66482 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2010–0072; MO 

92210–0–0009–B4] 

RIN 1018–AX17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Status and 

Designation of Critical Habitat for 

Spikedace and Loach Minnow 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

change the status of spikedace (Meda 

fulgida) and loach minnow (Tiaroga 

cobitis) from threatened to endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, and to designate 

critical habitat for both species. In total, 

we are proposing approximately 1,168 

kilometers (726 mi) of streams as critical 

habitat for spikedace, and 1,141 

kilometers (709 miles) of streams as 

critical habitat for loach minnow. The 

proposed critical habitat is located in 

Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, 

Greenlee, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, and 

Yavapai Counties, Arizona, and Catron, 

Grant, and Hidalgo Counties in New 

Mexico. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

December 27, 2010. We must receive 

requests for public hearings, in writing, 

at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

December 13, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2010–0072. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: [Docket 

Number FWS–R2–ES–2010–0072]; 

Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 

Ecological Services Office, 2321 W. 

Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, 

AZ 85021; telephone (602) 242–0210; 

facsimile (602) 242–2513. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

This document consists of: (1) A 

proposed rule to reclassify spikedace 

(Meda fulgida) and loach minnow 

(Tiaroga cobitis) from threatened to 

endangered status; and (2) a proposed 

rule to designate critical habitat for the 

two species. 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

government agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

(2) Additional information concerning 

the range, distribution, and population 

size of this species, including the 

locations of any additional populations 

of this species. 

(3) Any information on the biological 

or ecological requirements of the 

species. 

(4) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

including whether there are threats to 

the species from human activity, the 

degree of which can be expected to 

increase due to the designation, and 

whether that increase in threat 

outweighs the benefit of designation 

such that the designation of critical 

habitat may not be prudent. 

(5) Specific information on: 

• The amount and distribution of 

spikedace and loach minnow habitat; 

• What areas occupied at the time of 

listing and containing features essential 

to the conservation of the species 

should be included in the designation 

and why; 

• Special management considerations 

or protections that features essential to 

the conservation of spikedace and loach 

minnow, as identified in this proposal, 

may require, including managing for the 

potential effects of climate change; and 

• What areas not occupied at the time 

of listing are essential for the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(6) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(7) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other impacts of designating 

any area that may be included in the 

final designation. We are particularly 

interested in any impacts on small 

entities or families, and the benefits of 

including or excluding areas that exhibit 

these impacts. 

(8) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

(9) Information on whether the benefit 

of an exclusion of any particular area 

outweighs the benefit of inclusion under 

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

specifically solicit the delivery of 

spikedace- and loach minnow-specific 

management plans for areas included in 

this proposed designation. Management 

plans considered in previous critical 

habitat exclusions for spikedace and 

loach minnow are available through the 

contact information listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

(10) Information on the projected and 

reasonably likely impacts of climate 

change on spikedace and loach minnow 

and on the critical habitat areas we are 

proposing. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 

address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information, such 

as your street address, phone number, or 

e-mail address, you may request at the 

top of your document that we withhold 

this information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66483 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arizona Ecological Services 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the proposed 

reclassification and proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

spikedace and loach minnow in this 

proposed rule. For more information on 

the species themselves, refer to the final 

listing rule (51 FR 23769, July 1, 1986 

(spikedace), and 51 FR 39468, October 

28, 1986 (loach minnow)) and the 

previous critical habitat designation (72 

FR 13356, March 21, 2007). 

Spikedace 

The spikedace is a member of the 

minnow family Cyprinidae, and is the 

only species in the genus Meda. The 

spikedace was first collected from the 

San Pedro River in 1851. The spikedace 

is a small, slim fish less than 75 

millimeters (mm) (3 inches (in)) in 

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

Spikedace have olive-gray to brownish 

skin, with silvery sides and vertically 

elongated black specks. Spikedace have 

spines in the dorsal fin (Minckley 1973, 

pp. 82, 112, 115). 

Spikedace are found in moderate to 

large perennial streams, where they 

inhabit shallow riffles (those shallow 

portions of the stream with rougher, 

choppy water) with sand, gravel, and 

rubble substrates (Barber and Minckley 

1966, p. 31; Propst et al. 1986, p. 12; 

Rinne and Kroeger 1988, p. 1; Rinne 

1991, pp. 8–10). Specific habitat for this 

species consists of shear zones where 

rapid flow borders slower flow; areas of 

sheet flow at the upper ends of midchannel sand or gravel bars; and eddies 

at downstream riffle edges (Rinne 1991, 

p. 11; Rinne and Kroeger 1988, pp. 1, 4). 

Recurrent flooding and a natural flow 

regime are very important in 

maintaining the habitat of spikedace 

and in helping maintain a competitive 

edge over invading nonnative aquatic 

species (Propst et al. 1986, pp. 76–81; 

Minckley and Meffe 1987, pp. 97, 103– 

104). 

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. Habitat 

destruction and competition and 

predation by nonnative aquatic species 

reduced its range and abundance (Miller 

1961, pp. 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; Propst et al. 1986, 

pp. 82–84). 

Spikedace are now restricted to 

portions of the upper Gila River (Grant, 

Catron, and Hidalgo Counties, New 

Mexico); Aravaipa Creek (Graham and 

Pinal Counties, Arizona); Eagle Creek 

(Graham and Greenlee Counties, 

Arizona); and the Verde River (Yavapai 

County, Arizona) (Marsh et al. 1990, pp. 

107–108, 111; M. Brouder, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), pers. comm. 

2002; Stefferud and Reinthal 2005, pp. 

16–21; Paroz et al. 2006, pp. 62–67; 

Propst 2007, pp. 7–9, 11–14). 

In 2007, spikedace were translocated 

into Hot Springs Canyon, in Cochise 

County, Arizona, and Redfield Canyon, 

in Cochise and Pima Counties, Arizona, 

and these streams were subsequently 

augmented (Robinson 2008a, pp. 2, 6; T. 

Robinson, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (AGFD), pers. comm. 2008b; 

D. Orabutt, AGFD, pers. comm. 2009; 

Robinson 2009a, pp. 2, 5–8). (We use 

the term ‘‘translocate’’ to describe 

stocking fish into an area where suitable 

habitat exists, but for which there are no 

documented collections.) Both Hot 

Springs and Redfield canyons are 

tributaries to the San Pedro River. 

Spikedace were also translocated into 

Fossil Creek, a tributary to the Verde 

River in Gila County, Arizona, in 2007, 

and were subsequently augmented in 

2008 (Carter 2007b, p. 1; Carter 2008a, 

p. 1; Robinson 2009b, p. 9; Boyarski et 

al. 2010, in draft, p. 7). In 2008, 

spikedace were translocated into Bonita 

Creek, a tributary to the Gila River in 

Graham County, Arizona (H. Blasius, 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), pers. comm. 2008; D. Orabutt, 

AGFD, pers. comm. 2009; Robinson et 

al. 2009a, p. 209), and were repatriated 

to the upper San Francisco River in 

Catron County, New Mexico (D. Propst, 

New Mexico Department of Game and 

Fish (NMDGF), pers. comm. 2010). (We 

use the term ‘‘repatriate’’ to describe 

stocking fish into an area where we have 

historical records of prior presence.) 

Augmentations with additional fish will 

occur for the next several years at all 

sites, if adequate numbers of fish are 

available. Monitoring at each of these 

sites is ongoing to determine if 

populations ultimately become selfsustaining. 

The species is now common only in 

Aravaipa Creek in Arizona (AGFD 1994; 

Arizona State University (ASU) 2002; P. 

Reinthal, University of Arizona, pers. 

comm. 2008, Reinthal 2009, pp. 1–2) 

and one section of the Gila River south 

of Cliff, New Mexico (NMDGF 2008; 

Propst et al. 2009, pp. 14–17). The 

Verde River is presumed occupied; 

however, the last captured fish from this 

river was from a 1999 survey (M. 

Brouder, Service, pers. comm. 2002; 

AGFD 2004). Spikedace from the Eagle 

Creek population have not been seen for 

over a decade (Marsh 1996, p. 2), 

although they are still thought to exist 

in numbers too low for the sampling 

efforts to detect (Carter et al. 2007, p. 3; 

see Minckley and Marsh 2009). The 

Middle Fork Gila River population is 

thought to be very small and has not 

been seen since 1991 (Jakle 1992, p. 6), 

but sampling is localized and 

inadequate to detect a sparse 

population. 

Population estimates have not been 

developed as a result of the difficulty in 

detecting the species, the sporadic 

nature of most surveys, and the 

difference in surveying techniques that 

have been applied over time. Based on 

the available maps and survey 

information, we estimate the 

spikedace’s present range to be 

approximately 10 percent or less of its 

historical range, and the status of the 

species within occupied areas ranges 

from common to very rare. Data indicate 

that the population in New Mexico has 

declined in recent years (Paroz et al. 

2006, p. 56). Historical and current 

records for spikedace are summarized in 

three databases (ASU 2002, AGFD 2004, 

NMDGF 2008), which are referenced 

throughout this document. 

A species’ geographic range is the 

total area that encompasses all known 

locations of that species. As noted 

above, spikedace occur in several 

streams in portions of Arizona and New 

Mexico. For purposes of this document, 

we have used watershed boundaries 

associated with the Verde, Salt, San 

Pedro, Gila, and San Francisco rivers to 

define the geographic range of 

spikedace. All known records of 

spikedace occur within these watershed 

boundaries. 

We evaluated species detections and 

habitat descriptions in various 

databases, formal and informal survey 

records, agency and researcher field 

notes, and published literature to 

determine which geographic areas were 

reasonably occupied by the species at 

the time of listing. Surveys have been 

infrequent or inconsistent for this 

species. Further, even where surveys 

occur, the species can be difficult to 

detect due to its small body size. As a 

result, the lack of a positive detection in 

any specific area may not mean that the 

area is not occupied. Therefore, relying 

strictly on point-specific survey results 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66484 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

for historical occupancy information 

would likely create an incomplete 

picture of occupied area. The extent of 

a stream reach that is occupied up- or 

downstream of a known occupied site is 

generally limited only by availability of 

suitable habitat. Therefore, we assume 

that for areas where the species has been 

documented, it was likely also present 

in the adjacent stream segments if 

adjacent segments were connected and 

contain suitable habitat. 

In addition, this document discusses 

areas occupied at the time of listing. We 

are defining areas occupied at the time 

of listing to include streams for which 

we have spikedace records up to 1986, 

when they were first listed. These 

records include the Agua Fria River; the 

Verde River and its tributaries Beaver 

Creek and West Clear Creek; the Salt 

River and its tributary Tonto Creek; the 

San Pedro River and its tributary 

Aravaipa Creek; Eagle Creek; the San 

Francisco River; and the Gila River and 

its tributaries East, Middle, and West 

Fork Gila, and Blue Creek. 

Loach Minnow 

The loach minnow is a member of the 

minnow family Cyprinidae. The loach 

minnow was first collected in 1851 from 

the San Pedro River in Arizona and was 

described by those specimens in 1865 

by Girard (pp. 191–192). The loach 

minnow is a small, slender fish less 

than 80 mm (3 in) in length. It is olivecolored 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). 

Loach minnow are found in small to 

large perennial streams and use shallow, 

turbulent riffles with primarily cobble 

substrate and swift currents (Minckley 

1973, p. 134; Propst et al. 1988, pp. 36– 

43; Rinne 1989, pp. 113–115; Propst and 

Bestgen 1991, pp. 29, 32–33). The loach 

minnow uses the spaces between, and 

in the lee (sheltered) side of, rocks for 

resting and spawning. It is rare or absent 

from habitats where fine sediments fill 

these interstitial spaces (Propst and 

Bestgen 1991, p. 34). 

Loach minnow are now restricted to 

portions of the Gila River and its 

tributaries, the West, Middle, and East 

Fork Gila River (Grant, Catron, and 

Hidalgo Counties, New Mexico) (Paroz 

and Propst 2007, p. 16; Propst 2007, pp. 

7–8, 10–11, 13–14); the San Francisco 

and Tularosa rivers and their tributaries 

Negrito and Whitewater creeks (Catron 

County, New Mexico) (Propst et al. 

1988, p. 15; ASU 2002; Paroz and Propst 

2007, p. 16; Propst 2007, pp. 4–5); the 

Blue River and its tributaries Dry Blue, 

Campbell Blue, Pace, and Frieborn 

creeks (Greenlee County, Arizona and 

Catron County, New Mexico) (Miller 

1998, pp. 4–5; ASU 2002; C. Carter 

2005, pp. 1–5; C. Carter, AGFD, pers. 

comm. 2008b; Clarkson et al. 2008, pp. 

3–4; Robinson 2009c, p. 3); Aravaipa 

Creek and its tributaries Turkey and 

Deer creeks (Graham and Pinal 

Counties, Arizona) (Stefferud and 

Reinthal 2005, pp. 16–21); Eagle Creek 

(Graham and Greenlee Counties, 

Arizona), (Knowles 1994, pp. 1–2, 5; 

Bagley and Marsh 1997, pp. 1–2; Marsh 

et al. 2003, pp. 666–668; Carter et al. 

2007, p. 3; Bahm and Robinson 2009a, 

p. 1); and the North Fork East Fork 

Black River (Apache and Greenlee 

Counties, Arizona) (Leon 1989, pp. 1–2; 

M. Lopez, AGFD pers. comm. 2000; S. 

Gurtin, AGFD, pers. comm. 2004; Carter 

2007b, p. 2; Robinson et al. 2009b, p. 4); 

and possibly the White River and its 

tributaries, the East and North Fork 

White River (Apache, Gila, and Navajo 

Counties, Arizona). The present range is 

15 to 20 percent of its historical range, 

and the status of the species within 

occupied areas ranges from common to 

very rare. 

As noted above, a species’ range 

includes the total area that encompasses 

all known locations of that species. As 

with spikedace, loach minnow are 

known to occur in several streams in 

portions of Arizona and New Mexico. 

For purposes of this document, we have 

used watershed boundaries associated 

with the Verde, Salt, San Pedro, Gila, 

and San Francisco rivers to determine 

the range of loach minnow. All known 

loach minnow records occur within 

these watershed boundaries. 

We evaluated species detections and 

habitat descriptions in various 

databases, formal and informal survey 

records, agency and researcher field 

notes, and published literature to 

determine which geographic areas were 

reasonably occupied by the species at 

the time of listing. Surveys have been 

infrequent or inconsistent for this 

species. Further, even where surveys 

occur, the species can be difficult to 

detect due to its small body size. As a 

result, the lack of a positive detection in 

any specific area may not mean that the 

area is not occupied. Therefore, relying 

strictly on point-specific survey results 

for historical occupancy information 

would likely create an incomplete 

picture of occupied areas. The extent of 

a stream reach that is occupied up- or 

downstream of a known occupied site is 

generally limited only by availability of 

suitable habitat. Therefore, we assume 

that for areas where the species has been 

documented, it was likely also present 

in the adjacent stream segments if 

adjacent segments were connected and 

contain suitable habitat. 

In addition, this document discusses 

areas occupied at the time of listing. We 

are defining areas occupied at the time 

of listing to include streams for which 

we have loach minnow records up to 

1986, when the species was first listed. 

These records include the Verde River 

and its tributary Beaver Creek; the 

White River and its tributary East Fork 

White River; Aravaipa Creek; the San 

Pedro River; Eagle Creek; the Blue River 

and its tributaries Campbell Blue, Dry 

Blue, and Little Blue creeks; the San 

Francisco River and its tributary 

Tularosa River; and the Gila River and 

its tributaries West Fork, Middle Fork, 

and East Fork Gila Rivers and 

Whitewater Creek. In addition, loach 

minnow were identified from several 

tributary streams following 1986. As no 

reintroduction efforts had taken place 

prior to discovering each of these 

populations, it is assumed they were 

occupied at listing, but undetected. We 

are therefore including these areas as 

occupied at listing: Deer Creek and 

Turkey Creek (tributaries to Aravaipa 

Creek); Frieborn Canyon and Pace Creek 

(tributaries to the Blue River); and North 

Fork East Fork Black River, and Negrito 

Creek (tributary to the Tularosa River). 

Although suitable habitat existed in 

Hot Springs, Redfield Canyons, Fossil 

Creek, or Bonita Creek, loach minnow 

had not previously been documented 

there. In 2007, loach minnow were 

translocated into Hot Springs and 

Redfield canyons in Cochise County, 

Arizona (Robinson 2008a, pp. 2, 6; T. 

Robinson, AGFD, pers. comm. 2008b; D. 

Orabutt, AGFD, pers. comm. 2009); both 

of these streams are tributaries to the 

San Pedro River. Fish were also 

translocated into Fossil Creek, a 

tributary to the Verde River in Gila 

County, Arizona (Carter 2007a, p. 1; 

Carter 2008a, p. 1; Robinson 2009b, p. 

9; Orabutt and Robinson 2010, in draft, 

p. 12). In 2008, loach minnow were 

translocated into Bonita Creek, a 

tributary to the Gila River in Graham 

County, Arizona (H. Blasius, BLM, pers. 

comm. 2008; D. Orabutt, AGFD, pers. 

comm. 2009). Augmentations with 

additional fish will occur for the next 

several years. Monitoring will be 

conducted at each of these sites to 

determine if populations ultimately 

become established at these new 

locations. 

Loach minnow is now common only 

in Aravaipa Creek, the Blue River, and 

limited portions of the San Francisco, 

upper Gila, and Tularosa rivers in New 

Mexico. Since listing, loach minnow 

have been found in small tributary 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66485 

streams, including Pace, Frieborn, 

Negrito, Turkey, and Deer creeks 

(Stefferud and Reinthal 2005, pp. 16–21; 

Paroz and Propst 2007, p. 16; NMDGF 

2008). In addition, two previously 

undocumented populations of loach 

minnow have been discovered, one in 

Eagle Creek (Knowles 1994, p. 1; Marsh 

et al. 2003, p. 666) and one in the North 

Fork East Fork Black River (Bagley et al. 

1997, p. 8). However, following a 

wildfire in the Black River watershed, a 

salvage rescue operation in the area 

known to be occupied by the loach 

minnow in 2004 resulted in the capture 

of only two loach minnow (S. Gurtin, 

AGFD, pers. comm. 2004). Both of these 

newly identified populations appear to 

be very small, but each represents a 

remnant portion of the historical range 

that was thought to be extirpated. Little 

information is available on the White 

River population due to the proprietary 

nature of Tribal survey information. 

Historical and current records for loach 

minnow are summarized in three 

databases (ASU 2002, AGFD 2004, 

NMDGF 2008), which are referenced 

throughout this document. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The spikedace was listed as 

threatened on July 1, 1986 (51 FR 

23769); the loach minnow was listed as 

threatened on October 28, 1986 (51 FR 

39468). The Service received a petition 

to uplist these species from threatened 

to endangered status on September 22, 

1993. On July 11, 1994, we published 

90-day and 12-month findings on the 

petition to amend the List of Threatened 

and Endangered Wildlife (59 FR 35303). 

We found that the petitioners presented 

substantial scientific information 

indicating that reclassifying spikedace 

and loach minnow as endangered was 

warranted but precluded by other listing 

actions (59 FR 35303). We restated this 

conclusion on January 8, 2001 (66 FR 

1295), and considered the 

reclassification of spikedace and loach 

minnow each year in our Candidate 

Notice of Review. Our most recent 

Candidate Notice of Review was 

published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 

57804). 

We designated critical habitat for both 

species on March 8, 1994 (59 FR 10898 

(loach minnow); 59 FR 10906 

(spikedace)). Those critical habitat 

designations were set aside by court 

order in Catron County Board of 

Commissioners, New Mexico v. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, CIV No. 93– 

730 HB (D.N.M. 1994) due to our failure 

to analyze the effects of critical habitat 

designation under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

We subsequently published a 

proposed critical habitat designation on 

December 10, 1999 (64 FR 69324), and 

a final critical habitat designation on 

April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24328). However, 

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 that the Tenth Circuit had held 

to be invalid. 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), and on March 21, 2007, 

we published a final critical habitat 

designation (72 FR 13356) for the 

spikedace and loach minnow. In 

Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico 

Counties for Stable Economic Growth, et 

al . v. Salazar, et al. (D.N.M.), two sets 

of plaintiffs challenged the Service’s 

critical habitat designation for the 

spikedace and the loach minnow on the 

grounds that we designated critical 

habitat without adequate delineation or 

justification. We filed a motion for 

voluntary remand of the final rule on 

February 2, 2009, in order to reconsider 

the final rule in light of a recently 

issued Department of the Interior 

Solicitor’s Opinion, which discusses the 

Secretary of the Interior’s authority to 

exclude areas from a critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

ESA. On May 4, 2009, the Court granted 

our motion for voluntary remand. 

There are differences in the areas 

included in this proposed designation 

from those included in the critical 

habitat designations published in 1994, 

2000, and 2007. We have gained new 

information on species’ distribution 

since the 1994 designation. We have 

acknowledged the flaws in the 2007 

designation through our voluntary 

vacatur. This proposal is most similar to 

the 2000 designation. However, in 

contrast to the 2000 designation, we 

have not included every complex for 

spikedace and for loach minnow. 

Instead, we have attempted to consider 

occupancy data and habitat parameters 

specific to each species, and identified 

some areas that are suitable for one or 

the other species, but not both. While 

there is still considerable overlap in the 

designation, so that most areas are 

designated for both species, we have 

included some areas only for spikedace 

or only for loach minnow within this 

proposed designation. 

For more information on previous 

Federal actions concerning the 

spikedace and loach minnow, refer to 

previous publications, including listing 

documents published in 1985 and 1986 

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

25390, June 18, 1985; 51 FR 39468, 

October 28, 1986; 51 FR 23769, July 1, 

1986), as well as previous critical 

habitat designations in 1994 (59 FR 

10898, March 8, 1994; 59 FR 10906, 

March 8, 1994), 1999 and 2000 (64 FR 

69324, December 10, 1999; 65 FR 24328, 

April 25, 2000), and 2005 and 2007 (70 

FR 75546, December 20, 2005; 72 FR 

13356, March 21, 2007). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Both spikedace and loach 

minnow currently exist in a small 

portion of their historical range (10 

percent, or less, for spikedace, and 15 to 

20 percent for loach minnow), and the 

threats continue throughout its range. 

Accordingly, our assessment and 

determination applies to each species 

throughout its entire range. 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

part 424), set forth the procedures for 

adding species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, a species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened based on any 

of the following five factors: (1) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (3) disease or 

predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. In making this 

finding, information pertaining to 

spikedace and loach minnow, in 

relation to the five factors provided in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, are discussed 

below. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats to a species, we must 

look beyond the exposure of the species 

to a factor to evaluate whether the 

species may respond to the factor in a 

way that causes actual impacts to the 

species. If there is exposure to a factor 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66486 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and the species responds negatively, the 

factor may be a threat and we attempt 

to determine how significant a threat it 

is. The threat is significant if it drives, 

or contributes to, the risk of extinction 

of the species such that the species 

warrants listing as endangered or 

threatened as those terms are defined in 

the Act. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Habitat or Range 

The majority of historical native 

habitat for spikedace and loach minnow 

has been altered or destroyed. Activities 

such as groundwater pumping, surface 

water diversions, impoundments, dams, 

channelization (straightening of the 

natural watercourse, typically for flood 

control purposes), improperly managed 

livestock grazing, wildfire, agriculture, 

mining, road building, residential 

development, and recreation all 

contribute to habitat loss and stream 

habitat degradation in Arizona and New 

Mexico (Minckley and Deacon 1991, pp. 

15–18; Tellman et al. 1997, pp. 1, 4; 

Propst 1999, pp. 14–15; Minckley and 

Marsh 2009, pp. 24–48). 

The aforementioned activities are 

human-caused; thus the local and 

regional effects of most of these 

activities are expected to increase with 

an increasing local human population. 

As of 2005, Arizona was recognized as 

the second fastest in Statewide 

population growth in the nation. The 

population of the State of Arizona is 

projected to grow by 66 percent by the 

year 2030, while the population in New 

Mexico is expected to grow by 33 

percent (Southwest Climate Change 

2009, p. 1). Arizona experienced a 28.6 

percent population growth from 2000 to 

2009, while New Mexico experienced 

growth at 10.5 percent during the same 

period (U.S. Census Bureau 2010, pp. 1, 

3). An example of this population 

growth is on the Verde River (Yavapai 

County, Arizona), which likely includes 

a remnant spikedace population, and is 

important recovery habitat for spikedace 

and loach minnow. Yavapai County 

experienced a 28.8 percent increase in 

human population between 2000 and 

2009. Groundwater use for municipal, 

industrial, and agricultural purposes has 

continued to increase since 1971 

(Arizona Water Atlas 2010, p. 292) 

which increases the competition for the 

limited water resources used by 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

Portions of some rivers receive 

protection as specially designated areas. 

In the upper Gila River, spikedace and 

loach minnow habitat receives some 

protection along the portions of the river 

that flow through the U.S. Forest 

Service Gila Wilderness and the Gila 

River Research Natural Area, which 

have use and access restrictions. Some 

portions of the river in the Gila National 

Forest are still affected by past and 

present uses within the watershed and 

riparian zone, such as grazing, timber 

harvest, and road development, and by 

water diversion for public and private 

uses. Other areas designated for special 

uses and subject to access and use 

restrictions include the Blue Range 

Primitive Area, the lower Gila River 

Bird Habitat Management Area, and the 

Gila River Research Natural Area. 

Water Withdrawals 

Water resources are limited in the 

Southwestern United States and have 

led to the conversion of portions of 

habitat to intermittent streams or 

reservoirs unsuitable for spikedace or 

loach minnow. Growing water demands 

reduce southern Arizona perennial 

surface water in the Gila Basin, and 

threaten aquatic species. Historically, 

water withdrawals led to the conversion 

of large portions of flowing streams into 

intermittent streams, large reservoirs, or 

dewatered channels, thus eliminating 

suitable spikedace and loach minnow 

habitat in impacted areas (Propst et al. 

1986, p. 3; Tellman et al. 1997, pp. 37, 

50, 63–64, 66, 103). These habitat 

changes, together with the introduction 

of nonnative fish species (see factors C 

and E), have resulted in the extirpation 

of spikedace and loach minnow 

throughout an estimated 80 to 90 

percent of their historical ranges. 

After leaving the Mogollon Mountains 

in New Mexico, the Gila River is 

affected by agricultural and industrial 

water diversions, impoundment, and 

channelization. In the Gila River, 

agricultural diversions and groundwater 

pumping have caused declines in the 

water table, and surface flows in the 

central portion of the river basin are 

diverted for agriculture (Leopold 1997, 

pp. 63–64; Tellman et al. 1997, pp. 101– 

104; Arizona Department of Water 

Resources 2000, pp. 16–17). On the 

mainstem Salt River, impoundments 

have permanently limited the flow 

regime and suitability for spikedace or 

loach minnow. 

Of particular concern to spikedace 

and loach minnow survival in the Gila 

River is the implementation of Public 

Law 108–451, the Arizona Water 

Settlements Act. Title II of the Arizona 

Water Settlements Act would facilitate 

the exchange of Central Arizona Project 

water within and between southwestern 

river basins in Arizona and New 

Mexico. The Arizona Water Settlements 

Act may also result in the construction 

of new water development projects. For 

example, Section 212 of the Arizona 

Water Settlements Act pertains to the 

New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona 

Project. Development of the New 

Mexico Unit may facilitate diversion of 

water via the construction of an on- or 

off-stream reservoir on the Gila River in 

New Mexico. Implementation of the 

Arizona Water Settlement Act is in its 

early stages on the Gila River, such that 

the exact location, scope, scale, timing, 

and effects of those efforts on the 

spikedace and its habitat in the Gila 

River cannot be definitively analyzed at 

present. However, should water be 

diverted from the river, there would be 

a diminished flow that could potentially 

result in direct and indirect loss and 

degradation of habitat for aquatic and 

riparian species. Because the Gila River 

is a stronghold for spikedace and loach 

minnow, impacts to those portions of 

the Gila River in New Mexico are of 

particular concern for the persistence of 

these species. 

The San Francisco River has 

undergone sedimentation, riparian 

habitat degradation, and extensive water 

diversion and at present has an 

undependable water supply throughout 

much of its length. Groundwater 

pumping also poses a threat to surface 

flows in the remaining spikedace and 

loach minnow habitat in Eagle Creek. 

Groundwater withdrawal in Eagle 

Creek, primarily for water supply for a 

large open-pit copper mine at Morenci, 

dries portions of the stream (Sublette et 

al. 1990, p. 19; Service 2005; Propst et 

al. 1986, p. 7). Mining is the largest 

industrial water user in southeastern 

Arizona. The Morenci mine on Eagle 

Creek is North America’s largest 

producer of copper, covering 60,000 

acres. Water for the mine is imported 

from the Black River, diverted from 

Eagle Creek as surface flows, or 

withdrawn from the Upper Eagle Creek 

Well Field (Arizona Department of 

Water Resources 2009, p. 1). 

Aravaipa Creek is relatively protected 

from further habitat loss because it is 

within a Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) Wilderness and is a Nature 

Conservancy preserve. However, 

Aravaipa Creek is affected by upstream 

uses in the watershed, primarily 

groundwater pumping for irrigation. 

Irrigation can reduce creek flows, as 

crop irrigation uses large amounts of 

water, especially during the summer 

months when the creek flows are 

already at their lowest. Increased 

groundwater pumping from wells is 

known to be linked to reduced creek 

flows (Fuller 2000, pp. 4–8). 

Water depletion is also a concern for 

the Verde River. In 2000, the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources (2000, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66487 

p. 1–1) reported that the populations of 

major cities and towns within the Verde 

River watershed had more than doubled 

in the last 20 years, resulting in more 

than a 39 percent increase in municipal 

water usage. The Arizona Department of 

Water Resources (2000, p. 1–1) 

anticipated that human populations in 

the Verde River watershed are expected 

to double again before 2040, resulting in 

more than a 400 percent increase over 

the 2000 water usage. The middle and 

lower Verde River has limited or no 

flow during portions of the year due to 

agricultural diversion and upstream 

impoundments, and has several 

impoundments in its middle reaches, 

which could expand the area of 

impacted spikedace and loach minnow 

habitat. The Little Chino basin within 

the Verde River watershed has already 

experienced significant groundwater 

declines that have reduced flow in Del 

Rio Springs (Arizona Department of 

Water Resources 2000, pp. 1–1, 1–2). 

Blasch et al. (2006, p. 2) suggests that 

groundwater storage in the Verde River 

watershed has already declined due to 

groundwater pumping and reductions in 

natural channel recharge resulting from 

streamflow diversions. 

Also impacting water in the Verde 

River, the City of Prescott, Arizona, 

experienced a 22 percent increase in 

population between 2000 and 2005 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2010b, p. 1), 

averaging around 4 percent growth per 

year (City of Prescott 2010, p. 1). In 

addition, the towns of Prescott Valley 

and Chino Valley experienced growth 

rates of 66 and 67 percent, respectively 

(Arizona Department of Commerce 

2009a, p. 1; 2009b, p. 1). This growth is 

facilitated by groundwater pumping in 

the Verde River basin. In 2004, the cities 

of Prescott and Prescott Valley 

purchased a ranch in the Big Chino 

basin in the headwaters of the Verde 

River, with the intent of drilling new 

wells to supply up to approximately 

4,000 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater per 

year. If such drilling occurs, it could 

have serious adverse effects on the 

mainstem and tributaries of the Verde 

River. Scientific studies have shown a 

link between the Big Chino aquifer and 

spring flows that form the headwaters of 

the Verde River. It is estimated that 80 

to 86 percent of baseflow in the upper 

Verde River comes from the Big Chino 

aquifer (Wirt 2005, p. G8). However, 

while these withdrawals could 

potentially dewater the upper 42 

kilometers (km) (26 miles (mi)) of the 

Verde River (Wirt and Hjalmarson 2000, 

p. 4), it is uncertain that this project will 

occur given the legal and administrative 

challenges it faces. This upper portion 

of the Verde River is considered 

currently occupied by spikedace, and 

barrier construction and stream 

renovation plans are underway with the 

intention of using this historically 

occupied area for recovery of native 

fishes including loach minnow. 

Reductions of available water within 

this reach could preclude its use for 

recovery purposes. This area is 

currently considered occupied by 

spikedace, that are considered 

genetically (Tibbets 1993, pp. 25–29) 

and morphologically (Anderson and 

Hendrickson 1994, pp. 148, 150–154) 

distinct from all other spikedace 

populations. 

There are numerous surface water 

diversions in spikedace and loach 

minnow habitats, including the Verde 

River, Blue River, San Francisco River, 

Gila River, and Eagle Creek. Larger dams 

may prevent movement of fish between 

populations and dramatically alter the 

flow regime of streams through the 

impoundment of water (Ligon et al. 

1995, pp. 184–189). These diversions 

also require periodic maintenance and 

re-construction, resulting in potential 

habitat damages and inputs of sediment 

into the active stream. 

Water withdrawals have occurred 

historically, and continue to occur, 

throughout the ranges of spikedace and 

loach minnow. Groundwater pumping 

and surface diversions used for 

agricultural, industrial, and municipal 

purposes can lead to declines in the 

water table and dewatering of active 

stream channels. Ongoing water 

withdrawals are known to occur on the 

Gila, San Francisco, and Verde rivers, 

and are occurring at limited levels, with 

the potential for increased withdrawal, 

on Aravaipa Creek. 

Stream Channelization 

Sections of many Gila Basin rivers 

and streams have been, and continue to 

be, channelized for flood control, which 

disrupts natural channel dynamics 

(sediment scouring and deposition) and 

promotes the loss of riparian plant 

communities. Channelization changes 

the stream gradient above and below the 

channelization. Water velocity increases 

in the channelized section, which 

results in increased rates of erosion of 

the stream and its tributaries, 

accompanied by gradual deposits of 

sediment in downstream reaches that 

may increase the risk of flooding 

(Emerson 1971, p. 326; Simpson 1982, 

p. 122). Channelization can affect 

spikedace and loach minnow habitat by 

reducing its complexity, eliminating 

cover, reducing nutrient input, 

improving habitat for nonnative species, 

changing sediment transport, altering 

substrate size, increasing flow 

velocities, and reducing the length of 

the stream (and therefore the amount of 

aquatic habitat available) (Gorman and 

Karr 1978, pp. 512–513; Simpson 1982, 

p. 122; Schmetterling et al. 2001, pp. 7– 

10). Historical and ongoing 

channelization will continue to 

contribute to riparian and aquatic 

habitat decline most notably eliminating 

cover and reducing nutrient input. 

Water Quality 

In the past, the threat from water 

pollution was due primarily to 

catastrophic pollution events (Rathbun 

1969, pp. 1–5; Eberhardt 1981, pp. 3–6, 

8–10) or chronic leakage (Eberhardt 

1981, pp. 2, 16) from large mining 

operations. Although this is not as large 

a problem today as it was historically, 

some damage to spikedace and loach 

minnow populations still occurs from 

occasional spills or chronic inability to 

meet water quality standards (United 

States v. ASARCO, No. 98–0137 PHX– 

ROS (D. Ariz. June 2, 1998)). Mine 

tailings from a number of past and 

present facilities throughout the Gila 

Basin would threaten spikedace 

populations if catastrophic spills occur 

(Arizona Department of Health Services 

2010, p. 3). Spills or discharges have 

occurred in the Gila River and affected 

streams within the watersheds of 

spikedace and loach minnow, including 

the Gila River, San Francisco River, San 

Pedro River, and some of their 

tributaries (Environmental Protection 

Agency 1997, pp. 24–67; Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

2000, p. 6; Church et al. 2005, p. 40; 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality 2007, p. 1). 

In January of 2006, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

announced that it had been conducting 

a remedial investigation at the Klondyke 

Tailings site on Aravaipa Creek, which 

currently supports one of the two 

remaining populations where spikedace 

and loach minnow are considered 

common. The Klondyke tailings site was 

a mill that processed ore to recover lead, 

zinc, copper, silver, and gold between 

the 1920s and the 1970s. There are eight 

contaminants in the tailings and soil at 

the Klondyke tailings site that are at 

levels above regulatory limits. These 

contaminants include antimony, 

arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, 

lead, manganese, and zinc. Samples of 

shallow groundwater collected at the 

site contained arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel 

above regulatory limits (Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

2006, p. 2). A preliminary study in 

Aravaipa Creek has found high levels of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66488 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

lead in two other native fish species, 

Sonora sucker (Catostomus insignis) and 

roundtail chub (Gila robusta), as well as 

in the sediment and in some of the 

invertebrates. These lead levels are high 

enough that they could negatively 

impact reproduction (P. Reinthal, 

University of Arizona pers. comm. 

2010). We do not know with certainty 

whether these levels of lead would 

affect spikedace or loach minnow, but 

we assume the same negative effects 

would occur. 

Pollution is increasingly more 

widespread and more often from nonpoint sources. Urban and suburban 

development is one source of non-point 

pollution. Increasing the area subject to 

runoff from roads, golf courses, and 

other sources of petroleum products, 

pesticides, and other toxic materials, 

can cause changes in fish communities 

(Wang et al. 1997, pp. 6, 9, 11). Nutrient 

and sediment loads are increasing in 

urban areas (King et al. 1997, pp. 7–24, 

38, 39) and, combined with depleted 

stream flows, can be serious threats to 

aquatic ecosystem during some periods 

of the year. Bridges and roads increase 

with increasing rural and urban 

populations in Arizona (Arizona 

Department of Transportation 2000, pp. 

1–3), and pose significant risks to the 

fish from increases in toxic materials 

along roadways (Trombulak and Frissall 

2000, pp. 22–24). As noted previously, 

human populations within the ranges of 

spikedace and loach minnow are 

expected to increase over the next 20 

years. Therefore, we expect a 

corresponding increase in non-point 

source pollution. 

Based on historical records and longterm tree-ring records, wildfires have 

increased in the ponderosa pine forests 

of the Southwest, including the range of 

the spikedace and loach minnow 

(Swetnam and Betancourt 1990, pp. 

1017, 1019; Swetnam and Betancourt 

1998, pp. 3131–3135). This is due to a 

combination of decades of fire 

suppression, increases in biomass due 

to increased precipitation after 1976, 

and warming temperatures coupled 

with recent drought conditions 

(University of Arizona 2006, pp. 1, 3). 

As wildfires increase, so does the use of 

fire retardant chemical applications. 

Some fire retardant chemicals are 

ammonia-based, which is toxic to 

aquatic wildlife; however, many 

formulations also contain yellow 

prussiate of soda (sodium ferrocyanide), 

which is added as an anticorrosive 

agent. Such formulations are toxic for 

fish, aquatic invertebrates, and algae 

(Angeler et al. 2006, pp. 171–172; Calfee 

and Little 2003, pp. 1527–1530; Little 

and Calfee 2002, p. 5; Buhl and 

Hamilton 1998, p. 1598; Hamilton et al. 

1998, p. 3; Gaikwokski et al. 1996, pp. 

1372–1373). Toxicity of these 

formulations is enhanced by sunlight 

(Calfee and Little 2003, pp. 1529–1533). 

In a 2008 biological opinion issued by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the 

Forest Service on the nationwide use of 

fire retardants, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service concluded that the use 

of fire retardants can cause mortality to 

fish by exposing them to ammonia. We 

concluded in the opinion that the 

proposed action, which included the 

application of fire retardants throughout 

the range of the species, was likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the spikedace and loach minnow 

(Service 2008a). 

Severe wildfires capable of extirpating 

or decimating fish populations are a 

relatively recent phenomenon, and 

result from the cumulative effects of 

historical or ongoing grazing (removes 

the fine fuels needed to carry fire) and 

fire suppression (Madany and West 

1983, pp. 665–667; Savage and 

Swetnam 1990, p. 2374; Swetnam 1990, 

p. 12; Touchan et al. 1995, pp. 268–271; 

Swetnam and Baisan 1996, p. 29; Belsky 

and Blumenthal 1997, pp. 315–316, 

324–325; Gresswell 1999, pp. 193–194, 

213). Historical wildfires were primarily 

cool-burning understory fires with 

return intervals of 4 to 8 years in 

ponderosa pine (Swetnam and Dieterich 

1985, pp. 390, 395). Cooper (1960, p. 

137) concluded that prior to the 1950s, 

crown fires were extremely rare or 

nonexistent in the region. However, 

since 1989, high-severity wild fires, and 

subsequent floods and ash flows, have 

caused the extirpation of several 

populations of Gila trout in the Gila 

National Forest, New Mexico (Propst et 

al. 1992, pp. 119–120, 123; Brown et al. 

2001, pp. 140–141). It is not known if 

spikedace or loach minnow have 

suffered local extirpations; however, 

native fishes, including spikedace and 

loach minnow, in the West Fork Gila 

River, showed 60 to 80 percent 

decreases in population following the 

Cub Fire in 2002, due to flooding events 

after the fire (Rinne and Carter 2008, pp. 

171). Increased fines and ash may be 

continuing to affect the populations on 

the West Fork Gila, near the Gila Cliff 

Dwellings (D. Propst. NMDGF, pers. 

comm. 2004). 

Effects of fire may be direct and 

immediate or indirect and sustained 

over time. Because spikedace and loach 

minnow are found primarily in the 

lower elevation, higher-order streams, 

they are most likely affected by the 

indirect effects of fire (e.g., ash flows), 

not direct effects (e.g., drastic changes in 

pH, ammonium concentrations). 

Indirect effects of fire include ash and 

debris flows, increases in water 

temperature, increased nutrient inputs, 

and sedimentation (Propst et al. 1992, 

pp. 119–120; Gresswell 1999, pp. 194– 

211; Rinne and Carter 2008, pp. 169– 

171). Of these, ash flows probably have 

the greatest effect on spikedace and 

loach minnow. Ash and debris flows 

may occur months after fires, when 

barren soils are eroded during 

monsoonal rain storms (Bozek and 

Young 1994, pp. 92–94). Ash and fine 

particulate matter created by fire can fill 

the interstitial spaces between gravel 

particles, eliminating spawning habitat 

or, depending on the timing, suffocating 

eggs that are in the gravel. Ash and 

debris flows can also decimate aquatic 

invertebrate populations that the fish 

depend on for food (Molles 1985, 

p. 281). 

Recreation 

The impacts to spikedace and loach 

minnow from recreation can include 

movement of livestock along 

streambanks, trampling, loss of 

vegetation, and increased danger of fire 

(Northern Arizona University 2005, p. 

136; Monz et al. 2010, pp. 553–554). In 

the arid Gila River Basin, recreational 

impacts are disproportionately 

distributed along streams as a primary 

focus for recreation (Briggs 1996, p. 36). 

Within the range of spikedace and loach 

minnow, the majority of the occupied 

areas occur on Federal lands, which are 

managed for recreation and other 

purposes. Spikedace and loach minnow 

are experiencing increasing habitat 

impacts from such use in some areas. 

For example, Fossil Creek experienced 

an increase in trail use at one site, with 

an estimated 8,606 hikers using the trail 

in 1998, and an estimated 19,650 hikers 

using the trail in 2003. Dispersed 

camping also occurs in the area. The 

greatest impacts from camping were 

vegetation loss and litter (Northern 

Arizona University 2005, pp. 134–136). 

Similar impacts have been observed at 

Aravaipa Creek. Vegetation loss is often 

accompanied by soil compaction, which 

when combined with vegetation loss, 

can result in increased runoff and 

sedimentation in waterways (Monz et 

al. 2010, pp. 551–553; Andereck 1993, 

p. 2). 

Roads and Bridges 

Roads impact Gila River Basin 

streams (Dobyns 1981, pp. 120–129, 

167, 198–201), including spikedace, 

loach minnow, and their habitats (Jones 

et al. 2000, pp. 82–83). The need for 

bridges and roads increases with 

increasing rural and urban populations 

in Arizona (Arizona Department of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66489 

Transportation 2000, pp. 1–3). In 

addition, existing roads and bridges 

have ongoing maintenance requirements 

that result in alterations of stream 

channels within spikedace and loach 

minnow habitats (Service 1994a, pp. 8– 

12; Service 1995a, pp. 10–12; Service 

1995b, pp. 5–7; Service 1997a, pp. 10– 

15; Service 1997b, pp. 54–77). Bridge 

construction or repair causes channel 

alteration and, if not carefully executed, 

can result in long-term channel 

adjustments, altering habitats upstream 

and downstream. In some areas, lowwater ford crossings exist within 

occupied spikedace and loach minnow 

habitats and cause channel modification 

and habitat disruption. Low-water 

crossings on general-use roads exist in 

a number of areas that may support 

spikedace and loach minnow. These 

crossings frequently require 

maintenance following minor flooding. 

Repeated road repairs near the Gila 

Cliff Dwellings on the West Fork Gila 

River have occurred because the bridge 

span is too short to accommodate peak 

flows. This is a common problem on 

bridges that cross the Gila River, and on 

other rivers occupied by spikedace and 

loach minnow in the Southwest. In an 

attempt to protect bridges, large 

amounts of fill (such as boulders, rip 

rap, and dirt) are used to confine and 

redirect the river. Typically, this habitat 

alteration is detrimental to spikedace 

and loach minnow because it changes 

the channel gradient and substrate 

composition, and reduces habitat 

availability. Eventually, peak flows 

remove the fill material, roads and 

bridges are damaged, and the resulting 

repairs and reconstruction lead to 

additional habitat disturbance (Service 

1998, 2002, 2005, 2008b, 2008c, 2009, 

2010a). 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing has been one of the 

most widespread and long-term adverse 

impacts to native fishes and their 

habitat (Miller 1961, pp. 394–395, 399), 

but is one of the few threats where 

adverse effects to species such as 

spikedace and loach minnow are 

decreasing, due to improved 

management on Federal lands (Service 

1997c, pp. 121–129, 137–141; Service 

2001, pp. 50–67). This improvement 

occurred primarily by discontinuing 

grazing in the riparian and stream 

corridors. However, although adverse 

effects are less than in the past, 

livestock grazing within watersheds 

where spikedace and loach minnow and 

their habitats are located continues to 

cause adverse effects. These adverse 

effects occur through watershed 

alteration and subsequent changes in 

the natural flow regime, sediment 

production, and stream channel 

morphology (Platts 1990, pp. I–9—I–11; 

Belsky et al. 1999, pp. 1–3, 8–10; 

Service 2001, pp. 50–67). 

Livestock grazing can destabilize 

stream channels and disturb riparian 

ecosystem functions (Platts 1990, pp. I– 

9—I–11; Armour et al. 1991, pp. 7–10; 

Tellman et al. 1997, pp. 20–21, 33, 47, 

101–102). Improper livestock grazing 

can negatively affect spikedace and 

loach minnow through removal of 

riparian vegetation (Propst et al. 1986, 

p. 3; Clary and Webster 1989, p. 1; Clary 

and Medin 1990, p. 1; Schulz and 

Leininger 1990, p. 295; Fleishner 1994, 

pp. 631–633, 635–636), which can result 

in reduced bank stability and higher 

water temperatures (Kauffman and 

Krueger 1984, pp. 432–434; Platts and 

Nelson 1989, pp. 453, 455; Fleishner 

1994, pp. 635–636; Belsky et al. 1999, 

pp. 2–5, 9–10). Livestock grazing can 

also cause increased sediment in the 

stream channel, due to streambank 

trampling and riparian vegetation loss 

(Weltz and Wood 1986, pp. 364–368; 

Pearce et al. 1998, pp. 302, 307; Belsky 

et al. 1999, p. 10). Livestock can 

physically alter the streambank through 

trampling and shearing, leading to bank 

erosion (Trimble and Mendel 1995, pp. 

243–244; Belsky et al. 1999, p. 1). In 

combination, loss of riparian vegetation 

and bank erosion can alter channel 

morphology, including increased 

erosion and deposition, increased 

sediment loads, downcutting, and an 

increased width-to-depth ratio, all of 

which lead to a loss of spikedace and 

loach minnow habitat components. 

Livestock grazing management also 

continues to include construction and 

maintenance of open stock tanks, which 

are often stocked with nonnative aquatic 

species harmful to spikedace and loach 

minnow (Service 1997b, pp. 54–77) if 

they escape or are transported to waters 

where these native fish occur. 

Summary of Factor A 

Impacts associated with roads and 

bridges, changes in water quality, and 

recreation have altered or destroyed 

many of the rivers, streams, and 

watershed functions in the ranges of the 

spikedace and loach minnow. As 

discussed above, activities such as 

groundwater pumping, surface water 

diversions, impoundments, dams, 

channelization, improperly managed 

livestock grazing, wildfire, agriculture, 

mining, road building, residential 

development, and recreation all 

contribute to riparian habitat loss and 

degradation of aquatic resources in 

Arizona and New Mexico. Changes in 

flow regimes are expected to continue 

into the foreseeable future. Therefore, 

we find that the spikedace and loach 

minnow are threatened by the 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of their habitats. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Currently, collection of spikedace and 

loach minnow in Arizona is prohibited 

by Arizona Game and Fish Commission 

Order 40, except where such collection 

is authorized by special permit (AGFD 

2009, p. 5). The collection of these 

species is prohibited in the State of New 

Mexico except by special scientific 

permit (NMDGF 2010, p. 4). Because 

spikedace and loach minnow do not 

grow larger than 80 mm (3 in), we 

believe that angling for this species is 

not a threat. No known commercial uses 

exist for spikedace or loach minnow. A 

limited amount of scientific collection 

occurs, but does not pose a threat to 

these species because it is regulated by 

the States. Therefore, we have 

determined that overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes is not a threat to 

spikedace or loach minnow. 

C. Disease or Predation 

The introduction and spread of 

nonnative species has been identified as 

one of the primary factors in the 

continuing decline of native fishes 

throughout North America and 

particularly in the Southwest (Miller 

1961, pp. 365, 397–398; Lachner et al. 

1970, p. 21; Ono et al. 1983, pp. 90–91; 

Carlson and Muth 1989, pp. 222, 234; 

Fuller et al. 1999, p. 1). Miller et al. 

(1989, pp. 22, 34, 36) concluded that 

introduced nonnative species were a 

causal factor in 68 percent of fish 

extinctions in North America in the last 

100 years. For the 70 percent of fish 

species that are still extant, but are 

considered to be endangered or 

threatened, introduced nonnative 

species are a primary cause of the 

decline (Lassuy 1995, pp. 391–394). 

Release or dispersal of new nonnative 

aquatic organisms is a continuing 

phenomenon in the species’ range 

(Rosen et al. 1995, p. 254). Currently, all 

native fishes in Arizona and 80 percent 

of native fishes in the Southwest are on 

either State or Federal protection lists. 

Nonnative fish introductions in the 

Southwestern United States began 

before 1900, and have steadily increased 

in frequency (Rinne and Stefferud 

1996b, p. 29). New species are 

continually being introduced through 

various mechanisms, including 

aquaculture, aquarium trade, sport fish 

stocking, live bait use, interbasin water 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66490 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

transfers, and general ‘‘bait bucket 

transport,’’ where people move fish from 

one area to another without 

authorization and for a variety of 

purposes (Service 1994b, pp. 12–16; 

Service 1999, pp. 24–59). Nearly 100 

kinds of nonnative fishes have been 

stocked or introduced into streams in 

the Southwest (Minckley and Marsh 

2009, p. 51). Nonnative fishes known to 

occur within the historical range of the 

spikedace include channel catfish 

(Ictalurus punctatus), flathead catfish 

(Pylodictis olivaris), red shiner 

(Cyprinella lutrensis), fathead minnow 

(Pimephales promelas), green sunfish 

(Lepomis cyanellus), largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth 

bass (Micropterus dolomieui), rainbow 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), 

mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), carp 

(Cyprinus carpio), bluegill (Lepomis 

macrochiris), yellow bullhead 

(Ameiurus natalis), black bullhead 

(Ameiurus melas), and goldfish 

(Carassius auratus) (ASU 2002). 

In the Gila River basin, introduction 

of nonnative species is considered a 

primary factor in the decline of native 

fish species (Minckley 1985, pp. 1, 68; 

Williams et al. 1985, pp. 1–2; Minckley 

and Deacon 1991, pp. 15–17; Douglas et 

al. 1994, pp. 9–11; Clarkson et al. 2005 

p. 20; Olden and Poff 2005, pp. 79–87). 

Aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals, 

reptiles, amphibians, crustaceans, 

mollusks (snails and clams), parasites, 

disease organisms, and aquatic and 

riparian vascular plants outside of their 

historical range, have all been 

documented to adversely affect aquatic 

ecosystems (Cohen and Carlton 1995, 

pp. i–iv). The effects of nonnative fish 

competition on spikedace and loach 

minnow 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). Interference 

competition in the form of predation is 

discussed here, while a discussion of 

the history of nonnative species 

introductions and resulting interference 

competition for resources are discussed 

under Factor E below. 

Predation 

Nonnative channel catfish, flathead 

catfish, and smallmouth bass all prey on 

spikedace and loach minnow, as 

indicated by prey remains of native 

fishes in the stomachs of these species 

(Propst et al. 1986, p. 82; Propst et al. 

1988, p. 64; Bonar et al. 2004, pp. 13, 

16–21). Channel catfish move into riffles 

to feed, preying on the same animals 

most important to loach minnows, 

while juvenile flathead catfish prey on 

loach minnows (Service 1991a, p. 5). 

Smallmouth bass are known to co-occur 

with spikedace and are documented 

predators of the species (Service 1991b, 

p. 6). Green sunfish are also thought to 

be a predator, likely responsible for 

replacement of native species like 

spikedace and loach minnow. While no 

direct studies have been completed on 

predation by green sunfish on spikedace 

or loach minnow, they are a known 

predator of fish that size, and they occur 

within areas occupied by these species. 

Declines of native fish species appear 

linked to increases in nonnative fish 

species. For example, in 1949, 52 

spikedace were collected at Red Rock on 

the Gila River, 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, pp. 2, 13, 

50–51). Similarly, interactions between 

native and nonnative fishes were 

observed in the upper reaches of the 

East Fork of the Gila River. Prior to the 

1983 and 1984 floods in the Gila River 

system, native fish were limited, with 

spikedace being rare or absent, while 

nonnative channel catfish and 

smallmouth bass were moderately 

common. After the 1983 flooding, adult 

nonnative predators were generally 

absent, and spikedace were collected in 

moderate numbers in 1985 (Propst et al. 

1986, p. 83). 

The majority of areas considered 

occupied by spikedace and loach 

minnow have seen a shift from a 

predominance of native fishes to a 

predominance of nonnative fishes. For 

spikedace, this is best demonstrated on 

the upper Verde River, where native 

species dominated the total fish 

community at greater than 80 percent 

from 1994 to 1996, before dropping to 

approximately 20 percent in 1997 and 

19 percent in 2001. At the same time, 

three nonnative species increased in 

abundance between 1994 and 2000 

(Rinne et al. 2004, pp. 1–2). Similar 

changes in the dominance of nonnative 

fishes have occurred on the Middle Fork 

Gila River, with a 65 percent decline of 

native fishes between 1988 and 2001 

(Propst 2002, pp. 21–25). 

In other areas, nonnative fishes may 

not dominate the system, but their 

abundance has increased, while 

spikedace and loach minnow 

abundance has declined. This is the 

case for the Cliff-Gila Valley area of the 

Gila River, where nonnative fishes 

increased from 1.1 percent to 8.5 

percent, while native fishes declined 

steadily over a 40-year period (Propst et 

al. 1986, pp. 27–32). At the Redrock and 

Virden valleys on the Gila River, the 

relative abundance in nonnative fishes 

in the same time period increased from 

2.4 percent to 17.9 percent (Propst et al. 

1986, pp. 32–34). Four years later, the 

relative of abundance of nonnative 

fishes increased to 54.7 percent at these 

sites (Propst et al. 1986, pp. 32–36). The 

percentage of nonnative fishes increased 

by almost 12 percent on the Tularosa 

River between 1988 and 2003, while on 

the East Fork Gila River, nonnative 

fishes increased to 80.5 percent relative 

abundance in 2003 (Propst 2005, pp. 

6–7, 23–24). Nonnative fishes are also 

considered a management issue in other 

areas including Eagle Creek, the San 

Pedro River, West Fork Gila River, and 

to a lesser extent on the Blue River and 

Aravaipa Creek. 

Generally, when the species 

composition of a community shifts in 

favor of nonnative fishes, a decline in 

spikedace or loach minnow abundance 

occurs (Olden and Poff 2005, pp. 79– 

86). Propst et al. (1986, p. 38) noted this 

during studies of the Gila River between 

1960 and 1980. While native species, 

including spikedace, dominated the 

study area initially, red shiner, fathead 

minnow, and channel catfish were more 

prevalent following 1980. Propst et al. 

(1986, pp. 83–86) noted that drought 

and diversions for irrigation first 

brought a decline in habitat quality, 

followed by the establishment of 

nonnative fishes in remaining suitable 

areas, thus reducing the availability and 

utility of these areas for native species. 

It should be noted that the effects of 

nonnative fishes often occur with, or are 

exacerbated by, changes in flow regimes 

or declines in habitat conditions (see 

Factor A above) and should be 

considered against the backdrop of 

historical habitat degradation that has 

occurred over time (Minckley and Meffe 

1987, pp. 94, 103; Rinne 1991, p. 12). 

Nonnative channel catfish, flathead 

catfish, and smallmouth bass are present 

in most spikedace habitats, including 

the Verde River (Minckley 1993, pp. 

7–13; Jahrke and Clark 1999, pp. 2–7; 

Rinne 2004, pp. 1–2; Bahm and 

Robinson 2009, pp. 1–4; Robinson and 

Crowder 2009, pp. 3–5); the Gila River 

(Propst et al. 1986, pp. 14–31; Springer 

1995, pp. 6–10; Jakle 1995, pp. 5–7; 

Propst et al. 2009, pp. 14–17); the San 

Pedro River (Jakle 1992, pp. 3–5; 

Minckley 1987, pp. 2, 16); the San 

Francisco River (Papoulias et al. 1989, 

pp. 77–80; Propst et al. 2009, pp. 5–6); 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66491 

the Blue River (ASU 1994, multiple 

reports; ASU 1995, multiple reports; 

Clarkson et al. 2008, pp. 3–4); the 

Tularosa River, East Fork Gila River, 

West Fork Gila River, and Middle Fork 

Gila River (Propst et al. 2009, pp. 7–13; 

NMDGF 2009 in draft, pp. 2–14); and 

Eagle Creek (Marsh et al. 2003, p. 667; 

ASU 2008, multiple reports; Bahm and 

Robinson 2009a, pp. 2–6). 

Pilger et al. (2010, pp. 311–312) 

studied the food webs in six reaches of 

the Gila River. Their study attempted to 

quantify resource overlap among native 

and nonnative fishes. Their study 

determined that nonnative fishes 

consumed a greater diversity of 

invertebrates and more fish than native 

species, and that nonnative fishes 

consumed predacious invertebrates and 

terrestrial invertebrates more frequently 

than native fishes. They found that, on 

average, the diets of adult nonnative 

fishes were comprised of 25 percent 

fish, but that there was high variability 

among species. Only 6 percent of the 

diet of channel catfish was fish, while 

fish made up 84 percent of the diet of 

flathead catfish. They found that both 

juvenile and adult nonnative species 

could pose a predation threat to native 

fishes. 

As noted below under Factor E, 

nonnative fishes also compete for 

resources with native fishes. While 

nonnative fishes were preying on native 

fishes, small-bodied nonnative fishes 

are potentially affecting native fishes 

through competition (discussed further 

under Factor E), so that native fishes are 

impacted by both competition and 

predation. Pilger et al. (2010, p. 312) 

note that removal and preclusion of 

nonnative predators and competitors 

may be necessary for conservation of 

native fishes in the upper Gila River in 

order to mitigate the effects they have 

on native species. Pilger et al. (2010, p. 

312) note that, in the upper Verde River, 

native fishes have declined 

precipitously since the mid-1990s, 

which may indicate that a stressor 

threshold has been crossed. They 

conclude that there are declining trends 

of native fish abundances in the upper 

Gila River, and that the coexistence of 

native and nonnative fishes there may 

indicate that the threshold has not been 

reached, but may be imminent. 

Disease 

Various parasites may affect 

spikedace and loach minnow. Asian 

tapeworm (Bothriocephalus 

acheilognathi) was introduced into the 

United States with imported grass carp 

(Ctenopharyngodon idella) in the early 

1970s. It has since become well 

established in areas throughout the 

southwestern United States. The 

definitive host in the life cycle of Asian 

tapeworm is a cyprinid fish (carp or 

minnow), and therefore it is a potential 

threat to spikedace and loach minnow, 

as well as other native cyprinids in 

Arizona. The Asian tapeworm adversely 

affects fish health by impeding the 

digestion of food as it passes through 

the intestinal track. Emaciation and 

starvation of the host can occur when 

large enough numbers of worms feed off 

of the fish directly. An indirect effect is 

that weakened fish are more susceptible 

to infection by other pathogens. Asian 

tapeworm invaded the Gila River basin 

and was found during the Central 

Arizona Project’s fall 1998 monitoring 

in the Gila River at Ashurst-Hayden 

Dam. It has also been confirmed from 

Bonita Creek in 2010 and from Fossil 

Creek in 2004 and 2010 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service National Wild Fish 

Health Survey 2004, 2010). This parasite 

can infect many species of fish and is 

carried into new areas along with 

nonnative fishes or native fishes from 

contaminated areas. 

The parasite (Ichthyophthirius 

multifiliis) (Ich) usually occurs in deep 

waters with low flow and is a potential 

threat to spikedace and loach minnow. 

Ich has occurred in some Arizona 

streams, probably encouraged by high 

temperatures and crowding as a result of 

drought (Mpoame 1982, pp. 45–47). 

This parasite was observed being 

transmitted on the Sonora sucker 

(Catostomus insignis), although it does 

not appear to be host-specific and could 

be transmitted by other species 

(Mpoame 1982, p. 46). It has been found 

on desert and Sonoran suckers, as well 

as roundtail chub (Robinson et al. 1998, 

p. 603). This parasite becomes 

embedded under the skin and within 

the gill tissues of infected fish. When 

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, it can also impact 

respiration because of damaged gill 

tissue. There are recorded spikedace 

mortalities in captivity due to Ich. Ich 

is known to be present in Aravaipa 

Creek (Mpoame 1982, p. 46), which is 

currently occupied by both spikedace 

and loach minnow. 

Anchor worm (Lernaea cyprinacea), 

an external parasite, is unusual in that 

it has little host specificity, infecting a 

wide range of fishes and amphibians. 

Infection by this parasite has been 

known to kill large numbers of fish due 

to tissue damage and secondary 

infection of the attachment site 

(Hoffnagle and Cole 1999, p. 24). 

Presence of this parasite in the Gila 

River basin is a threat to spikedace, 

loach minnow, and other native fishes. 

In July 1992, the BLM found anchor 

worms in Bonita Creek. They have also 

been documented in Aravaipa Creek 

and the Verde River (Robinson et al. 

1998, pp. 599, 603–605). Both spikedace 

and loach minnow occur in Bonita and 

Aravaipa Creeks. 

Summary of Factor C 

Both spikedace and loach minnow 

have been severely impacted by the 

presence of nonnative predators. 

Aquatic nonnative species have been 

introduced or spread into new areas 

through a variety of mechanisms, 

including intentional and accidental 

releases, sport stocking, aquaculture, 

aquarium releases, and bait-bucket 

release. Channel catfish, flathead 

catfish, and smallmouth bass appear to 

be the most prominent predators, 

although other species contribute to the 

decline of native fishes in the 

Southwest, including spikedace and 

loach minnow. Spikedace and loach 

minnow have been replaced by 

nonnative fishes in several Arizona 

streams. In addition to threats from 

predation, we also conclude that both 

spikedace and loach minnow are 

reasonably certain to become impacted 

by parasites that have been documented 

in the Gila River basin and that are 

known to adversely affect or kill fish 

hosts. For these reasons, we find that 

the spikedace and loach minnow are 

threatened by disease and predation. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Because of the complex, indirect, and 

cumulative nature of many of the threats 

to spikedace and loach minnow, 

existing regulatory mechanisms are 

often inadequate to address or 

ameliorate the threats. Causes of the 

declining status of these species are a 

mix of many human activities and 

natural events, which makes it difficult 

to remove those threats through 

regulation. Spikedace is listed by New 

Mexico as an endangered species, while 

loach minnow is listed as threatened 

(Bison-M 2010). These designations 

provide the protection of the New 

Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act. 

However, the primary focus of the New 

Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act and 

other State legislation is to prevent 

actual destruction or harm to 

individuals of the species. Since most of 

the threats to these species come from 

actions that do not directly kill 

individuals, but indirectly result in their 

death from the lack of some habitat 

requirement or an inability to 

reproduce, the State protection is only 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66492 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

partially effective for this species. 

Similarly, spikedace and loach minnow 

are listed as species of concern by the 

State of Arizona. The listing under the 

State of Arizona law does not provide 

protection to the species or their 

habitats; however, AGFD regulations 

prohibit possession of these species 

(AGFD 2006, Appendix 10, p. 4). 

As discussed above under Factor C, 

the introduction and spread of 

nonnative aquatic species is a major 

threat to spikedace and loach minnow. 

Neither the States of New Mexico and 

Arizona nor the Federal government has 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

address this issue. Programs to 

introduce, augment, spread, or permit 

such actions for nonnative sport, bait, 

aquarium, and aquaculture species 

continue. Regulation of these activities 

does not adequately address the spread 

of nonnative species, as many 

introductions are conducted through 

incidental or unregulated actions. 

New Mexico water law does not 

include provisions for instream water 

rights to protect fish and wildlife and 

their habitat. Arizona water law does 

recognize such provisions; however, 

because this change is relatively recent, 

instream water rights have low priority 

and are often overcome by more senior 

diversion rights. Arizona State law also 

allows surface water depletion by 

groundwater pumping. 

There are many Federal statutes that 

potentially afford protection to 

spikedace and loach minnow. A few of 

these are section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (43 

U.S.C. 1701–1782), National Forest 

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et 

seq.), NEPA, and the Act. However, in 

practice these statutes have not been 

able to provide sufficient protection to 

prevent the downward trend in the 

populations and habitat of spikedace 

and loach minnow and the upward 

trend in threats. Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act regulates placement of 

fill into waters of the United States, 

including most of spikedace and loach 

minnow habitat. However, many actions 

highly detrimental to spikedace and 

loach minnow and their habitats, such 

as gravel mining and irrigation 

diversion structure construction and 

maintenance, are often exempted from 

the Clean Water Act. Other detrimental 

actions, such as bank stabilization and 

road crossings, are covered under 

nationwide permits that receive little or 

no Service review. A lack of thorough, 

site-specific analyses for projects can 

allow substantial adverse effects to 

spikedace, loach minnow, and their 

habitat. 

The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act and National Forest 

Management Act provide mechanisms 

for protection and enhancement of 

spikedace, loach minnow, and their 

habitat on Federal lands; however, these 

laws have been in effect longer than the 

24 years since spikedace and loach 

minnow were listed. Although the 

Forest Service has made significant 

progress on some stream enhancements 

(Fossil Creek, Blue River), the multipleuse mission and limited staffing and 

resources has limited measureable onthe-ground success, and the status of 

these species has continued to decline. 

Spikedace and loach minnow are 

currently listed as threatened under the 

Act and therefore are afforded the 

protections of the Act. Special rules 

were promulgated for spikedace and 

loach minnow in 1986, which prohibit 

taking of the species, except under 

certain circumstances in accordance 

with applicable State fish and wildlife 

conservation laws and regulations. 

Violations of the special rules are 

considered violations of the Act (50 CFR 

17.44(p) for spikedace and 50 CFR 

17.44(q) for loach minnow). As a result 

of the special rules for spikedace and 

loach minnow, the AGFD is issuing 

scientific collecting permits. This 

authority was granted at 50 CFR 

17.44(p) for spikedace and 50 CFR 

17.44(q) for loach minnow. This is 

confirmed through Arizona Commission 

Order 40 and New Mexico special 

permit (19 New Mexico Administrative 

Code 33.6.2). 

Under section 7 of the Act, Federal 

agencies must insure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

adverse modification or destruction of 

designated critical habitat. The Service 

promulgated regulations extending take 

prohibitions under section 9 for 

endangered species to threatened 

species. Prohibited actions under 

section 9 include, but are not limited to, 

take (i.e., harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or attempt to engage in such 

activity). Critical habitat designation 

alerts the public that the areas 

designated as critical habitat are 

important for the future recovery of the 

species, as well as invoking the review 

of these areas under section 7 of the Act 

with regard to any possible Federal 

actions in that area. 

Section 10 of the Act allows for the 

permitting of take in the course of 

otherwise lawful activities by private 

entities, and may involve habitat 

conservation plans which can 

ultimately benefit spikedace or loach 

minnow. The habitat conservation plan 

prepared by Salt River Project is 

expected to benefit spikedace and loach 

minnow in the Verde River. 

Summary of Factor D 

In summary, prohibitions against 

taking the species have been in place for 

decades, but these prohibitions have 

limited ability to address the numerous 

habitat impacts, particularly water 

diversion and the distribution and 

abundance of nonnative fishes, affecting 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

Therefore, we find that the spikedace 

and loach minnow are threatened by the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Nonnative Fishes 

As described under Factor C above, 

nonnative fishes pose a significant 

threat to Gila River basin native fishes, 

including spikedace and loach minnow 

(Minckley 1985, pp. 1, 68; Williams et 

al. 1985, pp. 3, 17–20; Minckley and 

Deacon 1991, pp. 15–17). Competition 

with nonnative fish species is 

considered a primary threat to 

spikedace and loach minnow (predation 

by nonnative fish species is discussed 

under Factor C). The effects of 

nonnative fish species are often 

exacerbated by changes in flow regimes 

or declines in habitat conditions 

associated with water developments, as 

discussed above, and should be 

considered against the backdrop of 

historical habitat degradation that has 

occurred over time (Minckley and Meffe 

1987, pp. 94, 103; Rinne 1991, p. 12). 

Stefferud and Rinne (1996b, p. 25) note 

that a long history of water development 

and diversion coupled with nonnative 

fish introductions has resulted in few 

streams in Arizona retaining their native 

fish communities. Using the Gila River 

as an example, Propst et al. (1988, p. 67) 

note that natural (e.g., drought) and 

human-induced (e.g., flow level 

reductions through irrigation diversion) 

factors combined to reduce loach 

minnow abundance in the Gila River. 

They note that where canyon habitat 

would normally continue to contain 

surface flows and suitable habitat for 

loach minnow, the establishment of 

nonnative fishes in canyon reaches has 

reduced their suitability as habitat for 

the minnow. Minckley and Douglas 

(1991, pp. 7–17) concluded that, for 

fishes native to the Southwest, the 

combination of changes in stream 

discharge patterns and nonnative fish 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66493 

introductions have reduced the range 

and numbers of all native species of 

fish, and has led to extinction of some. 

As with many fish in the West, 

spikedace and loach minnow lacked 

exposure to a wider range of species, so 

that they seem to lack the competitive 

abilities and predator defenses 

developed by fishes from regions where 

more species are present (Moyle 1986, 

pp. 28–31; Douglas et al. 1994, pp. 9– 

10). As a result, the native western fish 

fauna is significantly impacted by 

interactions with nonnative species. The 

introduction of more aggressive and 

competitive nonnative fish has led to 

significant losses of spikedace and loach 

minnow (Douglas et al. 1994, pp. 14– 

17). 

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. Therefore, the 

primary threat to native fishes comes 

from small, nonnative fish species 

(Deacon et al. 1964, pp. 385, 388). 

Examples of this are the impacts of 

mosquitofish and red shiner, which may 

compete with, or predate upon, native 

fish in the Gila River basin (Meffe 1985, 

pp. 173, 177–185; Douglas et al. 1994, 

pp. 1, 13–17). 

Nonnative fishes known to occur 

within the historical range of spikedace 

and loach minnow in the Gila River 

basin include channel catfish, flathead 

catfish, red shiner, fathead minnow, 

green sunfish, largemouth bass, 

smallmouth bass, rainbow trout, 

western mosquitofish, carp, warmouth 

(Lepomis gulosus), bluegill, yellow 

bullhead, black bullhead, and goldfish 

(Miller 1961, pp. 373–394; Nico and 

Fuller 1999, pp. 16, 21–24; Clark 2001, 

p. 1; AGFD 2004, Bahm and Robinson 

2009b, p. 3). Additionally, as discussed 

above, parasites introduced incidentally 

with nonnative species may jeopardize 

spikedace and loach minnow 

populations. For spikedace and loach 

minnow, every habitat that has not been 

renovated or protected by barriers has at 

least six nonnative fish species present, 

at varying levels of occupation. In 

addition, occupied habitats have also 

been invaded by nonnative crayfish 

(Orconectes virilis) (Taylor et al. 1996, 

p. 31; Carter et al. 2007, p. 4; Robinson 

and Crowder 2009, p. 3; Robinson et al. 

2009b, p. 4). Crayfish are known to eat 

eggs, especially those bound to the 

substrate (Dorn and Mittlebach 2004, p. 

2135), as is the case for spikedace and 

loach minnow. Additionally, crayfish 

cause decreases in macroinvertebrates, 

amphibians, and fishes (Hanson et al. 

1990, p. 69; Lodge et al. 2000, p. 11). 

Several of the nonnative species now in 

spikedace and loach minnow habitats 

arrived there since the species were 

listed, such as red shiner in Aravaipa 

Creek (Stefferud and Reinthal 2005, p. 

51) and Asian tapeworm in the middle 

Gila River. 

Interference competition occurs with 

species such as red shiner. Nonnative 

red shiners compete with spikedace for 

suitable habitats, as the two species 

occupy essentially the same habitat 

types. The red shiner has an inverse 

distribution pattern in Arizona to 

spikedace (Minckley 1973, p. 138). 

Where the two species occur together, 

there is evidence of displacement of 

spikedace to less suitable habitats than 

previously occupied (Marsh et al. 1989, 

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

are present, suitable habitat for 

spikedace is reduced. In addition, the 

introduction of red shiner and the 

decline of spikedace have occurred 

simultaneously (Minckley and Deacon 

1968, pp. 1427–1428; Douglas et al. 

1994, pp. 13, 16–17). The red shiner was 

introduced in the mainstem Colorado 

River in the 1950s, spreading upstream 

to south-central Arizona by 1963, and 

by the late 1970s eastward into New 

Mexico. Spikedace disappeared at the 

same time and in the same progressively 

upstream direction, likely as a result of 

interactions with red shiner and in 

response to impacts of various water 

developments (Minckley and Deacon 

1968, pp. 1427–1428; Minckley and 

Deacon 1991, pp. 7, 15; Douglas et al. 

1994, pp. 13–17). 

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 

co-occurred for three decades; and (3) a 

portion of the Gila River where red 

shiner invaded areas and where 

spikedace have 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 with 

smaller particle sizes 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 alone or with spikedace 

(Douglas et al. 1994, pp. 14–16). Red 

shiners are known to occur in the Verde 

River (Minckley 1993, p. 10; Jahrke 

1999, pp. 2–7; Bahm and Robinson 

2009b, pp. 3–5), Aravaipa Creek (P. 

Reinthal, University of Arizona, pers. 

comm. 2008; Reinthal 2009, pp. 1–2), 

Blue River (ASU 2004, multiple reports; 

ASU 2005, multiple reports), and Gila 

River (Minckley 1973, pp. 136–137; 

Marsh et al. 1989, pp. 12–13; Propst et 

al. 2009, pp. 14–18). 

As with spikedace, exploitive 

competition also appears to occur 

between red shiner and 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. Loach minnow habitat is 

markedly different than that of red 

shiner, so interaction between the two 

species is unlikely to cause shifts in 

habitat use by loach minnow (Marsh et 

al. 1989, p. 39). Instead, studies indicate 

that 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 1986, p. 209). Should habitat 

conditions improve and the habitat once 

again become suitable for loach 

minnow, the presence of red shiner may 

preclude occupancy of loach minnow, 

although the specific mechanism of this 

interaction is not fully understood. 

Prior to 1960, the GlenwoodPleasanton reach of the Gila River 

supported a native fish assemblage 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 the 

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 most habitat 

components for native species. 

However, establishment of nonnative 

fishes in the canyon reaches has 

reduced the utility of these areas for 

native species (Propst et al. 1988, pp. 

51–56). 

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 fishes through 

predation and competition (Courtenay 

and Meffe 1989, pp. 320–324). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66494 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Introduced mosquitofish have been 

particularly destructive to native fish 

communities in the American West, 

where they have contributed to the 

elimination or decline of populations of 

federally endangered and threatened 

species, such as the Gila topminnow 

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis) 

(Courtenay and Meffe 1989, pp. 323– 

324). 

Pilger et al. (2010, p. 312) found that 

the generalist feeding strategy of smallbodied nonnative fishes could further 

affect native fishes through competition, 

particularly if there is a high degree of 

overlap in habitat use. In their study on 

the upper Gila River, they determined 

that the diets of nonnative, small-bodied 

fishes and all age groups of native fishes 

overlapped, so that the presence of both 

juvenile and adult nonnative species 

could pose a competitive threat to 

native fishes (Pilger et al. 2010, p. 311). 

Restoration efforts have led to limited 

success in removing large-bodied 

predators, but the small-bodied 

competitors present more of a challenge. 

In the desert Southwest, the habitat 

conditions are so limited that native fish 

reintroductions can occur only in those 

areas where the competition and 

predation of nonnative fishes can be 

physically precluded, such as above a 

fish barrier. 

Drought 

The southwestern United States is 

currently experiencing drought 

conditions (University of NebraskaLincoln 2010, p. 1). Drought conditions 

are reported as severe to extreme for the 

watersheds within the Verde River, San 

Pedro River, Bonita Creek, Eagle Creek, 

Blue River, and San Francisco River 

subbasins in Arizona (Arizona 

Department of Water Resources 2009, p. 

1). Portions of New Mexico are also 

considered abnormally dry, but not in 

areas currently occupied by spikedace 

and loach minnow (University of 

Nebraska-Lincoln 2010, p. 1). While 

spikedace and loach minnow have 

survived many droughts in their 

evolutionary histories, the present status 

of these species and their habitats are so 

degraded that the effects of the drought 

are more difficult for the species to 

withstand. In some areas of spikedace 

and loach minnow habitat, drought 

results in lower streamflow, and 

consequently warmer water 

temperatures beyond the species’ 

tolerance limits, and more crowded 

habitats with higher levels of predation 

and competition. In other areas, drought 

reduces flooding, that would normally 

rejuvenate habitat and tend to reduce 

populations of some nonnative species, 

which are less adapted to the large 

floods of southwestern streams 

(Minckley and Meffe 1987, pp. 94, 104; 

Stefferud and Rinne 1996a, p. 80). The 

conjunction of drought with ongoing 

habitat loss and alteration; increased 

predation, competition, and disease 

from nonnative species; the 

uncertainties associated with climate 

change; and the general loss of 

resiliency in highly altered aquatic 

ecosystems have had negative 

consequences for spikedace and loach 

minnow populations. 

Genetics 

Each remaining population of 

spikedace is genetically distinct. 

Genetic distinctiveness in the Verde 

River and Gila River fishes indicates 

that these populations have been 

historically isolated. The center of the 

spikedace’s historical distribution is 

permanently altered, and the remaining 

populations are isolated and represent 

the fringes of the formerly occupied 

range. Isolation of these populations has 

important ramifications for the overall 

survival of the species. Loss of any 

population may be permanent, as there 

is little ability to repopulate isolated 

areas, due largely to habitat alterations 

in areas between remaining populations 

(Propst et al. 1986, pp. 38, 86). No 

genetic exchange is possible between 

the remaining populations of spikedace 

without human assistance. In addition, 

because genetic variation is important to 

the species’ fitness and adaptive 

capability, losses of genetic variation 

represent a threat to the species (Meffe 

and Carroll 1997, pp. 162–172). 

Spikedace believed to remain in the 

upper Verde River are genetically 

different than those that were 

translocated to Fossil Creek; however, 

there is a minimal opportunity for the 

two populations to interbreed due to the 

length of the river between the two 

occupied areas. While the Verde River 

supports many of the habitat features for 

spikedace, it currently supports a high 

number of nonnative species that 

compete with, and prey on, spikedace. 

We anticipate that, until extensive 

management takes place, spikedace in 

the two areas will remain isolated. The 

spikedace translocation in Fossil Creek 

has been in place for approximately 

2 years. It is not known if that 

translocation effort will succeed. 

As with spikedace, each remaining 

population of loach minnow is 

genetically distinct. Genetic subdivision 

into three geographic regions indicates 

that gene flow has been low but not 

historically absent (Tibbets 1993, pp. 

22–24, 33). The center of the loach 

minnow’s historical distribution is 

permanently gone, and the remaining 

populations are isolated and represent 

the fringes of the formerly occupied 

range. Isolation of these populations has 

important ramifications for the overall 

survival of the species. Loss of any 

population may be permanent, as there 

is little ability to repopulate isolated 

areas, due largely to habitat alterations 

in areas between remaining populations 

(Propst et al. 1988, p. 65). No genetic 

exchange is likely between the 

remaining populations of loach minnow 

without human assistance. In addition, 

because genetic variation is important to 

the species’ fitness and adaptive change, 

losses of genetic variation represent a 

threat to the species’ ability to adapt and 

persist, and further compromise their 

continued existence (Meffe and Carroll 

1997, pp. 162–172). 

Climate Conditions 

Climate conditions have contributed 

to the status of the spikedace and loach 

minnow now and will likely continue 

into the foreseeable future. While floods 

may benefit the species, habitat drying 

affects the occurrence of natural events, 

such as fire, drought, and forest die-off, 

and increases the chances of disease and 

infection. 

Climate simulations of Palmer 

Drought Severity Index (PSDI) (a 

calculation of the cumulative effects of 

precipitation and temperature on 

surface moisture balance) for the 

Southwest for the periods of 2006–2030 

and 2035–2060 predict an increase in 

drought severity with surface warming. 

Additionally, drought still increases 

during wetter simulations because the 

effect of heat-related moisture loss 

(Hoerling and Eicheid 2007, p. 19). 

Annual mean precipitation is likely to 

decrease in the Southwest as well as the 

length of snow season and snow depth 

(IPCC 2007, p. 887). Most models 

project a widespread decrease in snow 

depth in the Rocky Mountains and 

earlier snowmelt (IPCC 2007, p. 891). 

Exactly how climate change will affect 

precipitation is less certain, because 

precipitation predictions are based on 

continental-scale general circulation 

models that do not yet account for land 

use and land cover change effects on 

climate or regional phenomena. 

Consistent with recent observations in 

changes from climate, the outlook 

presented for the Southwest predicts 

warmer, drier, drought-like conditions 

(Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181; Hoerling 

and Eischeid 2007, p. 19). A decline in 

water resources with or without climate 

change will be a significant factor in the 

compromised watersheds of the desert 

southwest. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66495 

Summary of Factor E 

The small and declining spikedace 

and loach minnow populations make 

these species susceptible to natural 

environmental variability, including 

climate conditions such as drought. The 

high level of nonnative fish species 

competing for food resources and 

spawning conditions will exacerbate the 

compromised conditions where 

spikedace and loach minnow can occur. 

These native fishes are unable to 

maintain a competitive edge in areas 

where resources are already limited, and 

these resources are likely to become 

more limited due to water developments 

and drought. The demands on water 

resources, decreases in precipitation, 

and increases in temperatures are likely 

to further limit the areas where 

spikedace or loach minnow can persist. 

Therefore, we find that the spikedace 

and loach minnow are threatened by 

other natural or manmade factors. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

spikedace and loach minnow under the 

Act include several reintroduction and 

augmentation projects. Some of these 

projects have already begun; others are 

in the planning stage. Project planning 

is underway for renovation efforts in 

Blue River and Spring Creek in Arizona. 

Other recovery actions include 

reintroduction or translocation of 

spikedace into streams within its 

historical range. In 2007, translocations 

included 210 spikedace into Hot 

Springs Canyon, 210 spikedace into 

Redfield Canyon, and 124 spikedace 

into Fossil Creek. Monitoring and 

augmentation with 500 additional 

spikedace each at Hot Springs and 

Redfield and 600 additional spikedace 

at Fossil Creek occurred at these sites in 

2008. In 2008, 448 spikedace were 

reintroduced into Bonita Creek, 

Arizona. Spikedace were also 

reintroduced into the San Francisco 

River in New Mexico. Augmentation 

and monitoring will occur at these sites 

as well. Monitoring conducted at each 

of these sites will be used to determine 

if populations ultimately become selfsustaining at these new locations. 

Several translocation projects for 

loach minnow are also in the planning 

stages. These projects may occur with or 

without construction of fish barriers. 

Loach minnow may also benefit from 

the Blue River and Spring Creek 

renovation projects mentioned above. 

Additional recovery actions include 

translocations or reintroduction of loach 

minnow into streams within its 

historical range. In 2007, translocations 

included 205 loach minnow into Hot 

Springs Canyon, 205 loach minnow into 

Redfield Canyon, and 124 loach 

minnow into Fossil Creek. Monitoring 

and augmentation with 1,000 additional 

loach minnow each at Hot Springs and 

Redfield canyons and 2,004 additional 

loach minnow at Fossil Creek occurred 

in 2008. In 2008, 678 loach minnow 

were translocated into Bonita Creek, 

Arizona. Augmentation and monitoring 

will occur at this site as well. 

Monitoring conducted at each of these 

sites will be used to determine if 

populations ultimately become selfsustaining at these new locations. 

The AGFD and Bureau of Reclamation 

continue to fund equipment and staff to 

run the Bubbling Ponds Native Fish 

Research Facility through the Gila River 

Basin Native Fishes Conservation 

Program (formerly known as the Central 

Arizona Project Fund Transfer Program). 

Salt River Project’s habitat conservation 

plan was signed in 2008, and is 

expected to benefit both the spikedace 

and the loach minnow in the Verde 

River watershed. Also in 2008, AGFD 

staff managed original source stock and 

their progeny at the Bubbling Ponds 

facility, totaling 740 Gila River 

spikedace, 1,650 Aravaipa Creek 

spikedace, 670 Blue River loach 

minnow, and 3,250 Aravaipa Creek 

loach minnow. Plans are underway to 

bring in stock from every extant 

population of loach minnow, including 

those in the San Francisco River, the 

three forks of the Gila River, the upper 

Gila River in New Mexico, and Eagle 

and the Black River system in Arizona. 

Bubbling Ponds will serve as a refuge 

for some populations, and as a captive 

breeding facility for others, depending 

on the status of the population and 

availability of translocation sites. 

Proposed Determination 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

spikedace and loach minnow are 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of their range. 

We carefully assessed the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

regarding reclassification of the 

spikedace and the loach minnow from 

threatened to endangered. We believe 

there are many threats to both species, 

including habitat loss and modifications 

(Factor A) caused by historical and 

ongoing land uses such as water 

diversion and pumping, livestock 

grazing, and road construction. 

However, competition with, or 

predation by, nonnative species, such as 

channel and flathead catfish, green 

sunfish, and red shiner, is likely the 

largest remaining threat to the species 

(Factors C and E). Existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) have not proven 

adequate to halt the decline of 

spikedace or loach minnow since the 

time of their listing as threatened 

species. In addition, the warmer, drier, 

drought-like conditions predicted to 

occur due to climate change (Factor E) 

will further reduce available resources 

for spikedace and loach minnow. 

In 1991, we completed a 5-year 

review for spikedace and loach minnow 

in which we determined that the 

species’ status was very precarious and 

that a change in status from threatened 

to endangered was warranted. Since that 

time, although some recovery actions 

have occurred, the majority of the areas 

historically occupied by spikedace and 

loach minnow have seen a shift from a 

predominance of native fishes to a 

predominance of nonnative fishes. The 

low numbers of spikedace and loach 

minnow, their isolation in tributary 

waters, drought, ongoing water 

demands, and other threats indicate that 

the species are now in danger of 

extinction throughout their ranges. 

We determined in 1994 that 

reclassifying spikedace and loach 

minnow to endangered status was 

warranted but precluded (59 FR 35303, 

July 11, 1994), and restated this 

conclusion on January 8, 2001 (66 FR 

1295). We reanalyzed the determination 

each year in our Candidate Notice of 

Review, and determined that 

reclassification to endangered is 

warranted, with the most recent 

Candidate Notice of Review published 

on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804). 

Based on this information, as well as the 

above review of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that both species meet the 

definition of endangered species under 

the Act, and propose that spikedace and 

loach minnow be reclassified as 

endangered. 

If we finalize the reclassification of 

spikedace and loach minnow to 

endangered status, we would remove 

the special rules for these species at 50 

CFR 17.44(p) and 17.44(q), respectively. 

Special rules apply only to threatened 

species; therefore, if spikedace and 

loach minnow were listed as 

endangered, these special rules would 

no longer apply. 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(i) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66496 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

found those physical or biological 

features: 

(I) Essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(II) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(ii) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

under 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, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing 

actions that are likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires 

consultation on Federal actions that 

may affect 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 the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures. 

Where a landowner seeks or requests 

Federal agency funding or authorization 

for an action that may affect a listed 

species or critical habitat, the 

consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the 

event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the obligation of 

the Federal agency and the applicant is 

not to restore or recover the species, but 

to implement reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to avoid destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed must 

contain the physical and biological 

features (PBFs) essential to the 

conservation of the species, and be 

included only if those features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. Critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, habitat 

areas that provide essential life cycle 

needs of the species (areas on which are 

found the PBFs laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species). Under the Act and regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate 

critical habitat in areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed only when 

we determine that those areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and that designation limited to 

those areas occupied at the time of 

listing would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our 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 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally developed during the listing 

process for the species. Additional 

information sources may 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. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area of a river 

system to another over time. 

Furthermore, we recognize that critical 

habitat designated at a particular point 

in time may not include all of the 

habitat areas that we may later 

determine are necessary for the recovery 

of the species. For these reasons, a 

critical habitat designation does not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designated area is unimportant or may 

not be required for recovery of the 

species. 

Areas that are important to the 

conservation of the species, but are 

outside the critical habitat designation, 

will continue to be subject to 

conservation actions we implement 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas 

that support populations are also subject 

to the regulatory protections afforded by 

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

determined on the basis of the best 

available scientific information at the 

time of the agency 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 (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) 

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

and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in 

determining which areas within the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing to propose as critical habitat, 

we consider the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historic, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We considered the specific PBFs 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and in the appropriate quantity 

and spatial arrangement for the 

conservation of the species. We derived 

the specific PBFs from the biological 

needs of spikedace and loach minnow. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66497 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Spikedace 

Microhabitats. Habitat occupied by 

spikedace can be broken down into 

smaller, specialized habitats called 

microhabitats. These microhabitats vary 

by stream, by season, and by species’ 

life stage. Studies on habitat use have 

been completed on the Gila River in 

New Mexico, and the Verde River and 

Aravaipa Creek in Arizona. Generally, 

spikedace occupy moderate to large 

perennial streams at low elevations over 

substrates (river bottom material) of 

sand, gravel, and cobble (Barber and 

Minckley 1966, p. 31; Propst et al. 1986, 

pp. 3, 12; Rinne and Kroeger 1988, p. 1). 

Occupied streams are typically of low 

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

and Kroeger 1988, p. 2; Rinne 1991, pp. 

8–12; Rinne and Stefferud 1996, p. 17), 

and less than 1 meter (m) (3.28 feet (ft)) 

in depth (Propst et al. 1986, p. 41; 

Minckley and Marsh 2009, p. 155). 

Larval spikedace occur most 

frequently in slow-velocity water near 

stream margins or along pool edges. 

Most larvae are found over sand 

substrates. Juvenile spikedace tend to be 

found over a greater range of water 

velocities than larvae, but still in 

shallow areas. Juvenile spikedace 

occupy areas with a gravel or sand 

substrate, although some have been 

found over cobble substrates as well. 

Larvae and juveniles may occasionally 

be found in quiet pools or backwaters 

(e.g., pools that are connected with, but 

out of, the main river channel) (Sublette 

et al. 1990, p. 138). 

Adult spikedace occur in the widest 

range of flow velocities. They are 

typically associated with shear zones 

(areas within a stream where more 

rapidly flowing water abuts water 

moving at slower velocities), 

downstream of sand bars, and in eddies 

or small whirlpools along downstream 

margins of riffles (those shallow 

portions of the stream with rougher, 

choppy water). Adult spikedace are 

found in shallow water over 

predominantly gravel-dominated 

substrates (Propst et al. 1986, p. 40; 

Rinne 1991, pp. 8–12; Rinne and 

Stefferud 1997, p. 21; Rinne and Deacon 

2000, p. 106; Rinne 2001, p. 68), but 

also over cobble and sand substrates 

(Minckley and Marsh 2009, p. 155; 

Rinne and Kroeger 1988, p. 3; Sublette 

et al. 1990, p. 138). 

In addition to substrate type, the 

amount of embeddedness (filling in of 

spaces by fine sediments) is also 

important to spikedace. Spikedace more 

commonly occur in areas with low to 

moderate amounts of fine sediment and 

substrate embeddedness, which is 

important for the healthy development 

of eggs. Spawning has been observed in 

areas with sand and gravel beds and not 

in areas where fine materials smaller 

than sand coats the sand or gravel 

substrate. 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). 

Water temperatures of occupied 

spikedace habitat vary with time of year. 

Water temperatures have been collected 

at Aravaipa Creek, and on the Gila River 

in the Forks area and at the Cliff-Gila 

Valley. Summer water temperatures 

were between 19.3 degrees Celsius (°C) 

(66.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) (Gila 

River, Forks Area) and 27 °C (80.6 °F) 

(Aravaipa Creek). Winter water 

temperatures ranged between 8.9 °C 

(48.0 °F) at Aravaipa Creek and 11.7 °C 

(53.1 °F) in the Cliff-Gila Valley (Barber 

and Minckley 1966, p. 316; Barber et al. 

1970, pp. 11, 14; Propst et al. 1986, p. 

57). 

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 (1.8 °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 the lower test temperatures of 10 

and 4 °C (50 and 39.2 °F). Multiple 

behavioral and physiological changes 

were observed, indicating the 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). 

Spikedace occupy streams with low to 

moderate gradients (Propst et al. 1986, 

p. 3; Rinne and Stefferud 1997, 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 1997, p. 14). 

Table 1 compares specific parameters 

of habitat occupied by spikedace at 

various ages as identified through 

studies completed to date. Studies on 

flow velocity in occupied spikedace 

habitat have been completed on the Gila 

River, Aravaipa Creek, and the Verde 

River (Barber and Minckley 1966, p. 

321; Minckley 1973, p. 114; Anderson 

1978, p. 17; Schreiber 1978, p. 4; Turner 

and Tafanelli 1983, pp. 15–16; Propst et 

al. 1986, pp. 39–41; Rinne and Kroeger 

1988, p. 1; Hardy et al. 1990, pp. 19–20, 

39; Sublette et al. 1990, p. 138; Rinne 

1991, pp. 9–10; Rinne 1999, p. 6). 

TABLE 1—HABITAT PARAMETERS FOR VARYING LIFE STAGES OF SPIKEDACE

Larvae Juveniles Adults 

Flow Velocity in centimeters per 

second (inches per second).

8.4 (3.3) ........................................ 16.8 (6.6) ...................................... 23.3–70.0 (9.2–27.6). 

Depth in centimeters (inches) ........ 3.0–48.8 (1.2–19.2) ...................... 3.0–45.7 (1.2–18.0) ...................... 6.1–42.7 (2.4–16.8). 

Gradient (percent) .......................... No data ......................................... No data ......................................... 0.3 to < 1.0. 

Substrate ........................................ Primarily sand, with some over 

gravel or cobble.

Primarily gravel, with some sand 

and cobble.

Sand, gravel, cobble, and low 

amounts of fine sediments. 

In studies on the Gila River, there 

were seasonal shifts in microhabitats 

used, involving depth or velocity, 

depending on the study site. It is 

believed that seasonal shifts in 

microhabitat use reflect selection by 

spikedace for particular microhabitats. 

In the cold season, when their metabolic 

rate decreases, spikedace near the Forks 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

area on the Gila River seek protected 

areas among the cobble of stream 

channel margins, where water is 

shallower and warmer. In other areas 

such as the Cliff-Gila Valley, cobbled 

banks for protection were generally not 

available, but slow-velocity areas in the 

lee of gravel bars and riffles were 

common, and spikedace shifted to these 

protected areas of slower velocity 

during the cold season. Seasonal 

changes in microhabitat preference by 

spikedace are not entirely understood, 

and additional study is needed (Propst 

et al. 1986, pp. 47–49). 

Studies indicate a geographic 

variation in the portion of the stream 

used by spikedace. On the Verde River, 

outside of the April to June breeding 

season, 80 percent of the spikedace 

collected 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). In contrast, 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). 

Flooding. In part, suitable habitat 

conditions are maintained by flooding. 

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. Items 

2 and 3 will be addressed in greater 

detail below. 

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 decreases. 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 produce floods of 

varying intensity and duration. These 

high flows likely rejuvenate spikedace 

spawning and foraging habitat (Propst et 

al. 1986, p. 3). 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 the floods either stimulated 

spawning, enhanced recruitment of 

three native species, or eliminated one 

of the nonnative fish species (Stefferud 

and Rinne 1996a, p. 80). 

In summary, based on the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available for spikedace, we have 

developed the following ranges in 

habitat parameters, as follows: 

• Shallow water generally less than 

1 m (3.3 ft) in depth; 

• Slow to swift flow velocities 

between 5 and 80 cm per second (sec) 

(1.9 and 31.5 in. per sec); 

• Glides, runs, riffles, the margins of 

pools and eddies, and backwater 

components; 

• Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates 

with low or moderate amounts of fine 

sediment and substrate embeddedness, 

as maintained by a natural, unregulated 

flow regime that allows for periodic 

flooding or, if flows are modified or 

regulated, a flow regime that allows for 

adequate river functions, such as flows 

capable of transporting sediments; 

• Low gradients of less than 

approximately one percent; 

• Water temperatures in the general 

range of 8 to 28 °C (46.4 to 82.4 °F); and 

• Elevations below 2,100 m (6,890 ft). 

Loach Minnow 

Microhabitat. The best scientific and 

commercial information available 

indicates that, in general, loach minnow 

live on the bottom of small to large 

streams or rivers with low gradients 

within shallow, swift, and turbulent 

riffles. They are also known to occupy 

pool, riffle, and run habitats in some 

areas. They live and feed among clean, 

loose, gravel-to-cobble substrates. Their 

reduced air bladder (the organ that aids 

in controlling a fish’s ability to float 

without actively swimming) allows 

them to persist in high-velocity habitats 

with a minimal amount of energy, and 

they live in the interstitial spaces 

(openings) between rocks (Anderson 

and Turner 1977, pp. 2, 6–7, 9, 12–13; 

Barber and Minckley 1966, p. 315; Lee 

et al. 1980, p. 365; Britt 1982, pp. 10– 

13, 29–30; J.M. Montgomery 1985, p. 21; 

Marsh et al. 2003, p. 666; Minckley 

1981, p. 165; Propst et al. 1988, p. 35; 

Rinne 1989, p. 109; Velasco 1997, p. 28; 

Sublette et al. 1990, p. 187; AGFD 1994, 

pp. 1, 5–11; Bagley et al. 1995, pp. 11, 

13, 16, 17, 22; Rinne 2001, p. 69; 

Minckley and Marsh 2009, p. 174). 

Loach minnow are sometimes found in 

or near 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; Sublette et al. 1990, p. 187; 

Marsh and Minckley 2009, p. 174). 

Microhabitats used by loach minnow 

vary by life stage and stream. Adult 

loach minnow occupy a broad range of 

water velocities, with the majority of 

adults occurring in swift flows. Their 

eggs are adhesive, and are placed on the 

undersurfaces of rocks in the same 

riffles that they themselves occupy. 

After hatching, larval loach minnow 

move from the rocks under which they 

were spawned to areas with slower 

velocities than the main stream, 

typically remaining in areas with 

significantly slower velocities than 

juveniles and adults. Larval loach 

minnow occupy areas that are shallower 

and significantly slower than areas 

where eggs are found (Propst et al. 1988, 

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

Juvenile loach minnow generally occur 

in areas where velocities are similar to 

those used by adults, and that have 

higher flow velocities than those 

occupied by larvae (Propst et al. 1988, 

pp. 36–37). 

Substrate is an important component 

of loach minnow habitat. Studies in 

Aravaipa Creek and the Gila River 

indicate that loach minnow prefer 

cobble and large gravel, avoiding areas 

dominated by sand or fine gravel. This 

may be because 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 sections of the riffle, where loose 

materials are more likely to fall out of 

the water column and settle on the 

stream bottom. 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 

(Propst et al. 1984, p. 12). 

Varying substrates are used during 

different life stages of loach minnow. 

Adults occur over cobble and gravel, 

and place their eggs in these areas. 

Larval loach minnow are found where 

substrate particles are smaller than 

those used by adults. Juvenile loach 

minnow occupy areas with substrates of 

larger particle size than larvae. 

Generally, adults exhibited a narrower 

preference for depth and substrate than 

did juveniles, and were associated with 

gravel to cobble substrates within a 

narrower range of depths (Propst et al. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66499 

1988, pp. 36–39; Propst and Bestgen 

1991, pp. 32–33). 

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 9 to 22 °C 

(48.2 to 71.6 °F) (Britt 1982, p. 31; 

Propst et al. 1988, p. 62; Leon 1989, p. 

1; 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 one 

study, fish were acclimated to a given 

temperature, and then temperatures 

were increased by 1 °C (1.8 °F) per day 

until test temperatures were reached. 

The study determined that no loach 

minnow survived for 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 slowed at 

28 and 30 °C (82.4 and 86.0 °F) 

compared to growth at 25 °C (77 °F), 

indicating that loach minnow were 

stressed at sublethal 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 since 

100 percent survival of loach minnow at 

28 °C (82.4 °F) was observed, 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). 

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). 

Table 2 compares specific parameters 

of microhabitats occupied by loach 

minnow at various ages as identified 

through studies completed to date. 

Studies on habitat occupied by loach 

minnow have been completed on the 

Gila River, Tularosa River, San 

Francisco River, Aravaipa Creek, Deer 

Creek, and Eagle Creek (Barber and 

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

1, 5, 10–12, 29; Turner and Tafanelli 

1983, pp. 15–20, 26; Propst et al. 1984, 

pp. 7–12; Propst et al. 1988, pp. 32, 36– 

39; Rinne 1989, pp. 111–113, 116; 

Propst and Bestgen 1991, p. 32; Vives 

and Minckley 1990, pp. 451–452; Propst 

and Bestgen 1991, pp. 32–33; Velasco 

1997, pp. 5–6; Marsh et al. 2003, p. 666). 

TABLE 2—HABITAT PARAMETERS FOR VARYING LIFE STAGES OF LOACH MINNOW

Egg Larvae Juveniles Adults 

Flow Velocity in centimeters per second 

(inches per second).

3.0–91.4 (1.2–36.0) ... 0.0–48.8 (0.0–19.2) ... 3.0–85.3 (1.2–33.6) ... 0.0–79.2 (0.0–31.2). 

Depth in centimeters (inches) ........................ 3.0–30.5 (1.2–12) ...... 3.0–45.7 (1.2– 8.0) .... 6.1–42.7 (2.4–16.8) ... 6.1–45.7 (2.4–18.0). 

Substrate ........................................................ Large gravel to rubble No data ...................... No data ...................... Gravel to cobble. 

There are some differences in 

microhabitats occupied by loach 

minnow in different areas. Studies 

completed in New Mexico determined 

that there were significant differences in 

water velocities occupied among the 

three study sites, with the mean 

velocities at 37.4 (Tularosa River), 56.3 

(Forks area of the Gila River) and 60.5 

cm per second (Cliff-Gila Valley site on 

the Gila River). Differences in water 

depth were not as pronounced, 

however. Much of the variation in 

microhabitat utilization may be 

explained by habitat availability, as the 

compared streams varied in size (Propst 

et al. 1988, pp. 37–43). 

Flooding. Flooding also plays an 

important role in habitat suitability for 

loach minnow. In areas where 

substantial diversions (structures 

created to divert water to pools for 

pumping from the stream) 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 

(addressed further below) (Stefferud and 

Rinne 1996b, p. 1). 

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). 

Typically, sediment is carried along the 

bed of a stream and deposited at the 

downstream, undersurface side of 

cobbles and boulders. Over time, this 

can result in the filling of cavities 

created under cobbles and boulders 

(Rinne 2001, p. 69). Flooding removes 

the extra sediment, and 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). 

In summary, based on the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available for loach minnow, we have 

developed generalized ranges in habitat 

parameters within streams or rivers, as 

follows: 

• Shallow water generally less than 

1 m (3.3 ft) in depth; 

• Slow to swift flow velocities 

between 0 and 80 cm per sec (0.0 and 

31.5 in. per sec); 

• Pools, runs, riffles and rapids; 

• Sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble 

substrates with low or moderate 

amounts of fine sediment and substrate 

embeddedness, as maintained by a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66500 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

natural, unregulated flow regime that 

allows for periodic flooding or, if flows 

are modified or regulated, flow regime 

that allow for adequate river functions, 

such as flows capable of transporting 

sediments; 

• Water temperatures in the general 

range of 8 to 25 °C (46.4 to 77 °F); 

• Low stream gradients of less than 

approximately 2.5 percent; and 

• Elevations below 2,500 m (8,202 ft). 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Spikedace 

Food. Spikedace are active, highly 

mobile fish that visually inspect drifting 

materials both at the surface and within 

the water column. Gustatory inspection, 

or taking the 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 2 to 5 mm 

(0.08 to 0.20 in) long (Anderson 1978, 

p. 36). 

Stomach content analysis of 

spikedace determined that mayflies, 

caddisflies, true flies (Order Diptera), 

stoneflies, and dragonflies (Order 

Odonata) are all potential prey items. 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 composed 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). Barber and Minckley 

(1983, pp. 34–38) found that spikedace 

at Aravaipa Creek also consumed ants 

and wasps (Order Hymenoptera), 

spiders (Order Areneae), beetles (Order 

Coleoptera), true bugs, and water fleas 

(Order Cladocera). 

Spikedace diet varies seasonally 

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

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 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 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). Barber and Minckley (1983, pp. 36– 

37, 40) found that spikedace in pools 

had eaten the least diverse food, 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. 

Aquatic invertebrates that constitute 

the bulk of the spikedace diet have 

specific habitat parameters of their own. 

Mayflies occur primarily in fresh water 

with an abundance of oxygen. 

Spikedace consume mayflies from the 

genus Baetidae (Schreiber 1978, p. 36), 

which 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 the availability of these prey 

species, which make up the bulk of the 

spikedace diet, requires these surfaces 

to persist. 

The availability of food for spikedace 

is affected by flooding. The onset of 

flooding corresponds with an increased 

diversity of food items, as inflowing 

flood water carries terrestrial 

invertebrates, such as ants, bees, and 

wasps, into aquatic areas (Barber and 

Minckley 1983, p. 39). 

Water. As a purely aquatic species, 

spikedace are entirely dependent on 

streamflow habitat for all stages of their 

life cycle. Therefore, perennial flows are 

an essential feature. Areas with 

intermittent flows may serve as 

connective corridors between occupied 

or seasonally occupied habitat through 

which the species may move when the 

habitat is wetted. 

In addition to water quantity, water 

quality is important to spikedace. Water 

with no or low levels of pollutants is 

essential for the survival of spikedace. 

For spikedace, pollutants such as 

copper, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, 

human and animal waste products, 

pesticides, suspended sediments, ash, 

and gasoline or diesel fuels should not 

be present at high levels (D. Baker, 

Service, pers. comm. 2005). In addition, 

for freshwater fish, dissolved oxygen 

should generally be greater than 3.5 

cubic centimeters per liter (cc per l) 

(Bond 1979, p. 215). Below this, some 

stress to fish may occur. 

Fish kills have been documented 

within the range of the spikedace, 

including on 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). 

Occupancy by spikedace at the San 

Francisco River site is less certain, but 

spikedace were present in the Gila River 

upstream of its confluence with the San 

Francisco. Spikedace were present in 

the San Pedro River up through 1969 

within the area affected by the Cananea 

Mine spill, which extended 97 km (60 

mi) north of the United States/Mexico 

border (Eberhardt 1981, p. 3). All 

aquatic life within this 97-km (60-mi) 

stretch was killed between 1977 and 

1979, and no spikedace records are 

known after that time. For both the San 

Francisco and San Pedro rivers, 

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) noted that no bottomdwelling aquatic insects, live fish, or 

aquatic vegetation of any kind were 

found in the area affected by the spill. 

Rathbun (1969, pp. 1–2) reported 

similar results for the San Francisco 

River. As detailed above under the 

threats discussion, spills or discharges 

have occurred in the Gila River and 

affected streams within the watersheds 

of spikedace, including the Gila River, 

San Francisco River, San Pedro River, 

and some of their tributaries 

(Environmental Protection Agency 1997, 

pp. 24–67; Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality 2000, p. 6; 

Church et al. 2005, p. 40; Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

2007, p. 1). 

Based on the information above, we 

identify an appropriate prey base and 

water quality to be a PBF for spikedace, 

as follows: 

• An abundant aquatic insect food 

base consisting of mayflies, true flies, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66501 

black flies, caddisflies, stoneflies, and 

dragonflies; 

• Streams with no or no more than 

low levels of pollutants; 

• Perennial flows, or 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; 

• Streams with a natural, unregulated 

flow regime that allows for periodic 

flooding or, if flows are modified or 

regulated, a flow regime that allows for 

adequate river functions, such as flows 

capable of transporting sediments. 

Loach Minnow 

Food. Loach minnow are 

opportunistic, feeding on 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 

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 larvae 

of true flies (insects of the order Diptera) 

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 in one study. 

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 nymphs 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 though they are typically 

associated with riffles. 

Water Quality. Water, with no or low 

pollutant levels, is important for the 

conservation of loach minnow. For 

loach minnow, waters should have no 

more than low levels of pollutants, such 

as copper, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, 

human and animal waste products, 

pesticides, suspended sediments, and 

gasoline or diesel fuels (D. Baker, 

Service, pers. comm. 2005). In addition, 

for freshwater fish, dissolved oxygen 

should generally be greater than 3.5 cc 

per l (Bond 1979, p. 215). Below this, 

some stress to the fish may occur. 

Fish kills associated with previous 

mining accidents, as well as other 

contaminants issues, are detailed under 

the spikedace discussion above. These 

incidents occurred within the historical 

range of the loach minnow. As with 

spikedace, loach minnow were known 

to occur in the area affected by the 

Cananea Mine spill up through 1961. 

All aquatic life within the affected area 

was killed between 1977 and 1979, and 

no loach minnow records are known 

after that time. On the San Francisco 

River, loach minnow are known to have 

occurred in the general area of the spill 

in the 1980s and 1990s (ASU 2002). 

Additional spills or discharges have 

occurred in the Gila River and affected 

streams within the watersheds occupied 

by loach minnow, including the Gila 

River, San Francisco River, San Pedro 

River, and some of their tributaries 

(Environmental Protection Agency 1997, 

pp. 24–67; Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality 2000, p. 6; 

Church et al. 2005, p. 40; Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

2007, p. 1). 

Based on the information above, we 

identify an appropriate prey base and 

water quality to be a PBF for the loach 

minnow, as follows: 

• An abundant aquatic insect food 

base consisting of mayflies, true flies, 

black flies, caddisflies, stoneflies, and 

dragonflies; 

• Streams with no or no more than 

low levels of pollutants; 

• Perennial flows, or 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; and 

• Streams with a natural, unregulated 

flow regime that allows for periodic 

flooding or, if flows are modified or 

regulated, a flow regime that allows for 

adequate river functions, such as flows 

capable of transporting sediments. 

Cover or Shelter 

Spikedace. No specific information on 

habitat parameters used specifically for 

cover and shelter is available for 

spikedace. Therefore, we have not 

identified any specific physical and 

biological features specific to cover and 

shelter for spikedace. 

Loach Minnow. As noted above, adult 

loach minnow are sometimes associated 

with filamentous algae, which may 

serve as a protective cover (Anderson 

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

p. 365; Minckley 1981, p. 165; Sublette 

et al. 1990, p. 187; Marsh and Minckley 

2009, p. 174). 

Loach minnow adults place their 

adhesive eggs on the undersides of 

rocks, with the rock serving as 

protective cover. Probst et al. (1988, p. 

21) found that the rocks used were 

typically elevated from the surface of 

the streambed on the downstream side, 

with most rocks flattened and smoothsurfaced. Adult loach minnow remain 

with the eggs, so that the rock serves as 

a protective cover for them as well 

(Propst et al. 1988, pp. 21–25, 36–39). 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

Spikedace 

Suitable sites. Spikedace occur in 

specific habitat during the breeding 

season, with female and male spikedace 

becoming segregated. Females occupy 

pools and eddies, while males occupy 

riffles flowing over sand and gravel beds 

in water approximately 7.9 to 15.0 cm 

(3.1 to 5.9 in) deep. Females then enter 

the riffles occupied by the males before 

eggs are released into the water column 

(Barber et al. 1970, pp. 11–12). 

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). 

Larval and juvenile spikedace occupy 

peripheral portions of streams that have 

slower currents (Anderson 1978, p. 17; 

Propst et al. 1986, pp. 40–41). Gila River 

studies found larval spikedace in 

velocities of 8.4 cm per second (3.3 in. 

per sec) while juvenile spikedace 

occupy areas with velocities of 

approximately 16.8 cm per second (6.6 

in. per sec) (Propst et al. 1986, p. 41). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66502 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

25.4 to 35.6 mm (1.0 to 1.4 in) in length) 

occurred over a greater range of water 

velocities than smaller larvae, but still 

occupied water depths of less than 32.0 

cm (12.6 in) (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). 

During a study on the Gila River, 60 

percent of spikedace larvae were found 

over sand-dominated 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 10 percent associated 

with cobble-dominated substrates. 

Juveniles occupy a wider range in flow 

velocities than larvae (0.0 to 57.9 cm per 

second (22.8 in. per second)), but 

occurred at similar depths as larvae 

(Propst et al. 1986, pp. 40–41). 

As noted above, excessive 

sedimentation can lead to suffocation of 

eggs. Clean substrates are therefore 

essential for successful breeding. Both 

flooding and unaltered flow regimes are 

essential for maintenance of suitable 

substrates. As noted above under habitat 

requirements, periodic flooding appears 

to benefit spikedace by removing excess 

sediment from some portions of the 

stream, breaking up embedded bottom 

materials, or rearranging sediments in 

ways that restore suitable habitats. 

Flooding may also stimulate spawning 

or enhance recruitment (Mueller 1984, 

p. 355; Propst et al. 1986, p. 3; Stefferud 

and Rinne 1996a, p. 80; Minckley and 

Meffe 1987, pp. 99, 100; Rinne and 

Stefferud 1997, pp. 159, 162; Velasco 

1997, pp. 28–29). 

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 proposed designation 

may experience dry periods, they are 

still considered important because the 

spikedace is adapted to stream systems 

with fluctuating water levels. While 

they cannot persist in dewatered areas, 

spikedace will use these areas as 

connective corridors between occupied 

or seasonally occupied habitat when 

they are wetted. Areas that serve as 

connective corridors are those 

ephemeral or intermittent stream 

segments that connect two or more other 

perennial stream segments. 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify the following to be 

PBFs for spikedace: 

• Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates; 

• Riffle habitat; 

• Slower currents along stream 

margins with appropriate stream 

velocities for larvae; 

• Appropriate water depths for larvae 

and juvenile spikedace; 

• Flow velocities that encompass the 

range of 8.5 cm per sec (3.3 in. per sec) 

to 57.9 cm per sec (22.8 in. per sec); and 

• Streams with a natural, unregulated 

flow regime that allows for periodic 

flooding or, if flows are modified or 

regulated, a flow regime that allows for 

adequate river functions, such as flows 

capable of transporting sediments. 

Loach Minnow 

Adult loach minnow attach eggs to 

the undersurfaces of rocks in the same 

riffles in which they are typically found. 

In studies conducted on the Gila River, 

water velocities in these areas ranged 

from 3.0 to 91.4 cm per second (36.0 in. 

per second). The majority of rocks with 

attached eggs were found in water 

flowing at approximately 42.7 cm per 

second (16.8 in. per second). The range 

of depths in which rocks with eggs 

attached were found was 3.0 to 30.5 cm 

(1.2 to 12 in), with the majority found 

between 6.1 and 21.3 cm (2.4 and 8.4 in) 

(Propst et al. 1988, pp. 36–39). 

Loach minnow larvae occupy 

shallower and slower water than eggs. 

In Gila River studies, larvae occurred in 

flow velocities averaging 7.9 cm per 

second (3.1 in. per second), and in 

depths between 3.0 to 45.7 cm (1.2 to 18 

in). Juveniles occurred in areas with 

higher velocities, ranging between 35.1 

and 85.3 cm per second (13.8 and 33.6 

in. per second). Juveniles occurred in 

slightly deeper water of approximately 

6.1 to 42.7 cm (2.4 to 16.8 in) (Propst et 

al. 1988, pp. 36–39). 

As noted above under general habitat 

requirements, flooding is important in 

maintaining loach minnow habitat, 

including habitats used for breeding. 

Flooding reduces embeddedness of 

cobble and boulder substrates under 

which eggs are placed (Britt 1982, 

p. 45). 

The construction of water diversions 

have reduced or eliminated riffle habitat 

in many stream reaches, resulting in 

pool development. Loach minnow are 

generally absent in stream reaches 

affected by impoundments. While the 

specific factors responsible for this are 

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). 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify the following to be 

PBFs for loach minnow: 

• Cobble substrates; 

• Riffle habitats; 

• Slower currents along stream 

margins with appropriate stream 

velocities for larvae; 

• Appropriate water depths for larvae 

and juvenile loach minnow; 

• Flow velocities that encompass the 

range of 6.1 to 42.7 cm (2.4 to 16.8 in); 

and 

• Streams with a natural, unregulated 

flow regime that allows for periodic 

flooding or, if flows are modified or 

regulated, a flow regime that allows for 

adequate river functions, such as flows 

capable of transporting sediments. 

Habitats Protected From Disturbance or 

Representative of the Historical, 

Geographical, and Ecological 

Distributions of the Species 

Spikedace 

Nonnative aquatic species. One of the 

primary reasons for the decline of native 

species is the presence of nonnative 

fishes, as described above under Factors 

C and E above. Interactions with 

nonnative fishes can occur in the form 

of interference competition (e.g., 

predation) or exploitive competition 

(competition for resources), and 

introduced species are considered a 

primary factor in the decline of native 

species (Anderson 1978, pp. 50–51; 

Miller et al. 1989, p. 1; Lassuy 1995, 

p. 392). Multiple nonnative fish species 

are now present in the range of 

spikedace and loach minnow. In 

addition, nonnative parasites are also 

present. 

Flooding may help to reduce the 

threat presented by nonnative species. 

Minckley and Meffe (1987, pp. 99–100) 

found that flooding, as part of a natural 

flow regime, may temporarily remove 

nonnative fish species, which are not 

adapted to flooding patterns in the 

Southwest. Thus flooding consequently 

removes the competitive pressures of 

nonnative fish species on native fish 

species which persist following the 

flood. Minckley and Meffe (1987, pp. 

99–100) studied the differential 

response of native and nonnative fishes 

in seven unregulated and three 

regulated streams or stream reaches that 

were sampled before and after major 

flooding and 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 fishes after 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66503 

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 and 

green sunfish, appear to be partially 

adapted to flooding, and often reappear 

in a few weeks (Minckley and Meffe 

1987, p. 100). 

The information presented above 

indicates the detrimental effects of 

interference and exploitive competition 

with nonnative species to spikedace, as 

well as the issues presented by the 

introduction of nonnative parasites. 

Therefore, based on this information, we 

identify the necessary PBFs for 

spikedace to be: 

• Habitat devoid of nonnative aquatic 

species, or habitat in which nonnative 

aquatic species are at levels that allow 

persistence of spikedace. 

Loach Minnow 

As with spikedace (discussed above), 

interference and exploitive competition 

with nonnative species can be 

detrimental to loach minnow. 

Interference competition, in the form of 

predation, may result from interactions 

between loach minnow and nonnative 

channel and flathead catfish, while 

exploitive competition likely occurs 

with red shiner. The discussion under 

Factor C above on disease and predation 

includes information on other nonnative 

aquatic species, such as Asian 

tapeworm, anchor worm, and Ich, 

which are also detrimental to loach 

minnow. 

The discussion under spikedace on 

flooding and its benefits in potentially 

minimizing threats from nonnative 

fishes applies to loach minnow as well. 

The information presented above 

indicates the detrimental effects of 

interference and exploitive competition 

with nonnative species to loach 

minnow, as well as the issues presented 

by the introduction of nonnative 

parasites. Therefore, based on this 

information, we identify the PBFs for 

loach minnow as follows: 

• Habitat devoid of nonnative aquatic 

species, or habitat in which nonnative 

aquatic species are at levels that allow 

persistence of loach minnow; and 

• Streams with a natural, unregulated 

flow regime that allows for periodic 

flooding or, if flows are modified or 

regulated, a flow regime that allows for 

adequate river functions, such as flows 

capable of transporting sediments. 

Physical and Biological Features for 

Spikedace and Loach Minnow 

Based on the above needs and our 

current knowledge of the life history, 

biology, and ecology of the species and 

the habitat requirements for sustaining 

the essential life history functions of the 

species, we have determined that PBFs 

for the spikedace are: 

(1) Habitat to support all egg, larval, 

juvenile, and adult spikedace. This 

habitat includes perennial flows with a 

stream depth generally less than 1 m 

(3.3 ft), and with slow to swift flow 

velocities between 5 and 80 cm per 

second (1.9 and 31.5 in. per second). 

Appropriate stream microhabitat types 

include glides, runs, riffles, the margins 

of pools and eddies, and backwater 

components over sand, gravel, and 

cobble substrates with low or moderate 

amounts of fine sediment and substrate 

embeddedness. Appropriate habitat will 

have a low gradient of less than 

approximately 1.0 percent, at elevations 

below 2,100 m (6,890 ft). Water 

temperatures should be in the general 

range of 8.0 to 28.0 °C (46.4 to 82.4 °F); 

(2) An abundant aquatic insect food 

base consisting of mayflies, true flies, 

black flies, caddisflies, stoneflies, and 

dragonflies; 

(3) Streams with no or no more than 

low levels of pollutants; 

(4) Perennial flows, or 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; 

(5) No nonnative aquatic species, or 

levels of nonnative aquatic species that 

are sufficiently low as to allow 

persistence of spikedace; and 

(6) Streams with a natural, 

unregulated flow regime that allows for 

periodic flooding or, if flows are 

modified or regulated, a flow regime 

that allows for adequate river functions, 

such as flows capable of transporting 

sediments. 

Based on the above needs and our 

current knowledge of the life history, 

biology, and ecology of the species and 

the habitat requirements for sustaining 

the essential life history functions of the 

species, we have determined that PBFs 

for the loach minnow are: 

(1) Habitat to support all egg, larval, 

juvenile, and adult loach minnow. This 

habitat includes perennial flows with a 

stream depth of generally less than 1 m 

(3.3 ft), and with slow to swift flow 

velocities between 0 and 80 cm per 

second (0.0 and 31.5 in. per second). 

Appropriate microhabitat types include 

pools, runs, riffles, and rapids over 

sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble 

substrates with low or moderate 

amounts of fine sediment and substrate 

embeddedness. Appropriate habitats 

have a low stream gradient of less than 

2.5 percent, are at elevations below 

2,500 m (8,202 ft). Water temperatures 

should be in the general range of 8.0 to 

25.0 °C (46.4 to 77 °F); 

(2) An abundant aquatic insect food 

base consisting of mayflies, true flies, 

black flies, caddisflies, stoneflies, and 

dragonflies; 

(3) Streams with no or no more than 

low levels of pollutants; 

(4) Perennial flows, or 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; 

(5) No nonnative aquatic species, or 

levels of nonnative aquatic species that 

are sufficiently low to allow persistence 

of loach minnow; and 

(6) Streams with a natural, 

unregulated flow regime that allows for 

periodic flooding or, if flows are 

modified or regulated, a flow regime 

that allows for adequate river functions, 

such as flows capable of transporting 

sediments. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas 

determined to be occupied at the time 

of listing contain the PBFs and may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. We believe 

each area included in this proposed 

designation requires special 

management and protections as 

described in our unit descriptions. 

Special management considerations 

for each area will depend on the threats 

to the spikedace or loach minnow, or 

both, 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 the threat 

of fire, retardant application during fire, 

and excessive ash and sediment 

following fire. 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. Improper livestock grazing 

can be a threat to spikedace and loach 

minnow and their habitats, although 

concern for this threat has lessened due 

to improved management practices. The 

construction of water diversions can 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66504 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

include increasing water depth behind 

diversion structures, and 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 discussion of the threats 

occurring in that area requiring special 

management or protections. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

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

we used the best scientific and 

commercial data available in 

determining areas within the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing that contain the features 

essential to the conservation of 

spikedace and loach minnow, and areas 

outside of the geographical areas 

occupied at the time of listing that are 

essential for the conservation of 

spikedace and loach minnow. Sources 

of data for these two species include 

multiple databases maintained by 

universities and State agencies for 

Arizona and New Mexico, existing 

recovery plans, endangered species 

reports (Propst et al. 1986, 1988), and 

numerous survey reports on streams 

throughout the species’ range. We have 

also reviewed available information that 

pertains to the habitat requirements of 

this species. Sources of information on 

habitat requirements include existing 

recovery plans, endangered species 

reports, studies conducted at occupied 

sites and published in peer-reviewed 

articles, agency reports, and data 

collected during monitoring efforts. 

The recovery plans for spikedace and 

loach minnow were both finalized in 

1991 (Service 1991a; Service 1991b), 

and are in need of revision. We are in 

the process of convening a recovery 

team for this purpose. In the interim, we 

have developed an internal preliminary 

assessment of potential steps necessary 

for achieving recovery of spikedace and 

loach minnow. 

The current distribution of both 

spikedace and loach minnow is much 

reduced from their historical 

distribution. We anticipate that recovery 

will require establishing populations in 

streams and watersheds that more 

closely approximate their historical 

distribution in order to ensure there are 

adequate numbers of fish in stable 

populations, and that these populations 

occur over a wide geographic area. This 

will help to ensure that catastrophic 

events, such as wildfire or contaminant 

spills, cannot simultaneously affect all 

known populations. We developed 

necessary steps for downlisting as well 

as delisting. For spikedace, our 

preliminary assessment recommends 

that downlisting criteria include that 

one additional stable population be 

established in either the Salt or Verde 

subbasin, and the number of occupied 

streams be increased from 8 (the current 

level) to 10 rangewide. Occupancy may 

be established through natural means 

(i.e., expansion by the fish themselves) 

or through translocation efforts. For 

delisting of spikedace, our preliminary 

assessment indicates that a stable 

population should be established in the 

remaining subbasin, and that occupied 

streams within the historical range of 

the species be increased to 12. In 

addition, the goal is to ensure that all 

genetic lineages are adequately 

represented in the 12 occupied streams, 

where appropriate and feasible. 

For loach minnow, our preliminary 

assessment recommends that, in order 

to delist the species, the number of 

occupied streams be increased from 19 

(the current level) to 22, with one 

occupied stream in each of the major 

watersheds. For delisting, the 

preliminary assessment recommends 

increasing the number of occupied 

streams to 25, with at least one occupied 

stream in each of the major watersheds, 

and that remaining genetic lineages be 

adequately represented in at least one 

stream, where appropriate and feasible. 

The preliminary assessment makes 

other recommendations, including 

establishing protective measures for 

connective areas, maintaining captive 

breeding stocks, and developing plans 

for augmentation of captive breeding 

stock. 

Our preliminary assessment of the 

habitats needed for conservation of 

these species attempts to provide 

geographic distribution across the 

ranges of the species, represent the full 

ranges of habitat and environmental 

variability the species have occupied, 

and preserve existing genetic diversity. 

We anticipate that the final recovery 

plans developed by the Recovery Team, 

once formed, may vary from this 

assessment, and will likely provide 

additional criteria and prioritization of 

recovery actions. However, we believe 

that the broad goals used in our 

preliminary assessment will be similar 

to those for the recovery planning 

process as recovery will require 

expanding the currently contracted 

ranges and establishing additional 

populations. 

We determined that all areas 

proposed for designation contain the 

PBFs for spikedace or loach minnow. 

There are no developed areas within the 

proposed designation except for barriers 

constructed on streams or road crossings 

of streams, which do not remove the 

suitability of these areas for these 

species. 

We used the following ruleset to 

determine which areas to include 

within this proposal: 

(1) Evaluate the suitability of stream 

segments that are within the geographic 

area occupied at the time of listing and: 

(a) Retain those segments that contain 

sufficient PBFs to support life-history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species, and 

(b) Eliminate those areas that were 

known to be occupied at listing, but that 

no longer support any PBFs for the 

species or that have been permanently 

altered so that restoration is unlikely, or 

both. 

(2) Evaluate stream segments not 

known to be within the geographic area 

occupied at listing, but that are within 

the historical range of the species to 

determine if they are essential to the 

survival and recovery of the species. 

Essential areas are those that: 

(a) Serve as an extension of habitat in 

the unit, as existing habitat is 

insufficient to recover the species; 

(b) Expand the geographic 

distribution across the range of the 

species, as the current geographic 

distribution is reduced to 10 to 20 

percent of historical range, and 

concentrates fish in a few remaining 

areas that are more likely susceptible to 

catastrophic events; and 

(c) Connect to other occupied areas, 

which will enhance genetic exchange 

between populations. 

We considered the known occupancy 

of the area, as well as the suitability and 

level of adverse impacts to habitat 

within each unit. We believe the areas 

proposed provide for the conservation 

of the spikedace and the loach minnow 

because they include habitat for all 

extant populations, provide habitat for 

all known genetic lineages, and include 

habitat for connectivity and dispersal 

opportunities within units. Such 

opportunities for dispersal assist in 

maintaining the population structure 

and distribution of the two species. 

As a final step, we evaluated those 

stream segments retained through the 

above analysis, and refined the starting 

and end points by evaluating the 

presence or absence of appropriate 

PBFs. We selected upstream and 

downstream cutoff points to exclude 

areas that are highly degraded and are 

not likely restorable. For example, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66505 

permanently dewatered areas, 

permanently developed areas, or areas 

in which there was a change to 

unsuitable parameters (e.g., a steep 

gradient, bedrock substrate) were used 

to mark the start or endpoint of a stream 

segment proposed for designation. 

Critical habitat stream segments were 

then mapped using ArcMap 

(Environmental Systems Research 

Institute, Inc.), a Geographic 

Information Systems program. 

The areas proposed for designation 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 for juvenile and 

larval stages of these fishes. In general, 

the physical and biological features of 

critical habitat for spikedace and loach 

minnow are contained within the 

riverine ecosystem formed by the wetted 

channel and the adjacent floodplains 

within 91.4 lateral m (300 lateral ft) on 

either side of bankfull stage, except 

where bounded by canyon walls. Areas 

within the lateral extent also contribute 

to the PBFs, including water quality and 

intermittent areas through which fish 

may move when wetted. Spikedace and 

loach minnow use the riverine 

ecosystem for feeding, breeding, and 

sheltering while breeding and migrating. 

This proposed 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 functions 

vital to fish within the associated stream 

channel (Brinson et al. 1981, pp. 2–61, 

2–69, 2–72, 2–75, 2–84 through 2–85; 

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration 

Working Group 1998). They are 

responsible for energy and nutrient 

cycling, filtering runoff, absorbing and 

gradually releasing floodwaters, 

recharging groundwater, maintaining 

streamflow, 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 Forest Service 

1979, pp. 18, 109, 158, 264, 285, 345; 

Middle Rio Grande Biological 

Interagency Team 1993, pp. 64, 89, 94; 

Castelle et al. 1994, pp. 279–281), 

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 PBFs 

necessary for long-term conservation of 

the spikedace and the 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 and varies 

depending on the specific function 

required for a particular buffer (Castelle 

et al. 1994, pp. 879–881). Most Federal 

and State agencies generally consider a 

zone 23 to 46 m (75 to 150 ft) wide on 

each side of a stream to be adequate 

(National Resource Conservation 

Service 1998, pp. 2–3; Moring et al. 

1993, p. 204; Lynch et al. 1985, p. 164), 

although buffer widths as wide as 152 

m (500 ft) have been recommended for 

achieving flood attenuation benefits 

(U.S. Army Corps 1999, pp. 5–29). 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 to 46 m (75 to 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 PBFs. 

The lateral extent of streams included 

in this proposed designation is 91.4 m 

(300 ft) to either side of bankfull stage. 

We believe this width is necessary to 

accommodate stream meandering and 

high flows, and in order to ensure that 

this proposal contains the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Bankfull stage is defined as the 

upper level of the range of channelforming flows, which transport the bulk 

of 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 

91.4 m (300 ft) 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. 

We determined the 91.4-m (300-ft) 

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(c)). Although we 

considered using the 100-year 

floodplain, as defined by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, we 

found that it was not included on 

standard topographic maps, and the 

information was not readily available 

from Federal Emergency Management 

Agency or from the U.S. 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 91.4-m (300- 

ft) 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 to 

provide important 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 

of Issuance and Modification of 

Nationwide Permits, March 9, 2000, 65 

FR 12818). 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries within this proposed rule, 

we made every effort to avoid including 

structures such as bridges, diversion 

structures, or other structures which 

lack suitable PBFs for the spikedace and 

loach minnow. The scope of the maps 

we prepared under the parameters for 

publication within the Code of Federal 

Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed lands. Any 

such structures and the land under them 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps are 

excluded by text in this proposed rule. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66506 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Therefore, a Federal action involving 

these lands (if and when designated) 

would not trigger section 7 consultation 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

prohibition of destruction or adverse 

modification, unless the specific action 

may affect adjacent critical habitat. 

Where a developed structure is within 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

(e.g., paved low water crossing, a 

portion of a stream flowing under a 

bridge), the area would be considered to 

be proposed critical habitat if it 

continues to contain one or more of the 

PBFs. 

We propose eight units for 

designation based on sufficient PBFs 

being present to support spikedace or 

loach minnow life processes. Some 

segments contain all PBFs and support 

multiple life processes. Some segments 

contain only a portion of the PBFs 

necessary to support the spikedace or 

the loach minnow’s particular use of 

that habitat. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing 1,168 km (726 mi) 

of streams as critical habitat for 

spikedace, and 1,141 km (709 mi) of 

streams as critical habitat for loach 

minnow. Of this total mileage, 874 km 

(543 mi) of streams are overlapping (i.e., 

proposed for designation for both 

species). The critical habitat areas we 

describe below constitute our current 

best assessment of areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

spikedace and loach minnow. The eight 

units we propose as critical habitat 

occur in portions of the Verde River and 

its tributaries; the Salt River and its 

tributaries; the San Pedro River and its 

tributaries; Bonita Creek; Eagle Creek; 

the San Francisco River and its 

tributaries; the Blue River and its 

tributaries; and the Gila River and its 

tributaries. Tables 3 and 4 show the 

occupied units for the spikedace and the 

loach minnow. Table 5 provides a 

breakdown of river miles by type of 

landowner or manager for all proposed 

critical habitat units for the spikedace 

and the loach minnow. 

TABLE 3—OCCUPANCY OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS BY SPIKEDACE

Stream segment 

Occupied 

at time of 

listing 

Currently 

occupied? 

Translocated 

population 

Unit 1—Verde River Subbasin 

Verde River mainstem ................................................................................................................................ Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Granite Creek .............................................................................................................................................. No ............ No ............ No. 

Oak Creek ................................................................................................................................................... No ............ No ............ No. 

Beaver and Wet Beaver Creek ................................................................................................................... Yes .......... No ............ No. 

West Clear Creek ....................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... No ............ No. 

Fossil Creek ................................................................................................................................................ No ............ Yes .......... Yes. 

Unit 2—Salt River Subbasin 

Tonto Creek ................................................................................................................................................ Yes .......... No ............ No. 

Greenback Creek ........................................................................................................................................ No ............ No ............ No. 

Rye Creek ................................................................................................................................................... No ............ No ............ No. 

Spring Creek ............................................................................................................................................... No ............ No ............ Proposed. 

Rock Creek ................................................................................................................................................. No ............ No ............ Proposed. 

Unit 3—San Pedro River Subbasin 

San Pedro River ......................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... No ............ No. 

Hot Springs Canyon .................................................................................................................................... No ............ Yes .......... Yes. 

Bass Canyon ............................................................................................................................................... No ............ No ............ No. 

Redfield Canyon ......................................................................................................................................... No ............ Yes .......... Yes. 

Aravaipa Creek ........................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Deer Creek .................................................................................................................................................. No ............ No ............ No. 

Turkey Creek .............................................................................................................................................. No ............ No ............ No. 

Unit 4—Bonita Creek Subbasin 

Bonita Creek mainstem .............................................................................................................................. No ............ Yes .......... Yes. 

Unit 5—Eagle Creek Subbasin 

Eagle Creek mainstem ............................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Unit 6—San Francisco River Subbasin 

San Francisco River ................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes. 

Unit 7—Blue River Subbasin 

Blue River ................................................................................................................................................... No ............ No ............ Proposed. 

Campbell Blue Creek .................................................................................................................................. No ............ No ............ No. 

Dry Blue Creek ........................................................................................................................................... No ............ No ............ No. 

Little Blue Creek ......................................................................................................................................... No ............ No ............ No. 

Pace Creek ................................................................................................................................................. No ............ No ............ No. 

Frieborn Creek ............................................................................................................................................ No ............ No ............ No. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66507 

TABLE 3—OCCUPANCY OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS BY SPIKEDACE—Continued 

Stream segment 

Occupied 

at time of 

listing 

Currently 

occupied? 

Translocated 

population 

Unit 8—Gila River Subbasin 

Gila River .................................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

West Fork Gila River .................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Middle Fork Gila River ................................................................................................................................ Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

East Fork Gila River ................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Mangas Creek ............................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

TABLE 4—OCCUPANCY OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS BY LOACH MINNOW

Unit 

Known to 

be occupied at 

listing 

Currently 

occupied 

Translocated 

population 

Unit 1—Verde River Subbasin 

Verde River mainstem ................................................................................................................................ Yes .......... No ............ No. 

Granite Creek .............................................................................................................................................. No ............ No ............ No. 

Oak Creek ................................................................................................................................................... No ............ No ............ No. 

Beaver and Wet Beaver Creek ................................................................................................................... Yes .......... No ............ No. 

Fossil Creek ................................................................................................................................................ No ............ Uncertain Yes. 

Unit 2—Salt River Subbasin 

White River mainstem ................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Uncertain No. 

East Fork White River ................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Uncertain No. 

North Fork White River ............................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Uncertain No. 

East Fork Black River ................................................................................................................................. No ............ No ............ No. 

Boneyard Creek .......................................................................................................................................... No ............ No ............ No. 

Coyote Creek .............................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Unit 3—San Pedro River Subbasin 

San Pedro mainstem .................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... No ............ No. 

Hot Springs Canyon .................................................................................................................................... No ............ Yes .......... Yes. 

Bass Canyon ............................................................................................................................................... No ............ No ............ No. 

Redfield Canyon ......................................................................................................................................... No ............ Yes .......... Yes. 

Aravaipa Creek ........................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Deer Creek .................................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Turkey Creek .............................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Unit 4—Bonita Creek Subbasin 

Bonita Creek mainstem .............................................................................................................................. No ............ Yes .......... Yes. 

Unit 5—Eagle Creek Subbasin 

Eagle Creek mainstem ............................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Unit 6—San Francisco River Subbasin 

San Francisco mainstem ............................................................................................................................ Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Tularosa River ............................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Negrito Creek .............................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Whitewater Creek ....................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... No ............ No. 

Unit 7—Blue River Subbasin 

Blue River mainstem ................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Campbell Blue Creek .................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Dry Blue Creek ........................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Little Blue Creek ......................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... No ............ No. 

Pace Creek ................................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Frieborn Creek ............................................................................................................................................ Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Unit 8—Gila River Subbasin 

Gila River mainstem ................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

West Fork Gila River .................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Middle Fork Gila River ................................................................................................................................ Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66508 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—OCCUPANCY OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS BY LOACH MINNOW—Continued 

Unit 

Known to 

be occupied at 

listing 

Currently 

occupied 

Translocated 

population 

East Fork Gila River ................................................................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

Mangas Creek ............................................................................................................................................. Yes .......... Yes .......... No. 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR SPIKEDACE AND LOACH MINNOW

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] 

Unit 

Federal State Local or tribal * Private Total 

Km Mi Km Mi Km Mi Km Mi Km Mi 

1 ............................... 146 90 4 2 11 7 112 70 273 169 

2 ............................... 119 74 0 0 46 28 12 7 177 109 

3 ............................... 89 55 17 11 4 2 50 31 160 99 

4 ............................... 18 11 0 0 0 0 5 3 23 14 

5 ............................... 21 13 0 0 27 17 27 17 75 47 

6 ............................... 146 91 3 2 0 0 70 44 219 137 

7 ............................... 93 58 0 0 0 0 14 9 107 67 

8 ............................... 156 97 2 1 0 0 90 56 248 154 

Total .................. 788 489 26 16 88 54 380 237 1,282 796 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Total figures for Complex 1 vary from those in the text description below. The additional 

stream miles fall within different landowner categories which were not summarized here. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

spikedace and loach minnow or both, 

below. Table 6 at the end of this section 

summarizes the criteria from the ruleset 

(above) under which units were 

included. 

Unit 1: Verde River Subbasin 

Within this Verde River Subbasin, we 

are proposing to designate 281.2 km 

(174.8 mi) on the Verde River and its 

tributaries Granite Creek, Oak Creek, 

Beaver and Wet Beaver Creek, West 

Clear Creek, and Fossil Creek for 

spikedace. For loach minnow, we are 

proposing to designate 218.2 km (135.6 

mi) on the Verde River and its 

tributaries Granite Creek, Oak Creek, 

Beaver and Wet Beaver Creek, and 

Fossil Creek. All of the mileage 

included in the proposed designation 

for loach minnow is included within the 

proposed designation for spikedace. 

The Verde River and its tributaries 

included within the proposed 

designation are in Yavapai and Gila 

Counties, Arizona. From Sullivan Lake, 

near its headwaters, the Verde River 

flows for 201 km (125 mi) downstream 

to Horseshoe Reservoir. The Verde River 

is unique in comparison to many desert 

streams such as the Salt or Gila rivers 

in that it is free-flowing for its upper 

201 km (125 mi). The Verde River is 

also perennial for that length (Sullivan 

and Richardson 1993, pp. 19–21; The 

Nature Conservancy 2006). 

Due to the low number of remaining 

populations and severely restricted 

range, spikedace are at risk of 

extirpation from this watershed. 

Portions of this unit are known to be 

have been occupied at listing, while 

others have historical records or newly 

translocated populations. We 

determined that this area is essential to 

the conservation of both species because 

it contains physical habitat features to 

support the species (PBF 1), perennial 

streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4), has an 

appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6), and provides suitable areas for 

a possible future barrier construction 

and species augmentation to support 

both species’ recovery. Securing both 

species in this watershed will contribute 

significantly to the species’ eventual 

recovery. 

Approximately 1.2 km (0.8 mi) of the 

Verde River and 0.2 km (0.1 mi) of 

Beaver Creek/Wet Beaver Creek occur 

on lands owned by the Yavapai-Apache 

Nation. These areas will be considered 

for exclusion from the final critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act (see ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section below for 

additional information). 

Spikedace and loach minnow. For 

both spikedace and loach minnow, we 

are including within this proposal 3.2 

km (2.0 mi) of Granite Creek from the 

confluence with the Verde River 

upstream to an unnamed spring. Above 

the spring there are insufficient flows to 

maintain these species. There are no 

known records of spikedace or loach 

minnow from Granite Creek specifically, 

but it is within the historical range 

known to be occupied by both species. 

As a perennial tributary of the Verde 

River in the area with the highest 

species density, Granite Creek is 

considered an important expansion area 

for spikedace recovery. Granite Creek is 

also considered an important expansion 

area for loach minnow recovery. These 

portions of Granite Creek are essential to 

the conservation of both species because 

they contain suitable habitat for all life 

stages of spikedace and loach minnow 

(PBF 1); have an appropriate food base 

(PBF 2); and consist of perennial 

streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4). In addition, 

they are connected to portions of the 

Verde River believed to be occupied by 

spikedace. 

Granite Creek occurs predominantly 

on lands managed by the AGFD in their 

Upper Verde Wildlife Area. The primary 

emphasis in this area is on management 

of riparian habitat and maintenance of 

native fish diversity. The parcel is 100 

hectares (ha) (249 acres (ac)). It is 

surrounded by private lands on which 

a variety of actions, including livestock 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66509 

grazing, may occur. The essential 

features in this unit may require special 

management considerations or 

protections due to competition with or 

predation by nonnative aquatic species 

present in both the Verde River and 

Granite Creek, sand and gravel 

operations, severe drought (University 

of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010) and other 

water demands, and potentially 

livestock grazing on private lands and 

associated impacts to uplands, riparian 

vegetation, and the stream. 

This proposed designation includes 

54.3 km (33.7 mi) of Oak Creek from the 

confluence with the Verde River 

upstream to the confluence with an 

unnamed tributary near the Yavapai and 

Coconino County boundary. The lower 

portions of the creek contain suitable, 

although degraded, habitat. Above the 

unnamed tributary, the creek becomes 

unsuitable due to urban and suburban 

development and to increasing gradient 

and substrate size. 

There are no known records of 

spikedace or loach minnow from Oak 

Creek specifically, but it occurs within 

the historical range known to be 

occupied by both species. Oak Creek 

contains suitable habitat for all life 

stages of spikedace and loach minnow 

(PBF 1); has an appropriate food base 

(PBF 2); consists of perennial streams 

with no or low levels of pollutants 

(PBFs 3 and 4); and has an appropriate 

hydrologic regime to maintain suitable 

habitat characteristics (PBF 6). Oak 

Creek is currently being evaluated by a 

multi-agency team for translocation of 

spikedace and loach minnow. As noted 

below in the Fossil Creek discussion, 

areas suitable for such actions are rare 

in the desert southwest. As a perennial 

tributary of the Verde River, and a 

potential translocation site, Oak Creek 

contains the physical features that can 

provide an important expansion area for 

spikedace and loach minnow recovery. 

We determined that this area is essential 

to the conservation of both species 

because it provides suitable areas for a 

possible future barrier construction and 

species augmentation to support both 

species’ recovery. 

Oak Creek occurs on a mix of private 

and Coconino National Forest lands. 

The essential features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations or protections due to 

competition with and predation by 

nonnative aquatic species; recreation 

including off-road vehicles (ORVs) and 

associated damage to streams, 

vegetation and streambanks; severe 

drought (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

2010, p. 1); and residual effects of 

livestock grazing and impacts to 

uplands, riparian vegetation, and the 

stream. 

We are including within the proposed 

designation 33.5 km (20.8 mi) of Beaver 

and Wet Beaver Creek from the 

confluence with the Verde River 

upstream to the confluence with Casner 

Canyon. Beaver Creek and its upstream 

extension in Wet Beaver Creek 

historically supported spikedace (ASU 

2002; AGFD 2004) and contains 

suitable, although degraded, habitat. 

This area is not within the geographic 

area occupied at listing, but it is within 

the historical range known to be 

occupied by the species. There is one 

historical record for loach minnow from 

Beaver Creek but none from Wet Beaver 

Creek. There is one historical record for 

loach minnow on the mainstem Verde 

River approximately 7.2 km (4.5 mi) 

above the confluence with Beaver and 

Wet Beaver Creek (ASU 2002; AGFD 

2004). Beaver and Wet Beaver Creek 

currently contain suitable habitat for all 

life stages of spikedace and loach 

minnow (PBF 1); have appropriate food 

bases (PBF 2); consist of perennial 

streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and have 

appropriate hydrologic regimes to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). As noted under Granite and 

Oak creeks, habitat within this portion 

of the species’ ranges is limited to the 

Verde River Unit, including the Verde 

and a few of its perennial tributaries like 

Beaver and Wet Beaver Creek. Inclusion 

of Beaver and Wet Beaver Creek 

expands the overall unit size, adding to 

available habitat in this portion of the 

species’ historical range, as well as 

expands recovery potential for the 

species in this portion of their historical 

ranges. This area is therefore essential to 

the conservation of both species. 

Beaver and Wet Beaver Creek occur 

on a mix of private, National Park, and 

Coconino National Forest lands. The 

essential features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

residual impacts associated with past 

livestock grazing and impacts to 

uplands, riparian vegetation, and the 

stream; competition with and predation 

by nonnative aquatic species; severe 

drought (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

2010, 

p. 1); and increasing human 

development within the watershed. 

We are including within this proposal 

7.5 km (4.7 mi) of Fossil Creek 

extending from the confluence with the 

Verde River upstream to the confluence 

with an unnamed tributary. Fossil Creek 

was not known to be occupied by 

spikedace or loach minnow at listing. 

Although sufficient flows were 

previously lacking through this area, in 

2005, following decommissioning of the 

Childs-Irving Power Plant, formerly 

diverted flows were returned to Fossil 

Creek (Robinson 2009b, p. 3). Spikedace 

and loach minnow were translocated 

into this important recovery stream in 

2007 (Carter 2007a, p. 1), and additional 

fish were added in 2008 (Carter 2008a, 

pp. 1–2). 

Fossil Creek contains suitable habitat 

for all life stages of spikedace and loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and has an 

appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). With the severe reductions in 

the species’ overall distribution, and an 

already initiated translocation effort, 

Fossil Creek is essential to the recovery 

of spikedace and loach minnow as it 

supports one of the few remaining 

populations for both species. The 

translocation of spikedace and loach 

minnow into Fossil Creek is part of a 

larger conservation planning effort to 

restore a native fishery to the creek. 

Fossil Creek occurs primarily on 

Federal lands, forming the boundary 

between the Coconino and Tonto 

National Forests. The essential features 

in this unit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection due to residual effects of past 

livestock grazing and impacts to 

uplands, riparian vegetation, and the 

stream; severe drought (University of 

Nebraska-Lincoln 2010, p. 1); and 

recreation. 

Spikedace only. We are including 

within this unit 171.8 km (106.7 mi) of 

the Verde River from Sullivan Lake 

downstream to the confluence with 

Fossil Creek. The Verde River mainstem 

is within the geographic area occupied 

at the time of listing (ASU 2002; M. 

Brouder, pers. comm. 2002; AGFD 2004; 

C. Crowder, AGFD, pers. comm. 2009). 

Survey efforts are not continuous or 

consistent, and the current status of the 

population in this area is uncertain. 

Spikedace can be difficult to detect in 

monitoring efforts due to their small 

size, small population sizes, and yearly 

fluctuations in populations. Populations 

have been known to appear and 

disappear over time, which makes 

specific determinations on status and 

exact locations of populations difficult 

to determine. For example, spikedace 

were not detected in surveys conducted 

in 1950, or again in the 1970s or early 

1980s in Eagle Creek, but were 

subsequently detected in 1985 and 1987 

(Marsh et al . 1990, pp. 107–108). 

However, given the abundance of 

nonnative fishes, it is likely that any 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

remaining spikedace are very rare and 

only in the uppermost reaches of the 

Verde River. 

While current occupancy remains 

uncertain, the Verde River is essential to 

the conservation of the species. It 

currently contains suitable habitat for 

all life stages of spikedace (PBF 1); has 

an appropriate food base (PBF 2); 

consists of perennial streams with no or 

low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); 

and has an appropriate hydrologic 

regime to maintain suitable habitat 

characteristics (PBF 6). The Verde River 

is the only occupied stream system in 

this geographic portion of the species’ 

historical range, and represents one of 

four units in this proposed designation 

in which spikedace are most likely to be 

found. Protection of the species in this 

portion of the historical range will 

contribute to the long-term conservation 

of the species. Finally, spikedace in the 

Verde River are genetically (Tibbets 

1993, pp. 25–27, 34) and 

morphologically (Anderson and 

Hendrickson 1994, pp. 148, 154) 

distinct from all other spikedace 

populations. 

The essential features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations and protections due to 

water diversions; existing and proposed 

groundwater pumping potentially 

resulting in drying of habitat; residual 

effects of past livestock grazing and 

impacts to uplands, riparian vegetation, 

and the stream channel; human 

development of surrounding areas; 

increased recreation including off-road 

vehicle use; severe drought (University 

of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010, p. 1); and 

competition with or predation by 

nonnative aquatic species. 

We are including 10.9 km (6.8 mi) of 

West Clear Creek from the confluence 

with the Verde River upstream to the 

confluence with Black Mountain 

Canyon. Gradient and channel 

morphology changes above Black 

Mountain Canyon make the upstream 

area unsuitable for spikedace. The lower 

portion of West Clear Creek was known 

to be occupied by spikedace at listing 

(ASU 2002; AGFD 2004) and contains 

suitable habitat for all life stages of 

spikedace (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); and consists of 

perennial streams with no or low levels 

of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4). West Clear 

Creek is under consideration as a 

translocation site for spikedace by a 

multi-agency team. The presence of 

PBFs, its past occupancy, and its 

consideration for translocation of 

spikedace indicate the suitability of this 

area, which will serve as an important 

expansion area for spikedace recovery. 

West Clear Creek is on private and 

Coconino National Forest lands. West 

Clear Creek runs through private land 

for several miles in the vicinity of the 

Town of Camp Verde. The essential 

features in this unit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection due to impacts associated 

with rural residential uses adjacent to 

the channel; agriculture; residual effects 

of past livestock grazing and impacts to 

uplands, riparian vegetation, and the 

stream; severe drought (University of 

Nebraska-Lincoln 2010, p. 1); and 

competition with and predation by 

nonnative aquatic species. 

Loach minnow only. We include 

within this unit 119.7 km (74.4 mi) of 

the Verde River from Sullivan Lake 

downstream to the confluence with Wet 

Beaver Creek. This mileage partially 

overlaps mileage proposed for 

designation as critical habitat for 

spikedace, which extends further 

downstream on the Verde River than 

this segment for loach minnow. This 

area is within the geographic area 

occupied by loach minnow at the time 

of listing. Surveys completed during the 

1930s detected both species near Wet 

Beaver Creek. Spikedace and loach 

minnow were known to co-occur 

throughout much of their historical 

ranges. While spikedace were detected 

as far south as West Clear Creek, loach 

minnow were not. Subsequent surveys 

in more recent years have failed to 

detect either species. While incomplete, 

there are no known records of loach 

minnow from any point lower on the 

Verde River than Wet Beaver Creek. 

The Verde River contains the suitable 

physical habitat features for all life 

stages of loach minnow (PBF 1); has an 

appropriate food base (PBF 2); consists 

of perennial streams with no or low 

levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and 

has an appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). The Verde River is located in 

the far northwestern portion of the 

species’ range, and is the only river 

system in that geographic portion of the 

species’ range. The suitability and 

location make the Verde River essential 

to the conservation of the loach 

minnow. 

Land ownership and actions requiring 

special management considerations and 

protections for loach minnow are as 

summarized for spikedace in the above 

description of the Verde River for 

spikedace. 

Unit 2: Salt River Subbasin 

Spikedace and Loach Minnow 

We are not proposing to designate any 

portion of the mainstem Salt River as 

critical habitat for spikedace at this 

time. Those portions below Theodore 

Roosevelt Reservoir have been altered 

by numerous dams and reservoirs, 

permanently limiting the natural flow 

regime and resulting in regulated flows. 

Those portions of the Salt River above 

the Reservoir support three historical 

records of spikedace near the 

confluence with Cibecue Creek. 

However, the Salt River, as well as the 

lower portions of Cibecue Creek, are 

canyon bound. While spikedace may 

occur in or travel through canyon areas, 

long stretches of canyon-bound river 

typically do not support the wider, 

shallower streams in which spikedace 

occur. Canyons are typically associated 

with a bedrock substrate, rather than the 

sand, gravel, or cobble over which 

spikedace are typically found. Where 

the river does have wider areas, it is 

currently dominated by nonnative fish 

species. Due to its limited available 

habitat, limited habitat suitability, and 

permanent alteration for reservoirs, we 

are not able to conclude that this area 

is essential to the conservation of the 

spikedace at this time. 

In previous designations, we have 

included portions of Tonto Creek, Rye 

Creek, and Greenback Creek as critical 

habitat for loach minnow. These areas 

have no historical records for loach 

minnow. The limited mileage and 

habitat features make these areas less 

important to the overall conservation of 

loach minnow, and our current 

assessment is that the suitability for 

loach minnow in these streams is 

limited. We believe the habitat in the 

White and Black River systems is more 

suitable for loach minnow, and 

inclusion of these areas as critical 

habitat is sufficient to meet the 

preliminary recovery goals for the Salt 

River basin. We continue to propose 

these areas for spikedace critical habitat, 

as there are no records for spikedace 

from either the White or Black river 

systems, so that Tonto Creek and its 

tributaries represent the only occupied 

habitat within the Salt River subbasin 

for that species. 

Spikedace. Unit 2 consists of 98.78 

km (61.3 mi) of river on Tonto Creek 

and its tributaries Greenback, Rye, and 

Spring creeks, as well as Rock Creek, a 

tributary to Spring Creek, in Gila 

County, Arizona. The Salt River 

subbasin is a significant portion of 

spikedace historical range but currently 

has no known extant populations of 

spikedace. Large areas of the subbasin 

are unsuitable, either because of 

topography or because of reservoirs and 

other stream-channel alterations. 

Historical records for spikedace are from 

the Salt River near the confluence with 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66511 

Cibecue Creek; the Salt River 

immediately below what is now 

Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir; and the 

Salt River in what is now Saguaro Lake 

(ASU 2002; AGFD 2004). With the 

exception of the record near Cibecue, 

existing locations have been 

substantially modified by the 

development of a series of dams and 

reservoirs. Streamflow between these 

reservoirs is regulated, removing the 

natural flow regime previously 

associated with the Salt River. 

We are including within this proposal 

47.8 km (29.7 mi) of Tonto Creek from 

the confluence with Greenback Creek 

upstream to the confluence with 

Houston Creek. Tonto Creek below 

Greenback Creek is influenced by 

Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir, resulting 

in unsuitable habitat below Greenback 

Creek. Those portions of Tonto Creek 

above the confluence with Houston 

Creek are of a gradient and substrate 

that are not suitable to spikedace. Tonto 

Creek was known to be occupied at 

listing (Abarca and Weedman 1993, p. 1; 

ASU 2002; AGFD 2004) but is not 

currently occupied. Tonto Creek 

supports perennial reaches that contain 

suitable habitat for all life stages of 

spikedace (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); and consists of 

perennial flow with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4). 

The Salt River tributaries included in 

this proposal, Tonto Creek, Greenback 

Creek, Rye Creek, Spring Creek, and 

Rock Creek, occur almost entirely on the 

Tonto National Forest, with a few 

parcels of private land interspersed 

among Forest lands. The essential 

features in this unit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection due to residual impacts from 

past livestock grazing and impacts to 

uplands, riparian vegetation, and the 

stream; competition with and predation 

by nonnative aquatic species; moderate 

drought (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

2010, p. 1); water diversions that 

diminish flows in the active channel; 

and road maintenance that results in 

repeated impacts to the channel. 

We are including within the proposed 

designation 15.1 km (9.4 mi) of 

Greenback Creek beginning at the 

confluence with Tonto Creek and 

continuing upstream to the confluence 

with Lime Springs. Portions of 

Greenback Creek are intermittent, but 

may connect Greenback Creek to Tonto 

Creek during seasonal flows. There are 

no known records of spikedace from 

Greenback Creek, but it is a tributary to 

Tonto Creek, which was known to be 

occupied at listing. Greenback Creek 

contains suitable habitat for all life 

stages of spikedace (PBF 1); has an 

appropriate food base (PBF 2); and 

consists of perennial streams with no or 

low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4). 

As noted above, the Salt River subbasin 

is a significant portion of spikedace 

historical range, but there are limited 

areas of suitable habitat. The suitable 

habitat, its connection with Tonto 

Creek, and fact that it occurs almost 

entirely on Federal lands make 

Greenback Creek an important 

expansion area for spikedace recovery, 

and it is therefore essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

We are including within this proposal 

2.8 km (1.8 mi) of Rye Creek from the 

confluence with Tonto Creek upstream 

to the confluence with Brady Canyon. 

There are no known records of 

spikedace from Rye Creek, but it occurs 

within the historical range known to be 

occupied by the species. The entire 

portion of the proposed designation is 

perennial. Rye Creek contains suitable 

habitat for all life stages of spikedace 

(PBF 1); has an appropriate food base 

(PBF 2); and consists of perennial 

streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4). As with 

Greenback Creek, Rye Creek serves as 

connected perennial stream habitat that 

expands the available habitat associated 

with Tonto Creek and the Salt River 

subbasin, and it is therefore essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

We are including within this proposal 

27.2 km (16.9 mi) of Spring Creek from 

the confluence with Tonto Creek 

upstream to its confluence with 

Sevenmile Canyon. There are no known 

records of spikedace from Spring Creek, 

but it occurs within the historical range 

known to be occupied by the species. 

The entire portion of the proposed 

designation is perennial. Spring Creek 

contains suitable habitat for all life 

stages of spikedace (PBF 1); has an 

appropriate food base (PBF 2); and 

consists of perennial streams with no or 

low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4). 

Spring Creek serves as connected 

perennial stream habitat that expands 

the available habitat associated with 

Tonto Creek and the Salt River 

subbasin, and it is therefore essential to 

the conservation of the species. In 

addition, for both Rock and Spring 

creeks, conservation efforts for 

spikedace are underway. The feasibility 

of constructing a barrier and 

translocating spikedace to Spring Creek, 

a tributary to Tonto Creek, has been 

initiated with draft NEPA documents 

under development. 

We are including within this proposal 

5.8 km (3.6 mi) of Rock Creek from its 

confluence with Spring Creek upstream 

to its confluence with Buzzard Roost 

Canyon. There are no known records of 

spikedace from Rock Creek, but it 

occurs within the historical range 

known to be occupied by the species. 

Rock Creek contains suitable habitat for 

all life stages of spikedace (PBF 1); has 

an appropriate food base (PBF 2); and 

consists of perennial streams with no or 

low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4). 

Rock Creek will further expand the 

available habitat in the Salt River 

Subbasin. As noted above under Spring 

Creek, conservation planning efforts are 

underway that will likely lead to a 

translocation of spikedace into Rock 

Creek. The suitable habitat, perennial 

flows, and location within the Salt River 

subbasin make Rock Creek essential to 

the conservation of the spikedace. 

Loach minnow. Unit 2 consists of 51.9 

km (32.2 mi) of the White River and its 

tributary East Fork White River; and 

East Fork Black River, North Fork East 

Fork Black River, and Coyote and 

Boneyard creeks in Gila, Navajo, and 

Apache Counties, Arizona. Portions of 

this unit are known to have been 

occupied at listing, while others have 

historical records. The Salt River 

subbasin is a significant portion of loach 

minnow historical range, and the Salt 

River mainstem was known at listing to 

have historical records near the 

confluence with Cibecue Creek. The 

Black and White Rivers, which join to 

form the Salt River, are also known to 

have been occupied at listing. Within 

this subbasin, loach minnow have been 

extirpated from all but a small portion 

of the Black and White Rivers. 

We are including within this proposal 

29.0 km (18.0 mi) of the White River 

from the confluence with the Black 

River upstream to the confluence with 

the North and East Forks of the White 

River. Loach minnow were known at the 

time of listing to have occurred in this 

portion of the White River (M. Douglas, 

ASU, pers. comm. 1988; ASU 2002). 

The White River contains suitable 

habitat for all life stages of loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and has an 

appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). Current occupancy of this area 

is unknown due to the proprietary 

nature of Tribal survey information. The 

length of perennial flows with suitable 

habitat parameters, historical 

occupancy, and potential current 

occupancy make this area essential to 

the conservation of the loach minnow. 

The proposed designation on the 

White River is entirely within lands 

owned by the White Mountain Apache 

Tribe. This area will be considered for 

exclusion from the final critical habitat 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66512 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act (see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act’’ section below for additional 

information). 

The essential features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

residual effects of past livestock grazing 

and impacts to uplands, riparian 

vegetation, and the stream; competition 

with and predation by nonnative 

aquatic species; and moderate drought 

(University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010, 

p. 1). 

We are including within this proposal 

17.2 km (10.7 mi) of the East Fork White 

River from the confluence with North 

Fork White River upstream to the 

confluence with Bones Canyon. Loach 

minnow were known at the time of 

listing to have occurred in these 

portions of the East Fork White River 

(Leon 1989; pp. 1–2; ASU 2002; Service 

2006, pp. 2–3). These areas contains 

suitable habitat for all life stages of 

loach minnow (PBF 1); have an 

appropriate food base (PBF 2); consist of 

perennial streams with no or low levels 

of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and have 

an appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). As perennial streams within the 

Salt River subbasin, these streams are 

considered essential to the recovery and 

survival of loach minnow. 

The proposed designation on East 

Fork White River is entirely within 

lands owned by the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe. This area will be 

considered for exclusion from the final 

critical habitat designation under 

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

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act’’ section below for additional 

information). 

The essential features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

residual effects of past livestock grazing 

and impacts to uplands, riparian 

vegetation, and the stream; competition 

with and predation by nonnative 

aquatic species; and moderate drought 

(University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010, 

p. 1). 

The North Fork White River was not 

specifically known to be occupied at the 

time of listing, but has been known to 

be occupied at times since listing. 

However, the North Fork White River is 

not thought to be able to support a 

breeding population of loach minnow, 

but rather, the collections of loach 

minnow in the North Fork of the White 

River are thought to be attributable to 

upstream migration from the breeding 

population found in the East Fork White 

River. It is suspected that high 

temperatures may be a limiting factor in 

the establishment of viable loach 

minnow populations in the North Fork 

White River (Raleigh Consultants 1995). 

Further, this reach is comprised of swift, 

deep runs which are not characteristic 

of the preferred shallow riffle habitat of 

the loach minnow (Raleigh Consultants 

1996). Due to these factors, we cannot 

conclude that the North Fork White 

River supports adequate PBFs to 

support essential life history functions 

of loach minnow and we are not 

including this area within the proposed 

critical habitat designation. 

The Salt River Subbasin also includes 

a total of 32.0 km (20 mi) of the East 

Fork Black River and its tributary 

Coyote Creek, and the North Fork East 

Fork Black River and its tributary 

Boneyard Creek. We are including 

within this proposal 19.1 km (11.9 mi) 

of the East Fork Black River extending 

from the confluence with the West Fork 

Black River upstream to the confluence 

with Boneyard Creek. East Fork Black 

River contains suitable habitat for all 

life stages of loach minnow (PBF 1); has 

an appropriate food base (PBF 2); 

consists of perennial streams with no or 

low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); 

and has an appropriate hydrologic 

regime to maintain suitable habitat 

characteristics (PBF 6). The presence of 

multiple PBFs, and the presence of a 

distinct genetic population in the 

adjoining North Fork East Fork River, 

makes this area essential to the 

conservation of loach minnow. 

Those portions of the East Fork Black 

River, the portions of the North Fork 

East Fork Black River, and the portions 

of Boneyard and Coyote Creek included 

within this proposal are entirely on 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 

lands. The essential features in this unit 

may require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

residual effects of past livestock grazing 

and impacts to uplands, riparian 

vegetation, and the stream; and 

competition with and predation by 

nonnative aquatic species. Native trout 

species are regularly stocked into the 

Black River and may also increase 

competition for resources and predation 

by trout. Wildfire has occurred in this 

area in the past, and there may be 

minimal increases in sediment carried 

into the stream from burned areas in the 

uplands. 

We are including within this proposal 

7.1 km (4.4 mi) of the North Fork East 

Fork Black River extending from the 

confluence with East Fork Black River 

upstream to the confluence with an 

unnamed tributary. Above this tributary, 

the river has finer substrate and lacks 

riffle habitat, making it unsuitable for 

loach minnow. The North Fork East 

Fork Black River is currently occupied 

(ASU 2002; S. Gurtin, AGFD, pers. 

comm. 2004; Robinson et al. 2009b, 

p. 1), and is presumed to have been 

occupied at listing. The North Fork East 

Fork Black River contains suitable 

habitat for all life stages of loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and has an 

appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). As with the East Fork Black 

River, the presence of multiple PBFs, its 

occupied status, and the presence of a 

distinct genetic population make this 

area essential to the conservation of 

loach minnow. 

We are including within the proposal 

2.3 km (1.4 mi) of Boneyard Creek 

extending from the confluence with the 

East Fork Black River upstream to the 

confluence with an unnamed tributary. 

Occupancy of this area is uncertain, but 

it is connected to the North Fork East 

Fork Black River which is occupied by 

loach minnow (ASU 2002; S. Gurtin, 

AGFD, pers. comm. 2004; Robinson et 

al. 2009b, p. 1). It contains suitable 

habitat for all life stages of loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and has an 

appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). As with the East Fork Black and 

North Fork East Fork Black rivers, the 

presence of multiple PBFs, and the 

presence of a distinct genetic population 

in the adjacent river, makes this area 

essential to the conservation of loach 

minnow. 

We are including within this proposal 

3.4 km (2.1 mi) of Coyote Creek, 

extending from the confluence with East 

Fork Black River upstream to the 

confluence with an unnamed tributary. 

This area is considered occupied and is 

connected to the North Fork East Fork 

Black River, which is occupied by loach 

minnow (M. Lopez, AGFD, pers. comm. 

2000; ASU 2002; S. Gurtin, AGFD, pers. 

comm. 2004, Robinson et al. 2009b, 

p. 1). The portions of Coyote Creek 

proposed for inclusion in this proposed 

designation contain suitable habitat for 

all life stages of loach minnow (PBF 1); 

have an appropriate food base (PBF 2); 

and consist of perennial streams with no 

or low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 

4). As with the East Fork Black and 

North Fork East Fork Black rivers and 

Boneyard Creek, the presence of 

multiple PBFs, its occupied status, and 

the presence of a distinct genetic 

population make this area essential to 

the conservation of loach minnow. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66513 

Unit 3: San Pedro Subbasin 

Spikedace and loach minnow. Unit 3 

consists of 159.7 km (99.3 mi) of habitat 

on the upper San Pedro River, Aravaipa 

Creek and its tributaries Deer and 

Turkey creeks, Redfield and Hot Springs 

canyons, as well as Bass Canyon, 

tributary to Hot Springs Canyon, in 

Cochise, Pima, Pinal, and Graham 

Counties, Arizona. The San Pedro 

subbasin contains streams that are 

known to have been occupied by both 

species at listing, some of which are 

currently occupied, as well as streams 

with translocated populations of 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

We are including within this proposal 

60.0 km (37.2 mi) on the upper San 

Pedro River from the international 

border with Mexico downstream to the 

confluence with the Babocomari River. 

North of this confluence, the San Pedro 

was perennial, but does not currently 

support adequate flows for spikedace 

and loach minnow. Portions of the San 

Pedro River included within this 

proposed designation were known to be 

occupied by both species at listing. 

Multiple occurrence records of each 

species indicate the suitability of this 

area (ASU 2002; AGFD 2004). This 

portion of the San Pedro River contains 

suitable habitat for all life stages of 

loach minnow (PBF 1); has an 

appropriate food base (PBF 2); and 

consists of perennial streams with no or 

low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4). 

The BLM has identified this area as 

having high restoration potential for 

spikedace and loach minnow. This 

portion of the San Pedro represents the 

southernmost extension of the two 

species’ historical range. Suitable 

habitat within this geographic area is 

limited. Because of the presence of more 

than one PBF (including perennial 

flows), the abundance of historical 

records, and its importance to the 

overall range of the species, this area is 

considered essential to the conservation 

of both species. 

The majority of this area is on lands 

managed by the BLM, with small 

portions of private and State lands. The 

essential features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

residual effects of past livestock grazing 

and impacts to uplands, riparian 

vegetation, and the stream; competition 

with and predation by nonnative 

aquatic species; water developments; 

severe drought (University of NebraskaLincoln 2010, p. 1); and increasing 

human development within the 

watershed. 

We are including within this proposal 

44.9 km (27.91 mi) of Aravaipa Creek 

from the confluence with the San Pedro 

River upstream to the confluence with 

Stowe Gulch. Stowe Gulch is the 

upstream limit of sufficient perennial 

flows to support spikedace and loach 

minnow; no records of either species are 

known from above this point. Aravaipa 

Creek currently supports one of the 

largest remaining populations of 

spikedace and loach minnow, and has 

been monitored since 1943 (ASU 2002; 

Stefferud and Reinthal 2005, pp. 15–21; 

AGFD 2004; P. Reinthal, University of 

Arizona pers. comm. 2008; Reinthal 

2009, pp. 1–2). Aravaipa Creek is 

unique in that it supports an intact 

native fish fauna comprised of seven 

species (Stefferud and Reinthal 2005, p. 

11). It contains suitable habitat for all 

life stages of spikedace (PBF 1); has an 

appropriate food base (PBF 2); consists 

of perennial flows (PBF 3); has no 

nonnative aquatic species, or levels of 

nonnative aquatic species that are 

sufficiently low to allow persistence of 

spikedace (PBF 5); and has an 

appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). The presence of all PBFs, and 

long-term presence and current 

occupancy by spikedace, makes this 

area essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Land ownership at Aravaipa Creek is 

predominantly BLM, with large parcels 

of private and State land on either end 

of the river. The essential features in 

this unit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection due to contaminants issues 

with lead, arsenic, and cadmium; 

surface and groundwater removal; 

limited recreation; severe drought 

(University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010, 

p. 1); and channelization in upstream 

portions (Stefferud and Reinthal 2005, 

pp. 36–38). 

We are including within this proposal 

3.7 km (2.3 mi) of Deer Creek from the 

confluence with Aravaipa Creek 

upstream to the boundary of the 

Aravaipa Wilderness. Above this point, 

habitat is no longer suitable for 

spikedace or loach minnow. We are also 

including 4.3 km (2.7 mi) of Turkey 

Creek from the confluence with 

Aravaipa Creek upstream to the 

confluence with Oak Grove Canyon. 

Above this point, flows are not suitable 

for spikedace or loach minnow. Loach 

minnow are known to have occupied 

Deer and Turkey creeks at listing, while 

spikedace are not. Each of these 

tributary streams contains suitable 

habitat for all life stages of spikedace 

and loach minnow (PBF 1); has 

appropriate food bases (PBF 2); consists 

of perennial streams with no or low 

levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and 

has an appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). 

Both Deer and Turkey creeks occur on 

lands managed by the BLM. The 

essential features in these two streams 

may require special management due to 

surface and groundwater removal; 

limited recreation; severe drought 

(University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010, 

p. 1); occasional issues with nonnative 

aquatic species; and proposed utilities 

projects, such as the SunZia Southwest 

Transmission Project, which is currently 

in the study phase (Service 2010b, pp. 

1–7). Deer and Turkey Creek are 

tributaries to Aravaipa Creek which is 

currently occupied by spikedace and so 

serve as an extension of the occupied 

habitat, and are therefore essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

We are including within this proposal 

19.0 km (11.8 mi) of stream in Hot 

Springs Canyon from the confluence 

with the San Pedro River upstream to 

the confluence with Bass Canyon. (The 

stream in Hot Springs Canyon is not 

named and is known only as Hot 

Springs Canyon.) There are no known 

records of spikedace or loach minnow 

from Hot Springs Canyon, but it is 

within the geographical range known to 

be occupied by both species. Following 

coordination by a multi-agency team, 

spikedace and loach minnow were 

translocated into Hot Springs Canyon in 

2007, with augmentations in 2008 and 

2009 (Robinson 2008a, pp. 1, 15–16; 

Robinson et al. 2010, pp. 4–5). Hot 

Springs Canyon contains suitable 

habitat for all life stages of spikedace 

and loach minnow (PBF 1); has an 

appropriate food base (PBF 2); consists 

of perennial streams with no or low 

levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); has 

no nonnative aquatic species, or levels 

of nonnative aquatic species that are 

sufficiently low to allow persistence of 

spikedace and loach minnow (PBF 5); 

and has an appropriate hydrologic 

regime to maintain suitable habitat 

characteristics (PBF 6). The current 

occupancy by spikedace and loach 

minnow and presence of all PBFs, 

which extend the habitat available in 

this unit, make this area essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Hot Springs Canyon occurs on a mix 

of State, private, and BLM lands. The 

essential features in these two streams 

may require special management due to 

low flows or dewatering associated with 

severe drought (University of NebraskaLincoln 2010, p. 1) and climate change, 

and proposed utilities projects (as noted 

above under Aravaipa Creek (Service 

2010, pp. 1–7)). 

We are including within this proposal 

22.5 km (14.0 mi) of stream in Redfield 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66514 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Canyon from the confluence with the 

San Pedro River upstream to the 

confluence with Sycamore Canyon. (The 

stream in Redfield Canyon is not named 

and is known only as Redfield Canyon.) 

Above Sycamore Canyon, perennial 

water becomes very scarce, and the 

habitat becomes steeper, and more 

canyon-confined. Although there are no 

known records of spikedace or loach 

minnow from Redfield Canyon, it is 

within the geographical range known to 

be occupied by both species. Following 

coordination by a multi-agency team, 

spikedace and loach minnow were 

translocated into Redfield Canyon in 

2007, with augmentations in 2008 

(Robinson 2008b, pp. 1, 15–16; 

Robinson et al. 2010, pp. 4–5). Redfield 

Canyon contains suitable habitat for all 

life stages of spikedace and loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); has no 

nonnative aquatic species, or levels of 

nonnative aquatic species that are 

sufficiently low to allow persistence of 

spikedace and loach minnow (PBF 5); 

and has an appropriate hydrologic 

regime to maintain suitable habitat 

characteristics (PBF 6). Redfield Canyon 

was specifically identified within the 

species’ Recovery Plan as an area with 

potential for spikedace (Service 1991a, 

p. 21; Service 1991b, p. 20). The current 

occupancy by spikedace and loach 

minnow and presence of all PBFs, 

which extends the available habitat in 

this unit, make this area essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Redfield Canyon occurs on primarily 

State lands, with small areas of private 

and Federal (BLM) lands. The essential 

features in Redfield Canyon may require 

special management due to occasional 

issues with nonnative aquatic species, 

low flows or dewatering associated with 

severe drought (University of NebraskaLincoln 2010, p. 1) and climate change, 

and proposed utilities projects (such as 

the SunZia Southwest Transmission 

Project as noted above under Aravaipa 

Creek). 

We are including within this proposal 

5.5 km (3.4 mi) of stream in Bass 

Canyon from the confluence with Hot 

Springs Canyon upstream to the 

confluence with Pine Canyon. (The 

stream in Bass Canyon is not named and 

is known only as Hot Springs Canyon.) 

There are no known records of 

spikedace or loach minnow from Bass 

Canyon, but it is within the 

geographical range known to be 

occupied by both species, and spikedace 

and loach minnow have been 

translocated into Hot Springs Canyon, to 

which Bass Canyon is connected and is 

a tributary stream (see discussion above 

under Hot Springs Canyon). Bass 

Canyon contains suitable habitat for all 

life stages of spikedace and loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and has no 

nonnative aquatic species, or levels of 

nonnative aquatic species that are 

sufficiently low to allow persistence of 

spikedace and loach minnow (PBF 5). 

Bass Canyon serves as an extension to 

Hot Springs Canyon and supports 

multiple PBFs. We therefore consider it 

to be essential to the conservation of 

both species. 

The essential features in these two 

streams may require special 

management due to low flows or 

dewatering associated with severe 

drought (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

2010, p. 1) and climate change, and 

proposed utilities projects (such as the 

SunZia Southwest Transmission Project 

as noted above under Aravaipa Creek). 

Cooperative conservation efforts for 

spikedace and loach minnow are 

ongoing in Hot Springs Canyon, Bass 

Canyon, and Redfield Canyon. To date, 

those activities have resulted in the 

translocation, augmentation, and 

monitoring of five native fishes, 

including spikedace and loach minnow. 

A multi-agency committee continues to 

work cooperatively on this multistream, multi-species conservation 

effort. 

Unit 4: Bonita Creek Subbasin 

Spikedace and Loach Minnow 

We are including within this proposal 

23.8 km (14.8 mi) of Bonita Creek from 

the confluence with the Gila River 

upstream to the confluence with 

Martinez Wash in Graham County, 

Arizona. The Bonita Creek subbasin is 

not known to have been occupied at 

listing but is within the geographical 

range known to have been occupied by 

both species. In 2008, spikedace and 

loach minnow were translocated into 

the lower portions of Bonita Creek (T. 

Robinson, AGFD, pers. comm. 2008c), 

with a small population of spikedace 

placed above the City of Safford’s 

infiltration gallery, but below the 

southern boundary of the San Carlos 

Indian Reservation, in 2009. As noted 

above for Fossil Creek and Hot Springs 

Canyon and Redfield Canyon, there are 

limited opportunities for translocating 

or reintroducing populations of 

spikedace, and the reduction in the 

species’ distribution necessitates that 

additional populations be established to 

recover the species. Bonita Creek is 

considered essential to the survival and 

recovery of spikedace and loach 

minnow because it contains suitable 

habitat for all life stages of spikedace 

(PBF 1); has an appropriate food base 

(PBF 2); and consists of perennial flow 

with no or low levels of pollutants 

(PBFs 3 and 4). It also allows for the 

expansion of the geographic distribution 

of the species’ ranges. 

Land ownership at Bonita Creek is 

almost entirely Federal under the BLM, 

with a few small private parcels. The 

proposed designation ends at the San 

Carlos Indian Reservation boundary. 

Critical habitat within this subbasin 

requires special management for 

nonnative aquatic species, some 

recreation, residual effects of past 

livestock grazing, moderate drought 

(University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010, 

p. 1), and water diversion. Following 

rehabilitation of the stream, Bonita 

Creek will have no to at most low levels 

of nonnative aquatic species (PBF 5). 

Cooperative conservation efforts for 

spikedace and loach minnow are 

ongoing in Bonita Creek. To date, those 

activities have resulted in the removal 

of nonnative fish species and 

translocation of spikedace, loach 

minnow, Gila topminnow, and desert 

pupfish into Bonita Creek. A 

Memorandum of Understanding was 

signed with the City of Safford regarding 

water management for Bonita Creek as 

part of this effort. 

Unit 5: Eagle Creek Subbasin 

Spikedace and loach minnow. We are 

including within this proposal 75.5 km 

(46.9 mi) of Eagle Creek from the 

Freeport McMoRan diversion dam 

upstream to the confluence with East 

Eagle Creek in Greenlee and Graham 

Counties, Arizona. Freeport McMoRan 

is a copper mining company formerly 

known as Phelps Dodge. Eagle Creek 

was known to be occupied at the time 

of listing by both spikedace and loach 

minnow. Loach minnow and spikedace 

are both considered present, but likely 

in small numbers, as suitable habitat is 

present (Marsh 1996, p. 2; ASU 2002; 

Bahm and Robinson 2009a, p. 1). 

Eagle Creek contains suitable habitat 

for all life stages of spikedace and loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

flows with no or low levels of pollutants 

(PBFs 3 and 4); and has an appropriate 

hydrologic regime to maintain suitable 

habitat characteristics (PBF 6) above the 

barrier, which serves as the endpoint of 

this unit. 

Eagle Creek occurs primarily on San 

Carlos Apache Tribal and ApacheSitgreaves National Forests’ lands, along 

with small parcels of State, private, and 

BLM lands. The essential features in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66515 

this stream may require special 

management considerations or 

protection due to competition with and 

predation by nonnative aquatic species; 

residual effects of past livestock grazing 

and impacts to uplands, riparian 

vegetation, and the stream; mining 

activities in the uplands; moderate 

drought (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

2010, p. 1); and road construction and 

maintenance within and adjacent to the 

stream channel. 

Those portions of Eagle Creek in 

Graham County are on the San Carlos 

Apache Reservation. Additionally, 

portions of Eagle Creek also flow 

through private lands belonging to 

Freeport McMoRan. These areas will be 

considered for exclusion from the final 

critical habitat designation under 

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

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act’’ section below for additional 

information). 

Unit 6: San Francisco River Subbasin 

Spikedace and loach minnow. We are 

including within this proposal 181.0 km 

(112.3 mi) of the San Francisco River 

extending from the confluence with the 

Gila River in Greenlee County, Arizona 

upstream to the confluence with the 

Tularosa River in Catron County, New 

Mexico. Above the confluence with the 

Tularosa River, habitat is no longer 

suitable for spikedace or loach minnow. 

The San Francisco River, downstream of 

the Tularosa River confluence, was 

known to be occupied by spikedace at 

listing, and a reintroduction of 

spikedace occurred in 2008, above the 

town of Alma, New Mexico (NMDGF 

2009, p. 1). This area was also known 

to be occupied by loach minnow at 

listing, and is currently occupied by 

loach minnow (NMDGF 2008; Propst et 

al. 2009, pp. 5–6). The San Francisco 

River is perennial throughout this 

length, and contains suitable habitat for 

all life stages of spikedace (PBF 1); has 

an appropriate food base (PBF 2); 

consists of perennial flows with no or 

low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); 

and has an appropriate hydrologic 

regime to maintain suitable habitat 

characteristics (PBF 6). The San 

Francisco River is one of the larger 

intact streams remaining within the 

species’ ranges, with an overall length of 

approximately 202 km (125 mi). 

Because it represents one of the largest 

remaining rivers in the species’ 

historical ranges, was historically 

occupied, has a reintroduced population 

of spikedace, is currently occupied by 

loach minnow, and supports several of 

the PBFs for spikedace, this area is 

essential to the conservation of 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

Land ownership on the San Francisco 

River includes primarily BLM and 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests with 

small parcels of private and State lands 

in Arizona, and the Gila National Forest 

with small parcels of private lands in 

New Mexico. The essential features in 

this stream may require special 

management considerations or 

protection due to livestock grazing and 

impacts to uplands, riparian vegetation, 

and the stream; moderate drought 

(University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010, p. 

1) in those portions in Arizona; 

competition with and predation by 

nonnative aquatic species; water 

diversions; road construction and 

maintenance; and channelization. 

We are not including portions of the 

Tularosa River, Whitewater Creek, or 

Negrito Creek as critical habitat for 

spikedace in this proposal. There are no 

known records of spikedace from these 

streams, and spikedace have not been 

known to occur any higher in the San 

Francisco River than Pleasanton (Paroz 

and Propst 2007, pp. 13–15). 

Loach minnow only: We are proposing 

30.0 km (18.6 mi) of the Tularosa River 

from the confluence with the San 

Francisco River upstream to the town of 

Cruzville, New Mexico. Above 

Cruzville, habitat becomes unsuitable 

for loach minnow. The Tularosa River is 

currently occupied by loach minnow 

(Propst et al. 2009, pp. 4–5). The 

Tularosa River is perennial throughout 

this reach, and contains suitable habitat 

for all life stages of loach minnow (PBF 

1); has an appropriate food base (PBF 2); 

consists of perennial flows with no or 

low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); 

and has an appropriate hydrologic 

regime to maintain suitable habitat 

characteristics (PBF 6). This area is 

considered essential to the conservation 

of loach minnow because it is currently 

occupied, supports more than one of the 

PBFs, and is connected to occupied 

habitat on the San Francisco River. 

We are including within this proposal 

6.8 km (4.2 mi) of Negrito Creek 

extending from the confluence with the 

Tularosa River upstream to the 

confluence with Cerco Canyon. Above 

this point, gradient and channel 

morphology make the creek unsuitable 

for loach minnow. Negrito Creek has 

been recently occupied by loach 

minnow, and is within the historical 

range known to be occupied by the 

species at listing. Negrito Creek is 

perennial through this reach, and 

contains suitable habitat for all life 

stages of loach minnow (PBF 1); has an 

appropriate food base (PBF 2); consists 

of perennial flows with no or low levels 

of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and has an 

appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). This area is considered 

essential to the conservation of loach 

minnow because of its occupancy 

history, and because it supports more 

than one of the PBFs and expands 

suitable habitat for loach minnow in 

this unit. 

Negrito Creek occurs primarily on the 

Gila National Forest, with a few parcels 

of private land interspersed with the 

Forest lands. The essential features in 

this stream may require special 

management considerations or 

protection due to residual effects of past 

livestock grazing and impacts to 

uplands, riparian vegetation, and the 

stream, as well as other disturbances in 

the watershed. 

We are also including within this 

proposed designation 1.9 km (1.2 mi) of 

Whitewater Creek from the confluence 

with the San Francisco River upstream 

to the confluence with Little Whitewater 

Creek. Upstream of this point, gradient 

and channel changes make the habitat 

unsuitable for loach minnow. 

Whitewater Creek was known to be 

occupied by loach minnow at the time 

of listing and has perennial flows. It 

serves as an extension of habitat on the 

San Francisco River. Whitewater Creek 

contains suitable habitat for all life 

stages of loach minnow (PBF 1); has an 

appropriate food base (PBF 2); consists 

of perennial flows with no or low levels 

of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and has an 

appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). 

Whitewater Creek occurs entirely on 

private lands. The essential features in 

this stream may require special 

management considerations or 

protection due to residual impacts from 

past livestock grazing and impacts to 

uplands, riparian vegetation, and the 

stream; water diversions; competition 

with and predation by nonnative 

aquatic species; road construction and 

maintenance; and channelization. 

Unit 7: Blue River Subbasin 

Spikedace and loach minnow. We are 

including within this unit 106.6 km 

(66.3 mi) of the Blue River, Campbell 

Blue Creek, and Little Blue Creek in 

Greenlee County, Arizona, and portions 

of Campbell Blue, Pace, Frieborn, and 

Dry Blue creeks in Catron County, New 

Mexico. The Blue River Subbasin is not 

specifically known to have been 

occupied by spikedace. The Blue River 

and its tributary streams included 

within this unit are known to have been 

occupied by loach minnow at listing, 

and are currently occupied by loach 

minnow (AGFD 1994, pp. 4–14; Bagley 

et al. 1995, multiple survey records; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66516 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Carter 2005, pp. 1–8; Clarkson et al. 

2008, pp. 3–4). 

The tributaries Campbell Blue Creek 

and Little Blue Creek occur primarily on 

Federal lands on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests, along with a few 

parcels of private lands. The tributaries 

Pace Creek and Frieborn Creek occur 

entirely on Federal lands on the Gila 

National Forest in New Mexico. The 

essential features in these streams may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

residual effects of past livestock grazing 

and impacts to uplands, riparian 

vegetation, and the stream; moderate 

drought (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

2010, p. 1); and competition with and 

predation by nonnative aquatic species. 

Included within this proposed 

designation are 81.4 km (50.6 mi) of the 

Blue River from the confluence with the 

San Francisco River upstream to the 

confluence of Campbell Blue and Dry 

Blue creeks. Loach minnow are known 

to occur throughout the Blue River, 

while spikedace have not been 

documented. Because the range of 

spikedace has been severely reduced 

with only four remaining populations, 

additional areas for expansion of 

spikedace numbers will be required to 

ensure the survival and recovery of the 

species. In addition, planning among 

several State and Federal agencies is 

underway for restoration of native fish 

species, including spikedace, in the 

Blue River through construction of a 

barrier that will exclude nonnative fish 

from moving upstream. Barrier 

feasibility studies have been completed, 

as has a draft Memorandum of 

Understanding with land managers and 

residents in this area. The larger size of 

this stream, compared to smaller, 

tributary streams within the species’ 

range, along with its perennial flows 

and conservation management 

activities, present a unique opportunity 

for spikedace. Federal land ownership 

throughout the majority of this proposed 

critical habitat unit would facilitate 

management for the species. In addition, 

the Blue River is occupied by loach 

minnow, and contains suitable habitat 

for all life stages of spikedace and loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

streams with no or low pollutant issues 

(PBFs 3 and 4); has no nonnative 

aquatic species, or levels of nonnative 

aquatic species that are sufficiently low 

to allow persistence of spikedace and 

loach minnow (PBF 5); and has an 

appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). Because of its suitability, the 

Blue River can expand the geographic 

distribution of spikedace, and is 

therefore essential to its survival and 

recovery. 

Landownership surrounding the Blue 

River is primarily Federal lands on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

with small parcels of private lands. The 

essential features in this stream may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

livestock grazing and impacts to 

uplands, riparian vegetation, and the 

stream (Service 2008); moderate drought 

(University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010, 

p.1); water diversions and associated 

habitat alteration and water decreases in 

the active channel; and road 

construction and maintenance. 

We are including within this proposal 

12.4 km (7.7 mi) of Campbell Blue Creek 

extending from the confluence of Dry 

Blue and Campbell Blue Creeks 

upstream to the confluence with 

Coleman Canyon. Above Coleman 

Canyon, the creek changes and becomes 

steeper and rockier, making it 

unsuitable for spikedace and loach 

minnow. As with the Blue River, 

Campbell Blue Creek is not known to 

have been occupied by spikedace. 

Campbell Blue is currently occupied by 

loach minnow (Carter 2005, pp. 1–8). 

Campbell Blue Creek contains suitable 

habitat for all life stages of spikedace 

and loach minnow (PBF 1); has an 

appropriate food base (PBF 2); consists 

of perennial flows with no or low levels 

of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); has no 

nonnative aquatic species, or levels of 

nonnative aquatic species that are 

sufficiently low to allow persistence of 

spikedace and loach minnow (PBF 5); 

and has an appropriate hydrologic 

regime to maintain suitable habitat 

characteristics (PBF 6). Because it 

supports more than one PBF and serves 

as an extension of available habitat on 

the Blue River, Campbell Blue Creek is 

essential to the conservation of 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

We are including within this proposal 

5.1 km (3.1 mi) of Little Blue Creek. 

This includes the lower, perennial 

portions of Little Blue Creek extending 

from the confluence with the Blue River 

upstream to the confluence with a 

canyon. Above the canyon, flows are not 

perennial. There are no spikedace 

records from Little Blue Creek; however, 

it was known to be occupied at listing 

by loach minnow. Little Blue Creek 

contains suitable habitat for all life 

stages of spikedace and loach minnow 

(PBF 1); has an appropriate food base 

(PBF 2); consists of perennial flows with 

no or low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 

and 4); and has an appropriate 

hydrologic regime to maintain suitable 

habitat characteristics (PBF 6). Because 

it supports more than one PBF and 

serves as an extension of available 

habitat on the Blue River, this area is 

essential to the conservation of 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

We are including within this proposal 

1.2 km (0.8 mi) of Pace Creek from the 

confluence with Dry Blue Creek 

upstream to a barrier falls. Habitat above 

the barrier is considered unsuitable. 

There are no known records of 

spikedace from Pace Creek; however, it 

is currently occupied by loach minnow 

(ASU 2002; NMDGF 2008), and is 

presumed to have been occupied by 

loach minnow at listing. Its occupancy 

by loach minnow, a species which often 

co-occurs with spikedace, is also 

indicative of its suitability. Pace Creek 

contains suitable habitat for all life 

stages of spikedace and loach minnow 

(PBF 1); has an appropriate food base 

(PBF 2); consists of perennial flows with 

no or low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 

and 4); and has an appropriate 

hydrologic regime to maintain suitable 

habitat characteristics (PBF 6). Because 

it supports more than one PBF and 

serves as an extension of available 

habitat on the Blue River, and is 

currently occupied by loach minnow, 

this area is essential to the conservation 

of spikedace and loach minnow. 

We are including within this proposal 

1.8 km (1.1 mi) of Frieborn Creek from 

the confluence with Dry Blue Creek 

upstream to an unnamed tributary. 

There are no known records for 

spikedace in Frieborn Creek; however, it 

is currently occupied by loach minnow. 

Its occupancy by loach minnow, a cooccurring species for spikedace, 

indicates its suitability. Frieborn Creek 

contains suitable habitat for all life 

stages of spikedace and loach minnow 

(PBF 1); has an appropriate food base 

(PBF 2); consists of perennial flows with 

no or low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 

and 4); and has an appropriate 

hydrologic regime to maintain suitable 

habitat characteristics (PBF 6). Because 

it supports more than one PBF and 

serves as an extension of available 

habitat on the Blue River, this area is 

essential to the conservation of 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

We are including within this proposal 

4.7 km (3.0 mi) of Dry Blue Creek from 

the confluence with Campbell Blue 

Creek upstream to the confluence with 

Pace Creek. Dry Blue Creek is not 

known to be occupied by spikedace; 

however, it currently supports loach 

minnow, a co-occurring species for 

spikedace (ASU 2002; NMDGF 2008). 

Loach minnow are presumed to have 

been present at listing. In addition, Dry 

Blue Creek contains suitable habitat for 

all life stages of spikedace and loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66517 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

flows with no or low levels of pollutants 

(PBFs 3 and 4); and has an appropriate 

hydrologic regime to maintain suitable 

habitat characteristics (PBF 6). Because 

it supports more than one PBF and 

serves as an extension of available 

habitat on the Blue River, this area is 

essential to the conservation of 

spikedace and loach minnow. 

The essential features in this subbasin 

may require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

residual impacts of past livestock 

grazing and impacts to uplands, riparian 

vegetation, and the stream; moderate 

drought (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

2010, p. 1); and competition with and 

predation by nonnative aquatic species. 

Unit 8. Gila River Subbasin 

Spikedace and loach minnow. The 

upper Gila River subbasin includes 

portions of the mainstem Gila River and 

four tributaries including West Fork 

Gila River, Middle Fork Gila River, East 

Fork Gila River, and Mangas Creek in 

Hidalgo, Grant, and Catron Counties, 

New Mexico. The Gila River subbasin 

also includes the Gila River in Greenlee, 

Graham, Maricopa, and Pinal Counties 

in Arizona. All streams included within 

this unit were known to be occupied by 

both species at listing. 

We are including within the proposal 

165.1 km (102.6 mi) of the Gila River 

from the confluence with Moore Canyon 

(near the Arizona-New Mexico border) 

upstream to the confluence of the East 

and West Forks. Below Moore Canyon, 

the river is substantially altered by 

agriculture, diversion, and urban 

development. In addition, no spikedace 

or loach minnow records are known 

from Moore Canyon downstream in 

Pinal County, Arizona. The portions of 

the Gila River included within the 

proposed designation support the 

largest remaining populations of 

spikedace and loach minnow (NMDGF 

2008; Propst et al. 2009, pp. 14–17). The 

Gila River contains suitable habitat for 

all life stages of spikedace and loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); and has an 

appropriate hydrologic regime to 

maintain suitable habitat characteristics 

(PBF 6). The mainstem Gila River in 

New Mexico is considered essential to 

the survival and recovery of the species 

because it supports the largest 

remaining population of spikedace and 

loach minnow, and contains several of 

the PBFs for both species. 

Spikedace and loach minnow on the 

Gila River mainstem occur primarily on 

Federal lands managed by the BLM and 

the Gila National Forest, interspersed 

with private and State lands. The 

essential features in this stream may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

residual impacts of past livestock 

grazing and impacts to uplands, riparian 

vegetation, and the stream; competition 

with and predation by nonnative 

aquatic species; road construction and 

maintenance; water diversions; and 

recreation. 

Portions of streams on the Gila River 

mainstem within this unit are owned 

and managed by Freeport McMoRan. 

This area may be considered for 

exclusion from the final critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act (see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act’’ section below for additional 

information). 

We are including within the proposal 

13.0 km (8.1 mi) of the West Fork Gila 

River from the confluence with the East 

Fork Gila River upstream to the 

confluence with EE Canyon. Flows 

throughout this reach are perennial. 

Above EE Canyon, the river becomes 

unsuitable for spikedace and loach 

minnow due to gradient and channel 

morphology. The West Fork Gila River 

is currently occupied by both species 

(NMDGF 2008; Propst et al. 2009, pp. 

7–9). The West Fork Gila River contains 

suitable habitat for all life stages of 

spikedace and loach minnow (PBF 1); 

has an appropriate food base (PBF 2); 

consists of perennial streams with no or 

low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 and 4); 

and has an appropriate hydrologic 

regime to maintain suitable habitat 

characteristics (PBF 6). This area is 

considered essential to the survival and 

recovery of spikedace and loach 

minnow due to its historical and current 

occupancy and multiple PBFs. In 

addition, the West Fork Gila River is 

connected to habitat occupied by both 

species on the Gila River. 

The West Fork Gila River occurs 

primarily on a mix of Federal lands on 

the Gila National Forest, the National 

Park Service, and private lands. The 

essential features in this stream may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

competition with and predation by 

nonnative aquatic species, road 

construction and maintenance, and 

watershed impacts associated with past 

wildfires. 

We are including within the proposal 

42.1 km (26.2 mi) of the East Fork Gila 

River from the confluence with the West 

Fork Gila River upstream to the 

confluence of Beaver and Taylor Creeks. 

The East Fork Gila River is currently 

occupied by spikedace and loach 

minnow (NMDGF 2008; Propst et al. 

2009 pp. 12–13). The East Fork Gila 

River contains suitable habitat for all 

life stages of spikedace and loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

flows with no or low pollutant levels 

(PBFs 3 and 4); and has an appropriate 

hydrologic regime to maintain suitable 

habitat characteristics (PBF 6). The East 

Fork Gila River is essential to the 

survival and recovery of both species 

because of its historical and current 

occupancy and several PBFs. In 

addition, the East Fork Gila River is 

connected to habitat occupied by 

spikedace and loach minnow on the 

Gila River. 

The East Fork Gila River occurs 

primarily on Federal lands on the Gila 

National Forest, with small parcels of 

private lands interspersed. The essential 

features in this stream may require 

special management considerations or 

protection due to residual impacts of 

past livestock grazing and impacts to 

uplands, riparian vegetation, and the 

stream; competition with and predation 

by nonnative aquatic species; and 

watershed impacts associated with past 

wildfires. 

We are including within the proposal 

9.1 km (5.7 mi) of Mangas Creek from 

the confluence with the Gila River 

upstream to the confluence with Willow 

Creek. Mangas Creek was not 

specifically known to be occupied at 

listing by spikedace or loach minnow, 

but is within the historical ranges of the 

species. Mangas Creek is currently 

occupied by spikedace and loach 

minnow (NMDGF 2008). Mangas Creek 

contains suitable habitat for all life 

stages of spikedace and loach minnow 

(PBF 1); has an appropriate food base 

(PBF 2); consists of perennial flows with 

no or low levels of pollutants (PBFs 3 

and 4); and has an appropriate 

hydrologic regime to maintain suitable 

habitat characteristics (PBF 6). This area 

is considered essential to the 

conservation of these species because it 

is currently occupied, has several PBFs, 

and is connected to portions of the Gila 

River occupied by spikedace and loach 

minnow. 

Mangas Creek occurs primarily on 

private lands, occasionally crossing the 

Gila National Forest or State land 

parcels. The essential features in this 

stream may require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

dispersed livestock grazing, and 

potential competition with and 

predation by nonnative aquatic species. 

Portions of the Gila River mainstem 

and the majority of Mangas Creek 

proposed for inclusion as critical habitat 

within this unit are owned and managed 

by Freeport McMoRan. These areas may 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66518 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

be considered for exclusion from the 

final critical habitat designation under 

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

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act’’ section below for additional 

information). 

Spikedace only. The Agua Fria River 

is located on the extreme western edge 

of the species’ range, on the lower 

portions of the Gila River in Yavapai 

and Maricopa Counties, Arizona. The 

Agua Fria River supports stretches of 

perennial flows interspersed with 

sections of intermittent flows before 

entering the Lake Pleasant reservoir 

created by Pleasant Dam. Suitable 

habitat areas on the Agua Fria River are 

therefore minimal, with perennial 

stretches mixed with predominantly 

intermittent stretches, and isolated from 

any mainstem system by a large 

reservoir. The Gila River at the 

confluence with the Agua Fria River is 

not perennial, so that the Agua Fria 

River does not act as an extension of 

suitable habitat in the adjacent 

mainstem river. Due to these factors, we 

cannot conclude that the Agua Fria 

River is essential to the conservation of 

spikedace at this time. 

We are including within the proposal 

12.5 km (7.7 mi) of the Middle Fork Gila 

River extending from the confluence 

with West Fork Gila River upstream to 

the confluence with Big Bear Canyon. 

This area is currently occupied by 

spikedace and is connected to currently 

occupied habitat on the West Fork of the 

Gila River (NMDGF 2008; Propst et al. 

2009, pp. 9–11). The Gila River contains 

suitable habitat for all life stages of 

spikedace (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

streams with no or low pollutant issues 

(PBFs 3 and 4); and has an appropriate 

hydrologic regime to maintain suitable 

habitat characteristics (PBF 6). This area 

is considered essential to the survival 

and recovery of the species because of 

its historical and current occupancy and 

multiple PBFs. In addition, the Middle 

Fork Gila River is connected to habitat 

occupied by spikedace on the West Fork 

Gila River. 

The Middle Fork Gila River occurs 

primarily on Federal lands managed by 

the Gila National Forest, with small 

parcels of private lands interspersed 

with Federal lands. The essential 

features in this stream may require 

special management considerations or 

protection due to residual impacts of 

past livestock grazing and impacts to 

uplands, riparian vegetation, and the 

stream; competition with and predation 

by nonnative aquatic species; and 

watershed impacts associated with past 

wildfires. 

Loach minnow only. In addition to the 

areas described above for this unit, we 

are including within the proposed 

designation 19.1 km (11.9 mi) of the 

Middle Fork Gila River extending from 

the confluence with West Fork Gila 

River upstream to the confluence with 

Brothers West Canyon. The 12.5 km 

(7.7 mi) designated on the Middle Fork 

Gila River for spikedace is completely 

within this 19.1 km (11.9 mi) designated 

for loach minnow. This area is currently 

occupied by loach minnow (NMDGF 

2008; Propst et al. 2009, pp. 9–11). The 

Middle Fork Gila River contains suitable 

habitat for all life stages of loach 

minnow (PBF 1); has an appropriate 

food base (PBF 2); consists of perennial 

flows with no or low levels of pollutants 

(PBFs 3 and 4); and has an appropriate 

hydrologic regime to maintain suitable 

habitat characteristics (PBF 6). This area 

is considered essential to the survival 

and recovery of loach minnow due to its 

historical and current occupancy, its 

multiple PBFs, and its connection to the 

West Fork of the Gila River, which is 

currently occupied by loach minnow. 

See the description above, describing 

the proposed designation along the West 

and Middle Forks of the Gila River for 

spikedace for details on land ownership 

and special management needs. 

Loach minnow were found in Bear 

Creek in 2005 (Schiffmiller 2005, pp. 

1–4; NMDGF 2008); however, we are not 

including Bear Creek within this 

proposed designation. Bear Creek 

contains limited reaches of perennial 

flows in the upstream portions. 

However, most of the stream is 

intermittent. It is believed that loach 

minnow detected in 2005 came from the 

Gila River during a period when the 

upstream, perennial section was 

temporarily connected to the Gila River. 

However, we do not believe this area 

supports suitable conditions for loach 

minnow; therefore we do not believe 

this area is occupied on a regular or 

frequent basis. While we have 

documentation of the species from Bear 

Creek in 2005, there is no evidence of 

persistence of the species here, and the 

unsuitable habitat conditions indicate 

that this area is not essential to the 

survival and recovery of loach minnow. 

TABLE 6—STREAM SEGMENTS CONSIDERED IN THIS CRITICAL HABITAT PROPOSAL, AND THE RULESET CRITERIA UNDER

WHICH THEY ARE IDENTIFIED

Stream 

Occupied by 

spikedace and loach 

minnow at the time of 

listing 

Ruleset 

criteria 

met * 

Verde River ........................................................................................................................................................ Yes ............................ 1a. 

Granite Creek .................................................................................................................................................... No .............................. 2a, 2c. 

Oak Creek .......................................................................................................................................................... No .............................. 2a. 

Beaver and Wet Beaver Creek ......................................................................................................................... No .............................. 2a. 

Fossil Creek ....................................................................................................................................................... No .............................. 2a. 

West Clear Creek (spikedace only) ................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

Salt River (spikedace only) ................................................................................................................................ Yes ............................ 1b. 

Agua Fria River (spikedace only) ...................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1b. 

Tonto Creek (spikedace only) ........................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

Greenback Creek (spikedace only) ................................................................................................................... No .............................. 2a, 2b. 

Rye Creek (spikedace only) .............................................................................................................................. No .............................. 2a, 2b. 

Spring Creek (spikedace only) .......................................................................................................................... No .............................. 2a, 2b. 

Rock Creek (spikedace only) ............................................................................................................................ No .............................. 2a, 2b. 

White River (loach minnow only) ....................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

North Fork White River (loach minnow only) .................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1b. 

East Fork White River (loach minnow only) ...................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

East Fork Black River (loach minnow only) ...................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

North Fork East Fork Black River (loach minnow only) .................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

Boneyard Creek (loach minnow only) ............................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

Coyote Creek (loach minnow only) ................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66519 

TABLE 6—STREAM SEGMENTS CONSIDERED IN THIS CRITICAL HABITAT PROPOSAL, AND THE RULESET CRITERIA UNDER

WHICH THEY ARE IDENTIFIED—Continued 

Stream 

Occupied by 

spikedace and loach 

minnow at the time of 

listing 

Ruleset 

criteria 

met * 

San Pedro River ................................................................................................................................................ Yes ............................ 1a. 

Aravaipa Creek .................................................................................................................................................. Yes ............................ 1a. 

Deer Creek ........................................................................................................................................................ Yes (loach minnow) ...

No (spikedace) ..........

1a 

2a, 2c. 

Turkey Creek ..................................................................................................................................................... Yes (loach minnow) ...

No (spikedace) ..........

1a 

2a, 2c. 

Hot Springs Canyon .......................................................................................................................................... No .............................. 2a. 

Redfield Canyon ................................................................................................................................................ No .............................. 2a. 

Bass Canyon ..................................................................................................................................................... No .............................. 2a. 

Bonita Creek ...................................................................................................................................................... No .............................. 2b. 

Eagle Creek ....................................................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

San Francisco River .......................................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

Tularosa River (loach minnow only) .................................................................................................................. Yes ............................ 1a. 

Negrito Creek (loach minnow only) ................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

Whitewater Creek (loach minnow only) ............................................................................................................. Yes ............................ 1a. 

Blue River .......................................................................................................................................................... No—spikedace ..........

Yes—loach minnow ..

2b 

1a. 

Campbell Blue Creek ......................................................................................................................................... No—spikedace ..........

Yes—loach minnow ..

2b 

1a. 

Little Blue Creek ................................................................................................................................................ No—spikedace ..........

Yes—loach minnow ...

2b 

1a. 

Pace Creek ........................................................................................................................................................ No—spikedace ..........

Yes—loach minnow ..

2b 

1a. 

Dry Blue Creek .................................................................................................................................................. No—spikedace ..........

Yes—loach minnow ..

2b 

1a. 

Frieborn Creek ................................................................................................................................................... No—spikedace ..........

Yes—loach minnow ...

2b 

1a. 

Gila River ........................................................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

West Fork Gila River ......................................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

Middle Fork Gila River ....................................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

East Fork Gila River .......................................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

Mangas Creek ................................................................................................................................................... Yes ............................ 1a. 

(*1a) Occupied at listing, and contains one or more of the PBFs. 

(1b) Occupied at listing, and no longer supports PBFs or has been permanently altered so that recovery is unlikely. 

(2a) Not known to be occupied at listing, within the historical range of the species, has one or more PBFs and serves as an extension of habitat in the unit. 

(2b) Not known to be occupied at listing, within the historical range of the species, has one or more PBFs, and expands the geographic distribution across the range of the species. 

(2c) Not known to be occupied at listing, within the historical range of the species, has one or more PBFs, and is connected to other occupied 

areas. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) 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. Decisions by the Fifth and 

Ninth Circuits Court of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ 

(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) 

and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 

(5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on 

this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain those PBFs that relate to the 

ability of the area to periodically 

support the species) to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. 

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 the 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, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our 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, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. We 

define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66520 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

• Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

• Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

• Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

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 we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect 

spikedace and loach minnow or their 

designated critical habitat 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 U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers under section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.) or a permit from us under section 

10 of the Act) or involving some other 

Federal action (such as funding from the 

Federal Highway Administration, 

Federal Aviation Administration, or the 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency) are 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 Standard 

Application of the Jeopardy Standard 

Prior to and following listing and 

designation of critical habitat, the 

Service applies an analytical framework 

for jeopardy analyses that relies heavily 

on the importance of core area 

populations to the survival and recovery 

of the species. 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 species 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 finding is 

considered to be warranted, because of 

the relationship of each core area 

population to the survival and recovery 

of the species as a whole. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species, or retain those PBFs that relate 

to the ability of the area to periodically 

support the species. Activities that may 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat are those that alter the PBFs to 

an extent that appreciably reduces the 

conservation value of critical habitat for 

spikedace and loach minnow. As 

discussed above, the role of critical 

habitat is to support the life-history 

needs of the species and provide for the 

conservation (including recovery) of the 

species. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 

therefore should result in consultation 

for spikedace and loach minnow 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would diminish flows 

within the active stream channel. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to: Water diversions, 

channelization, construction of any 

barriers or impediments within the 

active river channel, removal of flows in 

excess of those allotted under a given 

water right, construction of permanent 

or temporary diversion structures, and 

groundwater pumping within aquifers 

associated with the river. These actions 

could affect water depth, velocity, and 

flow pattern, all of which are essential 

to the different life stages of spikedace 

or loach minnow. 

(2) Actions that significantly alter the 

water chemistry of the active channel. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to: release of chemicals, 

biological pollutants, or other 

substances into the surface water or 

connected groundwater at a point 

source or by dispersed release (nonpoint source); and storage of chemicals 

or pollutants that can be transmitted, via 

surface water, groundwater, or air into 

critical habitat. These actions can affect 

water chemistry, and in turn the prey 

base of spikedace and loach minnow. 

(3) Actions that would significantly 

increase sediment deposition within a 

stream channel. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to: 

Excessive sedimentation from livestock 

overgrazing, road construction, 

commercial or urban development, 

channel alteration, timber harvest, ORV 

use, recreational use, or other watershed 

and floodplain disturbances. These 

activities could adversely affect 

reproduction of the species by 

preventing hatching of eggs, or by 

eliminating suitable habitat for egg 

placement by loach minnow. In 

addition, excessive levels of 

sedimentation can make it difficult for 

these species to locate prey. 

(4) Actions that result in the 

introduction, spread, or augmentation of 

nonnative aquatic species in occupied 

stream segments, or in stream segments 

that are hydrologically connected to 

occupied stream segments, even if those 

segments are occasionally intermittent, 

or introduction of other species that 

compete with or prey on spikedace or 

loach minnow. Possible actions could 

include, but are not limited to: 

Introduction of parasites or disease, 

stocking of nonnative fishes, stocking of 

sport fish, stocking of nonnative 

amphibians, or other related actions. 

These activities can affect the growth, 

reproduction, and survival of spikedace 

and loach minnow. 

(5) Actions that would significantly 

alter channel morphology. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to: Channelization, 

impoundment, road and bridge 

construction, mining, dredging, and 

destruction of riparian vegetation. These 

activities may lead to changes in water 

flows and levels that would degrade or 

eliminate the spikedace or loach 

minnow, their habitats, or both. These 

actions can also lead to increased 

sedimentation and degradation in water 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66521 

quality to levels that are beyond the 

tolerances of spikedace and loach 

minnow. 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) by 

November 17, 2001. An INRMP 

integrates implementation of the 

military mission of the installation with 

stewardship of the natural resources 

found on the base. Each INRMP 

includes: 

• An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

• A statement of goals and priorities; 

• A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

• A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Among other things, each INRMP 

must, to the extent appropriate and 

applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 

management; fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification; wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife; and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– 

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

There are no Department of Defense 

lands within the proposed designation. 

Exclusions 

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

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

the Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat 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 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 legislative history is clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 

which factor(s) to use and how much 

weight to give to any factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

may exclude an area from designated 

critical habitat based on economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, 

or any other relevant impacts. In 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the proposed 

designation, we must identify the 

benefits of including the area in the 

proposed designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

proposed designation, and determine 

whether the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If, 

based on this analysis, we make this 

determination, then we can exclude 

areas only if such exclusion would not 

result in the extinction of the species. 

When considering the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive from the protection from 

adverse modification or destruction as a 

result of actions with a Federal nexus, 

the educational benefits of mapping 

essential habitat for recovery of the 

listed species, and any benefits that may 

result from a designation due to State or 

Federal laws that may apply to critical 

habitat. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation; 

the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships; 

implementation of a management plan 

that provides equal to or more 

conservation that a critical habitat 

designation would provide; or some 

combination of these. 

After evaluating the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

determine if the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh those of inclusion. If we 

determine that they do, we then 

determine whether exclusion would 

result in extinction of the species. If 

exclusion of an area from critical habitat 

will result in extinction, we will not 

exclude it from the designation. 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

are required to consider the economic 

impacts of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. In order to consider 

economic impacts, we are preparing an 

analysis of the economic impacts of the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and related factors. An economic 

analysis was completed for the 2007 

designation of spikedace and loach 

minnow critical habitat (72 FR 13355, 

March 21, 2007). This analysis 

concluded, in part, that there would be 

potential impacts on several economic 

activities, including water diversion 

repair, livestock grazing, recreation, 

species management, residential and 

commercial development, and 

transportation, as well as administrative 

costs associated with species 

conservation activities. A new economic 

analysis will be completed on this 

currently proposed designation. 

We will announce the availability of 

the draft economic analysis as soon as 

it is completed, at which time we will 

seek public review and comment. At 

that time, copies of the draft economic 

analysis will be available for 

downloading from the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

contacting the Arizona Ecological 

Services Office directly (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

During the development of a final 

designation, we will consider economic 

impacts, public comments, and other 

new information, and areas may be 

excluded from the final critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act and our implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 424.19. 

Exclusions Based on National Security 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider whether there are lands owned 

or managed by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) where a national security 

impact might exist. In preparing this 

proposal, we determined that the lands 

within the proposed designation of 

critical habitat for spikedace and loach 

minnow are not owned or managed by 

the DOD, and therefore we anticipate no 

impacts to national security. We are not 

considering any areas for exclusion from 

the final critical habitat designation 

based on impacts on national security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts to national security. We 

consider a number of factors including 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

whether the landowners have developed 

any HCPs or other management plans 

for the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at any Tribal issues, 

and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United 

States with Tribal entities. We also 

consider any social impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

When we evaluate the existence of a 

conservation plan when considering the 

benefits of exclusion, we consider a 

variety of factors, including but not 

limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 

how it provides for the conservation of 

the essential physical and biological 

features; whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions 

contained in a management plan will be 

implemented into the future; whether 

the conservation strategies in the plan 

are likely to be effective; and whether 

the plan contains a monitoring program 

or adaptive management to ensure that 

the conservation measures are effective 

and can be adapted in the future in 

response to new information. 

During the preparation of the 2007 

critical habitat designation (72 FR 

13355, March 21, 2007), we received 

management plans from the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe, San Carlos 

Apache Tribe, and Freeport McMoRan 

(formerly Phelps Dodge). Additionally, a 

Tribal Resolution was prepared by the 

Yavapai Apache Nation. Areas covered 

by these plans and the resolution were 

excluded from the previous final critical 

habitat designation. On October 3, 2008, 

a formal opinion was issued by the 

Solicitor of the Department of the 

Interior, ‘‘The Secretary’s Authority to 

Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat 

Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Endangered Species Act’’ (U.S. 

Department of the Interior 2008). The 

opinion clearly lays out that areas 

which are under consideration for 

exclusion from critical habitat under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act should be 

included in the proposed rule and 

excluded from the final rule. Thus, the 

areas that we excluded from the 2007 

designation may not be automatically 

excluded from this new proposal, but 

must be reconsidered for exclusion 

during the new final designation 

process. We will consider these 

materials and any other relevant 

information pertaining to these entities 

during the development of the final rule 

to determine if any of these areas should 

be excluded from the final critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. 

Finally, portions of the Verde River 

are included in the area covered by the 

Salt River Project’s HCP. We will 

consider the HCP and any other relevant 

information during the development of 

the final rule to determine if this area 

should be excluded from the final 

critical habitat designation under 

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

A final determination on whether we 

should exclude any of these areas from 

critical habitat for the spikedace and 

loach minnow will be made when we 

publish the final rule designating 

critical habitat. We will take into 

account public comments and carefully 

weigh the benefits of exclusion versus 

inclusion of these areas. We may also 

consider areas not identified above for 

exclusion from the final critical habitat 

designation based on information we 

may receive during the preparation of 

the final rule (e.g., management plans 

for additional areas). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of peer review is to ensure that 

our critical habitat designation is based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We will 

invite these peer reviewers to comment 

during this public comment period on 

our specific assumptions and 

conclusions in this proposed 

designation of critical habitat. 

We will consider all comments and 

information we receive during this 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during our preparation of a final 

determination. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires 

us to hold at least one public hearing on 

this proposal, if properly requested. 

Requests for public hearings must be 

made in writing within 45 days of the 

publication of this proposal in the 

Federal Register (see DATES). We will 

schedule public hearings on this 

proposal, if any are requested, and 

announce the dates, times, and places of 

those hearings in the Federal Register 

and local newspapers at least 15 days 

prior to the first hearing. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant under Executive Order 

12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency must 

publish a notice of 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 (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 RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

At this time, we lack the available 

economic information necessary to 

provide an adequate factual basis for the 

required RFA finding. Therefore, we 

defer the RFA finding until completion 

of the draft economic analysis prepared 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. 

12866. This draft economic analysis and 

any public comment on these issues 

will provide the required factual basis 

for the RFA finding. Therefore, upon 

completion of the draft economic 

analysis, we will announce availability 

of the draft economic analysis of the 

proposed designation in the Federal 

Register and reopen the public 

comment period for the proposed 

designation. We will include with this 

announcement, as appropriate, an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis or a 

certification that the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

accompanied by the factual basis for 

that determination. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66523 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

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

seq.), we make 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; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children 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 that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

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, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(b) We lack the available economic 

information to determine if a Small 

Government Agency Plan is required. 

Therefore, we defer this finding until 

completion of the draft economic 

analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we will analyze the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the 

spikedace and the loach minnow in a 

takings implications assessment. 

Following completion of the proposed 

rule, a draft Economic Analysis will be 

completed for the proposed designation. 

The draft Economic Analysis will 

provide the foundation for us to use in 

preparing a takings implications 

assessment. 

Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant Federalism effects. 

A Federalism assessment is not 

required. In keeping with Department of 

the Interior and Department of 

Commerce policy, we requested 

information from, and coordinated 

development of, this proposed critical 

habitat designation with appropriate 

State resource agencies in Arizona and 

New Mexico, and Tribal governments. 

The designation may have some benefit 

to these governments because the areas 

that contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical and 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to 

occur). 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that 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. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

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

of the Order. We have proposed 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. This proposed rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

physical and biological features within 

the designated areas to assist the public 

in understanding the habitat needs of 

the spikedace and the loach minnow. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping 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 

(NEPA) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with designating 

critical habitat under the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). This position was upheld by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 

516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). However, when 

the range of the species includes States 

within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of 

the spikedace and the loach minnow, 

under 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 will undertake a 

NEPA analysis for critical habitat 

designation and notify the public of the 

availability of the draft environmental 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

assessment for this proposal when it is 

finished. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

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), E.O. 13175, 

and the Department of the 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. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’, we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

For this proposal, we are including 

stream portions of the White River and 

East Fork White River on lands 

belonging to the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe; portions of Eagle Creek 

on lands belonging to the San Carlos 

Apache Tribe; and portions of the Verde 

River on lands belonging to the YavapaiApache Nation. We are including these 

areas because we have found them to be 

essential to the survival and recovery of 

the species. 

During the process of developing the 

2007 designation of critical habitat for 

spikedace and loach minnow, the 

Yavapai Apache Nation submitted a 

Tribal Resolution, while the White 

Mountain Apache and San Carlos 

Apache tribes submitted management 

plans. Based on these plans, we 

excluded critical habitat on their lands 

from the previous final designation. We 

have notified the Tribes that a new 

critical habitat proposal is underway, 

and provided them with information on 

the timeline. We anticipate working 

with all three entities to address river 

systems on their lands prior to 

publication of a final rule. Additionally, 

these areas may again be considered for 

exclusion from the final critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act (see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act’’ section above for additional 

information). 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. We do not expect this 

action to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. One 

project, the SunZia Southwest 

Transmission Project, is currently in the 

study phase. This project involves the 

construction of up to two 500 kV 

transmission lines with key 

interconnections to the existing extrahigh voltage grid in Arizona and New 

Mexico. The specific route of the 

transmission lines has not yet been 

determined, and may or may not cross 

critical habitat proposed in this rule 

(AGFD 2010, p. 1). Alternative 

alignments, which would not cross 

proposed critical habitat areas, are 

under consideration (Service 2010, p. 5). 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. However, we 

will further evaluate this issue as we 

conduct our economic analysis, and 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Arizona Ecological Services 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this package 

are the staff members of the Arizona 

Ecological Services Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

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. In § 17.11(h), revise the entries for 

‘‘Spikedace’’ and ‘‘Minnow, loach’’ under 

‘‘FISHES’’ in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species Historic 

range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

Fishes 

*******

Minnow, loach .......... Tiaroga cobitis ........ U.S.A. (AZ, NM), 

Mexico.

Entire ...................... E .................... 17.95(e) NA 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66525 

Species Historic 

range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

Spikedace ................ Meda fulgida ........... U.S.A. (AZ, NM), 

Mexico.

Entire ...................... E .................... 17.95(e) NA 

* * * * * * * 

§ 17.44 [Amended] 

3. In § 17.44, remove and reserve 

paragraphs (p) and (q). 

4. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (e) by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Spikedace 

(Meda fulgida),’’and ‘‘Loach Minnow 

(Tiaroga cobitis)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(e) Fishes. 

* * * * * 

Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, 

Greenlee, Navajo, Pinal, and Yavapai 

Counties, Arizona, and for Catron, 

Grant, and Hidalgo Counties, New 

Mexico, on the maps below. 

(2) The physical and biological 

features of critical habitat for the loach 

minnow are: 

(i) Habitat to support all egg, larval, 

juvenile, and adult loach minnow. This 

habitat includes perennial flows with a 

stream depth of generally less than 1 m 

(3.3 ft), and with slow to swift flow 

velocities between 0 and 80 cm per 

second (0.0 and 31.5 in. per second). 

Appropriate microhabitat types include 

pools, runs, riffles, and rapids over 

sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble 

substrates with low or moderate 

amounts of fine sediment and substrate 

embeddedness. Appropriate habitats 

have a low gradient of less than 2.5 

percent, and are at elevations below 

2,500 m (8,202 ft). Water temperatures 

should be in the general range of 8.0 to 

25.0 °C (46.4 to 77 °F); 

(ii) An abundant aquatic insect food 

base consisting of mayflies, true flies, 

black flies, caddisflies, stoneflies, and 

dragonflies. 

(iii) Streams with no or no more than 

low levels of pollutants. 

(iv) Perennial flows, or 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. 

(v) No nonnative aquatic species, or 

levels of nonnative aquatic species that 

are sufficiently low to allow persistence 

of loach minnow. 

(vi) Streams with a natural, 

unregulated flow regime that allows for 

periodic flooding or, if flows are 

modified or regulated, a flow regime 

that allows for adequate river functions, 

such as flows capable of transporting 

sediments. 

(3) We have determined that all 

designated areas contain at least one 

PBF for loach minnow. There are no 

developed areas within the designation 

except for manmade barriers 

constructed on streams, low water road 

crossings of streams, and areas beneath 

bridges, all of which do not remove the 

suitability of these areas for this species. 

Where a manmade structure is within 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation, the structure would be 

considered to be proposed critical 

habitat if it continues to contain one or 

more of the PBFs. If the structure does 

not contain one or more of the PBFs, the 

structure is excluded by text in this 

proposed rule. For excluded structures, 

a Federal action involving these lands 

(if and when designated) would not 

trigger section 7 consultation with 

respect to critical habitat and the 

prohibition of destruction or adverse 

modification, unless the specific action 

may affect adjacent critical habitat. 

(4) 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. 

(5) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

on a base of USGS 7.5′ quadrangles 

along with shapefiles generated by the 

Arizona Land Resource Information 

Service for land ownership, streams, 

counties, and the Public Land Survey 

System. Information on species 

locations was derived from databases 

developed by the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish, and 

Arizona State University. 

(6) Note: Index map for loach minnow 

critical habitat units follows. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(7) Unit 1: Verde River Subbasin, 

Yavapai County, Arizona. 

(i) Verde River for approximately 

119.7 km (74.4 mi), extending from the 

confluence with Beaver and Wet Beaver 

Creek in Township 14 North, Range 5 

East, southeast quarter of section 30 

upstream to Sullivan Dam in Township 

17 North, Range 2 West, northwest 

quarter of section 15. 

(ii) Granite Creek for approximately 

3.2 km (2.0 mi), extending from the 

confluence with the Verde River in 

Township 17 North, Range 2 West, 

northeast quarter of section 14 upstream 

to a spring in Township 17 North, Range 

2 West, southwest quarter of the 

southwest quarter of section 13. 

(iii) Oak Creek for approximately 

54.3 km (33.7 mi), extending from the 

confluence with the Verde River in 

Township 15 North, Range 4 East, 

southeast quarter of section 20 upstream 

to the confluence with an unnamed 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66527 

tributary from the south in Township 17 

North, Range 5 East, southeast quarter of 

the northeast quarter of section 24. 

(iv) Beaver Creek and Wet Beaver 

Creek for approximately 33.5 km (20.8 

mi), extending from the confluence with 

the Verde River in Township 14 North, 

Range 5 East, southeast quarter of 

section 30 upstream to the confluence 

with Casner Canyon in Township 15 

North, Range 6 East, northwest quarter 

of section 23. 

(v) Fossil Creek for approximately 

7.5 km (4.7 mi) extending from the 

confluence with the Verde River in 

Township 11 North, Range 5 East, 

northeast quarter of section 25 upstream 

to the confluence with an unnamed 

tributary from the northwest in 

Township 11.5 North, Range 7 East, 

center of section 29. 

(vi) Note: Map of Unit 1, Verde River 

Subbasin (Map 2), follows. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.001</GPH>
66528 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(8) Unit 2: Salt River Subbasin, 

Apache, Gila, and Navajo Counties, 

Arizona. 

(i) White River for approximately 

29.0 km (18.0 mi) from the confluence 

with the Black River at Township 4.5 

North, Range 20 East, northeast quarter 

of section 35 upstream to the confluence 

with the North and East Forks of the 

White River at Township 5 North, Range 

22 East, northwest quarter of section 35. 

(ii) East Fork White River for 

approximately 17.2 km (10.7 mi) from 

the confluence with North Fork White 

River at Township 5 North, Range 22 

East, northeast quarter of section 35 

upstream to the confluence with Bones 

Canyon at Township 5 North, Range 24 

East, southwest quarter of section 18. 

(iii) East Fork Black River for 

approximately 19.1 km (11.9 mi) from 

the confluence with the West Fork Black 

River at Township 4 North, Range 28 

East, southeast quarter of section 11 

upstream to the confluence with an 

unnamed tributary approximately 

0.82 km (0.51 mi) downstream of the 

Boneyard Creek confluence at Township 

5 North, Range 29 East, northwest 

quarter of Section 5. 

(iv) North Fork East Fork Black River 

for approximately 7.1 km (4.4 mi) of the 

North Fork East Fork Black River 

extending from the confluence with East 

Fork Black River at Township 5 North, 

Range 29 East, northwest quarter of 

section 5 upstream to the confluence 

with an unnamed tributary at Township 

6 North, Range 29 East, center of Section 

30. 

(v) Boneyard Creek for approximately 

2.3 km (1.4 mi) extending from the 

confluence with the East Fork Black 

River at Township 5 North, Range 29 

East, SW quarter of section 5 upstream 

to the confluence with an unnamed 

tributary at Township 6 North, Range 29 

East, southeast quarter of section 32. 

(vi) Coyote Creek for approximately 

3.4 km (2.1 mi) from the confluence 

with East Fork Black River at Township 

5 North, Range 29 East, northeast 

quarter of section 8 upstream to an 

unnamed confluence at Township 5 

North, Range 29 East, northwest quarter 

of section 10. 

(vii) Note: Map of Unit 2, Salt River 

Subbasin (Map 3), follows. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66529 

(9) Unit 3: San Pedro Subbasin, 

Cochise, Pinal, and Graham Counties, 

Arizona. 

(i) San Pedro River for approximately 

60.0 km (37.2 mi) extending from the 

International Boundary with Mexico in 

Township 24 South, Range 22 East, 

section 19 downstream to the 

confluence with the Babocomari River 

in the San Juan de las Boquillas y 

Nogales land grant. 

(ii) Aravaipa Creek for approximately 

44.9 km (27.9 mi) extending from the 

confluence with the San Pedro River in 

Township 7 South, Range 16 East, 

center of section 9 upstream to the 

confluence with Stowe Gulch in 

Township 6 South, Range 19 East, 

southeast quarter of the northeast 

quarter of section 35. 

(iii) Deer Creek—3.7 km (2.3 mi) of the 

creek extending from the confluence 

with Aravaipa Creek at Township 6 

South, Range 18 East, section 14 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.002</GPH>
66530 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

upstream to the boundary of the 

Aravaipa Wilderness at Township 6 

South, range 19 East, section 18. 

(iv) Turkey Creek—4.3 km (2.7 mi) of 

the 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. 

(v) Hot Springs Canyon for 

approximately 19.0 km (11.8 mi) 

extending from the confluence with the 

San Pedro River in Township 13 South, 

Range 19 East, center of section 23 

upstream to the confluence with Bass 

Canyon in Township 12 South, Range 

20 East, northeast quarter of section 36. 

(vi) Redfield Canyon for 

approximately 22.5 km (14.0 mi) 

extending from the confluence with the 

San Pedro River in Township 11 South, 

Range 18 East, southwest quarter of 

section 34 upstream to the confluence 

with Sycamore Canyon in Township 11 

South, Range 20 East, northwest quarter 

of section 28. 

(vii) Bass Canyon for approximately 

5.5 km (3.4 mi) from the confluence 

with Hot Springs Canyon in Township 

12 South, Range 20 East, northeast 

quarter of section 36 upstream to the 

confluence with Pine Canyon in 

Township 12 South, Range 21 East, 

center of section 20. 

(viii) Note: Map of Unit 3, San Pedro 

River Subbasin (Map 4), follows. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66531 

(10) Unit 4: Bonita Creek Subbasin, 

Graham County, Arizona. 

(i) Bonita Creek for approximately 

23.8 km (14.8 mi) from the confluence 

with the Gila River in Township 6 

South, Range 28 East, southeast quarter 

of section 21 upstream to the confluence 

with Martinez Wash in Township 4 

South, Range 27 East, southeast quarter 

of section 27. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4, Bonita Creek 

Subbasin (Map 5), follows. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.003</GPH>
66532 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(11) Unit 5: Eagle Creek Subbasin, 

Graham and Greenlee Counties, 

Arizona. 

(i) Eagle Creek for approximately 

75.5 km (46.9 mi) from the Freeport 

McMoRan diversion dam at Township 4 

South, Range 28 East, southwest quarter 

of the northwest quarter of section 23 

upstream to the confluence of East Eagle 

Creek in Township 2 North, Range 28 

East, southwest quarter of section 20. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, Eagle Creek 

Subbasin (Map 6), follows. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66533 

(12) Unit 6: San Francisco River 

Subbasin, Greenlee County, Arizona, 

and Catron County, New Mexico. 

(i) San Francisco River for 

approximately 181.0 km (112.3 mi) of 

the San Francisco River extending from 

the confluence with the Gila River in 

Township 5 South, Range 29 East, 

southeast quarter of section 21 upstream 

to the confluence with the Tularosa 

River in Township 7 South, Range 19 

West, southwest quarter of Section 23. 

(ii) Tularosa River for approximately 

30.0 km (18.6 mi) from the confluence 

with the San Francisco River at 

Township 7 South, Range 19 West, 

southwest quarter of section 23 

upstream to the town of Cruzville at 

Township 6 South, Range 18 West, 

southern boundary of section 1. 

(iii) Negrito Creek for approximately 

6.8 km (4.2 mi) extending from the 

confluence with the Tularosa River at 

Township 7 South, Range 18 West, 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.005</GPH>
66534 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

southwest quarter of the northwest 

quarter of section 19 upstream to the 

confluence with Cerco Canyon at 

Township 7 South, Range 18 West, west 

boundary of section 22. 

(iv) Whitewater Creek for 

approximately 1.9 km (1.2 mi) from the 

confluence with the San Francisco River 

at Township 11 South, Range 20 West, 

Section 27 upstream to the confluence 

with Little Whitewater Creek at 

Township 11 South, Range 20 West, 

southeast quarter of section 23. 

(v) Note: Map of Unit 6, San Francisco 

Subbasin (Map 7), follows. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66535 

(13) Unit 7: Blue River Subbasin, 

Greenlee County, Arizona, and Catron 

County, New Mexico. 

(i) Blue River for approximately 

81.4 km (50.6 mi) from the confluence 

with the San Francisco River at 

Township 2 South, Range 31 East, 

southeast quarter of section 31 upstream 

to the confluence of Campbell Blue and 

Dry Blue creeks at Township 7 South, 

Range 21 West, southeast quarter of 

section 6. 

(ii) Campbell Blue Creek for 

approximately 12.4 km (7.7 mi) from the 

confluence of Dry Blue and Campbell 

Blue Creeks at Township 7 South, Range 

21 West, southeast quarter of section 6 

to the confluence with Coleman Canyon 

in Township 4.5 North, Range 31 East, 

southwest quarter of the northeast 

quarter of section 32. 

(iii) Little Blue Creek for 

approximately 5.1 km (3.1 mi) from the 

confluence with the Blue River at 

Township 1 South, Range 31 East, 

center of section 5 upstream to the 

mouth of a canyon at Township 1 North, 

Range 31 East, northeast quarter of 

section 29. 

(iv) Pace Creek for approximately 

1.2 km (0.8 mi) from the confluence 

with Dry Blue Creek at Township 6 

South, Range 21 West, southwest 

quarter of section 28 upstream to a 

barrier falls at Township 6 South, Range 

21 West, northeast quarter of section 29. 

(v) Frieborn Creek for approximately 

1.8 km (1.1 mi) from the confluence 

with Dry Blue Creek at Township 7 

South, Range 21 West, southwest 

quarter of the northwest quarter of 

section 5 upstream to an unnamed 

tributary flowing from the south in 

Township 7 South, Range 21 West, 

northeast quarter of the southwest 

quarter of section 8. 

(vi) Dry Blue Creek for approximately 

4.7 km (3.0 mi) from the confluence 

with Campbell Blue Creek at Township 

7 South, Range 21 West, southeast 

quarter of Section 6 upstream to the 

confluence with Pace Creek in 

Township 6 South, Range 21 West, 

southwest quarter of section 28. 

(vii) Note: Map of Unit 7, Blue River 

Subbasin (Map 8), follows. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66536 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(14) Unit 8: Gila River Subbasin, 

Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties, 

New Mexico. 

(i) Gila River for approximately 

165.1 km (102.6 mi) from the confluence 

with Moore Canyon at Township 18 

South, Range 21 West, southeast quarter 

of the southwest quarter of section 32 

upstream to the confluence of the East 

and West Forks of the Gila River at 

Township 13 South, Range 13 West, 

center of section 8. 

(ii) West Fork Gila River for 

approximately 13.0 km (8.1mi) from the 

confluence with the East Fork Gila River 

at Township 13 South, Range 13 West, 

center of Section 8 upstream to the 

confluence with EE Canyon at 

Township 12 South, Range 14 West, east 

boundary of Section 21. 

(iii) Middle Fork Gila River for 

approximately 19.1 km (11.9 mi) of the 

Middle Fork Gila River extending from 

the confluence with West Fork Gila 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66537 

River at Township 12 South, Range 14 

West, southwest quarter of section 25 

upstream to the confluence of Brothers 

West Canyon in Township 11 South, 

Range 14 West, northeast quarter of 

section 33. 

(iv) East Fork Gila River for 

approximately 42.1 km (26.2 mi) 

extending from the confluence with 

West Fork Gila River at Township 13 

South, Range 13 West, center of section 

8 upstream to the confluence of Beaver 

and Taylor Creeks in Township 11 

South, Range 12 West, northeast quarter 

of section 17. 

(v) Mangas Creek for approximately 

9.1 km (5.7 mi) extending from the 

confluence with the Gila River at 

Township 17 South, Range 16 West, 

southwest quarter of Section 5 upstream 

to the confluence with Blacksmith 

Canyon at Township 17 South, Range 17 

West, northwest quarter of section 3. 

(vi) Note: Map of Unit 8, Gila River 

Subbasin (Map 9), follows. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66538 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

Spikedace (Meda fulgida) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, 

Pinal, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, 

and for Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo 

Counties, New Mexico, on the maps 

below. 

(2) The physical and biological 

features of critical habitat for the 

spikedace are: 

(i) Habitat to support all egg, larval, 

juvenile, and adult spikedace. This 

habitat includes streams with perennial 

flows with a stream depth generally less 

than 1 m (3.3 ft), and with slow to swift 

flow velocities between 5 and 80 cm per 

second (1.9 and 31.5 in. per second). 

Appropriate stream microhabitat types 

include glides, runs, riffles, the margins 

of pools, and eddies, and backwater 

components over sand, gravel, and 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66539 

cobble substrates with low or moderate 

amounts of fine sediment and substrate 

embeddedness. Appropriate habitat will 

have a low gradient of less than 

approximately 1.0 percent, at elevations 

below 2,100 m (6,890 ft). Water 

temperatures should be in the general 

range of 8.0 to 28.0 °C (46.4 to 82.4 °F). 

(ii) An abundant aquatic insect food 

base consisting of mayflies, true flies, 

black flies, caddisflies, stoneflies, and 

dragonflies. 

(iii) Streams with no or no more than 

low levels of pollutants. 

(iv) Perennial flows, or 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. 

(v) No nonnative aquatic species, or 

levels of nonnative aquatic species that 

are sufficiently low as to allow 

persistence of spikedace. 

(vi) Streams with a natural, 

unregulated flow regime that allow for 

periodic flooding or, if flows are 

modified or regulated, a flow regime 

that allows for adequate river functions, 

such as flows capable of transporting 

sediments. 

(3) We have determined that all 

designated areas contain at least one 

PBF for spikedace. There are no 

developed areas within the designation 

except for manmade barriers 

constructed on streams, low water road 

crossings of streams, and areas beneath 

bridges, all of which do not remove the 

suitability of these areas for this species. 

Where a manmade structure is within 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation, the structure would be 

considered to be proposed critical 

habitat if it continues to contain one or 

more of the PBFs. If the structure does 

not contain one or more of the PBFs, the 

structure is excluded by text in this 

proposed rule. For excluded structures, 

a Federal action involving these lands 

(if and when designated) would not 

trigger section 7 consultation with 

respect to critical habitat and the 

prohibition of destruction or adverse 

modification, unless the specific action 

may affect adjacent critical habitat. 

(4) 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. 

(5) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

on a base of USGS 7.5′ quadrangles 

along with shapefiles generated by the 

Arizona Land Resource Information 

Service for land ownership, streams, 

counties, and the Public Land Survey 

System. Information on species 

locations was derived from databases 

developed by the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish, and 

Arizona State University. 

(6) Note: Index map for spikedace 

critical habitat units follows. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66540 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(7) Unit 1: Verde River Subbasin, 

Yavapai County, Arizona. 

(i) Verde River for approximately 

171.8 km (106.7 mi), extending from the 

confluence with Fossil Creek in 

Township 11 North, Range 6 East, 

northeast quarter of section 25 upstream 

to Sullivan Dam in Township 17 North, 

Range 2 West, northwest quarter of 

section 15. 

(ii) Granite Creek for approximately 

3.2 km (2.0 mi), extending from the 

confluence with the Verde River in 

Township 17 North, Range 2 West, 

northeast quarter section 14 upstream to 

a spring in Township 17 North, Range 

2 West, southwest quarter of the 

southwest quarter of section 13. 

(iii) Oak Creek for approximately 54.3 

km (33.7 mi), extending from the 

confluence with the Verde River in 

Township 15 North, Range 4 East, 

southeast quarter section 20 upstream to 

the confluence with an unnamed 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66541 

tributary from the south in Township 17 

North, Range 5 East, southeast quarter of 

the northeast quarter of section 24. 

(iv) Beaver Creek/Wet Beaver Creek 

for approximately 33.5 km (20.8 mi), 

extending from the confluence with the 

Verde River in Township 14 North, 

Range 5 East, southeast quarter of 

section 30 upstream to the confluence 

with Casner Canyon in Township 15 

North, Range 6 East, northwest quarter 

of section 23. 

(v) West Clear Creek for 

approximately 10.9 km (6.8. mi), 

extending from the confluence with the 

Verde River in Township 13 North, 

Range 5 East, center section 21, 

upstream to the confluence with Black 

Mountain Canyon in Township 13 

North, Range 6 East, southeast quarter of 

section 17. 

(vi) Fossil Creek for approximately 7.5 

km (4.7 mi) extending from the 

confluence with the Verde River in 

Township 11 North, Range 5 East, 

northeast quarter of section 25 upstream 

to the confluence with an unnamed 

tributary from the northwest in 

Township 11.5 North, Range 7 East, 

center of section 29. 

(vii) Note: Map of Unit 1, Verde River 

Subbasin (Map 2), follows. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66542 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(8) Unit 2: Salt River Subbasin, Gila 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Tonto Creek for approximately 47.8 

km (29.7 mi) extending from the 

confluence with Greenback Creek in 

Township 5 North, Range 11 East, 

northwest quarter of section 8 upstream 

to the confluence with Houston Creek in 

Township 9 North, Range 11 East, 

northeast quarter of section 18. 

(ii) Greenback Creek for 

approximately 15.1 km (9.4 mi) from the 

confluence with Tonto Creek in 

Township 5 North, Range 11 East, 

northwest quarter of section 8 upstream 

to Lime Springs in Township 6 North, 

Range 12 East, southwest quarter of 

section 20. 

(iii) Rye Creek for approximately 2.8 

km (1.8 mi) extending from the 

confluence with Tonto Creek in 

Township 8 North, Range 10 East, 

northeast quarter of section 24 upstream 

to the confluence with Brady Canyon in 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66543 

Township 8 North, Range 10 East, 

northwest quarter of section 14. 

(iv) Spring Creek for approximately 

27.2 km (16.9 mi) extending from the 

confluence with the Tonto River at 

Township 10 North, Range 11 East, 

southeast quarter of section 36 upstream 

to the confluence with Sevenmile 

Canyon at Township 8 North, Range 13 

East, northern boundary of section 20. 

(v) Rock Creek for approximately 5.8 

km (3.6 mi) extending from the 

confluence with Spring Creek at 

Township 8 North, Range 12 East, 

southeast quarter of section 1 upstream 

to the confluence with Buzzard Roost 

Canyon at Township 8 North, 12 East, 

center of section 24. 

(vi) Note: Map of Unit 2, Salt River 

Subbasin (Map 3), follows. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.011</GPH>
66544 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(9) Unit 3: San Pedro River Subbasin, 

Cochise, Graham, Pima and Pinal 

Counties, Arizona. 

(i) San Pedro River for approximately 

60.0 km (37.2 mi) extending from the 

International Boundary with Mexico in 

Township 24 South, Range 22 East, 

Section 19 downstream to the 

confluence with the Babocomari River 

in the San Juan de las Boquillas y 

Nogales land grant. 

(ii) Aravaipa Creek for approximately 

44.9 km (27.9 mi) extending from the 

confluence with the San Pedro River in 

Township 7 South, Range 16 East, 

center of section 9 upstream to the 

confluence with Stowe Gulch in 

Township 6 South, Range 19 East, 

southeast quarter of the northeast 

quarter of section 35. 

(iii) Deer Creek—3.7 km (2.3 mi) of 

the 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. 

(iv) Turkey Creek—4.3 km (2.7 mi) of 

the 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. 

(v) Hot Springs Canyon for 

approximately 19.0 km (11.8 mi) 

extending from the confluence with the 

San Pedro River in Township 13 South, 

Range 19 East, center of section 23 

upstream to the confluence with Bass 

Canyon in Township 12 South, Range 

20 East, northeast quarter of section 36. 

(vi) Redfield Canyon for 

approximately 22.5 km (14.0 mi) 

extending from the confluence with the 

San Pedro River in Township 11 South, 

Range 18 East, southwest quarter of 

section 34 upstream to the confluence 

with Sycamore Canyon in Township 11 

South, Range 20 East, northwest quarter 

of section 28. 

(vii) Bass Canyon for approximately 

5.5 km (3.4 mi) from the confluence 

with Hot Springs Canyon in Township 

12 South, Range 20 East, northeast 

quarter of section 36 upstream to the 

confluence with Pine Canyon in 

Township 12 South, Range 21 East, 

center of section 20. 

(viii) Note: Map of Unit 3, San Pedro 

River Subbasin (Map 4), follows. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66545 

(10) Unit 4: Bonita Creek Subbasin, 

Graham County, Arizona. 

(i) Bonita Creek for approximately 

23.8 km (14.8 mi) from the confluence 

with the Gila River in Township 6 

South, Range 28 East, southeast quarter 

of section 21 upstream to the confluence 

with Martinez Wash in Township 4 

South, Range 27 East, southeast quarter 

of Section 27. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4, Bonita Creek 

Subbasin (Map 5), follows. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.012</GPH>
66546 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(11) Unit 5: Eagle Creek Subbasin, 

Graham and Greenlee Counties, 

Arizona. 

(i) Eagle Creek for approximately 75 

km (46.9 mi) from the Freeport 

McMoRan diversion dam at Township 4 

South, Range 28 East, southwest quarter 

of section 23 upstream to the confluence 

of East Eagle Creek in Township 2 

North, Range 28 East, southwest quarter 

of section 20. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, Eagle Creek 

Subbasin (Map 6), follows. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66547 

(12) Unit 6: San Francisco River 

Subbasin, Greenlee County, Arizona, 

and Catron County, New Mexico. 

(i) San Francisco River for 

approximately 181.0 km (112.3 mi) of 

the San Francisco River extending from 

the confluence with the Gila River in 

Township 5 South, Range 29 East, 

southeast quarter of section 21 upstream 

to the confluence with the Tularosa 

River in Township 7 South, Range 19 

West, southwest quarter of section 23. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 6, San 

Francisco River Subbasin (Map 7), 

follows. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.014</GPH>
66548 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(13) Unit 7: Blue River Subbasin, 

Greenlee County, Arizona, and Catron 

County, New Mexico. 

(i) Blue River for approximately 81.4 

km (50.6 mi) from the confluence with 

the San Francisco River at Township 

2S., Range 31 East, southeast quarter of 

section 31 upstream to the confluence of 

Campbell Blue and Dry Blue Creeks at 

Township 7 South, Range 21 West, 

southeast quarter of section 6. 

(ii) Campbell Blue Creek for 

approximately 12.4 km (7.7 mi) from the 

confluence of Dry Blue and Campbell 

Blue Creeks at Township 7 South, Range 

21 West, southeast quarter of section 6 

to the confluence with Coleman Canyon 

in Township 4.5 North, Range 31 East, 

southwest quarter of the northeast 

quarter of section 32. 

(iii) Little Blue Creek for 

approximately 5.1 km (3.1 mi) from the 

confluence with the Blue River at 

Township 1 South, Range 31 East, 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66549 

center Section 5 upstream to the mouth 

of a canyon at Township 1 North, Range 

31 East, northeast quarter of section 29. 

(iv) Pace Creek for approximately 1.2 

km (0.8 mi) from the confluence with 

Dry Blue Creek at Township 6 South, 

Range 21 West, southwest quarter of 

Section 28 upstream to a barrier falls at 

Township 6 South, Range 21 West, 

northeast quarter of section 29. 

(v) Frieborn Creek for approximately 

1.8 km (1.1 mi) from the confluence 

with Dry Blue Creek at Township 7 

South, Range 21 West, southwest 

quarter of the northwest quarter of 

section 5 upstream to an unnamed 

tributary flowing from the south in 

Township 7 South, Range 21 West, 

northeast quarter of southwest quarter of 

section 8. 

(vi) Dry Blue Creek for approximately 

4.7 km (3.0 mi) from the confluence 

with Campbell Blue Creek at Township 

7 South, Range 21 West, southeast 

quarter of Section 6 upstream to the 

confluence with Pace Creek in 

Township 6 South, Range 21 West, 

southwest quarter of section 28. 

(vii) Note: Map of Unit 7, Blue River 

Subbasin (Map 8), follows. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

66550 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(14) Unit 8: Gila River Subbasin, 

Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties, 

New Mexico. 

(i) Gila River for approximately 165.1 

km (102.6 mi) from the confluence with 

Moore Canyon at Township 18 South, 

Range 21 West, southeast quarter of the 

southwest quarter of Section 32 

upstream to the confluence of the East 

and West Forks of the Gila River at 

Township 13 South, Range 13 West, 

center of Section 8. 

(ii) West Fork Gila River for 

approximately 13.0 km (8.1 mi) from the 

confluence with the East Fork Gila River 

at Township 13 South, Range 13 West, 

center of section 8 upstream to the 

confluence with EE Canyon at 

Township 12 South, Range 14 West, east 

boundary of Section 21. 

(iii) Middle Fork Gila River for 

approximately 12.5 km (7.7 mi) of the 

Middle Fork Gila River extending from 

the confluence with West Fork Gila 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66551 

River at Township 12 South, Range 14 

West, southwest quarter of section 25 

upstream to the confluence of Big Bear 

Canyon in Township 12 South, Range 

14 West, southwest quarter of section 2. 

(iv) East Fork Gila River for 

approximately 42.1 km (26.2 mi) 

extending from the confluence with 

West Fork Gila River at Township 13 

South, Range 13 West, center of Section 

8 upstream to the confluence of Beaver 

and Taylor Creeks in Township 11 

South, Range 12 West, northeast quarter 

of section 17. 

(v) Mangas Creek for approximately 

9.1 km (5.7 mi) extending from the 

confluence with the Gila River at 

Township 17 South, Range 16 West, 

southwest quarter of section 5 upstream 

to the confluence with Blacksmith 

Canyon at Township 17 South, Range 17 

West, northwest quarter of section 3. 

(vi) Note: Map of Unit 8, Gila River 

Subbasin (Map 9), follows. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28OC10.017</GPH>
66552 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Authority 

The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: October 13, 2010. 

Thomas L. Strickland, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26477 Filed 10–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2