. Other small-bodied, native 

minnows which are more commonly 

found within the Gila River include 

longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster) and 

speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus). 

These fish, even as adults, can be 

confused with spikedace and loach 

minnow. There are several other species 

which are technically minnows and 

may be confused with spikedace and 

loach minnow when young. These 

include native roundtail chub (Gila 

robusta) and nonnative common carp 

(Cyrpinus carpio), goldfish (Carassius 

auratus), and fathead minnow 

(Pimephales promelas) (Lee et al. 1980, 

pp. 140–367). 

(14) Comment: Spikedace were last 

seen in the Verde River in 1999. They 

may already be extinct. 

Our response: Because the last record 

for spikedace on the Verde River was 

from 1999, this area still meets the 10- 

year occupancy criteria used in 

developing the critical habitat. We are 

also aware of gaps in the survey record 

in which spikedace were not found for 

greater than 10 years, but then 

reappeared. Surveys do not allow for 

100 percent detection of a species, 

particularly for species such as 

spikedace that are hard to detect. 

General Comments Issue 2: Procedural 

and Legal Compliance 

(15) Comment: Several commenters 

requested a 60-day extension of the 

comment period, or indicated that two 

public hearings and the comment 

periods provided were inadequate to 

provide comment on the proposed rule, 

draft economic analysis, and the draft 

environmental assessment. 

Our response: We believe the three 

comment periods allowed for adequate 

opportunity for public comment. A total 

of 100 days was provided for document 

review and the public to submit 

comments. 

(16) Comment: Reintroduction of the 

spikedace and loach minnow to the 

Verde River will result in killing and 

poisoning of the non-native fish, leaving 

the public with a non-fishable river. The 

general public will be banned from 

setting foot or paddling on the river area 

or using the Verde River for recreation. 

Our response: The designation of 

critical habitat does not entail 

reintroduction efforts of spikedace or 

loach minnow. In addition, designation 

of critical habitat does not set up 

wildlife refuges or preserves, or require 

the exclusion of all other uses. Critical 

habitat was designated previously on 

the Verde River for spikedace and loach 

minnow from 2000 to 2004, during 

which time recreation and use of this 

area by the public continued. 

(17) Comment: The Service appears 

inconsistent in their critical habitat 

designations in terms of the lateral 

extent of the critical habitat designation. 

There is no reference for best scientific 

evidence in the determination of 300 ft 

(91.4 m) as lateral extent. Prior rulings 

for razorback sucker, Colorado 

pikeminnow, humpback chub, and 

bonytail chub define the lateral extent of 

critical habitat as the 100-year 

floodplain where PCEs occur, with the 

caveat that potential areas of critical 

habitat should be evaluated on a case by 

case basis. The final ruling for woundfin 

and Virgin River chub use the 100-year 

floodplain. 

Our response: Although we 

considered using the 100-year 

floodplain, as defined by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), we found that it was not 

included on standard topographic maps, 

and the information was not readily 

available from FEMA or from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers for the areas 

designated as critical habitat, possibly 

due to the remoteness of various stream 

reaches. Therefore, we selected the 300- 

foot lateral extent, rather than some 

other delineation, for three reasons: (1) 

The biological integrity and natural 

dynamics of the river system are 

maintained within this area (i.e., 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, store water for slow release to 

maintain base flows, provide protected 

side channels and other protected areas, 

and allow the river to meander within 

its main channel in response to large 

flow events); (2) conservation of the 

adjacent riparian area also helps provide 

nutrient recharge and protection from 

sediment and pollutants; and (3) 

vegetated lateral zones are widely 

recognized as providing a variety of 

aquatic habitat functions and values 

(e.g., aquatic habitat for fish and other 

aquatic organisms, moderation of water 

temperature changes, and detritus for 

aquatic food webs) and help improve or 

maintain local water quality (see U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers’ final notice 

concerning Issuance and Modification 

of Nationwide Permits, March 9, 2000, 

65 FR 12818–12899). Please see the 

section entitled ‘‘Lateral Extent’’ below 

for more information. In addition, in 

more recent rules we have used the 300 

ft (91.4 m) width to define the lateral 

extent of critical habitat for the Rio 

Grande silvery minnow (February 19, 

2003; 68 FR 8088), the Gila chub 

(November 2, 2005; 70 FR 66664), and 

the Arkansas River shiner (October 13, 

2005; 70 FR 59808). 

(18) Comment: A designation of 300 ft 

(91.4 m) may impact roads or facilities. 

Roads or facilities impacted by flooding 

may require periodic maintenance. 

Additionally, if a river shifts in response 

to flooding, critical habitat would have 

to shift and potentially affect the 

rebuilding of diversion structures. The 

proposed rule does not address what 

happens when a river channel moves. 

Our response: Prior critical habitat 

designations for spikedace and loach 

minnow from 2000 to 2004 did not 

prevent maintenance or rebuilding of 

structures damaged by flooding nor will 

this final designation. Where critical 

habitat is designated, activities funded, 

authorized, or carried out in these areas 

by Federal action agencies that may 

affect the PCEs of the critical habitat, 

may require consultation pursuant to 

section 7 of the Act. The purpose of the 

consultation is not to stop activities 

from occurring, but to ensure that such 

activities do not result in jeopardy to 

listed species or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. When determining final 

critical habitat map boundaries, we 

made every effort to avoid including 

developed areas such as buildings, 

paved areas, and other structures that 

lack any PCEs for the spikedace and 

loach minnow. Any such structures and 

the land under them inadvertently left 

inside critical habitat boundaries of this 

final rule are excluded by text and are 

not designated as critical habitat. 

Specifically, lands located within the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation, but that do not contain any 

of the PCEs essential to the conservation 

of the spikedace and loach minnow 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13362 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

include: Existing paved roads; bridges; 

parking lots; railroad tracks; railroad 

trestles; water diversion and irrigation 

canals outside natural stream channels; 

active sand and gravel pits; regularly 

cultivated agricultural land; and 

residential, commercial, and industrial 

developments. 

Critical habitat includes the area of 

bankfull width plus 300 ft (91.4 m) on 

either side of the banks. Should the 

active channel meander or shift we 

anticipate that it would still be 

contained within the 300 foot (91.4 m) 

lateral extent of the designation (i.e. our 

current critical habitat boundary); thus 

we do not find that critical habitat will 

shift as a result. 

(19) Comment: The 300 ft (91.4 m) 

lateral extent likely represents an 

expansion of critical habitat to areas that 

are not necessarily riparian habitat, 

particularly on small streams. 

Our response: Although the spikedace 

and loach minnow cannot be found in 

the riparian areas when they are dry, 

these areas are periodically flooded and 

provide habitat during high-water 

periods. These areas also contribute to 

PCEs 1 and 2 and contain PCEs 3 and 

5. As noted in response to 18 above, 

vegetated lateral zones are widely 

recognized as providing a variety of 

aquatic habitat for fish and other aquatic 

organisms, moderation of water 

temperature changes, and detritus for 

aquatic food webs, and help improve or 

maintain local water quality. 

(20) Comment: The 300 ft (91.4 m) 

designation needs additional defining. It 

is unclear if it is to be measured up to 

the slope of the bank or horizontally on 

a map. In many reaches of the specific 

rivers and streams in the designation, 

the flowing channels are confined 

within narrow canyon bottoms, and a 

300 ft (91.4 m) buffer in some cases 

extends several hundred feet vertically 

up the side of the canyon. In addition, 

bankfull width, while scientifically 

valid and useful, may be hard to 

determine in the field. 

Our response: Critical habitat 

includes the area of bankfull width plus 

300 ft (91.4 m) on either side of the 

banks, except where bordered by a 

canyon wall. Since a canyon wall is not 

defined as a PCE for the spikedace and 

loach minnow it would not be 

considered critical habitat. The 300 foot 

lateral extent is not for the purpose of 

creating a ‘‘buffer zone.’’ Rather, it 

defines the lateral extent of those areas 

we have determined contain or 

contribute to the features (PCEs 3 and 5) 

that are essential to the conservation of 

these species (e.g., water quality, food 

source, etc.). 

(21) Comment: The Service is 

inconsistent in its treatment of, and fails 

to properly analyze the impacts of, 

groundwater wells and other potential 

detrimental activities that are located 

outside the 300 ft (91.4 m) lateral extent 

of critical habitat. 

Our response: Activities funded, 

authorized, or carried out by Federal 

action agencies that may affect the PCEs 

of the critical habitat, may require 

consultation pursuant to section 7 of the 

Act. Thus, groundwater pumping 

activities may require consultation 

pursuant to section 7 of the Act if the 

action agency determines that the 

activity may affect the PCEs for the 

spikedace or loach minnow, regardless 

of whether the activity is occurring 

within or outside the critical habitat 

designation. 

(22) Comment: The Service should 

designate the areas within the active 

floodplain that are necessary to support 

the PCEs of spikedace and loach 

minnow critical habitat for the recovery 

of the species, as demonstrated by the 

best available science. We suggest that 

the Service look at hydrogeomorphic 

and biological features to determine the 

width along each segment where the 

PCEs are likely to exist. Such 

information may include specific return 

intervals (5-, 10-, 50-year events), 

floodplain features (ordinary high water 

mark), or floodplain vegetation as 

indicators of important habitat, which 

can be mapped in the field along with 

bankfull flow width. 

Our response: As noted in our 

response to comment 17 above, we do 

not have this type of information 

available to us and thus we selected the 

300 ft (91.4 m) lateral extent as the best 

available science to map the areas that 

contain or contribute to the features that 

are essential to the conservation of these 

species. 

(23) Comment: The best scientific 

information currently available 

recognizes that for most native fish 

species, conservation cannot be 

achieved without eliminating or greatly 

suppressing nonnative fishes (Clarkson 

et al. 2005). The common nonnative fish 

occupying the same or overlapping 

geographic areas with spikedace and 

loach minnow are known to compete 

with or prey on all life stages of native 

fish (Pacey and Marsh 1998). Thus, 

where nonnative fishes have high 

abundance, and where there is limited 

opportunity or ability for the Service to 

manage these nonnative species due to 

physical constraints of the river system 

or political/social constraints, these 

segments are unlikely to provide 

important habitat for any of the 

spikedace and loach minnow life stages 

regardless of the condition of other 

PCEs. Nonnatives are especially a 

problem for the San Francisco River, 

Gila River, and Eagle Creek. 

Our response: Critical habitat 

designation is not the process through 

which we rule out habitat suitability 

due to threats, but the process through 

which we identify habitat that provides 

for one or more of the life history 

functions of the species. As defined in 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act, critical 

habitat means ‘‘(i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, on which are found 

those physical or biological features (I) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (II) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection.’’ During the designation 

process, the Service identifies threats to 

the best of our ability where they exist. 

Identification of a threat within an area 

does not mean that that area is no longer 

suitable, rather that special management 

or protections may be required. If an 

area contains sufficient PCEs to provide 

for one or more of the life history 

functions of spikedace or loach 

minnow, and if it was occupied at the 

time the species was listed and is 

currently occupied, it is reasonable to 

include it within a proposed critical 

habitat designation. The need to address 

a particular threat, such as nonnative 

fishes, in a portion of the critical habitat 

designation may or may not arise in the 

future. Further, describing both the 

areas which support PCEs and the 

threats to those areas assists resource 

managers in their conservation planning 

efforts for threatened and endangered 

species like spikedace and loach 

minnow. 

(24) Comment: Absent clear scientific 

evidence that intermittent stream 

reaches are used by spikedace or loach 

minnow to move between occupied 

habitats, and are critical to their 

recovery, the fifth PCE should not be 

included as part of the final designation. 

Our response: It was not our intent to 

imply that spikedace or loach minnow 

occupy intermittent reaches when water 

is not present. We included 

interconnected waters because 

spikedace and loach minnow have the 

ability to move between populated, 

wetted areas, at least during certain flow 

regimes or seasons. Because streams 

provide continuous habitat when 

connected, and because fish are mobile, 

it is reasonable to conclude that 

intermittent areas, when wetted, may be 

used during fish movement. In addition, 

some complexes include stream reaches 

that play a role in the overall health of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13363 

the aquatic ecosystem, and therefore, 

the integrity of upstream and 

downstream spikedace and loach 

minnow habitat. Again, because stream 

habitat is continuous, actions taking 

place in an intermittent portion of the 

channel can have effects in upstream 

and downstream areas. Inclusion of 

these intervening areas assures 

protection of adjacent, perennial 

reaches. 

(25) Comment: There is no record or 

document that summarizes or describes 

in detail the PCE conditions that the 

Service used as a decision-making tool 

to select reaches. 

Our response: As stated under the 

‘‘Critical Habitat’’ subheading in the 

final rule, the areas included within the 

proposed critical habitat designation are 

based not only on PCE conditions, but 

also on whether or not an area was 

occupied at listing and may require 

special management considerations or 

protections. There is no single record or 

document that summarizes this 

information. Instead, the Service looked 

at various databases and survey records 

to determine occupancy, as well as 

habitat descriptions at various locations. 

We relied on information provided in 

survey reports and research documents 

to describe conditions at various 

locations. This information was then 

synthesized to develop the proposed 

critical habitat designation. 

(26) Comment: As a final step before 

the issuance of the proposed rule, the 

Service should have ranked the suitable 

habitat to determine which areas 

possess the highest quality of PCEs. 

Based on this ranking, the Service 

would then have published the 

proposed rule designating the portions 

of suitable habitat needed to achieve 

recovery goals. The proposed rule 

would have also described areas of 

suitable habitat identified by the Service 

but not included in the proposed rule. 

Our response: The regulations 

governing critical habitat designations 

do not require ranking of suitable 

habitat. With species such as spikedace 

and loach minnow, whose current 

distribution is severely reduced 

compared to historical distribution, 

determining the highest quality of PCEs 

is not a useful tool in developing a 

recommendation, and inclusion of only 

the highest ranking areas would not be 

sufficient for recovery of these species. 

The Service has developed a rule set 

that we have determined identifies 

those areas to be included as final 

critical habitat. We have coupled that 

rule set with the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding species distribution, habitat 

parameters, and life history, and have 

included those areas within the 

designation. 

(27) Comment: The preamble 

articulates the following important 

concept: ‘‘Where a subset of PCEs are 

present (e.g., water temperature during 

spawning), only those PCEs present at 

designation will be protected.’’ This 

concept should be reflected in the rule 

language itself. The proposal is not 

always clear as to what PCEs are present 

in each stretch of river. For example, 

with respect to the 39 mile stretch of the 

Gila River included in the proposal, the 

preamble states only that it contains 

‘‘one or more’’ of four PCEs. This creates 

uncertainty about what PCEs are present 

in which segments, which could in turn 

cause difficulties in future section 7 

consultations regarding possible adverse 

effects on critical habitat. 

Our response: Within the discussion 

immediately following Table 1, PCEs are 

described for each complex. For 

example, for the 39 mile stretch of the 

Gila River addressed in this comment, 

the proposed rule states that ‘‘Those 

portions of the Gila River proposed for 

designation contain one or more of the 

PCEs, including sufficient flow 

velocities and appropriate gradients, 

substrates, depths, and habitat types 

(i.e., pools, riffles).’’ This information 

should be useful in future section 7 

consultations. 

(28) Comment: Page 75556 of the 

proposed rule states ‘‘Where a subset of 

the PCEs are present (e.g., water 

temperature during spawning), only 

those PCEs present at the time of 

designation will be protected.’’

Implementation of this misguided 

approach negates the conservation value 

of the critical habitat designation 

because lack of perennial water, 

appropriate stream habitat, or high 

abundance of predatory nonnative fish 

precludes the survival or recovery of 

spikedace or loach minnow. We believe 

the Service needs to fully consider the 

implication of this language in the 

Proposed Rule, and reevaluate the 

proposed reaches in light of the need to 

contain all PCEs at the time of 

designation, especially those reaches 

that contain high numbers of nonnative 

fish species. 

Our response: Stream complexes as 

part of this final rule making were 

designated based on sufficient PCEs 

being present to support spikedace and 

loach minnow life processes. Some 

complexes contain all PCEs and support 

multiple life processes. Some segments 

contain only a portion of the PCEs 

necessary to support the spikedace and 

loach minnow’s particular use of that 

habitat. Where a subset of the PCEs are 

present (such as water temperature 

during migration flows), it has been 

noted that only PCEs present at 

designation will be protected. 

(29) Comment: With respect to the 

PCEs, an additional quantitative value 

that should be measured is the large 

wood present in a system. 

Our response: We agree that large 

wood is an important factor to analyze 

in assessing riparian ecosystem health; 

however, we are not aware of any data 

at this time that illustrates what amount 

of large woody debris within a system 

would constitute ideal conditions for 

spikedace and loach minnow. Should 

such information be developed in the 

future, it would be another useful factor 

in evaluating river system health and 

habitat suitability for spikedace and 

loach minnow. 

(30) Comment: Flow velocity values 

should be in feet per second, which is 

a more appropriate field estimate and 

ensures greater accuracy between 

readings and reader. These values can 

also be better correlated with historical 

and stream gauge data. 

Our response: While it may be more 

useful to report flow velocity values in 

feet per second, it is our practice to use 

values and units of measurement as they 

were reported by the author of the 

research summarized. 

(31) Microhabitat flows are highly 

related to habitat complexity. Though it 

is appropriate to define these flows, 

there should be more emphasis on 

habitat complexity and the functions 

needed to create it such as floodplain 

interaction, riparian condition, and 

large wood recruitment. 

Our response: We believe the final 

rule accomplishes both of these 

objectives. We have chosen to consider 

overall riparian health, as well as 

floodplain interaction and stream 

health, by including riparian vegetation 

and floodplain areas within the critical 

habitat designation, as encompassed by 

the 300 foot lateral zone. In addition, we 

have attempted to define key 

components of occupied habitat, as 

defined in the PCEs. One of those 

components relates to flow velocities. 

We have incorporated the information 

we have relevant to spikedace and loach 

minnow within the rule. 

(32) Comment: Because microhabitat 

is variable and transient, gradient values 

should be more generalized and at the 

geomorphic reach level. 

Our response: We are required to use 

the best scientific and commercial 

information available. At this time, no 

assessment of gradient values at a 

geomorphic reach level has been 

completed for occupied or suitable 

spikedace and loach minnow habitat. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13364 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(33) Comment: In evaluating riparian 

habitat, there should be two or more 

native, riparian-obligate woody species 

and two or more riparian-obligate 

herbaceous species present and vigorous 

(Winward 2000). In terms of species 

diversity, all four age classes of native, 

riparian-obligate woody species must be 

present and vigorous. These classes are 

seedling/sprout, young/sapling, mature/ 

decadent, and dead (Winward 2000). 

Our response: We agree that a 

diversity of composition leads to 

healthier riparian habitat; however, we 

do not have sufficient information of 

this type tied to occupied spikedace and 

loach minnow critical habitat to use in 

developing an individual PCE. The 

individual PCEs represent the actual 

physical and biological parameters of 

habitat used by the fish. 

(34) Comment: Conflicting comments 

were received on the temperature ranges 

listed within the PCEs for spikedace and 

loach minnow. In summary, we 

received comments that the PCE 

temperature range is broader (35 to 

85 °F) than the literature indicates (48.2 

and 71.6 °F), with the potential net 

effect being an extension of stream 

reaches both upstream and downstream 

from areas actually likely to support the 

species. A second commenter noted that 

the Bonar et al. (2005) study found 100 

percent survival of loach minnow at 

28 °C (82 °F) and 100 percent survival of 

spikedace at 30 °C (86 °F) corresponded 

quite well with upper limits in the 

proposed rule PCEs. A third commenter 

noted that appropriate values should be 

a maximum seven day average. 

Our response: We have reviewed the 

study completed by the University of 

Arizona (Bonar et al. 2005) and 

incorporated its findings into 

discussions of temperature tolerances 

within the final rule. The PCEs serve as 

guidelines to resource managers in 

evaluating the suitability of areas for 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

Temperature ranges provided are based 

on the studies completed at various 

occupied locations, and adequately 

represent the habitat most suitable for 

spikedace and loach minnow. In most 

instances, resource managers do not 

have the ability to develop seven day 

averages. With respect to broadening the 

range of the species by incorporating too 

wide a range of suitable temperatures, 

we note that we are using the Act’s 

standard of best available scientific 

information, and should temperatures at 

these sites be found at the high point of 

the range provided in this PCE, it would 

already be within an area occupied by 

the species, so the species’ range would 

not be broadened. 

(35) Comment: Water depths of 1 to 

30 inches are specified as a PCE for 

adult, juvenile, and larval loach 

minnow. No data or references are cited 

to support any specific range of depths. 

Additionally, pools aren’t appropriate 

for spikedace and loach minnow, but 

are suitable for predatory non-natives 

that are significantly detrimental. 

Our response: Water depths are 

known for all occupied spikedace and 

loach minnow sites, as discussed below. 

Therefore, the range described in the 

PCEs reflects the range considered to 

provide suitable habitat for these fishes 

by biologists familiar with the species. 

Spikedace and loach minnow are less 

likely to use pool habitat than other 

types of habitat, however, Sublette et al. 

(1990, p. 138) and Propst et al. (1986, p. 

40) note that spikedace juveniles and 

larvae are occasionally found in quiet 

pools or backwaters lacking streamflow 

(Sublette et al. 1990, p. 138). Barber et 

al. (1970, pp. 11–12) also noted that 

female spikedace occupy deeper pools 

and eddies during portions of the 

breeding season. In addition, Schreiber 

(1978, pp. 40–41) found that the 

availability of pool and run habitats 

affects availability of prey species 

consumed by loach minnow. 

(36) Comment: Virtually any 

perennial stream above 3,000 feet 

elevation in Arizona displays the 

characteristics cited by the Service in its 

PCEs and thus they are not particularly 

helpful in identifying the areas 

necessary for the conservation of the 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

Our response: The PCEs are based on 

the range of criteria developed following 

review of research conducted at 

occupied spikedace and loach minnow 

sites. Use of the PCEs alone may result 

in the inclusion of most streams above 

3,000 feet in elevation. However, 

coupled with occupancy information 

and the geographic range of the species, 

we are able to identify final critical 

habitat for the spikedace and loach 

minnow. 

(37) Comment: Flood magnitude and 

frequency deserve careful consideration 

and incorporation as part of a ‘‘flood 

frequency and magnitude’’ PCE. The 

Service has failed to include important 

hydrologic features in the analysis of 

current habitat for spikedace and loach 

minnow. 

Our response: We agree that flooding 

is a key process in maintaining suitable 

habitat components for spikedace and 

loach minnow, and have addressed this 

in PCE 2. A PCE focused strictly on 

flooding would be difficult to define, as 

there is considerable variability in the 

flood magnitude and frequency of 

different systems. More importantly, 

flooding itself would be inappropriate 

as a PCE as flooding is a process that 

maintains the necessary components of 

occupied habitat, whereas PCEs are the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. We determine those 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of a given 

species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection, rather than looking at the 

processes that aid in developing those 

features 50 CFR 424.12(b). 

(38) Comment: Although the five 

PCEs appear to be generally correct, 

they are describing fine-grained 

characteristics applicable to a squaremeter by square-meter assessment. Only 

two PCEs are coarse-grained; (1) reaches 

devoid of nonnative fish, and (2) stream 

reaches that flow sporadically and 

provide connective corridors between 

occupied and seasonally occupied 

reaches. The other PCEs are focused on 

the biological requirements for 

individual fish, rather than the 

population or the species to which it 

belongs. 

Our response: We disagree with the 

commenter on this point. It is true that 

the PCEs focus on the biological needs 

of the individual fish, but collectively, 

the biological needs of the fish represent 

the biological needs of the species. As 

previously noted, critical habitat, as 

stated in the Act, is defined as ‘‘* * * 

specific areas * * * on which are found 

the physical or biological features (I) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species * * *.’’ The Service has 

determined that the PCEs, as defined by 

studies in occupied areas, define the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

(39) Comment: We request exclusion 

of all areas within roadway right-ofways or easement limits because section 

7 is required in these areas for projects 

affecting threatened and endangered 

species. Designation within right-ofways would have no additional benefit. 

Our response: Developed lands, 

including roadway right-of-ways, do not 

contain the PCEs essential to the 

conservation of the spikedace and loach 

minnow. Federal action agencies are 

only required to consult on activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out that 

may affect the physical or biological 

features determined in this rule to be 

essential to conservation of these fish. 

See also response to comment 18 above. 

(40) Comment: The Bureau of 

Reclamation lands are on the lower San 

Pedro River and not the Gila River. This 

mistake is also continued in the 

regulation promulgation section. 

Our response: According to GIS 

landownership layers from the Arizona 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13365 

Land Resource Information System of 

the Arizona State Land Department, the 

Bureau of Reclamation lands referenced 

by the commenter are on the Gila River 

beginning at Township 4 South, Range 

13 West, section 3. 

(41) Comment: The critical habitat 

designation allows for exclusions when 

special management considerations are 

not required based on management 

plans. This policy should allow for land 

management agencies to adopt species 

management plans. 

Our response: In this final rule, our 

exclusion of areas covered by 

management plans was made pursuant 

to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, where we 

determined that the benefits of 

exclusion outweighed the benefits of 

inclusion. These determinations were 

not hindered by landownership. 

(42) Ten years is insufficient to 

determine presence or absence of 

spikedace and loach minnow given the 

elusiveness of the species, the difficulty 

of obtaining a thorough sampling of 

remote streams with difficult access, 

and the low efficiency of sampling 

techniques. There is greater biological 

support to use a period of 20 to 40 years 

as the standard for determining 

‘‘occupancy.’’

Our response: We believe a period of 

10 years is reasonable to determine 

occupancy based on the fact that both 

species are difficult to detect in surveys, 

surveys have been infrequent or 

inconsistent because many of the areas 

where they occur are remote, and we 

have areas where these species were not 

detected for long periods of time (44 

years) and then detected again. 

Specifically, the methodology used 

considers a stream segment occupied if 

the spikedace or loach minnow has been 

detected in the last 10 years or if the 

stream segment is connected to a stream 

segment with spikedace or loach 

minnow records within the last 10 

years. For example, we consider the 

lower San Pedro River and the Gila 

River ‘‘occupied’’ due to their 

connections with Aravaipa Creek, an 

area where we have documented 

records of these fish from within the last 

10 years. We have determined our 

methodology is reasonable to determine 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat. 

(43) Comment: With respect to 

occupancy, we do question the 

assumption that all stream segments 

with a ‘‘direct connection’’ to occupied 

areas are themselves occupied. There is 

little scientific basis for this assumption. 

Our response: The language within 

the rule states ‘‘We consider an area to 

be occupied by the spikedace or loach 

minnow if we have records to support 

occupancy within the last 10 years, or 

where the stream segment is directly 

connected to a segment with occupancy 

records from within the last 10 years.’’

While we do not have occupancy 

records for these connected areas within 

the last 10 years, we believe it is 

reasonable to consider these connected 

areas to be occupied for the purposes of 

critical habitat as they are part of a 

larger contiguous complex with 

documented occupancy within the last 

10 years. We consider it reasonable 

because of the elusiveness of the 

species, the difficulty of obtaining a 

thorough sampling of remote streams 

with difficult access, and the low 

efficiency of sampling techniques. 

(44) Comment: The North Fork of the 

White River and the mainstem White 

River downstream of the confluence of 

the North and East Forks should be 

included in the designation. Records of 

loach minnow within the last 10 years 

exist for both streams. 

Our response: These stream segments 

occur on Tribal lands and we have no 

information available to us to conclude 

that these areas meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the loach minnow. 

Please see ‘‘Relationship of Critical 

Habitat to Tribal Lands’’ below for 

additional discussion of Tribal 

management plan and protections that 

exist for these fish on those lands. 

(45) Comment: The Service should 

use wording similar to that used in the 

2000 critical habitat designation which 

states ‘‘We have determined the primary 

constituent elements essential to the 

conservation of spikedace include, but 

are not limited to * * *.’’ This provides 

for inclusion of new scientific 

information without the need for 

cumbersome and expensive reproposal 

of critical habitat. 

Our response: We have determined 

the revised language provides more 

specifics and certainty about the PCEs, 

and any revisions to a regulation as a 

result of new information may only be 

made through a new rulemaking 

process. 

(46) Comment: The proposed rule 

incorrectly paraphrases the regulatory 

definition of destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

paraphrased definition limits analysis of 

destruction or adverse modification to 

‘‘those physical or biological features 

that were the basis for determining the 

habitat to be critical’’, a limitation not 

found in the regulatory definition. 

Instead, the regulatory definition 

directly addresses effects to the critical 

habitat rather than a surrogate. The 

paraphrased definition also omits the 

regulatory definition’s inclusion of 

diminution of the values of ‘‘both the 

survival and recovery of a listed 

species.’’

Our response: The Service no longer 

relies on the regulatory definition of 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

Instead the Service relies on the 

statutory provision of the Act to 

complete the analysis on critical habitat. 

Please see ‘‘General Principles of 

Section 7 Consultations Used in the 

4(b)(2) Balancing Process’’ below for 

additional information. 

(47) Comment: There is no 

‘‘sufficiently unregulated hydrograph’’

on the Gila River below its confluence 

with the San Pedro River. We do not 

believe the PCEs identified by the 

Service in the proposal are present in 

this stretch. This section of the Gila 

River (below the San Pedro) should be 

removed from the critical habitat 

designation. 

Our response: While it may not 

contain all of the PCEs, we have 

determined it currently supports one or 

more of them (i.e., low gradient, 

appropriate water temperatures, and 

pool, riffle, run, and backwater 

components), and because of this and its 

proximity to occupied areas, it remains 

in the designation. 

(48) Comment: We dispute the claim 

that spikedace occupancy of the Verde 

River was confirmed as recently as 

1999. No spikedace have been 

confirmed from the Verde River since at 

least 1995. Thus, the Verde River does 

not meet the Service’s own criteria for 

critical habitat because there are no 

records within the last 10 years. 

Our response: The 1999 record is 

considered by the Service as a 

confirmed record. The spikedace in 

question was captured and identified by 

a qualified AGFD fisheries biologist 

(AGFD 2004). 

(49) Comment: The large amount of 

privately owned land that is included in 

the proposal is too great of a restriction 

of use. 

Our response: Critical habitat does not 

affect private actions on private lands. A 

designation of critical habitat requires 

that Federal action agencies consult 

with the Service on activities that they 

fund, authorize, or carry out that may 

affect critical habitat. We note that the 

designated 105 mi (170 km) for 

spikedace and the 126 mi (203 km) for 

loach minnow of private lands is part of, 

not in addition to, the total 522 mi (840 

km). 

(50) Comment: The adverse impacts of 

critical habitat on non-Federal rights 

and interests were exacerbated under 

Gifford Pinchot, which increases the 

impact of a critical habitat designation 

on water and land uses by creating a 

heightened standard for the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13366 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ of 

critical habitat. More activities that 

require a Federal permit or other 

approval will violate section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act and will require formal 

consultation. When combined with the 

Service’s use of section 7(a)(2) to 

‘‘Federalize’’ and control non-Federal 

projects, Gifford Pinchot will 

dramatically increase the economic 

impacts caused by the critical habitat 

designation. 

Our response: We recognize that 

under the Gifford Pinchot decision, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species. This relates to the court’s 

ruling that the two standards (e.g. 

jeopardy and adverse modification) are 

distinct and that adverse modification 

evaluations require consideration of 

impacts on the recovery of species. As 

such, where appropriate, we analyze or 

consider the effects of the Gifford 

Pinchot decision in this rule, the 

economic analysis, and the 

environmental assessment. For example, 

in light of the uncertainty concerning 

the regulatory definition of adverse 

modification, our current 

methodological approach to conducting 

economic analyses of our critical habitat 

designations is to consider all 

conservation-related costs. This 

approach would include costs related to 

sections 4, 7, 9, and 10 of the Act, and 

should encompass costs that would be 

considered and evaluated in light of the 

Gifford Pinchot ruling. Additionally, in 

this critical habitat designation, we are 

designating areas that are occupied, as 

defined elsewhere in this rule, by one or 

both species; thus, there is already a 

requirement for consultation with the 

Service over any water and land use 

actions that may affect these species. 

The purpose of the consultation process 

is not to ‘‘Federalize’’ private projects, 

but to ensure that federally-sponsored 

activities do not jeopardize listed 

species or adversely modify or destroy 

designated critical habitat. 

(51) Comment: The Gila Settlement 

and associated agreements allow the 

State of New Mexico to divert for 

consumptive use 14,000 acre feet of 

water originally set aside under the 

Central Arizona Project authorizing 

legislation. The diversion of this 

additional 14,000 acre-feet of water 

almost doubles current adjudicated 

withdrawal from the Gila and San 

Francisco rivers and could significantly 

impair river function and riparian 

conditions and threaten native species 

such as the loach minnow and 

spikedace. 

Our response: The Service is an active 

partner on the Gila and San Francisco 

Rivers Technical Subcommittee, which 

is evaluating the environmental impacts 

of these water diversions from the upper 

Gila and San Francisco rivers. 

Considerations for spikedace and loach 

minnow are prominent in those 

discussions. We have identified water 

diversions as a threat for spikedace and 

loach minnow within this complex. 

(52) Comment: The Upper Eagle Creek 

Watershed Association has developed a 

watershed plan in collaboration with 

the Forest Service and the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

This plan has addressed the loach 

minnow and spikedace as endangered 

fish that may occupy areas covered by 

the plan. The plan guides the 

community, permittees, and agencies in 

developing the Upper Eagle Creek 

Watershed into its greatest potential for 

all species. On the basis of this plan and 

the partnership with the people on the 

land with all agencies, it would be best 

to exclude Eagle Creek from the critical 

habitat designation. 

Our response: We appreciate the 

efforts the Upper Eagle Creek Watershed 

Association has taken to work 

collaboratively with the Forest Service, 

cooperators, and the Service. 

Unfortunately, the Upper Eagle Creek 

Watershed Management Plan was 

received on the last day of the third 

comment period, and was still in draft 

form. For these reasons, we are not able 

to consider the plan as a basis for 

excluding Eagle Creek at this time. We 

understand it is the intention of the 

Association to finalize and implement 

the plan, and we look forward to 

working cooperatively with the 

Association in these efforts. Once the 

plan has been finalized and 

implemented, we have the option of 

excluding those portions of Eagle Creek 

covered by the plan. As discussed in 

‘‘Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act’’ below, we have excluded other 

portions of Eagle Creek from critical 

habitat based on other information 

available to us. 

(53) Comment: The Blue River should 

be excluded from critical habitat in 

order to ensure that the ongoing 

coordination between the Service and 

the Blue River Native Fisheries, 

Research and Education Center is 

unencumbered. 

Our response: At this time we have no 

documentation, such as a management 

plan, to evaluate in terms of a potential 

exclusion of the Blue River from the 

critical habitat designation. 

Additionally, the majority of property 

along the Blue River is under Forest 

Service management and management 

activities for the conservation of the 

spikedace and loach minnow would 

require coordination with the Forest 

Service. We fully intend to continue our 

ongoing coordination with the Blue 

River Native Fisheries, Research and 

Education Center. The designation of 

critical habitat is a separate process 

which will not hinder these efforts and 

we commend the Center for their 

interest in conserving the Blue River. 

(54) Comment: The Service should 

remove the Middle Verde River from the 

final rule and retain the Upper Verde 

River segment as critical habitat based 

on: (1) The current biological conditions 

within each river segment to conserve 

the spikedace; (2) the existing physical 

barrier (i.e., Allen Ditch Diversion) 

between the Upper and Middle Verde 

River, which likely precludes movement 

and connectivity between reaches; (3) 

the prevailing technical feasibility and 

fisheries management emphasis of each 

river segment; and (4) the high potential 

economic burden to groundwater and 

surface water users in the Middle Verde 

River (i.e., Verde Valley) compared to 

the Upper Verde River. 

Our response: Pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act we have excluded the 

lower portion of the Verde River based 

on economic costs. See exclusion 

discussion below. 

(55) Comment: One of the 

requirements of critical habitat is that 

these areas should be ‘‘protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species (50 CFR 

§ 424.12(b)(1)–(5); 70 FR 75551; 

December 20, 2005).’’ In other words, if 

suitable locations are available 

elsewhere, it does not make sense to 

designate critical habitat along stream 

reaches that are already impacted by 

land or water use activities or will soon 

be impacted by those activities. The 

Service applied this criterion in some 

places (e.g., the upper San Pedro River, 

p. 75546) and portions of the Black 

River complex (p. 75560) that were 

found to have too high an abundance of 

nonnative fish to be important habitat), 

but did not apply it in others (i.e., 

middle Verde River, Gila River, and 

lower San Pedro River). The Service 

should apply this criteria and standards 

consistently to evaluate each PCE 

among all potentially suitable habitats 

in a transparent process. 

Our response: We do not agree that 

critical habitat should not be designated 

in areas that have experienced some 

level of impact to the habitat. As 

previously stated, designation of critical 

habitat focuses on the areas that contain 

the PCEs and provide for the 

conservation of the species, rather than 

the threats that may be present in an 

area. Thus, our methodology focuses on 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13367 

occupied areas that contain the PCEs 

and not on the type or level of threat 

that occur in these areas. In addition, we 

note that we have limited suitable 

habitat remaining for these species such 

that additional suitable locations are not 

available elsewhere. See also our 

response to comment 58 below. 

(56) Comment: Bear Creek should be 

designated as loach minnow critical 

habitat from its junction with the Gila 

River upstream to the junction with its 

tributaries Cherry Creek and Little 

Cherry Creek. 

Our response: As noted in the notice 

to reopen the comment period 

published on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32498, 

p. 32496), we did not propose Bear 

Creek because of the timeframe for 

completion of the final rule and 

associated documents. Information on 

occupancy of Bear Creek was received 

late in the process. Should critical 

habitat be revised in the future, Bear 

Creek would be considered for 

inclusion. 

(57) Comment: Due to seasonal lack of 

water flows, Eagle Creek is unsuitable 

habitat for designation below the Gila 

and Salt River base line to the 

confluence with Willow Creek. 

Additionally, from Willow Creek to the 

Phelps Dodge diversion dam, flows are 

augmented to provide fresh water for 

mining operations and for potable use at 

the Morenci and Clifton townsites. This 

portion of Eagle Creek does not qualify 

for designation because: (1) These 

augmented flows do not provide a 

natural, unregulated hydrograph that 

allow for adequate river functions; (2) 

flow velocities are frequently higher 

than those required for these native fish; 

(3) pool, riffle, run, and backwater 

components are not present; and (4) 

non-native fish dominate this reach to 

an extent detrimental to natives and 

prevents the persistence or even 

occupancy of loach minnow or 

spikedace. 

Our response: We do not agree with 

this comment. While this portion of 

Eagle Creek has been modified by both 

addition of flows and by the diversion 

structure, suitable habitat still exists. As 

stated previously, we consider those 

areas that meet our definition of 

occupancy and support one or more of 

the PCEs as areas the meet the definition 

of critical habitat. Eagle Creek met these 

criteria. As discussed below, we have 

excluded portions of Eagle Creek 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

(58) Comment: Areas without threats 

such as the San Francisco and the 

middle reach of the mainstem Gila River 

do not require special management 

considerations or protection and thus 

can not be designated as critical habitat 

under the Act. The critical habitat 

designation will not protect the loach 

minnow from the threat of nonnatives 

and therefore special management is not 

required. 

Our response: The Act does not 

require that critical habitat alleviate 

threats to the species. We have 

determined that various threats are 

present in all the rivers we proposed as 

critical habitat, as identified in Table 1. 

As required by the Act and the 

definition of critical habitat, we provide 

a discussion of known threats for each 

area to indicate that the biological and 

physical features essential to the 

conservation for these fish may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. 

(59) Comment: Habitat requirements 

for both of the species are different and 

the Service should recognize this and 

not combine them. 

Our response: We agree that there are 

differences in the habitat requirements 

of both species and we have 

distinguished this in our PCEs for each 

of the fish. We note that it is not 

unusual for streams to support habitat 

types for both the spikedace and loach 

minnow, often within the same reach, 

and some streams are occupied by both 

species (e.g., the Gila River and 

Aravaipa Creek). 

(60) Comment: The proposed rule 

states that ‘‘individual streams are not 

isolated, but are connected with others 

to form areas or complexes.’’ This 

statement does not hold true for 

Complex 4. Eagle Creek is currently 

isolated from the San Francisco and 

Blue River complexes by a diversion 

dam. The Blue River will become 

inaccessible to upstream migration from 

the rest of the complex if a proposed 

fish barrier is constructed on the Blue 

River. 

Our response: We have clarified the 

language in this final rule to indicate 

that collections of streams in proximity 

to each other were grouped together to 

form a category called ‘‘complexes.’’

Streams need not be hydrologically 

connected in order to be grouped 

together. 

(61) Comment: No spikedace have 

been observed in Eagle Creek for 17 

years, thus the segment does not meet 

the criteria for occupancy. 

Our response: We agree, as the last 

record for spikedace in Eagle Creek was 

in 1989. Thus, critical habitat for 

spikedace in Eagle Creek has been 

removed from the final rule. However, 

Eagle Creek is considered critical habitat 

for the loach minnow. As discussed in 

the exclusion section below, portions of 

Eagle Creek have been excluded from 

the final rule. 

(62) Comment: For spikedace, the 

Verde River from Tapco Diversion Dam 

down to Fossil Creek should be 

excluded. Although spikedace were 

found in 1999 in areas upstream, they 

have not been found downstream of the 

Sycamore Creek confluence in over 20 

years. Although this area is connected to 

the occupied areas upstream, the Tapco 

Dam and numerous nonnative fishes 

occupy this reach and may serve to 

disconnect it from the upstream areas. 

Our response: We believe the Verde 

River meets the definition of critical 

habitat for spikedace as we consider this 

area occupied based on occupancy 

records from 1999. Additionally, the 

Verde contains one or more of the PCEs 

including appropriate flow velocities, 

gradients, temperatures, habitat 

components (pool, riffle, run and 

backwater), and an abundant aquatic 

insect food base, and it requires special 

management or protection. However, 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

we have excluded the lower portion of 

the Verde River (see ‘‘Exclusions under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ below). 

(63) Comment: Regarding definition of 

adverse modification, the Service’s 

definition erroneously eliminates 

congressional intent that critical habitat 

designations provide protection not just 

to survival of a species but to its 

recovery as well. It was the opinion of 

the court that ‘‘the purpose of 

establishing ‘critical habitat’ is for 

government to carve out territory that is 

not only necessary for the species’

survival but also important for the 

species’ recovery.’’ (Sierra Club v. 

USFWS, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001). 

The proposed rule for spikedace and 

loach minnow rejects that approach and 

relies on Service policy limiting critical 

habitat to only those areas occupied by 

the species. 

Our response: The Act states, at 

section 3(5)(c), that except in particular 

circumstances determined by the 

Secretary, critical habitat shall not 

include the entire geographical area 

which can be occupied by the 

threatened or endangered species. Thus, 

it is not the intent of the Act that we 

designate critical habitat in all areas that 

have the potential to become suitable 

habitat or in all areas of historic habitat. 

We have determined that our 

methodology for determining those 

areas containing features essential to the 

conservation of the spikedace and loach 

minnow complies with the intent of the 

Act and does not include all areas 

which can be occupied. Our 

methodology resulted in areas being 

proposed as critical habitat that are 

within the geographical range occupied 

by the spikedace and loach minnow and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13368 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

that contain the biological or physical 

features essential to their conservation 

and that may require special 

management. 

(64) Comment: The approach 

proposed by the Service for determining 

whether to exclude Tribal lands from 

the final rule places undue weight on 

the argument that inclusion of Tribal 

lands will compromise government-togovernment relations, to the potential 

detriment of species conservation goals. 

Additionally, under relevant Federal 

court precedent in Arizona, the Service 

is not permitted to rely upon assurances 

by the tribes that habitat will be 

‘‘adequately managed’’ through the 

implementation of Tribal management 

plans as a basis for exclusion. 

Our response: We disagree. See below 

for our analyses of the exclusion of 

Tribal lands pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. 

(65) Comment: Ten days is not 

enough time to review all of these new 

documents. There should be a delay in 

designating critical habitat until the 

information can be properly reviewed. 

Our response: We agree that the last 

comment period was shorter than we 

would have preferred. However, we 

have an obligation to submit for 

publication a final rule on December 20, 

2005, and thus we were not able to 

accommodate a longer comment period. 

In addition, we believe the three 

comment periods allowed for adequate 

opportunity for public comment. A total 

of 100 days was provided for document 

review and the public to submit 

comments. 

(66) Comment: The Phelps Dodge 

plans should undergo peer review and 

revision before being considered as 

sufficient conservation management. 

Our response: Although formal peer 

review of management plans is not 

conducted or required, the documents 

are available for public review and 

comment during the open comment 

period. 

(67) Comment: Phelps Dodge’s 

Management Plan does not assure the 

maintenance of the PCEs for the 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

Our response: We have determined 

the formation of this working 

relationship will promote the 

conservation of the loach minnow and 

spikedace and their PCEs on Phelps 

Dodge’s property. See exclusion section 

below for a more detailed discussion of 

their management plans and analysis of 

this exclusion. 

(68) Comment: The proposed rule is 

an inappropriate venue for changing the 

regulatory definition of section 7 

consultation ‘‘baseline.’’ Section 7 

regulations (51 FR 19958) define 

environmental baseline to include the 

past and present impacts of all Federal, 

State, or private actions and other 

human activities in the action area, the 

anticipated impacts of all proposed 

Federal projects in the action area that 

have already undergone formal or early 

section 7 consultation, and the impact 

of State or private actions which are 

contemporaneous with the consultation 

in process. The proposed rule would 

expand that definition to include 

‘‘ongoing Federal actions at the time of 

designation’’ regardless of whether they 

have already undergone formal or early 

section 7 consultation. 

Our response: The language 

referenced above has been removed 

from this final rule. 

General Comments Issue 3: National 

Environmental Policy Act Compliance 

(69) Comment: We believe the 

analysis in the draft environmental 

assessment to be simplistic and 

conclusory (See Middle Rio Grande 

Conservancy Dist. v. Norton). The 

impacts on the environment will be 

significant and controversial. The 

critical habitat designation as proposed 

is likely to result in adverse impacts on 

riparian areas, not only within the 

critical habitat itself, but also in the 

areas located upstream and 

downstream. The impacts on water use 

and management are significant and 

controversial. 

Our response: We determined through 

the EA that the overall environmental 

effects of this action are insignificant. 

An EIS is required only if we find that 

the proposed action is expected to have 

a significant impact on the human 

environment. The completed studies, 

evaluations, and public outreach 

conducted by the Service have not 

identified impacts resulting from the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

that are clearly significant. The Service 

has afforded substantial public input 

and involvement, with two public 

hearings and open houses. Each of these 

events had a small participation level by 

the public (less than 10 in Arizona, less 

than 20 in New Mexico, and less than 

30 written comments on the draft 

environmental assessment). Based on 

our analysis and comments received 

from the public, we prepared a final EA 

and made a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI), negating the need for 

preparation of an EIS. We have 

determined our EA is consistent with 

the spirit and intent of NEPA. The final 

EA, FONSI, and final economic analysis 

provide our rationale for determining 

that critical habitat designation would 

not have a significant effect on the 

human environment. Those documents 

are available for public review (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

(70) Comment: The draft EA fails to 

consider the impacts of critical habitat 

on the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 

2004, which authorizes the exchange of 

Central Arizona Project (CAP) water 

diverted from the Colorado River into 

New Mexico from the Gila River. The 

project is reasonably foreseeable 

because New Mexico recently 

negotiated and executed an exchange 

agreement. The draft EA (p. 45) 

acknowledges the project but fails to 

discuss the impacts. 

Our response: Page 49 of the EA states 

that the San Carlos Apache Tribe is 

concerned that the designation of 

critical habitat for the spikedace and 

loach minnow would further complicate 

the procedure for getting the CAP 

project approved. The Bureau of 

Reclamation states that this project 

would be reevaluated before an 

exchange could occur and a new 

consultation is likely. 

(71) Comment: The Service failed to 

consider a reasonable range of 

alternatives to the proposed action in its 

EA. 

Our response: We disagree. The draft 

EA considered a no-action alternative 

and several action alternatives and 

analyzed the adverse and beneficial 

environmental impacts of each. 

(72) Comment: One alternative that 

seems worthy of consideration is the 

designation of known occupied habitat, 

rather than the designation of an entire 

stream based upon limited sightings in 

a limited area (e.g., Eagle Creek) or 

consideration of designating only 

Federal lands. The Service’s failure to 

‘‘rigorously explore’’ and evaluate 

reasonable alternatives is per se 

arbitrary and capricious. 

Our response: We disagree. The 

alternatives considered are consistent 

with the purpose and need of the action 

of designating critical habitat. In 

compliance with the Act, we must 

propose for designation those areas that 

we have determined are essential, as 

well as those areas containing features 

essential, to the conservation of the 

spikedace and loach minnow. Only 

considering Federal lands for 

designation would not, in this case, 

comply with the intent of the Act. As 

discussed elsewhere in this rule, the 

areas proposed for designation were 

based on our definition of occupancy. 

See also response to comment 71 above. 

(73) Comments: In the NEPA analysis, 

it should be recognized that there are 

positive aspects that have been observed 

from human culture and interaction. 

That analysis is required by law. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13369 

Our response: The purpose of a NEPA 

analysis is to determine the potential 

impacts of a proposed set of alternative 

actions on the human environment. It is 

not the purpose of NEPA to evaluate the 

positive aspects of humans and their 

environment. 

General Comments Issue 4: Economic 

Analysis 

General Methodology 

(74) Comment: Two commenters 

recommend that the Economic Analysis 

discuss impact estimates for the Verde 

River unit as two separate subunits: An 

Upper Verde reach from Sullivan Dam 

to the Allen Diversion and a Lower 

Verde reach from the Allen Diversion to 

Fossil Creek. 

Our response: The Final Economic 

Analysis (FEA) incorporates new 

information received, and separates 

costs associated with the Upper Verde 

and Lower Verde River segments where 

possible. This distinction is made most 

apparent in sections 7 and 8, and 

Appendix B of the FEA. 

(75) Comment: One commenter states 

that the economic analysis fails to 

quantify the benefits associated with 

critical habitat designation. The 

commenter further states that although 

the Verde Valley Complex is singled out 

as the reach where the largest impacts 

will occur, there is no basis for this 

conclusion without exploring the ‘‘net 

impacts’’ through incorporation of 

benefit estimates and comparisons to 

baseline. 

Our response: Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the Secretary to designate 

critical habitat based on the best 

scientific data available after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, and 

any other relevant impact, of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Service believes that society places 

a value on conserving any and all 

threatened and endangered species and 

the habitats upon which they depend. In 

our 4(b)(2) analysis below, we discuss 

the economic benefits of excluding 

portions of the Verde River and the 

conservation benefits related to the 

inclusion of this stream segment. 

Although, in this case, we are not able 

to quantify the monetary value of 

critical habitat benefits in the Verde 

Valley Complex, we did consider the 

benefits that may be derived from a 

critical habitat designation when 

considering an exclusion pursuant to 

section 4(b)(2). 

The Service’s approach for estimating 

economic impacts includes both 

economic efficiency and distributional 

effects. The measurement of economic 

efficiency is based on the concept of 

opportunity costs, which reflect the 

value of goods and services foregone in 

order to comply with the effects of the 

designation (e.g., lost economic 

opportunity associated with restrictions 

on land use). Where data are available, 

the economic analysis does attempt to 

measure the net economic impact. For 

example, if the fencing of spikedace and 

loach minnow habitat to restrict riparian 

access for cattle is expected to result in 

an increase in the number of individuals 

visiting the site for wildlife viewing, 

then the analysis would attempt to net 

out the positive, offsetting economic 

impacts associated with their visits (e.g., 

impacts that would be associated with 

an increase in tourism spending). 

However, no data were found that 

would allow for the measurement of 

such an impact, nor was such 

information submitted during the public 

comment period. 

(76) Comment: One commenter states 

that many of the economic impacts 

attributed to spikedace and loach 

minnow critical habitat in the Verde 

Valley could be attributed to razorback 

sucker critical habitat. 

Our response: To the extent possible, 

the FEA distinguishes costs related 

specifically to spikedace and loach 

minnow conservation where multiple 

species are the subject of a single 

conservation effort or section 7 

consultation. In the case that another 

species clearly drives a project 

modification or conservation effort, the 

associated costs are appropriately not 

attributed to the spikedace and loach 

minnow. In Section 6, the FEA includes 

language that clarifies that the Verde 

River is designated as critical habitat for 

the razorback sucker. 

Recreational Activities 

(77) Comment: One commenter 

expressed concern that the designation 

of critical habitat will cause a loss of 

recreational activities on units such as 

the Verde River. 

Our response: Potential changes to 

recreational activities are discussed in 

Section 6 of the FEA. Potential impacts 

on recreational fishing losses are 

specifically discussed and estimated in 

Section 6.4.2 of the FEA. Potential costs 

associated with lost recreational fishing 

activity on the two stream segments 

where non-native fish stocking currently 

occurs are estimated to be $0 to $8.6 

million, using a discount rate of seven 

percent. As noted in Section 6.1.2, the 

future impact of proposed critical 

habitat on the stocking regimes in 

affected reaches is unknown, as is the 

reduction in fishing activity that would 

occur if stocking is curtailed. Further, it 

is unknown whether non-native trout 

may be replaced with stocked native 

fish (e.g. Gila trout). Thus, this analysis 

estimates the value of angler days at risk 

if sportfish stocking were discontinued 

on these reaches as part of the high end 

estimates. 

(78) Comment: One commenter states 

concerns that the Economic Analysis 

does not take into consideration the past 

effects of fishing closures on the Blue 

River and Eagle Creek on local 

businesses. The comment states that one 

store in Greenlee County closed as a 

result of reduced fishing activity. 

Our response: Section 6.1.1 of the 

FEA states that ‘‘the AZGFD ceased 

stocking of sportfish in Eagle Creek and 

the Blue River in Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest due to native fish 

considerations in the late 1990s and 

began stocking endangered Gila trout in 

these reaches instead. Spikedace and 

loach minnow were among numerous 

species considered when these stocking 

cessations were put in place. Although 

several citizens at a public hearing held 

in Thatcher, Arizona, in 1999 voiced 

disappointment that the sites are no 

longer stocked, these changes in 

stocking have not affected the overall 

number of fish stocked in Arizona. 

However, there may have been 

consumer surplus losses associated with 

these closures because anglers may now 

take trips to less preferred sites. It 

should be noted that any past impacts 

would have occurred prior to this 

critical habitat rule taking effect.’’

Section 6 and Appendix B of the FEA 

now highlight that the curtailment of 

stocking in these reaches has caused 

some economic impacts on local 

businesses. 

Water Use and Grazing Issues 

(79) Comment: One commenter states 

that exclusion of livestock from riparian 

areas using fencing has actually had an 

adverse effect on the spikedace and 

loach minnow. 

Our response: The Economic Analysis 

recognizes that some controversy 

surrounds the issue of the impacts of 

livestock on native fish species. Section 

4.1 of the FEA now states that ‘‘in 

public comments, private ranchers have 

suggested that current management has 

been successful at mitigating the 

negative effects of grazing on spikedace 

and loach minnow habitat and that 

further limitation of grazing would 

create conditions conducive to nonnative species. Some commenters have 

also suggested that fencing may be 

detrimental to the species.’’

(80) Comment: One commenter stated 

that estimates of riparian fencing and 

maintenance costs in the Economic 

Analysis are low. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13370 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Our response: As presented in Section 

4.4 of the FEA, fencing and maintenance 

costs were developed using numerous 

published sources, as well as through 

discussions with both Forest Service 

and BLM. Fencing costs are presented as 

a range between $1,500 and $15,000 per 

river mile of fence construction, with an 

additional $110 to $2,600 in fence 

maintenance. 

(81) Comment: One commenter 

suggests that data in the Economic 

Analysis on agricultural establishments 

in Greenlee County are incorrect. The 

commenter provides information on 

ranching operations on Eagle Creek. The 

comment states that the Four Drag 

Ranch, Seven Cross A Ranch, Anchor 

Ranch, Double Circle Ranch, and Tule 

Ranch are located on Eagle Creek. 

Our response: Appendix B, Exhibits 

B–2, B–3, and B–4 provide data on the 

number of farm operations, number of 

ranching operations, and annual sales 

by county, as reported by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Survey. Section 2 

presents the number of establishments 

and employees in the Agriculture, 

Forestry, Hunting, and Fishing Support 

industries, as reported by the U.S. 

Census. A note was added to Exhibit 2–

7 that clarifies the source of the data 

used and also refers readers to 

Appendix B, Exhibits B–2 through B–4. 

Although specific ranches are not 

named, Section 4 estimates that impacts 

on grazing activities on Eagle Creek may 

range from $5,000 to $126,000 over the 

next 20 years (discounted at seven 

percent). 

(82) Comment: One commenter states 

that the potential loss of the ability to 

divert surface water and possibly 

groundwater is the most important 

economic, social, and environmental 

consideration in the Verde River unit, 

and that the cost associated with such 

a loss of water is not calculated into the 

examples provided in Chapter 7 of the 

Draft Economic Analysis. 

Our response: Chapter 7 of the FEA 

focuses on potential impacts to 

residential and commercial 

development construction activities in 

critical habitat areas. Issues related to 

water use are discussed in Chapter 3 of 

the analysis. Section 3.5.1 specifically 

discusses water use in the Verde Valley, 

and provides estimates of the number of 

potentially affected surface water users 

and groundwater wells. Potentially 

affected agricultural lands within the 

Verde River Complex are valued at 

between $3.1 million and $30.3 million. 

(83) Comment: One commenter states 

that the Economic Analysis did not 

discuss decreed water rights associated 

with surface water diversion ditches 

and how those decreed rights will be 

adversely impacted by the critical 

habitat designation, or what data will be 

relied upon in determining subflow. 

Our response: Section 3 of the 

Economic Analysis states that future 

impacts on water users are possible due 

to spikedace and loach minnow 

conservation efforts if less water is made 

available for diversion to accommodate 

the spikedace and loach minnow. The 

analysis also states that there are 

currently no data that indicate whether 

existing or future diversions of water 

(including groundwater use) reduce 

stream flow or modify hydrologic 

conditions to a degree that adversely 

impact the spikedace and loach minnow 

or their habitat. In addition, hydrologic 

models are unavailable to assess the role 

of any specific groundwater pumping 

activity or surface water diversion in 

determining stream flow or other 

hydrologic conditions within critical 

habitat. As such, this analysis does not 

quantify the probability or extent to 

which water use would need to be 

curtailed or modified to remedy impacts 

on spikedace and loach minnow. It 

does, however, provide information on 

the potential scale of the economic 

impacts that could occur if requirements 

associated with spikedace and loach 

minnow conservation result in changes 

in water diversions or conveyance. 

Specifically, the analysis addresses 

potential impacts on water used for 

irrigated agriculture. The analysis states 

that it is possible that irrigation 

activities could be affected if farmers 

make efforts to maintain adequate water 

quantity and flow for the spikedace and 

loach minnow in the future. Because 

agricultural water use comprises 98 

percent of surface water use and 81 

percent of groundwater use in counties 

that contain critical habitat, it appears 

most likely that, if additional water 

supplies are needed for these species, 

they would come from current 

agricultural water use. Thus, the 

analysis assumes that to accommodate 

spikedace and loach minnow, farmers 

may give up water and cease to farm, 

resulting in losses of agricultural land 

value. Should irrigated agriculture be 

curtailed to accommodate spikedace 

and loach minnow, approximately 830 

acres within proposed critical habitat, or 

6,310 acres that fall in the vicinity of 

critical habitat that are currently 

irrigated for cropland agriculture could 

be retired from production. The 

irrigated crop production at risk of being 

lost is valued at approximately $4.5 

million ($2005) within proposed critical 

habitat areas, or approximately $38.5 

million ($2005) including lands that 

rely on water diverted from proposed 

critical habitat. Thus, the total cropland 

value potentially foregone ($38.5 

million in $2005) is included in high 

end estimates of impacts on water use. 

(84) Comment: One commenter states 

that nothing was included on the costs 

to retire farm and ranchland along the 

San Pedro River. 

Our response: Section 3 of the 

Economic Analysis identifies, to the 

extent possible, water users potentially 

affected by spikedace and loach 

minnow conservation efforts. Exhibit 3–

7 includes a description of 64 acres of 

cropland that fall within the San Pedro 

River segment, and 720 acres of 

cropland that fall within the vicinity of 

proposed critical habitat. These acres 

are valued at $394,000 to $4.5 million 

(2005 dollars). 

(85) Comment: Two commenters state 

that the Economic Analysis fails to 

consider impacts of the rule on the 

Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, 

Public Law 108–451. 

Our response: Section 3.5.5 of the 

FEA provides additional detail provided 

by the commenters about the 2004 

Arizona Water Settlements Act (Pub. L. 

108–451) as it relates to the proposed 

stretch of the Gila River in New Mexico. 

(86) Comment: One commenter states 

that the Economic Analysis makes no 

attempt to quantify the impacts to 

farming activities in the Gila Valley. The 

commenter further states that the 

Service cannot simply declare that, due 

to data and model limitations, the 

analysis is not able to answer the 

question of whether impacts to water 

users are likely. 

Our response: Section 3.5.3 of the 

FEA discusses potential impacts of 

spikedace and loach minnow 

conservation activities on the Middle 

Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek 

Complex (Complex 3). As stated in the 

analysis, ‘‘approximately 135 acres of 

lands used for cropland irrigation are 

located within Complex 3, and 1,220 

acres are located in the valley that 

contains proposed critical habitat. The 

value of croplands in proposed critical 

habitat is approximately $11,000, while 

lands in the vicinity of proposed critical 

habitat are valued at approximately $7.5 

million. Approximately $15,000 in 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

funding was allocated to farms in 

proposed critical habitat areas on these 

segments in 2005.’’ The value of these 

at-risk agricultural lands are included in 

impact estimates for this unit. Thus, 

while the Economic Analysis does not 

identify the likelihood of these impacts, 

it does quantify them and include them 

in potential future cost estimates. 

(87) Comment: One commenter states 

that the projected project modification 

costs are estimated at $13,500 per water 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13371 

project resulting from the critical habitat 

designation, and that this estimate is 

based on estimates of costs at Fort 

Huachuca. The commenter states that 

project modification costs at Fort 

Huachuca are costing ‘‘tens-of-millions 

of dollars.’’ The commenter states that 

Phelps Dodge has recently incurred 

costs in excess of one million dollars for 

southwestern willow flycatcher 

mitigation, and thus water project cost 

estimates for spikedace and loach 

minnow critical habitat are low. 

Our response: The FEA includes 

specific cost estimates for particular 

water projects expected to occur within 

proposed critical habitat areas in 

Chapter 3 of the FEA. Typical project 

modifications for water projects in the 

past have included minimizing 

activities within the wetted channel, 

ensuring no pollutants enter surface 

waters, replanting riparian vegetation, 

monitoring for up to ten years, and 

conducting research studies. Future 

project modifications are assumed to be 

similar to those associated with a lowflow gauge installation to measure flow 

in the Verde River that occurred as part 

of a section 404 permit from U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, or $13,500 per 

project. Costs associated with the past 

consultation on Fort Huachuca are not 

included as part of these estimates, nor 

are they included in the analysis, as Fort 

Huachuca falls well outside the 

boundaries of proposed critical habitat, 

and downstream of proposed habitat 

areas. Quantified costs associated with 

water-related projects also include 

potential costs associated with costs of 

retiring agricultural cropland in order to 

provide sufficient water for the species. 

Potential costs to municipal, industrial 

and Tribal water use are also discussed, 

but not quantified. Expenditures made 

on behalf of the southwestern willow 

flycatcher are not relevant to this 

analysis. 

Mining Impacts 

(88) Comment: One commenter states 

that the Economic Analysis failed to 

adequately evaluate impacts to mining 

operations and water use in the arid 

southwest as a result of the proposed 

designation, resulting in a dramatic 

understatement of economic impacts. 

The commenter commissioned a report 

that estimates economic impacts to 

Phelps’s Dodge’s operations at the 

Tyrone Mine alone to exceed $100 

million. 

Our response: Section 5 of the FEA 

evaluates potential impacts to mining 

operations. Section 3 of the analysis 

addresses impacts to water use that may 

occur in order to protect the spikedace 

and loach minnow. Specifically, the 

analysis states that: 

‘‘While few active mineral mining 

activities occur within the proposed critical 

habitat, the mining industry has expressed 

concern that water use by existing or 

potential mining operations could be affected 

by endangered species conservation 

activities, particularly the designation of 

critical habitat. Critical to an understanding 

of the potential for impacts on water 

diversions or conveyance is an 

understanding of the probability and 

magnitude of any such changes. As detailed 

in this section, there is currently no data that 

indicates whether existing or future 

diversions of water for mining activities 

(including groundwater use) reduces stream 

flow or modifies hydrologic conditions to a 

degree that adversely impacts the spikedace 

and loach minnow or their habitat. In 

addition, hydrologic models are unavailable 

to assess the role of any specific mining 

facility’s groundwater pumping or surface 

water diversions in determining stream flow 

or other hydrologic conditions within critical 

habitat. As such, this analysis does not 

quantify the probability or extent to which 

water use for mining purposes would need to 

be curtailed or modified to remedy impacts 

on spikedace and loach minnow. 

Given these data and model limitations, 

this analysis does not answer the question of 

whether impacts to mining operations are 

likely (i.e., the probability of such impacts), 

or define the expected magnitude of these 

impacts. It does, however, provide 

information on the potential scale of the 

economic impact that could occur if 

requirements associated with spikedace and 

loach minnow conservation result in changes 

in water diversions or conveyance. 

Specifically, to allow for an understanding of 

the economic activities that could be at risk 

if modifications to water use or conveyance 

are required, this analysis provides data on 

the location of mining activities potentially 

associated with CHD (critical habitat 

designation) areas, as well as data on the 

regional economic importance of these 

operations.’’

The commenter provides hypothetical 

situations in which water currently used 

by mining operations may be lost to 

mining activities, and calculates a value 

of the lost water rights and associated 

replacement costs. While we do not 

disagree that, should the water be lost 

to mining activities, such costs could 

occur, there remains considerable 

uncertainty as to the likelihood of such 

events. Nonetheless, the revised 

analysis includes estimates of potential 

losses provided by the commenter in 

Section 5 of the analysis, to provide 

additional context for understanding the 

potential magnitude of impacts, should 

they occur. 

(89) Comment: One commenter states 

that the Economic Analysis does not 

identify all of the Phelps Dodge mines 

that may be affected by critical habitat 

designation. Potentially affected mines 

include Morenci Mine, Tyrone Mine, 

Christmas Mine, and United Verde 

Mine. The commenter further states that 

the Economic Analysis does not 

consider potential effects to Phelps 

Dodge grazing and agricultural activities 

related to proposed critical habitat. 

Our response: Section 5 of the Draft 

Economic Analysis identified the 

Morenci Mine, the Tyrone Mine, and 

the Christmas Mine as being potentially 

affected by proposed critical habitat. 

Because the United Verde Mine falls 

outside of proposed critical habitat and 

has been inactive since 1953, it was not 

specifically described in the Draft 

Economic Analysis. The FEA now 

includes a discussion of impacts to 

United Verde Mine along with the other 

mines. As described by the commenter, 

current activities at the United Verde 

Mine area primarily include leasing 

water to agricultural activities. Potential 

impacts of proposed critical habitat on 

agricultural water use are addressed in 

Section 3 of the FEA. Potential impacts 

of proposed critical habitat on ranching 

activities, for all landowners, are 

addressed in Section 4 of the FEA. 

(90) Comment: One commenter states 

that the Economic Analysis fails to 

consider the replacement costs 

associated with water users that may be 

impacted by the critical habitat 

designation. These costs are extremely 

high because water supplies in the west 

are scarce and not easily replaceable. 

Other costs relating to impacts on water 

use not considered include search, 

infrastructure, and lost profits from 

curtailed operations at mining facilities. 

Our response: The revised analysis 

includes estimates of potential losses 

provided by the commenter in Section 

5 of the analysis. As stated in Response 

87, it is not contested that, should water 

be lost to mining activities as a result of 

conservation activities for the spikedace 

and loach minnow, costs to the mining 

industry would be incurred. However, 

considerable uncertainty exists as to the 

likelihood, magnitude, and specific 

costs of water losses. 

Small Business Impacts 

(91) Comment: One commenter states 

that the Economic Analysis would be 

clearer if it reported the number of 

developers that are likely to be affected 

in the small business analysis. 

Our response: Appendix B, Small 

Business and Energy Impacts Analyses, 

considers the extent to which the 

analytic results presented in the main 

body of the FEA reflect potential future 

impacts to small businesses. Appendix 

B has been revised to provide additional 

details about the number of developers 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13372 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

potentially affected by proposed critical 

habitat designation. 

(92) Comment: One commenter states 

that the Economic Analysis would be 

stronger if it provided data on the 

impact of critical habitat on small 

entities that thrive on the area’s 

recreational activities. To collect such 

information, the commenter suggests 

that the Service seek public input on the 

reduction of fishing activity if stocking 

is curtailed. 

Our response: Appendix B considers 

the extent to which the analytic results 

presented in the main body of the FEA 

reflect potential future impacts to small 

businesses. As stated in the Appendix, 

‘‘the future impact of proposed CHD on 

the stocking regimes in these reaches is 

unknown, as is the reduction in fishing 

activity that would occur if stocking is 

curtailed. Further, it is unknown 

whether non-native fish stocking may be 

replaced with catchable native fish 

stocking (e.g. Apache trout). Thus, this 

analysis estimates the value of angler 

days at risk if sportfish stocking were 

discontinued on these reaches as part of 

the high end estimates. Angling trips are 

valued at approximately $8.6 million 

over 20 years (or $816,000 annually), 

assuming a discount rate of 7 percent. 

It should be noted that because State 

fish managers typically identify 

alternative sites for stocked fish when 

areas are closed to stocking, these angler 

days are likely to be redistributed to 

other areas rather than lost altogether. 

Thus, the high-end estimate does not 

consider the possibility that rather than 

not fishing at all, recreators will visit 

alternative, less desirable fishing sites. 

Existing models of angler behavior in 

these areas were not available to refine 

this estimate.’’ The Appendix further 

states that ‘‘if, as in the high-end 

estimate of impacts, angler trips to the 

two stream reaches that currently stock 

non-native fish are not undertaken, 

localized impacts on anglers and, in 

turn, small businesses that rely on 

fishing activities could occur. These 

impacts would be spread across a 

variety of industries including food and 

beverage stores, food service and 

drinking places, accommodations, 

transportation, and sporting goods.’’ To 

conduct a survey of specific potential 

effects of closures is beyond the scope 

of this analysis. The revised Appendix 

does, however, include a reference to 

public comment received regarding a 

past store closure that occurred due to 

past area closures. 

(93) Comment: One commenter states 

that the average number of acres in 

farms applied in the small business 

analysis is skewed due to the inclusion 

of a few very large (non small-business) 

farms. The commenter suggests that 

using the median farm size would 

improve results. The commenter also 

states that, because the Economic 

Analysis does not provide data on the 

impacts on beef cattle ranching 

operations, it is difficult to determine 

whether there will be a significant 

impact on this industry. The commenter 

also states that using the average 

revenues of all ranching operations, 

including both large and small business, 

likely skews the average to the upper 

end by including a few large ranches. 

Our response: Appendix B considers 

the extent to which the analytic results 

presented in the main body of the FEA 

reflect potential future impacts to small 

businesses. Appendix B has been 

revised to estimate the number of 

affected farms using average revenues as 

well as using median revenues. 

Appendix B does provide data on the 

impact to beef cattle ranching 

operations, including revenue data for 

beef cattle ranching operations, the 

number of ranches in each county, and 

the expected impact of the proposed 

rule on these entities. While specific 

revenue data for affected small beef 

cattle ranches is not readily available, a 

proxy for this is developed in the 

revised Appendix by eliminating the 

revenue outlier (Pinal County) from the 

average revenue estimates. This results 

in an estimate of average revenues for 

small ranches in the region of $42,500. 

The analysis therefore estimates that 

approximately 72 small ranching 

operations may experience a reduction 

in revenues of between 0.9 and 22 

percent of annual revenues annually. 

These ranches represent 4.7 percent of 

ranches in affected counties, or one 

percent of ranches in New Mexico and 

Arizona. 

(94) Comment: One commenter states 

that estimated average revenue for 

ranchers in Greenlee County of 

$133,000 is incorrect, and that, given 

the current drought, it is likely to be too 

high. 

Our response: Appendix B of the FEA 

lists the average revenues for cattle and 

calf ranches in Greenlee County as 

$19,100. We have incorporated an 

acknowledgement that revenue is 

dependent on, and may fluctuate with, 

natural conditions such as drought. 

(95) Comment: One commenter states 

that there is no attempt to define 

baseline conditions in order to conduct 

a ‘‘with’’ and ‘‘without’’ analysis as 

prescribed by Executive Order 12866. 

Our response: The economic analysis 

estimates the total cost of species 

conservation activities without 

subtracting the impact of pre-existing 

baseline regulations (i.e., the cost 

estimates are fully co-extensive). In 

2001, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of 

Appeals instructed the Service to 

conduct a full analysis of all of the 

economic impacts of proposed critical 

habitat designation, regardless of 

whether those impacts are attributable 

co-extensively to other causes (New 

Mexico Cattle Growers Ass’n v. 

U.S.F.W.S., 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 

2001)). The economic analysis complies 

with direction from the U.S. 10th 

Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

Based upon our review of the public 

comments, economic analysis, 

environmental assessment, issues 

addressed at the public hearings, and 

any new relevant information that may 

have become available since the 

publication of the proposal, we 

reevaluated our proposed critical habitat 

designation and made changes as 

appropriate. Other than minor 

clarifications and incorporation of 

additional information on the species’

biology, status, and threats, this final 

rule differs from the proposal by the 

following: 

(1) We excluded lands of the San 

Carlos Apache, White Mountain 

Apache, and Yavapai-Apache Tribes 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

(see ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act’’ section below). 

(2) We excluded lands owned by the 

Phelps Dodge Corporation on the Gila 

River and Eagle Creek pursuant to 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 

‘‘Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act’’ section below.) 

(3) We excluded a portion of the 

Verde River pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act (see ‘‘Exclusion Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section 

below.) 

(4) We modified the primary 

constituent elements for clarity and to 

reflect additional information received 

during the public comment period. 

(5) We made technical corrections to 

township, range, section legal 

descriptions, the confluence point of the 

East Fork Black and North Fork East 

Fork Black rivers, and the upstream 

endpoint on Eagle Creek. Overall 

mileage from the proposed to the final 

designation was slightly reduced by 

approximately 0.5 river miles as a result 

of these corrections. 

(6) Eagle Creek is no longer included 

in the designation of critical habitat for 

the spikedace, as further review of the 

available information shows this area 

does not meet our definition of 

occupied, and therefore does not meet 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13373 

our criteria for defining critical habitat 

for the spikedace. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as—(i) The specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

necessary that bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, regulated 

taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7 requires consultation 

on Federal actions that are likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow government 

or public access to private lands. 

Section 7 is a purely protective measure 

and does not require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures. 

To be included in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the area 

occupied by the species must first have 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known, using the best scientific 

data available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

(i.e., areas on which are found the 

primary constituent elements, as 

defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

Habitat occupied at the time of listing 

may be included in critical habitat only 

if the features essential to the 

conservation of the species therein may 

require special management or 

protection. Thus, we do not include 

areas where existing management is 

sufficient to conserve the species. (As 

discussed below, such areas may also be 

excluded from critical habitat pursuant 

to section 4(b)(2).) Accordingly, when 

the best available scientific data do not 

demonstrate that the conservation needs 

of the species require additional areas, 

we will not designate critical habitat in 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing. An area currently occupied by 

the species but that was not known to 

be occupied at the time of listing will 

likely, but not always, be essential to the 

conservation of the species and, 

therefore, included in the critical habitat 

designation. 

The Service’s Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act, published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 

along with Section 515 of the Treasury 

and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines issued by the Service 

provide criteria and establish 

procedures to ensure that decisions 

made by the Service represent the best 

scientific data available. They require 

Service biologists, to the extent 

consistent with the Act and with the use 

of the best scientific data available, to 

use primary and original sources of 

information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. When determining which areas 

are critical habitat, the Service generally 

uses the listing package as a primary 

source of information. Additional 

information sources include the 

recovery plan for the species, articles in 

peer-reviewed journals, conservation 

plans developed by States and counties, 

scientific status surveys and studies, 

biological assessments, or other 

unpublished materials and expert 

opinion or personal knowledge. All 

information is used in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 515 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines issued by the Service. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Habitat is often dynamic, and 

species may move from one area to 

another over time. Furthermore, we 

recognize that designation of critical 

habitat may not include all of the 

habitat areas that may eventually be 

determined to be necessary for the 

recovery of the species. For these 

reasons, critical habitat designations do 

not signal that habitat outside the 

designation is unimportant or may not 

be required for recovery. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to 

the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available information at the time of the 

action. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas to 

propose as critical habitat, we consider 

those physical and biological features 

(primary constituent elements (PCEs)) 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species, and within areas occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, that 

may require special management 

considerations and protection. These 

include, but are not limited to, space for 

individual and population growth and 

for normal behavior; food, water, air, 

light, minerals 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. 

We determined the primary 

constituent elements for spikedace and 

loach minnow from studies on their 

habitat requirements and population 

biology including, but not limited to, 

Barber et al. 1970, pp. 10–12; Minckley 

1973; Anderson 1978, p. 7, 17, 31–37, 

41, 54; Barber and Minckley 1983, pp. 

34–39; Turner and Tafanelli 1983, pp. 

15–20; Propst et al. 1986, p. 40–72, 82–

83; Hardy et al. 1990, pp. 19–20, 39; 

Douglas et al. 1994, pp. 12–14; Rinne 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13374 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

and Stefferud 1996, p. 14–17; and 

Velasco 1997, pp. 5–6. 

Spikedace 

The specific primary constituent 

elements required for the spikedace are 

derived from the biological needs of the 

species as described in the Background 

section of this document and below. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and Normal Behavior 

Habitat Preferences 

Spikedace have differing habitat 

requirements through their various life 

stages. Generally, adult spikedace prefer 

intermediate-sized streams with 

moderate to swift currents over sand, 

gravel, and cobble substrates (i.e., 

stream bottoms). Preferred water depths 

of adults are less than 11.8 in (30 cm) 

(Barber and Minckley 1966, p. 321; 

Minckley 1973, p. 114; Anderson 1978, 

p. 17; Rinne and Kroeger 1988, p. 1; 

Hardy 1990, pp. 19–20, 39; Sublette et 

al. 1990, p. 138; Rinne 1991, pp. 8–10; 

Rinne 1999, p. 6). As discussed below, 

larval and juvenile spikedace occupy 

different habitats than adults. 

Flow Velocities. Studies on flow 

velocity have been completed on the 

Gila River, Aravaipa Creek, and the 

Verde River. In these studies, flows 

measured in habitat occupied by adult 

spikedace ranged from 23.3 to 70.0 cm/ 

second (9.2–27.6 in/second) (Barber and 

Minckley 1966, p. 321; Hardy 1990, pp. 

19–20, 39; Propst et al. 1986, p. 41; 

Rinne 1991, pp. 9–10; Rinne and 

Kroeger 1988, p. 1; Schreiber 1978, p. 4). 

Studies on the Gila River indicated that 

juvenile spikedace occupy areas with 

velocities of approximately 16.8 cm/ 

second (6.6 in/second) while larval 

spikedace were found in velocities of 

8.4 cm/second (3.3 in/second) (Propst et 

al. 1986, p. 41). 

Propst et al. 1986 (pp. 47–49) 

examined flow velocities in occupied 

spikedace habitats as they varied by 

season. During the warm season (June–

November), occupied spikedace habitats 

in the Gila River had mean flow 

velocities of 19.3 in/second (49.1 cm/ 

second) at one site and 7.4 in/second 

(18.8 cm/second) at the second site. 

During the cold season (December–

May), mean flow velocities at these 

same sites were 15.5 in/second (39.4 

cm/second) and 8.4 in/second (21.4 cm/ 

second). It is believed that spikedace 

seek areas in the stream that offer 

warmer water temperatures during 

cooler seasons to offset their decreased 

metabolic rates. Where water depth 

remains fairly constant throughout the 

year (e.g., the first site), slower 

velocities provided pockets of warmer 

water temperatures in the stream. In 

areas of fairly constant flow velocities 

(e.g., the second site), warmer water 

temperatures were found in those 

portions of the stream with shallower 

water (Propst et al. 1986, pp. 47–49). 

Larval and juvenile spikedace, which 

occupy different habitats than adults, 

tend to occupy shallow, peripheral 

portions of streams that have slower 

currents (Anderson 1978, p.17; Propst et 

al. 1986, pp. 40–41). Once they emerge 

from the gravel of the spawning riffles, 

spikedace larvae disperse to stream 

margins where water velocity is very 

slow or still. Larger larval and juvenile 

spikedace (those fish 1.0 to 1.4 inches 

(25.4 to 35.6 mm) in length) occurred 

over a greater range of water velocities 

than smaller larvae, but still occupied 

water depths of less than 12.6 inches 

(32.0 cm) (Propst et al. 1986, p. 40). 

Juveniles and larvae are also 

occasionally found in quiet pools or 

backwaters (e.g., pools that are 

connected with, but out of, the main 

river channel) lacking streamflow 

(Sublette et al. 1990, p. 138). 

Outside of the breeding season, which 

occurs between April and June, eighty 

percent of the spikedace collected in a 

Verde River study used run and glide 

habitat. For this study, a glide was 

defined as a portion of the stream with 

a lower gradient (0.3 percent), versus a 

run which had a slightly steeper 

gradient (0.3–0.5 percent) (Rinne and 

Stefferud 1996, p. 14). Spikedace in the 

Gila River were most commonly found 

in riffle areas of the stream with 

moderate to swift currents (Anderson 

1978, p. 17) and some run habitats (J.M. 

Montgomery 1985, p. 21), as were 

spikedace in Aravaipa Creek (Barber 

and Minckley 1966, p. 321). 

Seasonal differences in habitats 

utilized by spikedace have been noted 

in the upper Gila drainage, for both the 

winter and breeding seasons. For 

example, spikedace were found to use 

shallower habitats (<6.6 inches, <16.8 

cm) in the winter, and deeper habitats 

(6.6 to 12.6 inches, 16.8–32.0 cm) 

during warmer months (Propst et al. 

1986, p. 47). 

Specific habitat usage has been noted 

for the breeding season as well. During 

the breeding season, female and male 

spikedace become segregated, with 

females occupying deeper pools and 

eddies and males occupying riffles 

flowing over sand and gravel beds in 

water approximately 3.1 to 5.9 inches 

(7.9–15.0 cm) deep. Females then enter 

the riffles occupied by the males before 

ova are released into the water column 

(Barber et al. 1970, pp.11–12). 

Streams in the southwestern United 

States have a wide fluctuation in flows 

and some are periodically dewatered. 

While portions of stream segments 

included in this designation may 

experience dry periods, they are still 

considered important because the 

spikedace is adapted to stream systems 

with fluctuating water levels. While 

they can not persist in dewatered areas, 

spikedace will use these areas as 

connective corridors between occupied 

or seasonally occupied habitat when 

they are wetted. 

Substrates. Spikedace are known to 

occur in areas with low to moderate 

amounts of fine sediment and substrate 

embeddedness (filling in of spaces by 

fine sediments), which are important 

features for healthy development of 

eggs. Spawning has been observed in 

areas with sand and gravel beds and not 

in areas where fine materials of a 

particle size less than sand coats the 

sand or gravel substrate, as described 

above. Additionally, low to moderate 

fine sediments ensure that eggs remain 

well-oxygenated and will not suffocate 

due to sediment deposition (Propst et al. 

1986, p. 40). 

Spikedace were found over sand and 

gravel substrates in the glide-run and 

low-gradient riffle habitats in both the 

upper Verde (Rinne and Stefferud 1996, 

p. 21) and the upper Gila (Propst et al. 

1986, p. 40; Rinne and Deason 2000, p. 

106). In a study of a small portion of the 

Verde River, spikedace were found in 

glide-run habitats where substrates were 

characterized by approximately 29 

percent sand or fines (silty sand) (Rinne 

2001, p. 68). In other studies of the 

Verde River over a two-year period, 

spikedace were found in areas with a 

percentage of fine content substrate that 

varied from 1 to 28 percent (Rinne 2001, 

p. 68). Neary et al. (1996, p. 24) noted 

that spikedace were found in habitats 

with substrates of less than 10 percent 

sand. While there is some variability in 

the percent of sand or fine substrate in 

occupied spikedace habitat, Neary et al. 

(1996, p. 24) concluded that, based on 

the higher density of spikedace present 

in areas with lower percentages of sand 

in the substrate, spikedace favored 

habitats with lower sand content. 

Substrates are, in part, a reflection of 

the gradients and velocities of the 

streams in which they are found. Sand 

and gravel typically decrease as gradient 

and velocity increase (Rinne and 

Stefferud 1996, p. 14). Spikedace 

numbers in the Verde River increased 

almost three times (from 18 to 52 

individuals) when the fine component 

of the substrate decreased from about 27 

percent down to 7 percent (Neary et al. 

1996, p. 26), indicating that spikedace 

prefer habitats with lower amounts of 

fines. Sand content in all glide-run 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13375 

spikedace habitats in the Verde and Gila 

Rivers in 2000 was 18 and 20 percent 

(Rinne 2001, p. 68). However, because 

substrates are determined in part by 

gradient and velocity of the stream, the 

type of substrate should not be used 

alone in determining suitable spikedace 

habitat. 

Sixty percent of spikedace larvae in 

the Gila River were found over sanddominated substrates, while 18 percent 

were found over gravel, and an 

additional 18 percent found over 

cobble-dominated substrates. While 45 

percent of juvenile spikedace were 

found over sand substrates, an 

additional 45 percent of the juveniles 

were found over gravel substrates, with 

the remaining 9 percent associated with 

cobble-dominated substrates (Propst et 

al. 1986, p. 40). 

The degree of substrate embeddedness 

may also affect the prey base for 

spikedace. As discussed below, mayflies 

constitute a significant portion of the 

spikedace diet. Suitable habitat for some 

mayflies includes pebbles or gravel for 

clinging (Pennak 1978, p. 539). Excess 

sedimentation would cover or blanket 

smaller pebbles and gravel, resulting in 

a lack of suitable habitat for mayflies, 

and a subsequent decrease in available 

prey items for spikedace. 

Flooding. Rainfall in the southwest is 

generally characterized as bimodal, with 

winter rains of longer duration and less 

intensity and summer rains of shorter 

duration and higher intensity. As we 

discuss below, periodic flooding 

appears to benefit spikedace in three 

ways: (1) Removing excess sediment 

from some portions of the stream; (2) 

removing nonnative fish species from a 

given area; and (3) increasing prey 

species diversity. 

Flooding in Aravaipa Creek has 

resulted in the transport of heavier loads 

of sediments such as cobble, gravel, and 

sand that are deposited where the 

stream widens, gradient flattens, and 

velocity and turbulence decrease. Dams 

formed by such deposition can 

temporarily cause water to back up and 

break into braids downstream of the 

dam. The braided areas provide 

excellent nurseries for larval and 

juvenile fishes (Velasco 1997, pp. 28–

29). 

On the Gila River in New Mexico, 

flows fluctuate seasonally with 

snowmelt, causing spring pulses and 

occasional floods, and late-summer or 

monsoonal rains producing floods of 

varying intensity and duration. These 

high flows benefit spikedace spawning 

and foraging habitat (Propst et al. 1986, 

p. 3) as described above. Peak floods can 

modify channel morphology and sort 

and rearrange stream bed materials 

(Stefferud and Rinne 1996, p. 80). 

Floods likely benefit native fish by 

breaking up embedded bottom materials 

(Mueller 1984, p. 355). A study of the 

Verde River analyzed the effects of 

flooding in 1993 and 1995, finding that 

these floods had notable effects on both 

native and nonnative fish species. 

Among other effects, these floods on the 

Verde River either stimulated spawning 

or enhanced recruitment of three of the 

native species or may have eliminated 

one of the nonnative fish species (Rinne 

and Stefferud 1997, pp. 159, 162; 

Stefferud and Rinne 1996, p. 80). 

Minckley and Meffe 1987 (pp. 99, 

100) found that flooding, as part of a 

natural hydrograph, may temporarily 

remove nonnative fish species, which 

are not adapted to flooding. Thus 

flooding consequently removes the 

competitive pressures of nonnative fish 

species on native fish species which 

persist following the flood. Minckley 

and Meffe (1987, p. 99–100) studied the 

differential responses of native and 

nonnative fishes in seven unregulated 

and three regulated streams or stream 

reaches that were sampled before and 

after major flooding noted that fish 

faunas of canyon-bound reaches of 

unregulated streams invariably shifted 

from a mixture of native and nonnative 

fish species to predominantly, and in 

some cases exclusively, native forms 

after large floods. Samples from 

regulated systems indicated relatively 

few or no changes in species 

composition due to releases from 

upstream dams at low, controlled 

volumes. However, during emergency 

releases, effects to nonnative fish 

species were similar to those seen with 

flooding on unregulated systems. 

There is some variability in fish 

response to flooding. Some nonnative 

species, such as smallmouth bass 

(Micropterus dolomieui) and green 

sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), appear to 

be partially adapted to flooding, and 

often reappear in a few weeks (Minckley 

and Meffe, p. 100). In addition, 

Stefferud and Rinne (1996, p. 75) found 

that late-winter flooding affected the 

entire fish community, either 

stimulating reproduction or promoting 

recruitment (at least among the largersize fishes), and possibly eliminating 

some nonnative species. 

The onset of flooding also 

corresponds with an increased diversity 

of food items for spikedace. Reductions 

in the mainstream invertebrates, such as 

mayflies, cause the fish to expand its 

food base in an opportunistic manner. 

In addition, inflowing flood waters carry 

terrestrial invertebrates, such as ants, 

bees, and wasps (Hymenopterans), into 

aquatic areas (Barber and Minckley 

1983, p.39). 

Stream Gradient. Spikedace occupy 

streams with low to moderate gradients 

(Propst et al. 1986, p. 3; Rinne and 

Stefferud 1996, p. 14; Stefferud and 

Rinne 1996, p. 21; Sublette et al. 1990, 

p. 138). Specific gradient data are 

generally lacking, but the gradient of 

occupied portions of Aravaipa Creek 

and the Verde River varied between 

approximately 0.3 to <1.0 percent 

(Barber et al. 1970, p. 10; Rinne and 

Kroeger 1988, p. 2; Rinne and Stefferud 

1996, p. 14). 

Habitat Protected From Disturbance or 

Representative of the Historic 

Geographical and Ecological 

Distribution of a Species 

Nonnative aquatic species. One of the 

primary reasons for the decline of native 

species is the presence of nonnative 

fishes. Fish evolution in the arid 

American west is linked to disruptive 

geologic and climatic events that acted 

in concert over evolutionary time to 

decrease the availability and reliability 

of aquatic ecosystems. The 

fragmentation and reduction of aquatic 

ecosystems resulted in a fish fauna that 

was both diminished and restricted in 

the arid west. Lacking exposure to a 

wider range of species, western species 

seem to lack the competitive abilities 

and predator defenses developed by 

fishes from regions where more species 

are present (Douglas et al. 1994, pp. 9–

10). The introduction and spread of 

nonnative species has been identified as 

one of the major factors in the 

continuing decline of native fishes 

throughout North America and 

particularly in the southwestern United 

States (Miller 1961, p. 365, 377, 397–

398; Lachner et al. 1970, p. 22; Ono et 

al. 1983, p. 90; Moyle 1986, pp. 28–34; 

Moyle et al. 1986, pp. 416–423; Carlson 

and Muth 1989, pp. 232–233; Fuller et 

al. 1990, p. 1). Miller et al. (1989, p. 1) 

concluded that nonnative species were 

a causal factor in 68 percent of the fish 

extinctions in North America in the last 

100 years. For 70 percent of those fish 

still extant, but considered to be 

endangered or threatened, introduced 

nonnative species are a primary cause of 

the decline (Lassuy 1995, p. 392). In 

Arizona, release or dispersal of recently 

introduced nonnative aquatic organisms 

is a continuing phenomenon (Rosen et 

al. 1995, pp. 255–256, 258; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2001a, pp. 26–32). 

Aquatic nonnative species are 

introduced and spread into new areas 

through a variety of mechanisms, 

intentional and accidental, authorized 

and unauthorized. Mechanisms for 

nonnative dispersal in the southwestern 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13376 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

United States include interbasin water 

transfer, sport fish stocking, 

aquaculture, aquarium releases, 

baitbucket release (release of fish used 

as bait by anglers), and biological 

control (e.g., the introduction of one 

species to control another species) (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2001a, pp. 13, 

37). 

In the Gila River basin, introduction 

of nonnatives is considered a major 

factor in the decline of all native fish 

species (Minckley 1985, p. 20–21; 

Williams et al. 1985, p. 1; Minckley and 

Deacon 1991, p. 17). Aquatic and semiaquatic mammals, reptiles, amphibians, 

crustaceans, mollusks (snails and 

clams), insects, zoo- and phytoplankton, 

parasites, disease organisms, algae, and 

aquatic and riparian vascular plants that 

are outside of their historical range have 

all been documented to adversely affect 

aquatic ecosystems (Cohen and Carlton 

1995, pp. 1–8). As described below, the 

nonnative fishes have been 

demonstrated to pose a significant threat 

to Gila River basin native fishes, 

including spikedace and loach minnow 

(Minckley 1985, p. 108–109; Williams et 

al. 1985, p. 19). The aquatic ecosystem 

of the central Gila River basin has 

relatively small streams with warm 

water and low gradients, and many of 

the native aquatic species are small in 

size. Therefore, much of the threat to 

native fishes comes from small 

nonnative fish species, as has also been 

noted for southern Nevada aquatic 

ecosystems (Deacon et al. 1964, p. 385). 

Examples of this are the impacts of 

mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and red 

shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), which may 

compete with or prey upon native fish 

in the Gila River basin (Meffe 1985, p. 

173–174, 176–180; Douglas et al. 1994, 

pp. 13–17). 

The effects of nonnative fish 

competition on spikedace can be 

classified as either interference or 

exploitive. Interference competition 

occurs when individuals directly affect 

others, such as by fighting, producing 

toxins, or preying upon them (Schoener 

1983, p. 257). Exploitive competition 

occurs when individuals affect others 

indirectly, such as through use of 

common resources (Douglas et al. 1994, 

p. 14). 

Nonnative fishes known to occur 

within the historical range of the 

spikedace include channel catfish 

(Ictalurus punctatus), flathead catfish 

(Pylodictis olivaris), red shiner, fathead 

minnow (Pimephales promelas), green 

sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), largemouth 

bass (Micropterus salmoides), 

smallmouth bass (Micropterus 

dolomieui), rainbow trout (Oncorynchus 

mykiss), mosquitofish, carp (Cyprinus 

carpo), bluegill (Lepomis macrochiris), 

yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), 

black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), and 

goldfish (Carassius auratus) (AGFD 

Native Fish Database 2005, ASU 2002). 

Additionally, as discussed below, 

nonnative parasites introduced 

incidentally with nonnative species may 

threaten spikedace populations. 

Although parasites are normal in fish 

populations and typically do not cause 

mortality in their host, the effects of 

nonnative parasites can be significant, 

especially when combined with other 

stressors such as poor habitat conditions 

(U.S. Geological Survey 2004, p. 1; 

2005, p. 2–3). 

There is evidence of the negative 

impacts of nonnative predators on 

native fishes for several stream reaches. 

The effect of nonnative fish preying on 

natives such as spikedace is classified as 

interference competition. Channel 

catfish, flathead catfish, and 

smallmouth bass all prey on native 

fishes including spikedace, as 

evidenced by prey remains of native 

fishes in the stomachs of these 

predatory species (Propst et al. 1986, p. 

82, Bonar et al. 2004, p. 13, 16–21). 

Native fish species declines appear 

linked to increases in nonnative fish 

species. For example, in 1949, 52 

spikedace were collected at Red Rock 

while channel catfish composed only 

1.65 percent of the 607 fish collected. 

However, in 1977, only six spikedace 

were located at the same site, and the 

percentage of channel catfish had risen 

to 14.5 percent of 169 fish collected. 

The decline of spikedace and the 

increase of channel catfish is likely 

related (Anderson 1978, p. 51) because 

of this correlation and the evidence of 

predation by catfish on spikedace. 

Similar interactions between native 

and nonnative fishes were observed in 

the upper reaches of the East Fork of the 

Gila River. In this system, native fish 

were limited, with spikedace being rare 

or absent, while nonnative channel 

catfish and smallmouth bass were 

moderately common prior to 1983 and 

1984 floods. Post-1983 flooding, adult 

nonnative predators were generally 

absent and spikedace were collected in 

moderate numbers in 1985 (Propst et al. 

1986, p. 83). 

Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) is 

also thought to be a predator, likely 

responsible for replacement of natives 

like spikedace, through predation. 

While no direct studies have been 

completed on predation by green 

sunfish on spikedace, they are a known 

predator that occurs within occupied 

spikedace areas. 

Interference competition occurs with 

species such as red shiner. Red shiner 

appear to be particularly detrimental to 

spikedace because although spikedace 

and shiners are naturally separated by 

geography (i.e., allopatric), they occupy 

essentially the same habitat types. Red 

shiner has an inverse distribution 

pattern to spikedace in that, generally, 

where red shiner is present, spikedace 

are absent (Minckley 1973, p. 138). 

Where the two species occur together, 

there is evidence of displacement of 

spikedace to less suitable habitats that it 

otherwise did not occupy (Marsh et al. 

1989, pp. 67, 107). As a result, if red 

shiners are present, suitable habitat 

available for spikedace is reduced. 

Range expansion and species recovery 

may then be curtailed due to red shiner 

presence. 

One study focused on potential 

impacts of red shiner on spikedace in 

three areas; (1) Portions of the Gila River 

and Aravaipa Creek having only 

spikedace; (2) a portion of the Verde 

River where spikedace and red shiner 

have co-occurred for three decades; and 

(3) a portion of the Gila River where red 

shiner recently invaded areas and where 

spikedace had never been recorded. The 

study indicated that, for reaches where 

only spikedace were present, spikedace 

displayed a preference for slower 

currents and smaller particles in the 

substrate than were generally available 

throughout the Gila River and Aravaipa 

Creek systems. Where red shiner occur 

in the Verde River, the study showed 

that red shiner occupied waters that 

were generally slower and with smaller 

particle size in the substrate than were, 

on average, available in the system. The 

study concludes that spikedace, where 

co-occurring with red shiner, move into 

currents swifter than those selected 

when in isolation, while red shiner 

occupy the slower habitat, whether they 

are alone or with spikedace (Douglas et 

al. 1994, pp. 14–16). 

Western mosquitofish were 

introduced outside of their native range 

to help control mosquitoes. Because of 

their aggressive and predatory behavior, 

mosquitofish may negatively affect 

populations of small fish through 

predation and competition (Courtenay 

and Meffe 1989, p. 320, 322, 324). 

Introduced mosquitofish have been 

particularly destructive in the American 

west where they have contributed to the 

elimination or decline of populations of 

federally threatened and endangered 

species, such as the Gila topminnow 

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis) 

(Courtenay and Meffe 1989, p. 323–324). 

The Asian tapeworm 

(Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) was 

introduced into the United States via 

imported grass carp in the early 1970s. 

It has since become well established in 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13377 

the southeast and mid-southern United 

States and has been recently found in 

the southwest including the Gila Basin. 

The definitive host in the life cycle of 

the Asian tapeworm is cyprinid (fish in 

the minnow family) fishes. There is a 

potential threat to spikedace as well as 

to the other native fishes in Arizona 

because of the presence of this parasite 

in the Gila Basin and the presence of 

cyprinid fish. The Asian tapeworm 

affects fish health in several ways. The 

direct impacts to fish are through 

impeding digestion of food as it passes 

through the intestinal track, and loss of 

nutrients as the worm feeds off the fish; 

large enough numbers of worms cause 

emaciation and starvation. An indirect 

effect is that weakened fish are more 

susceptible to infection by other 

pathogens. This parasite can infest 

many species of fish and is carried into 

new areas along with nonnative fishes 

or native fishes from contaminated 

areas. Asian tapeworm may be a 

significant source of mortality of other 

fish species in the Colorado River basin 

(U.S. Geological Survey 2004, p. 1, 

2005, p. 2). 

Anchor worm (Lernaea cyprinacea) 

(Copepoda), also a nonnative species, is 

an external parasite, and is unusual in 

that it has little host specificity, 

infecting a wide range of fishes and 

amphibians. Additionally, infection has 

been known to kill large numbers of fish 

due to tissue damage and secondary 

infection of the attachment site 

(Hoffnagle and Cole 1997, p. 24). 

Presence of this parasite in the Gila 

River basin is a threat to the Gila chub 

and other native fish. In July 1992, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

found Gila chub that were heavily 

parasitized by Lernaea cyprinacea in 

Bonita Creek. These fish were likely 

more susceptible to parasites due to 

physiological stress as a result of 

degraded habitat and decreased water 

flows due to water withdrawals. Creef 

and Clarkson (1993, p. 1, p. 5) suspected 

that infestations by Lernaea cyprinacea 

caused high mortality of stocked native 

fish, razorback sucker (Xyrauchen 

texanus) and Colorado pikeminnow 

(Ptycocheilus lucius). 

The nonnative parasite 

Ichthyophthirius multifiliis (‘‘Ich’’) is a 

potential threat to spikedace. ‘‘Ich’’

disease has occurred in some Arizona 

streams, probably favored by high 

temperatures and crowding as a result of 

drought (Mpoame 1982, p. 46). This 

protozoan becomes embedded under the 

skin and within the gill tissues of 

infected fish. When the ‘‘Ich’’ matures, 

it leaves the fish, causing fluid loss, 

physiological stress, and sites that are 

susceptible to infection by other 

pathogens. If ‘‘Ich’’ is present in large 

enough numbers they can also impact 

respiration because of damaged gill 

tissue. This parasite has been observed 

on the Sonora sucker (Catostomus 

insignis), a species common throughout 

the Gila River basin, and ‘‘Ich’’ does not 

appear to be hostspecific, so it could be 

transmitted to other species. ‘‘Ich’’ is 

known to be present in Aravaipa Creek 

(Mpoame 1982, p. 46). 

Food 

Food Items. Spikedace are active, 

highly mobile fish that visually inspect 

drifting materials both at the surface and 

within the water column. Gustatory 

inspection, or taking potential prey 

items into the mouth before either 

swallowing or rejecting it, is also 

common (Barber and Minckley 1983, p. 

37). Prey body size is small, typically 

ranging from 0.08 to 0.20 inches (2 to 5 

mm) long (Anderson 1978, p. 36). 

Stomach content analysis of 

spikedace determined that mayflies, 

caddisflies, true flies, stoneflies, and 

dragonflies are all prey items for 

spikedace. In one Gila River study, the 

frequency of occurrence was 71 percent 

for mayflies, 34 percent for true flies, 

and 25 percent for caddisflies (Propst et 

al. 1986, p. 59). A second Gila River 

study of four samples determined that 

total food volume was comprised of 72.7 

percent mayflies, 17.6 percent 

caddisflies, and 4.5 percent true flies 

(Anderson 1978, pp. 31–32). At 

Aravaipa Creek, mayflies, caddisflies, 

true flies, stoneflies, and dragonflies 

were all prey items for spikedace, as 

were some winged insects and plant 

materials (Schreiber 1978, pp. 12–16, 

29, 35–37). 

At Aravaipa Creek, spikedace 

consumed a total of 36 different prey 

items. Mayflies constituted the majority 

of prey items, followed by true flies. Of 

the mayflies consumed, 36.5 percent 

were adults, while 33.3 percent were 

nymphs. Terrestrial invertebrates, 

including ants, wasps, and spiders, were 

also consumed, as were beetles, true 

bugs, caddisflies, and water fleas 

(Barber and Minckley 1983, pp. 34–38). 

Spikedace diet varies seasonally 

(Barber and Minckley 1983, pp. 34–35). 

Mayflies dominated stomach contents in 

July, but declined in August and 

September, increasing in importance 

again between October and June. When 

mayflies were available in lower 

numbers, spikedace consumed a greater 

variety of foods, including true bugs, 

true flies, beetles, and spiders. 

Spikedace diet varies with age class as 

well. Young spikedace, which measure 

less than 0.9 inches (22.9 mm) long, fed 

on a diversity of small-bodied 

invertebrates occurring in and on 

sediments along the margins of the 

creek. True flies were found most 

frequently, but water fleas and aerial 

adults of aquatic and terrestrial insects 

also provide significant parts of the diet. 

As juveniles grow and migrate into the 

swifter currents of the channel, mayfly 

nymphs (invertebrates between the 

larval and adult life stages, similar to 

juveniles) and adults increase in 

importance (Barber and Minckley 1983, 

pp. 36–37). 

Spikedace are very dependent on 

aquatic insects for sustenance, and the 

production of the aquatic insects 

consumed by spikedace occurs mainly 

in riffle habitats (Propst et al. 1986, p. 

59). As a result, habitat selection 

influences food items found in stomach 

content analyses. Spikedace in pools 

had eaten the least diverse foods while 

those from riffles contained a greater 

variety of taxa, indicating that the 

presence of riffles in good condition and 

abundance help to ensure that a 

sufficient number and variety of prey 

items will continue to be available for 

spikedace (Barber and Minckley 1983, 

pp. 36–37, 40). 

Aquatic invertebrates that constitute 

the bulk of the spikedace diet have 

specific habitat parameters of their own. 

Mayflies, which constituted the largest 

percentage of prey items, spend their 

immature stages in fresh water. Mayfly 

nymphs occur in all types of fresh 

waters, wherever there is an abundance 

of oxygen, but they are most 

characteristic of shallow water. Mayflies 

found in spikedace stomach content 

analyses consisted of individuals from 

several genera, with individuals from 

the genus Baetidae constituting the 

highest percentage of prey from the 

mayfly order in the study by Schreiber 

(1978, p. 36). Baetidae are free-ranging 

species of rapid waters that maintain 

themselves in currents by clinging to 

pebbles. Spikedace also consumed 

individuals from two other mayfly 

genera (Heptageniidae and 

Ephemerellidae), which are considered 

‘‘clinging species’’ as they cling tightly 

to stones and other objects and may be 

found in greatest abundance in crevices 

and on the undersides of stones (Pennak 

1978, p. 539). The importance of gravel 

and cobble substrates is illustrated by 

the fact that these prey species, which 

make up the bulk of the spikedace diet, 

require these surfaces to persist. 

Water Quality 

Pollutants. Water with no or only 

minimal pollutant levels is essential for 

the survival of spikedace. Spikedace 

occur in areas where mining, 

agriculture, livestock operations, and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13378 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

road construction and use are prevalent. 

Various pollutants are associated with 

these types of activities. For spikedace, 

waters should have low levels of 

pollutants such as copper, arsenic, 

mercury and cadmium; human and 

animal waste products; pesticides; 

suspended sediments; and gasoline or 

diesel fuels (Baker 2005). In addition, 

for freshwater fish, dissolved oxygen 

should generally be greater than 3.5 

cubic centimeters per liter (cc/l) (Bond 

1979, p. 215). Below this, some stress 

may occur. 

Fish kills have been documented in 

the San Francisco River (Rathbun 1969, 

pp. 1–2) and the San Pedro River 

(Eberhardt 1981, pp. 1–4, 6–9, 11–12, 

14, 16, and Tables 2–8), both of which 

are within the species’ historical range. 

In both instances, leaching ponds 

associated with copper mines released 

waters into the streams, resulting in 

elevated levels of toxic chemicals. For 

the San Pedro River, this included 

elevated levels of iron, copper, 

manganese, and zinc. Both incidents 

resulted in die-offs of species inhabiting 

the streams. Eberhardt (1981, pp. 1, 3, 

9, 10, 14–15) notes that no bottomdwelling aquatic insects, live fish, or 

aquatic vegetation of any kind were 

found for a 60-mi (97 km) stretch of 

river in the area affected by the spill. 

Rathbun (1969, pp. 1–2) reported 

similar results for the San Francisco 

River. The possibility for similar 

accidents, or pollution from other 

sources, exists throughout the ranges of 

these species due to their proximity to 

mines, communities, agricultural areas, 

and major transportation routes. 

Temperature. Temperatures of 

occupied spikedace habitat vary with 

time of year. In May, water temperatures 

at Aravaipa Creek were uniformly 

66.2 °F (19 °C) (Barber et al. 1970, p. 11). 

Summer water temperatures remained 

at no more than 80.6 °F (27 °C) at 

Aravaipa Creek (Barber et al. 1970, p. 

14), and at a mean of 66.7 °F (19.3 °C) 

between June and November on the Gila 

River in the Forks area (at the Middle, 

West, and East Forks) and 69.4 °F 

(20.8 °C) in the Cliff-Gila Valley (Propst 

et al. 1986, p. 47). Winter water 

temperatures ranged between 69.1 °F 

(20.6 °C) in November down to 48.0 °F 

(8.9 °C) in December at Aravaipa Creek 

(Barber and Minckley 1966, p. 316). 

Between December and May, mean 

temperature in the Forks area was 

46.0 °F (7.8 °C), and 53.1 °F (11.7 °C) in 

the Cliff-Gila Valley (Propst et al. 1986, 

p. 57). The overall range represented by 

these measures is between 46–80.6 °F 

(7.8–27.0 °C). 

Recent studies by the University of 

Arizona focused on temperature 

tolerances of spikedace. In the study, 

fish were acclimated to a given 

temperature, and then temperatures 

were increased by 1 °C (33.8 °F) per day 

until test temperatures were reached. 

The study determined that no spikedace 

survived exposure of 30 days at 34 or 

36 °C (93.2 or 96.8 °F), and that 50 

percent mortality occurred after 30 days 

at 32.1 °C (89.8 °F). In addition, growth 

rate was slowed at 32 °C (89.6 °F), as 

well as at lower test temperatures of 

10 °C and 4 °C (50 and 39.2 °F). Multiple 

behavioral and physiological changes 

were observed indicating that fish 

became stressed at 30, 32, and 33 °C (86, 

89.6, and 91.4 °F) treatments. The study 

concludes that temperature tolerance in 

the wild may be lower due to the 

influence of additional stressors, 

including disease, predation, 

competition, or poor water quality. 

Survival of fish in the fluctuating 

temperature trials in the study likely 

indicates that exposure to higher 

temperatures for short periods during a 

day would be less stressful to spikedace. 

The study concludes that 100 percent 

survival of spikedace at 30 °C (86 °F) in 

the experiment suggests that little 

juvenile or adult mortality would occur 

due to thermal stress if peak water 

temperatures remain at or below that 

level (Bonar et al. 2005, pp. 7–8, 29–30). 

Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring 

As discussed above under flow 

velocities, spikedace use a variety of 

habitat types within the channel during 

their reproductive cycle and at various 

life stages. Although not typically 

associated with pools, pools are used by 

female spikedace during the breeding 

season while males remained in riffle 

habitats. Females leave the pools, 

generally on the downstream end of the 

riffle, and swim upstream to males in 

riffle habitat (Barber et al. 1970, pp.11–

12). Unlike loach minnow that deposit 

their eggs in a hole or depression, 

spikedace spawn in shallow riffles and 

scatter their gametes (reproductive cells) 

into the water column. Spikedace eggs 

are adhesive and develop among the 

gravel and cobble of the riffles following 

spawning. Spawning in riffle habitat 

ensures that the eggs are well 

oxygenated and are not normally subject 

to suffocation by sediment deposition 

due to the swifter flows found in riffle 

habitats. However, after the eggs have 

adhered to the gravel and cobble 

substrate, excessive sedimentation 

could cause suffocation of the eggs 

(Propst et al. 1986, p. 40). 

Primary Constituent Elements for the 

Spikedace 

Pursuant to our regulations, we are 

required to identify the known physical 

and biological features (primary 

constituent elements) essential to the 

conservation of the spikedace. All 

stream complexes designated as critical 

habitat for the spikedace are occupied, 

are within the species’ historic 

geographic range, and contain sufficient 

PCEs to support at least one life history 

function. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

the species and the requirements of the 

habitat to sustain the essential life 

history functions of the species, we have 

determined that the primary constituent 

elements essential to the conservation of 

the spikedace are: 

1. Permanent, flowing water with no 

or low levels of pollutants, including: 

a. Living areas for adult spikedace 

with slow to swift flow velocities 

between 20 and 60 cm/second (8 and 24 

in/second) in shallow water between 

approximately 10 cm (4 in) and 1 meter 

(40 in) in depth, with shear zones where 

rapid flow borders slower flow, areas of 

sheet flow (or smoother, less turbulent 

flow) at the upper ends of mid-channel 

sand/gravel bars, and eddies at 

downstream riffle edges; 

b. Living areas for juvenile spikedace 

with slow to moderate water velocities 

of approximately 18 cm/second (8 in/ 

second) or higher in shallow water 

between approximately 3 cm (1.2 in) 

and 1 meter (40 in) in depth; 

c. Living areas for larval spikedace 

with slow to moderate flow velocities of 

approximately 10 cm/second (4 in/ 

second) or higher in shallow water 

approximately 3 cm (1.2 in) to 1 meter 

(40 in) in depth; and 

d. Water with dissolved oxygen levels 

greater than 3.5 cc/l and no or minimal 

pollutant levels for pollutants such as 

copper, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium; 

human and animal waste products; 

pesticides; suspended sediments; and 

gasoline or diesel fuels. 

2. Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates 

with low or moderate amounts of fine 

sediment and substrate embeddedness. 

Suitable levels of embeddedness are 

generally maintained by a natural, 

unregulated hydrograph that allows for 

periodic flooding or, if flows are 

modified or regulated, a hydrograph that 

allows for adequate river functions, 

such as flows capable of transporting 

sediments. 

3. Streams that have: 

a. Low gradients of less than 

approximately 1.0 percent; 

b. Water temperatures in the 

approximate range of 35 to 86 °F (1.7 to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13379 

30.0 °C) (with additional natural daily 

and seasonal variation); 

c. Pool, riffle, run, and backwater 

components; and 

d. An abundant aquatic insect food 

base consisting of mayflies, true flies, 

caddisflies, stoneflies, and dragonflies. 

4. Habitat devoid of nonnative aquatic 

species or habitat in which nonnative 

aquatic species are at levels that allow 

persistence of spikedace. 

5. Areas within perennial, interrupted 

stream courses that are periodically 

dewatered but that serve as connective 

corridors between occupied or 

seasonally occupied habitat and through 

which the species may move when the 

habitat is wetted. 

Units are designated based on 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

one or more of the species’s life history 

functions. Some units contain all PCEs 

and support multiple life processes, 

while some units contain only a portion 

of the PCEs necessary to support the 

species’ particular use of that habitat. 

Where a subset of the PCEs is present at 

the time of designation, this rule 

protects those PCEs and thus the 

conservation function of the habitat. 

Loach Minnow 

The specific primary constituent 

elements required for the loach minnow 

are derived from the biological needs of 

the species as described in the 

Background section of this proposal and 

below. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and Normal Behavior 

As noted for the spikedace above, 

streams in the Southwestern United 

States have a wide fluctuation in flows 

and resulting habitat conditions at 

different times of the year. Loach 

minnow persist in these varying 

conditions and, as discussed below, 

several studies have documented habitat 

conditions at occupied sites. 

Habitat Preferences 

Flow Velocities. Loach minnow live 

on the bottom of small to large rivers, 

preferring shallow, swift, and turbulent 

riffles, living and feeding among clean, 

loose, gravel-to-cobble substrates 

(Anderson and Turner 1977, pp. 2, 6–7, 

9, 12–13; Barber and Minckley 1966, p. 

315; Britt 1982, pp. 10–13, 29–30; Lee 

et al. 1980, p. 365; Marsh et al. 2003, p. 

666; Minckley 1981, p. 165; Velasco 

1997, p. 28). Loach minnow are 

sometimes associated with filamentous 

(threadlike) algae, which are attached to 

the stream substrates (Anderson and 

Turner 1977, p. 5; Lee et al. 1980, p. 

365; Minckley 1981, p. 165). Specific 

habitat use varies with the life stage of 

the fish, as well as geographic location. 

As noted below, researchers have 

documented a range of flows in areas 

occupied by loach minnow. 

Water Depth and Flow Velocities. One 

study found loach minnow in varying 

water depths by lifestage, with water 

depth being 15.5 cm (6.1 in) for eggs, 

10.6 cm (4.2 in) for larvae, 16.8 cm (6.6 

in) for juveniles, and 18.3 cm (7.2 in) for 

adults (Propst et al. 1988, p. 38). 

Flow rate studies have been 

completed on the Gila River, Tularosa 

River, San Francisco River, Aravaipa 

Creek, and Deer Creek. Measured flows 

in habitat occupied by adult loach 

minnow ranged from 9.6 to 31.2 in/ 

second (24.4 to 79.2 cm/second) (Barber 

and Minckley 1966, p. 321; Propst et al. 

1988, pp. 32, 36–39; Propst and Bestgen 

1991, p. 33; Rinne 1989, pp. 112, 116). 

There is geographic variation in flow 

velocities used by adult loach minnow. 

Adult loach minnow in the Gila River 

preferred velocities of 1.2 to 14.4 in/ 

second (3.0 to 36.6 cm/second), while 

those in Aravaipa Creek preferred 

velocities of 15.6 to 20.4 in/second (39.6 

to 51.8 cm/second). This may be due to 

the fact that there were considerably 

more areas of slow velocity available to 

loach minnow in the Gila River, and 

that there was more and larger cobble 

substrate in the Gila River, which 

creates more habitat of slower velocities 

for loach minnow to use (Turner and 

Tafanelli 1983, pp. 15–20). 

Juvenile loach minnow generally 

occurred in areas where velocities were 

similar to those used by adults; 

however, these areas had faster 

velocities than those used by larvae. In 

the Gila, San Francisco, and Tularosa 

rivers, juveniles occupied areas with 

mean velocities ranging between 1.2 and 

33.6 in/second (3.0 and 85.3 cm/second) 

(Propst et al. 1988, pp. 37–38; Propst 

and Bestgen 1991, p. 32; Rinne 1989, p. 

111; Turner and Tafanelli 1983, p. 26). 

Larval loach minnow move from the 

rocks under which they spawned to 

areas with slower velocities than the 

main stream after emergence, typically 

remaining in areas with significantly 

slower velocities than juveniles and 

adults. Larval loach minnow in the Gila, 

San Francisco, and Tularosa rivers 

occupied areas that were shallower and 

significantly slower than areas where 

eggs were found. In the Gila, San 

Francisco, and Tularosa rivers, and 

Aravaipa Creek, larval loach minnow 

occupied areas with flow velocities 

ranging from 3.6 to 19.2 in/second (9.1 

to 48.8 cm/second) (Propst et al. 1988, 

p. 37; Propst and Bestgen 1991, p. 32). 

The use of riffle habitat has been 

documented in Aravaipa Creek (Barber 

and Minckley 1966, p. 321; Rinne 1989, 

pp. 113, 116; Velasco 1997, pp. 5–6; 

Vives and Minckley 1990, pp. 451–452), 

Eagle Creek (Marsh et al. 2003, p. 666), 

Tularosa River (Propst et al. 1984, pp. 

7–12), and the Gila and San Francisco 

rivers (Britt 1982, pp. 1, 5, 10–12, 29; 

Propst and Bestgen 1991, p. 32; Propst 

et al. 1984, pp. 7–12; Propst et al. 1988, 

pp. 36–39). Loach minnow prefer 

shallow, swift, and turbulent riffles. 

However, loach minnow also occur in 

stream segments that contain pool, 

riffle, and run habitats on the Blue, 

upper Gila, and San Francisco rivers 

(AGFD 1994, pp. 1, 5–11; Bagley et al. 

1995, pp. 11, 13, 16, 17, 22; J.M. 

Montgomery 1985, p. 21). 

Substrates. Loach minnow in 

Aravaipa Creek occurred over a gravelpebble substrate with materials ranging 

between 3 to 16 mm (0.12 to 0.63 in) in 

diameter and, except in the summer, 

were associated with the larger sizes of 

available substrate. The use of larger 

substrates was disproportionately 

greater than expected based on overall 

availability of substrate size in the 

stream, indicating that loach minnow 

have a preference for the larger substrate 

and tend to use these substrate areas 

rather than areas with smaller substrate 

(Rinne 1989, pp. 112–114). For portions 

of the upper Gila River occupied by 

loach minnow in 1999 and 2000, 

substrates were characterized by gravelpebble and cobble substrates, with 70 

percent of the sites having a gravelpebble substrate, and 14 percent of the 

sites having cobble substrate (Rinne 

2001, p. 69). 

Loach minnow in Aravaipa Creek and 

the Gila River appeared to prefer cobble 

and gravel, avoiding areas dominated by 

sand or finer gravel. This may be due to 

the fact that loach minnow maintain a 

relatively stationary position on the 

bottom of a stream in flowing water. An 

irregular bottom, such as that created by 

cobble or larger gravels, creates pockets 

of lower water velocities around larger 

rocks where loach minnow can remain 

stationary with less energy expenditure 

(Turner and Tafanelli 1983, pp. 24–25). 

In the Gila and San Francisco rivers, the 

majority of loach minnow captured 

occurred in the upstream portion of a 

riffle rather than in the central and 

lower depositional sections of the riffle. 

This is likely due to the availability of 

interstitial spaces in the cobble-rubble 

substrate, which became filled with 

sediment more quickly in the central 

and lower sections of a riffle section as 

suspended sediment begins to settle to 

the stream bottom (Propst et al. 1984, p. 

12). 

Loach minnow use different 

substrates during different life stages. 

Eggs occurred primarily on large gravel 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13380 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

to rubble, while larvae were found 

where substrate particles were smaller 

than substrates used by embryos. 

Juvenile fish occupy areas with 

substrates of larger particle size than 

larvae. Adults exhibited a narrower 

preference for substrates than did 

juveniles, and were most commonly 

associated with gravel to cobble 

substrates (Propst et al. 1988, pp. 36–39; 

Propst and Bestgen 1991, pp. 32–33). 

As noted above, streams in the 

southwestern United States have a wide 

fluctuation in flows and are periodically 

dewatered. While portions of stream 

segments included in this designation 

may experience dry periods, they are 

still considered important because the 

loach minnow is adapted to this 

changing environment and will use 

these areas as connective corridors 

when they are wetted. 

Flooding. In areas where substantial 

diversions or impoundments have been 

constructed, loach minnow are less 

likely to occur (Propst et al. 1988, pp. 

63–64, Propst and Bestgen 1991, p. 37). 

This is in part due to habitat changes 

caused by the construction of the 

diversions, and in part due to the 

reduction of beneficial effects of 

flooding on loach minnow habitat. 

Flooding appears to positively affect 

loach minnow population dynamics by 

resulting in higher recruitment 

(reproduction and survival of young) 

and by decreasing the abundance of 

nonnative fishes (Stefferud and Rinne 

1996, p. 1). 

The construction of water diversions, 

by increasing water depth, has reduced 

or eliminated riffle habitat in many 

stream reaches. In addition, loach 

minnow are generally absent in stream 

reaches affected by impoundments. 

While the specific factors responsible 

for this is not known, it is likely related 

to modification of thermal regimes, 

habitat, food base, or discharge patterns 

(Propst et al. 1988, p. 64; Minckley 

1973, pp. 1–11). 

Flooding also cleans, rearranges, and 

rehabilitates important riffle habitat 

(Propst et al. 1988, pp. 63–64). Flooding 

allows for the scouring of sand and 

gravel in riffle areas, which reduces the 

degree of embeddedness of cobble and 

boulder substrates (Britt 1982, p. 45). 

Excessive sediment in the bedload, or 

that sediment that moves by sliding or 

rolling along the bed of the stream 

(Leopold et al. 1992, p. 180) is typically 

deposited at the downstream 

undersurfaces of cobble and boulder 

substrate components where flow 

velocities are lowest, and can result in 

a higher degree of embeddedness (Rinne 

2001, p. 69). Following flooding, 

cavities created under cobbles by 

scouring action of the flood waters 

provides enhanced spawning habitat for 

loach minnow. 

Studies on the Gila, Tularosa, and San 

Francisco rivers found that flooding is 

primarily a positive influence on native 

fish, and apparently had a positive 

influence on the relative abundance of 

loach minnow (Britt 1982, p. 45). Rather 

than following a typical pattern of 

winter mortality and population 

decline, high levels of loach minnow 

recruitment occurred after the flood, 

and loach minnow relative abundance 

remained high through the next spring. 

Flooding enhanced and enlarged loach 

minnow habitat, resulting in a greater 

survivorship of individuals through 

winter and spring (Propst et al. 1988, p. 

51). Similar results were observed on 

the Gila and San Francisco rivers 

following flooding in 1978 (Britt 1982, 

p. 45). 

Natural flooding may also reduce the 

negative impacts of nonnative fish 

species on loach minnow. During 

significant floods, nonnative species 

introduced into western streams were 

either displaced or destroyed, while 

native species were able to maintain 

their position in or adjacent to channel 

habitats, persist in micro refuges or 

recolonize should they be displaced 

(Britt 1982, p. 46; Minckley and Meffe 

1987, p. 97). 

Stream Gradient. In addition to the 

availability of riffle habitat, gradient 

may influence the distribution and 

abundance of loach minnow. In studies 

of the San Francisco River, Gila River, 

Aravaipa Creek, and the Blue River, 

loach minnow occurred in stream 

reaches where the gradient was 

generally low, ranging from 0.3 to 2.2 

percent (Rinne 1989, p. 109; Rinne 

2001, p. 69). 

Habitat Protected From Disturbance or 

Representative of the Historic 

Geographical and Ecological 

Distribution of a Species 

Nonnative aquatic species. As noted 

under the discussion of nonnative fish 

species in the spikedace primary 

constituent elements section above, 

nonnative aquatic species have been 

introduced for a variety of reasons, 

resulting in interference or exploitive 

competition. Interference competition, 

such as predation, may result from 

interactions between loach minnow and 

nonnative channel and flathead catfish. 

Omnivorous channel catfish of all sizes 

move into riffles to feed, preying on the 

same animals most important to the 

loach minnow diet. Juvenile flathead 

catfish also feed in riffles in darkness. 

Flathead catfish are piscivorous, even 

when small. Loach minnow remains 

were found in the digestive tracts of 

channel catfish (Propst et al. 1988, p. 64; 

Propst and Bestgen 1991, p. 36). 

Exploitive competition, or 

competition for actual resources 

(Schoener 1983, p. 257), may occur 

between loach minnow and red shiner, 

as red shiner is the nonnative fish 

species most likely to occur in stream 

habitats occupied by small loach 

minnow. Red shiners occur in all places 

known to be formerly occupied by loach 

minnow, and are absent or rare in places 

where loach minnow persists. Because 

of this, red shiner has often been 

implicated in the decline of loach 

minnow, as well as other native fishes. 

Loach minnow habitat is markedly 

different from that of the red shiner, so 

interaction between the two species was 

unlikely to cause shifts in habitat use by 

loach minnow (Marsh et al. 1989, p. 39). 

Studies indicate that, instead, red shiner 

move into voids left when native fishes 

such as loach minnow are extirpated 

due to habitat degradation in the area 

(Bestgen and Propst 1987, p. 209). This 

may preclude occupancy of this area by 

loach minnow in the future, should 

habitat conditions improve. 

Prior to 1960, the GlenwoodPleasanton reach of the Gila River 

supported a native fish community of 

eight different species. Post-1960, four 

of these species became uncommon, and 

ultimately three of them were 

extirpated. In studies completed 

between 1961 and 1980, it was 

determined that loach minnow was less 

common than it had been, while 

diversity of the nonnative fish 

community had increased in 

comparison to the pre-1960 period. 

Following 1980, red shiner, fathead 

minnow, and channel catfish were all 

regularly collected. Drought and 

diversions for irrigation resulted in a 

decline in habitat quality, with canyon 

reaches retaining habitat components 

for native species. However, 

establishment of nonnative fishes in the 

canyon reaches then reduced the utility 

of these areas for native species (Propst 

et al. 1988, pp. 51–56). 

The discussion on spikedace includes 

information on other nonnative aquatic 

species such as Asian tapeworm, anchor 

worm, and Ich, which are also 

detrimental to loach minnow. 

Food 

Food Items. Loach minnow are 

opportunistic, benthic insectivores that 

obtain their food from riffle-dwelling 

larval mayflies, black flies, and true 

flies, as well as from larvae of other 

aquatic insect groups such as caddisflies 

and stoneflies. Loach minnow in the 

Gila, Tularosa, and San Francisco rivers 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13381 

consumed primarily true flies and 

mayflies, with mayfly nymphs being an 

important food item throughout the 

year. Mayfly nymphs constituted the 

most important food item throughout 

the year for adults studied on the Gila 

and San Francisco Rivers, while true fly 

larvae were most common in the winter 

months (Propst et al. 1988, p. 27; Propst 

and Bestgen 1991, p. 35). In Aravaipa 

Creek, loach minnow consumed 11 

different prey items, including mayflies, 

stoneflies, caddisflies, and true flies. 

Mayflies constituted the largest 

percentage of their diet during this 

study except in January, when true flies 

made up 54.3 percent of the total food 

volume (Schreiber 1978, pp. 40–41). 

Loach minnow consume different 

prey items during their various life 

stages. Both larvae and juveniles 

primarily consumed true flies, which 

constituted approximately 7 percent of 

their food items in one year, and 49 

percent the following year. Mayfly 

nymphs were also an important dietary 

element at 14 percent and 31 percent 

during a one-year study. Few other 

aquatic macroinvertebrates were 

consumed (Propst et al. 1988, p. 27). In 

a second study, true fly larvae and 

mayfly naiads constituted the primary 

food of larval and juvenile loach 

minnow (Propst and Bestgen 1991, 

p. 35). 

The availability of pool and run 

habitats affects availability of prey 

species. While most of the food items of 

loach minnow are riffle species, two are 

not, including true fly larvae and mayfly 

nymphs. Mayfly nymphs, at times, 

made up 17 percent of the total food 

volume of loach minnow in a study at 

Aravaipa Creek (Schreiber 1978, pp. 40–

41). The presence of a variety of habitat 

types is therefore important to the 

persistence of loach minnow in a 

stream, even while they are typically 

associated with riffles. 

Water Quality 

Pollutants. Water with no or only 

minimal pollutant levels is important 

for the conservation of loach minnow. 

As with spikedace, loach minnow occur 

in areas where mining, agriculture, 

livestock operations, and road 

construction are prevalent activities. 

Various pollutants are associated with 

these types of activities. For loach 

minnow, waters should have low levels 

of pollutants, such as copper, arsenic, 

mercury, and cadmium; human and 

animal waste products; pesticides; 

suspended sediments; and gasoline or 

diesel fuels (Baker 2005). In addition, 

for freshwater fish, dissolved oxygen 

should generally be greater than 3.5 

cc/l (Bond 1979, p. 215). Below this, 

some stress may occur. 

Fish kills associated with previous 

mining accidents are detailed under the 

spikedace PCEs above. These incidents 

occurred within the historical range of 

the loach minnow. 

Temperatures. Loach minnow have a 

fairly narrow range in temperature 

tolerance, and their upstream 

distributional limits in some areas may 

be linked to low winter stream 

temperature (Propst et al. 1988, p. 62). 

Suitable temperature regimes appear to 

be fairly consistent across geographic 

areas. Studies of Aravaipa Creek, East 

Fork White River, the San Francisco 

River, and the Gila River determined 

that loach minnow were present in areas 

with water temperatures in the range of 

48.2 to 71.6 °F (9 to 22 °C) (Britt 1982, 

p. 31; Leon 1989, p. 1; Propst et al. 1988, 

p. 62; Propst and Bestgen 1991, p. 33; 

Vives and Minckley 1990, p. 451). 

Recent studies by the University of 

Arizona focused on temperature 

tolerances of loach minnow. In the 

study, fish were acclimated to a given 

temperature, and then temperatures 

were increased by 1 °C (33.8 °F) per day 

until test temperatures were reached. 

The study determined that no loach 

minnow survived 30 days at 32 °C 

(89.6 °F), and that 50 percent mortality 

occurred after 30 days at 30.6 °C 

(87.1 °F). In addition, growth rate was 

slowed at 28 °C and 30 °C (82.4 and 

86.0 °F) in comparison to growth at 

25 °C (77 °F), indicating that loach 

minnow were stressed at sub-lethal 

temperatures. Survival of fish in the 

fluctuating temperature trials of the 

study likely indicates that exposure to 

higher temperatures for short periods 

during a day would be less stressful to 

loach minnow. The study concludes 

that temperature tolerance in the wild 

may be lower due to the influence of 

additional stressors, including disease, 

predation, competition, or poor water 

quality. The study concludes that 100 

percent survival of loach minnow at 

28 °C (82.4 °F) suggests that little 

juvenile or adult mortality would occur 

due to thermal stress if peak water 

temperatures remain at or below that 

level (Bonar et al. 2005, pp. 6–8, 28, 33). 

Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring 

Habitat conditions needed for 

reproduction and rearing of offspring 

include appropriate flow velocities, 

substrates, sediment levels, and riffle 

availability. Loach minnow place eggs 

in areas with mean velocities ranging 

between 2.4 to 15.6 in/second (3.0 to 

39.6 cm/second) in the Gila, San 

Francisco, West Fork, Middle Fork, and 

East Fork Gila rivers (Britt 1982, pp. 29–

30; Propst et al. 1988, p. 25; Propst and 

Bestgen 1991, p. 34). Fungal infections 

developed on egg masses found in slowvelocity waters of less than 2.4 in/ 

second (6.2 cm/second) (Propst et al. 

1988, p. 25; Propst and Bestgen 1991, p. 

34). Once hatched, areas of slower flows 

appear important to larval loach 

minnow as they have been found in 

slower-velocity stream margins (Propst 

et al. 1988, pp. 37–38). 

Substrate type is important to 

spawning as well. While loach minnow 

spawning occurs in the same riffle 

habitat that adults occupy, it is the 

substrate that determines its suitability 

for spawning. Eggs are deposited on the 

undersurface of rocks or cobbles. Rocks 

are generally flattened, have smooth 

surfaces, and are angular. Rocks which 

have eggs attached are generally 

embedded on their upstream side in the 

substrate. Eggs placed under rocks in 

the Gila River, San Francisco River, and 

Aravaipa Creek were placed on the 

underside of rocks in nest cavities 

formed by rocks of varying sizes (Britt 

1982, pp. 29, 31; Propst et al. 1988, p. 

21; Vives and Minckley 1990, pp. 451–

452). 

Loach minnow spawning is the life 

history stage most affected by sediment 

or fines (Rinne 2001, p. 69). Because 

deposition of eggs occurs on the 

downstream undersurfaces of cobble 

and boulder substrate components, 

excessive fines in the bedload of a 

system can fill in the areas where eggs 

would otherwise be deposited, 

especially in areas of slower velocities. 

Primary Constituent Elements for the 

Loach Minnow 

Pursuant to our regulations, we are 

required to identify the known physical 

and biological features (primary 

constituent elements) essential to the 

conservation of the loach minnow. All 

stream complexes designated as critical 

habitat for the loach minnow are 

considered occupied, within the 

species’ historic geographic range, and 

contain sufficient PCEs to support at 

least one life history function. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

the species and the requirements of the 

habitat to sustain the essential life 

history functions of the species, we have 

determined that the primary constituent 

elements essential to the conservation of 

the loach minnow are: 

1. Permanent, flowing water with no 

or minimal pollutant levels, including: 

a. Living areas for adult loach 

minnow with moderate to swift flow 

velocities between 9.0 to 32.0 in/second 

(24 to 80 cm/second) in shallow water 

between approximately 1.0 to 30 inches 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13382 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(3 cm to 75 cm) in depth, with gravel, 

cobble, and rubble substrates; 

b. Living areas for juvenile loach 

minnow with moderate to swift flow 

velocities between 1.0 and 34 in/second 

(3.0 and 85.0 cm/second) in shallow 

water between approximately 1.0 to 30 

inches (3 cm to 75 cm) in depth with 

sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble 

substrates; 

c. Living areas for larval loach 

minnow with slow to moderate 

velocities between 3.0 and 20.0 in/ 

second (9.0 to 50.0 cm/second) in 

shallow water with sand, gravel, and 

cobble substrates; 

d. Spawning areas with slow to swift 

flow velocities in shallow water where 

cobble and rubble and the spaces 

between them are not filled in by fine 

dirt or sand; and 

e. Water with dissolved oxygen levels 

greater than 3.5 cc/l and no or minimal 

pollutant levels for pollutants such as 

copper, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium; 

human and animal waste products; 

pesticides; suspended sediments; and 

gasoline or diesel fuels. 

2. Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates 

with low or moderate amounts of fine 

sediment and substrate embeddedness. 

Suitable levels of embeddedness are 

generally maintained by a natural, 

unregulated hydrograph that allows for 

periodic flooding or, if flows are 

modified or regulated, a hydrograph that 

allows for adequate river functions, 

such as flows capable of transporting 

sediments. 

3. Streams that have: 

a. Low gradients of less than 

approximately 2.5 percent; 

b. Water temperatures in the 

approximate range of 35 to 82 °F (1.7 to 

27.8 °C) (with additional natural daily 

and seasonal variation); 

c. Pool, riffle, run, and backwater 

components; and 

d. An abundant aquatic insect food 

base consisting of mayflies, true flies, 

black flies, caddisflies, stoneflies, and 

dragonflies. 

4. Habitat devoid of nonnative aquatic 

species or habitat in which nonnative 

aquatic species are at levels that allow 

persistence of loach minnow. 

5. Areas within perennial, interrupted 

stream courses that are periodically 

dewatered but that serve as connective 

corridors between occupied or 

seasonally occupied habitat and through 

which the species may move when the 

habitat is wetted. 

Units are designated based on 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

one or more of the species’ life history 

functions. Some units contain all PCEs 

and support multiple life processes, 

while some units contain only a portion 

of the PCEs necessary to support the 

species’ particular use of that habitat. 

Where a subset of the PCEs is present at 

the time of designation, this rule 

protects those PCEs and thus the 

conservation function of the habitat. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, 

we used the best scientific data 

available in determining areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the spikedace and loach 

minnow. In designating critical habitat 

for the spikedace and loach minnow, we 

solicited information from 

knowledgeable biologists and reviewed 

recommendations contained in State 

wildlife resource reports. We also 

reviewed the available literature 

pertaining to habitat requirements, 

historical localities, and current 

localities of the two species. We used 

data in reports submitted during section 

7 consultations, research published in 

peer-reviewed articles and presented in 

academic theses and agency reports, and 

regional GIS data layer coverages. 

We have also reviewed historical and 

current occurrence data, information 

pertaining to habitat requirements for 

these species, scientific information on 

the biology and ecology of the two 

species, general conservation biology 

principles, and scientific information 

cited in the Recovery Plans for these 

two species. Of particular importance, 

we reviewed databases, published 

literature, and field notes to determine 

the historical and current occurrence 

data for the two species. The SONFishes 

Database (ASU 2002) details occurrence 

records from the 1800s through 1999. 

The Heritage Database Management 

System (HDMS) (AGFD 2004) contains 

information for Arizona with some 

overlap of SONFishes records, as well as 

records from 1999 through 2004. 

Agency and researcher field notes and 

published literature contain additional 

information on completed surveys and 

species detections. 

Criteria for Defining Critical Habitat 

We are designating critical habitat on 

lands within the geographical range 

occupied at the time of listing and 

currently occupied by either, or in some 

cases both, the spikedace and loach 

minnow. We consider an area to be 

occupied by the spikedace or loach 

minnow if we have records to support 

occupancy within the last 10 years, or 

where the stream segment is directly 

connected to a segment with occupancy 

records from within the last 10 years 

(this is described within each unit 

description below). The three connected 

areas (see Table 1 above) included in the 

designation are within the historical 

range of the species, contain one or 

more of the PCEs required by spikedace 

or loach minnow, have been occupied 

in the past, and are directly connected 

to a stream segment with records of 

occupancy from 2004 or 2005 (see Table 

1 above). For the following reasons we 

believe that these areas are occupied for 

the purposes of this critical habitat 

designation: (1) The areas are directly 

connected to stream segments with 

recent occupancy records (2004 and 

2005); (2) the stream segments are 

connected and the fish can move 

between them; (3) surveys have been 

infrequent or inconsistent and 

spikedace and loach minnow can be 

difficult to detect in surveys; and (4) we 

have other streams in which the species 

were not detected for long periods 

before being detected again [e.g., Eagle 

Creek, where there was a 44 year gap 

between loach minnow detections (see 

Marsh et al. 2003, p. 666)]. We believe 

a period of 10 years is reasonable to 

determine occupancy based on the fact 

that both species are difficult to detect 

in surveys, surveys have been 

infrequent or inconsistent because many 

of the areas where they occur are 

remote, and as noted above, we have 

areas where these species were not 

detected for long periods of time (44 

years) and then detected again. The life 

expectancy of spikedace and loach 

minnow is 2 to 3 years. A period of 10 

years would represent a time period that 

provides for three to four generations of 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

We divided the overall historical 

range into five river complexes, and 

each critical habitat stream segment was 

derived from within these larger 

complexes. We believe this is a 

reasonable approach because 

populations in mainstem tributaries 

may access a wider geographic area by 

moving into smaller tributaries, while 

populations in tributaries are afforded 

the ability to disperse to other 

tributaries via the mainstem river within 

that complex. Overall, the complexes 

included herein provide coverage 

throughout the historical range of the 

species, with exceptions for areas that 

were excluded for specific reasons, as 

detailed below (see ‘‘Exclusions under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section 

below). The critical habitat designation 

constitutes our best assessment of areas 

that contain sufficient features (PCEs) 

essential to the conservation of 

spikedace and loach minnow and that 

require special management or 

protection. 

We are designating critical habitat in 

areas that we have determined to be 

occupied at the time of listing, and that 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13383 

contain sufficient primary constituent 

elements to support life history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species. Lands were included in 

the designation based on sufficient PCEs 

being present to support the life 

processes of the species. Some lands 

contain all PCEs and support multiple 

life processes. Some lands contain only 

a portion of the PCEs necessary to 

support the particular use of that 

habitat. In determining whether an area 

contains sufficient PCEs, the Service 

looked at various databases and survey 

records to determine occupancy, as well 

as habitat descriptions at various 

locations. We relied on information 

provided in survey reports and research 

documents to describe conditions at 

various locations. This information was 

then synthesized to develop the critical 

habitat designation. 

When determining final critical 

habitat map boundaries, we made every 

effort to avoid including developed 

areas such as buildings, paved areas, 

and other structures that lack any PCEs 

for the spikedace and loach minnow. 

Any such structures and the land under 

them inadvertently left inside critical 

habitat boundaries of this final rule are 

excluded by text and are not designated 

as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal 

actions limited to these areas would not 

trigger section 7 consultation, unless 

they affect the species or primary 

constituent elements in adjacent critical 

habitat. 

Lateral Extent 

The areas designated as critical 

habitat are designed to provide 

sufficient riverine and associated 

floodplain area for breeding, nonbreeding, and dispersing adult 

spikedace and loach minnow, as well as 

for the habitat needs of juvenile and 

larval stages of these fishes. In general, 

the primary constituent elements of 

critical habitat for spikedace and loach 

minnow include the riverine ecosystem 

formed by the wetted channel and the 

adjacent floodplains within 300 lateral 

feet on either side of bankfull stage, 

except where bounded by canyon walls. 

Areas within the lateral extent also 

contribute to PCEs 1 and 2 (water 

quality) and contain PCEs 3 (food 

source) and 5 (provide areas where the 

fish may move through when wetted). 

Spikedace and loach minnow use the 

riverine ecosystem for feeding, 

sheltering, and cover while breeding 

and migrating. This designation takes 

into account the naturally dynamic 

nature of riverine systems and 

floodplains (including riparian and 

adjacent upland areas) that are an 

integral part of the stream ecosystem. 

For example, riparian areas are 

seasonally flooded habitats (i.e., 

wetlands) that are major contributors to 

a variety of vital functions within the 

associated stream channel (Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working 

Group 1998, Brinson et al. 1981, pp. 2–

61, 2–69, 2–72, 2–75, 2–84 to 2–85). 

They are responsible for energy and 

nutrient cycling, filtering runoff, 

absorbing and gradually releasing 

floodwaters, recharging groundwater, 

maintaining streamflows, protecting 

stream banks from erosion, and 

providing shade and cover for fish and 

other aquatic species. Healthy riparian 

and adjacent upland areas help ensure 

water courses maintain the habitat 

important for aquatic species (e.g., see 

U.S. Forest Service 1979, pp. 18, 109, 

158, 264, 285, 345; Middle Rio Grande 

Biological Interagency Team 1993, pp. 

64, 89, 94), including the spikedace and 

loach minnow. Habitat quality within 

the mainstem river channels in the 

historical range of the spikedace and 

loach minnow is intrinsically related to 

the character of the floodplain and the 

associated tributaries, side channels, 

and backwater habitats that contribute 

to the key habitat features (e.g., 

substrate, water quality, and water 

quantity) in these reaches. We have 

determined that a relatively intact 

riparian area, along with periodic 

flooding in a relatively natural pattern, 

is important for maintaining the PCEs 

necessary for long-term conservation of 

the spikedace and loach minnow. 

The lateral extent (width) of riparian 

corridors fluctuates considerably 

between a stream’s headwaters and its 

mouth. The appropriate width for 

riparian buffer strips has been the 

subject of several studies (Castelle et al. 

1994). Most Federal and State agencies 

generally consider a zone 23–46 m (75–

150 ft) wide on each side of a stream to 

be adequate (NRCS 1998; Moring et al. 

1993; Lynch et al. 1985), although buffer 

widths as wide as 152 m (500 ft) have 

been recommended for achieving flood 

attenuation benefits (Corps 1999). In 

most instances, however, riparian buffer 

zones are primarily intended to reduce 

(i.e., buffer) detrimental impacts to the 

stream from sources outside the river 

channel. Consequently, while a riparian 

corridor 23–46 m (75–150 ft) in width 

may function adequately as a buffer, it 

is likely inadequate to preserve the 

natural processes that provide spikedace 

and loach minnow primary constituent 

elements. 

The lateral extent of streams was set 

at 300 ft (91.4 m) to either side of 

bankfull stage to accommodate stream 

meandering and high flows, and in 

order to ensure that this designation 

contained the features essential to the 

conservation of the species. Bankfull 

stage is defined as the upper level of the 

range of channel-forming flows which 

transport the bulk of the available 

sediment over time. Bankfull stage is 

generally considered to be that level of 

stream discharge reached just before 

flows spill out onto the adjacent 

floodplain. The discharge that occurs at 

bankfull stage, in combination with the 

range of flows that occur over a length 

of time, govern the shape and size of the 

river channel (Rosgen 1996, pp. 2–2 to 

2–4; Leopold 1997, pp. 62–63, 66). The 

use of bankfull stage and 300 ft (91.4 m) 

on either side recognizes the naturally 

dynamic nature of riverine systems, 

recognizes that floodplains are an 

integral part of the stream ecosystem, 

and contains the area and associated 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. A relatively intact 

floodplain, along with the periodic 

flooding in a relatively natural pattern, 

is an important element in the 

conservation of spikedace and loach 

minnow. 

We determined the 300-foot lateral 

extent for several reasons. First, the 

implementing regulations of the Act 

require that critical habitat be defined 

by reference points and lines as found 

on standard topographic maps of the 

area (50 CFR 424.12). Although we 

considered using the 100-year 

floodplain, as defined by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), we found that it was not 

included on standard topographic maps, 

and the information was not readily 

available from FEMA or from the Army 

Corps of Engineers for the areas we are 

proposing to designate. We suspect this 

is related to the remoteness of many of 

the stream reaches where these species 

occur. Therefore, we selected the 300- 

foot lateral extent, rather than some 

other delineation, for three biological 

reasons: (1) The biological integrity and 

natural dynamics of the river system are 

maintained within this area (i.e., 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, store water for slow release to 

maintain base flows, provide protected 

side channels and other protected areas, 

and allow the river to meander within 

its main channel in response to large 

flow events); (2) conservation of the 

adjacent riparian area also helps provide 

important nutrient recharge and 

protection from sediment and 

pollutants; and (3) vegetated lateral 

zones are widely recognized as 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13384 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

providing a variety of aquatic habitat 

functions and values (e.g., aquatic 

habitat for fish and other aquatic 

organisms, moderation of water 

temperature changes, and detritus for 

aquatic food webs) and help improve or 

maintain local water quality (see U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers’ final notice 

concerning Issuance and Modification 

of Nationwide Permits, March 9, 2000, 

65 FR 12818–12899). 

Among other things, the floodplain 

provides space for natural flooding 

patterns and latitude for necessary 

natural channel adjustments to maintain 

channel morphology and geometry. We 

conclude that a relatively intact riparian 

area, along with periodic flooding in a 

relatively natural pattern, is important 

in maintaining the stream conditions 

necessary for long-term survival and 

recovery of the spikedace and loach 

minnow. 

Conservation of the river channel 

alone is not sufficient to ensure the 

survival and recovery of the spikedace 

and loach minnow. For the reasons 

discussed above, we believe the riparian 

corridors adjacent to the river channel 

provide an important function within 

the areas designated as critical habitat. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas determined to 

be occupied at the time of listing, 

contain the primary constituent 

elements and may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. We believe each area 

included in this final designation 

requires special management and 

protections as described in our unit 

descriptions and Table 1. 

Special management considerations 

for each area will depend on the threats 

to the spikedace and/or loach minnow 

in that critical habitat area. For example, 

threats requiring special management 

include nonnative fish species and the 

continued spread of nonnative fishes 

into spikedace or loach minnow habitat. 

Other threats requiring special 

management include threat of fire, 

retardant application during the fire, 

and excessive ash and sediment 

following the fire. On-going improper 

livestock grazing can be a threat to 

spikedace and loach minnow and their 

habitats. Poor water quality and 

adequate quantities of water for all life 

stages of spikedace and loach minnow 

threaten these fish and may require 

special management actions or 

protections. The construction of water 

diversions, by increasing water depth, 

has reduced or eliminated riffle habitat 

in many stream reaches. In addition, 

loach minnow are generally absent in 

stream reaches affected by 

impoundments. While the specific 

factor responsible for this is not known, 

it is likely related to modification of 

thermal regimes, habitat, food base, or 

discharge patterns. We have included 

below in our description of each of the 

critical habitat areas for the spikedace 

and loach minnow a description of the 

threats occurring in that area requiring 

special management or protections. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries, we made every effort to 

avoid the designation of developed 

areas such as buildings, paved areas, 

boat ramps and other structures that 

lack PCEs for spikedace and loach 

minnow. Any such structures do not 

contain the PCEs and are not considered 

part of the critical habitat designation. 

This also applies to the land on which 

such structures sit directly. Therefore, 

Federal actions limited to these areas 

would not trigger section 7 

consultations, unless they affect the 

species and/or PCEs in adjacent critical 

habitat. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

Below are tables and descriptions of 

the critical habitat segments, including 

discussion of excluded and exempted 

areas within each segment. For each 

stream reach, the upstream and 

downstream boundaries are described. 

Additionally, critical habitat includes 

the stream channels within the 

identified stream reaches and areas 

within these reaches and, as described 

above, the area of bankfull width plus 

300 lateral feet on either side of bankfull 

width, except when the floodplain is 

narrow and bounded by canyon walls. 

This 300-foot width defines the lateral 

extent of each area of critical habitat 

that contains sufficient PCEs (3 and 5) 

to provide for one or more of the life 

history functions of the spikedace and 

loach minnow. 

The critical habitat designation for 

both spikedace and loach minnow 

includes five complexes totaling 

approximately 522.2 mi (840.4 km) of 

stream reaches (see Tables 1 and 2). The 

spikedace and loach minnow critical 

habitat areas described below constitute 

our best assessment at this time of areas 

determined to be occupied at the time 

of listing, that contain the primary 

constituent elements and may require 

special management, and those 

additional areas that were not occupied 

at the time of listing but are currently 

occupied and contain the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Unless otherwise indicated, the 

following areas identified in Table 1 and 

in the unit descriptions below, are 

designated as critical habitat for both 

spikedace and loach minnow (see the 

‘‘Regulation Promulgation’’ section of 

this rule below for exact descriptions 

and distances of boundaries). The 

designation includes portions of 8 

streams for spikedace and 21 streams for 

loach minnow; however, individual 

streams are not isolated, but are grouped 

with others to form areas or 

‘‘complexes.’’

Table 2 below provides approximate 

area (mi/km) determined to meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

spikedace and loach minnow by State. 

TABLE 2.—APPROXIMATE CRITICAL HABITAT IN STREAM MILES (MI) AND KILOMETERS (KM) BY STATE AND LANDOWNER

Landowner Arizona 

mi (km) 

New Mexico 

mi (km) 

Total 

mi (km) 

Federal ............................................................................................................................. 170.4 (274.2) 167.7 (269.9) 338.1 (544.1) 

State ................................................................................................................................. 8.0 (12.9) 1.3 (2.1) 9.3 (15) 

Tribal ................................................................................................................................ 2.1 (3.4) 0 (0) 2.1 (3.4) 

Private .............................................................................................................................. 90.2 (145.1) 82.5 (132.8) 172.7 (277.9) 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 270.7 (435.6) 251.5 (404.8) 522.2 (840.4) 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13385 

TABLE 3.—AREAS DETERMINED TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE SPIKEDACE AND LOACH

MINNOW AND THE AREAS EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION

[ac (ha)/mi (km)] 

State or geographic area 

Area meeting the 

definition of critical habitat 

(mi/km) 

Area excluded 

from the final 

critical habitat 

designation 

(mi/km) 

Arizona ............................................................................................................................................................. 373.7 (601.5) 103.1 (165.9) 

New Mexico ..................................................................................................................................................... 258.8 (416.4) 7.3 (11.7) 

Total .......................................................................................................................................................... 632.5 (1017.9) 110.3 (177.5) 

The approximate area encompassed 

within each critical habitat unit is 

shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 4.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS

DESIGNATED FOR THE SPIKEDACE

AND LOACH MINNOW

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical 

habitat complexes] 

Critical habitat unit Mi Km 

1. Verde River ...................... 43.0 69.2 

2. Black River ....................... 18.1 29.1 

3. Lower San Pedro/Gila 

River/Aravaipa Creek ........ 85.5 137.5 

4. Gila Box/San Francisco 

River .................................. 235.0 378.2 

5. Upper Gila River ............... 140.6 226.3 

Total .................................. 522.2 840.4 

Complex 1—Verde River Complex— 

Yavapai County, Arizona 

Spikedace have been detected in the 

Verde River Complex since 1890. The 

Verde River was known to be occupied 

by spikedace at the time of listing, and 

is still considered to be occupied based 

on surveys documenting spikedace 

presence as recently as 1999. This 

complex was also historically occupied 

by loach minnow, with records from 

1890 and 1938 (ASU 2002, Brouder 

2002, AGFD 2004). At this time, the 

tributary streams of the Verde River are 

believed to be unoccupied by both 

species and are not being included as 

critical habitat. 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, one of the tributaries to the Verde 

River. Also, spikedace in the Verde 

River are genetically distinct from all 

other spikedace populations (Tibbets 

1993, pp. iii-iv, 34–35; Anderson and 

Hendrickson 1994, p. 154). The Verde 

River contains one or more of the 

primary constituent elements, including 

shear zones, sheet flow, and eddies, and 

an appropriate prey base. In addition, 

the lateral extent of each segment within 

this complex of critical habitat contains 

sufficient PCEs (3 and 5) to provide for 

one or more of the life history functions 

of the spikedace and loach minnow. The 

continuing presence of spikedace and 

the existence of features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species create a high potential for 

restoration of loach minnow to the 

Verde River system. Threats to this 

critical habitat area requiring special 

management and protections include 

water diversions, improper livestock 

grazing, and nonnative fish species (see 

Table 1 above). 

The landownership of this complex 

consists of large blocks of U.S. Forest 

Service lands in the upper and lower 

reaches, with significant areas of private 

ownership in the Verde Valley. There 

are also lands belonging to Arizona 

State Parks, Yavapai Apache Tribe, and 

the AGFD. The Verde River divides the 

west and east halves of the Prescott 

National Forest, and passes by or 

through the towns of Camp Verde, 

Middle Verde, Bridgeport, Cottonwood, 

and Clarkdale. 

Verde River Complex—Spikedace 

Only—43 mi (69.2 km) of river 

extending from the Prescott and 

Coconino National Forest boundary 

with private lands upstream to Sullivan 

Dam at Township 17 North, Range 2 

West, section 15. Sullivan Dam is at the 

upstream limit of perennial flow in the 

mainstem of the Verde River. Perennial 

flow results from a series of riverchannel springs and from Granite Creek. 

The Verde River contains features 

essential to the conservation of the 

spikedace between its headwaters and 

Fossil Creek. These portions of the 

Verde River provide a relatively stable 

thermal and hydrologic regime suitable 

for spikedace. Below Fossil Creek, the 

Verde River has a larger flow and is 

thought to offer little suitable habitat 

(i.e., does not contain sufficient PCEs) 

for spikedace or loach minnow. The 

Verde River below Fossil Creek is 

within the historical range for both 

species, and comments on previous 

critical habitat designations from the 

U.S. Forest Service indicated this 

stretch of the river may offer substantial 

value for spikedace and loach minnow 

recovery. We will continue to seek 

further information regarding the Verde 

River and its role in conservation for 

these two species and may consider 

designation of the Verde River below 

Fossil Creek in future potential 

revisions of critical habitat. At this time, 

however, we are excluding all land 

south of the Coconino and Prescott 

National Forest boundaries at the upper 

end of the Verde Valley due to 

disproportionate economic concerns 

(see Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) 

below). 

Complex 2—Black River Complex— 

Apache and Greenlee Counties, 

Arizona 

The Salt River Sub-basin represents a 

significant portion of loach minnow 

historical range; however, loach 

minnow have been extirpated from all 

but a small portion of the Black and 

White rivers. The Black River Complex 

is considered important because it is the 

only remaining population of loach 

minnow on public lands in the Salt 

River Sub-basin. 

We are designating streams within 

this complex as critical habitat for loach 

minnow only. At this time, spikedace 

are not known to historically occupy 

areas at this elevation; however, the data 

on maximum elevation for spikedace are 

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 in 

a future revision. Portions of the subbasin are unsuitable, either because of 

topography or because of the presence 

of reservoirs, stream channel alteration 

by humans, or overwhelming nonnative 

fish populations. However, other areas 

within the sub-basin remain suitable. 

Complex 2 was not known to be 

occupied at listing, with first detections 

of loach minnow occurring in 1996. It 

is currently occupied by loach minnow 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13386 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(Bagley et al. 1995, multiple surveys; 

Lopez 2000, p. 1; ASU 2002; AGFD 

2004). Because the range of loach 

minnow has been severely reduced, and 

only a few streams remain occupied, the 

Black River Complex is considered 

essential to the loach minnow. In 

addition, Complex 2 supports one or 

more of the PCEs for loach minnow, 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). In addition, the lateral extent of 

each segment within this complex of 

critical habitat contains sufficient PCEs 

(3 and 5) to provide for one or more of 

the life history functions of the 

spikedace and loach minnow. Threats in 

this complex requiring special 

management or protections include 

improper livestock grazing, nonnative 

fish, recreation, and sedimentation 

including that from a recent fire that 

destroyed vegetation (see Table 1). The 

ownership of this complex is 

predominantly U.S. Forest Service, with 

a few small areas of private land. All 

streams within the complex are within 

the boundaries of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest and include lands of the 

White Mountain Apache Tribe. 

(1) East Fork Black River—Loach 

Minnow Only—12.2 mi (19.7 km) of 

river extending from the confluence 

with the West Fork Black River 

upstream to the confluence with an 

unnamed tributary approximately 0.51 

mi (0.82 km) downstream of the 

Boneyard Creek confluence. This area is 

considered occupied based on records 

from 1996, it is connected to the North 

Fork East Fork Black River with 

documented loach minnow records 

from 2004, and contains one or more of 

the primary constituent elements 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). 

(2) North Fork East Fork Black River—

Loach Minnow Only—4.4 mi (7.1 km) of 

river extending from the confluence 

with the East Fork Black River upstream 

to the confluence with an unnamed 

tributary. This area is occupied by loach 

minnow based on surveys documenting 

presence of loach minnow as recently as 

2004. Above the unnamed tributary, the 

river has finer substrate and lacks riffle 

habitat, making it unsuitable for loach 

minnow. 

(3) Boneyard Creek—Loach Minnow 

Only—1.4 mi (2.3 km) of creek 

extending from the confluence with the 

East Fork Black River upstream to the 

confluence with an unnamed tributary. 

Boneyard Creek contains one or more of 

the primary constituent elements, 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). This area is considered to be 

occupied based on records from 1996; it 

is also connected to the North Fork East 

Fork Black River which has documented 

loach minnow records from 2004. This 

area represents part of the only 

occupied complex in the Salt River 

basin. 

(4) East Fork White River—Loach 

Minnow Only—12.5 mi (20.1 km) of the 

East Fork White River extending from 

the confluence with the North Fork 

White River and the East Fork White 

River at Township 5 North, Range 22 

East, section 35 upstream to Township 

5 North, Range 23 East, southeast 

quarter of section 13. This area was 

occupied by loach minnow at the time 

of listing and is reported to be currently 

occupied by the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe. This segment of the East 

Fork White River contains sufficient 

features to support one or more of the 

life history functions of the loach 

minnow that may include appropriate 

gradient, temperature, habitat types 

(pool, riffle, run, etc.), and low levels of 

non-natives. Threats in this segment 

requiring special management or 

protections include water diversions 

and recreation. The entirety of this 

reach is located on lands belonging to 

the White Mountain Apache Tribe. A 

management plan for loach minnow has 

been in place on these lands since 2000. 

On the basis of this plan and our 

partnership with the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe, we are excluding this 

area from final critical habitat pursuant 

to section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 

‘‘Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Tribal Lands’’ section below for 

additional information). 

Complex 3—Middle Gila/Lower San 

Pedro/Aravaipa Creek Complex—Pinal 

and Graham Counties, Arizona 

The portions of this complex 

designated as critical habitat are within 

the geographical range occupied by both 

spikedace and loach minnow at their 

listing and currently. Spikedace and 

loach minnow have been present within 

this complex since 1943, with 

occupancy confirmed most recently in 

2006 (ASU 2002, AGFD 2004, Rienthal 

2006, p. 2–3). The portions of the Gila 

and San Pedro rivers included within 

this complex were not known to be 

occupied at listing, with the first 

detection on the Gila River occurring in 

1991 (Jakle 1992, p. 6). However, this 

area is connected via the San Pedro 

River to Aravaipa Creek, which contains 

one of the largest remaining populations 

of spikedace, and is therefore 

considered to be occupied for the 

purposes of critical habitat. Because the 

distribution of spikedace is reduced to 

populations in the Verde River, 

Aravaipa Creek, and the Gila River in 

New Mexico, all remaining populations 

are considered important to the species. 

This complex contains one or more of 

the PCEs for both species including 

sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). In addition, the lateral extent of 

each segment within this complex of 

critical habitat contains sufficient PCEs 

(3 and 5) to provide for one or more of 

the life history functions of the 

spikedace and loach minnow. Ongoing 

actions requiring special management or 

protections in this area include wildfire, 

some recreational pressure, low 

nonnative pressures, water diversions, 

and contaminants issues. Aravaipa 

Creek supports the largest remaining 

spikedace and loach minnow 

populations in Arizona. Threats in this 

complex requiring special management 

or protections include water diversions, 

improper livestock grazing, nonnative 

fish, recreation, and mining (see Table 

1). 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. The lower 

portions of the Gila River are Bureau of 

Reclamation lands. 

(1) Gila River—Spikedace Only—39.0 

mi (62.8 km) of river extending from the 

Ashurst-Hayden Dam upstream to the 

confluence with the San Pedro River. 

Spikedace were located in the Gila River 

in 1991 (Jakle 1992, p. 6), and the Gila 

River is connected with Aravaipa Creek, 

which supports the largest remaining 

spikedace population. Those portions of 

the Gila River designated as critical 

habitat contain one or more of the 

primary constituent elements, including 

sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., glides, 

runs, eddies). Above the confluence 

with the San Pedro River, flow in the 

Gila River is highly regulated by the 

Coolidge Dam and does not contain the 

features essential to the conservation of 

either species. Below the confluence, 

the input of the San Pedro provides a 

sufficiently unregulated hydrograph, 

which is a feature essential to the 

conservation of the spikedace. Threats 

in this area requiring special 

management or protections include 

water diversions, improper livestock 

grazing, and nonnative fish species. 

This river is part of the complex that 

contains the largest remaining 

population of spikedace and loach 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13387 

minnow and contains the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

(2) Lower San Pedro River—

Spikedace Only—13.4 mi (21.5 km) of 

river extending from the confluence 

with the Gila River upstream to the 

confluence with Aravaipa Creek. This 

area was occupied at the time of listing 

and is considered to be occupied as it 

is directly connected with Aravaipa 

Creek, which supports the largest 

remaining spikedace population. This 

portion of the San Pedro River contains 

one or more of the primary constituent 

elements, including sufficient flow 

velocities and appropriate gradients, 

substrates, depths, and habitat types 

(i.e., glides, runs, eddies). Existing flow 

in the river comes from surface and 

subsurface contributions from Aravaipa 

Creek. Threats in this area requiring 

special management or protections 

include water diversions, nonnative 

fish, improper livestock grazing, and 

mining. This river is part of the complex 

that contains the largest remaining 

population of spikedace and loach 

minnow and contains the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

(3) Aravaipa Creek—28.1 mi (45.3 km) 

of creek extending from the confluence 

with the San Pedro River upstream to 

the confluence with Stowe Gulch, 

which is where the upstream limit of 

sufficient perennial flow ends for either 

species. Aravaipa Creek was occupied 

by both spikedace and loach minnow at 

the time of listing and continues to 

support a substantial population of both 

species (Rienthal 2006, p. 1–2). 

Aravaipa Creek contains one or more of 

the primary constituent elements, 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., runs, 

riffles, glides, eddies). Threats in this 

area requiring special management or 

protections include water diversions, 

nonnative fish, and recreational 

pressures (see Table 1). 

(4) Turkey Creek—Loach Minnow 

Only—2.7 mi (4.3 km) of creek 

extending from the confluence with 

Aravaipa Creek upstream to the 

confluence with Oak Grove Canyon. 

This creek was occupied at the time of 

listing and is currently occupied by 

loach minnow (Rienthal 2006, p. 2–3). 

Turkey Creek contains one or more of 

the primary constituent elements, 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). Threats to this area requiring 

special management or protections are 

generally the same as for Aravaipa 

Creek, and include water diversions, 

nonnative fish, and recreational 

pressure (see Table 1). This creek is part 

of the complex that contains the largest 

remaining population of spikedace and 

loach minnow and contains the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

(5) Deer Creek—Loach Minnow 

Only—2.3 mi (3.6 km) of creek 

extending from the confluence with 

Aravaipa Creek upstream to the 

boundary of the Aravaipa Wilderness. 

This stream was occupied at the time of 

listing and is currently occupied by 

loach minnow. Deer Creek contains one 

or more of the primary constituent 

elements essential to the conservation of 

loach minnow, including sufficient flow 

velocities and appropriate gradients, 

substrates, depths, and habitat types 

(i.e., riffles, runs). The threats to loach 

minnow in this area are similar to those 

for Aravaipa Creek, including water 

diversions, nonnative fish, and 

recreation. This creek is part of the 

complex that contains the largest 

remaining population of spikedace and 

loach minnow and contains the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Complex 4—San Francisco and Blue 

Rivers Complex—Graham and 

Greenlee Counties, Arizona and Catron 

County, New Mexico 

The streams in this complex are 

within the geographical range occupied 

by the loach minnow and the spikedace. 

The Blue River system and adjacent 

portions of the San Francisco River 

constitute the longest stretch of 

occupied loach minnow habitat 

unbroken by large areas of unsuitable 

habitat. Loach minnow have been 

present in this complex since 1840 up 

to the present, including at its listing 

(Miller 1998, pp. 4–5; ASU 2002; AGFD 

2004; Carter 2005, pp. 1–9; Propst 2005, 

p. 6; Propst 2006, p. 2). Within this 

complex, Eagle Creek was known to be 

occupied by spikedace at its listing 

(ASU 2002; Marsh et al. 2003, pp. 666–

668; AGFD 2004), while Frieborn, 

Negrito, and Pace creeks were not 

known to be occupied at the time of 

listing. For the areas not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing, each of 

these areas is currently occupied by 

loach minnow, supports one or more of 

the PCEs, and is connected to a stream 

that is also currently occupied. Because 

the distribution of loach minnow has 

been severely reduced, these creeks are 

considered essential to the species. 

Streams in this complex contain one or 

more of the PCEs for both species 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). In addition, the lateral extent of 

each segment within this complex of 

critical habitat contains sufficient PCEs 

(3 and 5) to provide for one or more of 

the life history functions of the 

spikedace and loach minnow. Threats in 

this complex requiring special 

management are described in the 

individual stream reaches below. This 

complex contains extensive U.S. Forest 

Service land, some BLM land, and 

scattered private, State of Arizona, and 

NMDGF lands. 

(1) Eagle Creek—Loach Minnow 

Only—44.8 mi (71.9 km) of creek 

extending from the Phelps-Dodge 

Diversion Dam upstream to the 

confluence of Dry Prong and East Eagle 

creeks, including lands of the San 

Carlos Apache Reservation and the 

Phelps Dodge Corporation. Eagle Creek 

was occupied by spikedace and loach 

minnow at the time of listing. The most 

current records of occupancy in Eagle 

Creek are from 1997 for loach minnow 

and 1989 for spikedace. Eagle Creek 

contains one or more of the primary 

constituent elements essential to the 

conservation of loach minnow, 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). Threats within this area that 

require special management or 

protections include water diversions, 

improper livestock grazing, nonnative 

fish, and mining (see Table 1). 

A section of Eagle Creek 

approximately 17.2 mi (27.7 km) long 

occurs on the San Carlos Apache 

Reservation. We have received a 

management plan from the San Carlos 

Apache Tribe addressing native fishes. 

On the basis of this plan and our 

partnership with the San Carlos Apache 

Tribe, we are excluding this area from 

final critical habitat pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act (see ‘‘Relationship of 

Critical Habitat to Tribal Lands’’ section 

below for additional information). An 

additional 9.9 mi (15.7 km) are owned 

by the Phelps Dodge Corporation. We 

received a management plan from 

Phelps Dodge addressing management 

for spikedace and loach minnow. On the 

basis of this plan, we are excluding their 

lands from the final critical habitat 

designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act (see ‘‘Exclusions under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ for additional 

information). 

(2) San Francisco River—Loach 

Minnow Only—126.5 mi (203.5 km) 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 

occupied the San Francisco River at the 

time of listing and occupy it presently, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13388 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

with occupancy verified in 2005. The 

San Francisco River contains one or 

more of the primary constituent 

elements essential to the conservation of 

loach minnow, including sufficient flow 

velocities and appropriate gradients, 

substrates, depths, and habitat types 

(i.e., riffles, runs). Threats to this area 

requiring special management or 

protections include water diversions, 

improper livestock grazing, and 

nonnative fish species (see Table 1). 

(3) Tularosa River—Loach Minnow 

Only—18.6 mi (30.0 km) of river 

extending from the confluence with the 

San Francisco River upstream to the 

town of Cruzville. Above Cruzville, the 

river does not contain the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species because of the small size of the 

stream and a predominance of fine 

substrates. This area includes one or 

more of the primary constituent 

elements essential to the conservation of 

loach minnow, including sufficient flow 

velocities and appropriate gradients, 

substrates, depths, and habitat types 

(i.e., riffles, runs). The Tularosa River 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

is known to be currently occupied based 

on records as recent as 2002. Threats to 

the species and its habitat in this area 

that require special management or 

protections include grazing and 

nonnative fish (see Table 1). 

(4) Negrito Creek—Loach Minnow 

Only—4.2 mi (6.8 km) of creek 

extending from the confluence with the 

Tularosa River upstream to the 

confluence with Cerco Canyon. Above 

this area, the creek does not contain the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species because of gradient and 

channel morphology. Negrito Creek has 

been occupied since listing, with the 

most recent record from 1998 (Service 

2005). In addition, this area is directly 

connected to the Tularosa River, which 

has occupancy records as recent as 

2002. Negrito Creek contains one or 

more of the primary constituent 

elements essential to the conservation of 

loach minnow, including sufficient flow 

velocities and appropriate gradients, 

substrates, depths, and habitat types 

(i.e., riffles, runs). Threats to this area 

requiring special management or 

protections include improper livestock 

grazing and nonnative fish (see Table 1). 

(5) Whitewater Creek—Loach Minnow 

Only—1.1 mi (1.8 km) of creek 

extending from the confluence with the 

San Francisco River upstream to the 

confluence with the Little Whitewater 

Creek. Upstream of this area the river 

does not contain the features essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

of gradient and channel changes that 

make the portion above Little 

Whitewater Creek unsuitable for loach 

minnow. In addition, low water 

temperatures likely influence the 

upstream distributional limits (Propst 

2006, p. 2). Whitewater Creek was 

occupied at the time of listing, and is 

connected with the San Francisco River, 

which has documented loach minnow 

records as recent as 2001. This area does 

support one or more primary 

constituent elements for loach minnow, 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). Threats to this area include 

grazing and nonnative fish (see Table 1). 

(6) Blue River—Loach Minnow 

Only—51.1 mi (82.2 km) 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 was 

occupied at the time of listing and 

continues to be occupied by loach 

minnow (Carter 2005, pp. 1–9). The 

Blue River contains one or more of the 

primary constituent elements essential 

to the conservation of loach minnow, 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). Planning is underway among 

several State and Federal agencies for 

reintroduction of native fishes, 

including spikedace, in the Blue River, 

and thus the Blue River may be 

considered for spikedace critical habitat 

in future revisions of the designation. 

Threats in this area include water 

diversions, improper livestock grazing, 

nonnative fish, and roads (see Table 1). 

(7) Campbell Blue Creek—Loach 

Minnow Only—8.1 mi (13.1 km) of 

creek extending from the confluence of 

Dry Blue and Campbell Blue creeks 

upstream to the confluence with 

Coleman Canyon. Areas above Coleman 

Canyon do not contain the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species because the creek becomes 

steeper and rockier, making it 

unsuitable for loach minnow. Campbell 

Blue Creek is currently occupied (Carter 

2005, pp. 1–9) and supports one or more 

of the velocities and appropriate 

gradients, substrates, depths, and 

habitat types (i.e., riffles, runs). Threats 

to this area requiring special 

management or protections include 

improper livestock grazing and 

nonnative fish species (see Table 1). 

(8) Dry Blue Creek—Loach Minnow 

Only—3.0 mi (4.8 km) of creek 

extending from the confluence with 

Campbell Blue Creek upstream to the 

confluence with Pace Creek. Dry Blue 

Creek has been occupied by loach 

minnow since listing and is occupied 

with records dating from 2001. In 

addition, this area is connected with 

Campbell Blue Creek, which has 

documented loach minnow records as 

recent as 2004. This area also contains 

one or more of the primary constituent 

elements essential to the conservation of 

loach minnow, including sufficient flow 

velocities and appropriate gradients, 

substrates, depths, and habitat types 

(i.e., riffles, runs). Threats to this area 

requiring special management or 

protections include improper livestock 

grazing and nonnative fish species (see 

Table 1). 

(9) Pace Creek—Loach Minnow 

Only—0.8 mi (1.2 km) of creek 

extending from the confluence with Dry 

Blue Creek upstream to a barrier falls. 

Pace Creek has been occupied by loach 

minnow since listing and is considered 

currently occupied with the most recent 

record from 1998. This area also 

contains one or more of the primary 

constituent elements essential to the 

conservation of loach minnow, 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). Threats to this area requiring 

special management or protections 

include improper livestock grazing and 

nonnative fish species (see Table 1). 

(10) Frieborn Creek—Loach Minnow 

Only—1.1 mi (1.8 km) of creek 

extending from the confluence with Dry 

Blue Creek upstream to an unnamed 

tributary. Frieborn Creek has been 

occupied by loach minnow since listing 

and is currently occupied with the most 

recent record from 1998. This area also 

contains one or more of the primary 

constituent elements essential to the 

conservation of loach minnow, 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). Threats to this area requiring 

special management or protections 

include improper livestock grazing and 

nonnative fish species (see Table 1). 

(11) Little Blue Creek—Loach 

Minnow Only—2.8 mi (4.5 km) of creek 

extending from the confluence with the 

Blue River upstream to the mouth of a 

canyon. Little Blue Creek was occupied 

at the time of listing and is considered 

to be occupied as it is directly 

connected with the Blue River, which 

has documented loach minnow records 

as recent as 2004. This area also 

contains one or more of the primary 

constituent elements essential to the 

conservation of loach minnow including 

sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). Threats requiring special 

management or protections in this area 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13389 

include grazing and nonnative fish (see 

Table 1). 

Complex 5—Upper Gila River 

Complex—Grant, Catron, and Hidalgo 

Counties, New Mexico 

Spikedace have been known to be 

present in this complex since 1935 and 

up through the present. Loach minnow 

have been known to be present in this 

complex since 1938 and up through the 

present. This complex was occupied by 

both spikedace and loach minnow at the 

time of listing (Propst et al. 1998, p. 14–

15; ASU 2002; Propst 2002, p. 4, 22, 27, 

31; Paroz et al. 2006, p. 63–64; Propst 

2006, p. 2). This complex contains the 

largest remaining populations of both 

species in New Mexico. It is considered 

to represent the ‘‘core’’ of what remains 

of these species. Streams in this 

complex contain one or more of the 

PCEs for both species including 

sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). In addition, the lateral extent of 

each segment within this complex of 

critical habitat contains sufficient PCEs 

(3 and 5) to provide for one or more of 

the life history functions of the 

spikedace and loach minnow. Threats 

requiring special management or 

protections in this area are addressed in 

each of the individual stream segment 

descriptions below. The largest areas are 

on U.S. Forest Service 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, National Park Service, 

and State of New Mexico lands. 

(1) Upper Gila River—102.2 mi (164.4 

km) 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 of the Gila River. The 

Gila River was occupied by spikedace 

and loach minnow at the time of listing 

and continues to be occupied by both 

species (ASU 2002, Propst 2002, pp. 2, 

4, 29–33). The Gila River from its 

confluence with the West Fork Gila and 

East Fork Gila contains one or more 

primary constituent elements for 

spikedace and loach minnow, including 

sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs, glides, eddies). Threats to this area 

requiring special management or 

protections include water diversions, 

improper livestock grazing, recreation, 

road construction, and nonnative fish 

species (see Table 1). Approximately 7.2 

mi (11.6 km) along the Gila River are 

owned by the Phelps Dodge 

Corporation. We received a management 

plan from Phelps Dodge addressing 

management for spikedace and loach 

minnow for these areas. On the basis of 

this plan, we are excluding their lands 

from the final critical habitat 

designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act, and because of economic 

impact concerns (see ‘‘Exclusion under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ for additional 

information). 

(2) East Fork Gila River—26.1 mi (42.0 

km) of river extending from the 

confluence with the West Fork Gila 

River upstream to the confluence of 

Beaver and Taylor creeks. This area was 

occupied by both species at the time of 

listing and both species have been 

found there as recently as 2001. In 

addition, this area is connected to 

habitat currently occupied by spikedace 

and loach minnow on the West Fork of 

the Gila River. Portions of the East Fork 

Gila River contain one or more of the 

primary constituent elements essential 

to the conservation of spikedace and 

loach minnow including sufficient flow 

velocities and appropriate gradients, 

substrates, depths, and habitat types 

(i.e., riffles, runs, glides, eddies). 

Threats to this area requiring special 

management or protections include 

improper livestock grazing, nonnative 

fish species, and ash flows from 

wildfires (See Table 1). 

(3) Middle Fork Gila River—

Spikedace Only—7.7 mi (12.3 km) of 

river extending from the confluence 

with the West Fork Gila River upstream 

to the confluence with Big Bear Canyon. 

This area is currently occupied (ASU 

2002, Paroz et al. 2006, p. 63, Propst 

2002, p. 22, Propst 2006, p. 2), and is 

connected to currently occupied habitat 

on the West Fork of the Gila River. The 

Middle Fork Gila River contains one or 

more of the primary constituent 

elements essential to the conservation of 

spikedace, including sufficient flow 

velocities and appropriate gradients, 

substrates, depths, and habitat types 

(i.e., riffles, runs, glides, eddies). 

Threats to this area requiring special 

management or protections include 

improper livestock grazing, nonnative 

fish species, and ash flows and 

increased sediment loading following 

recent wildfires (See Table 1). 

(4) Middle Fork Gila River—Loach 

Minnow Only—11.9 mi (19.1 km) of 

river extending from the confluence 

with the West Fork Gila River upstream 

to the confluence with Brothers West 

Canyon. This area is currently occupied 

(ASU 2002, Paroz et al. 2006, p. 63, 

Propst 2002, p. 22, Propst 2006, p. 2) 

and is connected to currently occupied 

habitat on the West Fork of the Gila 

River. Portions of the Middle Fork Gila 

River contain one or more primary 

constituent elements essential to the 

conservation of loach minnow, 

including sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs). Threats to this area requiring 

special management or protections 

include grazing, nonnative fish species, 

and ash flows and increased sediment 

loading following wildfires (See Table 

1). 

(5) West Fork Gila River—7.7 mi (12.4 

km) 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 Gila River was occupied by both 

spikedace and loach minnow at the time 

of listing and continues to be occupied 

by both species. This area contains one 

or more primary constituent elements 

essential to the conservation of 

spikedace and loach minnow, including 

sufficient flow velocities and 

appropriate gradients, substrates, 

depths, and habitat types (i.e., riffles, 

runs, glides, eddies). Above EE Canyon, 

the river does not contain the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species due to gradient and channel 

morphology. Threats to this area 

requiring special management or 

protections include nonnative fish 

species and ash flows and increased 

sediment loading following wildfires 

(See Table 1). 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. In our 

regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define 

destruction or adverse modification as 

‘‘a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat for both the survival and 

recovery of a listed species. Such 

alterations include, but are not limited 

to, alterations adversely modifying any 

of those physical or biological features 

that were the basis for determining the 

habitat to be critical.’’ However, recent 

decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Court of Appeals have invalidated this 

definition. Pursuant to current national 

policy and the statutory provisions of 

the Act, destruction or adverse 

modification is determined on the basis 

of whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the 

primary constituent elements to be 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13390 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

functionally established) to serve the 

intended conservation role for the 

species. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a proposed 

species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. This is a procedural 

requirement only. However, once a 

proposed species becomes listed, or 

proposed critical habitat is designated 

as final, the full prohibitions of section 

7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The 

primary utility of the conference 

procedures is to maximize the 

opportunity for a Federal agency to 

adequately consider proposed species 

and critical habitat and avoid potential 

delays in implementing their proposed 

action because of the section 7(a)(2) 

compliance process, should those 

species be listed or the critical habitat 

designated. 

Under conference procedures, the 

Service may provide advisory 

conservation recommendations to assist 

the agency in eliminating conflicts that 

may be caused by the proposed action. 

The Service may conduct either 

informal or formal conferences. Informal 

conferences are typically used if the 

proposed action is not likely to have any 

adverse effects to the proposed species 

or proposed critical habitat. Formal 

conferences are typically used when the 

Federal agency or the Service believes 

the proposed action is likely to cause 

adverse effects to proposed species or 

critical habitat, inclusive of those that 

may cause jeopardy or adverse 

modification. 

The results of an informal conference 

are typically transmitted in a conference 

report while the results of a formal 

conference are typically transmitted in a 

conference opinion. Conference 

opinions on proposed critical habitat are 

typically prepared according to 50 CFR 

402.14, as if the proposed critical 

habitat were designated. We may adopt 

the conference opinion as the biological 

opinion when the critical habitat is 

designated, if no substantial new 

information or changes in the action 

alter the content of the opinion (see 50 

CFR 402.10(d)). As noted above, any 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are strictly 

advisory. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

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 

to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

(action agency) must enter into 

consultation with us. As a result of this 

consultation, compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be 

documented through the Service’s 

issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for 

Federal actions that may affect, but are 

not likely to adversely affect, listed 

species or critical habitat; or (2) a 

biological opinion for Federal actions 

that may affect, but are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in jeopardy to a listed species or 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. 

‘‘Reasonable and prudent alternatives’’

are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that can be implemented in 

a manner consistent with the intended 

purpose of the action, that are consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 

economically and technologically 

feasible, and that the Director believes 

would avoid jeopardy to the listed 

species or destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can 

vary from slight project modifications to 

extensive redesign or relocation of the 

project. Costs associated with 

implementing a reasonable and prudent 

alternative are similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where a new 

species is listed or critical habitat is 

subsequently designated that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action or such 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law. Consequently, some 

Federal agencies may request 

reinitiation of consultation with us on 

actions for which formal consultation 

has been completed, if those actions 

may affect subsequently listed species 

or designated critical habitat or 

adversely modify or destroy proposed 

critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

spikedace and loach minnow or their 

designated critical habitat will require 

section 7 consultation under the Act. 

Activities on State, Tribal, local or 

private lands requiring a Federal permit 

(such as a permit from the Corps under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a 

permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 

Act from the Service) or involving some 

other Federal action (such as funding 

from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) will 

also be subject to the section 7 

consultation process. Federal actions 

not affecting listed species or critical 

habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, 

local, or private lands that are not 

federally-funded, authorized, or 

permitted, do not require section 7 

consultations. 

Application of the Jeopardy and 

Adverse Modification Standards for 

Actions Involving Effects to the 

Spikedase and Loach Minnow and Their 

Critical Habitat 

Jeopardy Standard 

Prior to and following designation of 

critical habitat, the Service has applied 

an analytical framework for spikedace 

and loach minnow jeopardy analyses 

that relies heavily on the importance of 

core area populations to the survival 

and recovery of the spikedace and loach 

minnow. The section 7(a)(2) analysis is 

focused not only on these populations 

but also on the habitat conditions 

necessary to support them. 

The jeopardy analysis usually 

expresses the survival and recovery 

needs of the spikedace and loach 

minnow in a qualitative fashion without 

making distinctions between what is 

necessary for survival and what is 

necessary for recovery. Generally, if a 

proposed Federal action is incompatible 

with the viability of the affected core 

area population(s), inclusive of 

associated habitat conditions, a jeopardy 

opinion is warranted because of the 

relationship of each core area 

population to the survival and recovery 

of the species as a whole. 

Adverse Modification Standard 

For the reasons described in the 

Director’s December 9, 2004 

memorandum, the key factor related to 

the adverse modification determination 

is whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13391 

primary constituent elements to be 

functionally established) to serve the 

intended conservation role for the 

species. Generally, the conservation role 

of spikedace and loach minnow critical 

habitat units is to support viable core 

area populations. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of the species. 

Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the PCEs to an extent 

that the conservation value of critical 

habitat for the spikedace and loach 

minnow is appreciably reduced. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 

therefore result in consultation for the 

spikedace and loach minnow include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) 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; 

(2) actions that would significantly 

and detrimentally alter the water 

chemistry in 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, release of 

chemical or biological pollutants into 

the surface water or connected 

groundwater at a point source or by 

dispersed release (non-point source); 

(3) actions that would introduce, 

spread, or augment nonnative fish 

species could destroy or adversely 

modify the critical habitat of either or 

both species; and 

(4) actions that would result in the 

removal of water from waterways. Such 

activities include, but are not limited to, 

construction and operation of canals 

and interbasin water transfers. 

We consider all of the units 

designated as critical habitat, as well as 

those that have been excluded, to 

contain features essential to the 

conservation of the spikedace and loach 

minnow. All units are within the 

geographic range of the species, all were 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing, and are likely to be used by the 

spikedace and loach minnow. Federal 

agencies already consult with us on 

activities in areas currently occupied by 

the spikedace and loach minnow, or if 

the species may be affected by the 

action, to ensure that their actions do 

not jeopardize the continued existence 

of the spikedace and loach minnow. 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

critical habitat shall be designated, and 

revised, on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact, of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if [s]he determines that 

the benefits of such exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of specifying such area as 

part of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the Secretary is afforded broad 

discretion and the Congressional record 

is clear that in making a determination 

under the section the Secretary has 

discretion as to which factors and how 

much weight will be given to any factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2), in considering 

whether to exclude a particular area 

from the designation, we must identify 

the benefits of including the area in the 

designation, identify the benefits of 

excluding the area from the designation, 

determine whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. If an exclusion is 

contemplated, then we must determine 

whether excluding the area would result 

in the extinction of the species. In the 

following sections, we address a number 

of general issues that are relevant to the 

exclusions we considered. 

General Principles of Section 7 

Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2) 

Balancing Process 

The most direct, and potentially 

largest, regulatory benefit of critical 

habitat is that federally authorized, 

funded, or carried out activities require 

consultation pursuant to section 7 of the 

Act to ensure that they are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. There are two limitations to this 

regulatory effect. First, it only applies 

where there is a Federal nexus—if there 

is no Federal nexus, designation itself 

does not restrict actions that destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Second, it only limits destruction or 

adverse modification. By its nature, the 

prohibition on adverse modification is 

designed to ensure those areas that 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species or unoccupied areas that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are not eroded. Critical habitat 

designation alone, however, can not 

require active management efforts 

toward recovery. 

Once consultation under section 7 of 

the Act is triggered, the process may 

conclude informally when the Service 

concurs in writing that the proposed 

Federal action is not likely to adversely 

affect the listed species or its critical 

habitat. However, if the Service 

determines through informal 

consultation that adverse impacts are 

likely to occur, then formal consultation 

would be initiated. Formal consultation 

concludes with a biological opinion 

issued by the Service on whether the 

proposed Federal action is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat, 

with separate analyses being made 

under both the jeopardy and the adverse 

modification standards. For critical 

habitat, a biological opinion that 

concludes in a determination of no 

destruction or adverse modification may 

contain discretionary conservation 

recommendations to minimize adverse 

effects to primary constituent elements, 

but it would not contain any mandatory 

reasonable and prudent measures or 

terms and conditions. Mandatory 

measures and terms and conditions to 

implement such measures are only 

specified when the proposed action 

would result in the incidental take of a 

listed animal species. Reasonable and 

prudent alternatives to the proposed 

Federal action would only be suggested 

when the biological opinion results in a 

jeopardy or adverse modification 

conclusion. 

We also note that for 30 years prior to 

the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in 

Gifford Pinchot, the Service conflated 

the jeopardy standard with the standard 

for destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat when evaluating 

federal actions that affect currently 

occupied critical habitat. The Court 

ruled that the two standards are distinct 

and that adverse modification 

evaluations require consideration of 

impacts on the recovery of species. 

Thus, under the Gifford Pinchot 

decision, critical habitat designations 

may provide greater benefits to the 

recovery of a species. However, we 

believe the conservation achieved 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13392 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

through implementing management 

plans is typically greater than would be 

achieved through multiple site-by-site, 

project-by-project, section 7 

consultations involving consideration of 

critical habitat. Management plans 

commit resources to implement longterm management and protection to 

particular habitat for at least one and 

possibly other listed or sensitive 

species. Section 7 consultations only 

commit Federal agencies to prevent 

adverse modification to critical habitat 

caused by the particular project, and 

they are not committed to provide 

conservation or long-term benefits to 

areas not affected by the proposed 

project. Thus, any management plan 

which considers enhancement or 

recovery as the management standard 

will often provide as much or more 

benefit than a consultation for critical 

habitat designation conducted under the 

standards required by the Ninth Circuit 

in the Gifford Pinchot decision. 

The information provided in this 

section applies to all the discussions 

below that discuss the benefits of 

inclusion and exclusion of critical 

habitat in that it provides the framework 

for the consultation process. 

Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat 

A benefit of including lands in critical 

habitat is that the designation of critical 

habitat serves to educate landowners, 

State and local governments, and the 

public regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area. This 

helps focus and promote conservation 

efforts by other parties by clearly 

delineating areas of high conservation 

value for the spikedace and loach 

minnow. In general the educational 

benefit of a critical habitat designation 

always exists, although in some cases it 

may be redundant with other 

educational effects. For example, habitat 

conservation plans have significant 

public input and may largely duplicate 

the educational benefit of a critical 

habitat designation. This benefit is 

closely related to a second, more 

indirect benefit: That designation of 

critical habitat would inform State 

agencies and local governments about 

areas that could be conserved under 

State laws or local ordinances. 

However, we believe that there would 

be little additional informational benefit 

gained from the designation of critical 

habitat for the exclusions discussed in 

this rule because these areas are 

included in this rule as having habitat 

containing the features essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Consequently, we believe that the 

informational benefits are already 

provided even though these areas are 

not designated as critical habitat. 

Additionally, the purpose normally 

served by the designation, that of 

informing State agencies and local 

governments about areas that would 

benefit from protection and 

enhancement of critical habitat for the 

spikedace and loach minnow, is already 

well established among State and local 

governments, and Federal agencies in 

those areas that we are excluding from 

critical habitat in this rule on the basis 

of other existing habitat management 

protections. 

The information provided in this 

section applies to all the discussions 

below that discuss the benefits of 

inclusion and exclusion of critical 

habitat. 

Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands 

Most federally listed species in the 

United States will not recover without 

the cooperation of non-Federal 

landowners. More than 60 percent of the 

United States is privately owned 

(National Wilderness Institute 1995), 

and at least 80 percent of endangered or 

threatened species occur either partially 

or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 

2002). Stein et al. (1995) found that only 

about 12 percent of listed species were 

found almost exclusively on Federal 

lands (90 to 100 percent of their known 

occurrences restricted to Federal lands) 

and that 50 percent of federally listed 

species are not known to occur on 

Federal lands at all. 

Given the distribution of listed 

species with respect to land ownership, 

conservation of listed species in many 

parts of the United States is dependent 

upon working partnerships with a wide 

variety of entities and the voluntary 

cooperation of many non-Federal 

landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998, 

Crouse et al. 2002, James 2002). 

Building partnerships and promoting 

voluntary cooperation of landowners is 

essential to understanding the status of 

species on non-Federal lands and is 

necessary to implement recovery actions 

such as reintroducing listed species, 

active management, and habitat 

protection. 

Many non-Federal landowners derive 

satisfaction in contributing to 

endangered species recovery. The 

Service promotes these private-sector 

efforts through the Four Cs 

philosophy—conservation through 

communication, consultation, and 

cooperation. This philosophy is evident 

in Service programs such as HCPs, Safe 

Harbor Agreements, Candidate 

Conservation Agreements, Candidate 

Conservation Agreements with 

Assurances, and conservation challenge 

cost-share. Many private landowners, 

however, are wary of the possible 

consequences of encouraging 

endangered species to their property, 

and there is mounting evidence that 

some regulatory actions by the Federal 

government, while well-intentioned and 

required by law, can (under certain 

circumstances) have unintended 

negative consequences for the 

conservation of species on private lands 

(Wilcove et al. 1996, Bean 2002, Conner 

and Mathews 2002, James 2002, Koch 

2002, Brook et al. 2003). Many 

landowners fear a decline in their 

property value due to real or perceived 

restrictions on land-use options where 

threatened or endangered species are 

found, and more specifically, when 

critical habitat is proposed or 

designated. Consequently, harboring 

endangered species is viewed by many 

landowners as a liability, resulting in 

anti-conservation incentives because 

maintaining habitats that harbor 

endangered species represents a risk to 

future economic opportunities (Main et 

al. 1999, Brook et al. 2003). 

The purpose of designating critical 

habitat is to contribute to the 

conservation of threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The outcome 

of the designation, triggering regulatory 

requirements for actions funded, 

authorized, or carried out by Federal 

agencies under section 7 of the Act, can 

sometimes be counterproductive to its 

intended purpose on non-Federal lands. 

According to some researchers, the 

designation of critical habitat on private 

lands significantly reduces the 

likelihood that landowners will support 

and carry out conservation actions 

(Main et al. 1999, Bean 2002, Brook et 

al. 2003). The magnitude of this 

negative outcome is greatly amplified in 

situations where active management 

measures (such as reintroduction, fire 

management, control of invasive 

species) are necessary for species 

conservation (Bean 2002). A critical 

habitat designation cannot require such 

actions on the lands being exempted 

here. 

The Service believes that the 

judicious use of excluding specific areas 

of non-federally owned lands from 

critical habitat designations can 

contribute to species recovery and 

provide a superior level of conservation 

than critical habitat alone. For example, 

less than 17 percent of Hawaii is 

federally owned, but the state is home 

to more than 24 percent of all federally 

listed species, most of which will not 

recover without State and private 

landowner cooperation. On the island of 

Lanai, Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13393 

which owns 99 percent of the island, 

entered into a conservation agreement 

with the Service. The conservation 

agreement provides conservation 

benefits to target species through 

management actions that remove threats 

(such as axis deer, mouflon sheep, rats, 

invasive nonnative plants) from the 

Lanaihale and East Lanai Regions. 

Specific management actions include 

fire control measures, nursery 

propagation of native flora (including 

the target species) and planting of such 

flora. These actions will significantly 

improve the habitat for all currently 

occurring species. Due to the low 

likelihood of a Federal nexus on the 

island, we believe that the benefits of 

excluding the lands covered by the 

MOA exceeded the benefits of including 

them. As stated in the final critical 

habitat rule for endangered plants on 

the Island of Lanai: 

On Lanai, simply preventing ‘‘harmful 

activities’’ will not slow the extinction of 

listed plant species. Where consistent with 

the discretion provided by the Act, the 

Service believes it is necessary to implement 

policies that provide positive incentives to 

private landowners to voluntarily conserve 

natural resources and that remove or reduce 

disincentives to conservation. While the 

impact of providing these incentives may be 

modest in economic terms, they can be 

significant in terms of conservation benefits 

that can stem from the cooperation of the 

landowner. The continued participation of 

Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, in the 

existing Lanai Forest and Watershed 

Partnership and other voluntary conservation 

agreements will greatly enhance the Service’s 

ability to further the recovery of these 

endangered plants. 

The Department of the Interior’s Four 

C’s philosophy—conservation through 

communication, consultation, and 

cooperation—is the foundation for 

developing the tools of conservation. 

These tools include conservation grants, 

funding for Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program, the Coastal Program, 

and cooperative-conservation challenge 

cost-share grants. Our Private 

Stewardship Grant program and 

Landowner Incentive Program provide 

assistance to private landowners in their 

voluntary efforts to protect threatened, 

imperiled, and endangered species, 

including the development and 

implementation of Habitat Conservation 

Plans (HCPs). 

Conservation agreements with nonFederal landowners (HCPs, contractual 

conservation agreements, easements, 

and stakeholder-negotiated State 

regulations) enhance species 

conservation by extending species 

protections and providing for positive 

management actions beyond those that 

can be required through section 7 

consultations. In the past decade we 

have encouraged non-Federal 

landowners to enter into conservation 

agreements, based on a view that we can 

achieve greater species conservation on 

non-Federal land through such 

partnerships than we can through 

coercive methods (61 FR 63854; 

December 2, 1996). 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Economic Impacts—Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

This section allows the Secretary to 

exclude areas from critical habitat for 

economic reasons if he determines that 

the benefits of such exclusion exceed 

the benefits of designating the area as 

critical habitat, unless the exclusion 

will result in the extinction of the 

species concerned. Congress has 

provided this discretionary authority to 

the Secretary with respect to critical 

habitat. Although economic and other 

impacts may not be considered when 

listing a species, Congress has expressly 

required their consideration when 

designating critical habitat. 

In making the following exclusions, 

we have in general considered that all 

of the costs and other impacts predicted 

in the economic analysis may not be 

avoided by excluding the area, because 

all of the areas in question are currently 

occupied by the listed species and there 

will be requirements for consultation 

under section 7 of the Act, or for 

permits under section 10 (henceforth 

‘‘consultation’’), for any take of these 

species, and other protections for the 

species exist elsewhere in the Act and 

under State and local laws and 

regulations. In conducting economic 

analyses, we are guided by the 10th 

Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling in the 

New Mexico Cattle Growers Association 

case (248 F.3d at 1285), which directed 

us to consider all impacts, ‘‘regardless of 

whether those impacts are attributable 

co-extensively to other causes.’’ As 

explained in the analysis, due to 

possible overlapping regulatory schemes 

and other reasons, some elements of the 

analysis may also overstate some costs. 

Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has 

recently ruled (Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d 

at 1071) that the Service’s regulations 

defining ‘‘adverse modification’’ of 

critical habitat are invalid because they 

define adverse modification as affecting 

both survival and recovery of a species. 

The Court directed us to consider that 

determinations of adverse modification 

should be focused on impacts to 

recovery. While we have not yet 

proposed a new definition for public 

review and comment, compliance with 

the Court’s direction may result in 

additional costs associated with the 

designation of critical habitat 

(depending upon the outcome of the 

rulemaking, as well as additional 

benefits to the species). In light of the 

uncertainty concerning the regulatory 

definition of adverse modification, our 

current methodological approach to 

conducting economic analyses of our 

critical habitat designations is to 

consider all conservation-related costs. 

This approach would include costs 

related to sections 4, 7, 9, and 10 of the 

Act, and should encompass costs that 

would be considered and evaluated in 

light of the Gifford Pinchot ruling. 

In addition, we have received several 

credible comments on the economic 

analysis contending that it 

underestimates, perhaps significantly, 

the costs associated with this critical 

habitat designation. Both of these factors 

are a balancing consideration against the 

possibility that some of the costs shown 

in the economic analysis might be 

attributable to other factors, or are 

overly high, and so would not 

necessarily be avoided by excluding the 

area for which the costs are predicted 

from this critical habitat designation. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Tribal 

Lands 

In accordance with the Secretarial 

Order 3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997); the 

President’s memorandum of April 29, 

1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive 

Order 13175; and the relevant provision 

of the Departmental Manual of the 

Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), 

we believe that 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 many 

cases, designation of tribal lands as 

critical habitat provides very little 

additional benefit to threatened and 

endangered species. Conversely, such 

designation is often viewed by tribes as 

an 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. 

San Carlos Apache Tribe 

The San Carlos Apache Tribe has one 

stream within its tribal lands, Eagle 

Creek, that is known to be currently 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13394 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

occupied by the spikedace and loach 

minnow and its tribal lands contain 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the spikedace and loach 

minnow. The Tribe has completed and 

is implementing a Fisheries 

Management Plan (FMP) that includes 

specific management actions for the 

spikedace and loach minnow and 

conserves the PCEs. In this exclusion, 

we considered several factors, including 

our relationship with San Carlos 

Apache Tribe, and the degree to which 

the Tribe’s FMP provides specific 

management for the spikedace and 

loach minnow. Tribal governments 

protect and manage their resources in 

the manner that is most beneficial to 

them. The San Carlos Apache Tribe 

exercises legislative, administrative, and 

judicial control over activities within 

the boundaries of its lands. 

Additionally, the Tribe has natural 

resource programs and staff and has 

enacted the FMP. In addition, as trustee 

for land held in trust by the United 

States for Indian Tribes, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) provides technical 

assistance to the San Carlos Apache 

Tribe on management planning and 

oversees a variety of programs on their 

lands. Spikedace and loach minnow 

conservation activities have been 

ongoing on San Carlos Apache tribal 

lands, and, prior to the completion of 

their FMP, their natural resource 

management was consistent with 

management of habitat for this species. 

The development and implementation 

of the efforts formalized in the San 

Carlos Apache Tribes FMP will 

continue with or without critical habitat 

designation. 

The San Carlos Apache Tribe highly 

values its wildlife and natural resources, 

and is charged to preserve and protect 

these resources under the Tribal 

Constitution. Consequently, the Tribe 

has long worked to manage the habitat 

of wildlife on its tribal lands, including 

the habitat of endangered and 

threatened species. We understand that 

it is the Tribe’s position that a 

designation of critical habitat on its 

lands improperly infringes upon its 

tribal sovereignty and the right to selfgovernment. 

The San Carlos Apache Tribes’ FMP 

provides assurances and a conservation 

benefit to the spikedace and loach 

minnow. Implementation of the FMP 

will result in protecting all known 

spikedace and loach minnow habitat on 

San Carlos Tribal Land and assures no 

net habitat loss or permanent 

modification will occur in the future. 

The purpose of the FMP includes the 

long-term conservation of native fishes, 

including the spikedace and loach 

minnow, on tribal lands. The FMP 

outlines actions to conserve, enhance, 

and restore spikedace and loach 

minnow PCEs, including efforts to 

eliminate nonnative fishes from 

spikedace and loach minnow habitat, 

actions that could not be compelled by 

a critical habitat designation. All habitat 

restoration activities (whether it is to 

rehabilitate or restore native plants) will 

be conducted under reasonable 

coordination with the Service. All 

reasonable measures will be taken to 

ensure that recreational activities do not 

result in a net habitat loss or permanent 

modification of the habitat. All 

reasonable measures will be taken to 

conduct livestock grazing activities in a 

manner that will ensure the 

conservation of spikedace and loach 

minnow habitat. Within funding 

limitations and under confidentiality 

guidelines established by the Tribe, the 

Tribe will cooperate with the Service to 

monitor and survey spikedace and loach 

minnow habitat, conduct research, 

perform habitat restoration, remove 

nonnative fish species, or conduct other 

beneficial spikedace and loach minnow 

management activities. 

White Mountain Apache Tribe 

The White Mountain Apache Tribe 

has one stream within its tribal lands, 

East Fork White River, that is known to 

be currently occupied by loach minnow 

and its tribal lands contain features that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

loach minnow. The White Mountain 

Apache Tribe currently has a 

management plan in place for loach 

minnow. The plan was completed in 

2000 and provides for, among other 

conservation measures, inventory and 

monitoring, water quality protection 

ordinance, captive propagation, and 

relocation to minimize loss from 

catastrophic events such as fire and 

drought. Prior to and since the plan was 

developed, the Tribe has actively 

managed for loach minnow. In this 

exclusion, we considered several 

factors, including our relationship with 

the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and 

the degree to which the Tribe’s 

management plan provides specific 

management for the loach minnow and 

conserves its PCEs. Tribal governments 

protect and manage their resources in 

the manner that is most beneficial to 

them. The White Mountain Apache 

Tribe exercises legislative, 

administrative, and judicial control over 

activities within the boundaries of its 

lands. Additionally, the Tribe has 

natural resource programs and staff and 

has been managing for the conservation 

of the loach minnow. In addition, as 

trustee for land held in trust by the 

United States for Indian Tribes, the BIA 

provides technical assistance to the 

White Mountain Apache Tribe on 

management planning and oversees a 

variety of programs on their lands. 

The White Mountain Apache Tribe 

highly values its wildlife and natural 

resources, and is charged to preserve 

and protect these resources under the 

Tribal Constitution. Consequently, the 

Tribe has long worked to manage the 

habitat of wildlife on its tribal lands, 

including the habitat of endangered and 

threatened species. We understand that 

it is the Tribe’s position that a 

designation of critical habitat on its 

lands improperly infringes upon its 

tribal sovereignty and the right to selfgovernment. 

Yavapai Apache Tribe 

The Yavapai Apache Tribe has long 

worked to protect the Verde River and 

its surrounding habitat as it flows on the 

lands of the Nation. The Nation is 

implementing strong conservation 

measures designed to preserve the 

Verde River and its riparian corridor for 

the benefit of all species, and in order 

to protect the traditional and cultural 

practices of the Nation. The Nation’s 

continued efforts to work cooperatively 

with the Service to protect federally 

listed species have previously been 

demonstrated through adoption of a 

recent Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Management Plan, dated May 25, 2005. 

This document provides realistic and 

practicable objectives for protection of 

the riparian community on tribal lands. 

This habitat is coextensive with the 

habitat that was proposed for the 

spikedace. Because the existing 

Management Plan requires that the 

habitat of the Verde River be protected 

and preserved for the flycatcher, its 

protections similarly extend to the 

spikedace. In addition, the Tribe passed 

a resolution on June 15, 2006, 

confirming and declaring a riparian 

conservation corridor along the Verde 

River including 300 ft (91.4 m) on either 

side of the river. Within the 

conservation corridor stocking of nonnative fishes is prohibited, and livestock 

grazing, construction and other 

activities shall be minimized to assure 

that no net loss of habitat for federally 

listed species such as the spikedace and 

loach minnow shall occur, and that no 

permanent modification of habitat 

important to listed species is allowed. 

The Tribe will also take all reasonable 

steps to coordinate with the Service 

regarding recreational activities, habitat 

restoration activities, or other activities 

that may impact the habitat important to 

the spikedace and loach minnow. The 

Tribe will monitor habitat, including 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13395 

surveys for these fish and conduct 

research or other activities to provide a 

conservation benefit. 

Below we determine, pursuant to a 

4(b)(2) analysis, that those portions of 

the Verde River below the Prescott and 

Coconino National Forest boundary 

with private lands above the Verde 

Valley will be excluded from the final 

designation based upon economic costs. 

The Yavapai Apache tribal lands fall 

within this area, and are excluded as 

part of that overall exclusion. However, 

we also find pursuant to our analysis 

below that their lands should be 

excluded on the basis of our 

relationship with the Yavapai Apache 

Tribe, and the Tribe’s management of 

the Verde River that we believe provides 

a conservation benefit to the spikedace. 

(1) Benefits of Inclusion 

Including lands of the San Carlos 

Apache Tribe, the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai Apache 

Tribe in critical habitat would provide 

some additional benefit from section 7 

consultation, because we could consult 

via the BIA on actions that may 

adversely affect critical habitat. 

Activities covered in previous 

consultations include livestock grazing, 

recreation, fish stocking, fire 

management, bank stabilization 

projects, and conservation measures that 

benefited spikedace and/or loach 

minnow. These measures included 

monitoring, fence repair (to exclude 

cattle from overusing and thereby 

damaging habitat), and education 

programs to inform the public of the 

need to avoid actions that damage 

habitat. However, we note that because 

the spikedace and loach minnow are 

listed species and are found on these 

Tribal lands, section 7 consultation 

under the jeopardy standard will still be 

required if Tribal or BIA activities may 

adversely affect spikedace or loach 

minnow, regardless of whether these 

lands are included in the final critical 

habitat designation. As a result, we 

expect that inclusion of San Carlos 

Apache, White Mountain Apache, and 

the Yavapai Apache Tribe lands in the 

critical habitat designation would 

provide only that additional habitat 

protection accorded by critical habitat 

as discussed by the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals in the Gifford Pinchot ruling 

discussed above. 

Nevertheless, few additional benefits 

would be derived from including these 

Tribal Lands in the spikedace and loach 

minnow final critical habitat 

designation beyond what will be 

achieved through the implementation of 

their management plans. As noted 

above, the primary regulatory benefit of 

any designated critical habitat is that 

federally funded or authorized activities 

in such habitat require consultation 

pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Such 

consultation would ensure that 

adequate protection is provided to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. These three tribes have 

already agreed under the terms of their 

management plans and by tribal 

resolution to protect riparian and 

aquatic communities, to ensure no net 

loss of habitat, to coordinate with the 

Service in order to prevent any habitat 

destruction, and to conduct activities 

consistent with the conservation of all 

native species, including the spikedace 

and loach minnow and their PCEs. 

As discussed above, we expect that 

little additional educational benefit 

would be derived from designating San 

Carlos Apache, White Mountain 

Apache, and Yavapai Apache tribal 

lands as critical habitat. The additional 

educational benefits that might arise 

from critical habitat designation are 

largely accomplished through the 

multiple notice and comments which 

accompany the development of this 

critical habitat designation, as 

evidenced by the Tribes working with 

the Service to address habitat and 

conservation needs for the spikedace 

and loach minnow. Additionally, we 

anticipate that the Tribes will continue 

to actively participate in working 

groups, and provide for the timely 

exchange of management information. 

The educational benefits important for 

the long-term survival and conservation 

of the spikedace and loach minnow are 

being realized without designating this 

area as critical habitat. Educational 

benefits will continue on these lands 

whether or not critical habitat is 

designated because the Tribes already 

recognize the importance of those 

habitat areas to the spikedace and loach 

minnow. 

Another possible benefit is the 

additional funding that may be 

generated for habitat restoration or 

improvement by having an area 

designated as critical habitat. In some 

instances, having an area designated as 

critical habitat may improve the ranking 

a project receives during evaluation for 

funding. The Tribes often require 

additional sources of funding in order to 

conduct wildlife-related activities. 

Therefore, having an area designated as 

critical habitat could improve the 

chances of the Tribes receiving funding 

for spikedace or loach minnow related 

projects. Additionally, occupancy by 

spikedace or loach minnow also 

provides benefits to be considered in 

evaluating funding proposals. Because 

there are areas of occupied habitat on 

these Tribal lands this may also help 

secure funding for management of these 

areas. 

For these reasons, then, we believe 

that designation of critical habitat 

would provide some additional benefits. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion 

The benefits of excluding San Carlos 

Apache, White Mountain Apache, and 

the Yavapai Apache tribal lands from 

critical habitat include: (1) The 

advancement of our Federal Indian 

Trust obligations and our deference to 

Tribes to develop and implement tribal 

conservation and natural resource 

management plans for their lands and 

resources, which includes the spikedace 

and loach minnow and other Federal 

trust species; (2) the maintenance of 

effective working relationships to 

promote the conservation of the 

spikedace and loach minnow and their 

habitats; (3) the allowance for continued 

meaningful collaboration and 

cooperation on spikedace and loach 

minnow management and other 

resources of interest to the Federal 

government; and (4) the provision of 

conservation benefits to riparian 

ecosystems and a host of species, 

including the spikedace and loach 

minnow and their habitat. 

During the development of the 

spikedace and loach minnow critical 

habitat designation (and coordination 

for other critical habitat proposals), and 

other efforts such as conservation of 

native fish species in general, we have 

met and communicated with each of 

these Tribes to discuss how they might 

be affected by the regulations associated 

with spikedace and loach minnow 

conservation and the designation of 

critical habitat. As such, we established 

relationships with these Tribes specific 

to spikedace and loach minnow 

conservation. As part of our 

relationship, we provided technical 

assistance to the Tribes to develop 

measures to conserve the spikedace and 

loach minnow and their habitat on their 

lands. These measures are contained 

within their management plans and 

tribal resolution that we have in our 

supporting record. This proactive action 

was conducted in accordance with 

Secretarial Order 3206, ‘‘American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997); 

the President’s memorandum of April 

29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive 

Order 13175; and the relevant provision 

of the Departmental Manual of the 

Department of the Interior (512 DM 2). 

We believe that the San Carlos Apache, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13396 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

White Mountain Apache, and the 

Yavapai Apache Tribes should be the 

governmental entities to manage and 

promote the conservation of the 

spikedace and loach minnow on their 

lands. During our communication with 

the Tribes, we recognized and endorsed 

their fundamental right to provide for 

tribal resource management activities, 

including those relating to riparian 

aquatic ecosystems. 

The designation of critical habitat on 

these Tribal lands would be expected to 

adversely impact our working 

relationship with them. In fact, during 

our discussions with the Tribes, we 

were informed that critical habitat 

would be viewed as an intrusion on 

their sovereign abilities to manage 

natural resources in accordance with 

their own policies, customs, and laws. 

To this end, we found that the Tribes 

would prefer to work with us on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

view this as a substantial benefit. 

In addition to management/ 

conservation actions described for the 

conservation of the spikedace and loach 

minnow, we anticipate future 

management/conservation plans to 

include conservation efforts for other 

listed species and their habitat. We 

believe that many Tribes are willing to 

work cooperatively with us to benefit 

other listed species, but only if they 

view the relationship as mutually 

beneficial. Consequently, the 

development of future voluntary 

management actions for other listed 

species will likely be contingent upon 

whether the San Carlos Apache, White 

Mountain Apache, and the Yavapai 

Apache Tribal lands are designated as 

critical habitat for the spikedace and 

loach minnow. Thus, the benefit of 

excluding these lands would be future 

conservation efforts that would benefit 

the spikedace and loach minnow as well 

as other listed species. 

Another benefit of excluding these 

Tribal lands from the critical habitat 

designation includes relieving 

additional regulatory burden and costs 

associated with the preparation of 

portions of section 7 documents related 

to critical habitat. While the cost of 

adding these additional sections to 

assessments and consultations is 

relatively minor, there could be delays 

which can generate real costs to some 

project proponents. However, because 

in this case critical habitat is being 

excluded in occupied areas already 

subject to section 7 consultation and a 

jeopardy analysis, it is anticipated this 

reduction would be minimal. 

(3) Benefits of the Exclusion Outweigh 

the Benefits of Inclusion 

We find that the benefits of 

designating critical habitat for the 

spikedace and loach minnow on these 

Tribal lands are small in comparison to 

the benefits of the exclusion. Exclusion 

would enhance the partnership efforts 

focused on recovery of the spikedace 

and loach minnow within these river 

reaches. Excluding these areas also 

would reduce some of the 

administrative costs during consultation 

pursuant to section 7 of the Act. We 

discuss below additional economic 

costs and an exclusion of a portion of 

the Verde River that include tribal lands 

of the Yavapai Apache Nation. 

(4) The Exclusion Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species 

Because these river reaches on the 

Tribal lands are occupied by the 

spikedace and loach minnow, which are 

protected from take under section 9 of 

the Act, any actions that might kill 

spikedace or loach minnow, including 

habitat modification that would cause 

death of either species, must either 

undergo a consultation with the Service 

under the requirements of section 7 of 

the Act or receive a permit from us 

under section 10 of the Act. 

Additionally, we believe that the 

exclusion of these lands from critical 

habitat would not result in the 

extinction of the spikedace or loach 

minnow because their management 

outlines and the provisions of a 

resolution specifically address 

conservation of these species. The tribal 

management strategies outline actions to 

conserve, enhance, and restore 

spikedace and loach minnow habitat, 

including efforts to eliminate nonnative 

fishes from their habitat. Such efforts 

provide greater conservation benefit 

than would result from a designation of 

critical habitat. This is because section 

7 consultations for critical habitat only 

consider listed species in the project 

area evaluated and Federal agencies are 

only committed to prevent adverse 

modification to critical habitat caused 

by the particular project and are not 

committed to provide conservation or 

long-term benefits to areas not affected 

by the proposed project. Such efforts 

provide greater conservation benefit 

than would result for designation as 

critical habitat. As a result, there is no 

reason to believe that this exclusion 

would result in extinction of the 

species. 

Partnerships and Management Plans on 

Private Lands 

The Phelps Dodge Corporation 

(Phelps Dodge) provided two 

management plans to the Service during 

the second open comment period. One 

plan was provided for Eagle Creek in 

southeastern Arizona, and the other is 

for portions of the middle Gila River in 

New Mexico. We provide a summary of 

each of these plans below. 

Eagle Creek Management Plan 

Phelps Dodge’s lands along Eagle 

Creek are comprised of individual land 

parcels adjoining the southern boundary 

of the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests and the eastern boundary of San 

Carlos Apache Tribe lands. The parcels 

are not entirely connected; there are 

intervening portions of Forest Service 

and other private lands between parcels 

of Phelps Dodge’s lands. 

The management plan would affect 

only those lands owned by Phelps 

Dodge. Phelps Dodge owns 

approximately 34 square miles of land 

around the upper portions of Eagle 

Creek; however, not all of lands 

encompass or are adjacent to Eagle 

Creek. Phelps Dodge owns land along 

approximately 11.0 mi (17.8 km) of 

Eagle Creek, which are covered by the 

management plan. The Service has 

determined that Eagle Creek currently 

supports one of more of the PCEs for 

loach minnow and is occupied by loach 

minnow. In addition, we determined 

(see Table 1) that nonnative aquatic 

species, water diversions, and mining 

are all potential threats within this area. 

Phelps Dodge’s water supply for its 

Morenci Mine operation is derived from 

a variety of water rights, including a 

Black River water transfer (supported by 

a Central Arizona Project exchange), 

several deep ground water wells, and 

surface water from Eagle Creek, which 

constitutes approximately six percent of 

the natural flow of that Creek. 

Phelps Dodge indicates within the 

management plan that their overall goal 

is to operate its Eagle Creek water 

system to maintain perennial flows in 

Eagle Creek from the confluence of 

Willow Creek to the Phelps Dodge 

diversion dam to the extent it is legally, 

economically, and hydrologically 

reasonable to do so. Within the 

management plan, Phelps Dodge 

developed goals for both the loach 

minnow and spikedace within the 

Phelps Dodge reach. These goals 

regarding the two species include the 

following: (1) Monitoring distribution 

and abundance; (2) obtaining an 

understanding of the population 

dynamics as they relate to existing 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13397 

habitat conditions and land use 

practices; (3) continuing historic land 

use practices and water supply practices 

which enhance water flows; and (4) 

consideration of habitat when deviating 

from such historic management 

practices. With respect to monitoring, 

Phelps Dodge has supported various 

biological surveys and studies on Eagle 

Creek, and intends to continue 

participating in such research projects 

in the near future. To gain a better 

understanding of the population 

dynamics of the loach minnow and 

spikedace, Phelps Dodge proposes to 

support the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station in its research. 

Phelps Dodge further intends to 

utilize the management plan for loach 

minnow and spikedace by doing the 

following: (1) Form working 

relationships with others that promote 

the conservation of these fish and their 

habitat; (2) develop the opportunity for 

collaboration and cooperation on 

management issues and other resources 

of interest to the Federal government; 

and (3) provide conservation benefits to 

riparian ecosystems, including habitat 

that may be or may potentially become 

suitable. 

To ensure continued conservation of 

spikedace and loach minnow in Eagle 

Creek, Phelps Dodge has also committed 

to regular coordination with the Service, 

which will include an annual summary 

to the Service regarding implementation 

of the management plan. Any deviations 

from the plan will be addressed, as will 

intended implementation of actions 

under the plan for the following year. 

Phelps Dodge will make all reasonable 

efforts to provide the Service with 

notice of any significant changes to the 

management of its water supply system 

that are outside the range of historic 

operating parameters discussed in the 

management plan. If any changes are 

required, Phelps Dodge will consider 

loach minnow and spikedace habitat 

and any comments received from the 

Service, and will make reasonable 

efforts to minimize adverse impacts to 

these fish and the PCEs to the extent 

legally, economically, and practically 

reasonable, so long as such actions do 

not impair their ability to hold, exercise, 

or modify their water rights. 

Phelps Dodge will also make 

reasonable efforts to coordinate their 

water management activities by 

attending regularly scheduled fisheries 

management working group meetings to 

stay abreast of ongoing management 

issues and concerns within the overall 

Eagle Creek area. Phelps Dodge will also 

consider stream renovation projects for 

Eagle Creek should the Service decide to 

pursue them, provided they do not 

interfere with existing land and water 

use and rights. 

Gila River Management Plan 

The Gila River Management Plan 

covers riparian lands owned by Phelps 

Dodge in the middle reach of the 

mainstem Gila River south of Mogollon 

Creek in New Mexico. Land ownership 

in this area is principally Federal, with 

irregularly dispersed private and State 

lands. 

The management plan would affect 

only those lands owned by Phelps 

Dodge. Phelps Dodge owns lands 

surrounding or bordering approximately 

7.3 mi (11.7 km) of the mainstem Gila 

River. Some of the lands owned by 

Phelps Dodge in this area are leased for 

ranching and agriculture purposes, 

including the U-Bar Ranch. The Service 

has determined that these areas 

currently support one or more of the 

PCEs for spikedace and loach minnow, 

and both species currently occupy this 

portion of the stream. Those portions of 

the mainstem Gila River on Phelps 

Dodge lands support diversity and 

abundance of native fishes. In addition, 

this reach contains a high proportion of 

favorable habitat types for spikedace 

and loach minnow, including low 

gradient riffles and glide-runs. In 

addition, we determined (see Table 1) 

that recreation, roads, grazing, 

nonnative aquatic species, and water 

diversions are potential threats in this 

area that may require special 

management or protections. 

Phelps Dodge’s water rights and 

delivery system in this area have been 

developed and maintained to provide a 

dependable and adequate water supply 

for the operation of the Tyrone Mine. 

The delivery system consists of a 

diversion structure on the Gila River as 

well as a retention facility (Bill Evans 

Lake), and several wells. Surface water 

is diverted from the Gila River at the 

diversion structure for storage in Bill 

Evans Lake and transported via pipeline 

to the Tyrone Mine Facility. 

Within the management plan, Phelps 

Dodge commits to the following: (1) 

Monitoring the distribution and 

abundance of the loach minnow and 

spikedace in the Gila River passing 

through the Phelps Dodge Reach; (2) 

obtaining an understanding of the 

population dynamics of the loach 

minnow and spikedace as they relate to 

existing habitat conditions and land use 

practices in the Gila River; (3) 

continuing historic land use practices 

and water supply practices which 

enhance water flows in the Phelps 

Dodge Reach, (4) and considering loach 

minnow and spikedace habitat when 

deviating from the historical 

management practices. These 

commitments will be carried out in the 

same manner as described above under 

the Eagle Creek Management Plan. 

Within the management plan, Phelps 

Dodge commits to coordinating with the 

Service regarding management activities 

on their lands. This coordination will 

include an annual summary to the 

Service regarding implementation of the 

management plan. Any deviations from 

the plan will be addressed, as will the 

intended implementation of actions 

under the plan for the following year. 

The report will be provided to the 

Service during the first quarter of each 

calendar year. 

Phelps Dodge will also make all 

reasonable efforts to provide the Service 

with notice of any significant changes to 

the management of its water supply 

system that are outside the range of 

historic operating parameters discussed 

in the management plan. If any changes 

are required, Phelps Dodge will 

consider loach minnow and spikedace 

habitat and any comments received 

from the Service, and will make 

reasonable efforts to minimize adverse 

impacts to the fish and their PCEs to the 

extent legally, economically, and 

practically reasonable, so long as such 

actions do not impair their ability to 

hold, exercise, or modify their water 

rights. 

Phelps Dodge will also make 

reasonable efforts to coordinate their 

water management activities by 

attending regularly scheduled fisheries 

management working group meetings to 

stay abreast of ongoing management 

issues and concerns within the overall 

Gila River area. Phelps Dodge will also 

consider stream renovation projects for 

the Gila River should the Service decide 

to pursue them, provided they do not 

interfere with existing land and water 

uses and rights. 

The following analysis applies to both 

the Eagle Creek and Gila River areas 

covered by the Phelps Dodge’s 

management plans, referred to as Plans 

below. 

(1) Benefits of Inclusion 

There are few benefits in including 

areas covered by these Plans in the final 

critical habitat designation above those 

benefits that will be achieved through 

the implementation of these Plans, 

including voluntary management and 

restoration projects. As discussed above, 

the principal benefit of any area 

designated as final critical habitat is that 

activities adversely affecting critical 

habitat require consultation under 

section 7 of the Act if a Federal action 

is involved. Such consultation would 

ensure that adequate protection is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13398 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

provided to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

As of the date of this final rule, the 

Service has not conducted any formal 

consultations that have directly 

addressed the impacts of mining 

activities in the areas proposed as 

critical habitat (Final Economic 

Analysis 2004, pg. 5–3). There have, 

however, been several informal 

consultations regarding surface mining 

since the listing of the species. In 

addition, the Service conducted one 

formal consultation on spikedace and 

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) 

regarding spillway repair to the Phelps 

Dodge Diversion dam on Eagle Creek in 

1996. This consultation did not directly 

address impacts of the diversion dam 

itself, though the Service recommended 

that such a consultation be conducted. 

The consultation found that the 

proposed action was not likely to 

adversely affect the fish species, and 

recommended minimizing the use of 

heavy equipment in the wetted area, 

making reasonable efforts to ensure no 

pollutants enter surface water, catch and 

release of any spikedace found, as a well 

as monitoring activities. 

The small number of previous section 

7 consultations during the past 20 years 

since these species have been listed and 

while critical habitat was designated 

and the expectation that there will be 

will be few if any future projects with 

a Federal nexus gives us reasonable 

grounds to believe that critical habitat 

designation will create relatively few 

benefits for the spikedace and loach 

minnow in these areas. Since these 

areas covered by the Plans are privately 

owned, unless there is a Federal nexus 

in connection with activities occurring 

in these areas, the designation of critical 

habitat will not require consultation 

with the Service for such activities. It is 

possible that the maintenance of the 

Phelps Dodge Diversion dam could act 

as a Federal nexus for consultation 

because the diversion is likely subject to 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit 

requirements. This could result in 

consultation, but because these areas are 

considered to be occupied by the 

species, consultation would already take 

place under the jeopardy standard (see 

‘‘General Principles of Section 7 

Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2) 

Balancing Process’’ above). Moreover, 

since the prior consultation on 

maintenance of this structure found it 

was ‘‘unlikely to adversely affect’’ the 

species, it is not reasonable to anticipate 

that a future consultation on 

maintenance of the structure would 

result in a finding of adverse 

modification of the critical habitat. 

Another possible benefit is that the 

designation of critical habitat can serve 

to educate the public regarding the 

potential conservation value (species 

presence and their PCEs) of an area, and 

this may focus and contribute to 

conservation efforts by other parties by 

clearly delineating areas of high 

conservation value for certain species. 

Any information about the spikedace 

and loach minnow and its habitat that 

reaches a wide audience, including 

other parties engaged in conservation 

activities, would be considered 

valuable. However, Phelps Dodge is 

currently working with the Service to 

address the conservation of these fish 

and to avoid impacts to their habitat 

(PCEs), and the agreements they have 

offered would institutionalize that 

cooperation. Further, these areas were 

included in the proposed designation, 

which itself has reached a wide 

audience, and has thus provided 

information to the broader public about 

the conservation value of these areas. 

Thus, the educational benefits that 

might follow critical habitat designation 

have already been provided through the 

multiple notice and comments which 

accompanied the development of this 

critical habitat designation and previous 

designations. For these reasons, then, 

we believe that designation of critical 

habitat would have few, if any, 

additional benefits beyond those that 

will result from continued consultation 

for the presence of these species. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion 

We believe that significant benefits 

would be realized by excluding these 

areas from the final critical habitat 

designation that include: (1) The 

continuance and strengthening of our 

relationship with Phelps Dodge to 

promote the conservation of the 

spikedace and loach minnow and their 

habitat; (2) the allowance for 

collaboration and cooperation in 

surveys, monitoring, and research as we 

work towards recovery of these species; 

and (3) the conservation benefits to the 

Gila River and Eagle Creek ecosystems 

and spikedace and loach minnow 

habitat that might not otherwise occur, 

all as set out in the Plans summarized 

above. Phelps Dodge is greatly 

concerned about the possible impacts of 

a critical habitat designation in this area 

(James 2006, p. 7, 10–20) and is offering 

these management plans as an 

alternative. It is unlikely they would 

proceed with them if these areas were 

designated as critical habitat. 

Phelps Dodge, including the U-Bar 

Ranch that they own on the Gila River, 

is an important land manager within 

Eagle Creek and the Gila River 

watersheds. The surveys, monitoring, 

research, and commitment to 

collaborate with the Service on 

restoration projects within these areas 

document that conservation efforts will 

occur for these fish and their habitat. 

These activities and cooperation may 

not occur if we were to designate critical 

habitat on these private lands, and these 

actions cannot be compelled by the 

designation, particularly given the 

expectation that there would be a very 

limited, if any, federal nexus for having 

a consultation on private activities here. 

We believe that the results of these 

activities promote long-term protection 

and are aimed at conserving the 

spikedace and loach minnow in these 

areas. The benefits of excluding these 

areas from critical habitat will 

encourage the continued conservation, 

land management, and coordination 

with the Service. If these areas are 

designated as critical habitat, we may 

jeopardize future conservation, research, 

and information sharing for the recovery 

of the spikedace and loach minnow and 

likely not secure any offsetting benefits 

from the designation due to the 

apparent lack of a federal nexus to 

trigger consultation. 

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion 

In summary, the benefits of including 

lands owned by Phelps Dodge in the 

final critical habitat designation are 

small, and are limited to minimal 

educational benefits and potentially 

some benefits through section 7 

consultations. However, since these 

lands are privately owned, unless a 

Federal nexus exists, final critical 

habitat would not result in a section 7 

consultation. The lack of previous 

section 7 consultations during the 20 

years since these species have been 

listed in these areas being excluded 

from the final designation of critical 

habitat give us reasonable grounds to 

believe that such a Federal nexus is 

unlikely to occur, or would likely occur 

only for the subject of the prior 

consultation, which resulted in a 

finding of ‘‘unlikely to adversely affect’’

the species. We also note that the 

requirement of Federal agencies to 

consult with us on activities that may 

affect these species still exists, whether 

or not critical habitat is designated, 

since these areas are considered 

occupied. The benefits of excluding 

these areas from designation as critical 

habitat for the spikedace and loach 

minnow are significant, and include 

encouraging the continuation of 

monitoring, surveys, research, 

enhancement, and restoration activities 

that will benefit spikedace and loach 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13399 

minnow PCEs. The exclusion of this 

area will likely also provide additional 

benefits to the species by encouraging a 

cooperative working relationship with 

Phelps Dodge. Although the benefits of 

these management plans are less than 

plans in other areas upon which 

exclusions are often made (i.e. habitat 

conservation plans), the likely lack of a 

Federal nexus for these lands means 

that the benefits of these plans still 

exceed by the considerable margin the 

benefits the species would receive from 

the designation. We accordingly find 

that the benefits of excluding these areas 

from the final critical habitat 

designation outweigh the benefits of 

their inclusion. 

(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species 

We have determined that exclusion of 

areas covered by these Plans on the Gila 

River and Eagle Creek will not result in 

extinction of these species. Any actions 

that might adversely affect the 

spikedace and loach minnow must 

undergo a consultation with the Service 

under the requirements of section 7 of 

the Act or receive a permit from us 

under section 10. The spikedace and 

loach minnow are protected from take 

under section 9. The exclusions leave 

these protections unchanged from those 

which would exist if the excluded areas 

were designated as final critical habitat. 

Phelps Dodge is committed to greater 

conservation measures on their land 

than would be available through the 

designation of critical habitat. 

Accordingly, we have determined that 

exclusion of these areas of Eagle Creek 

and the Gila River as discussed above 

under subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act will 

not cause the extinction of the species. 

Economic Analysis 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us 

to designate critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific information 

available and to consider the economic 

and other relevant impacts of 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat. 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 concerned. 

Following the publication of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we conducted an economic analysis to 

estimate the potential economic effect of 

the designation. The draft analysis was 

made available for public review on 

June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32496). We 

accepted comments on the draft analysis 

until October 16, 2006. 

The primary purpose of the economic 

analysis is to estimate the potential 

economic impacts associated with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

spikedace and loach minnow. This 

information is intended to assist the 

Secretary in making decisions about 

whether the benefits of excluding 

particular areas from the designation 

outweigh the benefits of including those 

areas in the designation. This economic 

analysis considers the economic 

efficiency effects that may result from 

the designation, including habitat 

protections that may be coextensive 

with the listing of the species. It also 

addresses distribution of impacts, 

including an assessment of the potential 

effects on small entities and the energy 

industry. This information can be used 

by the Secretary to assess whether the 

effects of the designation might unduly 

burden a particular group or economic 

sector. 

This analysis focuses on the direct 

and indirect costs of the rule. However, 

economic impacts to land use activities 

can exist in the absence of critical 

habitat. These impacts may result from, 

for example, local zoning laws, State 

and natural resource laws, and 

enforceable management plans and best 

management practices applied by other 

State and Federal agencies. 

The economic analysis considers the 

economic impacts of conservation 

measures taken prior to and subsequent 

to the final listing and designation of 

critical habitat for the spikedace and 

loach minnow. Pre-designation impacts 

are typically defined as all management 

efforts that have occurred since the time 

of listing. The spikedace and loach 

minnow were listed on July 1 and 

October 28, 1986, respectively (51 FR 

23769, 51 FR 39468). Our draft 

economic analysis found that the total 

post-designation costs associated with 

the five proposed critical habitat units 

are forecast to range from $25.2 to 

$100.3 million over 20 years, with 

discounted (7%) annual costs at $1.4 to 

$6.7 million annually (IEc 2006, p. ES–

2). Estimated costs are primarily due to 

impacts on water use and management, 

species management, and recreation. 

Based upon these estimates, we 

conclude in the final analysis, which 

reviewed and incorporated public 

comments, that no significant economic 

impacts are expected from the 

designation of critical habitat for 

spikedace and loach minnow, except for 

the Verde River, as discussed in further 

detail in the ‘‘Verde River’’ section 

below. A copy of the economic analysis 

is included in our supporting record 

and may be obtained by contacting the 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES section) or online at 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ 

arizona/. 

Verde River 

As discussed in the ‘‘Summary of 

Changes from the Proposed Rule’’

section above, we have determined that 

proposed critical habitat on those 

portions of the Verde River below the 

Prescott and Coconino National Forest 

boundary with private lands will not be 

designated as final critical habitat due to 

the potential economic impact of 

designation. The economic analysis 

estimates the potential future impacts 

(2006–2025) associated with the entire 

stretch of the Verde River to be $64.59 

million (undiscounted dollars). 

Although these costs do not account for 

variance in river miles or population, 

they are a full order of magnitude larger 

than the estimated impacts for any other 

stretch of river proposed as critical 

habitat, and represent more than half of 

the total estimated impacts ($100.3 

million) for the entire proposed critical 

habitat designation. Estimated 

quantified costs on this reach primarily 

stem from potential impacts to 

agriculture, but also include impacts on 

development and recreation activities. 

Unquantified potential impacts could 

include impacts to water users, 

including Verde Valley municipalities 

and the City of Prescott. 

The economic analysis indicates that 

most of these costs occur in the lower 

portion of the Verde River where the 

river runs through several communities 

in the Verde Valley that are 

experiencing rapid urban growth. 

Therefore, we are excluding from the 

final critical habitat designation the 

lower portion of the Verde River below 

the Prescott and Coconino National 

Forest boundary with private lands due 

to significant and disproportionate 

economic impacts. 

We have reached this determination 

because we believe the benefits of 

excluding these segments from the final 

critical habitat designation outweigh the 

benefits of including them as critical 

habitat. 

We have considered in making the 

lower Verde River exclusion that all of 

the costs estimated in the draft 

economic analysis may not be avoided 

by excluding this area. This is because 

this area is currently occupied by the 

spikedace and there will be 

requirements for consultation under 

section 7 of the Act or for permits under 

section 10 for any take of the species. 

Additionally, other protections for the 

species exist elsewhere in the Act and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13400 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

under State and local laws and 

regulations. 

(1) Benefits of Inclusion 

The primary conservation value of the 

lower Verde River proposed critical 

habitat segment is to sustain existing 

populations. The area excluded from the 

final designation is currently considered 

occupied by the spikedace. If this area 

is designated as critical habitat, any 

actions with a Federal nexus which 

might adversely modify or destroy the 

critical habitat would require a 

consultation with us. However, 

inasmuch as this area is currently 

occupied by the spikedace, consultation 

for activities which might adversely 

impact the species, including possibly 

habitat modification (see definition of 

‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 17.3) would be 

required even without the critical 

habitat designation. We recognize that 

consultation for critical habitat would 

likely provide some additional benefits 

to the species under the provision of the 

Gifford Pinchot decision. 

As discussed above, we expect that 

little additional educational benefits 

would be derived from including this 

area as critical habitat. The additional 

educational benefits that might arise 

from critical habitat designation are 

largely accomplished through the 

multiple notice and comments which 

accompanied the development of this 

critical habitat designation and previous 

designations. 

Designation of critical habitat in the 

lower Verde River might result in 

consultations with Federal agencies or 

as part of intra-Service consultations for 

HCPs that may lead to conservation 

activities for the spikedace; however, we 

believe any possible benefits would be 

minimal as derived from critical habitat 

because the spikedace is present in the 

Verde River and consultations are 

already likely to occur. 

In summary, we believe that 

designating this proposed segment as 

final critical habitat would provide little 

additional Federal regulatory benefits 

for the species. Under the Gifford 

Pinchot decision, critical habitat 

designations may provide greater 

benefits to recovery of a species than 

was previously believed. Because the 

proposed critical habitat is occupied by 

the species, there must be consultation 

with the Service for any action which 

may adversely affect the species. Some 

improvements in habitat quality might 

result from a designation, but we believe 

that they would be minimal, as 

discussed above. The additional 

educational benefits which might arise 

from critical habitat designation are 

largely accomplished through the 

multiple notice and comments which 

accompanied the development of this 

regulation, and contact with the affected 

parties during development of the 

economic analysis. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion 

The benefits of excluding the lower 

Verde River from critical habitat 

designation are avoidance in up to 

$64.59 million (undiscounted dollars) in 

possible economic impacts, as set out in 

the economic analysis. While the cost 

estimate of $64.59 million is an estimate 

of potential economic costs for the 

entire Verde River, we are only 

excluding the lower portion because we 

believe the lower portion of the Verde 

River accounts for some of the highest 

cost areas since this is where the river 

runs through several communities in the 

Verde Valley that are experiencing rapid 

urban growth. Additionally, as 

discussed below, we find that the upper 

portion of the Verde River is the most 

important for conservation of the 

spikedace because it accounts for 91 

percent of the known locations of the 

spikedace in the Verde River. 

We also believe that excluding these 

lands, and thus helping landowners and 

water users avoid the additional costs 

that would result from the designation, 

will contribute to a more positive 

climate for Habitat Conservation Plans 

and other active conservation measures. 

These generally provide greater 

conservation benefits than result from 

designation of critical habitat—even in 

the post-Gifford Pinchot environment—

which requires only that the there be no 

adverse modification resulting from 

federally-related actions. Generally, 

positive conservation efforts by 

landowners contribute more towards 

recovery of species than the mere 

avoidance of adverse impacts required 

under a critical habitat designation. 

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion 

We find that the benefits of 

designating final critical habitat for the 

spikedace on the lower portion of the 

Verde River are small in comparison to 

the benefits of exclusion. In making this 

finding, we have weighed the benefits of 

including the lower Verde River as final 

critical habitat against the possible costs 

imposed on private parties as a result of 

the final critical habitat designation. 

We have therefore excluded these 

lands from the final critical habitat 

designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. 

(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species 

Because we consider the lower 

portion of the Verde River to be 

occupied by spikedace, a species 

protected from take under section 9 of 

the Act, any actions that might 

adversely affect or result in take of the 

spikdace, regardless of whether a 

Federal is present, must undergo a 

consultation with the Service under the 

requirements of section 7 of the Act or 

receive a permit from us under section 

10 of the Act. This exclusion leaves 

these protections unchanged from those 

which would exist if the excluded areas 

were designated as critical habitat. 

Additionally, we have concluded that 

excluding this area from final critical 

habitat will not result in the extinction 

of the spikedace because this exclusion 

is only a small percentage of the overall 

critical habitat designation and, as noted 

above, 91 percent of the known 

locations of the spikedace occur in the 

upper Verde River, which is not being 

excluded from the final critical habitat 

designation. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues, but will not have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or affect the economy 

in a material way. Due to the tight 

timeline for publication in the Federal 

Register, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has not formally 

reviewed this rule. As explained above, 

we prepared an economic analysis of 

this action. We used this analysis to 

meet the requirement of section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act to determine the economic 

consequences of designating the specific 

areas as critical habitat. We also used it 

to help determine whether to exclude 

any area from critical habitat, as 

provided for under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, if we determine that the benefits of 

such exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless we determine, 

based on the best scientific data 

available, that the failure to designate 

such area as critical habitat will result 

in the extinction of the species. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)) 

(SBREFA), whenever an agency is 

required to publish a notice of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13401 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of the 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA also amended the 

RFA to require a certification statement. 

Small entities include small 

organizations, such as independent 

nonprofit organizations; small 

governmental jurisdictions, including 

school boards and city and town 

governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses, Small businesses include 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term significant economic 

impact is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the rule could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we considered the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., water management and use, 

livestock grazing, Tribal activities, 

residential and related development, 

species-specific management activities, 

recreation activities, fire management 

activities, mining, and transportation). 

We apply the ‘‘substantial number’’ test 

individually to each industry to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

However, the SBREFA does not 

explicitly define ‘‘substantial number’’

or ‘‘significant economic impact.’’

Consequently, to assess whether a 

‘‘substantial number’’ of small entities is 

affected by this designation, this 

analysis considers the relative number 

of small entities likely to be impacted in 

an area. In some circumstances, 

especially with critical habitat 

designations of limited extent, we may 

aggregate across all industries and 

consider whether the total number of 

small entities affected is substantial. In 

estimating the numbers of small entities 

potentially affected, we also considered 

whether their activities have any 

Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, or 

permitted by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

fund, permit, or implement that may 

affect the spikedace or loach minnow. 

Federal agencies must also consult with 

us if their activities may affect critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat, 

therefore, could result in an additional 

economic impact on small entities due 

to the requirement to reinitiate 

consultation for ongoing Federal 

activities. 

Our economic analysis of this 

designation evaluated the potential 

economic effects on small business 

entities and small governments resulting 

from conservation actions related to the 

listing of these species and proposed 

designation of their critical habitat. We 

evaluated small business entities in 

water management and use, livestock 

grazing activities, mining operations, 

management activities specific to 

spikedace and loach minnow, 

recreation, residential and related 

development, Tribes, transportation, 

and fire management. Based on our 

analysis, impacts are anticipated to 

occur in Tribes, agricultural crop 

production as it relates to water use and 

management, livestock grazing, 

residential and commercial 

development, and recreation. The 

following is a summary of the 

information contained in Appendix B of 

the economic analysis: 

Tribes 

The economic analysis estimates that 

future impacts resulting from spikedace 

and loach minnow conservation 

activities on Tribal lands could include 

administrative costs of consultations, 

surveys and monitoring, development of 

a Fisheries Management Plan, 

modifications to grazing, fire 

management, modifications to 

recreational activities, and potential 

project modifications to restoration 

activities. The economic analysis 

provides additional detail on 

anticipated impacts; however, because 

all Tribal lands have been excluded 

under section 4(b)(2), these costs will 

not be incurred. 

Water Management and Use: 

Agricultural Crop Production 

The economic analysis notes that 

spikedace and loach minnow 

conservation activities have not 

impacted crop production since the 

listing of the species in 1986. The 

economic analysis further notes that, 

because agricultural water use 

comprises 98 percent of surface water 

use and 81 percent of groundwater use 

in counties containing critical habitat 

for spikedace and loach minnow, it is 

likely that any additional water supplies 

needed for the species would come from 

agriculture. Therefore, the analysis 

focuses on a potential scenario under 

which farmers would give up 

agricultural water use in an effort to 

provide adequate water supply for the 

species, leading to reductions in crop 

production. The economic analysis 

notes that, because of the uncertainty 

involved in estimating the potential 

reduction in agricultural production, the 

scenario analyzed represents the highend estimate of impacts to water users. 

Should this scenario be realized, 

losses in land values associated with 

transitioning irrigated cropland to nonirrigated lands will likely result, and 

would range from $3,175 to $6,190 per 

acre, depending on the area in which 

critical habitat is located. A total of 

6,310 acres of cropland are in the 

vicinity of proposed critical habitat (i.e., 

in the same valley), and 810 of those 

acres are located within the critical 

habitat designation itself. The average 

farm size in affected counties ranges 

from 1,300 acres to 7,800 acres. 

Assuming affected farms are averagesized for their counties, approximately 

one to five farms could experience 

reductions in crop production. 

Alternatively, the median farm size in 

affected counties ranges from 41 to 

1,300 acres. Assuming affected farms are 

median-sized for their counties, 

approximately 4 to 199 farms could 

experience reductions in crop 

production. Under the assumption that 

all farms are small (1,884 farms across 

5 counties), the estimate of future 

impacts (1 to 199) represents between 

less than 1 percent to 6.5 percent of total 

small farm operations in counties that 

contain spikedace and loach minnow 

critical habitat. The analysis assumes 

that affected farms are small, so that 

total future impacts represent less than 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13402 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1 percent to 6.5 percent of total small 

farm operations in counties that contain 

spikedace and loach minnow habitat. 

Livestock Grazing 

The economic analysis notes that 

ranching operations holding Federal 

grazing allotment permits are 

anticipated to experience economic 

impacts as they implement species 

conservation requirements for grazing 

activities. The analysis assumes that 

each Federal grazing allotment falling 

within critical habitat is run by a unique 

ranching operation, so that 

approximately 76 ranching operations 

may be impacted annually. These 76 

ranches represent 4.7 percent of ranches 

in the affected counties, or 1.0% of 

ranches in New Mexico and Arizona. 

Annual costs to each of these ranches 

would be between $390 and $9,200 per 

ranch. With average revenues per ranch 

in this region at $166,700, these losses 

represent between 0.2 and 5.5 percent of 

each ranch’s estimated average 

revenues. 

The analysis notes that approximately 

72 small ranching operations may 

experience a reduction in revenues of 

between 0.9 and 22 percent of annual 

revenues annually. The analysis 

concludes that the extent to which these 

impacts are significant to any individual 

ranch depends on its financial 

conditions. 

Residential and Commercial 

Development 

The analysis for residential and 

commercial development concludes that 

impacts are likely to occur in the Verde 

River segment, as it contains a large 

amount of private land, a relatively large 

human population, and high projected 

population growth potential in the next 

20 years. The analysis notes that it is 

likely that project modification costs 

associated with spikedace and loach 

minnow conservation activities would 

be passed from the developer to the 

existing landowner in the form of 

reduced prices for raw land. The 

landowners may be developers, farmers, 

ranchers, or simply individuals or 

families that are not registered 

businesses, and the analysis concludes 

that some of the existing landowners 

may be small entities. 

Impacts to developers are estimated to 

include fencing costs, scientific studies, 

surveying and monitoring requirements, 

and possibly off-setting mitigation 

(habitat set-aside). Costs are estimated to 

range from $3.1 million to $4.8 million 

per large development, or $3,900 to 

$5,900 per housing unit ($190 to 300 

annually, if costs are distributed evenly 

over 20 years). Total impacts to 

development activities are estimated at 

$3.4 to $5.2 million over 20 years, or 

$319,000 to $419,000 annually 

(assuming a discount rate of seven 

percent). The analysis concludes that up 

to 1,646 housing units could be built on 

approximately 2,880 privately owned 

acres within proposed critical habitat 

over the next 20 years in Yavapai 

County. The economic analysis provides 

additional detail on anticipated impacts; 

however, because we excluded the 

middle and lower portions of the Verde 

River under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

the majority of these costs will not be 

incurred. 

Recreation 

The analysis notes that areas currently 

stocked with nonnative sportfish 

include the Camp Verde area in the 

Verde River in Complex 1 and the East 

Fork Gila River in Complex 5. The 

analysis states that the future impact of 

the critical habitat designation on the 

stocking regimes in these areas is 

unknown, as is the reduction in fishing 

activity that would occur if stocking is 

curtailed, and whether or not nonnative 

fish stocking might be replaced with 

catchable native fish stocking (e.g., 

Apache trout). Because of these 

unknowns, the analysis evaluated the 

high-end cost of angler days at risk if 

sportfish stocking were discontinued in 

these reaches. 

Angling trips are valued at $8.6 

million over 20 years (or $816,000 

annually), assuming a discount rate of 

seven percent. The analysis notes that 

State fish managers typically identify 

alternative sites for stocked fish when 

areas are closed to stocking, so that 

angler days are likely to be redistributed 

to other areas rather than lost altogether. 

The high-end estimate does not consider 

the possibility that recreators will visit 

alternative fishing sites. 

The two stream reaches where 

impacts on recreation are anticipated to 

occur are in Yavapai County, Arizona, 

and Catron County, New Mexico. If 

angler trips to the two stream reaches 

are not lost, but instead are redistributed 

to other streams, then regional impacts 

on small businesses are likely to be 

minimal. If, as in the high-end estimate 

of impacts, angler trips to the two 

stream reaches are not undertaken, 

localized impacts on anglers, and in 

turn small businesses that rely on 

fishing activities, could occur. These 

impacts would be spread across a 

variety of industries including food and 

beverage stores, food service and 

drinking places, accommodations, 

transportation, and sporting goods. The 

analysis found that these industries 

generate approximately $829 million in 

total annual sales for these two counties. 

Based on 2001 National Survey of 

Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation for Arizona and 

New Mexico, average expenditures per 

fishing trip are approximately $37, with 

the bulk of these expenditures occurring 

in the food service and gasoline 

industries. By multiplying this per-trip 

estimate by the number of fishing trips 

potentially lost due to spikedace and 

loach minnow conservation activities (0 

to 13,260 days per year, assuming one 

day per trip), expenditures by these 

anglers are estimated to be up to 

$485,000 annually. The high-end 

estimate of annual loss of trip 

expenditures could therefore represent a 

loss of approximately 0.06 percent of 

annual revenues for affected businesses. 

In general, two different mechanisms 

in section 7 consultations could lead to 

additional regulatory requirements for 

the approximately four small 

businesses, on average, that may be 

required to consult with us each year 

regarding their project’s impact on the 

spikedace and loach minnow and their 

habitat. First, if we conclude, in a 

biological opinion, that a proposed 

action is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a species or 

adversely modify its critical habitat, we 

can offer ‘‘reasonable and prudent 

alternatives.’’ Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives are alternative actions that 

can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the scope of the Federal 

agency’s legal authority and 

jurisdiction, that are economically and 

technologically feasible, and that would 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of listed species or result in 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

A Federal agency and an applicant may 

elect to implement a reasonable and 

prudent alternative associated with a 

biological opinion that has found 

jeopardy or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. An agency or applicant 

could alternatively choose to seek an 

exemption from the requirements of the 

Act or proceed without implementing 

the reasonable and prudent alternative. 

However, unless an exemption were 

obtained, the Federal agency or 

applicant would be at risk of violating 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to 

proceed without implementing the 

reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

Second, if we find that a proposed 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed animal or 

plant species, we may identify 

reasonable and prudent measures 

designed to minimize the amount or 

extent of take and require the Federal 

agency or applicant to implement such 

measures through non-discretionary 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13403 

terms and conditions. We may also 

identify discretionary conservation 

recommendations designed to minimize 

or avoid the adverse effects of a 

proposed action on listed species or 

critical habitat, help implement 

recovery plans, or to develop 

information that could contribute to the 

recovery of the species. 

Based on our experience with 

consultations pursuant to section 7 of 

the Act for all listed species, virtually 

all projects—including those that, in 

their initial proposed form, would result 

in jeopardy or adverse modification 

determinations in section 7 

consultations—can be implemented 

successfully with, at most, the adoption 

of reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

These measures, by definition, must be 

economically feasible and within the 

scope of authority of the Federal agency 

involved in the consultation. We can 

only describe the general kinds of 

actions that may be identified in future 

reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

These are based on our understanding of 

the needs of the species and the threats 

it faces, as described in the final listing 

rule and this critical habitat designation. 

Within the final critical habitat units, 

the types of Federal actions or 

authorized activities that we have 

identified as potential concerns are 

carrying out, permitting, or funding of: 

Livestock grazing, road and bridge 

construction and maintenance, water 

diversions (including maintenance of 

diversion structures), recreation, gravel 

mining, burning and wildfires, mining, 

watershed disturbances, and the spread 

of nonnative aquatic species. 

It is likely that a developer or other 

project proponent could modify a 

project or take measures to protect the 

spikedace and loach minnow. The kinds 

of actions that may be included if future 

reasonable and prudent alternatives 

become necessary include conservation 

set-asides, management of competing 

nonnative species, restoration of 

degraded habitat, and regular 

monitoring. These are based on our 

understanding of the needs of the 

species and the threats it faces, as 

described in the final listing rule and 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

These measures are not likely to result 

in a significant economic impact to 

project proponents. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether this critical habitat designation 

would result in a significant economic 

effect on a substantial number of small 

entities. We have determined, for the 

above reasons and based on currently 

available information, that it is not 

likely to affect a substantial number of 

small entities. Federal involvement, and 

thus section 7 consultations, would be 

limited to a subset of the area 

designated. The most likely Federal 

involvement could include actions 

needing a section 404 permit under the 

Clean Water Act (e.g., livestock grazing, 

agricultural water developments, 

recreation). A regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. This final 

rule to designate critical habitat for the 

spikedace and loach minnow is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. (At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement.) ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities who receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits or who 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply; additionally, critical habitat 

would not shift the costs of the large 

entitlement programs listed above on to 

State governments. 

(b) The economic analysis discusses 

potential impacts of critical habitat 

designation for spikedace and loach 

minnow on water management 

activities, livestock grazing, Tribes, 

residential and commercial 

development activities, recreation 

activities, fire management activities, 

mining, and transportation activities. 

The analysis estimates that the total 

costs of the rule could range from $25.2 

to $100.3 million in undiscounted 

dollars over 20 years. Impacts are 

largely anticipated to affect water use 

and management, recreation, and 

livestock. Impacts on small governments 

are not anticipated, or they are 

anticipated to be passed on to 

consumers in the form of price changes. 

Consequently, for the reasons discussed 

above, we do not believe that the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

spikedace and loach minnow will 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

government entities. As such, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13404 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (‘‘Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights’’), we 

have analyzed the potential takings 

implications of designating critical 

habitat for the spikedace and loach 

minnow in a takings implications 

assessment. The takings implications 

assessment concludes that this 

designation of critical habitat for these 

fish does not pose significant takings 

implications. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, this rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

In keeping with Department of the 

Interior policies, we requested 

information from and coordinated 

development of this critical habitat 

designation with appropriate State 

resource agencies in Arizona and New 

Mexico. The designation of critical 

habitat in areas currently occupied by 

spikedace or loach minnow may impose 

nominal additional regulatory 

restrictions to those currently in place 

and, therefore, may have little 

incremental impact on State and local 

governments and their activities. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments in that the areas 

containing features essential to the 

conservation of this species are more 

clearly defined, and the primary 

constituent elements of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of this 

species are specifically identified. While 

making this definition and 

identification does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur, it may assist 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 has determined 

that this rule does not unduly burden 

the judicial system and does meet the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Endangered Species 

Act. This final rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

primary constituent elements within the 

designated areas to assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose record keeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

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

assertion was upheld in the courts of the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 

1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). 

However, when the range of the species 

includes States within the Tenth 

Circuit, such as that of the spikedace 

and loach minnow, pursuant to the 

Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County 

Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th 

Cir. 1996), we undertake a NEPA 

analysis for critical habitat designation. 

We conducted a NEPA evaluation and 

notified the public of the draft 

document’s availability on June 6, 2006 

(71 FR 32496). We completed an 

environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact on the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

spikedace and loach minnow. The final 

documents are available and can be 

viewed online at http://www.fws.gov/ 

southwest/es/arizona/. 

Government to Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have excluded all Tribal lands from the 

final critical habitat designation 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Secretarial Order 3206: American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act 

The purpose of Secretarial Order 3206 

(Secretarial Order) is to ‘‘clarif(y) the 

responsibilities of the component 

agencies, bureaus, and offices of the 

Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Commerce, when actions 

taken under authority of the Act and 

associated implementing regulations 

affect, or may affect, Indian lands, tribal 

trust resources, or the exercise of 

American Indian tribal rights.’’ If there 

is potential that a tribal activity could 

cause either direct or incidental take of 

a species proposed for listing under the 

Act, then meaningful government-togovernment consultation will occur to 

try to harmonize the Federal trust 

responsibility to Tribes and tribal 

sovereignty with our statutory 

responsibilities under the Act. The 

Secretarial order also requires us to 

consult with Tribes if the designation of 

an area as critical habitat might impact 

tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee 

lands, or the exercise of tribal rights. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is upon request from 

the Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES section above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this package 

are the Arizona Ecological Services 

Office staff (see ADDRESSES section 

above). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and record 

keeping 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 § 17.95(e) by revising the 

critical habitat entries for ‘‘Loach 

Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis)’’ and 

‘‘Spikedace (Meda fulgida)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13405 

(e) Fishes. 

* * * * * 

Loach Minnow (Tiaroga Cobitis) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Apache, Graham, Greenlee, and 

Pinal Counties, Arizona; and Catron, 

Grant, and Hidalgo Counties, New 

Mexico, on the maps and as described 

below. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements of critical habitat 

for loach minnow are the following: 

(i) Permanent, flowing water with no 

or low levels of pollutants, including: 

(A) Living areas for adult loach 

minnow with moderate to swift flow 

velocities between 9.0 to 32.0 in/second 

(24 to 80 cm/second) in shallow water 

between approximately 1.0 to 30 inches 

(3 cm to 75 cm) in depth, with gravel, 

cobble, and rubble substrates; 

(B) Living areas for juvenile loach 

minnow with moderate to swift flow 

velocities between 1.0 and 34 in/second 

(3.0 and 85.0 cm/second) in shallow 

water between approximately 1.0 to 30 

inches (3 cm to 75 cm) in depth with 

sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble 

substrates; 

(C) Living areas for larval loach 

minnow with slow to moderate 

velocities between 3.0 and 20.0 in/ 

second (9.0 to 50.0 cm/second) in 

shallow water with sand, gravel, and 

cobble substrates; 

(D) Spawning areas with slow to swift 

flow velocities in shallow water where 

cobble and rubble and the spaces 

between them are not filled in by fine 

dirt or sand; and 

(E) Water with dissolved oxygen 

levels greater than 3.5 cc/l and no or 

minimal pollutant levels for pollutants 

such as copper, arsenic, mercury, and 

cadmium; human and animal waste 

products; pesticides; suspended 

sediments; and gasoline or diesel fuels. 

(ii) Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates 

with low or moderate amounts of fine 

sediment and substrate embeddedness. 

Suitable levels of embeddedness are 

generally maintained by a natural, 

unregulated hydrograph that allows for 

periodic flooding or, if flows are 

modified or regulated, a hydrograph that 

allows for adequate river functions, 

such as flows capable of transporting 

sediments. 

(iii) Streams that have: 

(A) Low gradients of less than 

approximately 2.5 percent; 

(B) Water temperatures in the 

approximate range of 35 to 86 °F (1.7 to 

30.0 °C) (with additional natural daily 

and seasonal variation); 

(C) Pool, riffle, run, and backwater 

components; and 

(D) An abundant aquatic insect food 

base consisting of mayflies, true flies, 

black flies, caddisflies, stoneflies, and 

dragonflies. 

(iv) Habitat devoid of nonnative 

aquatic species or habitat in which 

nonnative aquatic species are at levels 

that allow persistence of loach minnow. 

(v) Areas within perennial, 

interrupted stream courses that are 

periodically dewatered but that serve as 

connective corridors between occupied 

or seasonally occupied habitat and 

through which the species may move 

when the habitat is wetted. 

(3) Each stream segment includes a 

lateral component that consists of 300 

feet (91.4 meters) on either side of the 

stream channel measured from the 

stream edge at bank full discharge. This 

lateral component of critical habitat 

contains and contributes to the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

loach minnow and is intended as a 

surrogate for the 100-year floodplain. 

(4) Critical habitat map areas. Data 

layers defining map areas, and mapping 

of critical habitat areas, was done using 

Arc GIS and verifying with USGS 7.5′ 

quadrangles. Legal descriptions for New 

Mexico and Arizona are based on the 

Public Lands Survey System (PLSS). 

Within this system, all coordinates 

reported for New Mexico are in the New 

Mexico Principal Meridian (NMPM), 

while those in Arizona are in the Gila 

and Salt River Meridian (GSRM). All 

mileage calculations were performed 

using GIS. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for loach minnow (Map 1) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13406 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Complex 2—Black River, Apache 

and Greenlee Counties, Arizona. 

(i) East Fork Black River—12.2 mi 

(19.7 km) of river extending from the 

confluence with the West Fork Black 

River at Township 4 North, Range 28 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER21MR07.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13407 

East, section 11 upstream to the 

confluence with unnamed tributary 

approximately 0.51 mi (0.82 km) 

downstream of the Boneyard Creek 

confluence at Township 5 North, Range 

29 East, section 5. Land ownership: U.S. 

Forest Service (Apache—Sitgreaves 

National Forest). 

(ii) North Fork East Fork Black 

River—4.4 mi (7.1 km) of river 

extending from the confluence with East 

Fork Black River at Township 5 North, 

Range 29 East, section 5 upstream to the 

confluence with an unnamed tributary 

at Township 6 North, Range 29 East, 

section 30. Land ownership: U.S. Forest 

Service (Apache—Sitgreaves National 

Forest). 

(iii) Boneyard Creek—1.4 mi (2.3 km) 

of creek extending from the confluence 

with the East Fork Black River at 

Township 5 North, Range 29 East, 

section 5 upstream to the confluence 

with an unnamed tributary at Township 

6 North, Range 29 East, section 32. Land 

ownership: U.S. Forest Service 

(Apache—Sitgreaves National Forest). 

(iv) Note: Map of Complex 2 (Black 

River) of loach minnow critical habitat 

(Map 2) follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13408 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER21MR07.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13409 

(7) Complex 3—Middle Gila/Lower 

San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek, Pinal and 

Graham Counties, Arizona. 

(i) Aravaipa Creek—28.1 mi (45.3 km) 

of creek extending from the confluence 

with the San Pedro River at Township 

7 South, Range 16 East, section 9 

upstream to the confluence with Stowe 

Gulch at Township 6 South, Range 19 

East, section 35. Land ownership: 

Bureau of Land Management, Tribal, 

and State lands. 

(ii) Turkey Creek—2.7 mi (4.3 km) of 

creek extending from the confluence 

with Aravaipa Creek at Township 6 

South, Range 19 East, section 19 

upstream to the confluence with Oak 

Grove Canyon at Township 6 South, 

Range 19 East, section 32. Land 

ownership: Bureau of Land 

Management. 

(iii) Deer Creek—2.3 mi (3.6 km) of 

creek extending from the confluence 

with Aravaipa Creek at Township 6 

South, Range 18 East, section 14 

upstream to the boundary of the 

Aravaipa Wilderness at Township 6 

South, Range 19 East, section 18. Land 

ownership: Bureau of Land 

Management. 

(iv) Note: Map of Complex 3 

(Aravaipa Creek) of loach minnow 

critical habitat (Map 3) follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13410 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER21MR07.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13411 

(8) Complex 4—San Francisco and 

Blue Rivers, Pinal and Graham 

Counties, Arizona, and Catron County, 

New Mexico. 

(i) Eagle Creek—17.7 mi (28.5 km) of 

creek extending from the Phelps—

Dodge Diversion Dam at Township 4 

South, Range 28 East, section 23 

upstream to the confluence of Dry Prong 

and East Eagle Creeks at Township 2 

North, Range 28 East, section 29, 

excluding portions of the San Carlos 

Reservation. Land ownership: U.S. 

Forest Service (Apache—Sitgreaves 

National Forest), and private lands. 

(ii) San Francisco River—126.5 mi 

(203.5 km) of river extending from the 

confluence with the Gila River at 

Township 5 South, Range 29 East, 

section 21 upstream to the mouth of The 

Box, a canyon above the town of 

Reserve, at Township 6 South, Range 19 

West, section 2. Land ownership: 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Forest Service (Apache–Sitgreaves 

National Forest), State, and private 

lands in Arizona, and U.S. Forest 

Service (Gila National Forest) and 

private lands in New Mexico. 

(iii) Tularosa River—18.6 mi (30.0 

km) of river extending from the 

confluence with the San Francisco River 

at Township 7 South, Range 19 West, 

section 23 upstream to the town of 

Cruzville at Township 6 South, Range 

18 West, section 12. Land ownership: 

U.S. Forest Service (Gila National 

Forest) and private lands. 

(iv) Negrito Creek—4.2 mi (6.8 km) of 

creek extending from the confluence 

with the Tularosa River at Township 7 

South, Range 18 West, section 19 

upstream to the confluence with Cerco 

Canyon at Township 7 South, Range 18 

West, section 21. Land ownership: U.S. 

Forest Service (Gila National Forest), 

and private lands. 

(v) Whitewater Creek—1.1 mi (1.8 km) 

of creek extending from the confluence 

with the San Francisco River at 

Township 11 South, Range 20 West, 

section 27 upstream to the confluence 

with the Little Whitewater Creek at 

Township 11 South, Range 20 West, 

section 23. Land ownership: private 

lands. 

(vi) Blue River—51.1 mi (82.2 km) of 

river extending from the confluence 

with the San Francisco River at 

Township 2 South, Range 31 East, 

section 31 upstream to the confluence of 

Campbell Blue and Dry Blue Creeks at 

Township 6 South, Range 20 West, 

section 6. Land ownership: U.S. Forest 

Service (Apache–Sitgreaves National 

Forest) and private lands in Arizona; 

U.S. Forest Service (Gila National 

Forest) in New Mexico. 

(vii) Campbell Blue Creek—8.1 mi 

(13.1 km) of creek extending from the 

confluence of Dry Blue and Campbell 

Blue Creeks at Township 6 South, Range 

20 West, section 6 in New Mexico 

upstream to the confluence with 

Coleman Canyon at Township 4 North, 

Range 31 East, section 32 in Arizona. 

Land ownership: U.S. Forest Service 

(Apache–Sitgreaves National Forest) 

and private lands in Arizona; U.S. 

Forest Service (Gila National Forest) in 

New Mexico. 

(viii) Dry Blue Creek—3.0 mile (4.8 

km) of creek extending from the 

confluence with Campbell Blue Creek at 

Township 7 South, Range 21 West, 

section 6 upstream to the confluence 

with Pace Creek at Township 6 South, 

Range 21 West, section 28. Land 

ownership: U.S. Forest Service (Gila 

National Forest). 

(ix) Pace Creek—0.8 mile (1.2 km) of 

creek extending from the confluence 

with Dry Blue Creek at Township 6 

South, Range 21 West, section 28 

upstream to a barrier falls at Township 

6 South, Range 21 West, section 29. 

Land ownership: U.S. Forest Service 

(Gila National Forest). 

(x) Frieborn Creek—1.1 mi (1.8 km) of 

creek extending from the confluence 

with Dry Blue Creek at Township 7 

South, Range 21 West, section 6 

upstream to an unnamed tributary at 

Township 7 South, range 21 West, 

section 8. Land ownership: U.S. Forest 

Service (Gila National Forest). 

(xi) Little Blue Creek—2.8 mi (4.5 km) 

of creek extending from the confluence 

with the Blue River at Township 1 

South, range 31 East, section 5 upstream 

to the mouth of a canyon at Township 

1 North, Range 31 East, section 29. Land 

ownership: U.S. Forest Service 

(Apache–Sitgreaves National Forest). 

(xii) Note: Map of Complex 4 (San 

Francisco and Blue Rivers) of loach 

minnow critical habitat (Map 4) follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13412 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER21MR07.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13413 

(9) Complex 5—Upper Gila River 

Complex, Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo 

Counties, New Mexico. 

(i) Upper Gila River—94.9 mi (152.7 

km) of river extending from the 

confluence with Moore Canyon (near 

the Arizona/New Mexico border) at 

Township 18 South, Range 21 West, 

section 32 upstream to the confluence of 

the East and West Forks of the Gila 

River at Township 13 South, Range 13 

West, section 8. Land ownership: 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Forest Service (Gila National Forest), 

State, and private lands. 

(ii) East Fork Gila River—26.1 mi 

(42.0 km) of river extending from the 

confluence with the West Fork Gila 

River at Township 11 South, Range 12 

West, section 17 upstream to the 

confluence of Beaver and Taylor creeks 

at Township 13 South, Range 13 West, 

section 8. Land ownership: U.S. Forest 

Service (Gila National Forest) and 

private lands. 

(iii) Middle Fork Gila River—11.9 mi 

(19.1 km) of river extending from the 

confluence with the West Fork Gila 

River at Township 12 South, Range 14 

West, section 25 upstream to the 

confluence with Brothers West Canyon 

at Township 11 South, Range 14 West, 

section 33. Land ownership: U.S. Forest 

Service (Gila National Forest) and 

private lands. 

(iv) West Fork Gila River—7.7 mi 

(12.4 km) of river extending from the 

confluence with the East Fork Gila River 

at Township 13 South, Range 13 West, 

section 8 upstream to the confluence 

with EE Canyon at Township 12 South, 

Range 14 West, section 22. Land 

ownership: U.S. Forest Service (Gila 

National Forest), National Park Service, 

and private lands. 

(v) Note: Map of Complex 5 (Upper 

Gila River Complex) of loach minnow 

critical habitat (Map 5) follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13414 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER21MR07.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13415 

* * * * * 

Spikedace (Meda fulgida) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Graham, Greenlee, Pinal, and 

Yavapai Counties, Arizona; and Catron, 

Grant, and Hidalgo Counties, New 

Mexico, on the maps and as described 

below. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements of critical habitat 

for spikedace are the following: 

(i) Permanent, flowing water with no 

or minimal pollutant levels, including: 

(A) Living areas for adult spikedace 

with slow to swift flow velocities 

between 20 and 60 cm/second (8 and 24 

in/second) in shallow water between 

approximately 10 cm (4 in) and 1 meter 

(40 in) in depth, with shear zones where 

rapid flow borders slower flow, areas of 

sheet flow (or smoother, less turbulent 

flow) at the upper ends of mid-channel 

sand/gravel bars, and eddies at 

downstream riffle edges; 

(B) Living areas for juvenile spikedace 

with slow to moderate water velocities 

of approximately 18 cm/second (8 in/ 

second) or higher in shallow water 

between approximately 3 cm (1.2 in) 

and 1 meter (40 in) in depth; 

(C) Living areas for larval spikedace 

with slow to moderate flow velocities of 

approximately 10 cm/second (4 in/ 

second) or higher in shallow water 

approximately 3 cm (1.2 in) to 1 meter 

(40 in) in depth; and 

(D) Water with dissolved oxygen 

levels greater than 3.5 cc/l and no or 

minimal pollutant levels for pollutants 

such as copper, arsenic, mercury, and 

cadmium; human and animal waste 

products; pesticides; suspended 

sediments; and gasoline or diesel fuels. 

(ii) Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates 

with low or moderate amounts of fine 

sediment and substrate embeddedness. 

Suitable levels of embeddedness are 

generally maintained by a natural, 

unregulated hydrograph that allows for 

periodic flooding or, if flows are 

modified or regulated, a hydrograph that 

allows for adequate river functions, 

such as flows capable of transporting 

sediments. 

(iii) Streams that have: 

(A) Low gradients of less than 

approximately 1.0 percent; 

(B) Water temperatures in the 

approximate range of 35 to 82 °F (1.7 to 

27.8 °C) (with additional natural daily 

and seasonal variation); 

(C) Pool, riffle, run, and backwater 

components; and 

(D) An abundant aquatic insect food 

base consisting of mayflies, true flies, 

caddisflies, stoneflies, and dragonflies. 

(iv) Habitat devoid of nonnative 

aquatic species or habitat in which 

nonnative aquatic species are at levels 

that allow persistence of spikedace. 

(v) Areas within perennial, 

interrupted stream courses that are 

periodically dewatered but that serve as 

connective corridors between occupied 

or seasonally occupied habitat and 

through which the species may move 

when the habitat is wetted. 

(3) Each stream segment includes a 

lateral component that consists of 300 

feet (91.4 meters) on either side of the 

stream channel measured from the 

stream edge at bank full discharge. This 

lateral component of critical habitat 

contains and contributes to the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

spikedace and is intended as a surrogate 

for the 100-year floodplain. 

(4) Critical habitat map areas. Data 

layers defining map areas, and mapping 

of critical habitat areas, was done using 

Arc GIS and verifying with USGS 7.5′ 

quadrangles. Legal descriptions for New 

Mexico and Arizona are based on the 

Public Lands Survey System (PLSS). 

Within this system, all coordinates 

reported for New Mexico are in the New 

Mexico Principal Meridian (NMPM), 

while those in Arizona are in the Gila 

and Salt River Meridian (GSRM). All 

mileage calculations were performed 

using GIS. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for spikedace (Map 1), follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
13416 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Complex 1—Verde River, Yavapai 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Verde River—43.0 mi (69.2 km) of 

river extending from the Prescott and 

Coconino National Forest boundary 

with private lands at Township 17 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER21MR07.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13417 

North, Range 3 East, section 7, upstream 

to Sullivan Dam at Township 17 North, 

Range 2 West, section 15. Land 

ownership: U.S. Forest Service 

(Coconino and Prescott National 

Forests), State, and private lands. 

(ii) Note: Map of Complex 1 (Verde 

River) of spikedace critical habitat (Map 

2) follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER21MR07.006</GPH>
13418 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(7) Complex 3—Middle Gila/Lower 

San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek, Pinal and 

Graham Counties, Arizona. 

(i) Gila River—39.0 mi (62.8 km) of 

river extending from the AshurstHayden Dam at Township 4 South, 

Range 11 East, section 8 upstream to the 

confluence with the San Pedro River at 

Township 5 South, Range 15 East, 

section 23. Land ownership: Bureau of 

Reclamation, Bureau of Land 

Management, State, and private lands. 

(ii) Lower San Pedro River—13.4 mi 

(21.5 km) of river extending from the 

confluence with the Gila River at 

Township 5 South, Range 15 East, 

section 23 upstream to the confluence 

with Aravaipa Creek at Township 7 

South, Range 16 East, section 9. Land 

ownership: Bureau of Land 

Management, Tribal, State, and private 

lands. 

(iii) Aravaipa Creek—28.1 mi (45.3 

km) of creek extending from the 

confluence with the San Pedro River at 

Township 7 South, Range 16 East, 

section 9 upstream to the confluence 

with Stowe Gulch at Township 6 South, 

Range 19 East, section 35. Land 

ownership: Bureau of Land 

Management, Tribal, State, and private 

lands. 

(iv) Note: Map of Complex 3 (Middle 

Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek) 

of spikedace critical habitat (Map 3) 

follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13419 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER21MR07.007</GPH>
13420 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) Complex 5—Upper Gila River 

Complex, Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo 

Counties, New Mexico. 

(i) Upper Gila River—94.9 mi (152.7 

km) of river extending from the 

confluence with Moore Canyon (near 

the Arizona/New Mexico border) at 

Township 18 South, Range 21 West, 

section 32 upstream to the confluence of 

the East and West Forks of the Gila 

River at Township 13 South, Range 13 

West, section 8, excluding lands owned 

by the Phelps Dodge Corporation. Land 

ownership: Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Forest Service (Gila 

National Forest), State, and private 

lands. 

(ii) East Fork Gila River—26.1 mi 

(42.0 km) of river extending from the 

confluence with the West Fork Gila 

River at Township 13 South, Range 13 

West, section 8 upstream to the 

confluence of Beaver and Taylor creeks 

at Township 11 South, Range 12 West, 

section 17. Land ownership: U.S. Forest 

Service (Gila National Forest) and 

private lands. 

(iii) Middle Fork Gila River—7.7 mi 

(12.3 km) of river extending from the 

confluence with the West Fork Gila 

River at Township 12 South, Range 14 

West, section 25 upstream to the 

confluence with Big Bear Canyon at 

Township 12 South, Range 14 West, 

section 2. Land ownership: U.S. Forest 

Service (Gila National Forest) and 

private lands. 

(iv) West Fork Gila River—7.7 mi 

(12.4 km) of river extending from the 

confluence with the East Fork Gila River 

at Township 13 South, Range 13 West, 

section 8 upstream to the confluence 

with EE Canyon at Township 12 South, 

Range 14 West, section 22. Land 

ownership: U.S. Forest Service (Gila 

National Forest), National Park Service, 

and private lands. 

(v) Note: Map of Complex 5 (Upper 

Gila River Complex) of spikedace 

critical habitat (Map 4) follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13421 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER21MR07.008</GPH>
13422 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * Dated: March 6, 2007. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 07–1218 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2