[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5118]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 8, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC24

 

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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) designates critical 
habitat for the spikedace (Meda fulgida) under the authority of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The spikedace, a 
small fish, was listed as a threatened species under the Act on July 1, 
1986 (51 FR 23769); however, final designation of the proposed critical 
habitat was postponed at that time. Critical habitat is now being 
designated in a total of approximately 154 kilometers (km) (95 miles 
(mi)) of portions of the Gila River in Grant and Catron counties, New 
Mexico; the Verde River in Yavapai County, Arizona; and Aravaipa Creek 
in Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona. Federal actions that may affect 
the areas designated as critical habitat are now subject to 
consultation with the Service, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is April 7, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arizona Ecological 
Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3616 West Thomas, 
suite 6, Phoenix, Arizona 85019. Copies of the ``Analysis of the 
Economic Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat for Meda fulgida 
(Spikedace),'' August 12, 1992, are also available for inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the same location.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Stefferud at the above address 
(602/379-4720).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The spikedace is a small, slim fish less than 80 millimeters (3 
inches) long. It is characterized by very silvery sides and spines in 
the dorsal and pelvic fins. This species is found in moderate to large 
perennial streams, where it inhabits shallow riffles with sand, gravel, 
and rubble substrates and moderate to swift currents as well as swift 
pools over sand or gravel substrates (Barber et al. 1970, Propst et al. 
1986, Rinne 1991). Recurrent flooding is very important in maintaining 
the habitat of the spikedace and also helps it maintain a competitive 
edge over invading non-native fish species (Propst et al. 1986, 
Minckley and Meffe 1987).
    The spikedace was first collected in 1851 from the Rio San Pedro in 
Arizona, and was described from those specimens in 1856 by Girard. It 
is the only species in the genus Meda. The spikedace was once common 
throughout much of the Verde, Agua Fria, Salt, San Pedro, San 
Francisco, and Gila (upstream from Phoenix) River systems, occupying 
suitable habitat in both the mainstreams and moderate gradient 
perennial tributaries, up to 1,800 to 1,900 meters (m) (5,900 to 6,200 
feet (ft)) elevation. Because of habitat destruction and competition 
and predation by non-native fish species, its range and abundance have 
been severely reduced, and it is now restricted to approximately 31 km 
(19 mi) of Aravaipa Creek in Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona; 
approximately 108 km (67 mi) of the upper Gila River in the Middle Box 
canyon, the Cliff/Gila Valley, and the lower end of the West, East, and 
Middle forks in Grant and Catron counties, New Mexico; approximately 57 
km (35 mi) of the Verde River from the lower end of the Chino Valley 
downstream to near the mouth of Sycamore Canyon in Yavapai County, 
Arizona; and approximately 40 km (25 mi) of Eagle Creek in Greenlee 
County, Arizona (Minckley 1973, Anderson 1978, Barrett et al. 1985, 
Bestgen 1985, Propst et al. 1986, Marsh et al. 1990, Propst 1988 to 
1992, Minckley et al. 1990 to 1992, Bettaso 1992 to 1993). This present 
range is only 9 percent of the historic range of 2,600 km (1,600 mi) of 
river.
    Critical habitat is being designated for approximately 154 km (95 
mi) on rivers currently occupied by spikedace. Land ownership along the 
critical habitat area is mixed and is as follows (distances and 
conversions are approximate):
    Aravaipa Creek--The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 10 
km (6 mi) of the critical habitat as part of the designated Aravaipa 
Canyon Wilderness. Thirteen km (8 mi) of the critical habitat above and 
below the Wilderness, previously owned by the Defenders of Wildlife's 
Whittell Trust, is now owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and 
managed as a nature preserve. About 1 km (0.5 mi) of stream is on 
privately owned inholdings located within the Preserve.
    Gila River--The BLM administers 4.5 km (2.8 mi) of the Gila River 
critical habitat, just downstream from the mouth of the Middle Box 
canyon. This is part of a designated Area of Critical Environmental 
Concern, a special use designation of the BLM. Twenty-five km (15.5 mi) 
of land along the critical habitat in most of the Cliff/Gila Valley and 
in the area near Gila Hot Springs are privately owned. Two km (1.2 mi) 
of land along the critical habitat upstream from the town of Gila is 
owned by TNC. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish administers 
land along 6 km (3.8 mi) of the critical habitat on the West and Middle 
forks of the Gila River. The New Mexico State Land Office owns land 
along 0.5 km (0.2 mi) of the critical habitat in the Cliff/Gila Valley. 
The National Park Service's Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument lies 
along 1 km (0.5 mi) of the critical habitat in the West Fork. This 
Monument is currently being administered by the U.S. Forest Service. 
The U.S. Forest Service, Gila National Forest, administers the 
remaining 34 km (21 mi) of the critical habitat in the Gila River with 
sections flowing through three special use areas--Gila Wilderness, 
Lower Gila River Bird Habitat Management Area, and Gila River Research 
Natural Area.
    Verde River--Forty-one km (25.5 mi) of spikedace critical habitat 
on the Verde River is located in the Prescott National Forest 
administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Fifteen km (9 mi) of privately 
owned land is located along the critical habitat below Sullivan Lake or 
as a few private inholdings along critical habitat within the U.S. 
Forest Service lands. The State of Arizona has 4 km (2.5 mi) of 
scattered State lands located along the river below Sullivan Lake.
    The spikedace is included on the State lists of threatened and 
endangered species in Arizona and New Mexico (Arizona Game and Fish 
Dept. 1988, New Mexico State Game Comm. 1990). It was included as a 
Category 1 candidate species in the Service's December 30, 1982, 
Vertebrate Notice of Review (47 FR 58454). Category 1 includes those 
taxa for which the Service currently has substantial biological 
information to support listing the species as endangered or threatened. 
The Service was petitioned on March 14, 1985, by the American Fisheries 
Society (AFS) and on March 18, 1985, by the Desert Fishes Council (DFC) 
to list the spikedace as threatened. Because the species was already 
under active petition by AFS, the DFC petition was accepted only as a 
letter of comment. Evaluation of the AFS petition by the Service 
revealed that the petitioned action may be warranted. Finding that the 
petitioned action was warranted, the Service published a proposed rule 
to list this species as threatened with critical habitat on June 18, 
1985 (50 FR 25390). The final rule listing the spikedace as a 
threatened species was published on July 1, 1986 (51 FR 23769). The 
proposed critical habitat designation was not made final at the time of 
listing but was postponed to allow for gathering and analysis of 
economic data.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the June 18, 1985, proposed rule (50 FR 25390) and associated 
notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual 
reports or information that might contribute to the development of a 
final rule. The original comment period closed on August 19, 1985, but 
was reopened on October 7, 1985 (50 FR 37703), to accommodate the 
public hearings, and remained open until November 8, 1985. Appropriate 
State agencies, county governments, Federal agencies, scientific 
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and 
requested to comment. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment 
were published in the Courier in Prescott, Arizona; in the Eastern 
Arizona Courier in Safford, Arizona; and in the Daily Press in Silver 
City, New Mexico, on July 5, 10, and 13, 1985, respectively. One 
hundred twelve letters of comment were received from 109 separate 
parties and are summarized below. Six requests for a public hearing 
were received. Public hearings were held in Silver City, New Mexico; 
Safford, Arizona; and Phoenix, Arizona, on October 7, 8, and 9, 1985, 
respectively. Interested parties were notified of those hearings, and 
notices of the hearings were published in the Federal Register on 
September 17, 1985 (50 FR 37703); in the Silver City, New Mexico, Daily 
Press on September 24, 1985; in the Phoenix, Arizona, Arizona Republic 
on September 26, 1985; in the Prescott, Arizona, Courier on September 
27, 1985; and in the Safford, Arizona, Eastern Arizona Courier on 
October 2, 1985. Thirty-six comments pertaining to the proposed 
critical habitat were received at these hearings and are also 
summarized below.
    Seventy-eight letters of comment were received in support of the 
proposed critical habitat, 21 in opposition to the proposal, and an 
additional 13 which expressed neither support nor opposition or which 
furnished economic information regarding the effects of the proposal. 
The 3 public hearings were attended by 107 people, with 33 oral or 
written statements given--16 in support of the proposed critical 
habitat, 14 in opposition, and 3 neither in support nor opposition. In 
addition, three other parties asked questions regarding the proposed 
critical habitat. The hearings accepted formal oral and written 
statements and also included an informal question and answer session.
    Many of the comments addressed concerns regarding specific water-
development or flood-control projects. These comments will not be 
addressed here unless they requested or resulted in specific changes to 
the rule or to the rule procedure. Economic information supplied in 
these comments was incorporated into the economic analysis on proposed 
critical habitat (Souder 1992). That analysis is available upon 
request, as are copies of hearing transcripts and all letters received 
during the comment period (see ADDRESSES section).
    Comments in support of the proposed critical habitat were received 
from the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Arizona 
Game and Fish Department, Arizona Nature Conservancy, Arizona State 
University Wildlife Society Chapter, Arizona Wildlife Federation, 
Audubon Society Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, Defenders of 
Wildlife, Desert Fishes Council, George Whittell Wildlife Trust, 
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural 
Resources (now known as the World Conservation Union), Maricopa Audubon 
Society, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, New Mexico Nature 
Conservancy, Northern Arizona Paddlers Club, Prescott Audubon Society, 
Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club, Southern New Mexico Conservation 
Coalition, Southern New Mexico Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy's 
Rocky Mountain Natural Heritage Task Force, Tucson Audubon Society, 
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Audubon Society, 3 members of the 
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, and 63 biologists and private 
citizens.
    Comments in opposition to the proposed critical habitat were 
received from the Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Arizona Division 
of Emergency Services, Arizona Mining Association, City of Prescott, 
Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona, Coronado Resource Conservation and 
Development Board, County of Greenlee, Gila Fish and Gun Club, Gila 
Valley Natural Resource Conservation Board, Graham County Board of 
Supervisors, Grant County Chamber of Commerce, Hooker Dam Association, 
New Mexico State Engineer Office, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Southwest 
New Mexico Industrial Development Corporation, Town of Safford, Town of 
Silver City, Town of Thatcher, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Soil 
Conservation Service New Mexico State Office, Upper Gila River 
Association, and six private citizens.
    Nonsubstantive comments or comments containing only economic 
information were received from the Arizona State Clearinghouse, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Salt River 
Project, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Soil Conservation Service Arizona 
State Office, and two private citizens.
    Summaries of all substantive comments addressing the issue of 
critical habitat for the spikedace are provided in the following 
discussion. Comments of similar content are grouped in a number of 
general issues with the Service's response to those issues and 
comments.
    Issue 1: Four commenters recommended that additional areas be 
included in the designation of critical habitat. Two commenters 
recommended that the critical habitat designation be changed to include 
the watersheds of the rivers being designated, as well as the rivers 
themselves.
    Drs. Dean Hendrickson and Paul Turner recommended that the critical 
habitat designation be extended downstream in the Gila River to include 
the area between Red Rock, New Mexico, and the mouth of the Middle Box. 
Dr. Hendrickson's 1983-84 work (under contract with the U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation) and that of Propst et al. (1986) and Anderson (1978) 
documented a large population of primarily larval and juvenile 
spikedace in the Red Rock to Middle Box area. He believes that the area 
may be an important nursery area for spikedace and may contribute 
significantly to upstream populations through upstream migration. The 
area would be affected by future water development in the Cliff/Gila 
Valley upstream.
    Response: The Service believes that inclusion of the entire 
watershed in critical habitat designation for this fish is not 
necessary to provide adequate protection for the species. However, the 
Service recognizes the importance of the watersheds in maintaining 
quality habitat for the spikedace. Any Federal activities in the 
watersheds of streams designated as critical habitat that would affect 
the critical habitat would be subject to section 7 of the Act. The 
Service recognizes that limiting the proposed critical habitat to only 
the stream itself may not clearly indicate the importance of the 
streambanks and channel to the maintenance of the critical habitat. 
Therefore, future revision of the critical habitat to include a portion 
of the riparian zone or floodplain may be considered.
    In the area of the Gila River between Red Rock and the mouth of the 
Middle Box, the majority of spikedace are located at the mouth of the 
Middle Box and are included in the critical habitat as proposed. The 
remainder are downstream from the critical habitat area but are 
nevertheless protected under the jeopardy provisions of section 7 and 
the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. The area from the mouth of 
the Middle Box to the Arizona/New Mexico border is considered to be 
potential recovery area for the spikedace and may be considered for 
addition to the critical habitat in future revision of the designation. 
Revision would require that an additional proposal be published in the 
Federal Register.
    Issue 2: Four of the commenters recommended that the area of the 
Gila River that was being considered in 1985 for damming or other water 
development under the Bureau of Reclamation's Upper Gila Water Supply 
Study (UGWSS) be excluded from the critical habitat designation. Such 
an exclusion could be made under the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act, which provides that the Secretary of the Interior may exclude 
any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of 
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as 
critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat would result in the extinction of the species. The four 
commenters stated that the benefits of the water supply, flood control, 
and other associated economic and recreational benefits of the UGWSS, 
and Conner Dam in particular, far outweigh the benefits of critical 
habitat. One commenter also suggested that areas presently unoccupied 
by spikedace in the Gila River, the East Fork of the Gila River, and 
other streams could be designated as critical habitat to replace the 
excluded UGWSS area. The commenter suggested that such unoccupied areas 
could then be modified and managed to provide habitat for spikedace and 
then stocked with captive-reared spikedace to provide increased 
populations and habitat for the species.
    Response: Planning for the UGWSS was suspended in 1987 (U.S. Bureau 
of Reclamation 1987a, 1987b) due to various economic, environmental, 
and water supply factors. Further planning was deferred until the year 
2010 when it is predicted the need for the water supply will occur. 
Prior to that suspension, discussions between the Bureau of Reclamation 
and the Service on tentative alternatives for the UGWSS study indicated 
that development of the required water supply would likely be possible 
without adversely modifying the proposed critical habitat. Therefore, 
no economic or other impacts were anticipated to the UGWSS and no 
economic benefits would accrue from exclusion from critical habitat 
designation of the Conner Dam and Reservoir area, or any other area 
being considered under the UGWSS.
    Regarding the suggestion to replace occupied areas in the critical 
habitat designation with unoccupied areas of the Gila River--the 
Service is considering a possible future revision to the critical 
habitat which may contain some presently unoccupied areas as potential 
recovery habitat. However, this would be an addition to the critical 
habitat, not a substitution. The Service does not believe it would 
further the conservation of the species to remove from the protection 
of critical habitat designation areas known to support long-term 
populations of spikedace and replace them with areas which do not 
currently support spikedace, but which, with human manipulation, might 
support spikedace in the future. However, the primary unoccupied area 
identified by the commenter as a replacement for the occupied areas is 
the canyon wilderness between Mogollon Creek and the East Fork Gila 
River (above the Cliff/Gila Valley), which probably never supported 
spikedace and does not appear to contain potential habitat for recovery 
of the species. The knowledge, expertise, and physical capability do 
not exist to modify such areas of non-suitable habitat into suitable 
habitat for spikedace. In addition, such modification might cause major 
irreparable harm to other native fish and aquatic organisms, riparian 
plant and wildlife communities, and wilderness values.
    Issue 3: Two commenters requested that critical habitat be limited 
to areas that would not hinder the construction of flood-control 
facilities for the areas of Clifton, Duncan, and Safford, Arizona. As 
in Issue 2, this request for exclusion of specific areas was made under 
the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    Response: The economic analysis (Souder 1992) did not show there to 
be significant economic or other benefits of excluding any area for 
flood control. Such a limitation of critical habitat is not expected to 
be necessary to allow for flood-control measures on the Gila and San 
Francisco rivers. Any such projects or activities, if they are 
federally funded, authorized, or carried out, would be subject to the 
provisions of section 7 regarding both the survival of the spikedace 
and the adverse modification or destruction of its critical habitat. 
The Service expects that alternatives and plan modifications formulated 
through consultation will allow adequate flood-control measures to be 
taken while safeguarding the species and its habitat.
    Issue 4: One commenter recommended limiting designated critical 
habitat to areas that would not prevent the stocking of sport fish. The 
commenter pointed out that many of the non-native fish identified as 
predators on spikedace, such as catfish and trout, provide recreation 
for local residents and create revenue from sport fishing recreation. 
As in Issues 2 and 3, this request for exclusion of specific areas is 
made under the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    Response: The designation of critical habitat as proposed is not 
expected to have significant effects on recreational fishing. The 
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) does not stock game fish in any 
of the waters proposed as critical habitat for the spikedace. The New 
Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMGF) stocks only rainbow trout 
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) into or near the critical habitat for spikedace. 
Other fish currently being stocked into spikedace critical habitat are 
the endangered Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius) and the 
endangered razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), both native to the 
Gila River basin. Game fish are being stocked by the AGFD, NMGF, and 
the Service into waters connected to the proposed critical habitat. 
These stockings must comply with section 7 consultation requirements 
for their effects on spikedace, and designation of critical habitat is 
not expected to change the outcome of those consultations.
    Issue 5: Three commenters recommended that various management 
techniques, such as habitat improvements, predator control, and 
reintroduction of spikedace from the Service's Dexter National Fish 
Hatchery, be implemented for spikedace in lieu of designating critical 
habitat.
    Response: Habitat improvement practices, including predator 
control, cannot substitute for designation of critical habitat, unless 
such conservation measures alleviate threats to the species to the 
point where it no longer requires listing or critical habitat 
designation. Many of the threats to the spikedace cannot be alleviated 
by habitat improvements but can be controlled through designation of 
critical habitat and through the provisions of sections 7 and 9 of the 
Act. Too little is known about the specific habitat needs of the 
spikedace to ensure that habitat improvement practices and 
reintroductions would secure the survival of this fish. Habitat 
enhancement and reintroduction are measures that are being considered 
in the recovery of this species. Extensive study will be needed to 
ensure the success of such work.
    The Dexter National Fish Hatchery does not presently maintain 
spikedace stocks. Facility space is limited, and priority is given to 
species whose survival depends heavily upon artificial propagation, a 
point the spikedace has not yet reached. Placement of stocks of 
spikedace into that facility may be considered in the future; however, 
a number of years are often needed to develop the techniques required 
to successfully propagate a given species in captivity, thus precluding 
the use of captive stock in alleviating the immediate need for critical 
habitat designation. In addition, reintroductions may be more likely to 
succeed if the reintroduction area(s) are protected through designation 
as critical habitat.
    Issue 6: Two commenters expressed concerns regarding the value of 
designating critical habitat when there is a significant threat to the 
spikedace from predatory and competitive non-native fish. One commenter 
believed that the designation of critical habitat without a management 
and statutory effort to control undesirable introduced fish species is 
not justified. The other commenter believed that critical habitat 
designation for the spikedace in the Gila River is futile because of 
the impending extinction of the spikedace due to displacement by the 
non-native red shiner (Cyprinella (formerly Notropis) lutrensis).
    Response: The existence of threats to a listed species from other 
organisms, such as non-native fishes, does not relieve the Service of 
its responsibility to protect the species' habitat. The spikedace faces 
extensive threats to its habitat and will benefit from designation of 
critical habitat. The Service is presently working with the State Game 
and Fish departments and other agencies on solutions for controlling 
the introduction and spread of non-native fish species, including game 
fish. Although the red shiner appears to displace the spikedace in some 
locations and is considered a serious range-wide threat to the 
spikedace, the red shiner populations in the Gila River have remained 
small since their initial invasion in the early 1980's. A key factor in 
controlling the displacement of spikedace by red shiner is the 
protection and enhancement of the habitat. Thus, designation of 
critical habitat is expected to be valuable in controlling the threat 
from red shiner.
    Issue 7: Three commenters objected to the deferral of analysis of 
economic and other impacts of critical habitat designation until the 
time of the final rule. They believed such analysis should be done 
prior to the proposal and contended that deferral is ``improper both 
legally, procedurally and in failing to follow reasonable and necessary 
rulemaking steps,'' is ``certainly unreasonable and probably illegal,'' 
and does not allow the public access to essential information needed to 
comment on the impacts and review the adequacy of the Service's 
analysis. They further contended that a Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
under Executive Order 12291, must be prepared for the critical habitat 
proposal.
    Response: The economic analysis (Souder 1992) of the proposed 
spikedace critical habitat designation was prepared following the 
publication of the proposed rule and prior to the final decision on the 
proposed critical habitat designation. This procedure is based upon the 
specific requirement of the Act exempting listing actions from economic 
considerations. When a listing and critical habitat designation are 
proposed concurrently, as is required (with certain exceptions) by the 
Act, the economic analysis is not conducted prior to proposal to avoid 
illegally influencing or delaying the listing. Because Executive Order 
12291 was rescinded on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), a Regulatory 
Impact Analysis is not required.
    Issue 8: Three commenters stated that an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS), under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 
should be prepared for this critical habitat proposal. They contended 
that the 1981 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' Pacific Legal Foundation v. 
Andrus decision, which found that an EIS is not required for listings 
under the Endangered Species Act, is not applicable to the current 
critical habitat proposal. Their reasons for this contention include--
the Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus decision addressed only listing 
and not critical habitat designation, the Act now requires the 
consideration of economic and other relevant impacts of specifying an 
area as critical habitat, and the Act also now requires the Secretary 
of the Interior to determine whether the benefits of excluding an area 
from critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat.
    Response: The Service's position on NEPA compliance for any 
regulations adopted pursuant to section (4)(a) of the Act (listing, 
critical habitat designation, reclassification, delisting) is set forth 
in the Federal Register of October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). In addition 
to Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, the Service's position on NEPA 
compliance is based on the recommendation of the Council on 
Environmental Quality, the fact that the Act stipulates a process to be 
followed in promulgating such rules and limits Secretarial discretion 
in altering the critical habitat designation, and on the experience of 
10 years of preparation of Environmental Assessments on section 4(a) 
actions. In those 10 years, 120 Environmental Assessments were 
prepared, none of which resulted in a finding of significant impact and 
consequent preparation of an EIS.
    Analysis of economic impacts for critical habitat designations is 
required by Executive Order 12866 and section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 
Species Act, and the Service has prepared an economic analysis (Souder 
1992) in compliance with those authorities. When the economic analysis 
is added to the administrative record generated through the public 
comment process, it provides the functional equivalent of NEPA 
documentation and satisfies the information-gathering, analytical, and 
environmental goals of NEPA.
    Issue 9: Three commenters recommended that, in assessing the 
economic impacts of proposed critical habitat, the Service should 
consider the cumulative effects of all past species listings and 
critical habitat designations and all such actions that are or may be 
under consideration in the area to be affected by proposed critical 
habitat. They believed that the economic effects caused by past and 
future actions for other species are relevant in determining economic 
and other impacts in the proposed critical habitat area.
    Response: In assessing the impacts of a critical habitat 
designation, the Service considers in its baseline the cumulative 
effects resulting from earlier listings and critical habitat 
designations to the extent that such effects can be determined. Effects 
of this critical habitat designation were calculated incrementally 
above the baseline of other species listings and critical habitat, as 
well as other environmental and land-management regulations. 
Consideration is limited to known impacts and does not include 
theoretical or hypothetical impacts. Currently, the only other 
federally listed species present in streams in which the spikedace is 
found are the threatened loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), the endangered 
razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and a nonessential experimental 
population of the Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius). 
Nonessential experimental status provides protection equivalent to that 
for a proposed species, which includes only limited section 7 
protection and thus has little or no economic or other impacts. The 
endangered bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occurs near some 
spikedace habitat but is not expected to contribute to cumulative 
effects for the spikedace. No existing critical habitat designations 
are located in any of the areas being designated as spikedace critical 
habitat. Designation of critical habitat in areas of spikedace-occupied 
streams and adjacent floodplains and riparian vegetation has been 
proposed for the loach minnow, the razorback sucker, and the 
southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Expected 
impacts of designation for the sucker and flycatcher are not yet 
available but will be detailed in the economic analyses for those 
proposals. Expected impacts of designation for the loach minnow become 
available with the publication of final critical habitat for that 
species, concurrent with this rule (in this separate part of the 
Federal Register). Cumulative economic impacts may be expected only in 
areas of non-overlap where alternative sites for projects may be 
affected by one species in one area and the other species in other 
areas or from differences in constituent elements for the southwestern 
willow flycatcher as compared to the fishes.
    Issue 10: One commenter questioned the inclusion of the Middle Box 
in proposed critical habitat. The commenter based the question on a 
report by the Service's Albuquerque Ecological Services Field Office 
(USFWS 1985), which stated that the area of the Middle Box (proposed 
site of Conner Dam and Reservoir) has the lowest habitat value for 
aquatic species and general ecology in the portion of the Gila River 
from Mogollon Creek downstream through the Red Rock area. The report 
also stated that the greatest habitat value to the native fishes is 
found in the Cliff/Gila/Riverside Valley. That valley has a large 
concentration of existing manmade structures. The commenter asked for a 
clarification of the apparent contradiction between the low habitat 
rating of the Middle Box and its inclusion in the proposed critical 
habitat, and of the apparent contradiction between the high habitat 
rating of the Cliff/Gila/ Riverside Valley and the statements in the 
proposed rule regarding the adverse effects of human activities on 
spikedace habitat.
    Response: The Middle Box does provide less overall general aquatic 
habitat quality and diversity than other stretches. However, there are 
large numbers of spikedace at the upper end of the Middle Box and at 
its mouth. The short unoccupied stretch between those two areas is too 
small to be omitted from the critical habitat for biological reasons 
and provides an essential element to the critical habitat by providing 
a channel for water, fish, and gene flow between the two segments. 
Alteration or loss of that connection would likely result in 
extirpation of spikedace in the lower area. The comparatively high 
habitat value of the Gila/Cliff/ Riverside Valley is not inconsistent. 
All manmade structures are not equally destructive of habitat values. 
Most of the structures in the Gila/Cliff/Riverside area are small and 
have localized impacts on the aquatic habitat. In the localized areas 
of those impacts, spikedace are scarce or do not exist.
    Issue 11: The Graham County (Arizona) Manager asked if the 
designation of critical habitat will affect the availability of Federal 
money for studies by the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers on dam projects in the area.
    Response: Designation of critical habitat will not automatically 
alter or stop any studies or projects in the area. Rather, any project 
that is federally funded, authorized, or carried out will be subject to 
the provisions of section 7 of the Act. These provisions are explained 
in this final rule. Studies or projects can be carried out by the 
Bureau of Reclamation or Corps of Engineers if those studies or 
projects do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat or 
jeopardize any listed species.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat, as defined by section 3 of the Act, means--(i) 
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, 
at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection, and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, 
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that critical habitat be 
designated to the maximum extent prudent and determinable concurrently 
with the determination that a species is endangered or threatened. 
Critical habitat is being designated for the spikedace (Meda fulgida) 
in the following areas (distances and conversions are approximate):
    1. Aravaipa Creek, Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona. Twenty-four 
km (15 mi) of stream extending from the N\1/2\ of the SW\1/4\ sec. 26, 
T.6S., R.17E. upstream to the W\1/2\ of the NE\1/4\ sec. 35, T.6S., 
R.19E.
    2. Verde River, Yavapai County, Arizona. Fifty-seven km (35 mi) of 
river extending from 1 km (0.5 mi) below the confluence with Sycamore 
Creek upstream to Sullivan Lake.
    3. Gila River, Grant and Catron counties, New Mexico. Three 
sections of river totaling 73 km (45 mi) in length. The first section 
is 50 km (31 mi) long and extends from the mouth of the Middle Box 
canyon upstream to the confluence with Mogollon Creek. A second 
section, of 11.5 km (7 mi), extends up the West Fork from its 
confluence with the East Fork to the west boundary of sec. 22, T.12S., 
R.14W. The last section is 11.5 km (7 mi) long and extends up the 
Middle Fork from its mouth to the confluence with Big Bear Canyon.
    One change in the critical habitat originally proposed for 
spikedace has been made in this final rule. Sycamore Creek, a tributary 
of the Verde River in Yavapai County, Arizona, has been removed from 
the final critical habitat designation as a result of new biological 
information received. The lower 1.5 km (1 mi) of Sycamore Creek was 
included in the proposed critical habitat due to erroneous data on the 
presence of spikedace. No records of spikedace in Sycamore Creek are 
known; thus potential habitat there is limited to the mouth of the 
creek.
    The Service is required to base critical habitat proposals on the 
best available scientific information (50 CFR 424.12). In determining 
what areas to propose as critical habitat, the Service considers those 
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation 
of the species and that may require special management considerations 
or protection. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, the 
following--(1) space for individual growth; (2) food, water, air, 
light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; 
(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of 
offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and, generally, (5) habitats 
that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the 
historic geographical and ecological distributions of the species.
    The areas being designated as critical habitat for the spikedace 
possess the necessary factors for survival, growth, and reproduction of 
the species. Several areas currently occupied by the spikedace were not 
included in the 1985 proposal for various reasons. Although these areas 
were not proposed for designation as critical habitat, they are 
considered important for the long-term survival and recovery of the 
spikedace. The Service is considering revising critical habitat in the 
future to add these areas, including the occupied area recommended for 
inclusion as critical habitat in the recovery plan for the species 
(USFWS 1991). In addition, the Service is considering adding certain 
unoccupied areas considered vital for recovery of the species.
    Maintenance of the widely separated populations found in the Gila 
and Verde rivers and in Aravaipa Creek as independent entities is 
critical to buffer against threats to each individual population. Each 
of the remnant populations proposed for critical habitat designation 
has unique characteristics which contribute to ensuring this species' 
future. Genetic studies in progress indicate that the populations are 
genetically distinctive (Tibbets 1992). The Aravaipa Creek population 
is one of only two remnants of the south-central portion of the 
spikedace's historic range and is under the most protective land 
management. The Verde River population is the only remnant of the 
northern portion of the historic range. The upper Verde River is 
unusual in its relatively stable thermal and hydrologic regime and the 
spikedace population there is the most genetically distinct, possibly 
to the subspecific or specific level. The West and Middle forks of the 
Gila River have a relatively low degree of habitat threat and may 
contribute genetically to the Cliff/Gila Valley population. The Cliff/
Gila population is the largest existing population of spikedace and, 
although faced with numerous threats, may represent the ``core'' 
population of the species.
    When designating critical habitat for a species, the Service also 
considers the primary constituent elements of critical habitat, which 
may include, but are not limited to, the following--roost sites, 
nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or 
dryland, water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator, 
geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types. 
The areas being designated as critical habitat for spikedace will 
provide the following constituent elements or will be capable, with 
rehabilitation, of providing them. Spikedace constituent elements have 
been expanded from the proposed rule. The primary constituent elements 
include:

--Permanent, flowing, unpolluted water;
--Habitat for adult fish with slow to swift flow velocities (0-100 
centimeter (cm) (0-3 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-38 cm (0.1-
1.25 ft) deep) with shear zones where rapid flow borders slower flow, 
areas of sheet flow at the upper ends of mid-channel sand/gravel bars, 
and eddies at downstream riffle edges;
--Habitat for juveniles with slow to moderate flow velocities (0-60 cm 
(0-2 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-70 cm (0.1-2.25 ft) deep) with 
moderate amounts of instream cover;
--Habitat for larval stage with slow to moderate flow velocities (0-30 
cm (0-1 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-30 cm (0.1-1 ft) deep) with 
abundant instream cover;
--Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts of 
fine sediment and substrate embeddedness;
--Pool, riffle, run, and backwater components in the habitat;
--Low stream gradient (generally 0.5-1.5 percent);
--Water temperatures in the approximate range of 1-30 deg. C (35-
85 deg. F) with natural diurnal and seasonal variation;
--Abundant aquatic insect food base;
--Periodic flooding;
--A natural, unregulated hydrograph;
--Few or no predatory or competitive non-native species present;
--A healthy, intact, riparian community; and
--Moderate to high bank stability.

    Section 4(b)(8) requires, for any proposed or final regulation that 
designates critical habitat, a description and evaluation of those 
activities (public or private) that may adversely modify such habitat 
or may be affected by such designation. Any activity that would lessen 
the amount of the minimum flow or would alter the natural flow regime 
in Aravaipa Creek or the upper Gila or Verde rivers could adversely 
affect critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not limited 
to, groundwater pumping, impoundment, and water diversions. Any 
activity that would alter watershed characteristics of the Aravaipa 
Creek or upper Gila or Verde River watersheds could adversely affect 
the critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not limited to, 
vegetation manipulation, timber harvest, prescribed burning, road 
construction, livestock grazing, mining, and urban or suburban 
development. Any activity that would alter the channel morphology in 
Aravaipa Creek or the upper Gila or Verde rivers could adversely affect 
the critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not limited to, 
channelization, impoundment, deprivation of substrate source, 
destruction and alteration of riparian vegetation, and excessive 
sedimentation from mining, livestock grazing, road construction, timber 
harvest, off-road vehicle use, and other watershed disturbances. Any 
activity that would alter the water chemistry in Aravaipa Creek or the 
upper Gila or Verde rivers could adversely affect the critical habitat. 
Such activities include, but are not limited to, release of chemical or 
biological pollutants into the waters at a point source or by dispersed 
release (non-point). Any activity that would introduce, spread, or 
augment non-native fish species in the Gila River basin could adversely 
affect the critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not 
limited to, stocking of game fish, use of live bait fish, stocking for 
biological control, aquaculture, dumping of pet or aquarium fish, 
construction and operation of canals, and interbasin water transfers.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to consider 
economic and other impacts of designating a particular area as critical 
habitat. The Service has considered the critical habitat designation in 
light of all additional relevant information obtained during the public 
comment period and public hearings. All additional information received 
has been addressed in the ``Summary of Comments'' section of this rule 
or in the economic documents prepared on the rule. The economic 
analysis (Souder 1992) is available upon request; its conclusions are 
summarized in the ``Summary of Economic Analysis'' section of this 
rule.

Available Conservation Measures

    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat. 
Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the 
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the 
Service.
    No Federal activities on Bureau of Land Management lands on 
Aravaipa Creek are expected to be affected by designation of critical 
habitat for spikedace. The Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness is presently 
being managed to protect and enhance natural resource values. However, 
if existing or increased recreational use within the canyon results in 
streambank degradation and increased sediment or pollution load in the 
stream, then section 7 consultation may be necessary.
    On U.S. Forest Service lands on the Gila and Verde rivers, little 
effect on Federal activities is expected as a result of this rule. 
Section 7 consultations for grazing, mining, timber harvest, 
recreation, or other activities affecting spikedace critical habitat 
would now address effects to the critical habitat in addition to 
effects to the spikedace itself. The primary effect anticipated by the 
U.S. Forest Service is possible increased administrative costs due to 
consultation requirements. Designation of critical habitat may result 
in some increases in mitigation needs for various land use activities.
    On Bureau of Land Management lands on the upper Gila River, little 
or no effect is expected on present Federal activities because the area 
is designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, which 
requires management to protect natural resource values.
    Water development on the upper Gila and upper Verde rivers, under 
the Bureau of Reclamation's Central Arizona Project (CAP), may be 
affected by this rule. One informal section 7 conference (USFWS 1986) 
and two formal section 7 consultations (one completed (USFWS 1990) and 
one not completed) have been conducted on CAP projects and their 
likelihood to jeopardize the survival of the spikedace and adversely 
modify the proposed critical habitat. No current proposals exist for 
CAP water development in either area. The potential for designation of 
critical habitat to affect future water-development plans is dependent 
upon the level and type of adverse effects to the spikedace and its 
habitat. Those effects would depend upon the location, size, method, 
and other specifics of the proposed water development. If major adverse 
effects on critical habitat are expected, changes in water-development 
plans may be required. However, only those changes in addition to any 
changes required as a result of section 7 consultation on the species 
would be attributable to critical habitat.
    Known Federal activities on private lands that might be affected by 
this rule would be future flood control funded by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency or carried out by the Soil Conservation Service or 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, future highway and bridge 
construction funded, authorized, or carried out by the Federal Highway 
Administration, or future federally funded irrigation projects. Private 
activities within the stream channels that may require permits under 
sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act may also be affected by 
this rule. Effects are expected to be limited to administrative costs 
for section 7 consultation and costs for altering proposed projects to 
minimize or avoid effects to spikedace and its critical habitat.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and 
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the 
Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The 
Department of the Interior has determined that designation of critical 
habitat for the spikedace will not have a significant economic effect 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on the information 
discussed in this rule concerning public projects and private 
activities within the critical habitat areas, it is not expected that 
significant economic impacts will result from the critical habitat 
designation. In addition, there are a limited number of actions on 
private land that have Federal involvement through funds or permits 
that would affect or be affected by the critical habitat designation; 
the potential economic impact of the critical habitat designation on 
these actions will be minor. Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs, 
or information collection or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on 
small entities by this designation. This action does not impose any 
recordkeeping requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980.

Summary of Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to designate 
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and 
to consider the economic impact and any other relevant impact of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary of 
the Interior (Secretary) may exclude any area from critical habitat if 
he determines that the benefits of such exclusions outweigh the 
benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, 
unless it is determined, based on the best scientific and commercial 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat would result in the extinction of the species concerned. The 
Secretary has delegated this authority to the Director of the Service. 
The Act thus requires the Service to evaluate those economic and other 
effects likely to take place due to the designation of critical 
habitat, and to consider whether to exclude any critical habitat.
    The economic analysis (Souder 1992) of the potential impacts of 
critical habitat designation for spikedace concluded that economic 
impacts are expected on only three Federal actions--Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) cost-shares to rebuild irrigation diversions 
after major flood events; additional fencing and alternative water 
developments to prevent cattle grazing in the riparian zones on the 
National Forest; and limited preventive measures at developed 
recreation sites. The estimated maximum identifiable added costs are 
$150,000 (all of which is also attributable to critical habitat 
designated for the loach minnow, since the two species share 84 km (52 
mi) of critical habitat). With the exception of $8,412 in local cost-
share for FEMA-eligible irrigation diversion reconstruction (should a 
flood occur), any added costs would be to the Federal government. The 
Director of the Service has not found it necessary to exclude from 
designation any of the areas proposed for designation on the basis of 
economic effects.

References Cited

Anderson, R.M. 1978. The distribution and aspects of the life 
history of Meda fulgida in New Mexico. Unpubl. M.S. thesis. New 
Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. 62 pp.
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1988. Threatened native wildlife 
in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Publ. Phoenix, AZ. 32 pp.
Barber, W.E., D.C. Williams, and W.L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the 
Gila spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970:9-18.
Barrett, P.J., W.G. Kepner, J.E. Burton, and M.D. Jakle. 1985. Draft 
Upper Verde River aquatic study. Joint study; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Arizona Game and Fish Dept., U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 
May 1985. Phoenix, AZ. 16 pp.
Bestgen, R.R. 1985. Results of identification of collections of 
larval fish made in the upper Salt and Gila Rivers, Arizona. Report 
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 7 pp.
Bettaso, R. 1992 to 1993. Aravaipa Creek monitoring data (unpubl.). 
Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Phoenix, AZ.
Girard, C. 1856. Researches upon the cyprinoid fishes inhabiting the 
fresh waters of the United States of America, west of the 
Mississippi Valley, from specimens in the Museum of the Smithsonian 
Institution. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 
Philadelphia 8:165-213.
Marsh, P.C., J.E. Brooks, D.A. Hendrickson, and W.L. Minckley. 1990. 
Fishes of Eagle Creek, Arizona, with records for threatened 
spikedace and loach minnow (Cyprinidae). Journal of the Arizona-
Nevada Academy of Science 23(2):107-116.
Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Dept. of Game and 
Fish. Phoenix, AZ. 293 pp.
Minckley, W.L., and G.K. Meffe. 1987. Differential selection by 
flooding in stream fish communities of the arid American Southwest. 
Pages 93-104 in W.J. Matthews and D.E. Heins (eds.). Evolutionary 
and community ecology of North American stream fishes. University of 
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Minckley, W.L., T. Velasco, and C. Reimus. 1990 to 1992. Monitoring 
reports for Aravaipa Creek. Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ.
New Mexico State Game Commission. 1990. Regulation No. 82. New 
Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe.
Propst, D.L. 1988 to 1992. Results of October (fall) fish count 
monitoring of Gila, San Francisco, and Tularosa Rivers. New Mexico 
Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM.
Propst, D.L., K.R. Bestgen, and C.W. Painter. 1986. Distribution, 
status, and biology of the spikedace (Meda fulgida) in New Mexico. 
Endangered Species Report No. 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Albuquerque, New Mexico. 93 pp.
Rinne, J.N. 1991. Habitat use by spikedace, Meda fulgida (Pisces: 
Cyprinidae) in southwestern streams with reference to probable 
habitat competition by red shiner, Notropis lutrensis (Pisces: 
Cyprinidae). Southwestern Naturalist 36(1):7-13.
Souder, J. 1992. Analysis of the Economic Impacts of Designating 
Critical Habitat for Meda fulgida (spikedace). U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ. 53 pp. + appendices.
Tibbets, C.A. 1992. Allozyme variation in populations of the 
spikedace Meda fulgida and the loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis. 
Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 24(1992):37.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987a. Upper Gila water supply study, 
special report on alternatives. October 1987. Boulder City, NV. 15 
pp. + appendices.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987b. Letter from Commissioner to 
Senator John C. Stennis, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, regarding deferral of upper Gila water supply study. 
November 5, 1987. Washington, D.C. 3 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Planning Aid Memorandum for 
the Upper Gila Water Supply Study, Catron, Grant and Hidalgo 
Counties, New Mexico. January 4, 1985. Albuquerque, NM. 29 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Endangered Species Act, 
section 7 conference report--Upper Gila Water Supply Study and Verde 
River Diversions. April 14, 1986. Albuquerque, NM. 11 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Biological opinion, Central 
Arizona Project, water exchange project, upper Verde River, Arizona. 
May 30, 1990. Albuquerque, NM. 48 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Spikedace recovery plan. 
Albuquerque, NM. 38 pp.

Author

    The primary author of this rule is S.E. Stefferud (see ADDRESSES 
section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat of spikedace in 
the same alphabetical order as the species occurs in 17.11(h).


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

    (e) * * *
* * * * *
Spikedace (Meda fulgida)

Arizona

    1. Graham and Pinal Counties: Aravaipa Creek, approximately 24 
km (15 mi) of stream extending from the N\1/2\ of the SW\1/4\ sec. 
26, T.6S., R.17E. upstream to the W\1/2\ of the NE\1/4\ sec. 35, 
T.6S., R.19E.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08MR94.002


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    2. Yavapai County: Verde River, approximately 57 km (35 mi) of 
river, extending from about 1 km (0.5 mi) below the confluence with 
Sycamore Creek (south boundary of the NW\1/4\ sec. 17, T.17N., 
R.3E.) upstream to the Sullivan Lake dam (NE\1/4\ of the NW\1/4\ 
sec. 15, T.17N., R.2W.).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08MR94.003


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

New Mexico

    1. Grant County: Gila River, approximately 50 km (31 mi) of 
river, extending from the mouth of the Middle Box canyon (NW\1/4\ of 
the SW\1/4\ sec. 23, T.18S., R.18W.) upstream to the confluence with 
Mogollon Creek (NE\1/4\ sec. 31, T.14S., R.16W.).
    2. Grant and Catron Counties: West Fork Gila River, 
approximately 11.5 km (7 mi) of river, extending from the confluence 
with the East Fork (center of sec. 8, T.13S., R.13W.) upstream to 
the west boundary sec. 22, T.12S., R.14W.
    3. Catron County: Middle Fork Gila River, approximately 11.5 km 
(7 mi) of river, extending from the confluence with the West Fork 
(SW\1/4\ sec. 25, T.12S., R.14W.) upstream to the confluence with 
Big Bear Canyon (NW\1/4\ sec. 2, T.12S., R.14W.).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08MR94.004


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    Known constituent elements, for all areas of critical habitat, 
include permanent, flowing, unpolluted streams with low to moderate 
gradient supporting adequate areas of shear zones, sheet flows, and 
other appropriate habitat with slow to swift velocities and shallow 
depths, over sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low to 
moderate amounts of fine sediment. Adequate areas of slower 
velocities, shallower depths, and abundant cover are required for 
early life stages. Known constituent elements for all areas also 
include periodic flooding; a natural, unregulated hydrograph; 
healthy riparian vegetation; moderate to high bank stability; and an 
absence of or few non-native fishes present.
* * * * *
    Dated: February 2, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-5118 Filed 3-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P