[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51948-51985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19872]



[[Page 51947]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Gila Chub as 
Endangered With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 51948]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AG16


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Gila 
Chub as Endangered With Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service propose endangered 
status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act), for a fish, Gila chub (Gila intermedia) historically found 
throughout the Gila River basin in southern Arizona, southwestern New 
Mexico, and northeastern Sonora, Mexico. Gila chub have been extirpated 
or reduced in numbers and distribution in the majority of its 
historical range (Minckley 1973, Weedman et al. 1996). Where it is 
still present, populations are often small, scattered, and at risk from 
known and potential threats and from random events. Threats include 
predation by and competition with nonnative organisms, including fish 
in the family Centrarchidae (Micropterus spp., Lepomis spp.), other 
fish species, bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), and crayfish (Orconectes 
virilis); disease; and habitat alteration, destruction, and 
fragmentation resulting from water diversions, dredging, recreation, 
roads, livestock grazing, changes in the natural flow pattern, mining, 
degraded water quality (including contaminants from mining activities 
and excessive sedimentation), and groundwater pumping. This proposed 
rule, if made final and in accordance with the Act, would implement 
Federal protection for this species, and provide funding for 
development and implementation of recovery actions. We seek data and 
comments from the public on this proposal.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by October 
8, 2002. Public hearing requests must be received by September 23, 
2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials should be sent to the Field 
Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 
85021-4951. Comments and materials received will be available for 
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Watson, Fisheries Biologist, 
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone 
(520) 670-4618, facsimile (520) 670-4638.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Gila chub is a member of the minnow family Cyprinidae. The Gila 
chub is small-finned, deep-bodied, chubby (chunky), and darkly colored 
(sometimes lighter on belly; diffuse lateral band(s) are rarely 
present). Adult males average about 150 millimeters (mm) (6 inches 
(in)) in total length; females can exceed 200 mm (8 in). Scales are 
coarse, large, thick, and broadly overlapped, and radiate out from the 
base. Lateral-line scales usually number greater than 61 and less than 
80. There are usually eight (rarely seven or nine) dorsal and anal fin-
rays; pelvic fin-rays typically number eight, but sometimes nine.
    Gila chub commonly inhabit pools in smaller streams, springs, and 
cienegas (a desert wetland), and can survive in small artificial 
impoundments (Miller 1946; Minckley 1973; Rinne 1975). Gila chub are 
highly secretive, preferring quiet, deeper waters, especially pools, or 
remaining near cover including terrestrial vegetation, boulders, and 
fallen logs (Rinne and Minckley 1991).
    Baird and Girard (1854:28) published a description of the Gila 
chub, as Gila gibbosa, based on the type specimen collected in 1851 
from the Santa Cruz River. For nomenclature reasons, the name was 
changed by Girard to Tigoma intermedia in 1856, working with specimens 
from the San Pedro River. Despite that and other name changes, the Gila 
chub has been recognized as a distinct species since the 1850's, with 
the exception of a short period in the mid-1900's when it was placed as 
a subspecies of Gila robusta (Miller 1945). For the past 30 years, Gila 
intermedia has been recognized as a full monotypic species, separate 
from the polytypic species Gila robusta, both currently accepted as 
valid (Robins 1991, Mayden et al. 1992). Problematic populations 
nonetheless exist, variously assigned to one or the other taxon and 
leading to continued confusion. Minckley (2000) describes a new 
subspecies within the Gila River Basin, Gila nigra. It is a hybrid of 
Gila robusta and Gila intermedia. Its range is similar to that of Gila 
intermedia and is another headwater type chub, whereas Gila robusta is 
found in the mainstem of the major rivers within the Gila River Basin. 
Gila intermedia is the only species being addressed in this proposed 
rule.
    Historically, Gila chub have been recorded in approximately 30 
rivers, streams, and spring-fed tributaries throughout the Gila River 
basin in southwestern New Mexico, central and southeastern Arizona, and 
northern Sonora, Mexico (Miller and Lowe 1967; Rinne and Minckley 1970; 
Minckley 1973; Rinne 1976; DeMarais 1986; Bestgen and Propst 1989). 
Several populations may have originally had basin-wide distributions 
(e.g., Babocomari River and Santa Cruz River).
    Riparian and aquatic communities across the southwest have been 
degraded or destroyed by human activities (Hastings 1959; Hastings and 
Turner 1965; Henderickson and Minckley 1984). Humans have affected 
southwestern riparian systems over a period of several thousand years. 
Before the 1800's, indigenous people and missionaries used southern 
Arizona cienegas and riparian areas mostly for subsistence enterprises, 
including woodcutting, agriculture (including livestock grazing), and 
food and fiber harvesting.
    Historically, beaver also used riparian areas almost anywhere 
perennial water and appropriate vegetation could be found. The 
activities of beaver help to promote Gila chub habitat by inhibiting 
erosion and downcutting of stream channels (Parker et al. 1985) and 
increasing ponded water behind the dams. Beaver were extirpated from a 
majority of their range by the late 1800's and are still not abundant 
or are extirpated from other areas where they were common (Hoffmeister 
1986). For example, beaver were extirpated from the Santa Cruz and San 
Pedro Rivers in Arizona. Loss of this large mammal and the dams they 
constructed may have resulted in reaches of some streams and rivers 
being rendered unsuitable as habitat for the Gila chub (Hoffmeister 
1986). Recently, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) reestablishd 
beaver into the San Pedro River to help restore the riparian community 
for future native fish and wildlife habitat.
    There was a significant human population increase in southern 
Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico, in the early to middle 1800's 
(Tellman et al. 1997). New immigrants substantially increased 
subsistence and commercial livestock production and agriculture. By the 
late 1800's, many southern Arizona watersheds were in poor condition 
primarily due to uncontrolled livestock grazing, mining, hay 
harvesting, timber harvesting, and other management practices, such as 
fire suppression (Bahre 1991; Humphrey 1985; Martin 1975). The 
watershed degradation

[[Page 51949]]

caused by these management practices led to widespread erosion and 
channel entrenchment when above-average rainfall and flooding occurred 
in the late 1800's (Bahre 1991; Bryan 1925; Dobyns 1981; Hastings and 
Turner 1980; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984; Martin 1975; Sheridan 1986; 
Webb and Betancourt 1992). These events led to long-term stream, 
cienega, and riparian habitat degradation throughout southern Arizona 
and northern Mexico. Physical evidence of cienega and other riparian 
area changes can be found in the black organic soils of the drainage 
cut banks in the San Rafael Valley (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984), San 
Pedro River (Hereford 1992), Black Draw, San Simon Valley, and 
elsewhere. Although these changes took place nearly a century ago, the 
ecosystem has not fully recovered, and in some areas may never recover.
    Approximately 85 to 90 percent of the Gila chub's habitat has been 
degraded or destroyed, and much of it is unrecoverable. Weedman (1996) 
determined that 23 populations of Gila chub remain in the United 
States; with all but one considered small, isolated, and threatened. 
Not included in the 23 populations are the two populations in Larry 
Creek and Lousy Canyon, which were stocked with Gila chub in 1995 in an 
effort to reestablish them into suitable habitat. Also, the newly found 
population (in April 2000) occurring in Mineral Creek was not known 
when Weedman's survey report was prepared. For the 23 populations 
Weedman (1996) categorized the status of the Gila chub populations into 
one of four categories: (1) Stable-secure--Gila chubs are common, data 
over the last 5 to 10 years show a stable reproducing population, no 
impacts from nonnatives (predatory or competitive species), no current 
or future land use threats were identified; (2) Stable-threatened--Gila 
chub are common to uncommon, potential threats by nonnatives exist, 
some habitat-altering land and water uses were identified, or lack of 
recruitment was detected within the population; (3) Unstable-
threatened--Gila chub are rare, have limited distribution, predatory or 
competitive nonnatives are present, or the habitat is modified or 
threatened; (4) Extirpated--Gila chub are no longer found within their 
range. These four categories are reflected in the following discussion 
of the current status of the Gila chub populations.
    In New Mexico, Gila chub formerly inhabited the Gila River basin in 
Apache Creek, Catron County; Duck Creek, Grant County; and San Simon 
Cienega, Hidalgo County (Rinne 1969, 1976, Hubbard et al. 1979, Bestgen 
and Propst 1989, and Sublette et al. 1990). All of these populations 
have been extirpated (Bestgen and Propst 1989). Gila chub historically 
inhabited cienegas of the upper San Simon River (Mckinkley 1969; Rinne 
1969), but are now extirpated. The San Simon River is a Gila River 
tributary that originates in Hidalgo County, New Mexico, and flows 145 
km (90 mi) through Cochise and Graham Counties, Arizona, to the Gila 
River. Gila chub were collected in the San Francisco River in 1872, but 
the exact location remains unknown (Sublette et al. 1990). An 
observation of a Gila chub in Turkey Creek in the upper Gila River 
Basin in New Mexico was made in 2001 (per. comm. Telles 2001).
    In Arizona, Gila chub are known to have occupied portions of the 
Salt, Verde, Santa Cruz, San Pedro, San Carlos, San Simon, San 
Francisco, and Agua Fria drainages and smaller tributaries of the 
mainstem Gila River. Small remnant populations remain in most of these 
drainages with the exception of the Salt and San Simon Rivers, where 
all known populations have been extirpated.
    In the Verde River basin, Walker Creek, Williamson Valley Wash, and 
Spring Creek populations (Yavapai County) are considered as stable-
threatened populations. The Santa Cruz River has three tributaries with 
extant populations of Gila chub: Sabino Canyon (Pima County) and Sheehy 
Spring (Santa Cruz County) have unstable-threatened populations, and 
Cienega Creek (Pima and Santa Cruz Counties) has the only known stable-
secure population of Gila chub in existence. The San Pedro River Basin 
has three extant, stable-threatened populations in Redfield Canyon 
(Graham and Pima Counties), O'Donnell Canyon (Santa Cruz County), and 
Bass Canyon (Graham and Cochise Counties). The status of the Gila chub 
in the Babocomari River (Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties) is unknown. 
The San Carlos River and the Blue River (Gila and Graham Counties) are 
on the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and are tributaries to the 
Gila River. We are aware that Gila chub are extant on the Reservation 
but we do not have information to document the status of Gila chub in 
those drainages.
    The San Francisco River has two tributaries with extant 
populations, Harden Cienega Creek and Dix Creek in Greenlee County. The 
status of these two populations is unknown, but both are thought to be 
small. The Agua Fria River has two tributaries with stable-threatened 
populations, Silver and Sycamore creeks (Yavapai County), as well as 
two unstable-threatened populations in Little Sycamore Creek and Indian 
Creek (Yavapai County). In addition, there are two populations in the 
Agua Fria River, Larry Creek, and Lousy Canyon (Yavapai County), for 
which the population status is unknown. Two tributaries of the Gila 
River in Arizona have extant populations of Gila chub. Eagle Creek 
(Graham and Greenlee Counties) has an unstable-threatened population 
and Bonita Creek (Graham County) has a stable-threatened population.
    In Mexico, Gila chub historically occupied significant portions of 
the Santa Cruz and San Pedro river basins. The current known 
distribution of Gila chub in Mexico has been reduced to two small 
spring areas, Cienega los Fresnos and Cienega la Cienegita, adjacent to 
the Arroyo los Fresnos (tributary of the San Pedro River), within 2 km 
(1.2 mi) of the Arizona-Mexico border (Varela-Romero et al. 1992). No 
Gila chub remain in the Mexican portion of the Santa Cruz River basin 
(Weedman et al. 1996).
    Reestablishment of Gila chub has been attempted in three Arizona 
sites; two sites remain extant and recruitment is good (per. comm. BLM 
2002). Lousy Canyon and Larry Creek (Yavapai County) are tributaries to 
the Agua Fria River and were stocked with 200 Gila chub from Silver 
Creek on July 6, 1995. The third site, Gardner Canyon (Cochise County), 
was stocked with 150 Gila chub from Turkey Creek (Santa Cruz County) in 
July, 1988. In May, 1995 no Gila chub nor any other fish were captured 
during sampling surveys in Gardner Canyon.

Previous Federal Actions

    On December 30, 1982, a Notice of Review of vertebrate candidate 
species was published in the Federal Register which included the Gila 
chub in category 1 (47 FR 58454). Category 1 at that time comprised 
taxa for which we had substantial information to support a proposal to 
list the species as endangered or threatened. In response to our letter 
to interested parties seeking information preparatory to a proposed 
listing of the Gila chub, we received a letter on March 31, 1983, from 
the Arizona Game and Fish Department, informing us that there was a 
substantial amount of information still needed on the Gila chub and 
recommending that the Gila chub be moved to a category 2 species. 
Category 2 comprised taxa for which information in our possession 
indicated that proposing to list as endangered or threatened was 
possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological 
vulnerability and threat was not available to support a proposed rule. 
On September 18, 1985,

[[Page 51950]]

we published a Notice of Review in the Federal Register (50 FR 37960) 
which placed the Gila chub as a category 2 species. It remained as a 
category 2 candidate in the Notices of Review published on January 6, 
1989 (50 FR 556), and November 21, 1991, (50 FR 58815).
    Beginning with our February 28, 1996, candidate Notice of Review 
(61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of multiple categories of 
candidates, and only those taxa meeting the definition for former 
category 1 candidates are now considered candidates for listing 
purposes. The Gila chub was approved as a candidate on August 17, 1997, 
and was included in the candidate Notice of Review published on 
September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49402). The Gila chub was also included in 
the following candidate Notices of Review published on October 25, 1999 
(64 FR 57534), October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808), and June 13, 2002 (67 FR 
40658).
    We received a petition dated June 4, 1998, to list the Gila chub as 
endangered and to designate critical habitat for the species from the 
Southwest Center for Biodiversity, on June 10, 1998. In a letter dated 
July 17, 1998, we responded to the petitioner that, pursuant to our 
July, 1996, Petition Management Guidance, candidate species are 
considered to be under petition and covered by a ``warranted but 
precluded'' finding under section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act. Because 
listing of candidates is, by definition, already warranted, petitions 
on candidates are redundant. As a result, 90-day findings are not 
prepared for petitioned candidate species.
    On August 25, 1999, the Center for Biological Diversity and 
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint against the 
Department of the Interior with regard to the Service not making 
petition findings for the Gila chub and the Chiricahua leopard frog. On 
June 20, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
held that the 1999 Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (64 FR 57534 (Oct. 
25, 1999)) did not constitute valid warranted but precluded 12-month 
petition findings for the Gila chub and Chiricahua leopard frog. Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 13736 (9th 
Cir. 2001). In response to the Ninth Circuit decision we have revised 
the October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808), and June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40658), 
Candidate Notices of Review to address the Court's concerns.
    On August 29, 2001, we announced a settlement in subsequent 
litigation by the Center for Biological Diversity and others which 
further addresses the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rulings as applied 
to the Gila chub, as well as a number of other pending issues. Terms of 
the agreement require that we submit to the Federal Register, on or by 
July 31, 2002, a 12-month finding and accompanying proposed listing 
rule and proposed critical habitat designation for the Gila chub. This 
agreement was entered by the court on October 2, 2001, (Center for 
Biological Diversity, et al. v. Norton, Civ. No. 01-2063 (JR) 
(D.D.C.)). This proposed rule constitutes our 12-month finding for the 
petition to list the Gila chub.

Peer Review

    In accordance with the policy promulgated July 1, 1994 (FR 34270), 
the expert opinions of three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule will be solicited. The purpose of such 
review is to ensure listing decisions are based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses, including input of appropriate experts 
and specialists. Peer reviewers will be mailed copies of the proposed 
rule to list the Gila chub as an endangered species and to designate 
critical habitat following publication of this rule in the Federal 
Register. Peer reviewers will be invited to comment during the public 
comment period upon the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding 
the proposed listing. These comments will be considered in the 
preparation of the final listing decision.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated 
to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures 
for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to 
be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five 
factors described in Section 4(a)(1). These factors and their 
application to the Gila chub (Gila intermedia) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    Within the historical range of the Gila chub, much of the wetland 
habitat has been degraded, and loss of this habitat continues today. 
Human activities such as groundwater pumping, surface water diversions, 
impoundments, channelization (straightening of the natural watercourse, 
typically for flood control purposes), improper livestock grazing, 
prescribed burning, agriculture, mining, road building, nonnative 
species introductions, urbanization, and recreation all contribute to 
riparian and cienega habitat loss and degradation in southern Arizona 
and in New Mexico. The local and regional effects of these activities 
are expected to increase with increasing human population. The current 
population numbers for Tucson, Arizona, located in Pima County are 
466,000 for the City and 814,600 for the County and are expected to 
double by the year 2054 (Tucson Chamber of Commerce 1999).
    Growing water demands threaten the existence of southern Arizona 
perennial surface water in the Gila Basin, as well as the species that 
depend on it. Groundwater pumping has been a major factor in loss of 
surface water in springs, streams, and cienegas of Arizona, most 
notably in the Santa Cruz River Basin (Tellman et al. 1997). 
Groundwater levels in the Tucson area have dropped by as much as 61 
meters (200 feet) (Arizona Water Research Center 1999). The Santa Cruz 
River and its major tributaries in the Tucson area now flow only in 
response to flood events (Webb and Betancourt 1992). In addition to 
historical losses, groundwater pumping poses a threat to surface flows 
in extant Gila chub habitats in Cienega Creek, Williamson Wash, and 
Eagle Creek. Groundwater pumping in the upper Cienega Creek drainage 
supports burgeoning ranchette development near the town of Sonoita. 
Williamson Wash is located in one of the fastest growing urban/suburban 
areas in Arizona. The nearby towns of Prescott and Chino Valley are 
growing at a rate of 3 percent per year (Prescott Chamber of Commerce 
1999), and this growth is mostly based on groundwater pumping. 
Groundwater withdrawals in Eagle Creek are primarily for water supply 
for a large Phelps-Dodge open-pit copper mine at Morenci.
    The increased population growth in Sierra Vista will likely 
stimulate borderland development, with a concurrent water demand 
increase that could accelerate riparian area destruction and 
modification and increase threats to plants and animals dependent on 
surface water, including the Gila chub. The San Pedro River in southern 
Arizona historically supported at least 13 native fish species (Jackson 
et al. 1987) but now supports only 2 (Stefferud and Stefferud 1998). 
Gila chub historically occupied the San Pedro River. One of the known 
factors that have contributed to the loss of Gila chub in the San Pedro 
River basin is the pumping of groundwater for agriculture and municipal 
uses, and sewage effluent from the community of Sierra Vista and Fort 
Huachucha Military Reservation. Groundwater pumping is expected to

[[Page 51951]]

increase with human population growth. In anticipation of population 
growth, Fort Huachuca Military Reservation has filed a claim for 10,522 
acre-feet (A-F) per year of tributary surface water from the Gila River 
adjudication, more than three times the estimated 3,000 A-F currently 
used (Arizona Department of Water Resources 1991).
    In the 1930's the city of Safford, Arizona, was granted rights-of-
way to construct, operate, and maintain a water collection and 
distribution system for municipal use that allows them to divert a 
water quantity of 4000 cubic feet per second from Bonita Creek located 
within the Gila Box National Riparian Conservation Area. This is a 
large portion of the streamflow which has resulted in adverse impacts 
to the riparian and aquatic areas important to Gila chub.
    Sections of many Gila Basin rivers and streams have been and 
continue to be channelized for flood control, which disrupts natural 
channel dynamics and promotes the loss of riparian plant communities. 
Channelization changes the gradient of the stream above and below the 
channel. It increases streamflow in the channelized section which 
results in increased rates of erosion of the stream and its 
tributaries, accompanied by gradual deposits of sediment in downstream 
reaches that may increase the risk of flooding (Emerson 1971; Simpson 
et al. 1982). Channelization will continue to contribute to riparian 
and aquatic habitat decline. Irrigation directly from stream and 
cienega waters diverts water away from any existing fish habitat. Fish 
can be carried into irrigation ditches, where they die following 
dessication (drying). Irrigation dams prevent movement of fish between 
populations, resulting in genetic isolation within species. Larger dams 
may also prevent movement of fish between populations and dramatically 
alter the flow regime of streams through the impoundment of water 
behind the dam and by regulating flows below the dam (Ligon et al. 
1995).
    Livestock grazing can have adverse impacts on Gila chub habitat. 
Poor livestock-grazing management is widely believed to have been one 
of the most significant factors contributing to regional stream channel 
downcutting in the late 1800's. Livestock grazing can destabilize 
stream channels and disturb riparian ecosystem functions (Tellman et 
al. 1997). Effects to Gila chub from poor livestock grazing come from 
increased erosion/sedimentation in stream channels, elimination of 
undercut banks that provide cover, alteration of channel structure and 
composition of the stream bottom, loss of wetland and riparian 
vegetation, reduced backwater pools, decreased water quality, lowered 
base flows (i.e. minimum stream flow) and higher peak flows (Ohmart 
1996; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). As the water table lowers, a 
resultant loss of riparian vegetation may occur which allows for upland 
shrub species, which require less water, to invade. Upland shrub 
species do not have the characteristics to provide for cover or the 
root system to stabilize the soil and catch sediment in order to 
stabilize the stream bank. Cienega Creek in the Santa Cruz River basin 
has the only stable-secure population of Gila chub. The BLM's Empire-
Cienega Resource Conservation Area (RCA) encompasses most of the 
portion of Cienega Creek in which Gila chub occur. Although the RCA is 
managed to preserve aquatic, riparian, and associated wildlife values, 
livestock grazing still occurs year-round on a rotational grazing 
system, and thus this area is still subject to a certain degree of 
threat caused by livestock grazing.
    Mining activities were more widespread historically and may have 
constituted a greater threat in the past; however, the continued mining 
of sand and gravel, iron, gold, copper, or other materials remains a 
potential threat to the habitat of Gila chub. The recently proposed 
Gentry Iron Mine may be located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of two Gila chub 
populations on the Tonto National Forest. The resulting effects of 
proposed mining activities, like the Gentry Iron Mine, on these 
populations are uncertain at this time, but may include changes in 
water quality and flow rates due to dewatering of nearby streams needed 
for mining operations. Sand and gravel mining removes riparian 
vegetation and destablizes streambanks which results in habitat loss 
for the Gila chub (Brown 1998). Sand and gravel mining along the Santa 
Cruz, San Pedro, and Babocomari Rivers has had serious impacts in the 
past and continues, although at a reduced scale.
    Roads and recreation have adversely affected Gila chub habitat. 
Increased sediment is the primary problem related to roads. One source 
of sediment entering stream systems may result from off-road vehicles 
when they directly disturb and crush vegetation to the point that bare 
soil is exposed. Roads in forest and rangeland areas may also 
contribute substantially to watershed problems through direct soil 
disturbance during road construction. Established roads may also result 
in an increase of sediments entering stream systems through storm run-
off.
    Roads in Bonita Creek traverse this perennial streambed more than 
30 times over its length (BLM 1998). Use of the existing road system 
creates local disturbance of normal stream function through 
displacement and injury of fish and macroinvertebrates, increased 
turbidity, and seasonal destruction of fish eggs and larvae at road 
crossings. Roads within the floodplain of Bonita Creek have not been 
engineered for long-term stability. These roads have caused erosion of 
stream banks and terraces in some areas. This erosion has negatively 
affected the condition of aquatic and associated riparian communities 
that support Gila chub (BLM 1998).
    Another example of problems caused by roads is found in the BLM's 
Gila Box Riparian Natural Conservation Area (RNCA) located 12.8 km (8 
mi) northeast of Safford, Arizona. The RNCA supports aquatic habitats 
of the Gila River, San Francisco River, Eagle Creek, Bonita Creek, and 
several small springs (BLM 1998). This habitat is critical to the six 
remaining native fish; longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster), Sonora 
sucker (Catastomus insignis), Gila chub (Gila intermedia), desert 
sucker (Catastomus Pantosteus clarki), speckled dace (Rhinichthys 
osculus), and the reestablished razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). 
The Gila River is traversed by light-weight sandrails (a type of off-
road vehicle) which tend to remain above the waterline, except to 
cross. This activity is highest during the dry years and may be 
curtailed by high waters during wet years. Fish can be injured or 
displaced, and eggs from spawning areas can be crushed by this activity 
(BLM 1998).
    Concentrated recreational activity in the areas along Bonita Creek, 
such as wading, swimming, and walking up and down the creek, displace 
fishes such as the Gila chub and the razorback sucker, a federally 
endangered fish, and alter channel morphology. Recreational use often 
results in crushing and trampling of vegetation on banks and terraces, 
resulting in adverse impacts to the Gila chub and its habitat (BLM 
1998). Recreation is heavy along Sabino Canyon and affects streambanks 
and channel morphology; however, the rocky nature of the area may help 
to minimize adverse effects. Cienega Creek's recreational use is 
increasing and the present localized impacts, such as off-road-vehicle 
use, are expanding.
    Human activities in the watershed have had substantial adverse 
impacts to Gila chub habitat. Watershed alteration is a cumulative 
result of many human uses, including timber harvest, livestock grazing, 
roads, recreation,

[[Page 51952]]

channelization, and residential construction. In Eagle Creek, the 
cumulative effects of watershed and stream-channel alteration have 
resulted in reduction of base flows, and some areas of the stream no 
longer flow during portions of the year (Minckley et al. 1979). In 
Williamson Valley Wash, human uses (e.g., recreational use of off-road 
vehicles) on the highly erodible upper watershed have resulted in 
increased erosion and high loads of sediment. In 1993, flooding in 
Williamson Valley Wash carried enough sediment that the isolated pool 
where Gila chub were previously collected became completely filled with 
sand and gravel (Weedman et al. 1996).

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or 
Educational Purposes

    Collection of, or fishing for, Gila chub in Arizona is prohibited 
by Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 41, except where such 
collection is authorized by special permit. Collection of Gila chub is 
also prohibited in Mexico except by special permit. The collection of 
Gila chub is prohibited in the State of New Mexico except by special 
scientific permit (Propst 1999). A few individual fish may be caught 
incidentally by recreational anglers. However, most chub populations do 
not occur in popular fishing areas. No commercial uses exist for Gila 
chub. A limited amount of scientific collecting occurs, but does not 
pose a threat to Gila chub since it is regulated by the States.

C. Disease and Predation

    The introduction and spread of nonnative species has been 
identified as one of the major factors in the continuing decline of 
native fishes throughout North America and particularly in the 
southwest (Miller 1961; Lachner et al. 1970; Ono et al. 1983; Carlson 
and Muth 1989; Cohen and Carlton 1995; Fuller et al. 1999). Miller 
(1989) concluded that introduced nonnatives were a causal factor in 68 
percent of the fish extinctions in North America in the last 100 years. 
For 70 percent of those fish still extant, but considered to be 
endangered or threatened, introduced nonnative species are a primary 
cause of the decline (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 1994; Lassuy 
1995). In Arizona, release or dispersal of new nonnative aquatic 
organisms is a continuing phenomenon (Rosen et al. 1995).
    Gila chub evolved in a fish community with low species diversity 
and where few predators existed, and as a result developed few or no 
mechanisms to deal with predation (Carlson and Muth 1989). In its 
habitats, the Gila chub was probably the most predatory fish and 
experienced little or no competition. The introduction of more 
aggressive and competitive nonnative fish led to significant losses of 
Gila chub.
    In the Gila River basin, introduction of nonnatives is considered a 
major factor in the decline of all native fish species (Minckley 1985, 
Williams et al. 1985; Minckley and Deacon 1991). Aquatic and semi-
aquatic mammals, reptiles, amphibians, crustaceans, molluscs (snails 
and clams), insects, zoo- and phytoplankton, parasites, disease 
organisms, algae, and aquatic and riparian vascular plants outside of 
their historical range have all been documented to adversely affect 
aquatic ecosystems (McKnight 1993; Cohen and Carlton 1995; USGS 1998). 
As described below, the nonnative fishes have been demonstrated to pose 
a significant threat to Gila River basin native fishes, including Gila 
chub (Minckley 1985, Williams et al. 1985; Minckley and Deacon 1991).
    The aquatic ecosystem of the central Gila River basin has 
relatively small streams with warm water and low gradients, and many of 
the native aquatic species are small. Therefore, much of the threat to 
native fishes comes from small nonnative fish species, as has also been 
noted for southern Nevada aquatic ecosystems (Deacon et al. 1964). 
Examples of this are the impacts of mosquitofish and red shiner which 
may compete with or predate upon native fish in the Gila River basin 
(Meffe 1985; Douglas et al. 1994). In Aravaipa Creek the red shiner has 
moved upstream and is competing with the native fish.
    Nonnative fishes known from within historical range of Gila chub in 
the Gila River basin include channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), 
flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), red shiner (Cyprinella 
lutrensis), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), green sunfish 
(Lepomis cyanellus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), 
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), rainbow trout (Oncorynchus 
mykiss), western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), carp (Cyprinus carpo) 
(USFWS 1983, Young and Bettaso 1994), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), 
bluegill (Lepomis macrochiris), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), 
black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), and goldfish (Carassius auratus) 
(Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD] Native Fish Database [NFDB]). 
Additionally, as discussed below, parasites introduced incidentally 
with nonnative species may jeopardize Gila chub populations (USFWS 
1983).
    Dudley (1995) correlated green sunfish presence with Gila chub 
declines in Sabino Creek, Arizona. This included predation by small 
green sunfish on young-of-the-year Gila chub. Minckley et al. (1977) 
suggested that predation by green sunfish may explain the absence of 
Gila chub from the upper Santa Cruz River.
    Western mosquitofish were introduced outside of their native ranges 
to help control mosquitos. Because of their aggressive and predatory 
behavior, mosquitofish may negatively affect populations of small fish 
through predation and competition (Myers 1967; Courtenay and Meffe 
1989). Introduced mosquitofish have been particularly destructive in 
the American west where they have contributed to the elimination or 
decline of populations of federally threatened and endangered species 
such as the Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis) 
(Courtenay and Meffe 1989). They often attack, shred fins, and 
sometimes kill other fish species. Mosquitofish are known to prey on 
eggs, larvae, and juveniles of various fishes, including the Gila chub.
    Largemouth bass are another nonnative species intentionally 
introduced for the purpose of sportfishing. Introduced bass usually 
affect populations of small native fishes through predation, sometimes 
resulting in the decline or extinction of such species (Minckley 1973). 
Species that have suffered such effects include populations of Gila 
chub and Monkey spring pupfish (Cyprinodon sp.) (Minckley 1973).
    Asian tapeworm (Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) was introduced into 
the United States via imported grass carp in the early 1970's. It has 
since become well established in the southeast and mid-south and has 
been recently found in the southwest. The definitive host in the life 
cycle of Bothriocephalus acheilognathi is cyprinid fishes and 
therefore, is a potential threat to the Gila chub as well as to the 
other native fishes in Arizona. The Asian tapeworm affects fish health 
in several ways. Two direct impacts are by impeding the digestion of 
food as it passes through the intestinal track and when large enough 
numbers of worms feed off of the fish causing emaciation and 
starvation. An indirect effect is that weakened fish are more 
susceptible to infection by other pathogens. The Asian tapeworm is 
present in the Colorado River basin in the Virgin River (Heckman et al. 
1986) and the Little Colorado River (Clarkson et al. 1997). It has 
recently invaded the Gila River basin and was found during

[[Page 51953]]

the Central Arizona Project (CAP) fall, 1998 monitoring in the Gila 
River and Ashurst-Hayden Dam. This parasite can infest many species of 
fish and is carried into new areas along with nonnative fishes or 
native fishes from contaminated areas.
    The parasite (Ichthyophthirius multifiliis) (``Ich'') is a 
potential threat to Gila chub. ``Ich'' disease has occurred in some 
Arizona streams, probably favored by high temperatures and crowding as 
a result of drought (Mpoame 1981). The deep, quiet waters in which this 
host usually occurs (Minckley 1973) seem stable enough that ``Ich'' 
cysts do not wash away. This parasite was observed being transmitted on 
the Sonoran sucker, although it doesn't appear to be host specific and 
could be transmitted by other species. This protozoan becomes embedded 
under the skin and within the gill tissues of infected fish. When the 
``Ich'' matures it leaves the fish, causing fluid loss, physiological 
stress, and sites that are susceptible to infection by other pathogens. 
If the ``Ich'' are present in large enough numbers they can also impact 
respiration because of damaged gill tissue.
    Anchor worm (Lernaea cyprinacea) (Copepoda), an external parasite, 
is unusual in that it has little host specificity, infecting a wide 
range of fishes and amphibians. Additionally, infection has been known 
to kill large numbers of fish due to tissue damage and secondary 
infection of the attachment site (Hoffnagle and Cole 1997). Presence of 
this parasite in the Gila River basin is a threat to the Gila chub and 
other native fish. In July 1992, the BLM found Gila chub that were 
heavily parasitized by Lernaea cyprinacea in Bonita Creek. These fish 
were likely more susceptible to parasites due to physiological stress 
as a result of degraded habitat and decreased water flows due to water 
withdrawals.
    Aquatic nonnative species are introduced and spread into new areas 
through a variety of mechanisms, both intentional and accidental, and 
authorized and unauthorized. Mechanisms for nonnative dispersal in the 
southwestern United States include interbasin water transfer, sport 
stocking, aquaculture, aquarium releases, bait-bucket release (release 
of fish used as bait by anglers), and biological control.
    Gila chub collected in 1995 in the streams on or adjacent to the 
San Carlos Reservation have been recorded with spinal deformities and 
various skin lesions, probably due to the presence of contaminants in 
the water (USFWS 1998).
    When the health of fish is compromised beyond their immune systems 
ability to cope with the stressors impacting it, they become vulnerable 
to other opportunistic pathogens that are ubiquitous in aquatic 
systems. These pathogens can include viruses, bacteria, fungi, and 
internal and external parasites.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Existing regulatory mechanisms allow the continuing decline of Gila 
chub. Gila chub are threatened by introductions of nonnative fish. Fish 
introductions are illegal unless approved by the respective States. 
However, enforcement is difficult. Many nonnative fish populations are 
established through illegal introductions. The use of live bait is 
permitted in Arizona for nine species of fish, crayfish, and waterdogs 
(tiger salamanders (Ambystoma pigrimum)), all of which are nonnative to 
the State of Arizona and several of which are known to have serious 
adverse effects on native species. The portion of the state in which 
use of live bait is permitted is limited and changes have restricted 
use of live bait in most of the Gila River system in Arizona (AZ Game 
and Fish Commission Order 40, effective January 1, 1998). The use of 
live bait is allowed in the Gila Basin in New Mexico (David Propst 
pers. comm. 1999).
    The increasing restriction of live bait use will reduce the input 
of nonnative species into the Gila chub's habitat. However, it will do 
little to reduce unauthorized bait use or other forms of ``bait-
bucket'' transfer (e.g., dumping of unwanted aquarium fish which may be 
invasive) not directly related to bait use. In fact, those other 
``bait-bucket'' transfers are expected to increase as the human 
population of southern Arizona increases and as nonnative species 
become more available to the public through increased aquaculture, 
increased aquarium trade, and increased distribution through mechanisms 
such as the CAP aqueduct. The general public have been known to dump 
unwanted pet fish and other aquatic species into irrigation ditches 
such as the CAP aqueduct. The CAP aqueduct runs through the Phoenix 
metropolitan area.
    A variety of existing international conventions and law, and 
Federal and State regulations provide limited protection to the Gila 
chub and its habitat. The Gila chub is included in Wildlife of Special 
Concern in Arizona, and State regulations prohibit collection of or 
fishing for Gila chub in Arizona except under special permit (AGFD 
1988). In New Mexico, Gila chub is listed as endangered, and collecting 
is prohibited except by special permit (Propst pers. comm. 1999). In 
Mexico the Gila chub is endangered and the collection of threatened and 
endangered species is prohibited (DOF 1994). The habitat of the Gila 
chub and other threatened and endangered species is protected from some 
activities in Mexico.
    The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), as amended in 1982, 
provides some protection for the Gila chub. This legislation prohibits 
the import, export, sale, receipt, acquisition, purchase, and 
engagement in interstate or foreign commerce of any species taken, 
possessed, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of 
the United States, any Tribal law, or any law or regulation of any 
State.
    The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 
seq.) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et 
seq.) direct Federal agencies to prepare programmatic-level management 
plans to guide long-term resource management decisions. In addition, 
the FS is required to manage habitat to maintain viable populations of 
existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate species in planning 
areas (36 CFR 219.19). These regulations have resulted in the 
preparation of a variety of land management plans by the FS and the BLM 
that address management and resource protection of areas that support, 
or in the past supported, populations of Gila chub.
    Many activities that affect the Gila chub and its habitat may occur 
outside of the States in which it occurs. For instance, activities such 
as atmospheric pollution from copper smelters or other actions that may 
be responsible for global amphibian declines, may also affect Gila 
chub. State and Federal air quality regulations strictly regulate 
emissions from copper smelters, historically a major source of acidic 
rainfall and atmospheric cadmium and arsenic in southeastern Arizona, 
pollutants that may affect the Gila chub (Hale and Jarchow 1988). 
However, a major source of these pollutants has been copper smelters in 
Sonora, Mexico which are not subject to the same regulations as in the 
United States (Hale et al. 1995; Blanchard and Stromberg 1987).
    The FS has only limited ability to regulate introductions or 
stockings of nonnative species that prey on the Gila chub. Despite 
extensive planning efforts by the FS and implementation of management 
actions to maintain viable populations of native species on FS

[[Page 51954]]

lands, loss of Gila chub populations and metapopulations has continued.
    Wetland values and water quality of aquatic sites inhabitated by 
the Gila chub are afforded varying protection under the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376), as amended; and 
Federal Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 
(Protection of Wetlands), and section 404 of the Clean Water Act which 
regulates dredging and filling activities in waterways.
    The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has adopted a wetland 
protection policy whereby the Department does not endorse any project 
that would result in net decrease in either wetland acreage or wetland 
habitat values. This policy affords only limited protection to Gila 
chub habitat because it is advisory only; destruction or alteration of 
wetlands is not regulated by State law.
    The State of Arizona Executive Order Number 89-16 (Streams and 
Riparian Resources), signed on June 10, 1989, directs State agencies to 
evaluate their actions and implement changes, as appropriate, to allow 
for restoration of riparian resources. Implementation of this 
regulation may reduce adverse effects of some State actions on the 
habitat of the Gila chub.
    As discussed above, the protection afforded by these and other 
Federal laws and regulations discussed herein is inadequate to halt 
population extirpation and the degradation of the habitat of this 
species.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Gila chub populations remain fragmented and isolated to essentially 
small stream segments and are vulnerable to those natural or manmade 
factors that might further reduce their population size. Most of the 
existing populations of Gila chub occur on Federal land away from any 
incorporated communities and the current land uses such as livestock 
grazing and agriculture are the major factors in these remote areas 
that have contributed and will continue to contribute to the Gila 
chub's imperiled status. Additionally, wildfires pose a threat to the 
remaining extant populations. The frequency and intensity of wildfires 
in the Southwest has increased over the past ten years due to drought 
conditions, wildfire suppression activities, and increased recreational 
activities (i.e., camping). An effort is underway to restore natural 
fire regimes to forest lands, but at present it is focused on areas of 
urban interface, and many decades will likely pass before natural fire 
cycles are restored on a landscape scale across the Southwest.
    The fragmentation of habitat and isolation of Gila chub populations 
has decreased the opportunity for additional gene flow to occur within 
these populations. Currently, the Gila chub has limited representation 
in each of the subunits within its historical range. To achieve 
recovery, isolated populations may need to be augmented or Gila chub 
may need to be reintroduced into areas where they are extirpated.
    In general, Arizona is an arid state; about one-half of Arizona 
receives less than ten inches of rain a year. Among the most important 
climatic factors affecting Arizona's rivers and streams is the variable 
pattern of rainfall which includes winter precipitation and summer 
thunderstorms that can be accompanied by flash floods.
    Flooding is a natural part of the hydrological cycle and is an 
important part of a river regime. Life cycles of plant and aquatic life 
are tied to annual floods. Stream biota is adapted to the seasonal 
cycles of flooding and low flows; which helps determine the biomass of 
fishes. Many native stream fishes of the southwest are morphologically 
and behaviorally adapted to survive periodic flooding (Harrel, 1978; 
Meffe 1984; Minckley and Deacon 1991). Sabino Canyon in the Santa 
Catalina mountains in southeastern Arizona experiences these erratic 
flows which have an adverse effect on both the small population of Gila 
chub and the existing nonnatives. Seasonal timing as well as magnitude 
of flooding may, therefore, differentially affect nonnative species 
(Dudley and Matter, 1999).
    Streamflow regime refers to the permanence and seasonal patterns of 
streamflow. Some streams have stable flow due to ground water sources, 
whereas others, such as many in the Gila River basin, fluctuate 
significantly or are intermittent because they are fed primarily by 
overland runoff. Stable flows can be advantageous to some fish but are 
not always necessary or desirable for native species such as the Gila 
River Basin native fish which evolved in a system with high flow 
fluctuations. High flows can act as a cleansing mechanism for the 
streambed materials. High flows also act as a cue for timing of 
migration and spawning. Low flows serve as a time for recruitment and 
growth of young fish; however, extremely low flows can limit production 
of young fish. Alteration of a stream's natural flow regime may be 
undesirable if it adversely modifies normal seasonal high and low flows 
to which the stream biota is adapted (Kohler and Hubert, 1993). Flow 
regimes in the Gila River Basin have been altered by watershed 
modification, dam construction, channelization and other human actions 
(Olmstead 1919; DeBano and Schmidt 1989; Tellman et al. 1997).
    These extremes of natural floods have been modified through 
channelizing and diverting water predominantly for agricultural use in 
irrigation systems. Examples of this are the San Pedro River and 
Safford Valleys in which mainstream waterflows are adversely affected 
by groundwater and surface water withdrawls from the aquifers or 
streams. In the past, water was diverted from Cienega Creek for 
irrigation purposes within the BLM's Empire-Cienega Resource 
Conservation Area (RCA) (Weedman 1996). These withdrawals are made by 
direct surface water diversions from diversion dams or instream pumps 
and by pumping groundwater from the floodplain aquifer. The major 
consequences of channelization affecting aquatic systems include loss 
of specific substrate such as removal of snags, root masses, and other 
debris, loss of instream vegetation, loss of streamside vegetation, 
increased gradient and velocity, dewatering of adjacent lands, change 
in basic physicochemical regime, and decreased allocthonous input 
(energy source produced outside of the aquatic system) (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife 1982). The consequences of channelization are greatest at the 
level of the individual organism, including effects on niches (habitat 
having the properties necessary for survival), food, reproduction, and 
behavior. At the population level, density and distribution of aquatic 
populations are affected.
    Land use changes are the most significant secondary cause of 
channelization. The most simplistic impact is that of dewatering or 
more effectively draining an area, resulting in an immediate change 
from wetland associated uses to dryland associated uses (Darnell 1976), 
resulting in loss of wetland, marshes, and riparian areas.
    Seasonal fluctuations due to droughts, floods, dams, and high human 
demand for water has had adverse impacts on the available surface flow, 
which restricted the distribution of Gila chub into small isolated 
populations. This fragmentation of habitat makes the Gila chub very 
vulnerable to threats from further habitat loss and competition from 
nonnative fish.
    There are several conservation efforts being initiated to help the 
Upper San Pedro River subwatershed. The Upper San Pedro Partnership has 
identified a number of strategies to be pursued,

[[Page 51955]]

including requesting that ADWR move to establish an irrigation non-
expansion area (areas in which limitations are placed on how much 
irrigation is allowed) in the subwatershed, acquisition of ephemeral 
arroyos to maximize aquifer recharge, elimination of groundwater 
pumping within one mile of the river through exchange of State lands 
and/or acquisition of private lands or water rights near the river, 
assistance to communities in securing funding for feasibility studies 
to determine the best use of their effluent, increasing recharge of 
storm water runoff, investigation of moving wells in Bisbee, Arizona, 
to areas outside of the San Pedro watershed, and other measures. The 
Partnership also proposes longer-term water resources planning to 
develop other strategies.
    The San Pedro Alliance, a non-governmental entity, was recently 
created with the objective of providing information and plans for 
reducing water usage and sustaining the river in the long term. The 
Nature Conservancy has been active in local forums, and in public 
education and acquisitions of land and easements. The Udall Center for 
Studies in Public Policy has also been working in the subwatershed to 
inspire and enable community members to contribute to water-wise 
planning and management activities in the upper San Pedro River basin.
    AGFD has several conservation projects in progress for helping to 
improve the status of the Gila chub. In cooperation with the Coronado 
National Forest, they recently completed a renovation project on Sabino 
Canyon to remove green sunfish and help improve the suitability of the 
existing Gila chub population. Two other projects that are in the 
planning stages and moving toward implementation are Bog Hole Wildlife 
Area and O'Donnell Canyon. Bog Hole Wildlife Area is a stock tank 
(pond) that was illegally stocked with nonnative green sunfish. Removal 
of these nonnatives is planned in addition to stocking tanks upstream 
that have potential Gila chub habitat. The second project is O'Donnell 
Canyon, where Gila chub are relatively abundant although nonnative 
green sunfish pose a threat. Removal of nonnative green sunfish is also 
required for this site. This project site is located in the Canelo 
Hills Preserve which is partially owned by TNC. This stream renovation 
project is a coordinated effort between TNC, the Service, the FS, and 
Region V of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Both Larry Creek and 
Lousy Canyon have been stocked with Gila chub in an effort to 
reestablish them into suitable habitat.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
faced by the Gila chub in determining to propose this rule. Based on 
this evaluation, we are proposing to list the Gila chub as endangered. 
The Act defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The 
Act defines a threatened species as any species likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future. Without protections, the Gila 
chub will become extinct in the foreseeable future based on the 
following: (1) 85 to 90 percent of its habitat has been degraded or 
destroyed, and further degradation and destruction is ongoing; (2) 
extant populations of Gila chub are small and occupy habitat that has 
become severely fragmented, reducing chances for recolonization; and 
(3) competition with, and predation from, nonnatives is a major and 
increasing threat. These circumstances have reduced this species to an 
imperiled status. Therefore, the Gila chub meets the definition of an 
endangered species under the Act.

Critical Habitat

Definition of Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 paragraph (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 consideration or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside 
the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, 
upon determination that such areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species. ``Conservation'' as defined by the Act, means the use 
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered 
species or a threatened species to the point at which listing under the 
Act is no longer necessary.
    Critical habitat provides non-regulatory benefits to the species by 
informing the public and private sectors of areas that are important 
for species recovery and where conservation actions would be most 
effective. Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation 
activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the 
physical and biological features that are essential for the 
conservation of that species, and can alert the public as well as land-
managing agencies to the importance of those areas. Critical habitat 
also identifies areas that may require special management 
considerations or protection, and may help provide protection to areas 
where significant threats to the species have been identified or help 
to avoid accidental damage to such areas.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must 
be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical habitat 
designations identify, to the extent known and using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide 
essential life cycle needs of the species (such as areas on which are 
found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 
424.12(b)). Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that not all areas that 
can be occupied by a species should be designated as critical habitat 
unless the Secretary determines that all such areas are essential to 
the conservation of the species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(e)) 
also state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat 
areas outside the geographic area presently occupied by the species 
only when a designation limited to its present range would be 
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.''
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration 
the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the 
exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
    Designation of critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to 
recovery of a listed species. Designation does not create a management 
plan, establish numerical population goals, prescribe specific 
management actions (inside or outside of critical habitat), or directly 
affect areas not designated as critical habitat. Specific management 
recommendations for critical habitat are most appropriately addressed 
in recovery plans and management plans, and through section 7 
consultations.
    The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271), provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides 
guidance to ensure that decisions made by us represent the best 
scientific and commercial data available. It requires that we, to the 
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific 
and commercial data available, use primary and original

[[Page 51956]]

sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate 
critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, a 
primary source of information should be the listing package for the 
species. Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan, 
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by 
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, and 
biological assessments or other unpublished materials (i.e., gray 
literature).
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of 
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may 
eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the 
species. For these reasons, all should understand that critical habitat 
designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is 
unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas outside the 
critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to 
conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) and 
to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard and the section 9 take prohibition, as determined on the basis 
of the best available information at the time of the action. We 
specifically anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas could still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Application of the Section 3(5)(A) Criteria Regarding Special 
Management Considerations or Protection

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3, paragraph (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. Special management and protection are not 
required if adequate management and protection are already in place. 
Adequate special management or protection is provided by a legally 
operative plan or agreement that addresses the maintenance and 
improvement of the primary constituent elements important to the 
species and manages for the long-term conservation of the species. If 
any areas containing the primary constituent elements currently were 
being managed to address the conservation needs of the Gila chub and 
did not require special management or protection, these areas would not 
meet the definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A)(i) of the 
Act and would not be included in the designation.
    To determine if a plan provides adequate management or protection 
we consider three criteria: (1) Whether the plan is current and 
specifies the management actions and whether such actions provide 
sufficient conservation benefit to the species; (2) whether the plan 
provides assurances that the conservation management strategies will be 
implemented, and in determining this we consider whether: (a) A 
management plan or agreement exists that specifies the management 
actions being implemented or to be implemented; (b) the schedule for 
implementation is timely; (c) there is a high probability that the 
funding source(s) or other resources necessary to implement the actions 
will be available; and (d) the party(ies) have the authority and long-
term commitment to implement the management actions, as demonstrated, 
for example, by a legal instrument providing enduring protection and 
management of the lands, and (3) whether the plan provides assurances 
that the conservation management strategies will be effective. In 
determining whether an action is likely to be effective, we consider 
whether: (a) The plan specifically addresses the management needs, 
including reduction of threats to the species; (b) such actions have 
been successful in the past; (c) there are provisions for monitoring 
and assessment of the effectiveness of the management actions; and (d) 
adaptive management principles have been incorporated into the plan.
    Several areas of Gila chub habitat are covered under current 
management plans. The following paragraphs describe entities that have 
either a draft or final management plan that will likely address or 
that do address the conservation needs of the Gila chub within certain 
areas. As described below, we have not excluded areas on the basis of 
draft management plans. However, plans that are finalized prior to our 
final determination will be evaluated by us to determine if they 
provide special management.
    The only tribal lands affected by this proposed designation are 
those of the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation. Currently, the San 
Carlos Indian Apache Tribe has a draft fisheries management plan which 
we anticipate being finalized prior to our final determination on this 
proposed rule. Once completed we will consider whether this plan 
provides adequate special management considerations or protection for 
the Gila chub and we may not include these lands as a result of the 
management plan, or we will weigh the benefits of excluding these areas 
under section 4(b)(2).
    The BLM and TNC have a cooperative agreement to manage the Muleshoe 
Preserve, which is in the lower San Pedro River Area under the Muleshoe 
Ecosystem Management Plan. This plan addresses the necessary 
maintenance and improvement of the watershed that provides for the 
primary constituent elements important to the Gila chub, and it 
provides conservation goals for the Gila chub. The Muleshoe Preserve 
has four drainages that support Gila chub. However, only two, Double R 
Canyon and Wildcat Creek, are within a closed watershed basin and are 
currently protected from outside adverse actions in the watershed and 
outside sources for nonnative species invasion. These two drainages 
were not included in the proposed critical habitat designation because 
adequate special management is being provided under Muleshoe Ecosystem 
Management Plan.
    The Nature Conservancy holds a conservation easement on private and 
State Park lands in the San Rafael Valley which is located in the 
headwaters of the Santa Cruz River. This conservation agreement 
prohibits activities that would be detrimental to the watershed and 
Gila chub habitat. This conservation easement assures that the property 
will be preserved forever in its predominantly open, scenic, 
undeveloped, and natural condition. It will prevent any use of the 
property that will significantly impair or interfere with the 
conservation values of the property and the property's natural 
resources and ecosystem. This easement will conserve habitat for 
wildlife and fisheries, protect rare and unique native plants and 
animals currently known or later identified. Sheehy Spring lies within 
this conservation easement and it supports Gila chub. We have not 
included Sheehy Spring in the proposed critical habitat designation 
because we believe that special management is

[[Page 51957]]

being provided by the conservation easement.

Methods

    In proposing critical habitat for the Gila chub, we solicited 
information from knowledgeable biologists and reviewed recommendations 
contained in State wildlife resource reports (Weedman 1996). We also 
reviewed the available literature pertaining to habitat requirements, 
historical localities, and current localities of the Gila chub. The 
proposed critical habitat designation described below constitutes our 
best assessment of areas essential for the conservation of the Gila 
chub and is based on the best scientific and commercial information 
available. The areas proposed are within the geographical range 
currently occupied by the species and contain one or more of the 
primary constituent elements identified in the ``Primary Constituent 
Elements'' section below. All of the areas proposed as critical habitat 
are within the area historically occupied by the species and require 
special management consideration and protection to ensure their 
contribution to the species' recovery.
    Important considerations in selection of areas included in the 
critical habitat designation include factors specific to each river 
system, such as size, connectivity, and habitat diversity, as well as 
rangewide recovery considerations, such as genetic diversity and 
representation of major portions of the species' historical range. Each 
area contains stream reaches that are in close proximity to nearby 
stream reaches with interconnected waters so that Gila chub can move 
between areas, at least during certain flows or seasons. The ability of 
the fish to repopulate areas where they have been depleted or 
extirpated is vital to recovery. Additionally, these reaches play a 
vital role in the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem and, 
therefore, the integrity of upstream and downstream Gila chub habitats.
    Stabilization of the Gila chub at its present population level and 
distribution will not achieve conservation. The overall trend in the 
status of the Gila chub has been characterized by dramatic declines in 
numbers and range despite the fact that this species evolved in rapidly 
fluctuating, harsh environments. Known Gila chub populations remain 
fragmented and isolated to essentially very small stream segments and 
are vulnerable to those natural or manmade factors that might further 
reduce population size. If recovery actions fail to reverse the decline 
of Gila chub in its historical range, the species' vulnerability to 
catastrophic events, such as the introduction of the green sunfish, or 
a prolonged period of low or no flow, would increase. Recovery through 
protection and enhancement of the existing populations, plus 
reestablishment of populations in suitable areas of historical range, 
are necessary for the species' survival and recovery. As previously 
stated, repatriation of Gila chub from extant populations will be 
evaluated as a means to recover the Gila chub in unoccupied portions of 
its historical habitat. Future restoration efforts will occur, pending 
completion of an approved recovery plan and genetic work to determine 
the suitability of using Gila chub from the extant populations in 
repatriation efforts.
    In proposing critical habitat for the Gila chub, we identified all 
the currently known occupied sites and determined whether they 
contained the primary constituent elements for the future conservation 
of this species. Due to the lack of extensive and intensive fish 
surveys within the overall historical range of the Gila chub and 
because of the loss of Gila chub from approximately 85 to 90 percent of 
its range, we are only aware of small isolated populations. The Gila 
chub is a headwater chub, meaning that it commonly inhabits pools in 
smaller streams, springs, and cienegas and prefers small tributaries. 
Historically, it is likely that Gila chub within each of these 
tributaries were geographically connected by the major river systems 
which would have been used as migration corridors. Most of these major 
rivers no longer contain suitable habitat for such movement. We divided 
the overall historical range into seven river subunits, and each 
proposed critical habitat stream segment was derived from within these 
main river subunits. We have used these main river units for points of 
reference in defining our critical habitat boundaries, but we are 
proposing to designate critical habitat only in tributaries of these 
main rivers, and not the main rivers themselves.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations or protection. These general 
categories of biological needs 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 
distribution of a species.
    The specific primary constituent elements required of Gila chub 
habitat are derived from the biological needs of the Gila chub as 
described below.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior

    Gila chub are highly secretive, preferring quiet deeper waters, 
especially pools, or remaining near cover including terrestrial 
vegetation, boulders, and fallen logs (Rinne and Minckley 1991). 
Undercut banks created by overhanging terrestrial vegetation with dense 
roots growing into pool edges provide ideal cover (Nelson 1993). Gila 
chub can survive in larger stream habitat such as the San Carlos River, 
and artificial habitats, like the Buckeye Canal (Stout et al. 1970; 
Rinne 1976). Gila chub interact with spring and small stream fishes 
regularly (Meffe 1985), but prefer deeper waters (Minckley 1973). 
Adults often are found in deep pools and eddies below areas with swift 
current, as in the Gila chub habitats found in Bass Canyon and Hot 
Springs in the Muleshoe Preserve area. Young-of-the-year inhabit 
shallow water among plants or eddies, while older juveniles use higher-
velocity stream areas (Minckley 1973, 1991).
    Young Gila chub from Monkey Spring, Santa Cruz River watershed (now 
extirpated), inhabited swifter areas than adults, which used undercut 
banks and heavily vegetated margins of the spring run (Minckley 1969). 
Griffith and Tiersch (1989) collected Gila chubs from both riffles and 
pools in Redfield Canyon. Dudley (1995) found that Gila chubs in Sabino 
Creek were highly reclusive in winter, occupying dark interstitial 
space. Adults were found in deep water with small substrates, but often 
away from cover. Sub-adults were more active and visible in the summer 
and were observed farther from cover. Sub-adults were observed more 
frequently in shallow areas with measurable current as water 
temperatures increased.

Habitats Protected from Disturbance

    As discussed in factor C above, Gila chub evolved in a fish 
community with low species diversity and where few predators existed, 
and as a result developed few or no mechanisms to deal with predation 
(Carlson and Muth 1989). In its habitats, the Gila chub was probably 
the most predatory fish and

[[Page 51958]]

experienced little or no competition. The introduction of more 
aggressive and competitive nonnative fish has led to significant losses 
of Gila chub.

Food

    Griffith and Tiersch (1989) observed that Gila chub are omnivorous 
(feed on both plant and animal substances). Adults appear to be 
principally carnivorous, feeding on large and small aquatic and 
terrestrial invertebrates and sometimes other small fishes (Rinne and 
Minckley 1991). Smaller individuals often feed on organic debris and 
aquatic plants (especially filamentous (threadlike) algae, and less 
intensely on diatoms (unicellular or colonial algae).
    Griffith and Tiersch (1989) dissected 27 Gila chub stomachs from 
Refield Canyon, finding aquatic material that included speckled dace 
and dobsonfly nymphs (order Megaloptera). Terrestrial insects included 
primarily ants, with some caterpillars and beetles. Diatoms (algae) 
were most common by volume. Bottom feeding may also occur, as suggested 
by presence of small gravel particles. Minckley (1969) observed Gila 
chub chasing Gila topminnows in Monkey Spring, but not necessarily as 
prey.

Water Quality

    Water quality is also an issue for the Gila chub. Excessive 
sedimentation is the primary threat to water quality for the Gila chub 
(as discussed in factor A above). In addition, mining activity can also 
introduce contaminants. For example, Gila chub that are found in 
Mineral Creek are limited to waters that are above the ASARCO mine. 
Water from the mine is drained back into Mineral Creek and no Gila chub 
have been found in this area.

Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring

    Spawning probably occurs over beds of submerged aquatic vegetation 
or root wads. Nelson (1993) attempted to identify cover and substrate 
types, duration of spawning, breeding color changes, and water 
temperature during spawning in Cienega Creek, Arizona. He concluded 
that warmer water temperatures 20 to 24 degrees Celsius (C) (68 to 75.2 
degrees Farenheit (F)) appear to increase breeding color intensities. 
Thus, warmer water temperatures may contribute to a successful spawn. 
For the roundtail chub, a close relative of the Gila chub, spawning 
occurs when water temperatures are approximately 20 deg.C (68 deg.F) 
(Bestgen et al. 1985). Bestgen (1985) concluded that temperature was 
the most significant environmental factor triggering spawning. In the 
2002 Status Survey for the roundtail chub, spawning temperatures ranged 
from 20 deg.C to 26.5 deg.C (68 to 79.7 deg.F).
    We are required to list the known primary constituent elements 
together with a description of any critical habitat that is designated. 
The primary constituent elements determined necessary for survival and 
recovery of the Gila chub include, but are not limited to:
    1. Perennial pools, areas of higher velocity between pool areas, 
and areas of shallow water among plants or eddies all found in small 
segments of headwaters, springs, or cienegas of smaller tributaries.
    2. Water temperatures for spawning ranging from 20 to 26.5 deg.C 
(68 to 79.7 deg.F) with sufficient dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and any 
other water related characteristics needed.
    3. Water quality with reduced levels of contaminants or any other 
water quality characteristics, including excessive levels of sediments, 
adverse to Gila chub health.
    4. Food base consisting of invertebrates, filamentous (threadlike) 
algae, and insects.
    5. Sufficient cover consisting of downed logs in the water channel, 
submerged aquatic vegetation, submerged large tree root wads, undercut 
banks with sufficient overhanging vegetation, large rocks and boulders 
with overhangs.
    6. Habitat devoid of nonnative aquatic species detrimental to Gila 
chub or habitat in which detrimental nonnatives are kept at a level 
which allows Gila chub to continue to survive and reproduce. For 
example, the Muleshoe Preserve and Sabino Canyon Gila chub populations 
are devoid of nonnative aquatic species. The O'Donnell Canyon Gila chub 
population has continued to survive and reproduce despite the current 
level of nonnative aquatic species present.
    7. Streams that maintain a natural unregulated flow pattern 
including periodic natural flooding. An example is Sabino Canyon which 
has experienced major floods. If flows are modified, then the stream 
should retain a natural flow pattern that demonstrates an ability to 
support Gila chub.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    The proposed designation includes areas within the geographical 
range occupied by the Gila chub that contain one or more of the primary 
constituent elements and that may require special management or 
protection. We propose to designate approximately 333.6 km (207.8 mi) 
of stream reaches as critical habitat.
    Critical habitat vital for the conservation of Gila chub includes: 
cienegas, headwaters, spring-fed streams, perennial streams (Vives 
1990), and spring-fed ponds (Minckley 1969). Historically, the range of 
the Gila chub covered over one-quarter of southeastern Arizona. The 
Gila chub now occupies about 10 to 15 percent of its historical range. 
Current populations of Gila chub are now scattered in small disjunct 
habitats throughout the following Counties; Yavapai, Maricopa, Gila, 
Coconino, Pinal, Graham, Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise, and Greenlee.
    The proposed critical habitat described below constitutes our best 
assessment of areas needed for the conservation of Gila chub and is 
based on the best scientific and commercial information available. The 
proposed areas are essential to the conservation of the species because 
they currently support populations of Gila chub and because they 
currently have the necessary requirements for survival, growth, and 
reproduction of the Gila chub (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' 
section above). All of the proposed areas are essential to help 
preserve genetic diversity and adaptation capabilities of the Gila 
chub.
    For each stream reach the up- and downstream boundaries are 
described below. Additionally, the proposed critical habitat includes 
the stream channels within the identified stream reaches and areas 
within these reaches potentially inundated during high flow events. 
Critical habitat includes the area of bankfull width plus 300 feet on 
either side of the banks. The bankfull width is the width of the stream 
or river at bankfull discharge, i.e., the flow at which water begins to 
leave the channel and move into the floodplain (Rosgen 1996). Bankfull 
discharge, while a function of the size of the stream, is a fairly 
consistent feature related to the formation, maintenance, and 
dimensions of the stream channel (Rosgen 1996). This 300-foot width 
defines the lateral extent of those areas we believe are essential to 
the species' conservation.
    We determined the 300-foot lateral extent for several reasons. 
First, the implementing regulations of the Act require that critical 
habitat be defined by reference points and lines as found on standard 
topographic maps of the area (50 CFR 424.12). Although we considered 
using the 100-year floodplain, as defined by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA), we found that it was not included on standard 
topographic maps, and the information was not readily available from 
FEMA or from the Army

[[Page 51959]]

Corps of Engineers for the areas we are proposing to designate. We 
suspect this is related to the remoteness of various stream reaches. 
Therefore, we selected the 300-foot lateral extent, rather than some 
other delineation, for three biological reasons: (1) The biological 
integrity and natural dynamics of the river system are maintained 
within this area (i.e., the floodplain and its riparian vegetation 
provide space for natural flooding patterns and latitude for necessary 
natural channel adjustments to maintain appropriate channel morphology 
and geometry, store water for slow release to maintain base flows, 
provide protected side channels and other protected areas, and allow 
the river to meander within its main channel in response to large flow 
events); (2) conservation of the adjacent riparian area also helps 
provide essential nutrient recharge and protection from sediment and 
pollutants; and (3) vegetated lateral zones are widely recognized as 
providing a variety of aquatic habitat functions and values (e.g., 
aquatic habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms, moderation of 
water temperature changes, and detritus for aquatic food webs) and help 
improve or maintain local water quality (65 FR 12897; Middle Rio Grande 
Biological Interagency Team 1993). We invite comments or information 
relating to the 300-foot lateral width of this proposed designation of 
critical habitat.
    This proposal takes into account the naturally dynamic nature of 
riverine systems and recognizes that floodplains (including riparian 
areas) are an integral part of the stream ecosystem. For example, 
riparian areas are seasonally flooded habitats (e.g., wetlands) that 
are major contributors to a variety of vital functions within the 
associated stream channel (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration 
Working Group 1998, Brinson et al. 1981). They are responsible for 
energy and nutrient cycling, filtering runoff, absorbing and gradually 
releasing floodwaters, recharging groundwater, maintaining streamflows, 
protecting stream banks from erosion, and providing shade and cover for 
fish and other aquatic species. Healthy riparian areas help ensure 
water courses maintain the habitat components essential to aquatic 
species (e.g., see U.S.D.A. Forest Service 1979; Briggs 1996), 
including the Gila chub. Habitat quality within the mainstem river 
channels in the historical range of the Gila chub is intrinsically 
related to the character of the floodplain and the associated 
tributaries, side channels, and backwater habitats that contribute to 
the key habitat features (e.g., substrate, water quality, and water 
quantity) in these reaches.
    Among other things, the floodplain provides space for natural 
flooding patterns and latitude for necessary natural channel 
adjustments to maintain channel morphology and geometry. We believe a 
relatively intact riparian area, along with periodic flooding in a 
relatively natural pattern, are important in maintaining the stream 
conditions necessary for long-term survival and recovery of the Gila 
chub.
    Conservation of the river channel alone is not sufficient to ensure 
the survival and recovery of the Gila chub. For the reasons discussed 
above, we believe the riparian corridors adjacent to the river channel 
provide an important function for the protection and maintenance of 
critical habitat and are essential to the conservation of the species.

Critical Habitat Designations

    We propose the following areas as critical habitat for Gila chub 
(see the ``Regulation Promulgation'' section of this rule for exact 
legal descriptions of the critical habitat boundaries). The proposed 
designation includes seven river units with a total of 333.6 km (207.8 
mi) of stream reaches (see Table 1 below). These river units represent 
those areas that currently are within the geographical range occupied 
by the Gila chub, including small tributaries, springs, and cienegas. 
We are not proposing to designate the mainstem river channels that may 
have been historically used by Gila chub as migration corridors and are 
currently considered outside of the occupied range of the Gila chub. In 
addition, most of these major rivers no longer contain suitable habitat 
to serve as migration corridors for movement of Gila chub. The 
distances and conversions below are approximate.

             Table 1.--Approximate Critical Habitat in Stream Kilometers and Miles (7 River Units).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             New Mexico          Arizona             Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal land (USFS and BLM)............................            11.6 km             185 km           196.6 km
                                                                 (7.27 mi)           (115 mi)         (122.3 mi)
State..................................................                  0            11.2 km            11.2 km
                                                                                     (7.0 mi)           (7.0 mi)
County.................................................                  0            17.2 km            17.2 km
                                                                                    (10.7 mi)          (10.7 mi)
Private................................................                  0            28.6 km            28.6 km
                                                                                    (17.8 mi)          (17.8 mi)
Tribal.................................................                  0            80.0 km            80.0 km
                                                                                    (50.0 mi)          (50.0 mi)
    Total..............................................            11.6 km             322 km              333.6
                                                                 (7.27 mi)         (200.5 mi)            (207.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Area 1
    Upper Gila River Unit, Grant County, New Mexico; Greenlee and 
Graham counties, Arizona. Tributary streams proposed for critical 
habitat include Turkey Creek, Dix Creek, Harden Cienega Creek, Eagle 
Creek, and East Eagle Creek. All of these tributaries are within the 
geographical range occupied by the Gila chub. These tributaries 
represent the few remaining tributaries of a low desert river that 
currently provide the necessary habitat for the Gila chub, in a largely 
natural state.
    a. Turkey Creek (New Mexico)--11.8 km (7.3 mi) of creek extending 
from the edge of the Gila Wilderness boundary in the Gila National 
Forest and continuing upstream into the Gila Wilderness. Turkey Creek 
contains one or more of the primary constituent elements, including 
perennial pools and the necessary vegetation that provides cover. 
Turkey Creek supports a population of Gila chub (David Propst pers. 
comm. 1999). Gila chub were collected in Turkey Creek in 2001.
    b. Eagle Creek and East Eagle Creek--35.2 km (21.8 mi) of creek. 
The proposed designation extends from Eagle Creek, T. 1 S., R. 28 E., 
Section 31 SWSW continuing upstream to the

[[Page 51960]]

confluence with Dry Prong and East Eagle Creeks. The proposed 
designation also includes from East Eagle Creek extending from its 
confluence with Eagle Creek continuing upstream to its headwaters. Nine 
other native fishes known to occupy Eagle Creek include loach minnow, 
spikedace, longfin dace, speckled dace, Sonora sucker, desert sucker, 
razorback sucker (repatriated), roundtail chub, and an undetermined 
trout. This upper portion of Eagle Creek contains one or more of the 
primary constituent elements, including a series of permanent pools 
with riffle (shallow area in a streambed causing ripples) and run areas 
in between these pools and the necessary vegetation that provides 
cover. Eagle Creek has low turbidity and low salinity which 
significantly reduces the concentration of dissolved salts that get 
delivered into the Gila River, thereby providing suitable habitat for 
the Gila chub. Gila chub were first collected on Eagle Creek in 1987 by 
Clarkson near the Honeymoon Campground. There is a diversion dam just 
below the end of the proposed critical habitat reach that acts as a 
barrier to prevent nonnatives from invading from the Gila River. 
Periodic flooding appears to decrease the presence of nonnatives, 
subsequently decreasing the impacts to native fishes by nonnatives in 
Eagle Creek above this diversion dam (Marsh et al. 1990). East Eagle 
Creek contains one or more of the primary constituent elements, 
including a series of permanent pools with riffle and run areas in 
between these pools and the necessary vegetation that provides cover. 
East Eagle Creek is also hydrologically connected to Eagle Creek. The 
FS is currently involved in restoration work on East Eagle Creek by 
changing grazing management to benefit the Gila chub and other native 
fish.
    c. Harden Cienega Creek--22.1 km (13.7 mi) of creek extending from 
the confluence with the San Francisco River upstream to its headwaters. 
The lower portion just above the mouth with the San Francisco River is 
where Gila chub were observed by Arizona State University personnel in 
1995 (Weedman 1996). Harden Cienega Creek contains one or more of the 
primary constituent elements, including perennial pools and the 
necessary vegetation that provides cover.
    d. Dix Creek--7.6 km (4.7 mi) of creek beginning one mile upstream 
from the confluence with the San Francisco River and continuing 
upstream to both the Right Prong Fork and Left Prong Fork of Dix Creek. 
Dix Creek is dry at the confluence with the San Francisco River, and a 
natural rockfall fish barrier is present at the one mile mark. This 
barrier is effective in isolating the upper drainages from nonnative 
fish. Perennial flow and Gila chub were found in 1995, in the portion 
below the two forks of Dix Creek (Paul Marsh pers. com. ASU 1999). Dix 
Creek contains one or more of the primary constituent elements, 
including perennial pools, and is devoid of nonnatives.
Area 2
    Middle Gila River Area--Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona. There 
are three tributaries proposed for critical habitat, Mineral Creek, 
Blue River, and Bonita Creek. Gila chub were first confirmed in Mineral 
Creek in April 2000, by AGFD and ASU Zoology Department personnel. This 
newly found population of Gila chub fills a gap of what was previously 
determined unoccupied habitat within the Middle Gila River Unit. This 
may help to expand future populations of Gila chub in the Middle Gila 
River Unit. The two populations of Gila chub on the San Carlos Apache 
Reservation are located in the Blue River and the upper portion of 
Bonita Creek.
    a. Mineral Creek--14.4 km (8.9 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Devil's Canyon upstream to its headwaters. Gila chub 
currently occupy Mineral Creek and this area contains one or more of 
the primary constituent elements, including perennial pools, the 
necessary vegetation that provides cover, and adequate water quality. 
Below this area, Mineral Creek flows through the ASARCO mine, where it 
has been contaminated and does not provide suitable habitat. The area 
below the mine is not being proposed as critical habitat.
    b. Blue River--40 km (25 mi) of creek extending from the confluence 
with the San Carlos River and continuing upstream to its headwaters at 
Blue River Spring. Blue River contains one or more of the primary 
constituent elements, including perennial pools, the necessary 
vegetation that provides cover, and adequate water quality. There are 
two waterfalls in the Blue River that help to restrict nonnatives to 
areas below the falls. Below the lower waterfall nonnatives do occur.
    c. Bonita Creek--63.5 km (39.6 mi) of creek extending from the City 
of Safford's withdrawal pipeline and continuing upstream to its 
headwaters at Bonita tank area. That portion of Bonita Creek, above 
this withdrawal pipeline, currently is within the geographical range 
occupied by Gila chub. Bonita Creek has all the necessary primary 
constituent elements essential for the Gila chub. Bonita Creek is 
maintained by a seasonal combination of high winter and summer flows 
and low spring and fall flows. This combination of flows produces a 
diversity of habitat which permits native fish to exist. Flooding 
generally reduces nonnative populations and leaves the native fish 
community intact (Minckley and Meffe 1987). Gila chub have evolved in 
these dynamic flood patterns and can persist within high flood events. 
Gila chub were documented in Bonita Creek in 2001.
Area 3
    The Babocomari River Area--Cochise County, Arizona. Historically 
the Babocomari River was a perennial stream which flowed through 
cienegas and marshlands all the way to the San Pedro River. However, 
livestock overgrazing destroyed much of the river. In 1995, AGFD found 
that the only water use was a large impoundment in the river, on the 
Babocomari Ranch. Perennial flows begin upstream from this impoundment 
near T-4 Spring. Gila chub were first collected from the Babocomari 
River in 1892 near Fort Huachuca Military Reservation and again in 
1950, approximately 3.5 mi below the Babocomari Ranch (Weedman, et al. 
1996). There have been no Gila chub collected in the Babocomari River 
and it is not being proposed for critical habitat. Tributaries to this 
area include O'Donnell Canyon, Turkey Creek, and Post Canyon.
    a. O'Donnell Canyon--3.9 km (2.4 mi) of creek extending from the 
southern edge of the Audubon Research Ranch property upstream to the 
confluences of Western, Middle, and Pauline Canyons. Gila chub occupy 
O'Donnell Canyon and were last documented in 2001, although nonnative 
green sunfish pose a threat to their existence; plans for removal of 
sunfish are planned for the 2002 field season by the AGFD and the 
Coronado National Forest. O'Donnell Canyon provides the full range of 
primary constituent elements necessary for the conservation of the Gila 
chub.
    b. Turkey Creek and Post Canyon Creek--9.1 km (5.7 mi) of creek. 
The proposed designation extends from Turkey Creek to the confluence 
with O'Donnell Creek upstream to the Arizona Highway 83 crossing. The 
proposed designation also includes Post Canyon from the confluence with 
O'Donnell Canyon continuing upstream to the existing concrete 
impoundment on BLM land. Habitat upstream from the Arizona Highway 83 
crossing is on private land, and its condition is unknown; thus, it is 
not being proposed for critical habitat. Gila chub were documented in 
Turkey Creek in 1991 (Weedman et al. 1996). Turkey Creek

[[Page 51961]]

contains one or more of the primary constituent elements, including 
perennial pools, the necessary vegetation that provides cover, and 
adequate water quality. Post Canyon contains one or more of the primary 
constituent elements, including perennial pools, and is hydrologically 
connected to O'Donnell and Turkey Creeks. Post Canyon has only one 
reach that has perennial water except during extreme periods of 
drought. Even during periods of drought the stream maintains habitat 
for the Gila chub through perennial pools. The perennial portion of 
Post Canyon is the only portion that we are proposing to designate as 
critical habitat. Gila chub were collected in 1989 (Weedman 1996) in 
Post Canyon.
Area 4
    Lower San Pedro River Area--Cochise, Graham, and Pima Counties, 
Arizona. Gila chub currently exist in several tributaries of this 
segment of the San Pedro River. Historically, Gila chub most likely 
occurred on both sides of the lower San Pedro River, however, 
documentation of Gila chub presence only exists for the east-side 
drainages. We are only proposing critical habitat for the east-side 
drainage areas.
    a. Bass Canyon--5.4 km (3.4 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Hot Springs Canyon upstream to the confluence with Pine 
Canyon. Perennial water was documented by Gori (1993) for this stream 
from the confluence with Hot Springs Canyon upstream 4.8 km (3.0 mi). 
The remainder of the stream was dry for 8 km (5.0 mi). All the State 
land in the Muleshoe Preserve was traded to the BLM and is managed by 
TNC. Beginning in 1991, biologists with TNC established eight fixed 
sample stations in Bass Canyon, five in Hot Springs, and three in 
Double R Canyon. Beginning in 1992, random pools are also sampled in 
the streams each year. Gila chub were collected from 1992 to 2001 in 
Bass Canyon. Bass Canyon contains one or more of the primary 
constituent elements, including perennial pools, the necessary 
vegetation that provides cover, and adequate water quality.
    b. Hot Springs Canyon--1.1 km (0.69 mi) of creek extending from 
just below the Bass Canyon confluence downstream to the end of 
perennial flow, which is 0.4 km (0.25 mi) below the Muleshoe Ranch 
Preserve boundary. The occurrence of Gila chub within this reach of Hot 
Springs Canyon is sporadic due to the limited number of pools, however, 
Gila chub are commonly found where good pool habitat exists in Hot 
Springs Canyon (per. comm. TNC, 2000). Hot Springs Canyon contains one 
or more of the primary constituent elements, including perennial pools, 
the necessary vegetation that provides cover, and adequate water 
quality.
    c. Redfield Canyon--3.6 km (2.2 mi) of creek extending from T. 11 
S., R. 20 S, Section 31 SE continuing upstream to the confluence with 
Sycamore Canyon. The first documented collection of Gila chub in 
Redfield Canyon was in 1961. A number of collections of Gila chub 
occurred from 1976 to 1983. Redfield Canyon contains one of the few 
populations of Gila chub for which population studies have been 
conducted (Griffith and Tiersch 1989). Fall Fish Count (FFC) sites were 
established and surveyed by volunteers from 1988-1990. TNC established 
monitoring stations from 1991 to 1994. Gila chub were collected each 
year and they were the most abundant species caught in 1991 (72%) 
(Weedman 1996). TNC surveyed Redfield Canyon in November 2001 and Gila 
chub were documented. This segment of Redfield Canyon is very remote 
and has not had a lot of impact from humans. Additionally, no livestock 
grazing is permitted which contributes to the existence of the primary 
constituent elements for the Gila chub. Redfield Canyon has an abundant 
and healthy Gila chub population. Redfield Canyon contains one or more 
of the primary constituent elements, including perennial pools, the 
necessary vegetation that provides cover, and adequate water quality.
Area 5
    Lower Santa Cruz River Area--Pima County, Arizona. Tributaries 
included in this proposed critical habitat designation are Cienega 
Creek, Mattie Canyon, Empire Gulch, and Sabino Canyon.
    a. Cienega Creek--30.6 km (19.0 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Pantano Wash and continuing upstream to T. 19 S., R. 17 
E., Section 23 NWNW. The majority of Cienega Creek is federally owned 
and managed by the BLM with a small portion under the management of the 
Pima County Flood Control District. Perennial water exists within the 
Cienega Creek Natural Preserve managed by the Pima County Flood Control 
District. In March 2002, Gila chub were documented in this segment of 
Cienega Creek. Cienega Creek is the only stream segment that currently 
has a stable-secure population of Gila chub. Cienega Creek is 
considered to be one of the finest natural habitats for the Gila chub, 
and it has very few nonnative fish species. However, recent expansion 
of bullfrogs within the Santa Rita watershed and within Cienega Creek 
are raising concerns about their impacts on native fish and leopard 
frogs (BLM 2001). Fish inventories of Cienega Creek and its 
tributaries, Mattie Canyon and Empire Gulch, have been conducted since 
1989 by seining, electrofishing, and visual observation. Composition of 
native fish in Cienega Creek varies from its upper to lower reaches as 
well as from year to year. Fish sampling is difficult in Cienega Creek 
because of the large volume of vegetation cover, great pool depths, and 
undercut banks. Visual observation and electrofishing data show that a 
large population of adult Gila chub occupy all perennial segments of 
Cienega Creek. Visual observations of adult Gila chub made for the 
aquatic habitat inventory in 1989-1990 found 368 chub along the 
perennial length of Cienega Creek. This estimate is undoubtedly low due 
to water turbidity in some reaches, vegetation cover, and the secretive 
nature of Gila chub. Cienega Creek contains one or more of the primary 
constituent elements, including perennial pools, the necessary 
vegetation that provides cover, and adequate water quality.
    b. Mattie Canyon--3.9 km (2.4 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Cienega Creek and continuing to the BLM boundary. Gila 
chub have been observed in Mattie Canyon and were last collected in 
1995 by the AGFD. Mattie Canyon contains one or more of the primary 
constituent elements, including perennial pools, the necessary 
vegetation that provides cover, and adequate water quality.
    c. Empire Gulch--5.2 km (3.2 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Cienega Creek upstream through BLM lands. The majority 
of this reach is on BLM land and contains one or more of the primary 
constituent elements, including perennial pools, the necessary 
vegetation that provides cover, and adequate water quality. Gila chub 
were documented in Empire Gulch in 1995 and in 2001 (per. comm. BLM, 
2001).
    d. Sabino Canyon--11.3 km (7.0 mi) of creek extending from the 
southern boundary of the Coronado National Forest upstream to the 
confluence with the West Fork of Sabino Canyon in the Coronado National 
Forest. Sabino Canyon is managed by the Coronado National Forest. 
Sabino Canyon has recently undergone an extensive habitat restoration 
project for the Gila chub involving removal of nonnatives. Gila chub 
were last documented in Sabino Canyon in 2002 by AGFD. Sabino contains 
one or more of the primary constituent elements, including perennial 
pools and adequate water quality.

[[Page 51962]]

Area 6
    Upper Verde River Area--Yavapai County, Arizona. The Upper Verde 
River Area has two main tributaries; one extends from the confluence of 
Beaver Creek upstream to the confluence with Oak Creek and the second 
tributary is at the confluence of Williamson Valley Wash upstream of 
the Sullivan Lake area. A total of 30.3 km (18.8 mi) of stream are 
proposed as critical habitat. Silver Creek, Walker Creek, Red Tank 
Draw, and Williamson Valley Wash, are all tributaries to Oak and Beaver 
Creeks in the upper Verde River Unit. The Upper Verde River is the very 
northwestern part of the Gila chub's historic range. Conserving these 
Gila chub populations will help maintain representation of the species 
throughout its historic range. As recently as July 2001, Gila chub 
still existed in Williamson Valley Wash, Spring Creek, and Walker 
Creek. Surveys conducted in the Upper Verde River in 1998 have shown 
that all the primary constituent elements are present which help to 
maintain this existing population.
    a. Walker Creek--6.8 km (4.2 mi) of creek extending from Forest 
road 618 crossing at T. 15 N., R. 6 E., Section 33 SE1/4 continuing 
upstream to T. 141/2 N., R. 6 E., Section 1 SESE. The earliest known 
collection of Gila chub was in 1978 by Rinne (Weedman 1996). Walker 
Creek was surveyed in 1994 by AGFD at five different locations; Gila 
chub were collected at three of those locations. The ephemeral nature 
of the lower end of Walker Creek appears to be limiting invasion of 
nonnatives from Wet Beaver Creek (Weedman 1996), thus we believe that 
Gila chub are still present. Walker Creek contains one or more of the 
primary constituent elements, including perennial pools and the 
necessary vegetation that provides cover.
    b. Red Tank Draw--10.9 km (6.7 mi) of creek extending from the 
eastern edge of the Montezuma Castle National Monument continuing 
upstream to the confluence with Rarick Canyon. Red Tank Draw is an 
intermittent stream which offers abundant Gila chub habitat in the form 
of perennial pools. Gila chub were documented in Red Tank Draw in 1995 
by AGFD. Red Tank Draw contains one or more of the primary constituent 
elements, including perennial pools and the necessary vegetation that 
provides cover.
    c. Spring Creek--5.8 km (3.6 mi) of creek extending from T. 16 N., 
R. 4 E., Section 27 SE1/4 continuing upstream to the crossing of 
Arizona Highway 89A. Gila chub were documented in 1995 in Spring Creek 
by ADFG. Spring Creek contains one or more of the primary constituent 
elements, including perennial pools and the necessary vegetation that 
provides cover.
    d. Williamson Valley Wash--6.8 km (4.2 mi) of creek extending from 
the gaging station upstream to the crossing of the Williamson Valley 
Road. In 1990 Williamson Valley Wash was surveyed for Gila chub and on 
the Matli Ranch a large stretch of stream had perennial water (Gori 
1990). Gila chub were collected during this trip on the Matli Ranch. In 
July 2001, Williamson Valley Wash was resurveyed and Gila chub were 
abundant (Bryan Bagley pers. comm.). Williamson Valley Wash contains 
the full range of primary constituent elements necessary for the 
conservation of the Gila chub.
Area 7
    Agua Fria River Area--Yavapai County, Arizona. There are six 
tributaries in the Agua Fria River in which Gila chub exist; Little 
Sycamore Creek, Sycamore Creek, Indian Creek, Silver Creek, Larry 
Creek, and Lousy Canyon. The Agua Fria River Area represents part of 
the upper northwest area of the historical range of the Gila chub, and 
current Gila chub populations in the six drainages of this river area 
are healthy. There have been no reports of any diseases associated with 
the Gila chub in this unit. Survey results indicate a good 
representation of all age classes. Gila chub were translocated to Larry 
Creek and Lousy Canyon as a conservation action in July 1995 (Weedman 
1996) by the BLM. The BLM continues to monitor these populations in 
Lousy Canyon and Larry Creek and has changed their grazing management 
to help reduce adverse effects to these healthy Gila chub populations. 
Conserving these Gila chub populations will help maintain 
representation of the species throughout its historic range. In 
addition, these populations can be used in future repatriation 
activities in other areas of the Gila chub historic range.
    a. Little Sycamore Creek--1.2 km (0.75 mi) of creek extending from 
the confluence with Sycamore Creek upstream to the Horner Mountain 
Ranch. Little Sycamore Creek is intermittent most of its reach, and the 
only perennial pools are 0.8 km (0.5 mi) above the confluence with 
Sycamore Creek and another 0.4 km (0.25 mi) at a spring above Horner 
Mountain Ranch. We are proposing to designate the areas where perennial 
pools exist. Little Sycamore Creek has similar characteristics to 
Sycamore Creek. Gila chub currently occupy Little Sycamore Creek (pers. 
obs. Ann Watson, 2002). Gila chub have evolved in very dynamic flow 
regimes in many southwestern streams and depending on climatic 
conditions, many streams can dry up in portions leaving small isolated 
pools. This leads to an intermittent stream however, the Gila chub 
continues to persist in these small isolated pools until the next flood 
or monsoon season. Little Sycamore Creek contains one or more of the 
primary constituent elements, including perennial pools, the necessary 
vegetation that provides cover, and adequate water quality.
    b. Sycamore Creek--18.5 km (11.5 mi) of creek extending from the 
Rock Bottom Box continuing upstream to the Nelson Place Spring. 
Sycamore Creek is perennial throughout most of its length, with the 
last 3 km (2 mi) being temporally intermittent. Gila chub were last 
documented in Sycamore Creek during surveys conducted in 1995 (AGFD 
1995) and again in May 2002 (USFS 2002). In the 2002 surveys, there 
were no nonnatives collected and all age classes were represented. Gila 
chub distribution was limited to the area between the Double T 
Waterfall and the Rock Bottom Box totaling a length of 5 km (3.0 mi) of 
habitat. Both of these sites are effective fish barriers and seem to 
have served to prevent nonnatives from invading this upper section of 
Sycamore Creek. Due to the remoteness of this area, it is unlikely that 
additional threats to the existing Gila chub population will be of 
concern. Livestock grazing is very limited in the upper portion of this 
reach due to the canyons and inaccessibility to the stream. However, 
below the fish barriers, livestock have access to these areas. Sycamore 
Creek contains one or more of the primary constituent elements, 
including perennial pools, the necessary vegetation that provides 
cover, and adequate water quality.
    c. Indian Creek--5.3 km (3.3 mi) of Indian Creek, extending 3.2 km 
(2 mi) southwest of the Prescott National Forest boundary upstream 1.6 
km (1 mi) inside Prescott National Forest. Gila chub were first 
collected in Indian Creek in May 1995. Since then, surveys have been 
conducted and Gila chub were observed using this stream (BLM 1999). 
Indian Creek contains one or more of the primary constituent elements, 
including perennial pools and the necessary vegetation that provides 
cover (per. comm. BLM 2002).
    d. Silver Creek--6.7 km (4.2 mi) of creek, all of which is located 
above a natural waterfall/barrier located 4 km (2.5 mi) above the 
confluence with the Agua Fria River. The earliest record of Gila chub 
collected in Silver Creek was in 1980. Due to high recruitment of 
young-of-the-year, Silver Creek was the source of Gila chub that were

[[Page 51963]]

translocated to Larry Creek and Lousy Canyon in July 1995. Silver Creek 
contains one or more of the primary constituent elements, including 
perennial pools and the necessary vegetation that provides cover (per. 
comm. BLM 2002).
    e. Larry Creek--0.80 km (0.5 mi) of creek from the confluence with 
an unnamed tributary then continuing upstream approximately 0.80 km 
(0.5 mi) to the confluence of two unnamed tributaries. In 1995 BLM 
translocated a population of Gila chub from Silver Creek into Larry 
Creek and recruitment is good (per. comm. BLM 2002). Larry Creek 
contains one or more of the primary constituent elements, including 
perennial pools and the necessary vegetation that provides cover (per. 
comm. BLM 2002). In addition, this area is within a canyon and it is 
inaccessible to cattle due to the geological nature of the canyon which 
acts as a barrier.
    f. Lousy Canyon--0.28 km (.18 mi) of creek extending from a 
waterfall then continuing upstream approximately 0.28 km (0.18 mi) to 
the fork of an unnamed tributary. In 1995 BLM translocated the second 
population of Gila chub from Silver Creek into Lousy Canyon. This 
population of Gila chub is maintaining itself and recruitment is good 
(per. comm. BLM 2002). In October 2001 AGFD resurveyed this stream and 
observed an abundant population of Gila chub. Lousy Creek contains one 
or more of the primary constituent elements, including perennial pools 
and the necessary vegetation that provides cover (per. comm. BLM 2002). 
In addition, this area is within a canyon and it is inaccessible to 
cattle due to the geological nature of the canyon which acts as a 
barrier.

Land Ownership

Area 1
    Upper Gila River Area--the ownership is predominantly FS and BLM. 
Turkey Creek is within the Gila Wilderness Area in the Gila National 
Forest. Both Eagle and East Eagle Creeks are on the Apache Sitgreaves 
National Forest. Both Harden Cienega and Dix Creeks are on FS land.
Area 2
    Middle Gila River Area--Mineral Creek is on State of Arizona, FS, 
BLM, and Tribal land.
Area 3
    Babocomari River Area--O'Donnell Canyon is owned by TNC and FS. The 
small portion of Turkey Creek is owned by private landowners and FS. 
Post Canyon is predominantly private with a small section of BLM.
Area 4
    Lower San Pedro River Area--Bass Canyon and Hot Springs Canyon are 
owned by TNC. The lower end of Hot Springs Canyon is owned by the BLM. 
Redfield Canyon is owned predominantly by BLM and the State of Arizona 
with a small parcel of private land near the confluence with Sycamore 
Canyon.
Area 5
    Lower Santa Cruz River Area--Cienega Creek's headwaters are located 
on 2.5 miles of Forest land and the remaining drainage is comprised 
predominantly of BLM and Arizona State lands. The lower end of Cienega 
Creek is owned by Pima County. There is a small segment of this 
drainage in private ownership. Both the Mattie Canyon and Empire Gulch 
stream segments are on BLM lands. Sabino Canyon is predominantly FS 
land.
Area 6
    Upper Verde River Area--is comprised of four stream segments. 
Walker Creek and Red Tank Draw are both are on FS land. Spring Creek is 
predominantly on private land, with some portions on FS and Arizona 
State lands. Williamson Valley Wash is all on private land.
Area 7
    Agua Fria River Area--is comprised of six stream segments. Little 
Sycamore and Sycamore Creeks are on FS land. Larry Creek and Lousy 
Canyon stream segments are both on BLM land. Indian and Silver Creeks 
landownership is comprised predominantly of BLM and FS land with a 
small percentage of private land.

Effect of Critical Habitat Designation

    The designation of critical habitat directly affects only Federal 
actions. 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 land, 
require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or involve 
Federal funding.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its proposed or designated 
critical habitat. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation 
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) 
of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require Federal agencies to 
confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a proposed species or to result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat.
    If a species is subsequently listed or critical habitat is 
designated, then section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure 
that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. To that end, if a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with us. Regulations at 50 
CFR 402.16 also require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation in 
instances where we have already reviewed an action for its effects on a 
listed species if critical habitat is subsequently designated.
    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 that 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 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 402.14, 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)).

[[Page 51964]]

    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 Gila chub 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, and the current occurrences of the species limited 
to 10-15% of its historic range, 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.
    Federal actions that might occur on private, State, or Tribal lands 
and which may require consultation might include, but are not limited 
to, 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 are likely to include the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Services, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, Federal Communications Commission, BLM, FS, and the 
Service.
    Federal actions involving issuance of permits to private parties 
which may require consultation might include, but are not limited to, 
issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits by 
the EPA and issuance of permits under section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act for dredging and filling in waterways by the Corps. Examples of 
private actions for which 404 permits may be sought include road and 
bridge construction, repair and maintenance; gravel mining; flood 
control and repair; and water diversion construction and repair.
    For Federal lands, as well as for Federal activities on private, 
State, or Tribal lands, the following types of activities may require 
Section 7 consultation.
    Any activity that would alter the minimum flow or the natural flow 
regime of any of the proposed designated stream segments. Such 
activities may include, but are not limited to, groundwater pumping, 
impoundment, water diversion, and hydropower generation.
    Any activity that might alter watershed characteristics of any of 
the proposed designated segments. Such activities may include, but are 
not limited to, vegetation manipulation (e.g., prescribed burns, timber 
harvest, road construction and maintenance, and naturally ignited fire 
(e.g., lighting), livestock grazing, and mining).
    Any activity that would significantly alter the channel morphology 
of any of the proposed designated stream segments. Such activities may 
include, but are not limited to, channelization; impoundment; road and 
bridge construction; removal of substrate source; destruction and 
alteration of riparian vegetation; reduction of available floodplain; 
removal of gravel or floodplain terrace materials; and sedimentation 
from mining, livestock grazing, road construction, timber harvest, off-
road vehicle use, and other watershed and floodplain disturbance.
    Any activity that would alter the water chemistry in any of the 
proposed designated stream segments. Such activities may include, but 
are not limited to, release of chemical or biological pollutants into 
the surface waters or connected groundwater at a point source or by 
dispersed release (non-point).
    Any activity that would introduce, spread or augment nonnative 
aquatic species into any of the proposed designated stream segments. 
Such activities may 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 
(i.e. CAP aqueduct).
    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 management 
considerations or protection.
    If you have any 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 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; 
facsmile 505-248-6788).

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in public 
awareness and conservation actions by Federal, State, and local 
agencies private organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for 
possible land acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires 
that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The 
protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against 
taking and harm are discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 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 critical 
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed or critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) requires 
Federal agencies

[[Page 51965]]

to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    The Gila chub occurs primarily on Federal lands managed by 
Coronado, Apache-Sitgreaves, Tonto, Prescott, Coconino, and Gila 
National Forests; and by the BLM. Examples of Federal actions that may 
affect the Gila chub include, but are not limited to, dredge-and-fill 
activities, livestock grazing programs, construction and maintenance of 
stock tanks (pond), logging and other vegetation manipulation 
activities, flood protection and repair measures, channelization, water 
development, construction and management of recreation sites, road and 
bridge construction and maintenance, fish stocking, issuance of rights-
of-way, prescribed fire, and discretionary actions authorizing mining. 
These and other Federal actions would require section 7 consultation if 
the action agency determines that the proposed action may affect listed 
species.
    Also subject to section 7 consultation are development activities 
on private and State lands when such activity is conducted by, funded 
by, or permitted by a Federal agency. Examples include permits issued 
under section 404 or 402 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps or the 
EPA respectively. Federal actions not affecting the species, as well as 
actions on private lands that are not federally funded or permitted, 
would not require section 7 consultation.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. These prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make 
it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States to take (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 
kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt any of these), import or 
export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of a commercial 
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce 
any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 
carry, transport, or ship any wildlife that has been taken illegally. 
Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances. 
Regulations governing permits for endangered species are codified at 50 
CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits are available for scientific 
purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and/or 
for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. 
Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed wildlife and 
inquires about permits may be addressed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Branch of Endangered Species, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 
87103 (505) 248-6657 fax (505) 248-6922.
    Its our policy, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable those 
activities that would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the 
Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness as to 
the effects of this proposed listing on future and ongoing activities 
within the species' range. We believe, based on the best available 
information, that the following actions will not result in a violation 
of section 9:
    (1) Actions that may affect the Gila chub that are authorized, 
funded, or carried out by a Federal agency when the action is conducted 
in accordance with an incidental take statement issued by us pursuant 
to section 7 of the Act, or for which such action will not result in 
take;
    (2) Actions that may result in take of Gila chub when the action is 
conducted in accordance with a permit under section 10 of the Act;
    (3) Recreational activities such as hiking, off-road vehicles use, 
camping and hunting in the vicinity of occupied Gila chub habitat that 
do not destroy or significantly degrade Gila chub habitat, and do not 
result in take of Gila chub;
    (4) Release, diversion, or withdrawal of water from or near Gila 
chub habitat in a manner that does not displace or result in 
dessication or death of eggs, larvae, or adults, does not disrupt 
spawning activities, or does not favor introduction of nonnative 
predators; and does not alter vegetation.
    Potential activities involving this species that we believe will 
likely be considered a violation of section 9 include, but are not 
limited to, the following:
    (1) Unauthorized collection, capture, or handling of the species;
    (2) Intentional introduction of nonnative predators such as 
nonnative fish and crayfish, into occupied Gila chub habitat;
    (3) Water diversion, groundwater pumping, water releases or other 
water management activities that result in displacement of eggs, 
larvae, or adults, disruption of spawning activities, introduction of 
nonnative predators, or significant alteration of vegetation within 
occupied Gila chub habitat;
    (4) Discharge or dumping of hazardous materials, silt, or other 
pollutants into waters supporting Gila chub;
    (5) Possession, sale, delivery, transport, or shipment of illegally 
taken Gila chub;
    (6) Actions that take Gila chub that are not authorized by either a 
permit under section 10 of the Act or an incidental take statement 
under section 7 of the Act, or are not exempted from the section 9 take 
prohibitions; and
    (7) Recreational activities such as hiking, off-road vehicles use, 
camping and hunting in the vicinity of occupied Gila chub habitat that 
destroy or significantly degrade Gila chub habitat, and result in take 
of Gila chub.
    Not all the activities mentioned above will result in a violation 
of section 9 of the Act; only those activities which result in ``take'' 
of Gila chub would be considered violations of section 9. We will 
review other activities not identified above on a case by case basis to 
determine whether they may be likely to result in violation of section 
9 of the Act.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
likely violate section 9, contact the Arizona Ecological Services Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

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. We will use the 
economic analysis, and take into consideration all comments and 
information submitted during the comment period, to make a final 
critical habitat designation. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of specifying an area as critical habitat. We cannot 
exclude areas from critical habitat when the exclusion will result in 
extinction of the species. We will conduct a robust economic analysis 
on the effects of the proposed critical habitat designation prior to a 
final determination. Our economic analysis will comply with the ruling 
by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Mexico Cattle Growers 
Association, et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. When the draft 
economic analysis is completed, we will announce its

[[Page 51966]]

availability with a notice in the Federal Register, and we will reopen 
the comment period at that time to accept comments on the economic 
analysis and further comments on the proposed rule.

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

    The purpose of Secretarial Order 3206 (Secretarial Order) is to, 
``clarif(y) the responsibilities of the component agencies, bureaus, 
and offices of the Department of the Interior and the Department of 
Commerce, when actions taken under authority of the Act and associated 
implementing regulations affect, or may affect, Indian lands, tribal 
trust resources, or the exercise of American Indian tribal rights.'' If 
there is potential that a tribal activity could cause either direct or 
incidental take of a species proposed for listing under the Act, then 
meaningful government-to-government consultation will occur to try to 
harmonize the Federal trust responsibility to tribes and tribal 
sovereignty with our statutory responsibilities under the Act. The 
Secretarial Order also requires us to consult with tribes if the 
designation of an area as critical habitat might impact tribal trust 
resources, tribally owned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal rights. 
We met with representatives of the San Carlos Apache Indian Tribe, and 
a draft fisheries management plan has been prepared (see ``Application 
of the Section 3(5)(A) Criteria Regarding Special Management 
Considerations or Protection'' section above).

Public Comment Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or 
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments 
particularly are sought concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threat (or lack thereof) to the Gila chub;
    (2) The location of any additional populations of the Gila chub and 
the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be 
critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;
    (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of the Gila chub;
    (4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their 
possible effects on the Gila chub; and
    (5) Information relating to the status of all non-native fish in 
the historic range of the Gila chub.
    Prior to making a final determination on this proposed rule, we 
will take into consideration the comments and any additional 
information received, and such communications may lead to a final 
regulation that differs from this proposal.
    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of 
publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests must 
be made in writing and be addressed to the Field Supervisor (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/
notices that are easy to read and understand. We invite your comments 
on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand including 
answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in 
the proposed rule 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 proposed rule? 
What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, 
DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address: 
[email protected].

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the proposed designation 
of critical habitat in this document is a significant rule and has been 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Secretary is to make listing proposals 
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data 
available, after conducting a review of the status of the species and 
taking into account any efforts being made to protect the species. 
Therefore, our analyses under E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act pertain only to the proposed critical habitat portion of this rule, 
and not to the proposed listing. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the 
Secretary is to designate critical habitat based on the best scientific 
data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact 
and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as 
critical habitat.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA) of 
1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking 
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for 
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the 
effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not 
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities. SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a certification 
statement. In today's proposed rule, we are certifying that the 
proposed designation of critical habitat will not have a significant 
effect on a substantial number of small entities. The following 
discussion explains our rationale.
    The Small Business Administration (http://www.sba.gov/size) defines 
small entities to include small organizations, such as independent non-
profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including 
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 
50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. Small businesses include 
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, 
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and 
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general 
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in 
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual 
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to 
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of 
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical

[[Page 51967]]

small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if a rule designating critical habitat would affect a 
substantial number of small entities, we consider the number of small 
entities affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., 
housing development, grazing, oil and gas production, timber 
harvesting, etc.). We apply the ``substantial number'' test 
individually to each industry to determine if certification is 
appropriate. In some circumstances, especially with proposed critical 
habitat designations of very limited extent, we may aggregate across 
all industries and consider whether the total number of small entities 
affected is substantial. In estimating the numbers of small entities 
potentially affected, we also consider whether their activities have 
any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have 
any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by critical habitat 
designation.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies; private or State activities 
are not affected by the designation unless they have a Federal nexus. 
If the listing of the Gila chub is finalized, Federal agencies will be 
required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities 
that they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the Gila chub. If 
this proposed critical habitat designation is finalized, Federal 
agencies must also consult with us if their activities may affect 
designated critical habitat. However, we do not believe this will 
result in any significant additional regulatory burden on Federal 
agencies or their applicants because consultation would already be 
required due to the presence of this species proposed for listing which 
presently occurs in most of the stream reaches proposed for critical 
habitat, and the duty to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat 
would not trigger additional regulatory impacts beyond the duty to 
avoid jeopardizing the species.
    Because this species has not been listed, there is no history of 
consultations. Therefore, for the purposes of this review and 
certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we are assuming 
that any future consultations in the area proposed as critical habitat 
will be due to the listing and critical habitat designation. The areas 
where critical habitat designations are being proposed are largely 
being managed for the benefit of wildlife. Projected land uses for the 
majority of the proposed critical habitat consists of habitat 
improvement projects (i.e., riparian restoration, watershed 
improvement, and prescribed burning), wildlife management, livestock 
grazing permits, and recreational use (i.e., hunting, bird watching, 
and hiking).
    On non-Federal lands, activities that lack Federal involvement 
would not be affected by the critical habitat designation. Activities 
of an economic nature that are most likely to occur on non-Federal 
lands in the area encompassed by this proposed designation are 
recreation-related activities (i.e., hiking, trail construction, 
hunting, bird watching, and fishing) and residential development, 
particularly in the Williamson Valley Wash area near Prescott, Arizona.
    We also considered the likelihood that this proposed designation of 
critical habitat would result in significant economic impacts to small 
entities. In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 
consultations could lead to additional regulatory requirements for 
small entities who are usually applicants for Federal permits. First, 
if we conclude, in a biological opinion, that a proposed action is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or adversely 
modify its critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative 
actions that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the scope 
of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 
economically and technologically feasible, and that would avoid 
jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or resulting in 
adverse modification of critical habitat. A Federal agency and an 
applicant may elect to implement a reasonable and prudent alternative 
associated with a biological opinion that has found jeopardy or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. An agency or applicant could 
alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the requirements of the 
Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable and prudent 
alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained, the Federal 
agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the reasonable and 
prudent alternatives. Secondly, if we find that a proposed action is 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, 
we may identify reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize 
the amount or extent of take and require the Federal agency or 
applicant to implement such measures through non-discretionary terms 
and conditions. We may also identify discretionary conservation 
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a 
proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement 
recovery plans, or to develop information that could contribute to the 
recovery of the species.
    Based on our experience with section 7 consultations for all listed 
species, virtually all projects--including those that, in their initial 
proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse modification 
determinations in section 7 consultations--can be implemented 
successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent 
alternatives. These measures must be economically feasible and within 
the scope of authority of the Federal agency involved in the 
consultation. As we have no consultation history for the Gila chub, we 
can only describe the general kinds of actions that may be identified 
in future reasonable and prudent alternatives. These are based on our 
understanding of the needs of the species and the threats it faces. The 
kinds of actions that may be included in future reasonable and prudent 
alternatives include monitoring livestock grazing in riparian areas 
with such stipulations as restricting livestock grazing during critical 
periods (i.e., breeding, migration), control of exotic weeds in spring 
areas, water conservation measures (e.g., planting native vegetation) 
and maintenance of minimum flows, minimize the adverse affects to the 
watershed by proper placement of new roads, and suspended or restricted 
use of pesticides or herbicides in areas occupied by and necessary for 
the survival and recovery of this species. Because recommended 
reasonable and prudent alternative measures must be economically 
feasible, these measures are not likely to result in a significant 
economic impact to a substantial number of small entities.
    As required under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we will conduct an 
analysis of the potential economic impacts of this proposed critical 
habitat designation, and will make that analysis available for public 
review and comment before finalizing this designation. However, a court 
deadline require us to publish this proposed rule before the economic 
analysis can be completed. We will also revisit our determination above 
in light of any new information provided to us through the economic 
analysis or through the public comment period.
    In summary, we have considered whether this proposed designation of 
critical habitat would result in a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities. It would not affect a substantial 
number of small entities. Many of the parcels

[[Page 51968]]

within this designation are located in areas where likely future land 
uses would not be affected by designation of critical habitat. The 
majority of areas designated as critical habitat are on Federal land 
and a very small percentage (3%) is on privately owned land. In the 
remaining areas, Federal involvement--and thus section 7 consultations, 
the only trigger for economic impact due to the proposed designation of 
critical habitat--would be limited to a subset of the area proposed. 
The most likely future section 7 consultations resulting from this rule 
would be for habitat improvement projects (i.e., riparian restoration, 
prescribed burning, and watershed improvements), permitting of 
livestock grazing, residential development, and recreational use. The 
proposed designation of critical habitat would result in project 
modifications only when proposed Federal activities, or non-Federal 
activities with a Federal nexus, would destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. While this may occur, it is not expected frequently 
enough to affect a substantial number of small entities. Even when it 
does occur, we do not expect it to result in a significant economic 
impact, as the measures included in reasonable and prudent alternatives 
must be economically feasible and consistent with the proposed action. 
Therefore, we are certifying that the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for the Gila chub will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities, and an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we 
requested information from and coordinated development of this proposal 
with appropriate resource agencies in New Mexico and Arizona. We will 
continue to coordinate any future listing decisions or designation of 
critical habitat for the Gila chub with the appropriate Federal, State, 
and local agencies. Designation of critical habitat only affects 
activities conducted, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies; non-
Federal activities are not affected by the designation if they lack 
Federal involvement. In areas occupied by the Gila chub, Federal 
agencies funding, permitting, or implementing activities will be 
required, if this species is listed, through consultation with us under 
section 7 of the Act, to avoid jeopardizing their continued existence. 
If this critical habitat designation is finalized, Federal agencies 
also must ensure, also through consultation with us, that their 
activities do not destroy or adversely modify designated critical 
habitat.
    In unoccupied areas, or areas of uncertain occupancy, designation 
of critical habitat could trigger additional review of Federal 
activities under section 7 of the Act, and may result in additional 
requirements on Federal activities to avoid destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat. Any development that lacked Federal 
involvement would not be affected by the critical habitat designation. 
Should a federally funded, permitted, or implemented project be 
proposed that may affect designated critical habitat, we will work with 
the Federal action agency and any applicant, through section 7 
consultation, to identify ways to implement the proposed project while 
minimizing or avoiding any adverse effect to the species or critical 
habitat. In our experience, the vast majority of such projects can be 
successfully implemented with at most minor changes that avoid 
significant economic impacts to project proponents.
    The designations may have some benefit to these governments in that 
the areas essential to the conservation of these species are more 
clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat 
necessary to the survival of these species are specifically identified. 
While our definition and identification does not alter where and what 
federally sponsored activities may occur, these determinations may 
assist these local governments in long-range planning (rather than 
waiting for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of the 
proposed listing and designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub. 
The takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed rule 
does not pose significant takings implications. A copy of this 
assessment is available by contacting the Arizona Ecological Services 
Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), the Service will use the economic analysis to further 
evaluate this situation.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that this rule would not unduly burden the 
judicial system and would meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We propose to list the Gila chub and designate 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The rule 
uses standard property descriptions and identifies the primary 
constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the public 
in understanding the habitat needs of the Gila chub.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is 
a significant action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use since the 
majority of the lands being proposed as critical habitat occur on lands 
that are primarily used for recreational, agricultural, and timber 
harvesting uses, and not energy production or distribution. Therefore, 
this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.

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

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information other 
than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget 
Control Number 1018-0094, which expires on July 31, 2004. An agency may 
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Control 
Number. For additional information concerning permit and associated 
requirements for endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.22.

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

[[Page 51969]]

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 Gila chub, 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 will undertake a NEPA analysis for 
critical habitat designation and notify the public of the availability 
of the draft environmental assessment for this proposal when it is 
finished.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian 
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997), the President's memorandum of 
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native 
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 
the Department of the Interior's requirement at 512 DM 2, we understand 
that recognized Federal Indian Pueblos and Tribes must be related to on 
a Government-to-Government basis. As mentioned above, we have proposed 
critical habitat on the Blue River and Upper Bonita Creek of the San 
Carlos Apache Reservation. However, the San Carlos Indian Apache Tribe 
has a draft fisheries management plan which we anticipate being 
finalized prior to our final determination on this proposed rule. We 
will continue to work with the San Carlos Tribe in an effort to 
finalize the fisheries management plan that addresses the conservation 
needs of the Gila chub. Once completed we will consider whether this 
plan provides adequate special management considerations or protection 
for the Gila chub and we may not include these lands as a result of the 
management plan, or we will weigh the benefits of excluding these areas 
under section 4(b)(2).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Author

    The primary author of this notice is Ann Watson (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

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 Section 17.11(h) by adding the following in alphabetical 
order, under ``FISHES'', to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife:


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
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Chub, Gila.......................  Gila intermedia.....  U.S.A. (AZ, NM),     Entire.............  E                        NA     17.95(e)           NA
                                                          Mexico.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Amend Section 17.95 (e) by adding critical habitat for the Gila 
chub in the same alphabetical order as this species occurs in 17.11 
(h).


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

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

Gila chub (Gila intermedia)

    1. Critical habitat for the Gila chub in New Mexico and Arizona is 
depicted on the following overview map and as described in detail 
following the map.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 51970]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU02.000


[[Page 51971]]



Upper Gila River Area 1

    a. Turkey Creek (NM)--11.8 km (7.3 mi) of creek extending from the 
edge of the Gila Wilderness boundary in NMPM T.4 S., R. 16 W. Section 
15 NW \1/4\, continuing upstream to the eastern boundary of Section 25 
in T.3 S., R.15 W Section 19 SE \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Gila National Forest
    b. Eagle Creek and East Eagle Creek--35.2 km (21.8 mi) of creek 
extending from T. 1 S., R. 28 E., Section 31 SW \1/4\ corner of section 
continuing upstream to its headwaters just south of highway 191 in T. 3 
\1/2\ N., R. 29 E., Section 34 NW \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Apache Sitgreaves National Forest and private
    c. Harden Cienega Creek--22.1 km (13.7 mile) upstream from the 
confluence with the San Francisco River in GSRM, T. 3 S., R.31 E. 
Section 3 SE \1/4\, continuing upstream to the headwaters in T.3 S., 
R.32 E. Section 33 NW \1/4\ approximately 14.4 km (9.0 mi).
    Land ownership: Apache Sitgreaves and Gila National Forest
    d. Dix Creek--beginning 1 mile upstream from the confluence of Dix 
Creek and the San Francisco River at a natural rock barrier in T. 3 S. 
R., 31 E., Section 9 NE\1/4\ continuing upstream for 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to 
the confluence of the right and left forks of Dix Creek in T. 3 S., R. 
31 E., Section 9 SE \1/4\. Then continuing upstream 3.2 km (2 mi) in 
the right fork to T. 3 S., R. 31 E. Section 17 SE \1/4\ and continuing 
upstream 4.0 km (2.5) mi in the left fork to T. 3 S., R. 32 E. Section 
25 SE \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Apache Sitgreaves National Forest

[[Page 51972]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU02.001


[[Page 51973]]



Middle Gila River Area 2

    a. Mineral Creek--14.4 km (9.0 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Devil's Canyon in T.3 S., R. 13 E., Section 35 NW \1/4\ 
continuing upstream to its headwaters in T.2 S., R.14 E., Section 15 NE 
\1/4\.
    Land ownership: Tonto National Forest, Arizona State land, and 
private
    b. Blue River--40.2 km (25.0 mi) of Creek extending from the 
confluence with the San Carlos River in T.1 N. , R.19 E., Section 29 on 
the border of NW and NE quarters continuing upstream to its headwaters 
in T.2 N., R.20 E., Section 16 Center.
    Land ownership: San Carlos Apache Reservation
    c. Bonita Creek--63.5 km (39.6 mi) of Creek extending from the City 
of Safford's diversion pipeline in GSRM T.6 S., R.28 E., Section 21 SE 
\1/4\ continuing up to its headwaters at T.3 S., R.25 E., Section 14 SW 
\1/4\.
    Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management, Tribal, and private

[[Page 51974]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU02.002


[[Page 51975]]



Babocomari River Area 3

    a. O'Donnell Canyon--3.9 km (2.4 mi) of creek extending from T.21 
S., R.18 E., Section 33 NW \1/4\ on the northern boundary of Section 
33, upstream to the confluences of Western, Middle, and Pauline Canyons 
in T.22 S., R.18 E., Section 17 NE \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Private, Bureau of Land Management, and the 
Coronado National Forest
    b. Turkey Creek--6.1 km (3.8 mi) of Creek extending from the 
confluence with O'Donnell Canyon in T.21 S., R.18 E., Section 22 SE \1/
4\ upstream to where Turkey Creek crosses AZ highway 83 in T.22 S., 
R.18 E., Section 9 NE \1/4\.
    Post Canyon--3.0 km (1.9 mi) of Creek extending from the confluence 
with O'Donnell Canyon in T.21 S., R.18 E., Section 22 SE \1/4\ upstream 
to and including the impoundment on Bureau of Land Management land in 
T.21 S., R.18 E., Section 28 SW \1/4\.
    Land ownership: private and Coronado National Forest.

[[Page 51976]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU02.003


[[Page 51977]]



Lower San Pedro River Area 4

    a. Bass Canyon--5.4 km (3.4 mi) of Creek extending from the 
confluence with Hot Springs Canyon in GSRM T.12 S., R.20 E., Section 4 
NE \1/4\ upstream to the confluence with Pine Canyon in T.12 S., R.21 
E., Section 20 center (in the center of Section).
    Land ownership: Private (The Nature Conservancy)
    b. Hot Springs Canyon--for approximately 1.1 km (0.69 mi) extending 
from the Bureau of Land Management boundary in T12 S., R.20 E., Section 
32 SW \1/4\ continuing upstream to the confluence with Bass Canyon in 
T.12 S., R.20 E., Section 36 NE \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Private (The Nature Conservancy) and Bureau of Land 
Management
    c. Redfield Canyon--3.6 km (2.2 mi) of Creek extending from the 
confluence with the San Pedro River in GSRM T.11 S., R.18 E., Section 
34 SW \1/4\ upstream to the confluence with Sycamore Canyon in T.11 S., 
R.20 E., Section 28 NW \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Private and Bureau of Land Management

[[Page 51978]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU02.004


[[Page 51979]]



Lower Santa Cruz River Area 5

    a. Cienega Creek--30.0 km (19.0 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Pantano Wash in T.17 S., R.17 E., Section 1 NW \1/4\ 
continuing upstream to T.19 S., R.17 E., Section 23 NW \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State land, and 
private
    b. Mattie Canyon--3.9 km (2.4 mi) of creek extending from the 
confluence with Cienega Creek in T.18 S., R. 17 E., Section 23 NE \1/4\ 
upstream to the Bureau of Land Management boundary in T.18 S., R.17 E., 
Section 26 SE \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management
    c. Empire Gulch--5.2 km (3.2 mi) of creek extending from its 
confluence with Cienega Creek in T.19 S., R.17 E., Section 3 NE \1/4\ 
continuing upstream to T.19 S., R.17 E., Section 16 NW \1/4\ on the 
western boundary of Section 16.
    Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management
    d. Sabino Canyon--from the southern boundary of the Coronado 
National Forest in T.13 S., R.15 E., Section 9 SE \1/4\ upstream to the 
confluence with the West Fork of Sabino Canyon in T.12 S., R.15 E., 
Section 22 SE \1/4\ approximately 17.7 kilometers (11.0 miles).
    Land ownership: Coronado National Forest

[[Page 51980]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU02.005


[[Page 51981]]



Verde River Area 6

    a. Walker Creek--6.8 km (4.2 mi) of Creek extending from the 
Prescott National Forest Road 618 in GSRM T.14 \1/2\ N., R 6 E., 
Section 33 SE 1/4 continuing upstream to the confluence with Spring 
Creek in T 14 \1/2\ N., R. 6 E., Section 1 SE 1/4.
    Land ownership: Coconino National Forest
    b. Red Tank Draw--10.9 km (6.7 mi) of Creek extending from the 
confluence with Wet Beaver Creek in GSRM T. 14 \1/2\ N., R. 6 E., 
Section 31 NE \1/4\ continuing upstream to the confluence with Mullican 
and Rarick Canyons (the point at which Red Tank Draw separates into two 
separate drainages) in T. 15 N., R. 6 E., Section 2 SW \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Coconino National Forest
    c. Spring Creek--5.8 km (3.6 mi) of creek extending from T.16 N., 
R. 4 E., Section 27 SE \1/4\ at the boundary of Forest Service land 
continuing upstream to the AZ. Highway 89A crossing in T. 16 N., R. 4 
E., Section 16 SE \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Coconino National Forest, Arizona State land, and 
private
    d. Williamson Valley Wash--6.8 km (4.2 mi) of creek extending from 
the gaging station in T. 17 N., R. 3 W., Section 7 SE \1/4\ upstream to 
the crossing of the Williamson Valley Road in T. 17 N., R. 3 W., 
Section 36 NE \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Private

[[Page 51982]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU02.006


[[Page 51983]]



Agua Fria River Area 7

    a. Little Sycamore Creek--1.2 km (0.75 mi) of creek extending from 
the confluence with Sycamore Creek in GSRM T. 11 N., R. 4 E., Section 6 
NE \1/4\ upstream to the Horner Mountain Ranch in T. 11 N., R. 4 E., 
Section 5 NW \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Prescott National Forest and private
    b. Sycamore Creek--18.5 km (11.5 mi) of creek extending from Rock 
Bottom Box and the confluence of an unnamed tributary in GSRM T. 11 N., 
R. 4 E., Section 23 SE \1/4\ upstream to Nelson Place Spring in T. 11 
N., R. 5 E., Section 21 NE \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Prescott National Forest and private
    c. Indian Creek--5.3 km (3.3 mi) of creek extending from T. 11 N., 
R. 3 E., Section 26 SW \1/4\ on the section boundary of the SE \1/3\ of 
Section 26 next to the SW \1/4\ of Section 35 continuing upstream to 
the western boundary of Section 30 in T. 1 N., R. 4 E., Section 30 NE 
\1/4\.
    Land ownership: Prescott National Forest and Bureau of Land 
Management
    d. Silver Creek--6.7 km (4.2 mi) of Creek extending from T. 10 N., 
R. 3 E., Section 11 SW \1/4\ corner continuing upstream to the spring 
in T. 10 N., R. 4 E., Section 4 SW \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Tonto National Forest and Bureau of Land Management
    e. Larry Creek--approximately 0.67 km (0.42 mi) upstream from the 
confluence with the Agua Fria River at the confluence of an unnamed 
tributary in T. 9 N., R. 3 E., Section 9 NW 1/4, continuing upstream 
.80 km (0.5 mi) to the confluence of two adjoining unnamed tributaries 
in T. 9 N., R. 3 E., Section 9 NW \1/4\.
    Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management
    f. Lousy Canyon--beginning 0.28 km (0.18 mi) upstream from the 
confluence with the Agua Fria River at the waterfall in T. 9 N., R. 3 
E., Section 5 NW \1/4\ then continuing upstream to the fork with an 
unnamed tributary approximately 1.2 km (.75 mi) of total stream.
    Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management

[[Page 51984]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU02.007

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 51985]]

    2. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements are the 
following:
    a. Perennial pools, areas of higher velocity between pool areas, 
and areas of shallow water among plants or eddies all found in small 
segments of headwaters, springs, or cienegas of smaller tributaries.
    b. Water temperatures for spawning ranging from 20 to 26.5 degrees 
Celsius (68 to 79.7 degrees Fahrenheit) with sufficient dissolved 
oxygen, nutrients, and any other water-related characteristics needed.
    c. Water quality with reduced levels of contaminants or any other 
water quality characteristics, including excessive levels of sediments, 
adverse to Gila chub health.
    d. Food base consisting of invertebrates, filamentous (threadlike) 
algae, and insects.
    e. Sufficient cover consisting of downed logs in the water channel, 
submerged aquatic vegetation, submerged large tree root wads, undercut 
banks with sufficient overhanging vegetation, large rocks and boulders 
with overhangs.
    f. Habitat devoid of nonnative aquatic species detrimental to Gila 
chub or habitat in which detrimental nonnatives are kept at a level 
that allows Gila chub to continue to survive and reproduce. For 
example, the Muleshoe Preserve and Sabino Canyon Gila chub populations 
are devoid of nonnative aquatic species. The O'Donnell Canyon Gila chub 
population has continued to survive and reproduce despite the current 
level of nonnative aquatic species present.
    g. Streams that maintain a natural unregulated flow pattern 
including periodic natural flooding. An example is Sabino Canyon, which 
has experienced major floods. If flows are modified, then the stream 
should retain a natural flow pattern that demonstrates an ability to 
support Gila chub.
    3. Lands located within the exterior boundaries of the proposed 
critical habitat designation, but not considered critical habitat and 
are excluded by definition include: existing paved roads; bridges; 
parking lots; dikes; levees; diversion structures; railroad tracks; 
railroad trestles; water diversion canals outside of natural stream 
channels; active gravel pits; cultivated agricultural land; and 
residential, commercial, and industrial developments. These developed 
areas do not contain any of the primary constituent elements and do not 
provide habitat or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Gila chub, and generally will not contribute to the species' 
recovery.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU02.000


    Dated: July 31, 2002.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-19872 Filed 8-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P