[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69324-69355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32019]



[[Page 69323]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 17



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 69324]]



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF76


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose 
designation of critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (Act), for the spikedace (Meda fulgida) and the 
loach minnow (Tiaroga = (Rhinichthys) cobitis). This proposal is made 
in response to a court order in Southwest Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Clark CIV 98-0769 M/JHG, directing us to complete 
designation of critical habitat for the spikedace and loach minnow by 
February 17, 2000.
    We are proposing as critical habitat a total of approximately 1,443 
kilometers (km) (894 miles (mi)) of rivers and creeks for the two 
species. The entire designation is proposed as critical habitat for the 
loach minnow, and approximately 1,325 km (822 mi) of those miles are 
also proposed as critical habitat for the spikedace. Proposed critical 
habitat includes portions of the Gila, San Francisco, Blue, Black, 
Verde, and San Pedro rivers, and some of their tributaries, in Apache, 
Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties in 
Arizona; and Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties in New Mexico.
    If this proposed rule is finalized, Federal agencies proposing 
actions that may affect the areas designated as critical habitat must 
consult with us on the effects of the proposed actions, pursuant to 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

DATES: We will consider all comments on the rule, the draft Economic 
Analysis, and draft Environmental Assessment received from interested 
parties by January 14, 2000. We will hold public hearings in Thatcher, 
Arizona, and Silver City, New Mexico on December 15, 1999, and in Camp 
Verde, Arizona, on December 16, 1999.

ADDRESSES: 1. Send your comments on the rule, the draft Economic 
Analysis, and draft Environmental Assessment to the Arizona Ecological 
Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 W. Royal Palm 
Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021.
    2. The complete file for this rule will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arizona 
Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 W. 
Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021.
    3. We will hold the Thatcher hearing at Eastern Arizona College 
Activity Center, Lee Little Theater, 1014 N. College Avenue, Thatcher, 
Arizona. We will hold the Silver City hearing at Western New Mexico 
University, White Hall Auditorium, 1000 College Street, Silver City, 
New Mexico. We will hold the Camp Verde hearing at the Camp Verde 
Unified Schools Multi-Use Complex Theater, 280 Camp Lincoln Road, Camp 
Verde, Arizona. We will start all hearings promptly at 7:00 p.m. and 
end them no later than 9:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological 
Services Office, at the above address; telephone 602/640-2720, 
facsimile 602/640-2730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Spikedace

    The spikedace is a small, slim fish less than 80 millimeters (mm) 
(3 inches (in)) long. It is characterized by very silvery sides and by 
spines in the dorsal and pelvic fins (Minckley 1973). This species is 
found in moderate to large perennial streams, where it inhabits shallow 
riffles with sand, gravel, and rubble substrates and moderate to swift 
currents as well as swift pools over sand or gravel substrates (Barber 
et al. 1970; Propst et al. 1986; Rinne 1991). Specific habitat for this 
species consists of shear zones where rapid flow borders slower flow, 
areas of sheet flow at the upper ends of mid-channel sand/gravel bars; 
and eddies at downstream riffle edges (Propst et al. 1986; Rinne and 
Kroeger 1988). Recurrent flooding and a natural hydrograph (physical 
conditions, boundaries, flow, and related characteristics of waters) 
are very important in maintaining the habitat of spikedace and in 
helping the species maintain a competitive edge over invading nonnative 
aquatic species (Propst et al. 1986; Minckley and Meffe 1987).
    The spikedace was first collected in 1851 from the Rio San Pedro in 
Arizona and was described from those specimens in 1856 by Girard. It is 
the only species in the genus Meda. The spikedace was once common 
throughout much of the Gila River basin, including the mainstem Gila 
River upstream of Phoenix, and the Verde, Agua Fria, Salt, San Pedro, 
and San Francisco subbasins. It occupies suitable habitat in both the 
mainstream reaches and moderate-gradient perennial tributaries, up to 
about 2,000 meters (m) (6,500 feet (ft)) elevation (Miller 1960; 
Chamberlain 1904; Gilbert and Scofield 1898; Cope and Yarrow 1875).
    Habitat destruction and competition and predation by nonnative 
aquatic species have severely reduced its range and abundance. It is 
now restricted to approximately 445 km (276 mi) of stream in portions 
of the upper Gila River (Grant, Catron, and Hidalgo Counties, NM), 
middle Gila River (Pinal County, AZ), lower San Pedro River (Pinal 
County, AZ), Aravaipa Creek (Graham and Pinal Counties, AZ), Eagle 
Creek (Graham and Greenlee Counties, AZ), and the Verde River (Yavapai 
County, AZ) (Anderson 1978; Jakle 1992; Sublette et al. 1990; Bestgen, 
1985; Marsh et al. 1990; Bettaso et al. 1995; Propst et al. 1986; 
Propst et al. 1985; Stefferud and Rinne 1996). Its present range is 
only about 10-15 percent of the historical range, and the status of the 
species within occupied areas ranges from common to very rare. At 
present, the species is common only in Aravaipa Creek and some parts of 
the upper Gila River in New Mexico.

Loach Minnow

    The loach minnow is a small, slender, elongated fish less than 80 
mm (3 in.) long. It is olivaceous in color with an oblique (slanting) 
terminal mouth and eyes markedly directed upward (Minckley 1973). This 
species is found in small to large perennial streams, using shallow, 
turbulent riffles with primarily cobble substrate and swift currents 
(Minckley 1973; Propst and Bestgen 1991; Rinne 1989; Propst et al. 
1988). Loach minnow uses the spaces between, and in the lee of, larger 
substrate for resting and spawning. It is rare or absent from habitats 
where fine sediments fill the interstitial spaces (small, narrow spaces 
between rocks or other substrate) (Propst and Bestgen 1991). Recurrent 
flooding and a natural hydrograph are very important in maintaining the 
habitat of loach minnow and in helping the species maintain a 
competitive edge over invading nonnative aquatic species (Propst et al. 
1986; Propst and Bestgen 1991).
    The loach minnow was first collected in 1851 from the Rio San Pedro 
in Arizona and was described from those specimens in 1865 by Girard. 
The loach minnow was once locally common throughout much of the Gila 
River basin, including the mainstem Gila River upstream of Phoenix, and 
the

[[Page 69325]]

Verde, Salt, San Pedro, and San Francisco subbasins. It occupies 
suitable habitat in both the mainstream reaches and moderate-gradient 
perennial tributaries, up to about 2,500 m (8,200 ft) elevation. 
Habitat destruction and competition and predation by nonnative aquatic 
species have severely reduced its range and abundance. It is now 
restricted to approximately 645 km (400 mi) of stream in portions of 
the upper Gila River (Grant, Catron, and Hidalgo Counties, NM), the San 
Francisco and Tularosa Rivers and their tributaries Negrito and 
Whitewater Creeks (Catron County, NM), the Blue River and its 
tributaries Dry Blue, Campbell Blue, Little Blue, Pace, and Frieborn 
Creeks (Greenlee County, AZ and Catron County, NM), Aravaipa Creek and 
its tributaries Turkey and Deer Creeks (Graham and Pinal Counties, AZ), 
Eagle Creek (Graham and Greenlee Counties, AZ), the White River 
(Apache, Gila, and Navajo Counties, AZ), and the Black River (Apache 
and Greenlee Counties, AZ) (Bagley et al. 1998; Bagley et al. 1996; 
Barber and Minckley 1966; Bettaso et al. 1995; Britt 1982; Leon 1989; 
Marsh et al. 1990; Propst 1996; Propst and Bestgen 1991; Propst et al. 
1985; Springer 1995). The present range is only 15-20 percent of its 
historical range, and the status of the species within occupied areas 
ranges from common to very rare. At present, the species is common only 
in Aravaipa Creek, the Blue River, and limited portions of the San 
Francisco, upper Gila, and Tularosa Rivers in New Mexico.

Previous Federal Actions

    The spikedace was included as a Category 1 candidate species in our 
December 30, 1982, Vertebrate Notice of Review (47 FR 58454). Category 
1 included those taxa for which we had substantial biological 
information to support listing the species as endangered or threatened. 
We were petitioned on March 14, 1985, by the American Fisheries Society 
(AFS) and on March 18, 1985, by the Desert Fishes Council (DFC) to list 
the spikedace as threatened. Because the species was already under 
active petition by AFS, the DFC petition was considered a letter of 
comment. Our evaluation of the AFS petition revealed that the 
petitioned action was warranted, and we published a proposed rule to 
list this species as threatened with critical habitat on June 18, 1985 
(50 FR 25390). We published the final rule listing the spikedace as a 
threatened species on July 1, 1986 (51 FR 23769). We did not finalize 
the proposed critical habitat designation at the time of listing but 
postponed the designation to allow us to gather and analyze economic 
data, in compliance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    We included the loach minnow as a Category 1 candidate species in 
the December 30, 1982, Vertebrate Notice of Review (47 FR 58454). On 
June 18, 1985 (50 FR 25380) we published a proposed rule to list this 
species as threatened with critical habitat. We published the final 
rule listing the loach minnow as a threatened species on October 28, 
1986 (51 FR 39468). We did not finalize the proposed critical habitat 
designation at the time of listing but postponed the designation to 
allow us to gather and analyze economic data.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at 
the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) state that critical habitat is not 
determinable if information sufficient to perform required analyses of 
the impacts of the designation is lacking or if the biological needs of 
the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of 
an area as critical habitat. At the time of listing of the spikedace 
and loach minnow, we found that critical habitat was not determinable 
because we had insufficient information to perform the required 
analyses of the impacts of the designation. As part of a settlement 
order of January 18, 1994, in Greater Gila Biodiversity Project v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service CIV 93-1913 PHX/PGR, we finalized critical 
habitat designation for both the spikedace and loach minnow on March 8, 
1994 (59 FR 10906 and 10898 respectively).
    Critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow was set aside by 
court order in Catron County Board of Commissioners, New Mexico v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service CIV No. 93-730 HB (D.N.M., Order of October 
13, 1994). The court cited our failure to analyze the effects of 
critical habitat designation under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) as its basis for setting aside critical habitat for the two 
species. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona 
recognized the effect of the Catron County ruling as a matter of comity 
in the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Rogers CV 96-018-
TUC-JMR (D. Ariz., Order of December 28, 1996). As a result of these 
court rulings, we removed the critical habitat description for 
spikedace and loach minnow from the Code of Federal Regulations on 
March 25, 1998 (63 FR 14378).
    On September 20, 1999, the United States District Court for the 
District of New Mexico, Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Clark, CIV 98-0769 M/JHG, ordered us to complete designation of 
critical habitat for the spikedace and loach minnow by February 17, 
2000.
    We completed final recovery plans for spikedace and loach minnow in 
1991 (Service 1991a, 1991b). We developed those plans under the 
oversight of the Desert Fishes Recovery Team and other biologists 
familiar with the species. This proposed rule is based, in part, on 
recommendations offered in those recovery plans.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as--(i) 
the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. The term ``conservation,'' as defined in section 3(3) of the 
Act, means ``to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are 
necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the 
point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer 
necessary'' (i.e., the species is recovered and removed from the list 
of endangered and threatened species).
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we base critical habitat 
proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available, 
taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant 
impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We can 
exclude areas from critical habitat designation if we determine that 
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas 
as critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of the species.

A. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    In proposing critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow, we 
reviewed the overall approach to the conservation of the species 
undertaken by local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and private 
individuals and organizations since the species' listing in 1986. We 
also considered the

[[Page 69326]]

measures identified as necessary for recovery, as outlined in the 
species' recovery plans. Additionally, we solicited information from 
knowledgeable biologists and recommendations from the Desert Fishes 
Recovery Team. We also reviewed the available information pertaining to 
habitat requirements of the two species, including material received 
during previous critical habitat proposals and designations.
    Due to the need for additional information on the two species, 
habitats, threats, controllability of threats, restoration potentials, 
and other factors, no quantitative criteria for delisting spikedace and 
loach minnow were set forth in the recovery plans. However, the 
recovery plans recommend protection of existing populations, 
enhancement and restoration of habitats occupied by depleted 
populations, and reestablishment of the two species into selected 
streams within their historical ranges.
    Both recovery plans call for designation of critical habitat for 
all stream reaches identified in the 1985 proposed rule as well as for 
consideration of additional stream reaches. Except for Eagle Creek, the 
recovery plans do not identify the specific streams to be considered 
for critical habitat designation due to the lack of information to 
support such identifications available at that time. The recovery plans 
do identify potential areas for reestablishment of spikedace and loach 
minnow including the San Pedro River and its tributaries, the San 
Francisco River, Mescal Creek (a middle Gila River tributary), and 
Bonita Creek. The recovery plans also recommend evaluation and 
selection of other potential sites.
    Recovery Team discussions since 1991 identified the need for 
critical habitat designation in Hot Springs and Redfield Canyons; 
Aravaipa, Eagle, Bonita, Beaver, West Clear, Campbell Blue, and Dry 
Blue Creeks; and Gila, Verde, San Pedro, San Francisco, Blue, Tularosa, 
and White Rivers.
    The proposed critical habitat described below constitutes our best 
assessment of areas needed for the conservation of spikedace and loach 
minnow and is based on the best scientific and commercial information 
available. The proposed areas are essential to the conservation of the 
species because they either currently support populations of spikedace 
and/or loach minnow, or because they currently have, or have the 
potential for developing, the necessary requirements for survival, 
growth, and reproduction of the spikedace and/or loach minnow (see 
description of primary constituent elements, below). All of the 
proposed areas require special management consideration and protection 
to ensure their contribution to the species' recovery.
    Because of these species' precarious status, mere stabilization of 
spikedace and loach minnow at their present levels will not achieve 
conservation. Recovery through protection and enhancement of the 
existing populations, plus reestablishment of populations in suitable 
areas of historical range, is necessary for their survival. The 
recovery plans for both species state, ``One of the most critical goals 
to be achieved toward recovery is establishment of secure self-
reproducing populations in habitats from which the species has been 
extirpated'' (Service 1991a, 1991b). We, therefore, determine that the 
unoccupied areas proposed as critical habitat are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    This proposed designation differs substantially from the critical 
habitat designation we proposed in 1986 and made final in 1994, and 
which was subsequently withdrawn under court order. The differences 
reflect new information we gathered on distribution of spikedace and 
loach minnow. The changes also reflect the need to consider areas in 
addition to those designated in 1994. As stated in the 1994 final 
rules, ``The Service is considering revising critical habitat in the 
future to add these areas [referring to newly discovered occupied 
areas]. In addition, the Service is considering adding certain 
unoccupied areas considered vital for recovery of the species.'' For 
spikedace, in the 1994 final critical habitat rule, we stated the same 
but, in addition, specifically recognized the recovery plan 
recommendation for inclusion of Eagle Creek.
    Important considerations in selection of areas proposed in this 
rule include factors specific to each geographic area or complex of 
areas, such as size, connectivity, and habitat diversity, as well as 
rangewide recovery considerations, such as genetic diversity and 
representation of all major portions of the species' historical ranges. 
The proposed critical habitat reflects the need for complexes of 
sufficient size to provide habitat for spikedace and/or loach minnow 
populations large enough to be self-sustaining over time, despite 
fluctuations in local conditions.
    Each complex contains interconnected waters so that spikedace and 
loach minnow can move between areas, at least during certain flows or 
seasons. The ability of the fish to repopulate areas where they are 
depleted or extirpated is vital to recovery. Some complexes may include 
stream reaches that do not have substantial spikedace- or loach minnow-
specific habitat, but which provide migration corridors as well as play 
a vital role in the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem and, 
therefore, the integrity of upstream and downstream spikedace and loach 
minnow habitats.
    The areas we selected for proposed critical habitat designation 
include areas containing all known remaining genetic diversity within 
the two species, with the possible exception of the fish on certain 
tribal lands, which we believe are capable of persistence without 
critical habitat designation (see discussion under Secretarial Order 
3206 later in this proposed rule). Information on spikedace and loach 
minnow indicates a high degree of genetic differentiation among the 
remnant populations (Tibbets 1993), making conservation of each 
remaining population vital to recovery (Tibbets 1992). It is also 
important that the areas selected for proposed critical habitat 
designation include a representation of each major subbasin in the 
historical range of the species.
    The proposed designation includes all currently known populations 
of spikedace and loach minnow, except those on tribal lands. 
Uncertainty on upstream and downstream distributional limits of some 
populations may result in small areas of occupied habitat being 
excluded from the designation. For loach minnow, the proposed 
designation includes at least one remnant population for each major 
subbasin except the Verde subbasin, from which it has been completely 
extirpated. For spikedace, no remnant populations exist in the Agua 
Fria, Salt, and San Francisco/Blue subbasins. In those subbasins where 
no populations of spikedace or loach minnow currently exist, the 
proposed critical habitat includes currently unoccupied areas for 
restoration of the species, with the exception of the Agua Fria 
subbasin where no suitable areas are known to remain.
    The inclusion of both occupied and currently unoccupied areas in 
the proposed critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow is in 
accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, which provides that 
areas outside the geographical area currently occupied by the species 
may meet the definition of critical habitat upon a determination that 
they are essential for the conservation of the species. Both spikedace 
and loach minnow are in serious danger of extinction, and their status 
is declining. In 1994, we made a

[[Page 69327]]

 finding on a petition that reclassification of spikedace and loach 
minnow from threatened to endangered was warranted; however, 
reclassification was precluded by other higher priority listing actions 
(59 FR 35303-35304). Although additional populations of loach minnow 
have been found since that time, they are small and their contribution 
to the status of the species is offset by declines in other 
populations.
    Both of the 1986 listing rules for spikedace and loach minnow 
conservatively estimated about 2,600 km (1,600 mi) of stream within the 
species' historical ranges. This proposal includes approximately half 
that amount for loach minnow and slightly less than half for spikedace. 
Although this amount is less than the historical ranges for both 
species, we believe that conservation of spikedace and loach minnow 
within the proposed areas can achieve long-term survival and recovery 
of these species.
    For each stream reach proposed for designation, the up- and 
downstream boundaries are described below. Proposed critical habitat 
includes the stream channels within the identified stream reaches and 
areas within these reaches potentially inundated during high flow 
events. This proposal takes into account the naturally dynamic nature 
of riverine systems and recognizes that floodplains are an integral 
part of the stream ecosystem. A relatively intact floodplain, along 
with the periodic flooding in a relatively natural pattern, are 
important elements necessary for long-term survival and recovery of 
spikedace and loach minnow. Among other things, the floodplain and its 
riparian vegetation provides space for natural flooding patterns and 
latitude for necessary natural channel adjustments to maintain 
appropriate channel morphology and geometry, provides nutrient input 
and buffering from sediment and pollutants, stores water for slow 
release to maintain base flows, and provides protected side channel and 
backwater habitats for larval and juvenile spikedace and loach minnow.
Spikedace
    We propose the following areas as critical habitat for spikedace 
(see the Regulation Promulgation section of this rule for exact 
descriptions of boundaries). The proposed designation includes 31 
reaches found within portions of 26 streams; however, individual 
streams are not isolated, but are connected with others to form 7 areas 
or ``complexes.'' The complexes include those that currently support 
populations of spikedace, as well as some currently unoccupied by 
spikedace, but which are considered essential for reestablishing 
populations of spikedace to achieve recovery. The distances and 
conversions below are approximate; more precise estimates are provided 
in the Regulation Promulgation section of this rule.
    1. Verde River complex, Yavapai County, Arizona. The Verde River is 
currently occupied by spikedace. Its tributary streams are believed to 
be currently unoccupied by spikedace. The Verde River complex is 
unusual in that a relatively stable thermal and hydrologic regime is 
found in the upper river and in Fossil Creek. Also, spikedace in the 
Verde River are genetically (Tibbets 1993) and morphologically 
(Anderson and Hendrickson 1994) distinct from all other spikedace 
populations.
    a. Verde River--171 km (94 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with Fossil Creek upstream to Sullivan Dam, but excluding 
lands belonging to the Yavapai Apache Tribe. Sullivan Dam is at the 
upstream limit of perennial flow in the mainstem Verde River. Perennial 
flow results from a series of river-channel springs and from Granite 
Creek. Below Fossil Creek, the Verde River becomes larger due to the 
input of Fossil Creek and changes character to an extent that it may 
not provide sufficient suitable habitat for spikedace.
    b. Fossil Creek--8 km (5 mi) of creek extending from the confluence 
with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with an unnamed 
tributary. The lower portion of Fossil Creek contains all elements of 
spikedace habitat at present, except sufficient discharge. Discharge is 
currently diverted for hydropower generation at the Childs/Irving 
Hydropower site. Relicensing of the Childs/Irving Hydropower project 
will provide enhanced flows into lower Fossil Creek, although the 
amount of that flow restoration is still under negotiation.
    c. West Clear Creek--12 km (7 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with Black 
Mountain Canyon. The lower portion of West Clear Creek was historically 
known to support spikedace and contains suitable, although degraded, 
habitat. Gradient and channel morphology changes above Black Mountain 
Canyon make the upstream area unsuitable for spikedace.
    d. Beaver/Wet Beaver Creek--33 km (21 mi) of creek extending from 
the confluence with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with 
Casner Canyon. Beaver Creek, and its upstream extension in Wet Beaver 
Creek, historically supported spikedace and contain suitable, although 
degraded, habitat. Above Casner Canyon, gradient and channel morphology 
changes make the stream unsuitable for spikedace.
    e. Oak Creek--54 km (34 mi) of creek extending from the confluence 
with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with an unnamed 
tributary (near the Yavapai/Coconino County boundary). The lower 
portion of Oak Creek is part of the historical range of spikedace and 
contains suitable, although degraded, habitat. Above the unnamed 
tributary, the creek becomes unsuitable due to urban and suburban 
development and to increasing gradient and substrate size.
    f. Granite Creek--2.3 km (1.4 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the Verde River upstream to a spring. As a perennial 
tributary of the upper Verde River, Granite Creek is considered an 
important expansion area for spikedace recovery.
    2. Black River complex, Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona. The 
Salt River subbasin is a significant portion of spikedace historical 
range and has no existing population of spikedace. Large areas of the 
subbasin are unsuitable, either because of topography or because of 
reservoirs, stream channel alteration by humans, or overwhelming 
nonnative species populations. Recovery for spikedace includes 
reestablishing populations in the subbasin. The East and West Forks 
Black River contain suitable habitat, and the continuing presence of 
loach minnow in the East Fork is evidence that it may support 
reestablishment of spikedace, which historically occurred with loach 
minnow in most streams in the Gila River basin. The following are some 
of the most suitable areas for reestablishment of spikedace.
    a. East Fork Black River--8 km (5 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the West Fork Black River upstream to the confluence 
with Deer Creek.
    b. North Fork of the East Fork Black River--18 km (11 mi) of river 
extending from the confluence with Deer Creek upstream to the 
confluence with Boneyard Creek.
    c. West Fork Black River--10 km (6 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the East Fork Black River upstream to the confluence 
with Hay Creek. Above Hay Creek the gradient and channel morphology are 
unsuitable for spikedace.
    3. Tonto Creek complex, Gila County, Arizona. Tonto Creek was 
historically occupied by spikedace and loach minnow. Suitable habitat 
still exists,

[[Page 69328]]

 although degradation has occurred due to watershed uses, water 
diversion, agriculture, roads, and nonnative species introduction. The 
presence of substantial areas of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands make 
this one of the most promising areas for reestablishment of spikedace 
in the Salt River subbasin.
    a. Tonto Creek--47 km (29 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Greenback Creek upstream to the confluence with Houston 
Creek. The influence of Roosevelt Lake below Greenback Creek, and 
gradient and substrate changes above Houston Creek, make the stream 
unsuitable for spikedace.
    b. Greenback Creek--14 km (8 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Tonto Creek upstream to Lime Springs.
    c. Rye Creek--2.1 km (1.3 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Tonto Creek upstream to the confluence with Brady 
Canyon. This area of Rye Creek still supports a native fish community 
indicating high potential for spikedace reestablishment.
    4. Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek complex, Pinal and 
Graham Counties, Arizona. This complex is occupied by spikedace with 
its population status ranging from rare to common. Aravaipa Creek 
supports one of the best and most protected spikedace populations due 
to special use designations on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and 
to substantial ownership by The Nature Conservancy as well as planned 
construction of fish barriers to prevent invasion of nonnative fish 
species. Enhancement of downstream habitats in the San Pedro and Gila 
Rivers would contribute substantially to recovery of this species.
    a. Gila River--63 km (39 mi) of river extending from Ashurst-Hayden 
Dam upstream to the confluence with the San Pedro River. A small 
population of spikedace currently occupies this area. At Ashurst-Hayden 
Dam, all water is diverted into a canal. Above the confluence with the 
San Pedro River, flow in the Gila River is highly regulated by San 
Carlos Dam and becomes marginally suitable for spikedace.
    b. San Pedro River--21 km (13 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with Aravaipa 
Creek. This area is currently occupied by spikedace. Existing flow in 
the river comes primarily from surface and subsurface contributions 
from Aravaipa Creek.
    c. Aravaipa Creek--45 km (28 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with 
Stowe Gulch. Aravaipa Creek supports a substantial population of 
spikedace. Stowe Gulch is the upstream limit of sufficient perennial 
flow for spikedace.
    5. Middle-Upper San Pedro River complex, Cochise, Graham, and Pima 
Counties, Arizona. None of the habitat in this complex is currently 
occupied by spikedace. However, the San Pedro River is the type 
locality of spikedace, and this complex contains important restoration 
area.
    a. San Pedro River--74 km (46 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with Alder Wash (near Redfield) upstream to the confluence 
with Ash Creek (near the Narrows). This middle portion of the river has 
increasing surface flow due to restoration activities, primarily 
groundwater pumping reductions.
    b. Redfield Canyon--22 km (14 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with 
Sycamore Canyon. Above Sycamore Canyon, perennial water becomes too 
scarce, and the habitat becomes unsuitable.
    c. Hot Springs Canyon--19 km (12 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with 
Bass Canyon. Hot Springs Canyon is currently unoccupied but contains 
suitable habitat for restoration of spikedace.
    d. Bass Canyon--5 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the confluence 
with Hot Springs Canyon upstream to the confluence with Pine Canyon. 
Bass Canyon is an extension of the Hot Springs Canyon habitat.
    e. San Pedro River--60 km (37 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the Babocomari River upstream to the U.S./Mexico 
border. Although currently unoccupied, this area is identified in BLM 
(BLM 1993) planning documents as a high-potential restoration area for 
spikedace.
    6. Gila Box/San Francisco River complex, Graham and Greenlee 
Counties, Arizona and Catron County, New Mexico. The only spikedace 
population remaining in the complex is in Eagle Creek. Substantial 
restoration potential for spikedace exists in the remainder of the 
complex. This complex has the largest area of habitat suitable for 
spikedace restoration. In addition, management in the Gila Box, Bonita 
Creek, and the Blue River are highly compatible with recovery goals, 
giving restoration of spikedace in this complex a high likelihood of 
success.
    a. Gila River--36 km (23 mi) of river extending from the Brown 
Canal diversion, at the head of the Safford Valley, upstream to the 
confluence with Owl Canyon, at the upper end of the Gila Box. The Gila 
Box is not known to currently support spikedace, but is considered to 
have a high potential for restoration of the species. Both above and 
below the Gila Box, the Gila River is highly modified by agriculture, 
diversions, and urban development.
    b. Bonita Creek--19 km (12 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with Martinez 
Wash. Bonita Creek has no spikedace at present but has suitable 
habitat. Bonita Creek above Martinez Wash lies on the San Carlos Apache 
Reservation, which is not included in this proposed designation.
    c. Eagle Creek--74 km (46 mi) of creek extending from the Phelps-
Dodge Diversion Dam upstream to the confluence of Dry Prong and East 
Eagle Creeks, but excluding lands of the San Carlos Apache Reservation. 
Because the creek repeatedly flows from private or USFS land into the 
San Carlos Reservation and back, it is difficult to separately 
calculate stream mileage on tribal lands. Therefore, the above mileage 
covers the entire stream segment and is not corrected for tribal 
exclusions. Eagle Creek supports a small population of spikedace. Below 
the Phelps-Dodge Diversion Dam, the creek is often dry.
    d. San Francisco River--182 km (113 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with the 
Tularosa River. Habitat above the Tularosa River does not appear 
suitable for spikedace. The San Francisco River was historically 
occupied by spikedace and is important recovery habitat for restoration 
of the species.
    e. Blue River--82 km (51 mi) of river extending from the confluence 
with the San Francisco River upstream to the confluence of Campbell 
Blue and Dry Blue creeks. The Blue River is not currently occupied by 
spikedace, but planning among several State and Federal agencies for 
restoration of native fishes in the Blue River is under way.
    f. Campbell Blue Creek--13 km (8 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence of Dry Blue and Campbell Blue Creeks upstream to the 
confluence with Coleman Canyon. Above Coleman Canyon, the creek changes 
and becomes steeper and rockier, making it unsuitable for spikedace.
    g. Little Blue Creek--5 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the Blue River upstream to the mouth of a box canyon. 
Little Blue Creek is not currently occupied by spikedace, but contains 
suitable habitat and is considered an important restoration area for 
the species.

[[Page 69329]]

    7. Upper Gila River complex, Grant and Catron Counties, New Mexico. 
This complex is occupied by the largest remaining population of 
spikedace. It is considered to represent the ``core'' of what remains 
of the species. Because of the remoteness of the area, there is a 
relatively low degree of habitat threats.
    a. Gila River--164 km (102 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with Moore Canyon (near the Arizona/New Mexico border) 
upstream to the confluence of the East and West Forks. Below Moore 
Canyon, the river is substantially altered by agriculture, diversion, 
and urban development, thus making it unsuitable for spikedace.
    b. East Fork Gila River--42 km (26 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the West Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence of 
Beaver and Taylor Creeks.
    c. Middle Fork Gila River--12 km (8 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the West Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence 
with Big Bear Canyon.
    d. West Fork Gila River--12 km (8 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the East Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence 
with EE Canyon. This lower portion of the West Fork is occupied by 
spikedace, but the river becomes unsuitable for spikedace above EE 
Canyon due to gradient and channel morphology.
Loach Minnow
    We propose the following areas as critical habitat for loach minnow 
(see the Regulation Promulgation section of this rule for exact 
descriptions of boundaries). The proposed designation includes 41 
reaches found within portions of 26 streams; however, individual 
streams are not isolated but are connected with others to form 7 
complexes. The complexes include those that currently support 
populations of loach minnow as well as some currently unoccupied by 
loach minnow but that are considered essential for reestablishing 
populations of loach minnow to achieve recovery. Substantial overlap 
occurs with the proposed critical habitat for spikedace; 7 complexes 
and 26 streams are included in the proposed designation for both 
species. The distances and conversions below are approximate; more 
precise estimates are provided in the Regulation Promulgation section 
of this rule.
    1. Verde River complex, Yavapai County, Arizona. Historically known 
from the Verde River and some of its tributaries, the loach minnow is 
believed to be extirpated in this complex. The Verde complex is unusual 
in that a relatively stable thermal and hydrologic regime is found in 
the upper river and in Fossil Creek. The continuing presence of 
spikedace and the existence of suitable habitat create a high potential 
for restoration of loach minnow to the Verde system.
    a. Verde River--171 km (106 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with Fossil Creek upstream to Sullivan Dam, but excluding 
lands belonging to the Yavapai Apache Tribe. Sullivan Dam is at the 
upstream limit of perennial flow in the mainstem Verde River. Perennial 
flow results from a series of river-channel springs and from Granite 
Creek. Below Fossil Creek, the Verde River becomes larger due to the 
input of Fossil Creek and changes character to an extent that it may 
not provide sufficient suitable habitat for loach minnow.
    b. Fossil Creek--8 km (5 mi) of creek extending from the confluence 
with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with an unnamed 
tributary. The lower portion of Fossil Creek contains all elements of 
loach minnow habitat at present, except sufficient discharge. Discharge 
is currently diverted for hydropower generation at the Childs/Irving 
Hydropower site. Relicensing of the Childs/Irving Hydropower project 
will provide enhanced flows into lower Fossil Creek, although the 
amount of that flow restoration is still under negotiation.
    c. West Clear Creek--12 km (7 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with Black 
Mountain Canyon. The lower portion of West Clear Creek contains 
suitable, although degraded, habitat for loach minnow. Gradient and 
channel morphology changes above Black Mountain Canyon make the 
upstream area unsuitable for loach minnow.
    d. Beaver/Wet Beaver Creek--33 km (21 mi) of creek extending from 
the confluence with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with 
Casner Canyon. Beaver Creek, and its upstream extension in Wet Beaver 
Creek, historically supported spikedace and contain suitable, although 
degraded, habitat. Above Casner Canyon, gradient and channel morphology 
changes make the stream unsuitable for loach minnow.
    e. Oak Creek--54 km (34 mi) of creek extending from the confluence 
with the Verde River upstream to the confluence with an unnamed 
tributary (near the Yavapai/Coconino County boundary). The lower 
portion contains suitable, although degraded, habitat for loach minnow. 
Above the unnamed tributary, the creek becomes unsuitable due to urban 
and suburban development and to increasing gradient and substrate size.
    f. Granite Creek--2.3 km (1.4 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the Verde River upstream to a spring. Below the spring, 
which supplies much of the base flow of Granite Creek, there is 
suitable habitat for loach minnow.
    2. Black River complex, Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona. The 
Salt River subbasin is a significant portion of loach minnow historical 
range, but loach minnow have been extirpated from all but a small 
portion in the Black and White Rivers. As the only remaining population 
of loach minnow on public lands in the Salt River basin, the Black 
River complex is considered vital to survival and recovery of the 
species.
     a. East Fork Black River--8 km (5 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the West Fork Black River upstream to the confluence 
with Boneyard Creek. This area is occupied by loach minnow, although 
the downstream end of the population is not well known. This population 
was only discovered in 1996.
    b. North Fork of the East Fork Black River--18 km (11 mi) of river 
extending from the confluence with Deer Creek upstream to the 
confluence with Boneyard Creek. This area is occupied by loach minnow, 
although the upstream portion of the population is not well known. 
Above Boneyard Creek, the river character makes it unsuitable for loach 
minnow.
    c. Boneyard Creek--2.3 km (1.4 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the East Fork Black River upstream to the confluence 
with an unnamed tributary. Although no loach minnow have been found in 
Boneyard Creek, they are probably present based on the pattern of 
occupation of lower portions of small tributaries in other parts of the 
loach minnow range.
    d. Coyote Creek--3 km (2 mi) of creek extending from the confluence 
with the East Fork Black River upstream to the confluence with an 
unnamed tributary. Loach minnow are thought to use the lower portion of 
this creek as part of the population in the East Fork Black River.
    e. West Fork Black River--10 km (6 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the East Fork Black River upstream to the confluence 
with Hay Creek. Above Hay Creek, the gradient and channel morphology 
are unsuitable for loach minnow. The West Fork Black River is not known 
to be occupied by loach minnow at present. However, it is considered 
important for conservation of the Black River remnant of the Salt River 
subbasin population.

[[Page 69330]]

    3. Tonto Creek complex, Gila County, Arizona. Tonto Creek was 
historically occupied by spikedace and loach minnow. Suitable habitat 
still exists, although degradation has occurred due to watershed uses, 
water diversion, agriculture, roads, and nonnative species 
introduction. The presence of substantial areas of USFS lands make this 
one of the most promising areas for reestablishment of loach minnow in 
the Salt River subbasin.
    a. Tonto Creek--70 km (44 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Greenback Creek upstream to the confluence with Haigler 
Creek. The influence of Roosevelt Lake above Greenback Creek and 
changes in channel morphology above Haigler Creek make those portions 
of the stream unsuitable for loach minnow.
    b. Greenback Creek--14 km (8 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Tonto Creek upstream to Lime Springs.
    c. Rye Creek--2.1 km (1.3 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Tonto Creek upstream to the confluence with Brady 
Canyon. This area of Rye Creek still supports a native fish community, 
indicating high potential for loach minnow reestablishment.
    4. Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek complex, Pinal and 
Graham Counties, Arizona. This complex currently has loach minnow only 
in Aravaipa Creek and its tributaries. Aravaipa Creek supports one of 
the best and most protected spikedace populations due to special use 
designations on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and to substantial 
ownership by The Nature Conservancy as well as planned construction of 
fish barriers to prevent invasion of nonnative fish species. 
Enhancement of downstream habitats and expansion of the Aravaipa Creek 
population into the San Pedro and Gila Rivers would contribute 
substantially to recovery of this species. Expansion of this population 
is important to recovery of the species.
    a. Gila River--63 km (39 mi) of river extending from Ashurst-Hayden 
Dam upstream to the confluence with the San Pedro River. At Ashurst-
Hayden Dam, all water is diverted into a canal. Above the confluence 
with the San Pedro River, flow in the Gila River is highly regulated by 
San Carlos Dam and becomes marginally suitable for loach minnow.
    b. San Pedro River--21 km (13 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with Aravaipa 
Creek. This section of river is an important connection between the 
existing population of loach minnow in Aravaipa Creek and the recovery 
habitat in the Gila River. Existing flow in the river comes primarily 
from surface and subsurface contributions from Aravaipa Creek.
    c. Aravaipa Creek--45 km (28 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with 
Stowe Gulch. Aravaipa Creek supports a substantial population of loach 
minnow. Stowe Gulch is the upstream limit of sufficient perennial flow 
for loach minnow.
    d. Turkey Creek--4 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the confluence 
with Aravaipa Creek upstream to the confluence with Oak Grove Canyon. 
This creek is occupied by loach minnow. A substantial portion of the 
flow in Turkey Creek comes from the Oak Grove Canyon tributary.
    e. Deer Creek--4 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the confluence 
with Aravaipa Creek upstream to the boundary of the Aravaipa 
Wilderness. This stream is occupied by loach minnow. Suitable habitat 
extends to the Wilderness boundary.
    5. Middle-Upper San Pedro River complex, Cochise, Graham, and Pima 
Counties, Arizona. None of the habitat in this complex is currently 
occupied by loach minnow. However, the San Pedro River is the type 
locality of loach minnow, and this complex contains important 
restoration areas. a.
    San Pedro River--4 km (46 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with Alder Wash (near Redfield) upstream to the confluence 
with Ash Creek (near the Narrows). This middle portion of the river has 
increasing surface flow due to restoration activities, primarily 
groundwater pumping reductions.
    b. Redfield Canyon--22 km (14 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with 
Sycamore Canyon. Above Sycamore Canyon, perennial water becomes too 
scarce, and the habitat becomes unsuitable.
    c. Hot Springs Canyon--20 km (12 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the San Pedro River upstream to the confluence with 
Bass Canyon. Hot Springs Canyon contains suitable habitat for 
restoration of loach minnow.
    d. Bass Canyon--5 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the confluence 
with Hot Springs Canyon upstream to the confluence with Pine Canyon. 
Bass Canyon is an extension of the Hot Springs Canyon habitat.
    e. San Pedro River--60 km (37 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the Babocomari River upstream to the U.S./Mexico 
border. Although currently unoccupied, this area is identified in BLM 
planning documents (BLM 1993) as a high-potential restoration area for 
loach minnow.
    6. Gila Box /San Francisco River complex, Graham and Greenlee 
Counties, Arizona and Catron County, New Mexico. Most of this complex 
is occupied by loach minnow, although the status varies substantially 
from one portion to another. Only Bonita Creek, Little Blue Creek, and 
the Gila River are currently unoccupied. The Blue River system and 
adjacent portions of the San Francisco River is the longest stretch of 
occupied loach minnow habitat unbroken by large areas of unsuitable 
habitat. Management in the Gila Box, Bonita Creek, and the Blue River 
are highly compatible with recovery goals, giving restoration of loach 
minnow in this complex a high likelihood of success.
    a. Gila River--36 km (23 mi) of river extending from the Brown 
Canal diversion, at the head of the Safford Valley, upstream to the 
confluence with Owl Canyon, at the upper end of the Gila Box. The Gila 
Box is considered to have a high potential for restoration of the loach 
minnow, and populations are located shortly upstream in both Eagle 
Creek and the San Francisco River. Both above and below the Gila Box, 
the Gila River is highly modified by agriculture, diversions, and urban 
development.
    b. Bonita Creek--36 km (23 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with Martinez 
Wash. Suitable habitat for loach minnow exists in Bonita Creek. Bonita 
Creek above Martinez Wash lies on the San Carlos Apache Reservation, 
which is not being proposed for designation at this time.
    c. Eagle Creek--74 km (46 mi) of creek extending from the Phelps-
Dodge Diversion Dam upstream to the confluence of Dry Prong and East 
Eagle Creeks, but excluding lands of the San Carlos Apache Reservation. 
Because the creek repeatedly flows from private or USFS land into the 
San Carlos Reservation and back, it is difficult to separately 
calculate stream mileage on tribal lands. Therefore, the above mileage 
covers the entire stream segment and is not corrected for tribal 
exclusions. Below the Phelps-Dodge Diversion Dam, the creek is often 
dry.
    d. San Francisco River--203 km (126 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the Gila River upstream to the mouth of The Box, a 
canyon above the town of Reserve. Loach minnow in the San Francisco 
River vary from common to rare throughout the length of the river.

[[Page 69331]]

    e. Tularosa River--30 km (19 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the San Francisco River upstream to the town of 
Cruzville. Above Cruzville, the habitat becomes unsuitable.
    f. Negrito Creek--7 km (4 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the San Francisco River upstream to the confluence with 
Cerco Canyon. Above this area, gradient and channel morphology make the 
creek unsuitable for loach minnow.
    g. Whitewater Creek--2 km (1 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the San Francisco River upstream to the confluence with 
Little Whitewater Creek. Upstream gradient and channel changes make the 
portion above Little Whitewater Creek unsuitable for loach minnow.
    h. Blue River--82 km (51 mi) of river extending from the confluence 
with the San Francisco River upstream to the confluence of Campbell 
Blue and Dry Blue Creeks. Planning is under way by several State and 
Federal agencies to restore native fishes in the Blue River.
    i. Campbell Blue Creek--13 km (8 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence of Dry Blue and Campbell Blue Creeks upstream to the 
confluence with Coleman Canyon. Above Coleman Canyon, the creek changes 
and becomes steeper and rockier, making it unsuitable for loach minnow.
    j. Dry Blue Creek--5 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Campbell Blue Creek upstream to the confluence with 
Pace Creek.
    k. Pace Creek--1.2 km (0.8 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Dry Blue Creek upstream to a barrier falls.
    l. Frieborn Creek--1.8 km ( 1.1 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Dry Blue Creek upstream to an unnamed tributary.
    m. Little Blue Creek--5 km (3 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with the Blue River upstream to the mouth of a box canyon. 
Little Blue Creek is not currently occupied by loach minnow but 
contains suitable habitat and is considered an important restoration 
area for the species.
    7. Upper Gila River complex, Grant and Catron Counties, New Mexico. 
This complex is occupied by loach minnow throughout. It contains what 
is considered to be the ``core'' of the remaining populations of the 
species. Because of the remoteness of the area, there is a relatively 
low degree of habitat threats.
    a. Gila River--164 km (102 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with Moore Canyon (near the Arizona/New Mexico border) 
upstream to the confluence of the East and West Forks. Below Moore 
Canyon, the river is substantially altered by agriculture, diversion, 
and urban development, thus making it unsuitable for loach minnow.
    b. East Fork Gila River--42 km (26 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the West Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence of 
Beaver and Taylor Creeks.
    c. Middle Fork Gila River--19 km (12 mi) of river extending from 
the confluence with the West Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence 
with Brothers West Canyon.
    d. West Fork Gila River--12 km (8 mi) of river extending from the 
confluence with the East Fork Gila River upstream to the confluence 
with EE Canyon. This lower portion of the West Fork is occupied by 
loach minnow, but the river becomes unsuitable above EE Canyon due to 
gradient and channel morphology.

B. Primary Constituent Elements

    The habitat features (primary constituent elements) that provide 
for the physiological, behavioral, and ecological requirements 
essential for the conservation of the species are described at 50 CFR 
424.12, and include, but are not limited to, the following:
    Space for individual and population growth, and for normal 
behavior;
    Food, water, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
    Cover or shelter;
    Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and
    Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative 
of the historical geographical and ecological distributions of a 
species.
Spikedace
    We determined the primary constituent elements for spikedace from 
studies on their habitat requirements and population biology including, 
but not limited to, Barber et al. 1970; Minckley 1973; Anderson 1978; 
Barber and Minckley 1983; Turner and Taffanelli 1983; Barrett et al. 
1985; Propst et al. 1986; Service 1989; Hardy 1990; Douglas et al. 
1994; Stefferud and Rinne 1996; Velasco 1997. These primary constituent 
elements include:
    1. Permanent, flowing, unpolluted water;
    2. Living areas for adult spikedace with slow to swift flow 
velocities in shallow water with shear zones where rapid flow borders 
slower flow, areas of sheet flow at the upper ends of mid-channel sand/
gravel bars, and eddies at downstream riffle edges;
    3. Living areas for juvenile spikedace with slow to moderate flow 
velocities in shallow water with moderate amounts of instream cover;
    4. Living areas for larval spikedace with slow to moderate flow 
velocities in shallow water with abundant instream cover;
    5. Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts 
of fine sediment and substrate embeddedness;
    6. Pool, riffle, run, and backwater components present in the 
aquatic habitat;
    7. Low stream gradient;
    8. Water temperatures in the approximate range of 1-30 deg.C (35-
85 deg.F), with natural diurnal and seasonal variation;
    9. Abundant aquatic insect food base;
    10. Periodic natural flooding;
    11. A natural, unregulated hydrograph or, if the flows are modified 
or regulated, then a hydrograph that demonstrates an ability to support 
a native fish community; and
    12. Few or no predatory or competitive nonnative species present.
    The areas we are proposing for designation as critical habitat for 
spikedace provide the above primary constituent elements or will be 
capable, with restoration, of providing them. All of the proposed areas 
require special management considerations or protection to ensure their 
contribution to the species' recovery.
Loach Minnow
    We determined the primary constituent elements for loach minnow 
from studies on their habitat requirements and population biology 
including, but not limited to, Barber and Minckley 1966; Minckley 1973; 
Schreiber 1978; Britt 1982; Turner and Taffanelli 1983; Service 1988; 
Rinne 1989; Hardy 1990; Vives and Minckley 1990; Propst and Bestgen 
1991; Douglas et al. 1994; Velasco 1997. These primary constituent 
elements include:
    1. Permanent, flowing, unpolluted water;
    2. Living areas for adult loach minnow with moderate to swift flow 
velocities in shallow water with gravel, cobble, and rubble substrates;
    3. Living areas for juvenile loach minnow with moderate to swift 
flow velocities in shallow water with sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble 
substrates;
    4. Living areas for larval loach minnow with slow to moderate 
velocities in shallow water with sand, gravel, and cobble substrates 
and abundant instream cover;
    5. Spawning areas for loach minnow with slow to swift flow 
velocities in shallow water with uncemented cobble and rubble 
substrate;
    6. Low amounts of fine sediment and substrate embeddedness;

[[Page 69332]]

    7. Riffle, run, and backwater components present in the aquatic 
habitat;
    8. Low to moderate stream gradient;
    9. Water temperatures in the approximate range of 1-30 deg.C (35-
85 deg.F), with natural diurnal and seasonal variation;
    10. Abundant aquatic insect food base;
    11. Periodic natural flooding;
    12. A natural unregulated hydrograph or, if flows are modified or 
regulated, then a hydrograph that demonstrates an ability to support a 
native fish community; and
    13. few or no predatory or competitive nonnative species present.
    The areas we are proposing for designation as critical habitat for 
loach minnow provide the above primary constituent elements or will be 
capable, with restoration, of providing them. All of the proposed areas 
require special management considerations or protection to ensure their 
contribution to the species' recovery.

C. Land Ownership

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

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.004


[[Page 69333]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.005


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    1. Verde River complex--There are large blocks of USFS lands in the 
upper and lower reaches, with significant areas of private ownership in 
the Verde Valley and along the lower portions of Oak, Beaver, and West 
Clear Creeks. There are also lands belonging to the National Park 
Service (NPS), Arizona State Parks, and the Arizona Game and Fish 
Department.
    2. Black River complex--The ownership is predominantly USFS, with a 
few small areas of private land.
    3. Tonto Creek complex--Land here is mostly USFS on the upper end, 
but significant areas of private ownership occur in the lower reaches.
    4. Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/Aravaipa Creek complex--This area 
includes extensive BLM land as well as extensive private land, some 
State of Arizona lands, and a small area of allotted land owned by the 
San Carlos Apaches.
    5. Middle-Upper San Pedro complex--The BLM is the largest 
landowner, and there are large areas of private ownership and smaller 
areas of State of Arizona lands.
    6. Gila Box/San Francisco River complex--This complex contains 
extensive USFS land, some BLM land, and scattered private, State of 
Arizona, and New Mexico Game and Fish Department (NMGFD) lands. A 
portion of Eagle Creek is on the San Carlos Apache Reservation, but 
this area is not proposed as critical habitat at this time. The City of 
Safford holds significant portions of Bonita Creek.
    7. Upper Gila River complex--The largest areas are on USFS land, 
with small private inholdings. There are large areas of private lands 
in the Cliff-Gila Valley, and the BLM administers significant stretches 
upstream of the Arizona/New Mexico border. There are also small areas 
of NMGFD, NPS, and State of New Mexico lands.
    Significant private owners, with lands scattered among several of 
the proposed critical habitat complexes, include Phelps-Dodge 
Corporation and The Nature Conservancy. A large number of other private 
landowners hold lands within the proposed designation. Private lands 
are primarily used for grazing and agriculture, but also include towns, 
small-lot residences, and industrial areas.

D. Effect of Critical Habitat Designation

    The designation of critical habitat directly affects only Federal 
agencies. The Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they 
fund, authorize, or carry out do not destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat to the extent that the action appreciably diminishes 
the value of the critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the 
species. Individuals, organizations, States, local and Tribal 
governments, and other non-Federal entities are only affected by the 
designation of critical habitat if their actions occur on Federal 
lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other

[[Page 69334]]

 authorization, or involve Federal funding.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its proposed or designated 
critical habitat. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation 
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) 
of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require Federal agencies to 
confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a proposed species or to result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat.
    If a species is subsequently listed or critical habitat is 
designated, then section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure 
that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. To that end, if a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with us. Regulations at 50 
CFR 402.16 also require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation in 
instances where we have already reviewed an action for its effects on a 
listed species if critical habitat is subsequently designated.
    Conference on proposed critical habitat results in a report that 
may provide conservation recommendations to assist the action agency in 
eliminating or minimizing adverse effects to the proposed critical 
habitat that may be caused by the proposed agency action. Our 
conservation recommendations in a conference report are advisory. If we 
subsequently finalize the proposed critical habitat, consultation on 
agency actions that may affect the critical habitat will result in a 
biological opinion as to whether the proposed action is likely to 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. If we find the proposed 
agency action is likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical 
habitat, our biological opinion may also include reasonable and prudent 
alternatives to the action that are designed to avoid destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    As a result of conferencing on the proposed critical habitat, we 
may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal agency. 
Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain a 
biological opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.13, as if 
critical habitat were designated as final. We may adopt the formal 
conference report as the biological opinion when the critical habitat 
designation is made final, if no significant new information or changes 
in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to describe in any proposed 
or final regulation that designates critical habitat, a description and 
evaluation of those activities involving a Federal action that may 
adversely modify such habitat or that may be affected by such 
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat include those that alter the primary constituent elements 
(defined above) to an extent that the value of critical habitat for 
both the survival and recovery of the spikedace or loach minnow is 
appreciably reduced.
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may 
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the 
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to 
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that 
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and 
recovery. Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' critical 
habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical 
habitat for the survival and recovery of the listed species.
    Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on 
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of 
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species 
concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is 
occupied by the species concerned. In those cases, critical habitat 
provides little additional protection to a species, and the 
ramifications of its designation are few or none.
    Actions on Federal lands that we reviewed in past consultations on 
spikedace and loach minnow include land management plans; land 
acquisition and disposal; road and bridge construction, maintenance, 
and repair; water diversion and development; reservoir construction; 
off-road vehicle use; livestock grazing and management; fencing; 
prescribed burning; powerline construction and repair; recovery actions 
for spikedace and loach minnow; game fish stocking; timber harvest; 
access easements; flood repair and control; groundwater development; 
channelization; and canal and other water transport facilities 
construction and operation. Federal agencies involved with these 
activities include the USFS, BLM, Service, and Bureau of Reclamation.
    Federal actions taken on private, State, or tribal lands on which 
we consulted in the past for spikedace and loach minnow include 
irrigation diversion construction and maintenance; flood repair and 
control; game fish stocking; timber harvest; water diversion and 
development; reservoir construction; water quality standards; and 
riparian habitat restoration. Federal agencies involved with these 
activities include the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bureau 
of Reclamation, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, Indian Health Services, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
and the Service.
    Federal actions involving issuance of permits to private parties on 
which we consulted in the past for spikedace and loach minnow include 
issuance of National Discharge Elimination System permits by the 
Environmental Protection Agency and issuance of permits under section 
404 of the Clean Water Act for dredging and filling in waterways by the 
Army Corps of Engineers. Private actions for which 404 permits were 
sought include road and bridge construction, repair and maintenance; 
flood control and repair; and water diversion construction and repair.
    Since the original listing of spikedace and loach minnow in 1986, 
only three consultations ended in a finding that the proposed action 
would jeopardize the continued existence of spikedace and/or loach 
minnow. An additional four proposed actions received draft findings of 
jeopardy, but for three of those, the requests for consultation were 
withdrawn and the fourth is still in progress. For the three jeopardy 
findings, we included changes to projects and recommended or required 
measures to reduce or eliminate impacts to spikedace and loach minnow 
and to minimize the potential for take of individuals as follows: Use 
of available alternative water sources, water conservation measures, 
development of alternative water quality criteria; toxicity studies 
with surrogate species; construction and maintenance of barriers to 
upstream fish movement; monitoring of fish populations; funding 
nonnative species control and listed fish recovery work; and 
information and education programs.

[[Page 69335]]

    In the many biological opinions we prepared that did not result in 
findings of jeopardy to spikedace and loach minnow, we recommended 
nonbinding measures to reduce or eliminate impacts to the two species, 
plus required measures for the purpose of minimizing the potential for 
take of individuals. Both our recommended and required measures 
included such things as adjustment in timing of projects to avoid 
sensitive periods for the species or their habitats; replanting of 
riparian vegetation; minimization of work and vehicle use in the wetted 
channel; restriction of riparian and upland vegetation clearing; 
fencing to exclude livestock and limit recreational use; use of 
alternative livestock management techniques; monitoring of riparian 
vegetation, channel morphology, and fish populations; sign 
installation; protection of buffer zones; avoidance of pollution; 
cooperative planning efforts; minimization of ground disturbance in the 
floodplain; use of alternative materials sources; storage of equipment 
and staging of operations outside the floodplain; use of block nets to 
exclude fish from the work site; use of sediment barriers; removal of 
fish from the project area; access restrictions; and use of best 
management practices to minimize erosion.
    As stated above, designation of critical habitat in areas occupied 
by spikedace or loach minnow is not expected to result in regulatory 
burden above that already in place due to the presence of the listed 
species. However, areas designated as critical habitat that are not 
occupied by the species may require protections similar to those 
provided to occupied areas under past consultations.
    Any activity that would alter the minimum flow or the natural flow 
regime of any of the 41 stream segments listed above could destroy or 
adversely modify the critical habitat of either or both species. Such 
activities include, but are not limited to, groundwater pumping, 
impoundment, water diversion, and hydropower generation.
    Any activity that would significantly alter watershed 
characteristics of any of the 41 stream segments listed above could 
destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of either or both 
species. Such activities include, but are not limited to, vegetation 
manipulation, timber harvest, road construction and maintenance, human-
ignited prescribed and naturally ignited fire, livestock grazing, 
mining, and urban and suburban development.
    Any activity that would significantly alter the channel morphology 
of any of the 41 stream segments listed above could destroy or 
adversely modify the critical habitat of either or both species. Such 
activities include, but are not limited to, channelization, 
impoundment, road and bridge construction, deprivation of substrate 
source, destruction and alteration of riparian vegetation, reduction of 
available floodplain, removal of gravel or floodplain terrace 
materials, and excessive sedimentation from mining, livestock grazing, 
road construction, timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and other 
watershed and floodplain disturbances.
    Any activity that would significantly alter the water chemistry in 
any of the 41 stream segments listed above could destroy or adversely 
modify the critical habitat of either or both species. Such activities 
include, but are not limited to, release of chemical or biological 
pollutants into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point 
source or by dispersed release (non-point).
    Any activity that would introduce, spread or augment nonnative 
aquatic species could destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat 
of either or both species. Such activities include, but are not limited 
to, stocking for sport, aesthetics, biological control, or other 
purposes; use of live bait fish, aquaculture, or dumping of aquarium 
fish or other species; construction and operation of canals; and 
interbasin water transfers.
    In some cases designation of critical habitat may assist in 
focusing conservation activities by identifying areas that contain 
essential habitat features (primary constituent elements), regardless 
of whether they are currently occupied by the listed species. This 
identification alerts the public and land management agencies to the 
importance of an area in the conservation of that species. Critical 
habitat also identifies areas that may require special management 
considerations or protection.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
likely constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, contact the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services 
Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations 
on listed wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be 
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered 
Species, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505-
248-6920; facsimile 505-248-6788).

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available and consider the economic and other relevant impacts of 
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We based this 
proposal on the best available scientific information, including the 
recommendations in the species' recovery plan. We will utilize the 
economic analysis, and take into consideration all comments and 
information submitted during the public hearing and comment period, to 
make a final critical habitat designation. We may exclude areas from 
critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such 
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical 
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such 
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We completed a 
draft economic analysis, which is available for public review and 
comment. Send your requests for copies of the economic analysis to the 
Arizona Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Secretarial Order 3206: American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-
Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act

    The stated purpose of Secretarial Order 3206 (Secretarial Order) is 
to ``clarif(y) the responsibilities of the component agencies, bureaus, 
and offices of the Department of the Interior and the Department of 
Commerce, when actions taken under authority of the Act and associated 
implementing regulations affect, or may affect, Indian lands, tribal 
trust resources, or the exercise of American Indian tribal rights.'' 
The Secretarial Order acknowledges the government-to-government 
relationship with tribes, and the trust responsibility and treaty 
obligations of the United States toward Indian tribes.
    In keeping with the principles cited in the Secretarial Order, we 
are committed to assisting Indian tribes in developing and expanding 
tribal programs so that healthy ecosystems are promoted and 
conservation regulations, such as designation of critical habitat, on 
tribal lands are unnecessary (Principle 3). In addition to 
affirmatively assisting Indian tribes who wish assistance with 
conservation programs, we recognize that tribes are appropriate 
governmental entities to manage their lands and tribal trust resources 
and support tribal measures that preclude the need for conservation 
regulations.

[[Page 69336]]

    The Secretarial Order also requires us to consult with Indian 
tribes that might be affected by the designation of critical habitat in 
an area that might impact tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee 
lands, or the exercise of tribal rights. In our deliberations over this 
critical habitat proposal, we identified two categories of possible 
effects to tribes or tribal resources. These include: (1) effects 
resulting from designation of critical habitat on Indian lands; and (2) 
effects on tribal resources, such as water deliveries, resulting from 
designation of critical habitat on non-tribal lands. We identified the 
Indian Reservations of the White Mountain, San Carlos, and Yavapai 
Apache Tribes as containing stream reaches that may be appropriate for 
designation of critical habitat. Additionally, several tribes, 
including the Salt River, Ft. McDowell, and Gila River Indian Tribes, 
are located downstream from designated critical habitat and depend on 
water deliveries from upstream sources.
    Public Law 106-113 and H.R. 3423 prohibit us from using any of our 
appropriated funds to implement two provisions of the Secretarial 
order: Principle 3(C)(ii) (prohibiting the imposing of conservation 
restrictions involving incidental take if the conservation purposes of 
the restriction can be achieved by reasonable regulation of non-Indian 
activities) and Appendix section 3(B)(4) (regarding designation of 
critical habitat, including the requirement that the Service consult 
with affected tribes). However, portions of Principle 3(C) unaffected 
by Public Law 106-113 and H.R. 3423 require consultation with affected 
tribes prior to implementation of any conservation restriction. 
Moreover, Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, also requires us 
to consult with the tribes [on matters that affect them], and section 
4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to gather information regarding the 
designation of critical habitat and the effects thereof from all 
relevant sources, including the tribes. Therefore, although we will not 
consult pursuant to Appendix section 3(B)(4) of the Secretarial Order, 
we will consult with the tribes to the extent possible in the time 
allowed by the court order pursuant to these other authorities.
1. Designation of Critical Habitat on Indian Reservations
    Appendix 3(B)(4) of the Secretarial Order also states: ``Critical 
habitat shall not be designated [on tribal lands] unless it is 
determined essential to conserve a listed species. In designating 
critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document the extent 
to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved 
by limiting the designation to other lands.'' Again, pursuant to Public 
Law 106-113 and H.R. 3423, we may not expend funds to implement these 
requirements. However, we must still determine whether all relevant 
areas, including tribal lands, in fact qualify as critical habitat 
pursuant to Section 3(5) of the Act. With respect to currently occupied 
habitat, that provision limits critical habitat to areas ``on which are 
found those physical and biological features (I) essential to the 
conservation of the species and (II) which may require special 
management considerations and protection.'' Moreover, pursuant to 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must determine whether to exclude 
particular areas from designation because the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of including the areas as critical habitat. We 
spoke with representatives of the White Mountain Apache, San Carlos 
Apache, and Yavapai Apache Tribes, the three tribes which may have 
critical habitat for spikedace or loach minnow on their reservations. 
However, we do not have information on which to base an assessment of 
whether voluntary tribal measures are adequate to achieve conservation 
of spikedace and loach minnow on tribal lands. In addition, the short 
time allowed by the court to complete this critical habitat designation 
precludes us from engaging in a level of consultation with the tribes 
on a government-to-government basis, which would enable us to make this 
required determination.
    Given the above, we are not proposing critical habitat on the Fort 
Apache, San Carlos Apache, or Yavapai Apache Indian Reservations at 
this time. However, Eagle Creek and the Verde and White Rivers on these 
reservations may be critical habitat for the spikedace and loach 
minnow. As provided under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are soliciting 
information as to whether these areas should be designated as critical 
habitat and will be discussing with the tribes whether their voluntary 
measures are adequate to conserve these species on tribal lands. We 
will consider this information in determining which, if any, tribal 
land should be included in the final designation as critical habitat 
for spikedace or loach minnow.
2. Effects on Tribal Trust Resources from Critical Habitat Designation 
on Non-Tribal Lands
    We do not anticipate that proposal of critical habitat on non-
tribal lands will result in any impact on tribal trust resources or the 
exercise of tribal rights. However, it is essential in complying with 
our responsibilities under the Secretarial Order to communicate with 
all tribes potentially affected by the designation. As stated above, 
the Salt River, Ft. McDowell, and Gila River Indian Tribes as well as 
the White Mountain, San Carlos, and Yavapai Apache Tribes are all 
located downstream from proposed critical habitat for the spikedace and 
loach minnow. However, many of these tribes either have major 
impoundments on their reservations or lie below major impoundments, and 
release of water from such impoundments may be regulated by court 
decree or other considerations. Therefore, we are soliciting 
information during the comment period on potential effects to tribes or 
tribal resources that may result from critical habitat designation.

Public Comments Solicited

    It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal 
will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined 
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including 
whether the benefits of excluding areas will outweigh the benefits of 
including areas as critical habitat;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of 
spikedace and loach minnow habitat, and what habitat is essential to 
the conservation of the species and why;
    (3) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the 
proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on 
small entities or families; and
    (5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical 
habitat for the spikedace and the loach minnow, such as those derived 
from nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, birding, enhanced 
watershed protection, increased soil retention, ``existence values,'' 
and reductions in administrative costs).
    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and 
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make this proposed rule easier to understand including answers to 
questions such as

[[Page 69337]]

 the following: (1) Are the requirements in the document clearly 
stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon 
that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed 
rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, 
etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the proposed 
rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble 
helpful in understanding the document? (5) What else could we do to 
make the proposed rule easier to understand?
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which 
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, 
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or 
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your 
comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make 
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations 
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate 
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose 
of such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send 
copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the 
Federal Register to these peer reviewers. We will invite these peer 
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific 
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of 
critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final 
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    We have scheduled three public hearings at the following places and 
times:
    December 15, 1999, from 7:00-9:00 p.m.

1. Eastern Arizona College Activity Center, Lee Little Theater, 1014 N. 
College Avenue, Thatcher, Arizona
2. Western New Mexico University, White Hall Auditorium, 1000 College 
Street, Silver City, New Mexico

    December 16, 1999, from 7:00-9:00 p.m.
    Camp Verde Unified Schools, Multi-Use Complex Theater, 280 Camp 
Lincoln Road, Camp Verde, Arizona

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule 
is a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and Budget 
reviewed this document. We prepared a draft economic analysis of this 
proposed action to determine the economic consequences of designating 
the specific areas as critical habitat. The draft economic analysis is 
available for public review and comment during the comment period on 
this proposed rule (see ADDRESSES section of this rule). The proposed 
rule, if made final, will not significantly impact entitlements, 
grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
their recipients. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy 
issues.

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

    In the economic analysis, we determined that designation of 
critical habitat will not have a significant effect on a substantial 
number of small entities.

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

    In our economic analysis, we determined that designation of 
critical habitat will not cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers; 
individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or 
geographic regions, or (c) any significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises.

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

    As outlined in our economic analysis, this rule does not impose an 
unfundated mandate on State, local or tribal governments or the private 
sector of more than $100 million or greater in any year. The proposed 
rule, if made final, does not have a significant or unique effect on 
State local or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement 
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have 
significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment 
is not required. This proposed rule, if made final, will not ``take'' 
private property. However, we will evaluate whether the value of 
private property is altered by it being designated as critical habitat 
on a case by case basis. Critical habitat designation is only 
applicable to Federal lands and to private lands if a Federal nexus 
exists. We do not designate private lands as critical habitat unless 
the areas are essential to the conservation of a species.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule, if 
made final, will not affect the structure or role of States, and will 
not have direct, substantial, or significant effects on States. As 
previously stated, critical habitat is applicable to Federal lands and 
to non-Federal lands only when a Federal nexus exists.
    In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, the Service requested information from and coordinated 
development of this critical habitat proposal with appropriate State 
resource agencies in Arizona and New Mexico, as well as during the 
listing process. In addition, both States have representatives on our 
recovery team for this species. We will continue to coordinate any 
future designation of critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow 
with the appropriate State agencies.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the 
Interior's Office of the Solicitor determined that this rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The Office of the Solicitor 
will review the final determination for this proposal. We will make 
every effort to ensure that the final determination contains no 
drafting errors, provides clear standards, simplifies procedures, 
reduces burden, and is clearly written such that litigation risk is 
minimized.

[[Page 69338]]

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

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act is required.

National Environmental Policy Act

    It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need 
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection 
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit 
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. 
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). However, when the range of the species 
includes States within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of the spikedace 
and loach minnow, pursuant to the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County 
Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 
(10th Cir. 1996), we undertake a NEPA analysis for critical habitat 
designation. Send your requests for copies of the draft environmental 
assessment for this proposal to the Arizona Ecological Services Office 
(see ADDRESSES section).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Author

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), by revising the entry for ``minnow, loach'' 
and ``spikedace'' under ``FISHES'' to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

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

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


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) Fishes.
* * * * *

SPIKEDACE (Meda fulgida)

    1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Apache, Cochise, 
Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties, 
Arizona, and Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties, New Mexico, on the 
maps and as described below.
    2. Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the 
identified stream reaches indicated on the maps below and areas 
within these reaches potentially inundated by high flow events.
    3. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include, 
but are not limited to, those habitat components that are essential 
for the primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, and 
reproduction. These elements include the following: (1) Permanent, 
flowing, unpolluted water; (2) living areas for adult spikedace with 
slow to swift flow velocities in shallow water with shear zones 
where rapid flow borders slower flow, areas of sheet flow at the 
upper ends of mid-channel sand/gravel bars, and eddies at downstream 
riffle edges; (3) living areas for juveniles with slow to moderate 
water velocities in shallow water with moderate amounts of instream 
cover; (4) living areas for the larval stage with slow to moderate 
flow velocities in shallow water with abundant instream cover; (5) 
sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts of 
fine sediment and substrate embeddedness; (6) pool, riffle, run, and 
backwater components of the streams; (7) low stream gradient; (8) 
water temperatures in the approximate range of 1-30  deg.C (35-85 
deg.F) with natural diurnal and seasonal variation; (9) abundant 
aquatic insect food base; (10) periodic natural flooding; (11) a 
natural, unregulated hydrograph, or if flows are modified or 
regulated, then a hydrograph that demonstrates an ability to support 
a native fish community; and (12) few or no predatory or competitive 
nonnative species present.
    4. Arizona (Gila and Salt River Meridian (GSRM) and New Mexico 
(New Mexico Principal Meridian (NMPM)): Areas of land and water as 
follows (physical features were identified using USGS 7.5' 
quadrangle maps; river reach distances were derived from digital 
data obtained from Arizona Land Resources Information System (ALRIS) 
and New Mexico Resource Geographic Information System (RGIS)):

[[Page 69339]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.006



[[Page 69340]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.007



SPIKEDACE (Meda fulgida)

Complex 1. Yavapai County, Arizona

    a. Verde River for approximately 171.3 km (106.5 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Fossil Creek in GSRM, T.11N., R.6E., NE1/4 
Sec. 25 upstream to Sullivan Dam in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., NW1/4 Sec. 
15.
    b. Fossil Creek for approximately 7.6 km (4.7 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.11.N., R.6E., 
NE1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary 
from the northwest in GSRM, T.11 1/2N., R.7E., center Sec. 29.
    c. West Clear Creek for approximately 11.6 km (7.2 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.13N., 
R.5E., center Sec. 21, upstream to the confluence with Black 
Mountain Canyon in GSRM, T.13N., R.6E., SE1/4 Sec. 17.
    d. Beaver Creek/Wet Beaver Creek for approximately 33.4 km (20.8 
mi), extending from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, 
T.14N., R.5E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with Casner 
Canyon in GSRM, T.15N., R.6E., NW1/4 Sec. 23.
    e. Oak Creek for approximately 54.4 km (33.8 mi), extending from 
the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.15N., R.4E., SE1/4 
Sec. 20 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary from 
the south in GSRM, T.17N., R.5E., SE1/4, NE1/4 Sec. 24.
    f. Granite Creek for approximately 2.3 km (1.4 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., 
NE1/4 Sec. 14 upstream to a spring in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., SW1/4, 
SW1/4, Sec. 13.

[[Page 69341]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.008



Complex 2. Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona

    a. East Fork Black River for approximately 8.2 km (5.1 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the West Fork Black River in 
GSRM, T.4N., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream to the confluence with 
Deer Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30.
    b. North Fork of the East Fork Black River for approximately 
11.6 km (7.2 mi), extending from the confluence of the East Fork 
Black River and Deer Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30 
upstream to the confluence with Boneyard Creek in GSRM, T5N, R29E, 
SW1/4 Sec. 5.
    c. West Fork Black River for approximately 10.3 km (6.4 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the East Fork Black River in 
GSRM, T.4N, R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream to the confluence with 
Hay Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.28E., SE1/4, Sec. 19.

[[Page 69342]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.009



Complex 3. Gila County, Arizona

    a. Tonto Creek for approximately 47.0 km (29.2 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Greenback Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E., 
NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with Houston Creek in GSRM, 
T.9N., R.11E., NE1/4, Sec. 18.
    b. Greenback Creek for approximately 13.5 km (8.4 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E., NW1/4 
Sec. 8 upstream to Lime Springs in GSRM, T.6N., R.12E., SW1/4 Sec. 
20.
    c. Rye Creek for approximately 2.1 km (1.3 mi), extending from 
the confluence with Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/4 Sec. 
24 upstream to the confluence with Brady Canyon in GSRM, T.8N., 
R.10E., NE1/4 Sec. 14.

[[Page 69343]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.010



Complex 4. Graham and Pinal Counties, Arizona

    a. Gila River for approximately 62.8 km (39.0 mi), extending 
from Ashurst-Hayden Dam in GSRM, T.4S., R.11E., NW1/4 Sec. 8 
upstream to the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.5S., 
R.15E., center Sec. 23.
    b. San Pedro River for approximately 21.4 km (13.3 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.5S., 
R.15E., center Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence with Aravaipa 
Creek in GSRM, T.7S., R.16E., center Sec. 9.
    c. Aravaipa Creek for approximately 45.3 km (28.1 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.7S., R.16E., 
center Sec. 9 upstream to the confluence with Stowe Gulch in GSRM, 
T.6S., R.19E., SE1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec. 35.

[[Page 69344]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.011



[[Page 69345]]

Complex 5. Cochise, Graham, and Pima Counties, Arizona.

    a. San Pedro River for approximately 73.6 km (45.8 mi), 
extending from the confluence with Alder Wash in GSRM, T.10S., 
R.18E., SW1/4 Sec.22 upstream to the confluence with Ash Creek in 
GSRM, T.16S., R.20E., SE1/4 Sec. 6.
    b. Redfield Canyon for approximately 22.3 km (13.9 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM, 
T.11S., R.18E., SW1/4 Sec. 34 upstream to the confluence with 
Sycamore Canyon in GSRM, T.11S., R.20E., NW1/4 Sec. 28.
    c. Hot Springs Canyon for approximately 19.1 km (11.8 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM, 
T.13S., R.19E., west center Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence with 
Bass Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., NE1/4 Sec. 36.
    d. Bass Canyon for approximately 5.1 km (3.2 mi), extending from 
the confluence with Hot Springs Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., NE1/
4 Sec. upstream to the confluence with Pine Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., 
R.21E., center Sec. 20.
    e. San Pedro River for approximately 60.0 km (37.2 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the Babocomari River in the San 
Juan de las Boquillas y Nogales land grant upstream to the U.S. 
border with Mexico in GSRM, T.24S., R.22E., Sec. 19.

[[Page 69346]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.012



Complex 6. Graham and Greenlee Counties, Arizona and Catron County, New 
Mexico

    a. Gila River for approximately 36.3 km (22.6 mi), extending 
from the Brown Canal diversion at the head of the Safford Valley in 
GSRM, T.6S., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with 
Owl Canyon in GSRM, T.5S., R.30E., SW1/4 Sec. 30.
    b. Bonita Creek for approximately 23.5 km (14.6 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.6S., R.28E.,   
SE1/4 Sec. upstream to the confluence with Martinez Wash in GSRM, 
T.4S., R.27E.,   SE1/4 Sec.27.
    c. Eagle Creek for approximately 72.8 km (45.2 mi), extending 
from the Phelps-Dodge diversion dam in GSRM, T.4S., R.28E., NW1/4 
Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence of Dry Prong and East Eagle 
Creeks in GSRM, T.2N., R.28E., SW1/4 Sec. 20; but excluding lands of 
the San Carlos Apache Reservation.
    d. San Francisco River for approximately 181.5 km (118.2 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.5S., 
R.29E., SE1/4 Sec. 21 upstream to the confluence with the Tularosa 
River in the NMPM, T.7S., R.19W., SW1/4 Sec. 23.
    e. Blue River for approximately 81.9 km (51.0 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the San Francisco River in GSRM, T.2S., 
R.31E., SE1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of Campbell and Dry 
Blue Creeks in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6.
    f. Campbell Blue Creek for approximately 13.1 km (8.2 mi), 
extending from the confluence with Dry Blue Creek in NMPM, T.7S., 
R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6 upstream to the confluence with Coleman Creek 
in GSRM, T.4 1/2 N., R.31E., SW1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec. 32.
    g. Little Blue Creek for approximately 4.5 km (2.8 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the Blue River in GSRM, T.1S., 
R.31E., center Sec. upstream to the mouth of a box canyon in GSRM, 
T.1N., R.31E., NE1/4     SE1/4 Sec. 29.

[[Page 69347]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.013



Complex 7. Grant and Catron Counties, New Mexico.

    a. Gila River for approximately 164.4 km (102.2 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Moore Canyon in NMPM, T.18S., R.21W., SE1/4 
SW1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of the East and West Forks 
of the Gila River in NMPM, T.13S., T.13W., center Sec. 8.
    b. East Fork Gila River for approximately 42.1 km (26.1 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the West Fork Gila River in NMPM, 
T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence of Beaver 
and Taylor Creeks in NMPM, T.11S., R.12W., NE1/4 Sec. 17.
    c. Middle Fork Gila River for approximately 12.3 km (7.7 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the West Fork Gila River in NMPM, 
T.12S., R.14W., SW1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with Big 
Bear Canyon in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., NW1/4 Sec. 2.
    d. West Fork Gila River for approximately 12.4 km (7.7 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the East Fork Gila River in NMPM, 
T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with EE 
Canyon in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., east boundary of Sec. 21.
* * * * *
    4. Amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat for the loach 
minnow (Tiaroga (=Rhinichthys) cobitis) in the same alphabetical 
order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11(h):


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) Fishes.
* * * * *

LOACH MINNOW (Tiaroga (=Rhinichthys) cobitis)

    1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Apache, Cochise, 
Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, 
and Catron and Grant Counties, New Mexico on the maps and as 
described below.
    2. Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the 
identified stream reaches indicated on the maps below and areas 
within these reaches potentially inundated by high flow events.

[[Page 69348]]

    3. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include, 
but are not limited to, those habitat components that are essential 
for the primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, and 
reproduction. These elements include the following: (1) Permanent 
flowing, unpolluted water; (2) living areas for adults with moderate 
to swift flow velocities in shallow water with gravel, cobble, and 
rubble substrates; (3) living areas for juveniles with moderate to 
swift flow velocities in shallow water with sand, gravel, cobble, 
and rubble substrates; (4) living areas for larval loach minnow with 
slow to moderate velocities in shallow water with sand, gravel, and 
cobble substrates and abundant instream cover; (5) spawning areas 
with slow to swift flow velocities in shallow water with uncemented 
cobble and rubble substrate; (6) low amounts of fine sediment and 
substrate embeddedness; (7) riffle, run, and backwater components 
present in the aquatic habitat; (8) low to moderate stream gradient; 
(9) water temperatures in the approximate range of 1-30 deg.C (35-
85 deg.F) with natural diurnal and seasonal variation; (10) abundant 
aquatic insect food base; (11) periodic natural flooding; (12) a 
natural, unregulated hydrograph, or if flows are modified or 
regulated, then a hydrograph that demonstrates a retained ability to 
support a native fish community; and (13) few or no predatory or 
competitive nonnative species present.
    4. Arizona (Gila and Salt River Meridian (GSRM)) and New Mexico 
(New Mexico Principal Meridian (NMPM)): Areas of land and water as 
follows (physical features were identified using USGS 7.5' 
quadrangle maps; river reach distances were derived from digital 
data obtained from Arizona Land Resources Information System (ALRIS) 
and New Mexico Resource Geographic Information System (RGIS)):

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.015


[[Page 69349]]



LOACH MINNOW (Tiaroga (=Rhinichthys) cobitis)

Complex 1. Yavapai County, Arizona

    a. Verde River for approximately 171.3 km (106.5 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Fossil Creek in GSRM, T.11N., R.6E., NE1/4 
Sec. 25 upstream to Sullivan Dam in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., NW1/4 Sec. 
15.
    b. Fossil Creek for approximately 7.6 km (4.7 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.11N., R.6E., 
NE1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary 
from the northwest in GSRM, T.11 1/2N., R.7E., center Sec. 29.
    c. West Clear Creek for approximately 11.6 km (7.2 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.13N., 
R.5E., center Sec. 21, upstream to the confluence with Black 
Mountain Canyon in GSRM, T.13N., R.6E., SE1/4 Sec. 17.
    d. Beaver Creek/Wet Beaver Creek for approximately 33.4 km 
(20.8mi), extending from the confluence with the Verde River in 
GSRM, T.14N., R.5E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with 
Casner Canyon in GSRM, T.15N., R.6E., NW1/4 Sec. 23.
    e. Oak Creek for approximately 54.4 km (33.8 mi), extending from 
the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.15N., R.4E., SE1/4 
Sec. 20 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary from 
the south in GSRM, T.17N., R.5E., SE1/4, NE1/4 Sec. 24.
    f. Granite Creek for approximately 2.3 km (1.4 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the Verde River in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., 
NE1/4 Sec. 14 upstream to a spring in GSRM, T.17N., R.2W., SW1/4, 
SW1/4, Sec. 13.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.016

Complex 2. Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona

    a. East Fork Black River for approximately 8.2 km (5.1 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the West Fork Black River in 
GSRM, T.4N., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream to the confluence with 
Deer Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30.
    b. North Fork of the East Fork Black River for approximately 
18.0 km (11.2 mi), extending from the confluence of the East Fork 
Black River and Deer Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30 
upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary flowing from 
the east in GSRM, T.6N., R.29E., center Sec. 30.
    c. Boneyard Creek for approximately 2.3 km (1.4 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the North Fork of the East Fork Black River 
in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., SW1/4 Sec. 5 upstream to the confluence with 
an unnamed tributary flowing from the east near Clabber City in 
GSRM, T.6N., R.29E., SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 32.

[[Page 69350]]

    d. Coyote Creek for approximately 3.1 km (2.0 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the North Fork of the East Fork Black River 
in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., NE1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with 
an unnamed tributary flowing from the south in GSRM, T.5N., R.19E., 
NW1/4 Sec. 10.
    e. West Fork Black River for approximately 10.3 km (6.4 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the East Fork Black River in 
GSRM, T.4N., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream to the confluence with 
Hay Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.28E., SE1/4, Sec. 19.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.017

Complex 3. Gila County, Arizona

    a. Tonto Creek for approximately 70.3 km (43.7 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Greenback Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E., 
NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with Haigler Creek in GSRM, 
T.10N., R.12E., NW1/4, Sec. 14.
    b. Greenback Creek for approximately 13.5 km (8.4 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E., NW1/4 
Sec. 8 upstream to Lime Springs in GSRM, T.6N., R.12E., SW1/4 Sec. 
20.
    c. Rye Creek for approximately 2.1 km (1.3 mi), extending from 
the confluence with Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/4 Sec. 
24 upstream to the confluence with Brady Canyon in GSRM, T.8N., 
R.10E., NE1/4 Sec. 14.

[[Page 69351]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.018



Complex 4. Graham and Pinal Counties, Arizona

    a. Gila River for approximately 62.8 km (39.0 mi), extending 
from Ashurst-Hayden Dam in GSRM, T.4S., R.11E., NW1/4 Sec. 8 
upstream to the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.5S., 
R.15E., center Sec. 23.
    b. San Pedro River for approximately 21.4 km (13.3 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.5S., 
R.15E., center Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence with Aravaipa 
Creek in GSRM, T.7S., R.16E., center Sec. 9.
    c. Aravaipa Creek for approximately 45.3 km (28.1 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.7S., R.16E., 
center Sec. 9 upstream to the confluence with Stowe Gulch in GSRM, 
T.6S., R.19E., SE1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec. 35.
    d. Turkey Creek for approximately 4.3 km (2.7 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Aravaipa Creek in GSRM, T.6S., R.19E., 
center Sec. 19 upstream to the confluence with Oak Grove Canyon in 
GSRM, T.6S., R.19E., SW1/4 Sec. 32.
    f. Deer Creek for approximately 3.6 km (2.3 mi), extending from 
the confluence with Aravaipa Creek in GSRM, T.6S., R.18E., SE1/4 of 
the SE1/4 Sec. 14 upstream to the boundary of the Aravaipa 
Wilderness at GSRM, T.6S., R.18E., east boundary Sec. 13.

[[Page 69352]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.019



Complex 5. Cochise, Graham, and Pima Counties, Arizona

    a. San Pedro River for approximately 73.6 km (45.8 mi), 
extending from the confluence with Alder Wash in GSRM, T.10S., 
R.18E., SW1/4 Sec. 22 upstream to the confluence with Ash Creek in 
GSRM, T.16S., R.20E., SE1/4 Sec. 6.
    b. Redfield Canyon for approximately 22.3 km (13.9 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM, 
T.11S., R.18E., SW1/4 Sec. 34 upstream to the confluence with 
Sycamore Canyon in GSRM, T.11S., R.20E., NW1/4 Sec. 28.
    c. Hot Springs Canyon for approximately 19.1 km (11.8 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the San Pedro River in

[[Page 69353]]

GSRM, T.13S., R.19E., west center Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence 
with Bass Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., NE1/4 Sec. 36.
    d. Bass Canyon for approximately 5.1 km (3.2 mi), extending from 
the confluence with Hot Springs Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., NE1/
4 Sec. upstream to the confluence with Pine Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., 
R.21E., center Sec. 20.
    e. San Pedro River for approximately 60.0 km (37.2 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the Babocomari River in the San 
Juan de las Boquillas y Nogales land grant upstream to the U.S. 
border with Mexico in GSRM, T.24S., R.22E., Sec. 19.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.020

Complex 6. Graham and Greenlee Counties, Arizona and Catron County, New 
Mexico

    a. Gila River for approximately 36.3 km (22.6 mi), extending 
from the Brown Canal diversion at the head of the Safford Valley in 
GSRM, T.6S., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to the confluence with 
Owl Canyon in GSRM, T.5S., R.30E., SW1/4 Sec. 30.
    b. Bonita Creek for approximately 23.5 km (14.6 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.6S., R.28E., SE1/
4 Sec. upstream to the confluence with

[[Page 69354]]

Martinez Wash in GSRM, T.4S., R.27E.,   SE1/4 Sec. 27.
    c. Eagle Creek for approximately 72.8 km (45.2 mi), extending 
from the Phelps-Dodge diversion dam in GSRM, T.4S., R.28E.,   NW1/ 4 
Sec. 23 upstream to the confluence of Dry Prong and East Eagle 
Creeks in GSRM, T.2N., R.28E.,   SW1/4 Sec. 20; but excluding lands 
of the San Carlos Apache Reservation.
    d. San Francisco River for approximately 203.3 km (126.3 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the Gila River in GSRM, T.5S., 
R.29E., SE1/4 Sec. 21 upstream to the mouth of The Box canyon in 
NMPM, T.6S., R.19W., SW1/4 of the NW1/4 Sec. 2.
    e. Tularosa River for approximately 30.0 km (18.6 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the San Francisco River in NMPM, T.7S., 
R.19W., SW1/4 Sec. 23 upstream to NMPM, T.6S., R.18W, south boundary 
Sec. 1.
    f. Negrito Creek for approximately 6.8 km (4.2 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the Tularosa River in NMPM, T.7S., R.18W., 
SW1/4 of the NW1/4 Sec. 19 upstream to the confluence with Cerco 
Canyon in NMPM, T.7S., R.18W., west boundary Sec. 22.
    g. Whitewater Creek for approximately 1.8 km (1.2 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the San Francisco River in NMPM, T.11S., 
R.20W., SE1/4 Sec. 27 upstream to the confluence with Little 
Whitewater Creek in NMPM, T.11S., R.20W., SE1/4 Sec. 23.
    h. Blue River for approximately 81.9 km (51.0 mi), extending 
from the confluence with the San Francisco River in GSRM, T.2S., 
R.31E., SE1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of Campbell and Dry 
Blue Creeks in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6.
    i. Campbell Blue Creek for approximately 13.1 km (8.2 mi), 
extending from the confluence with Dry Blue Creek in NMPM, T.7S., 
R.21W., SE1/4 Sec. 6 upstream to the confluence with Coleman Creek 
in GSRM, T.4 1/2 N., R.31E., SW1/4 of the NE1/4 Sec. 32.
    j. Dry Blue Creek for approximately 4.7 km (3.0 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Campbell Blue Creek in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., 
SE1/4 Sec. 6 upstream to the confluence with Pace Creek in NMPM, 
T.6S., R.21W., SW1/4 Sec.
    k. Pace Creek for approximately 1.2 km (0.8 mi), extending from 
the confluence with Dry Blue Creek in NMPM, T.6S., R.21W.,     SW1/4 
Sec. 28 upstream to the barrier falls in NMPM, T.6S., R.21W., SE1/4 
Sec. 29.
    l. Frieborn Creek for approximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Dry Blue Creek in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., SW1/
4 NW1/4 Sec. 5 upstream to the confluence with an unnamed tributary 
flowing from the south in NMPM, T.7S., R.21W., NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 8.
    m. Little Blue Creek for approximately 4.5 km (2.8 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the Blue River in GSRM, T.1S., 
R.31E., center Sec. upstream to the mouth of a box canyon in GSRM, 
T.1N., R.31E., NE1/4     SE1/4 Sec. 29.

[[Page 69355]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE99.021



Complex 7. Grant and Catron Counties, New Mexico

    a. Gila River for approximately 164.4 km (102.2 mi), extending 
from the confluence with Moore Canyon in NMPM, T.18S., R.21W., SE1/4 
SW1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to the confluence of the East and West Forks 
of the Gila River in NMPM, T.13S., T.13W., center Sec. 8.
    b. East Fork Gila River for approximately 42.1 km (26.1 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the West Fork Gila River in NMPM, 
T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence of Beaver 
and Taylor Creeks in NMPM, T.11S., R.12W., NE1/4 Sec. 17.
    c. Middle Fork Gila River for approximately 19.1 km (11.8 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the West Fork Gila River in NMPM, 
T.12S., R.14W., SW1/4 Sec. 25 upstream to the confluence with 
Brothers West Canyon in NMPM, T.11S., R.14W., NE1/4 Sec. 33.
    d. West Fork Gila River for approximately 12.4 km (7.7 mi), 
extending from the confluence with the East Fork Gila River in NMPM, 
T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 upstream to the confluence with EE 
Canyon in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., east boundary of Sec. 21.

    Dated: November 30, 1999.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-32019 Filed 12-7-99; 10:20 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P