[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66664-66721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21498]
[[Page 66663]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Gila Chub as
Endangered With Critical Habitat; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 66664]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AG16
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Gila Chub
as Endangered With Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list the
Gila chub (Gila intermedia) as endangered with critical habitat under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Gila chub were
historically found throughout the Gila River basin in southern Arizona,
southwestern New Mexico, and northeastern Sonora, Mexico. The Gila chub
has been 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, fragmented, and at risk
from known and potential threats and from random events such as
drought, flood events, and wildfire. The primary threats to Gila chub
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), and habitat degradation from surface water
diversions and ground water withdrawals. Secondary threats include
habitat alteration, destruction, and fragmentation resulting from
numerous factors that are discussed in this final rule. The current
status of the Gila chub is much degraded from historical levels. The
species exists as a few, small isolated, populations. The small size of
these populations, and their degree of fragmentation and isolation,
cause them to be highly susceptible to threats. We believe that due to
the current reduced status of the Gila chub and the severity of
threats, including nonnative species predation and habitat destruction,
the Gila chub is likely to become extinct throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. This final rule will implement the
Federal protection and recovery provisions of the Act for this species.
We are also designating approximately 160.3 river miles (mi) (258.1
kilometers (km)) of critical habitat located in Grant County, New
Mexico, and Yavapai, Gila, Greenlee, Graham, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Pima,
and Pinal Counties in Arizona.
DATES: This final rule is effective December 2, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Supporting documentation for this rulemaking is available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021-4951.
The final rule, economic analysis, environmental assessment, and more
detailed color maps of critical habitat are also available online at
http://www.fws.gov/arizonaes/. GIS files of the critical habitat maps
are also available online at http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven L. Spangle, Field Supervisor,
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (telephone, 602-242-0210;
facsimile, 602-242-2513).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule lists the Gila chub as
endangered and designates critical habitat.
Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection
to Species
In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the
designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional
protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts
of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for
designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory
prescription into a process that provides little real conservation
benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology,
limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes
enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs.
The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our
focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to
the species most in need of protection.
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and
Implementing the Act
While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts
of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation
requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 470 species or 38 percent
of the 1,253 listed species in the United States under the jurisdiction
of the Service have designated critical habitat.
We address the habitat needs of all 1,253 listed species through
conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the
section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9 protective
prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, and
the section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service believes
that it is these measures that may make the difference between
extinction and survival for many species.
We note, however, that two courts found our definition of adverse
modification to be invalid (March 15, 2001, decision of the United
States Court Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, et al., F.3d 434 and the August 6, 2004, Ninth
Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, et al. v. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service). On December 9, 2004, the Director
issued guidance to be used in making section 7 adverse modification
determinations.
Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result,
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left
the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public
participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before
making decisions on listing and critical habitat
[[Page 66665]]
proposals due to the risks associated with noncompliance with
judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn fosters a second round of
litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from critical
habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle of
litigation appears endless, is very expensive, and in the final
analysis provides little additional protection to listed species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None of these costs result in
any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the
protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the
funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
this final listing and critical habitat rule. For more information on
biology of the Gila chub, refer to the August 9, 2002, proposed rule
(67 FR 51948). However, some of the information presented in the
proposed rule is discussed below in this final rule, where appropriate,
such as the summary of factors affecting the species.
Description and taxonomy. The Gila chub is a member of the minnow
family Cyprinidae. The Gila chub is small-finned, deep-bodied, chubby
(chunky), and darkly colored. Adult males average about 150 millimeters
(mm) (6 inches (in)) in total length; females can exceed 200 mm (8 in).
Scales are coarse, thick, and broadly overlapped, and radiate out from
the base (Minckley 1973; Weedman et al. 1996).
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 1850s, with
the exception of a short period in the mid-1900s 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 species (Nelson et al. 2004). Minckley and DeMarais (2000)
described a new species within the Gila River Basin, Gila nigra. It is
similar to Gila intermedia in that it is another headwater-type chub,
whereas Gila robusta is more often found in the mainstems of the major
rivers within the Gila River Basin. Gila intermedia is the only species
being addressed in this rule.
Distribution and Habitat. Historically, Gila chub have been
recorded in approximately 43 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; 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).
Gila chub commonly inhabit pools in smaller streams, springs, and
cienegas (a desert wetland), and can survive in small artificial
impoundments, such as man made ponds (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 (Minckley 1973).
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; Tellman et al. 1997).
Humans have affected southwestern riparian systems over a period of
several thousand years. Before the 1800s, 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 in the Gila River
basin almost anywhere perennial water and appropriate vegetation could
be found. The activities of beaver are believed to have helped promote
Gila chub habitat by inhibiting erosion and downcutting of stream
channels (Parker et al. 1985), and increasing ponded water behind their
dams. Beaver were extirpated (i.e. lost from a particular area) from a
majority of their range by the late 1800s and are still not abundant or
have not recolonized areas where they have been extirpated and were
historically 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 contributed to
rendering reaches of some streams and rivers unsuitable as habitat for
the Gila chub.
There was a significant human population increase in southern
Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico, in the early to mid 1800s (Tellman
et al. 1997). New immigrants substantially increased subsistence and
commercial livestock production and agriculture. By the late 1800s,
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
caused by these management practices led to widespread erosion and
channel entrenchment when above-average rainfall and flooding occurred
in the late 1800s (Bryan 1925; Martin 1975; Hastings and Turner 1980;
Dobyns 1981; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984; Sheridan 1986; Bahre 1991;
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 alterations can be found in the black organic soils of the
drainage cut banks in places like the San Rafael Valley (Hendrickson
and Minckley 1984), and San Pedro River (Hereford 1993). Although these
changes took place nearly a century ago, these ecosystems have not
fully recovered, and in some areas may never recover.
We estimate, based on collection records, historical habitat data,
the 1996 Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) Gila chub status
review (Weedman et al. 1996), and information in our files documenting
currently occupied habitat (see Table 1), that the Gila chub has been
eliminated from approximately 85 to 90 percent of its formerly occupied
habitat. Of 47 known populations (see Table 1), 29 are considered
occupied (i.e., Gila chub have been documented within the last 5
years); 4 of these are newly established populations. All 29
populations are considered small, isolated, and subject to some form of
threat; nonnative species are present in 27 of the populations (Table
1). 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 nonnative predatory or competitive species are present, no current
or future land use threats were identified; (2) Stable-threatened-Gila
chub are common to uncommon, potential
[[Page 66666]]
threats by nonnatives exist, some habitat-altering land and water uses
were identified, or lack of recruitment (i.e., reproduction and
survival of young) 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 (i.e., liminated)-Gila chub are no longer
found within a particular river system. These four categories are
reflected in the following discussion of the current status of Gila
chub populations beginning with the next paragraph, and are summarized
for each of the currently known occupied populations and critical
habitat areas in Table 1; threat information is also summarized for
each population in Table 1. Of the 29 currently occupied populations,
we estimate that 10 can be considered stable-threatened and 19 are
considered unstable-threatened; none are considered stable-secure.
Table 1.--Gila Chub Locations (Major Drainages in Parentheses) Including Status Classification [Based on Weedman
et al.1996; S=stable, U=unstable, T=threatened, E=Extirpated (See Distribution and Habitat Section)], Threats
(From Service Files), Last Year of Documented Occupancy, and Source of Occupancy Information. No Information Was
Available for Current Status and Threats on the Blue River
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year
Gila Chub Locations Status classification Threats occupancy Source
confirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Habitat Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1: Upper Gila River
Turkey Creek, NM (Gila UT Fire, grazing, 2005 P.C. Marsh, ASU in
River). nonnative species. litt. 2005.
Eagle/East Eagle Creek (Gila UT Fire, grazing, 2005 Marsh 2005.
River). nonnative speices.
Harden Cienega Creek (San ST Fire, grazing, 2005 McKell 2005.
Francisco River). nonnative species.
Dix Creek (San Francisco ST Fire, grazing..... 2005 McKell 2005.
River).
Area 2: Middle Gila River Area
Mineral Creek/Devil's Canyon UT Fire, grazing, 2000 Weedman et al.
(Gila River). nonnative species. 2000.
Area 3: Babocomari River
O'Donnell Creek (Babocomari UT Fire, grazing, 2004 Dean Foster, AGFD,
River). nonnative species. in litt. 2005.
Turkey Creek (Babocomari E Fire, grazing, 1991 Weedman et al.
River). nonnative species. 1996.
Area 4: Lower San Pedro River
Bass Canyon (San Pedro ST Fire.............. 2003 Bob Rogers, The
River). Nature
Conservancy
(TNC), in litt.
2005.
Hot Springs Canyon (San ST Fire.............. 2004 Bob Rogers, TNC,
Pedro River). in litt. 2005.
Redfield Canyon (San Pedro ST Fire, grazing, 2001 Bob Rogers, TNC,
River). nonnative species. in litt. 2005.
Area 5: Lower Santa Cruz
Cienega Creek (lower, Santa UT Fire, nonnative 2005 Doug Duncan, in
Cruz River). species, water litt.
use.
Cienega Creek (upper, Santa ST Fire, nonnative 2005 Dean Foster, AGFD,
Cruz River). species. in litt. 2005.
Mattie Canyon (Santa Cruz UT Fire, grazing, 2005 Jeff Simms, BLM,
River). nonnative species. in litt. 2005.
Empire Gulch (Santa Cruz UT Fire, grazing,.... 2001 (67 FR 51948).
River).
Sabino Canyon (Santa Cruz UT Fire, nonnative 2005 Service files.
River). species.
Area 6: Verde River
Walker Creek (Verde River).. ST Fire, grazing, 2005 Service files.
nonnative species.
Red Tank Draw (Verder River) UT Fire, grazing, 2005 Service data.
nonnative species.
Spring Creek (Verde River).. ST Fire, grazing, 2005 Service files.
nonnative
species,
residential
development,
water use.
Williamson Valley Wash UT Nonnative species 2003 Bill Leibfried, in
(Verde River). residential litt. 2005.
development,
water use.
Area 7: Agua Fria
Little Sycamore Creek (Agua ST Fire, grazing, 2003 A .Silas, FS,
Fria River). nonnative species. pers. comm. 2005.
Sycamore Creek (Agua Fria UT Fire, grazing, 2005 Hedwall et al.
River). nonnative species. 2005.
Indian Creek (Agua Fria UT Fire, grazing, 2005 J. Voeltz, AGFD in
River). nonnative species. litt. 2005.
Silver Creek (Agua Fria UT Fire, grazing, 2005 D. Weedman, AGFD
River). nonnative species. in litt. 2005.
Larry Creek (Agua Fria ST Fire, grazing..... 2003 Service files.
River).
[[Page 66667]]
Lousy Canyon (Agua Fria ST Fire, grazing..... 2005 Service files.
River).
---------------------------------
Locations Not in Critical Habitat Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonita Creek (Gila River)....... ST Fire, grazing, 2005 Heidi Blasius,
recreatoin, BLM, pers. com.
roads, water use, 2005.
nonnative species.
Blue River (Gila River)......... No information No information.... 2000 Weedman et al.
(1996) Minckley
and DeMarais
(2000).
Romero Canyon (Santa Cruz River) UT Introduced Fire, nonnative 2005 AGFD 2005a.
species.
Bear Canyon (Santa Cruz River).. UT Introduced Fire, nonnative 2005 AGFD 2005a.
species.
Sheehy Spring (Santa Cruz River) UT Fire, nonnative 2005 D. Foster, AGFD,
species. in litt. 2005.
Babocomari River at T4 Spring UT Fire, nonnative 2005 D. Foster, AGFD,
(San Pedro River). psecies. in litt. 2005.
Double R Canyon (San Pedro UT Fire.............. 2003 Bob Rogers, TNC,
River). in litt. 2005.
Wildcat Canyon (San Pedro River) UT Fire.............. 2003 Bob Rogers, TNC,
in litt. 2005.
Post Canyon (Babocomari River).. E Fire, grazing, 1989 Weedman et al.
nonnative species. 1996.
Arroyo La Cieneguita, Mexico E Fire, grazing, 1990 Varela-Romero et
(San Pedro River). nonnative species. al. 1992.
Los Fresnos River, Mexico (San E Fire, grazing, 1990 Varela-Romero et
Pedro River). nonnaative al. 1992.
species.
---------------------------------
Localities Where the Gila chub is Believed Extirpated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Fria River................. ........................ .................. 1966 Weedman et al.
1996.
Big Chino Wash (Verde River).... ........................ .................. 1950 Weedman et al.
1996.
Birmingham Pond (Santa Cruz ........................ .................. 1943 Weedman et al.
River). 1996.
Cave Creek/Seven Springs Wash ........................ .................. 1978 Weedman et al.
(Salt River). 1996.
Fish Creek (Salt River)......... ........................ .................. 1965 Weedman et al.
1996.
Monkey Spring (Santa Cruz River) ........................ .................. 1968 Weedman et al.
1996.
Queen Creek (Gila River)........ ........................ .................. 1938 Weedman et al.
1996.
Arnett Creek (Gila River)....... ........................ .................. 1945 Weedman et al.
1996.
San Pedro....................... ........................ .................. 1912 Weedman et al.
1996.
San Simon River................. ........................ .................. 1939 Weedman et al.
1996.
Santa Cruz River................ ........................ .................. 1977 Weedman et al.
1996.
Haunted Canyon (Salt River)..... ........................ .................. 1959 University of
Michigan Museum
of Zoology [UMMZ]
collection record
176179.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In New Mexico, Gila chub likely inhabited numerous tributaries of
the Gila River basin historically. These include Apache Creek, Catron
County; Duck Creek, Grant County; San Francisco River, Catron County;
San Simon Cienega, Hidalgo County; and Turkey Creek, Grant County
(Rinne 1969, 1976; Hubbard et al. 1979; Bestgen and Propst 1989;
Sublette et al. 1990; Propst 1999). All of these populations are now
extirpated (Bestgen and Propst 1989), with the exception of Turkey
Creek (Propst 1999; P. C. Marsh, Arizona State University [ASU] in
litt. 2005). We consider Turkey Creek unstable-threatened because the
population was recently decimated by wildfire, and nonnative species
are present (B. Thompson, New Mexico Game and Fish Department [NMGF],
in litt. 2005).
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 in addition to 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 (Weedman et al. 1996;
Propst 1999).
In the Verde River basin, Walker and Spring creeks, located in
Yavapai County, chub populations are considered stable-threatened
populations; the population in Williamson Valley Wash, also in Yavapai
County, is considered unstable-threatened. The Santa Cruz River has
five tributaries with extant populations of Gila chub, which include
Bear, Romero, and Sabino canyons (Pima County) that were established
this year (these are considered unstable-threatened); Sheehy Spring
(Santa Cruz
[[Page 66668]]
County) has an unstable-threatened population (Arizona Game and Fish
Department [AGFD] 2005a); and Cienega Creek (Pima and Santa Cruz
Counties) has a stable-threatened population of Gila chub. The San
Pedro River Basin has four extant, stable-threatened populations: Bass,
Hot Springs, and Redfield canyons (Graham and Pima Counties), and
O'Donnell Canyon (Santa Cruz County; B. Rogers, The Nature Conservancy
(TNC), in litt. 2005; D. Foster, AGFD in litt. 2005). There is an
unstable-threatened population of Gila chub at T4 Spring in the
Babocomari River (Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties; D. Duncan, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in litt. 2003). The San Carlos River and the Blue
River are tributaries to the Gila River (Gila and Graham Counties) on
San Carlos Apache tribal lands. 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, Dix Creek in Greenlee County, Arizona, and Harden Cienega
in Greenlee County, Arizona, and Grant County, New Mexico. Based on
surveys in June 2005, these populations appear to be doing well and can
be characterized as stable-threatened (McKell 2005). 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) (Weedman et al. 1996; A. Silas, U.S. Forest Service
[FS], pers. comm. 2005). In addition, there are two introduced
populations in the Agua Fria River, Larry Creek and Lousy Canyon
(Yavapai County); both appear to be stable-threatened based on recent
surveys. Populations of all of the Aqua Fria populations may have been
affected by wildfires that occurred in summer 2005 (Knowles et al.
2005). 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 (Weedman et al. 1996; Marsh 2005; H.
Blasius, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in litt. 2005).
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 1.2
mi (2 km) 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).
Establishment of new populations of Gila chub has been attempted in
six sites in Arizona; five sites remain extant. Lousy Canyon and Larry
Creek (Yavapai County) are tributaries to the Agua Fria River that were
stocked with 200 Gila chub from Silver Creek on July 6, 1995. Recent
surveys indicate that these populations are doing well, with good
recruitment. Gardner Canyon (Cochise County) was stocked with 150 Gila
chub from Turkey Creek (Santa Cruz County) in July 1988. Follow up
surveys in May 1995 did not detect Gila chub in Gardner Canyon; 2005
surveys also did not detect the species (AGFD 2005a). In May 2005, Gila
chub that were salvaged from Sabino Canyon during the Aspen fire in
2003 were returned to Sabino Canyon and introduced into two other
streams in the Santa Catalina Mountains: approximately 350 Gila chub
were stocked into Sabino Canyon, 120 into Romero Canyon, and 85 into
Bear Canyon (all in Pima County; AGFD 2005a). The status information
presented above is summarized in Table 1.
Previous Federal Actions
For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the
Gila chub, refer to the proposed rule to list the Gila chub as
endangered with critical habitat published in the Federal Register on
August 9, 2002 (67 FR 51948). On May 18, 2004, the Center for
Biological Diversity filed a complaint against the Department of the
Interior because the Service had not published a final rule for the
Gila chub in a timely manner. On August 3, 2004, the United States
District Court of Arizona ordered that we, via a stipulated settlement
agreement, submit for publication to the Federal Register, a final rule
by October 21, 2005 (Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, No. CV
04-2061 TUC CRP). On August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51732), we published a
notice to reopen the public comment period on the August 9, 2002,
proposed rule for 30 days and announce the availability of the draft
economic analysis, draft environmental assessment, and hearing dates
for the proposed listing and critical habitat designation for the Gila
chub.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
listing and designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub on August
9, 2002 (67 FR 51948), and in our notice to reopen the comment period
(August 31, 2005; 70 FR 51732). We also contacted appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. We
also requested information pertaining to any actions that affect the
Gila chub, its current status, distribution, and threats, and the
status of nonnative fishes in the historical range of Gila chub. We
requested this information in order to make a final listing
determination based on the best available scientific and commercial
data. We published newspaper notices inviting public comment and
announcing the public hearings in the following newspapers in Arizona
and New Mexico: Albuquerque Tribune, Albuquerque Journal, the Arizona
Republic, Daily Courier (Prescott), Santa Fe New Mexican, Silver City
Daily Press, Sierra Vista Herald, Tucson Citizen, Arizona Daily Star
(Tucson), the Bulletin (Sonoita), Eastern Arizona Courier (Safford),
the Verde Independent, Camp Verde Bugle, and the Copper Country News
(Globe). On September 13, 14, and 15, 2005, we held public hearings in
Silver City, New Mexico; Safford, Arizona; and Camp Verde, Arizona,
respectively, to solicit comments on the proposed rule.
During the first comment period that opened on August 9, 2002, and
closed on October 9, 2002, we received 97 pieces of correspondence (e-
mails, letters, and faxes). Of these, we received 5 comments from
Federal agencies, 1 from a State representative, and 91 from
organizations or individuals. Thirty-one of the comments were requests
for public hearings of which 26 concerned Willow Creek. During the
second comment period that opened on August 31, 2005, and closed on
September 30, 2005, we received 29 comments. Of these latter comments,
6 were from peer reviewers, 1 from another nation, 2 from Federal
agencies, 3 from State agencies, and 17 from organizations or
individuals.
Of the written comments received during the first comment period,
40 supported, 17 were opposed, and 44 included comments or information
but did not express support for or opposition to the proposed listing
and critical habitat designation. Of the written comments received
during the second comment period, 18 supported, 0 were opposed, and 10
included comments or information but did not express support for or
opposition to the proposed listing and critical habitat designation. We
received a number of comments concerning Willow Creek in
[[Page 66669]]
Catron County, New Mexico. Willow Creek is neither occupied nor
historical habitat for Gila chub and was not part of the proposed
critical habitat determination. In addition, there are no plans to
establish a population of Gila chub in Willow Creek. Therefore, these
comments will not be addressed further. All substantive information
written and verbal, provided during the public comment periods, either
has been incorporated directly into this final determination or is
addressed below. We also wish to recognize that the Mexican Federal
Government commented on the proposed rule; the Director de Conservacion
de la Vida Silvestre, Secretario de Medio Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales, did not provide specific comment, but generally supported
the listing. Similar comments are grouped together by issue.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from eight knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles, and that represented Federal agencies,
State agencies, university researchers, and private consultants. We
received responses from six of the peer reviewers; two of these were
from State biologists via the Arizona and New Mexico Game and Fish
Departments and were not specifically identified as peer review, and
are addressed below as ``State Comments.'' Five of the six peer
reviewers, including both State wildlife agencies, concurred with our
methods and conclusions, supported our determination that the species
is endangered, and provided additional information, clarifications, and
suggestions to improve the final critical habitat rule. A sixth peer
reviewer suggested that we may have overestimated the extinction threat
to Gila chub, and recommended that we consider listing the species as
threatened. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following
summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: Limiting critical habitat to only those areas that are
occupied will not achieve the purposes of the Act and satisfy the
definition of critical habitat, particularly when the proposed rule
states that stabilization of the Gila chub at its present population
level and distribution will not achieve conservation. Critical habitat
should be expanded to include unoccupied areas that provide
connectivity between populations to allow gene flow and repopulation of
formerly occupied suitable habitat.
Our Response: Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat
as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species on which are found those physical and biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection. In our critical
habitat designation, we use the provisions outlined in section 3(5)(A)
of the Act to evaluate those specific areas that contain the features
that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may
require special management considerations or protections. Critical
habitat designation for the Gila chub includes many areas of known
occupancy that have features that are essential to the conservation of
the species, as well as one unoccupied area that we consider essential
to the conservation of the Gila chub because of its connection with or
proximity to known occupied areas. This is discussed in further detail
in the ``Justification for Including Unoccupied Areas'' section below.
We believe we have considered and applied to this designation the best
available scientific information regarding the Gila chub. Thus, while
not all areas important for potential Gila chub recovery were proposed
as critical habitat, we believe this designation defines those areas
that are essential. We also acknowledge that critical habitat can
contribute to the overall recovery strategy for a listed species, but
does not, by itself, achieve recovery. We encourage Federal and State
agencies, Tribal governments, municipalities, private groups, and
landowners to work with us as we develop a recovery plan for the Gila
chub and to continue to work towards establishing additional
populations and aid in the recovery of the species. As discussed in
this rule, even if an area is not designated as critical habitat, it
does not mean that area is not important for Gila chub recovery.
(2) Comment: Listing the Gila chub may not be supported because the
Service's assertion that the Gila chub has lost 85-90 percent of its
habitat is based on the assumptions that the Gila chub was distributed
throughout contiguous river reaches containing suitable habitat, that
status information indicates that 60 percent of the currently known
populations are stable or secure, and that data necessary to determine
status (i.e. quantitative abundance estimates and accurate historical
records) for Gila chub are lacking. The Service should consider that
the species may better meet the definition of threatened.
Our Response: We disagree and refer to the ``Background'' section
above for detailed information on our estimate of habitat loss. We also
note that in some cases, entire rivers that were habitat for Gila chub
have largely disappeared or been so degraded they no longer support the
species (e.g., the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers; Weedman et al.
1996; Tellman et al. 1997). The Gila chub has been eliminated from 12
streams (see Table 1). Sabino Creek would have been lost due to
wildfire had it not been salvaged by Service, AGFD, and the FS in 2003,
and three additional populations were salvaged this year in response to
wildfires; the status of these populations post-fire has not yet been
ascertained. Only two populations are free from nonnative species, and
all populations are small and isolated and thus at risk (Fagan et al.
2002). The past decline, current threats, and status of Gila chub are
well documented and reflected in this final rule.
(3) Comment: Conservation actions since the proposed rule was
published have been insufficient to improve the status of the species
to the point it is no longer endangered or threatened, indicating that
existing regulatory protections, including concerted efforts by the
States to conserve the Gila chub, are not sufficient to prevent its
extinction.
Our Response: We agree that the status of the Gila chub has not
improved since the publication of the proposed rule, despite efforts to
conserve the species. However, we value the cooperative conservation
partnerships that have been formed between Federal and State agencies,
municipalities, and the public to work to improve the status of the
Gila chub, and we recognize that the decline of the species occurred
over a number of years and that it would be difficult to address all
threats facing the species in the short amount of time since the
proposed listing. We will continue to pursue such partnerships and
conservation projects involving the Gila chub following this final rule
and as we develop a recovery plan. In ``Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms'' (Factor D) below, we discuss existing
regulatory mechanisms as they relate to the protection being afforded
to the Gila chub.
(4) Comment: Listing the Gila chub will alienate stakeholders that
otherwise would have been amenable to conserving the species because
the Act is so restrictive. Conservation agreements between the various
[[Page 66670]]
stakeholders would be a more effective method to conserve the Gila
chub.
Our Response: As discussed above, we agree that cooperative
conservation utilizing partnerships between Federal and State agencies,
municipalities, and the public is a good approach to conservation, and
we have pursued such partnerships on numerous projects involving the
Gila chub and will continue these partnerships after this final rule to
list the chub as endangered is effective. However, we are required to
list a species as endangered if we determine that the species is likely
to become extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
After evaluating the current status of the species and threats to
extant populations in the five factor analysis below, we have
determined that the Gila chub is endangered.
(5) Comment: The Service needs to provide a more explicit
explanation of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) that exist in
each segment of critical habitat.
Our Response: All of the areas that we have designated as critical
habitat have one or more of the PCEs. We have provided in our area
descriptions (below), those primary constituent elements that are
present in each of the critical habitat areas.
(6) Comment: The confusing taxonomic history of the Gila chub has
led to errors in the Service's estimation of its current and former
range. The Service has thus likely overstated the species' historic
range, inflated the degree to which the species has declined, and thus
exaggerated its need for listing.
Our Response: Gila intermedia is part of the Gila robusta species
complex that includes six other taxa: G.cypha, G. elegans, G. nigra, G.
robusta, G. r. jordani, and Gila seminuda (Gerber et al. 2001); all of
these species have experienced declines and face similar threats. The
evolution of the species in the complex is novel in some respects, and
research on the complex has led to insight about the various ways in
which speciation occurs (Gerber et al. 2001; Minckley and DeMarais
2000). However, we have found that the taxonomy of the Gila chub has
come to be well understood (Minckley and DeMarais 2000), and that Gila
chub as a species is valid and qualifies as a taxon that may be listed
under the Act (50 CFR 424.02(k)). As Minckley and DeMarais (2000)
illustrate, the three forms of Gila represent distinct species that
have consistently and repeatedly been identified in the same streams;
based on this work, we are confident of our evaluation of the status of
the species, its formerly occupied range, and its current distribution.
Our consideration of Gila chub with regard to its status and
consideration for listing has evolved as more information has become
available regarding its biology, status, and threats, which is
reflected in this final rule. We note that the status of the Gila chub
has appreciably declined over the last 25 years, and we have
information to document new threats facing the species, such as
frequent catastrophic fires, also noted by both AGFD and NMGF in their
comments on the proposed rule (B. Broschied, AGFD, in litt. 2005; B.
Thompson, NMGF, in litt. 2005).
(7) Comment: Since the Gila chub resembles closely related taxa
(i.e., the roundtail and headwater chubs), its listing will cause
substantial enforcement problems for enforcing ``take.'' This could
potentially cause significant economic impact to stakeholders,
especially if the Service lists these other forms under similarity of
appearance as defined in Section 4(e) of the Act. This problem is
confounded because these forms also apparently interbreed.
Our Response: Although the Gila, roundtail, and headwater chubs are
closely related and appear similar, we find no need for listing the
latter two under similarity of appearance for several reasons. The
primary reason is that these species occur in geographically separate
places. As Minckley and DeMarais (2001) stated, ``persistent parapatry
[geographic separation] of morphologically distinguishable robusta,
intermedia, and nigra [roundtail, Gila, and headwater chubs], has been
documented, confirmed, and reconfirmed by collections since the 1920s *
* * In no instance was any two of the three caught at the same
locality.'' Because roundtail chub is considered a sport fish in
Arizona, we have considered unintended harvest of Gila chub as a
potential threat to the species under our five factor analysis below.
We do not believe this represents a significant threat to Gila chub
because AGFD prohibits the collection of Gila chub without a permit,
and allows possession of only 1 roundtail chub over 13 inches in total
length (AGFD 2005c). Gila chub do not achieve this size, thus the
existing AGFD regulations adequately protect Gila chub from this
threat. Although the headwater chub is thought to be of hybrid origin
from hybridization of related chubs in geologically recent times
(Minckley and DeMarais 2001), we know of no evidence that the current
three forms hybridize in nature.
(8) Comment: Listing the Gila chub may not be the most effective
method for removing threats; the States have primary authority over
regulating all non-listed aquatic organisms, including nonnative
species, a primary threat to the Gila chub.
Our Response: We realize that there are existing authorities which
could and often do provide protection for the Gila chub, and the States
have been and will continue to be a key partner in the conservation of
the Gila chub. However, we have determined that the protection afforded
by existing regulatory mechanisms is insufficient to preclude the
listing of the Gila chub (see Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms (Factor D) below).
General Comments Issue 1: Biological Concerns
(9) Comment: The lateral extent of critical habitat should be
expanded to include the 100-year floodplain or entire watersheds.
Our Response: Critical habitat includes the stream channels within
the identified stream reaches defined by upstream and downstream
boundaries, as well as areas within these reaches potentially inundated
during high flow events. Critical habitat also 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
that contain the features that 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the areas designating
critical habitat. 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
[[Page 66671]]
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 (see U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' final notice concerning Issuance and Modification of
Nationwide Permits, March 9, 2000, 65 FR 12818-12899). Please see the
section entitled ``Critical Habitat'' below for more information.
(10) Comment: Using a 300-foot distance from bankfull width as a
lateral extent of critical habitat captures areas in some segments that
are outside the floodplain, and thus should not be considered essential
to Gila chub.
Our Response: In the proposed rule, critical habitat segments were
proposed to include ``the stream channels within the identified stream
reaches and areas within these reaches potentially inundated during
high flow events.'' Our intent is to capture areas that correspond to
the 100-year floodplain. We determined that the 300 foot distance from
the bankfull width was the best method to define this area. As
described elsewhere in this rule, we find that all the critical habitat
areas contain sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the life
history functions of the Gila chub. We have also refined the
designation, based upon comments received, to define more precisely the
boundaries of the critical habitat designation.
(11) Comment: Critical habitat should be expanded to include
additional occupied habitat in Indian Creek, Little Sycamore Creek,
Sycamore Creek, and Bonita Creek; critical habitat in Spring Creek
should be contracted to exclude unsuitable habitat at both ends.
Our Response: We have slightly adjusted a number of the critical
habitat stream segments, both to correct errors and to better capture
areas of occupied habitat that contain the features that are essential
to the conservation of the species. Also, Bonita Creek, Blue River, and
portions of Spring and Cienega creeks have been excluded from the
designation pursuant to 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(12) Comment: Birds or other native predators may be a threat, as
opposed to anthropogenic (man made) causes.
Our Response: Although a number of piscivorous birds occur
throughout the range of the Gila chub, such as the great blue heron
(Ardea herodias) and belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), we found no
information to support bird predation as a significant threat to Gila
chub. Bird predation can, however, be a significant concern at fish
hatcheries (U.S.D.A. Animal Plant Health Inspection Service 1997),
where fish are concentrated in ponds or raceways, and thus may be a
consideration in recovery actions for Gila chub that require use of
such facilities.
(13) Comment: Gila chub is a member of a species assemblage in the
genus Gila along with six other species, all of which warrant listing
as endangered under the Act.
Our Response: We are aware that Gila intermedia is part of a
species complex. We also note that for taxonomically complex groups
that warrant conservation, species-based approaches may be inadequate,
and new approaches that conserve evolutionary processes that generate
taxonomic biodiversity may be a preferable conservation strategy (Ennos
et al. 2005). However, all of the fishes of the Gila robusta species
complex are currently listed as endangered under the Act, with the
exception of G. nigra and G. robusta (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2005a). With regard to these two unlisted species, we published a
positive 90-day finding on a petition to list a distinct population
segment of G. robusta in the lower Colorado River basin, and to list G.
nigra throughout its range, on July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39981). G. robusta
is also part of a multistate conservation agreement that addresses
conservation of the species throughout its range (Utah Department of
Natural Resources 2004).
(14) Comment: The threats to Gila chub are largely unsubstantiated;
much of the literature is overly general in nature and is not site- or
species-specific, and thus the listing of Gila chub is not warranted.
Our Response: The threats to Gila chub are well documented (see
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section below). The
current status of the species is that it has been eliminated from
approximately 85 to 90 percent of its formerly occupied habitat as a
direct result of these threats (Weedman et al. 1996), and it currently
exists as a collection of very small, isolated, and highly fragmented
populations (Weedman et al. 1996; Service files presented in Table 1).
In some cases, such as Sheehy Spring, a population exists in a habitat
not much larger than a common backyard swimming pool. Because of this,
the species is much more susceptible to threats such as predation and
competition from nonnative species (Dudley and Matter 2000), habitat
destruction from various land use practices (Weedman et al. 1996),
stochastic events such as wildfire (Knowles et al. 2005), and an
increased risk of extinction due the high degree of fragmentation of
the remaining populations (Fagan et al. 2000). Although some of our
citations are not specific to these species or the geographic area, the
citations offer evidence that certain threats exist because similar
examples have been documented elsewhere, and based on biological
principles and effects observed in other fishes, we can draw reasonable
conclusions about what we would expect to happen to this species were
it not listed.
(15) Comment: The critical habitat designation is overly broad
because it includes areas that are unoccupied and that have not been
shown to be essential to the conservation of the species. Eagle,
Turkey, Post, and Little Sycamore creeks are not occupied and so should
not be included in critical habitat without a justification that these
areas are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical
habitat areas are not recovery areas, and critical habitat does not, in
itself, lead to recovery of a species.
Our Response: Gila chub were documented in Eagle Creek in 2005
(Marsh 2005), and in Little Sycamore Creek in 2005 (A. Silas, FS, pers.
comm. 2005). In this final rule, all of the critical habitat areas have
been documented as occupied by Gila chub within the last 5 years, with
the exception of one: Turkey Creek (AZ). Gila chub were last detected
in Turkey Creek in 1991. This tributary is connected to O'Donnell
Creek, which was documented as occupied in 2004 (D. Foster, AGFD, in
litt. 2005), and while we believe this stream can be recolonized
naturally by Gila chub in high water years, we are also working with
the AGFD to reestablish Gila chub in this stream. Turkey Creek contains
sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the life history
functions of the Gila chub. We provide further information on our
determination that this area is essential to the conservation
[[Page 66672]]
of the species, pursuant to the definition in section 3(5)(A)(ii) of
the Act, in the ``Justification for Including Unoccupied Areas''
section below. We are not including Post Canyon in the final
designation (see the ``Summary of Changes'' section below).
(16) Comment: The term ``banks'' needs to be defined in the
description of critical habitat.
Our Response: As mentioned in response to comment 9 and 10 above,
and discussed in the ``Critical Habitat'' discussion below, we defined
``bank'' to mean the line at which the stream is at ``bankfull''
discharge, as defined by Rosgen (1996), i.e., the flow at which water
begins to leave the channel and move into the floodplain. While a
function of the size of the stream, bankfull width is a consistent
feature related to the formation, maintenance, and dimensions of the
stream channel. Bankfull discharge is a quantifiable measure that is
essential to classifying streams, to reducing variability in diagnosing
stream impairment, and to determining management objectives for a given
stream reach (Rosgen 1996).
(17) Comment: The Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal does not
result in the transfer of nonnative species into the Gila River Basin.
Our Response: There is a large body of research to support the
contention that the CAP is a potential vector for nonnative aquatic
species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001a). Additionally, one
nonnative species has been documented to have entered the Gila River
Basin through the canal: striped bass (Morone saxatalis); another, pacu
(Piaractus brachypomus) has invaded the Gila River Basin, potentially
through the CAP; and numerous nonnative species appear to have
increased their range within the Gila River Basin via the canal (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a, 1999b, 2001a, 2001b).
We completed a section 7 consultation with the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) on the effects of the CAP, and the resulting
biological opinion addressed the transfer of nonnative species into the
Gila River drainage (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001b). Recognizing
the potential of the CAP to transfer nonnative species into the Gila
River Basin and threaten listed native fish populations, Reclamation
proposed to build a number of fish barriers to protect native fish
populations in the Gila River Basin as a conservation measure. Building
a concrete barrier on the lower segments of tributary streams is
thought to prevent nonnative fish species from moving upstream, which
protects the native fish populations above the barrier while allowing
downstream passage of native fish. Future planned barriers include one
on Bonita Creek, which is occupied by the Gila chub.
(18) Comment: The rule does not make clear what specific
conservation actions would be necessary in proposed reaches of critical
habitat to improve them to desired conditions for Gila chub.
Our Response: All of the stream reaches included in the critical
habitat designation contain sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more
of the life history functions of the Gila chub and all but one area is
considered occupied by Gila chub. During the development of a recovery
plan for the Gila chub, specific voluntary actions will be identified
to reach recovery, including measures to help maintain and improve
habitat conditions for the Gila chub. For example, some measures may
include restoring a natural flow regime, maintaining or establishing
bank stability, providing instream cover such as downed logs and
undercut banks, and maintaining healthy riparian vegetation and good
water quality conditions (i.e. temperature, pH, few contaminants, low
turbidity, adequate levels of dissolved oxygen).
(19) Comment: What factual scientific data is available to verify
that Gila chub was native to the Verde River?
Our Response: Gila chub were first reported as being collected from
the Verde River Basin in 1890 at Chino, Arizona (Weedman et al. 1996).
Collection records since that time include the following streams in the
basin, some of which are still occupied by the species (see
``Background'' section above): Big Chino Wash, Oak Creek, Spring Creek,
Walker Creek, Red Tank Draw, and Williamson Valley Wash (Weedman et al.
1996).
(20) Comment: It is unclear how designating critical habitat will
ensure that these areas will be suitable for future introductions of
Gila chub.
Our Response: Designating critical habitat serves to identify the
areas that contain the features that are essential to the conservation
of the species, thus alerting Federal agencies to consider the species'
conservation in design and implementation of the agencies' management
actions. Designating critical habitat likewise provides guidance to
non-Federal landowners on why these areas need special management and
protection, as well as what activities are, or are not, likely to
adversely affect critical habitat, see ``Section 7'' section below.
Also, section 4(f) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)) requires the
preparation of a recovery plan for each listed species. Recovery plans
provide guidance on what actions, including habitat maintenance and
restoration, are necessary to recover a species. Designation of
critical habitat can play an important role in providing a summary of
the scientific knowledge of the habitat needs of a species. Likewise,
designation of critical habitat helps the recovery process by providing
information on how actions might impact the habitat of the species and
information that can be used to develop a recovery plan.
(21) Comment: The proposed rule does not present sufficient
evidence to conclude that the fish in Bonita Creek are Gila chub.
Our Response: The population of Gila in Bonita Creek is recognized
as Gila chub as described by Weedman et al. (1996) and Minckley and
DeMarais (2000).
(22) Comment: The primary threat to Gila chub in Bonita Creek is
nonnative aquatic species. The wells and infiltration gallery operated
by the City of Safford on Bonita Creek create a barrier to the upstream
migration of nonnative species, protecting Gila chub, and should
probably be enhanced. The city's activities likely are the reason a
population of Gila chub persists in Bonita Creek.
Our Response: We agree. While the city's diversion of water does
eliminate some stream habitat for the Gila chub, the barrier it creates
to the upstream movement of a host of nonnative fishes from the
mainstem Gila River is a conservation benefit to the species, and has
likely contributed to the long-term persistence of the Bonita Creek
population. We are working with Reclamation to create a physical
barrier in Bonita Creek to provide long-term protection to Bontia Creek
from invasion of nonnative fishes located downstream of this chub
population.
(23) Comment: Disconnected reaches such as Mineral Creek do not
support the purported goal that critical habitat provides connecting
habitats between populations of Gila chub that are separated from each
other.
Our Response: As stated in our proposed rule (August 9, 2002; 67 FR
51948), connectivity is one of several important considerations in
selecting areas included in this critical habitat designation. Also
included are factors specific to each river system, such as presence of
the PCEs, protection of genetic diversity, and representation of major
portions of the species' historical range.
(24) Comment: The lower segment of Cienega Creek proposed as
critical habitat and also defined in the August 31, 2005, notice (70 FR
51732) does not
[[Page 66673]]
contain the PCEs to support Gila chub, and the Service has incorrectly
stated that this segment is entirely county-owned. Portions of this
segment are privately owned, there are sand and gravel mining
operations that do not contain the PCEs to support the species, and the
segment is unoccupied by the species.
Our Response: Gila chub were collected in lower Cienega Creek in
2002 (AGFD Heritage Data Management System) and documented in this
critical habitat segment in 2005 (see Table 1), and we have found that
the segment does contain the PCEs necessary to support the species.
Sand and gravel mines do not contain the PCEs for the Gila chub and are
not considered to be critical habitat. We have corrected the land
ownership information to reflect the private ownership of parcels
within this segment, and we have excluded privately owned lands in
Cienega Creek due to the potential economic impacts identified in our
economic analysis (see ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act''
section below).
General Comments Issue 2: Procedural and Legal Compliance
(25) Comment: Designation of critical habitat and species
reintroductions will lead to undue restrictions on private landowners,
and will negatively impact residents of nearby local communities. For
example, designating critical habitat in Spring Creek would adversely
affect the nearby community by interfering with road and bridge
maintenance, flood damage repair, groundwater withdrawal for municipal
use, treated effluent discharge to the creek from the community, and
the recreational opportunities of nearby residents.
Our Response: In general, private landowners are not affected by
critical habitat. Critical habitat directly affects only Federal
actions. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies ensure that
actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do not destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat. 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 (see ``Effect of Critical Habitat Designation''
section below). While many of the actions mentioned in the comment
would involve a Federal action agency, and may trigger a section 7
consultation because Spring Creek is currently occupied, there is also
a requirement to consult under section 7 for affects to the listed
species alone, regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. We
have also analyzed the impact of designating critical habitat on small
entities, including small communities, in our draft environmental
assessment and draft economic analysis. Based on these analyses, we
have concluded that, although the designation of critical habitat will
result in measurable social and economic effects to small communities,
these will not be significant. We have also excluded privately owned
lands in Spring Creek and in Cienega Creek due to potential economic
impacts as identified in our economic analysis (see ``Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below).
(26) Comment: The Gila chub provides no sport fish opportunity and
is of no economic value, so why should we protect it?
Our Response: Congress has decided that any species threatened with
extinction should be protected, without regard to economic value of the
species or economic impact of the designation.
(27) Comment: Adding Gila chub to the endangered species list will
deprive citizens of their right to vital water supplies.
Our Response: Listing the Gila chub under the Act requires that
Federal agencies consult with the Service on activities involving
Federal funding, a Federal permit, Federal authorization, or other
Federal actions. Formal consultation (under section 7 of the Act) is
required when activities are likely to adversely affect the Gila chub
or its designated critical habitat. Additionally, private citizens are
prohibited from engaging in any activity that would result in ``take''
of a listed species (see the ``Available Conservation Measures''
section below for further information). Landowners may obtain a permit
to ``take'' Gila chub incidental to otherwise lawful activities, such
as withdrawing water from a stream, through a 10(a)(1)(B) permit and
Habitat Conservation Plan. We note also that surface water flow within
the Gila River basin is fully appropriated and subject to ongoing
adjudication (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b). The Arizona
Department of Water Resources regulates surface water withdrawal via
the Public Water Code, a law that provides that a person must apply for
and obtain a permit in order to appropriate surface water. Groundwater
pumping also has limited regulation under the Arizona Groundwater Code.
However, the legal relationship between groundwater and surface water
has not been established in Arizona. The New Mexico Office of the State
Engineer administers groundwater and surface water rights in New
Mexico. The New Mexico State Engineer's approval is required for almost
every use of water in New Mexico. For example, permission is needed to
make a new appropriation, drill a well, divert surface water, or change
the place or purpose of use of an existing water right. Thus, any new
claims on surface water or groundwater water in either State would also
be subject to the permitting authority of these respective agencies.
(28) Comment: The Service has failed to make a 12-month finding on
the Gila chub, violating the Act.
Our Response: A 12-month finding may be published concurrently
within a proposed rule (50 CFR 424.14(b)(3)(ii)). The proposed rule for
the Gila chub published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2002,
constituted our 12-month finding (67 FR 51948).
(29) Comment: The Service needs to provide a more explicit
explanation of the PCEs that exist in each segment of critical habitat.
Our Response: All of the areas that we have designated as critical
habitat have one or more of the primary constituent elements. We have
described in our area descriptions below those primary constituent
elements present in each of the critical habitat areas.
(30) Comment: Areas proposed as critical habitat already have
adequate management and protection. The Service should consider
excluding these areas, and should also consider possible exclusions of
Bonita Creek given the economic importance to the City of Safford and
nearby communities.
Our Response: In our critical habitat designation we use the
provisions outlined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act to evaluate those
specific areas defined by the features essential to the conservation of
the species that may require special management considerations or
protections. In our proposed rule (August 9, 2002; 67 FR 51948), we
excluded Sheehy Spring in the San Rafael Valley and Wildcat and Double
R canyons on the Muleshoe Preserve because these lands were managed
under a conservation easement held by The Nature Conservancy and
managed under the Muleshoe Ecosystem Management Plan, respectively (see
``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below).
Additionally, we have excluded the Blue River and part of Bonita Creek
on lands of the San Carlos Apache Tribe from the designation of
critical habitat for the Gila chub pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the
Act as discussed below (see ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
[[Page 66674]]
Act'' section below). The San Carlos Apache Tribe has completed a
fisheries management plan that includes the Gila chub and provides
special management for this species. We have also formed a partnership
with the City of Safford, BLM, and Reclamation to manage lands on
Bonita Creek downstream of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. Based on this
partnership, we have excluded Bonita Creek downstream of San Carlos
Apache lands pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act as discussed below
(see ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below).
(31) Comment: The Service has not used the best scientific and
commercial data available; for example, Weedman (1996) makes no mention
of Mineral Creek, and the Service's proposed rule has only a vague
reference to a survey in 2000 that found Gila chub but not in the reach
identified as critical habitat.
Our Response: With regard to presence/absence information, we use
peer-reviewed literature, collection records, unpublished reports, or
personal communications with qualified field biologists. In this case,
we have several pieces of information to support the occupancy of
Mineral Creek by Gila chub. Gila chub were first collected from Mineral
Creek in 1993 by the AGFD (AGFD Native Fish Database), although this
was not reported by Weedman et al. (1996). Gila chub were first
reported from Mineral Creek in peer-reviewed literature in 2000
(Minckley and DeMarais 2000). The AGFD again surveyed Mineral Creek in
2000 and reported collecting Gila chub (Weedman 2000).
(32) Comment: There is not enough information available to
determine Gila chub critical habitat.
Our Response: While we acknowledge that there are gaps in our
understanding of the biology of the species, we have sufficient
information to identify those geographic areas occupied by the species
that contain the features essential to the species and require special
management considerations or protection.
(33) Comment: It is unclear if the proposed listing of Gila chub as
endangered is regional in nature or confined to those areas of critical
habitat.
Our Response: The listing of the Gila chub is rangewide; thus upon
the effective date of this rulemaking Gila chub will be considered
endangered wherever found (See table in the ``Regulation Promulgation''
section below). Areas designated as critical habitat in this final rule
represent a subset of the entire range of the species (see Table 1
below).
(34) Comment: The proposed designation does not provide adequate
information about the population in Spring Creek, and specifically the
threats to this population. Thus listing in Spring Creek is not
justified.
Our Response: When we consider a taxon for listing, unless we are
considering a distinct population segment, we list the entire taxon,
not individual populations. With respect to Spring Creek, this
tributary was surveyed in 2005 on Forest Service lands in the middle of
the area, and Gila chub were found to be abundant with multiple year
classes represented, indicating good recruitment. The threats to the
species are addressed below in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' section.
(35) Comment: The Service has designated critical habitat on tribal
land in areas where the Service admits it does not have current status
information, and yet the Service has excluded other areas on private
land due to a lack of information.
Our Response: We have excluded lands of the San Carlos Apache Tribe
from the designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below). The San
Carlos Apache Tribal lands were the only tribal lands involved in this
final designation.
(36) Comment: The Service knew in 1983 that the Gila chub warranted
listing, despite gaps in available information. The 19-year delay
resulted in its status declining further, but represents a good example
that existing regulatory protections are inadequate.
Our Response: We did first consider conservation of the Gila chub
in 1982 when the species was listed as a category 1 candidate species
(see ``Previous Federal Actions'' from the proposed rule, August 9,
2002, 67 FR 51948). We agree that we lacked much of the information we
now have on the species, including a status review conducted by the
AGFD (Weedman et al. 1996). We also agree that the status since that
time has deteriorated, reflecting the severity of the threats to the
species, including the lack of protection afforded by other forms of
regulation (see ``Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms''
section below).
(37) Comment: The State of Arizona has initiated no actions to
assess the status of or protect this species.
Our Response: We disagree. The AGFD assisted the BLM with the
establishment of Gila chub in Lousy Canyon and Larry Creek in 1995. The
AGFD initiated the establishment of Gila chub into Romero and Bear
Canyons concurrent with the reestablishment of Gila chub that were
salvaged from the Aspen Fire into Sabino Canyon. AGFD has initiated
several other reestablishment efforts of Gila chub in the Santa Cruz
and San Pedro river basins that will likely take place in 2005 or 2006.
The Gila chub is considered a Wildlife of Special Concern in
Arizona (AGFD 2005b), although this provides no regulatory protection.
Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 41 prohibits collection of, or
fishing for, Gila chub in Arizona, except where such collection is
authorized by special permit (AGFD 2005c). The AGFD does regulate the
use of live bait and has restricted use of live bait in most of the
Gila River system in Arizona (AGFD 2005c), which helps to reduce the
number of nonnative species released into the Gila chub's habitat.
(38) Comment: The Service has not provided a ``takings analysis.''
Our Response: We conducted a takings analysis at the time of the
proposed rule and as part of this final rule. The takings implications
assessment concludes that the designation of critical habitat for the
Gila chub does not pose significant takings implications.
(39) Comment: The Service should have evaluated existing
conservation efforts under its Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts (PECE) when making Listing Decisions.
Our Response: Throughout this final rule, we have discussed ongoing
conservation efforts of various agencies, and we have evaluated how
these efforts have affected the status of and threats to the Gila chub
with regard to listing. Our PECE policy refers to formalized efforts
that are directed at conservation of a species. We are aware of no such
efforts for the Gila chub; further, recent and ongoing actions to
conserve the species have resulted in some success, but have been
unable to improve the status of the Gila chub since the proposed rule.
(40) Comment: The Service should not designate critical habitat in
Lousy Canyon and Larry Creek because these were relatively recent
introductions of the species and extending the protection of critical
habitat to these systems may not be supported because they may not have
the PCEs necessary to support the long-term persistence of the Gila
chub.
Our Response: Gila chub were introduced into Lousy Canyon and Larry
Creek in 1995. Since that time, these streams have been surveyed for
fishes on a frequent basis, and Gila chub have consistently been
documented, and are thriving, despite drought and wildfire events that
threatened other
[[Page 66675]]
nearby populations of Gila chub. We believe that because Gila chub have
persisted, and thrived, for 10 years in these systems, both these
streams contain the PCEs necessary to support Gila chub. However, these
stream segments are very small, isolated, and threatened by livestock
grazing and the potential for wildfire. Given this information, we have
found that Lousy Canyon and Larry Creek meet our definition of critical
habitat because they have the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, and require special
management consideration.
(41) Comment: The Service cannot exclude tribal lands from the
designation based on the development of a fisheries management plan
because exclusions based on plans that are not part of the
administrative record is improper, and existing case law (Center for
Biological Diversity v. Norton) clearly rejected the Service's policy
of solely excluding lands from critical habitat designations based on
the rationale that ``additional special management is not required if
adequate management or protection is in place.''
Our Response: The San Carlos Apache Tribe submitted a Fishery
Management Plan to us on September 27, 2005, during the public comment
period on the proposed rule. We have determined that it is appropriate
to exclude critical habitat from the San Carlos Apache tribal lands as
defined under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
General Comments Issue 3: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Compliance and Economic Analysis
(42) Comment: The Service has not provided a NEPA analysis or
economic analysis.
Our Response: We announced the availability of a draft NEPA
analysis and draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the Gila chub for public comment on August 31,
2005 (70 FR 51732). We have finalized these documents, and they are
available to the public (see ADDRESSES section above), and online at
http://www.fws.gov/arizonaes/.
(43) Comment: Designation of critical habitat will ruin property
values.
Our Response: Critical habitat designations do not by themselves
constitute a burden in terms of Federal laws and regulations on private
landowners carrying out private activities. When Federal approval or
permit is required, or Federal funds are involved with a project
proposed on private property that is likely to adversely modify or
destroy critical habitat, then the critical habitat designation imposes
Federal regulatory compliance obligations that can affect private
landowners. Absent Federal approval, permits, or funding, the
designation does not affect activities on private lands. Based on our
economic analysis, we have determined that economic impacts from the
designation of Gila chub critical habitat will not have a substantial
or significant effect on small business entities.
(44) Comment: The proposed rule has not evaluated the economic
effect of critical habitat on the San Carlos Apache Tribe as required
in section 4(b)(2). The Service should not designate critical habitat
on tribal land to avoid economic impacts to the tribe.
Our Response: We have evaluated the economic impacts to the San
Carlos Apache Tribe in our economic analysis, which we have made
available to the public as a draft and final report. The final economic
analysis is available online (http://www.fws.gov/arizonaes/). We have
excluded the San Carlos Apache tribal lands from the designation (see
the ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below).
(45) Comment: The draft economic analysis provides the costs to be
used to judge the benefits of exclusion, but fails to analyze the
benefits of inclusion. One commenter stated that economic benefits
could include tourism to healthy riparian systems and water quality
benefits to communities.
Our Response: In the context of a critical habitat designation, the
primary purpose of the rulemaking (i.e., the direct benefit) is to
designate areas in need of special management that contain the features
that are essential to the conservation of listed species.
The designation of critical habitat may result in two distinct
categories of benefits to society: (1) Use; and (2) non-use benefits.
Use benefits are simply the social benefits that accrue from the
physical use of a resource. Visiting critical habitat to see endangered
species in their natural habitat would be a primary example. Non-use
benefits, in contrast, represent welfare gains from ``just knowing'
that a particular listed species'' natural habitat is being specially
managed for the survival and recovery of that species. Both use and
non-use benefits may occur unaccompanied by any market transactions.
A primary reason for conducting this analysis is to provide
information regarding the economic impacts associated with a proposed
critical habitat designation. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the
Secretary to designate critical habitat based on the best scientific
data available after taking into consideration the economic impact, and
any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as
critical habitat. Economic impacts can be both positive and negative
and by definition, are observable through market transactions.
Where data are available, this analysis attempts to recognize and
measure the net economic impact of the proposed designation. For
example, if the fencing of a species' habitat to restrict motor
vehicles results in an increase in the number of individuals visiting
the site for wildlife viewing, then the analysis would recognize the
potential for a positive economic impact and attempt to quantify the
effect (e.g., impacts that would be associated with an increase in
tourism spending by wildlife viewers). In this particular instance,
however, the economic analysis did not identify any credible estimates
or measures of positive economic impacts that could offset some of the
negative economic impacts analyzed earlier in this analysis.
Under Executive Order 12866, OMB directs Federal agencies to
provide an assessment of both the social costs and benefits of proposed
regulatory actions. OMB's Circular A-4 distinguishes two types of
economic benefits: direct benefits and ancillary benefits. Ancillary
benefits are defined as favorable impacts of a rulemaking that are
typically unrelated, or secondary, to the statutory purpose of the
rulemaking. In the context of critical habitat, the primary purpose of
the rulemaking (i.e., the direct benefit) is the potential to enhance
conservation of the species. The published economics literature has
documented that social welfare benefits can result from the
conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species. In its
guidance for implementing Executive Order 12866, OMB acknowledges that
it may not be feasible to monetize, or even quantify, the benefits of
environmental regulations due to either an absence of defensible,
relevant studies or a lack of resources on the implementing agency's
part to conduct new research. Rather than rely on economic measures,
the Service believes that the direct benefits of the proposed rule are
best expressed in biological terms that can be weighed against the
expected cost impacts of the rulemaking.
(46) Comment: The draft economic analysis fails to distinguish
costs specific to critical habitat designation from the costs of
listing and other co-extensive costs. The draft economic analysis
includes a variety of costs due to factors other than critical habitat,
[[Page 66676]]
many of which will occur regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated.
Our Response: In conducting economic analyses, we are guided by the
10th Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling in the New Mexico Cattle Growers
Association case (248 F.3d at 1285), which directed us to consider all
impacts, ``regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co-
extensively to other causes.'' As explained in the analysis, due to
possible overlapping regulatory schemes and other reasons, there are
also some elements of the analysis that may overstate some costs.
(47) Comment: We received questions regarding the draft economic
analysis use of 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) streamflow as the
minimum requirement for Gila chub, stating it is likely an
overestimate.
Our Response: Section 4.1 of the draft economic analysis states the
Service believes a conservative approach is to assume that the Gila
chub requires a minimum of 10 cfs of streamflow. However, the draft
economic analysis does not utilize a 10 cfs streamflow value to
quantify potential impacts to water supply, because flow data is
incomplete in proposed areas, and specific water management changes
that would be necessary to provide required flow are not known.
Instead, the draft economic analysis considers streamflow requirements
coupled with actual flow data for each area to identify areas where
potential water management impacts associated with conservation
activities for the Gila chub may occur. Section 4 of the draft economic
analysis discusses the value of the water resources that are at risk
within proposed critical habitat areas.
(48) Comment: The draft economic analysis makes a flawed assumption
that all private entities will voluntarily undertake actions to
mitigate for Gila chub. The draft economic analysis is predicated on an
assumption that private parties will voluntarily undertake expensive
actions to mitigate adverse impacts to Gila chub.
Our Response: The draft economic analysis quantifies the costs of
conservation efforts that have or may be undertaken for the Gila chub
to avoid adverse impacts on the species or its habitat. Some of these
actions may result from permitting or other Federal requirements, while
other efforts may be undertaken by private actors to avoid adverse
impacts on the species or its habitat. Thus, knowledge that one's
actions are taking place within critical habitat areas may lead to some
changes in these activities to avoid adversely affecting the species
and its habitat.
(49) Comment: The draft economic analysis uses different (and
incorrect) measures than the proposed rule for determining the location
of proposed critical habitat. The draft economic analysis creates a
300-foot buffer from the centerline of the stream while the proposed
critical habitat extends 300 feet from the bankfull width of the
stream.
Our Response: As discussed in section 2.1, the draft economic
analysis approximates the acreage of proposed critical habitat by
creating a buffer of 300 feet on either side of the proposed critical
habitat centerline developed by the Service, because geographic data
depicting the bankfull width of proposed stream segments were not
available. This method was determined to be the best approximation of
the lateral extent of the proposed critical habitat designation based
on available data. We also believe that the difference would generally
be less than 15 m (50 ft) and would not be significant to the overall
analysis. To estimate land ownership, geographic data of current land
ownership was overlaid with critical habitat polygons using GIS
analysis using the 300-foot buffer.
(50) Comment: The final draft economic analysis is based on
critical habitat as proposed in the August 9, 2002, proposed rule,
rather than the August 31, 2005, revised proposed rule. As a result
some economic impacts that are not within the revised critical habitat
are improperly included as economic costs. The description in the draft
economic analysis of the length of the Bonita Creek stream reach
appears to be taken from the 2002 rule.
Our Response: The final draft economic analysis is based on the
revised August 31, 2005, proposed rule notice (70 FR 51732), using
geographic data provided to Industrial Economics on May 16, 2005. A
typographical error appeared in section 4.2, which stated the length of
the proposed length of Bonita Creek incorrectly. This error has been
fixed in the final draft economic analysis.
(51) Comment: The analysis of section 7 consultation and other
``administrative'' costs must segregate costs by species instead of
attributing all costs from multi-species actions to Gila chub.
Our Response: The draft economic analysis separates and includes
administrative costs attributable to the Gila chub. If multiple species
are considered in a consultation, the draft economic analysis assumes
that the costs directly attributable to the Gila chub are equal to the
costs of a single technical assistance or consultation. We agree that
the cost of consultations that consider impacts to multiple species are
likely to exceed the costs of consultations considering a single
species, and this is taken into account in the analysis.
(52) Comment: New information was provided that 245 acres of deeded
land is proposed to be developed into 102 residential lots at Spring
Creek Ranch. Creating a 300-foot wide buffer on either side of the
creek would eliminate 39 of the lots from future development, at a
current lot value of $600,000. Thus, total impacts of critical habitat
would be $23.4 million (the value of the land lost from development
multiplied by the number of lots).
Our Response: Information on this development was requested in
section 7 of the draft economic analysis. The new information provided
has been incorporated into section 7 of the final economic analysis.
The project, as currently planned, will leave a 40 to 60 foot buffer
from the stream, and will position lots outside of the 100-year flood
plain. If this formation is sufficient to prevent impacts on Gila chub,
then no additional economic impacts are anticipated. If, however,
conservation efforts for the Gila chub result in the prohibition of all
development within 300 feet of the bankfull width of the stream,
economic impacts of up to $23.4 million could occur. The final economic
analysis includes this range of economic impacts in section 7 of the
analysis. We have also excluded privately owned lands in Spring Creek
due to potential economic impacts as identified in our economic
analysis (see ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section
below).
(53) Comment: The revised boundaries of Cienega Creek include
property owned by Vail Valley Joint Venture private property. Joint
Venture's two-acre dam site and diversion works are located within the
proposed critical habitat. The replacement cost of 1,121.85 acre-feet
of water annually would be $8 million to $9 million.
Our Response: The Vail Valley Joint Venture site is used to
exercise surface water rights on Cienega Creek held by the Del Lago
Golf Club (Club) for turf and landscape irrigation. Part of the
advantage of having this point of diversion for the Club is the low
costs to operate and maintain the operations. If a change in water
diversions or point of diversion were required, economic costs could be
$8 million to $9 million, as estimated by the Club. These estimates
provided in the public comment from Joint Venture and the Club are now
incorporated into the
[[Page 66677]]
economic analysis. The likelihood that the Club would need to establish
a new point of diversion or change its water diversions is unknown. We
have also excluded privately owned lands in Cienega Creek due to the
potential economic impacts as identified in our economic analysis (see
``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below).
(54) Comment: The potential economic impacts of the critical
habitat designation on the Morenci mine were not properly evaluated in
the draft economic analysis. The Service did not properly evaluate the
economic impacts to the mining industry or evaluate the socioeconomic
impacts to the surrounding communities resulting from any negative
impacts to mining.
Our Response: The draft economic analysis discussed potential
impacts to mining activities that were physically located within
proposed critical habitat areas. Based on information provided during
the public comment period from mining interests, the economic analysis
has been revised to include information on potential impacts to the
mining industry that could occur related to water diversions or
withdrawals in proposed critical habitat for mining activities
occurring outside of proposed critical habitat.
(55) Comment: The analysis of impacts to water development in
Bonita Creek is based on faulty information resulting in illogical and
unsupported conclusions that mistakenly attribute a cost of up to $9.5
million to critical habitat designation. Gila chub critical habitat
would not limit the use of the City of Safford's water rights.
Our Response: As stated in section 4.2 of the draft economic
analysis, the Service could recommend, or the City of Safford could
decide, that in order to prevent take of Gila chub the City must
completely abandon its Bonita Creek infiltration gallery, resulting in
a loss of available water to the City. Section 4.2 states that, while
this scenario appears unlikely, information on this scenario is
provided in order to understand the potential magnitude of impacts
should it occur. The analysis concludes that, while the City could
replace any lost volume from Bonita Creek sources from other active
production wells and existing back-up wells, abandoning the Bonita
Creek infiltration gallery could result in economic impacts to the
City. The impact can be viewed in terms of a lost capital investment;
the loss of an inexpensive, reliable, and local, high-quality water
supply requiring very little treatment and transportation; and a
constraint on the City's ability to flexibly and effectively manage
regional water supply and demand. As a proxy for the value of this
economic impact, this analysis calculates the cost to the City to
replace water rights for a volume equal to the potential lost volume
from Bonita Creek, both the currently unused volume and the volume of
the entire water right. Total replacement costs are estimated to range
from $2.5 million to $9.5 million in undiscounted dollars. We have
excluded Bonita Creek from the designation (see ``Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below).
(56) Comment: We received questions on the inclusion of costs
associated with Vail Water Company's Well 5. The analysis of
water development in Cienega Creek assumes occurrence of future actions
with no supporting data to indicate they are reasonably certain to
occur.
Our Response: Section 4.2 of the draft economic analysis quantifies
the potential impacts to the Vail Water Company's operations on Cienega
Creek. Although this well is not currently in use, Vail Water Company
could begin pumping water from the well for non-potable uses and could
use the water for potable use with some treatment. Therefore, it is
appropriate to include replacement costs in the draft economic analysis
as the potential upper bound of cost related to Gila chub conservation
activities.
(57) Comment: The assumption that economically harvestable timber
exists in proposed critical habitat areas on upper Blue River is
unsupportable by data.
Our Response: Section 6.2 of the draft economic analysis describes
the potential impacts of limitations on timber harvest to the San
Carlos Apache. The San Carlos Apache Tribe, who owns and manages the
proposed critical habitat lands on the upper Blue River, identified
that the area within the proposed critical habitat designation would be
managed for timber harvest and production losses would be incurred as a
result of increasing the current riparian timber buffer from 66 feet to
300 feet. The commenter does not provide evidence to dispute the
statements made by the San Carlos Apache. The total value of timber
losses estimated is $308,000 in undiscounted dollars, or $15,400
annually over 20 years.
(58) Comment: Restrictions on burning on the San Carlos Apache
Reservation would be contrary to the best interests of Gila chub
conservation and so are unlikely to result from critical habitat
designation. This cost should not be included in the economic analysis.
Our Response: The proposed rule identifies prescribed fire as one
of the activities that may affect the Gila chub and require
consultation (on Federal lands). The draft economic analysis does not
state that restrictions on prescribed burning will occur on the San
Carlos Apache Reservation. It states that if the Tribe were not able to
perform fire management activities as planned, the risk of catastrophic
fire on Tribal lands could increase. Cost estimates are not included
for this activity.
(59) Comment: One commenter asked if the draft economic analysis
factored in the costs of eliminating non-native game fish and the cost
in lost tourism of eliminating those non-native game fish.
Our Response: Section 8.3.3 of the draft economic analysis
summarizes potential impacts to recreational activities. Based on
information collected during the development of the economic analysis,
the Gila chub does not occur in popular recreational fishing areas. In
addition, non-native game fish stocking does not occur in any of the
areas proposed for critical habitat designation. Significant economic
impacts to recreational activities from Gila chub conservation
activities within the proposed critical habitat designation are
therefore not anticipated.
(60) Comment: The Service failed to evaluate a reasonable range of
alternatives in its NEPA analysis.
Our Response: Our environmental assessment considered a range of
proposed alternatives that we believe are consistent with intent of
NEPA. Under NEPA, alternatives are developed based upon the purpose and
need for the project. It is not the purpose or intent of an
environmental assessment to evaluate all possible situations and
conditions, instead a range of alternatives that meet the purpose and
need for this project were evaluated in the environmental assessment.
The environmental assessment describes in section 2.1 how the
alternatives were defined to meet the purpose and need of the project,
which is the designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub.
(61) Comment: An environmental assessment is not adequate for an
action of this magnitude; instead an environmental impact statement
(EIS) is required.
Our Response: Our environmental assessment considered a no-action
alternative and an action alternative and discussed the adverse and
beneficial environmental impacts of each. The impacts evaluated in the
environmental assessment are for those associated with the designation
of critical habitat above
[[Page 66678]]
those impacts due to listing alone. In that regard, we determined
through the environmental assessment that the overall environmental
effects of this action were not significant. An EIS is required only if
we find that the proposed action is expected to have a significant
impact on the human environment. Chapter 4 of the environmental
assessment provides the basis for determining the significance of the
proposed action and was conducted using Council on Environmental
Quality regulations. Based on our analysis and comments received from
the public, we prepared a final environmental assessment and made a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), negating the need for
preparation of an EIS. We believe our environmental assessment is
consistent with the spirit and intent of NEPA. The final environmental
assessment, FONSI, and final economic analysis provide our rationale
for determining that critical habitat designation would not have a
significant effect on the environment. Those documents are available
for public review (see ADDRESSES section).
(62) Comment: Economic impacts to the mining industry and land
development were not adequately evaluated.
Our Response: We have made modifications to the final economic
analysis to address these concerns.
(63) Comment: The Service improperly concludes critical habitat
will result in minor and non-controversial impacts.
Our Response: We believe the incremental impacts of designation of
critical habitat above listing impacts are indeed minor. See also
response to comment 61 above.
(64) Comment: The draft environmental assessment did not consider
impacts on groundwater withdrawals by the mining industry.
Our Response: Impacts to groundwater withdrawals by the mining
industry would not be significantly greater with critical habitat than
the impacts due to listing alone.
(65) Comment: The draft environmental assessment fails to
adequately consider impacts to tribal resources and economic impacts
due to designation of critical habitat on the San Carlos Apache lands.
Our Response: With the exclusion of San Carlos Apache lands from
critical habitat designation, no impacts are expected.
(66) Comment: Environmental justice concerns are not adequately
considered in the NEPA analysis.
Our Response: We feel environmental justice issues were addressed
to the greatest extent possible.
(67) Comment: The draft economic analysis underestimates the
economic impacts of designation, as well as the impacts on land
management activities.
Our Response: The majority of critical habitat is currently
occupied by Gila chub. Therefore designation of critical habitat has
only minor impacts beyond those of listing alone.
(68) Comment: The draft economic analysis ignores the ``recovery''
standard imposed by previous case law for determination of ``adverse
modification'' to critical habitat.
Our Response: We disagree. This standard is discussed on page 40 of
the environmental assessment (Section 3.2.2.2) and in other sections.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states: ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for failure to adopt regulations
consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' Comments received
from States regarding the proposal to designate critical habitat for
the Gila chub are addressed below. We received comments from AGFD,
NMGF, and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. As noted above,
these comments were drafted in part by individuals from whom we also
requested peer review. All three sets of comments acknowledged the
decline of the Gila chub, the threats to the species, the need for its
protection, and were generally supportive of the proposed rule.
(69) State Comment: Mule Creek in New Mexico provides the PCEs and
should be included in the critical habitat designation.
Our Response: Refer to our response to comment 1 above. We did not
consider Mule Creek in our analysis of streams to propose for critical
habitat because Gila chub had never been documented in this creek. We
agree that Mule Creek appears to be suitable habitat for the species,
and will work with New Mexico Game and Fish, and other interested
stakeholders, to potentially introduce Gila chub to this stream, if
feasible.
(70) State Comment: Much of the habitat occupied by the Gila chub
is on private land. Designating critical habitat on these lands raises
the possibility of placing unnecessary burdens upon and alienating
those parties whose cooperation is vital for the successful
implementation of appropriate conservation measures. The Service should
carefully consider the benefits of fostering critical working
relationships between Federal and private entities against a potential
benefit that might occur by designating critical habitat for the Gila
chub.
Our Response: In general, private landowners are not affected by
critical habitat. Critical habitat directly affects only Federal
actions. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies ensure that
actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do not destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat. 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 (see ``Effect of Critical Habitat
Designation''). We agree that cooperative conservation partnerships
with private land owners are an important element in the conservation
of the Gila chub and we agree that designation of critical habitat can
lead to lack of cooperation by affected landowners. We have pursued
such partnerships on numerous projects involving the Gila chub and will
continue these partnerships after the chub is listed, and we have
carefully considered the effects of listing and critical habitat
designation on these partnerships.
(71) State Comment: How will listing the Gila chub affect AGFD
enforcement of sport fishing regulations for the roundtail chub? Is the
Service considering listing other species of chub under 4(e)(A) of the
Act regarding similarity of appearance cases?
Our Response: Refer to our response to comment 7 above.
Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule
Based upon our review of the public comments, the economic
analysis, environmental assessment, issues addressed at the public
hearing, and any new relevant information that may have become
available since the publication of the proposal, we reevaluated our
proposed listing and critical habitat designation and made changes as
appropriate. Other than minor clarifications and incorporation of
additional information on the species' biology, status, and threats,
this final rule differs from the proposal by the following: (1)We
excluded lands of the San Carlos Tribal Apache Tribe pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act'' section below).
(2) We excluded Bonita Creek downstream of San Carlos Apache
[[Page 66679]]
Tribal lands, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, based upon a
partnership with the City of Safford, BLM, and Reclamation to manage
lands on Bonita Creek (see ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act'' section below).
(3) We have excluded proposed critical habitat on 1.9 mi of the
lower segment of Cienega Creek and on 1.9 mi of Spring Creek, pursuant
to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, due to the potential economic impact of
designating these segments.
(4) We modified the primary constituent elements for the Gila chub
by adding `` * * * a high degree of streambank stability and healthy,
intact riparian vegetative community * * *'' and by broadening the
range of water temperatures required for spawning to more accurately
reflect data in our files, and providing examples of suitable ranges of
water quality parameters (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section
below).
(5) We are not including Post Canyon in the final designation of
critical habitat based on recent information indicating that it went
dry in 2005 and thus does not maintain sufficient PCEs necessary to
support a population of Gila chub (AGFD 2005a). We therefore no longer
believe that it meets the definition of critical habitat.
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 of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. 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 described below.
Status of Species
As discussed in further detail above in the ``Background'' section,
we estimate, based on collection records, historical habitat data, the
1996 Arizona Game and Fish Department Gila chub status review (Weedman
et al. 1996), and information in our files documenting currently
occupied habitat (see Table 1 above), that the Gila chub have been
eliminated from 85 to 90 percent of formerly occupied habitat. This
loss has occurred as a result of the introduction and spread of
nonnative aquatic species that prey on and compete with the Gila chub,
and habitat loss and degradation from a variety of actions, described
in detail below, most notably water use that has led to drying of
stream channels throughout the range of the Gila chub. Additionally, we
estimate that 90 percent of the Gila chub's currently occupied habitat
has been degraded, either by the presence of nonnative species or land
use that degrades habitat, such as livestock grazing. We believe that,
without the protection of the Act, the Gila chub is likely to go
extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Within the historical range of the Gila chub, much wetland habitat
has been destroyed or degraded, and loss of this habitat continues
today (Minckley and Deacon 1991; Tellman et al. 1998; Propst 1999).
Activities such as groundwater pumping, surface water diversions,
impoundments, dams, channelization (straightening of the natural
watercourse, typically for flood control purposes), improperly managed
livestock grazing, wildfire, agriculture, mining, road building,
residential development, and recreation all contribute to riparian and
cienega habitat loss and degradation in Arizona and New Mexico
(Minckley and Deacon 1991; Weedman et al. 1996; Tellman et al. 1998;
Propst 1999). All of these activities are human-caused; thus the local
and regional effects of these activities are expected to increase with
an increasing human population because a larger human population will
result in more of these kinds of activities. As of 2005, Arizona was
listed as the second fastest in Statewide population growth in the
nation, and from 2000-2003, two Arizona counties (Pinal and Yavapai,
counties that contain about 40 percent of Gila chub populations) grew
by over 10 percent; further, the population of the State of Arizona is
projected to grow by 109 percent by the year 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau
2005).
Water withdrawals. 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). Since 1940, groundwater levels in Central Arizona have dropped
over 220 feet, with Central Tucson subsiding in elevation at least one
foot since 1950, due to this groundwater withdraw (Arizona Water
Resources Research Center 2005). An example of the magnitude of these
changes is the Santa Cruz River. Historically, the Santa Cruz River was
occupied by the Gila chub throughout the drainage (Weedman et al.
1996). Today, the Santa Cruz River and its major tributaries in the
Tucson area flow only in response to flood events (Webb and Betancourt
1992), and the Gila chub is extirpated (i.e. eliminated) in the
mainstem Santa Cruz, occurring only in several small populations in
tributaries of the Santa Cruz (see Table 1 above). We estimate the Gila
chub has been eliminated from 95 percent of its former range in the
Santa Cruz drainage (Weedman et al. 1996).
In addition to historical losses, groundwater pumping poses a
threat to surface flows in the remaining Gila chub habitats in Eagle
Creek and Cienega Creek. Groundwater withdrawal in Eagle Creek,
primarily for water supply for a large open-pit copper mine at Morenci,
dries portions of the stream. Groundwater pumping in the upper Cienega
Creek drainage supports burgeoning ranchette development near the town
of Sonoita. The city of Prescott and towns of Prescott Valley and Chino
Valley are growing at an average rate of over 4 percent per year (U.S.
Census Bureau 2005), and this growth is mostly based on groundwater
pumping in the Verde River basin. The cities of Prescott and Prescott
Valley recently purchased the JWK Ranch in the headwaters of the Verde
River, with the intent of drilling new wells to supply up to 8,700
acre-feet (AF) of groundwater per year, which may have serious adverse
effects on the mainstem and tributaries of the Verde River.
Increasing 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, including Gila
chub, but now supports only 2 (The Nature Conservancy 2000). 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. Groundwater pumping is expected to increase with human
population growth. In anticipation of the growing population, Fort
Huachuca Military Reservation has filed a claim for use of 435 AF per
year of tributary surface water from the Gila River adjudication, in
addition to its estimated 1,655 AF per year currently used (Arizona
Department of Water
[[Page 66680]]
Resources 1991). Groundwater pumping is widely recognized as a threat
to the San Pedro and Verde Rivers, and the wildlife that depend on
these rivers (McKinnon 2005a).
Two tributary streams in the Verde River Basin are under increasing
demands for water from surface and ground water withdrawal. Williamson
Valley Wash has experienced a number of recent housing developments,
and more are proposed. Although data are lacking, the effects of water
withdrawal in this area combined with recent drought appear to have
eliminated most of Gila chub habitat in this system (G. Price, Long
Meadow Ranch Property Owners Association, in litt. 2002; L. Graser,
Arizona Department of Water Resources, pers. comm. 2005). Spring Creek,
a small system with only about 3 miles of habitat for the Gila chub, is
the site of a proposed housing development that will be approximately
200 acres in size. The development will require three new groundwater
wells for its water supply; hydrologic studies have not yet been
completed (J. Himes, Himes Consulting, pers. comm. 2005), but the
effects to surface water in Spring Creek could be significant.
Stream channelization and irrigation. 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 1982). Channelization can affect Gila chub habitat by
reducing its complexity, eliminating cover, reducing nutrient input,
improving habitat for nonnative species, changing sediment transport,
altering substrate size, and reducing the length of the stream (and
therefore the amount of aquatic habitat available) (Gorman and Karr
1978; Simpson 1982; Schmetterling et al. 2001). Channelization will
continue to contribute to riparian and aquatic habitat decline.
Irrigation directly from stream and cienega waters reduces or
eliminates water in existing fish habitat. Fish can be carried into
irrigation ditches, where they die following desiccation (drying) of
the irrigation ditch. Irrigation dams prevent movement of fish between
populations, resulting in genetic isolation within species; small
populations are subject to genetic threats, such as inbreeding
depression (reduced health due to elevated levels of inbreeding) and
genetic drift (a reduction in gene flow within the species that can
increase the probability of unhealthy traits; Meffe and Carrol 1994).
There are numerous surface water diversions in Gila chub habitats,
including Spring Creek, Walker Creek, Mineral Creek, Dix Creek, and
Eagle Creek. Larger dams may also prevent movement of fish between
populations and dramatically alter the flow regime of streams through
the impoundment of water (Ligon et al. 1995). The Arizona Water
Settlements Act created legislation for the construction of a large
water project in New Mexico, potentially a large dam. However, it is
unclear at this time if this would effect the population of Gila chub
in Turkey Creek.
Livestock grazing. 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 (the entrenchment of stream
channels and creation of arroyos) in the late 1800s. Livestock grazing
can destabilize stream channels and disturb riparian ecosystem
functions (Herefore 1992; Tellman et al. 1997). Livestock can
negatively affect Gila chub habitat through removal of riparian
vegetation (Clary and Webster 1989; Clary and Medin 1990; Schulz and
Leininger 1990; Armour et al. 1991; Fleishner 1994), which can result
in reduced bank stability, fewer pools, and higher water temperatures
(Meehan 1979; Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Swanson et al. 1982; Minckley
and Rinne 1985; Fleishner 1994; Belsky et al. 1999). Livestock grazing
can also cause increased sediment in the stream channel, due to
streambank trampling and riparian vegetation loss (Weltz and Wood 1986;
Waters 1995; Pearce et al. 1998). Livestock physically alter
streambanks through trampling and shearing, leading to bank erosion
(Platts and Nelson 1989; Trimble and Mendel 1995). In combination, loss
of riparian vegetation and bank erosion can alter channel morphology,
including increased erosion and deposition, downcutting, and an
increased width/depth ratio, all of which lead to a loss of pool
habitats required by the Gila chub, and to loss of shallow side and
backwater habitats used by larval chub (Trimble and Mendel 1995; Belsky
et al. 1999).
Livestock grazing administered by either the FS or BLM occurs in
most of the streams and watersheds containing Gila chub. We have
completed four formal conferences on the effects of livestock grazing
on Gila chub. All four conferences found that livestock grazing
resulted in adverse effects to Gila chub and its habitat (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2005b), but is not likely to jeopardize the species or
result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Mining activities. 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 effects of proposed mining activities, like the Gentry Iron Mine,
on these populations are uncertain at this time, but may include
adverse affects to water quality and lowered flow rates due to
dewatering of nearby streams needed for mining operations. Sand and
gravel mining removes riparian vegetation and destabilizes streambanks,
which results in habitat loss for the Gila chub (Brown et al. 1998).
Sand and gravel mining along the Santa Cruz, San Pedro, and Babocomari
Rivers has had serious impacts in the past and continues to impact
these rivers although at a reduced scale.
As noted above, groundwater pumping to support mining operations
poses a threat to surface flows in the remaining Gila chub habitats in
Eagle Creek from a large open-pit copper mine at Morenci which dries
portions of the stream.
Roads. Roads have adversely affected Gila chub habitat by
increasing surface runoff and sedimentation, which can increase
turbidity, reduce primary production, and reduce numbers of aquatic
insects (Burns 1971; Eaglin and Hubert 1993). Roads require in-stream
structures, such as culverts and bridges that remove aquatic habitat
and can act as barriers to fish movement (Barrett et al. 1992; Warren
and Pardew 1998). All of these activities negatively impact Gila chub
by lowering water quality and by reducing the quality and quantity of
pools, by filling them with sediments, reducing the quantity of large
woody-debris necessary to form pools, and by imposing barriers to
movement. The end result is deterioration of habitat for the Gila chub
(Burns 1971; Eaglin and Hubert 1993).
Vehicular use of roads in creek bottoms can degrade Gila chub
habitat and result in Gila chub mortality. Such use inhibits riparian
plant growth,
[[Page 66681]]
breaks down banks, causes erosion, causes sedimentation, and increases
turbidity in the stream, particularly where vehicles drive through the
stream (especially immediately downstream of the vehicular activity).
These effects are likely to result in wider and shallower stream
channels (Armour 1977; Meehan 1991). This causes progressive
adjustments in other variables of hydraulic geometry and results in
changes to the configuration of pools, runs, riffles, and backwaters;
levels of fine sediments and substrate embeddedness; availability of
instream cover; and other fish habitat factors in the vicinity of
vehicle crossings (Sullivan et al. 1987; Rosgen 1994). It also changes
the way in which flood flows interact with the stream channel and may
exacerbate flood damage to banks, channel bottoms, and riparian
vegetation. The breaking down of stream banks by vehicles would reduce
undercut banks and overhanging vegetation that chub use as cover.
Adverse effects of stream sedimentation to fish and fish habitat
have been extensively documented (Murphy et al. 1981; Newcombe and
MacDonald 1991; Barrett 1992). Excessive sedimentation may cause
channel changes that are adverse to the Gila chub. Excessive sediment
may fill backwaters and deep pools used by Gila chub, and sediment
deposition in the main channel may cause a tendency toward stream
braiding (e.g. the stream becomes wider, shallower, and has numerous
channels as opposed to one channel), thus reducing adult chub habitat,
as well. Excessive sediment may smother aquatic insects (Newcombe and
MacDonald 1991), thereby reducing chub food production and
availability, and related turbidity may reduce the chub's ability to
see and capture food (Barrett et al. 1992). Fish fry and eggs could
also be killed or injured if vehicles are driven through stream
segments where these life stages occur. Larger fish are likely to swim
away to avoid death or injury. Public vehicular use is also often
associated with an elevated risk of human-caused fire.
New roads are proposed in association with housing developments in
Williamson Valley Wash and Spring Creek; surveys within the last 5
years indicate that both of these streams provide high quality Gila
chub habitat and are occupied by the species. In the past, roads in
Bonita Creek traversed the streambed numerous times over its entire
length. Use of the Bonita Creek road system created local disturbance
of normal stream function including displacement and injury of fish,
increased turbidity, and seasonal destruction of fish eggs and larvae
at road crossings. Erosion of stream banks and terraces resulted in
some areas, negatively affecting the condition of aquatic and
associated riparian communities that support Gila chub (BLM 1998; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a). BLM reduced the number of roads
through the lower reaches of Bonita Creek from 15 miles (the entire
reach of Bonita Creek in the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation
Area (RNCA) to about 2 miles. There are still localized impacts, as
described above, including some continued mortality of Gila chub, where
roads follow or cross Bonita Creek. BLM's new roads and facilities in
Bonita Creek, including camping and day use areas, limit and direct
these recreational activities. Some trampling of vegetation and banks
likely occurs, but is localized and minimal in areas of concentrated
public use along Bonita Creek.
Much of the current range of the Gila chub occurs on public lands
administered by the BLM and FS. Public use of these lands is high, and
such use creates an elevated risk of human-caused fire. This risk
exists in picnic and camping areas where fire can escape into wild
lands. Directing public use to relatively fire-safe areas, as opposed
to allowing people to camp and picnic anywhere, can reduce this risk.
For example, BLM's improvements to recreational facilities in Bonita
Creek over the last decade have served to reduce the risk of wildfire
associated with public use.
Development activities. Gila chub habitat is also increasingly
threatened from urban and suburban development (Tellman et al. 1997).
Urban and suburban development can affect Gila chub and their habitats
in a number of ways, such as direct alteration of streambanks and
floodplains from construction of buildings, gardens, pastures, and
roads (Tellman et al. 1997), or as mentioned above, diversion of water,
both from streams and connected groundwater (Glennon 1995). On a
broader scale, urban and suburban development alters the watershed,
which changes the hydrology, sediment regimes, and pollution input
(Dunne and Leopold 1978; Horak 1989; Medina 1990; Reid 1993; Waters
1995). The introduction of nonnative plants and animals that can
adversely affect Gila chub may also become more likely as nearby human
populations increase due to activities, such as releases from home
aquariums (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 1994).
Suburban and urban development can degrade and eliminate Gila chub
habitat. The Phoenix metropolitan area, founded in part due to its
proximity to the Salt and Gila Rivers, is a population center of
millions of people. As mentioned above, a new proposed development
project would occupy a significant portion of the Spring Creek
watershed. More generally, communities in the middle and upper Verde
River watershed, such as the Prescott-Chino Valley, the Cottonwood-
Clarkdale-Camp Verde communities, Strawberry, Pine, and Payson, are all
seeing rapid population growth. The upper San Pedro River is also the
location of rapid population growth in the Sierra Vista-Huachuca City-
Tombstone area. Many of these communities are near Gila chub
populations.
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, channelization, and residential development. The
combined effect of all of these actions results in a substantial loss
and degradation of habitat (Burns 1971; Reid 1993). In Williamson
Valley Wash, human uses (e.g., recreational use of off-road vehicles)
in 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
We have determined that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific or educational purposes are not a threat to
the Gila chub. 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 (AGFD 2005c). The
collection of Gila chub is prohibited in the State of New Mexico except
by special scientific permit (NMGF 2005). Collection of Gila chub is
prohibited in Mexico except by special permit. A few individual fish
may be caught incidentally by recreational anglers; however, most Gila
chub populations do not occur in popular fishing areas. Although
roundtail chub is a related species that looks quite similar and is
considered a sport fish in Arizona, AGFD allows a possession bag limit
of 1 fish 13 inches or larger (AGFD 2005c); because Gila chub do not
grow larger than approximately 8 inches, and because Gila chub are in
geographical
[[Page 66682]]
areas in which roundtail chub generally do not occur, we believe that
angling for roundtail chub is not a threat to the Gila chub. 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
southwestern United States (Miller 1961; Lachner et al. 1970; Ono et
al. 1983; Moyle 1986; Moyle et al. 1986; Carlson and Muth 1989; Cohen
and Carlton 1995; Fuller et al. 1990). Miller (1989) concluded that
nonnative species were a causal factor in 68 percent of the fish
extinctions in North America in the last 100 years. For 70 percent of
those fish still extant, but considered to be endangered or threatened,
introduced nonnative species are a primary cause of the decline
(Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 1994; Lassuy 1995). In Arizona,
release or dispersal of recently introduced nonnative aquatic organisms
is a continuing phenomenon (Rosen et al. 1995; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2001a). Aquatic nonnative species are introduced and spread
into new areas through a variety of mechanisms, intentional and
accidental, authorized and unauthorized. Mechanisms for nonnative
dispersal in the southwestern United States include interbasin water
transfer, sport fish stocking, aquaculture, aquarium releases, bait-
bucket release (release of fish used as bait by anglers), and
biological control (e.g., the introduction of one species to control
another species) (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 1994; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2001a).
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 from nonnative species (Carlson and
Muth 1989). In its habitats, the Gila chub was a predatory fish and
experienced little or no predation or competition from other species.
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, mollusks (snails
and clams), insects, zoo- and phytoplankton, parasites, disease
organisms, algae, and aquatic and riparian vascular plants that are
outside of their historical range have all been documented to adversely
affect aquatic ecosystems (Cohen and Carlton 1995). 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 in size. Therefore, much of the
threat to native fishes comes from small nonnative fish species, as has
also been noted for southern Nevada aquatic ecosystems (Deacon et al.
1964). Examples of this are the impacts of mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis) and red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), which may compete with
or prey upon native fish in the Gila River basin (Meffe 1985; Douglas
et al. 1994).
Nonnative fishes known to occur within the historical range of Gila
chub basin include channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), flathead
catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), red shiner, fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui),
rainbow trout (Oncorynchus mykiss), western mosquitofish, carp
(Cyprinus carpo) (Young and Bettaso 1994; Weedman et al. 1996),
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochiris), yellow
bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), and
goldfish (Carassius auratus) (AGFD Native Fish Database 2005).
Additionally, as discussed below, nonnative parasites introduced
incidentally with nonnative species may jeopardize Gila chub
populations. Although parasites are normal in fish populations and
typically do not cause mortality in their host, the effects of
nonnative parasites can be significant, especially when combined with
other stressors such as poor habitat conditions (U.S. Geological Survey
2004, 2005). Nonnative crayfish (virile crayfish) also prey on and
compete with Gila chub (Carpenter 2000, 2005).
Dudley (1995) correlated green sunfish presence with Gila chub
declines in Sabino Creek, Arizona, and documented predation by small
green sunfish on young-of-the-year Gila chub. Dudley and Matter (2000)
documented green sunfish predation on Gila chub and the displacement of
Gila chub by green sunfish from preferred habitats; even small Green
sunfish were highly predaceous on Gila chub. Unmack et al. (2003) found
that in Silver Creek, Gila chub did not show signs of recruitment below
a waterfall where they occurred with green sunfish; upstream, in the
absence of green sunfish, Gila chub populations had multiple year
classes and good recruitment.
Western mosquitofish were introduced outside of their native ranges
to help control mosquitoes. Because of their aggressive and predatory
behavior, mosquitofish may negatively affect populations of small fish
through predation and competition (Courtenay and Meffe 1989; Aarn and
Unmack 1998). 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 intentionally introduced for the purpose of
sport fishing. 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).
The Asian tapeworm (Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) was introduced
into the United States via imported grass carp in the early 1970s. It
has since become well established in the southeast and mid-southern
United States and has been recently found in the southwest including
the Gila Basin. The definitive host in the life cycle of the Asian
tapeworm is cyprinid (fish in the minnow family) fishes. There is a
potential threat to the Gila chub as well as to the other native fishes
in Arizona because of the presence of this parasite in the Gila Basin
and the presence of cyprinid fish. The Asian tapeworm affects fish
health in several ways. The direct impacts to fish are through impeding
digestion of food as it passes through the intestinal track, and loss
of nutrients as the worm feeds off the fish; large enough numbers of
worms cause emaciation and starvation. An indirect effect is that
weakened fish are more susceptible to infection by other
[[Page 66683]]
pathogens. This parasite can infest many species of fish and is carried
into new areas along with nonnative fishes or native fishes from
contaminated areas. Asian tapeworm may be a significant source of
mortality of humpback chub in the Colorado River basin (U.S. Geological
Survey 2004, 2005).
The nonnative 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 1982). The deep, quiet waters in which Gila
chub often occur (Minckley 1973) seem stable enough that ``Ich'' cysts
do not wash away. This protozoan becomes embedded under the skin and
within the gill tissues of infected fish. When the ``Ich'' matures, it
leaves the fish, causing fluid loss, physiological stress, and sites
that are susceptible to infection by other pathogens. If ``Ich'' is
present in large enough numbers they can also impact respiration
because of damaged gill tissue. This parasite has been observed on the
Sonoran sucker (Catostomus clakii), a species common throughout the
Gila River basin, and ``Ich'' does not appear to be host-specific, so
it could be transmitted to other species. ``Ich'' outbreaks were
observed and caused significant mortality in Gila chub salvaged from
Silver Creek; presumably, the parasite was already present in the
population prior to salvage (E. Gardner, AGFD, pers. comm. 2005).
Anchor worm (Lernaea cyprinacea) (Copepoda), also a nonnative
species, is an external parasite, and is unusual in that it has little
host specificity, infecting a wide range of fishes and amphibians.
Additionally, infection has been known to kill large numbers of fish
due to tissue damage and secondary infection of the attachment site
(Hoffnagle and Cole 1997). 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. Clarkson and Creef
(1993) suspected infestations by Lernaea cyprinacea in causing high
mortality of stocked native fish, razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)
and Colorado pikeminnow (Ptycocheilus lucius).
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Existing regulatory mechanisms have not been adequate to prevent
the continuing decline of Gila chub. Gila chub are primarily threatened
by introductions of nonnative fishes. Fish introductions are illegal
unless approved by the appropriate States. However, enforcement is
difficult. Many nonnative fish populations are established through
illegal introductions (Aquatic Nuisance Specie Task Force 1994). The
use of live bait is permitted in Arizona for nine species of fish,
crayfish, and 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, including the Gila
chub. The portion of the State in which use of live bait is permitted
is limited, and use of live bait is restricted in much of the Gila
River system in Arizona (AGFD 2005c). The use of live bait is allowed
in the Gila Basin in New Mexico (NMGF 2004).
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 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 Central Arizona Project (CAP) aqueduct (Aquatic Nuisance Species
Task Force 1994; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001a). The general
public has been known to dump unwanted pet fish and other aquatic
species into irrigation ditches such as the CAP aqueduct in the Phoenix
metropolitan area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001a).
A variety of existing international conventions and laws, 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
2005c). In New Mexico, Gila chub is listed as endangered, and
collecting is prohibited except by special permit (NMGF 2004). In
Mexico, the Gila chub is endangered and the collection of threatened
and endangered species is prohibited (NORMA Oficial Mexicana 1994 (NOM-
059-ECOL-1994)). The habitat of the Gila chub and other threatened and
endangered species is protected from some activities in Mexico.
The Lacey Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), 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. The FS has only
limited ability to regulate introductions or stockings of nonnative
species that prey on the Gila chub.
Many activities that affect the Gila chub and its habitat may occur
outside of the States where the species 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).
Wetland values and water quality of aquatic sites inhabited by the
Gila chub are afforded varying protection under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1948, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) (known
as the Clean Water Act), and Federal Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain
Management), and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). Section 404 of
[[Page 66684]]
the Clean Water Act 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 a 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, although benefits to the species have not
been documented.
Both Arizona and New Mexico regulate surface and groundwater
withdrawal through the Arizona Department of Water Resources in Arizona
and the Interstate Stream Commission and Office of the State Engineer
for surface and groundwater in New Mexico. While these authorities
provide some regulation that may provide protection to Gila chub
habitat, in general, the Gila River basin, while fully appropriated, is
subject to ongoing adjudication. In Arizona, significant regulation
occurs only in Active Management Areas (AMAs); outside of these areas,
there are no limits on groundwater pumping in Arizona (McKinnon 2005b;
L. Graser, Arizona Department of Water Resources, pers. comm. 2005).
All known Gila chub populations occur outside the designated AMAs.
In summary, the protection afforded by these and other Federal laws
and regulations is inadequate to halt the loss of the Gila chub
populations and their habitat.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Gila chub populations now remain fragmented and isolated to small
stream segments and are vulnerable to those natural or manmade factors
that might further reduce their population size. Random events, such as
drought, floods, and wildfire, can decimate populations of Gila chub.
Also, small populations are subject to genetic threats, such as
inbreeding depression (reduced health due to elevated levels of
inbreeding) and to genetic drift (a reduction in gene flow within the
species that can increase the probability of unhealthy traits; Meffe
and Carrol 1994).
Wildfires pose a threat to these remaining extant populations. The
frequency and intensity of wildfires in the southwestern United States
has increased over the past 10 years due to drought conditions,
historical wildfire suppression activities, and increased recreational
activities (e.g., camping). Efforts are underway to restore natural
fire regimes to forest and grass lands. Gori and Backer (in press)
found that using prescribed burns to mimic the historic fire regime
improved watershed condition and Gila chub habitat in Hot Springs
Creek. Unfortunately, most current work on restoring fire regimes 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
American southwest. A century of fire suppression has been exacerbated
by livestock grazing that has led to unnaturally high fuel loadings
(Cooper 1960; Covington and Moore 1994; Swetnam and Baison 1994;
Touchan et al. 1995; White 1985). Forests that once frequently burned
at low intensities now rarely burn, but when they do, it is often at
stand-replacing intensity (Covington and Moore 1994). Fires in the
southwest frequently occur during, or just prior to, the summer monsoon
season. As a result, fires are often followed by rain that washes ash-
laden debris into streams (Rinne 2004). It is usually such debris,
rather than the fires themselves, that impact, and sometimes devastate
fish populations (Rinne 2004), although direct effects from fire,
including changes in temperature and water chemistry, can also cause
fish morality. Indirect effects of fire also include watershed
alteration that can alter streamflow, water quality, riparian
vegetation, and instream sediment loads, all of which can drastically
alter habitat for the Gila chub. Fire suppression can cause adverse
affects to Gila chub from vegetation removal and road building, using
fish habitats as water sources for fire fighting, and using fire
retardants that are often toxic to aquatic species (see U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2004b for a thorough review of the effects of fire on
fishes, including Gila chub, in Arizona).
The 2003 Aspen Fire in the Santa Catalina Mountains outside Tucson
devastated the Gila chub population in Sabino Canyon. This population
would have been extirpated were individual fish not salvaged by the
Service, AGFD, and FS, and later reestablished using the salvaged stock
(AGFD 2005a). The Cave Creek Complex Fire burned over 248,000 acres in
summer 2005, threatening six Gila chub populations; individual fish
were salvaged from Gila chub populations in Sycamore Creek, Indian
Creek, and Silver Creek (Knowles et al. 2005).
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. As described
above, dewatering has resulted in fragmentation of Gila chub
populations, and water demands from a rapidly increasing human
population are expected to further reduce habitat available to the Gila
chub, and will likely further fragment populations. Fragmentation of
Gila chub habitat increases vulnerability to extinction from threats of
further habitat loss and competition from nonnative fish because
immigration and recolonization from adjacent populations is less
likely. In depth analyses of southwestern fish occurrence patterns
(including Gila chub) led Fagan et al. (2002) to conclude that the
number of occurrences or populations of a species is far less
significant in determining extinction risk than is fragmentation of the
species. Small populations and limited gene flow can also cause
inbreeding depression and genetic drift that can further reduce the
health of a population (Meffe and Carroll 1994). To achieve recovery,
isolated populations may need to be augmented or Gila chub may need to
be reintroduced into areas where they are extirpated.
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). However, in some
cases, such as Sabino Canyon in the Santa Catalina Mountains in
southeastern Arizona, these erratic flows can decimate already reduced
populations.
Extensive human alteration of watersheds that has occurred over the
past 150 years in the lower Colorado River basin has resulted in
changes in the hydrologic regimes of the rivers and
[[Page 66685]]
in the geomorphology of the river channels. Seasonal fluctuations in
river channels 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. Drought has significantly increased substantial changes
in the natural hydrology of southwest rivers and streams, including
increased peak flows and lowered water tables. Droughts in the
southwest may cause increased declines in Gila chub, particularly as
human demand increases for the dwindling water supplies. This human-
initiated change is exacerbated by the naturally highly variable
climate of the area. Peaks of flood flows have increased in volume
while moving through the system more rapidly, so that damaging floods
have become more frequent and more destructive. This increase in
destruction is also tied to removal of riparian vegetation and
encroachment of agricultural fields and buildings upon the floodplain.
Flooding destruction results in increased channelization and flood
control measures that further alter the stream channel and hydrologic
regime. On the other hand, low flows have become lower and last longer,
thus decreasing habitat quantity and quality during critical times of
the year for Gila chub.
Finding
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 that this species is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The
habitat and range of the Gila chub are threatened with destruction,
modification, and curtailment. Existing regulatory mechanisms do not
provide adequate protection for these species, and other natural and
manmade factors affect their continued existence. Because this species
has a fragmented range, its populations are disconnected and isolated
from each other, and potential habitat areas are isolated and separated
by large areas of unsuitable habitat. Gila chub are therefore
particularly vulnerable to localized extirpation should their habitat
be degraded or destroyed. Because the connectivity of the habitat is
limited, populations will have little opportunity to leave degraded
habitat areas in search of suitable habitat. As a result, one
contamination event, either physical or biological, or a period of
drought in the aquatic habitat where the species is found could result
in the loss of an entire population, of which there are few.
Additionally, we have found that these fragmented populations are
subject to a variety of imminent threats. Nonnative aquatic species,
which can eliminate Gila chub via predation and competition, are
present in many areas where there are populations of Gila chub. Arizona
and New Mexico are arid States that are experiencing increasing human
population growth, which is placing increasing demands on available
water supplies. Surface water diversion and groundwater withdrawal
threaten to eliminate numerous populations of the Gila chub. Habitat
alteration due to numerous human activities threatens remaining Gila
chub habitat.
The Act defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,
whereas a threatened species is defined as any species likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Without protections, the Gila chub
will become extinct in the foreseeable future due to these primary
threats: (1) 85 to 90 percent of Gila chub habitat has been degraded or
destroyed, and further degradation and destruction is ongoing as a
result of various land use activities that degrade habitat (such as
livestock grazing and water use); (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. The
current status of the species and the threats described above led us to
determine that the Gila chub meets the definition of an endangered
species pursuant to section 3 of the Act. We are therefore listing Gila
chub as an endangered species in this final rule.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and
procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened
species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer
necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness,
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does
not allow government or public access to private lands.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat
within the area occupied by the species must first have features that
are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific
data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs
of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special
management or protection. When the best available scientific data do
not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species so require,
we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. An
area currently occupied by the species but was not known to be occupied
at the time of listing will likely be essential to the conservation of
the species and, therefore, included in the critical habitat
designation.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), and section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and
the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service,
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure
that decisions made by the Service represent the best scientific data
available. They require Service biologists to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which
areas
[[Page 66686]]
are critical habitat, a primary source of information is generally the
listing package for the species. Additional information sources include
the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals,
conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished
materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is
used in accordance with the provisions of section 515 of the Treasury
and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L.
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines
issued by the Service.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time.
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons,
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available in determining areas that are contain the
features that are essential to the conservation of the Gila chub. In
proposing critical habitat for the Gila chub, we solicited information
from knowledgeable biologists and reviewed recommendations contained in
State wildlife resource reports (e.g., Weedman et al. 1996). We also
reviewed the available literature pertaining to habitat requirements,
historical localities, and current localities of the Gila chub. We used
data in reports submitted during section 7 consultations, research
published in peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses
and agency reports, and regional Geographic Information System (GIS)
data layer coverages.
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 are required to base critical habitat determinations on the
best scientific data available and to consider those physical and
biological features (primary constituent elements (PCEs)) that are
essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require
special management considerations and protection. These include, but
are not limited to: space for individual and population growth and for
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and
habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of
the historic geographical and ecological distributions 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 animals, preferring quiet deeper
waters, especially pools, or they remain near cover, including
terrestrial vegetation, boulders, and fallen logs (Minckley 1973).
Undercut banks created by overhanging terrestrial vegetation with dense
roots growing into pool edges provide ideal cover for this species
(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 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 (fish that are
less than 1 year old) inhabit shallow water among plants or eddies,
while older juveniles use higher-velocity stream areas (Minckley 1973;
Minckley and Deacon 1991). Tiny young stay in the shallowest water
among plants; juveniles move into currents for a time, then return to
pools where they grow larger (Minckley 1973). 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 (small and closely
narrow) 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.
The naturally dynamic nature of riverine systems and floodplains
(including riparian and adjacent upland areas) are an integral part of
the stream ecosystem. For example, riparian areas are seasonally
flooded habitats (i.e., wetlands) that are major contributors to a
variety of vital functions within the associated stream channel
(Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 1998, Brinson et
al. 1981). They are responsible for energy and nutrient cycling,
filtering runoff, absorbing and gradually releasing floodwaters,
recharging groundwater, maintaining streamflows, protecting stream
banks from erosion, and providing shade and cover for fish and other
aquatic species. Healthy riparian and adjacent upland areas help ensure
water courses maintain the habitat components essential to aquatic
species (e.g., see FS 1979; Middle Rio Grande Biological Interagency
Team 1993; Briggs 1996), including the Gila chub. We believe a
relatively intact riparian area, along with periodic flooding in a
relatively natural pattern, is important in maintaining the stream
conditions necessary for long-term conservation of the Gila chub.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the Historic
Geographical and Ecological Distribution of a Species
Gila chub evolved in a fish community with low species diversity
and with few predators, and as a result developed limited ability to
survive predation (Carlson and Muth 1989; see Factor C. ``Disease and
Predation'' section above). 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 has led
to significant losses of Gila chub. Nonnative crayfish also appear to
prey on and compete with Gila chub
[[Page 66687]]
(Carpenter 2000, 2005). A number of nonnative parasites are also a
threat to Gila chub (see Factor C. ``Disease and Predation'' section
above).
Food
Griffith and Tiersch (1989) observed that Gila chub are omnivorous
(feed on both plants and animals). Adults appear to be principally
carnivorous, feeding on large and small terrestrial and aquatic insects
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
(Rhinichtys osculus) 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.
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. ``The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range'' section 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 a large mine. Water from the mine is drained back
into Mineral Creek and no Gila chub have been found at this area.
A recent study of Gila chub in Sabino and Cienega creeks documented
water quality at various times of the year and found that water
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity ranged from 10.5
[deg]C to 25.19 [deg]C, 7 to 9.5, 6.22 mg/l to 10.13 mg/l, and 125
mmhos to 438 mmhos, respectively, in Sabino Creek. Gila chub were
captured in Cienega Creek in habitats with mid-day water temperature,
pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity ranging from 11.17 [deg]C to
23.2 [deg]C, 6.58 to 8.9, 1.26 mg/l to 10.25 mg/l, and 469 mmhos to 760
mmhos, respectively.
Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring
Spawning probably occurs over beds of submerged aquatic vegetation
or root wads (Weedman et al. 1996). 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 successful spawning. For the roundtail chub (Gila
robusta), a close relative of the Gila chub, spawning has been
documented at temperatures of 14 to 24 [deg]C (57.2 to 75.2 [deg]F),
with 18 to 20 [deg]C (64.4 to 68 [deg]C) most commonly noted
(Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002). A recent study of culture of Gila chub
found that 20 [deg]C to 29 [deg]C was suitable for rearing juvenile
Gila chub, with higher temperatures resulting in faster growth (A.
Schultz, University of Arizona, in litt. 2005).
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined
that the Gila chub's primary constituent elements are:
(1) Perennial pools, areas of higher velocity between pools, and
areas of shallow water among plants or eddies all found in headwaters,
springs, and cienegas, generally of smaller tributaries;
(2) Water temperatures for spawning ranging from 17 to 24 [deg]C
(62.6 to 75.2 [deg]F), and seasonally appropriate temperatures for all
life stages (varying from approximately 10 [deg]C to 30 [deg]C).
(3) Water quality with reduced levels of contaminants, including
excessive levels of sediments adverse to Gila chub health, and adequate
levels of pH (e.g. ranging from 6.5 to 9.5), dissolved oxygen (e.g.
ranging from 3.0 to 10.0) and conductivity (e.g. 100 to 1000 mmhos).
(4) Food base consisting of invertebrates (e.g. aquatic and
terrestrial insects) and aquatic plants (e.g. diatoms and filamentous
green algae);
(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, a high degree of streambank stability, and a
healthy, intact riparian vegetation community;
(6) 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; and
(7) Streams that maintain a natural flow pattern including periodic
flooding.
Each of the areas designated in this rule have been determined to
contain sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the life history
functions of the Gila chub. In some cases, the PCEs exist as a result
of ongoing Federal actions. As a result, ongoing Federal actions at the
time of designation will be included in the baseline in any
consultation conducted subsequent to this designation.
Criteria for Defining Critical Habitat
In designating critical habitat for the Gila chub, we reviewed
information within our files and recommendations contained in State
wildlife resource reports (e.g., Weeman et al. 1996). We also reviewed
the available scientific literature pertaining to habitat requirements,
historic localities, and current localities for this species. We are
not aware of any reliable information that is currently available to us
that was not considered in this designation process. This final
determination relies on our best assessment of areas with features that
are essential to the conservation of the species. Much remains to be
learned about this species; should credible new information become
available that contradicts this designation, we will reevaluate our
analysis and, if appropriate, propose to modify this critical habitat
designation, depending on available funding and staffing.
We are designating critical habitat on lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing and have the features
that are essential to the conservation of the species, and those
additional areas found to be essential to the conservation of the
species. All of the critical habitat areas are within the area
historically occupied by the species and require special management
consideration and protection. We note that one area included in this
designation is not occupied (see ``Justification for Including
Unoccupied Areas'' below).
Important considerations in selection of this 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
[[Page 66688]]
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.
We divided the overall historical range into seven river subareas,
and each critical habitat stream segment was derived from within these
main river subareas. We have used these main river areas for points of
reference in defining our critical habitat boundaries, but we are
designating critical habitat only in tributaries of these main rivers,
and not the main rivers themselves. The designated critical habitat
constitutes our best assessment of areas that contain the essential
features (PCEs) for the conservation of the Gila chub and that may
require special management or protection.
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid the designation of developed areas such as buildings, paved
areas, boat ramps and other structures that lack PCEs for Gila chub.
Any such structures do not contain the PCEs and are not considered part
of the critical habitat designation. This also applies to the land on
which such structures sit directly. Therefore, Federal actions limited
to these areas would not trigger section 7 consultations, unless they
affect the species and/or PCEs in adjacent critical habitat.
Segments were designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to
support Gila chub life processes. Some segments contain all PCEs and
support multiple life processes. Some segments contain only a portion
of the PCEs necessary to support the particular use of that habitat by
the Gila chub. Where a subset of the PCEs are present (e.g., water
temperature during spawning) it has been noted that only PCEs present
at designation will be protected.
A brief discussion of each area designated as critical habitat is
provided in the area descriptions below. Additional detailed
documentation concerning these areas is contained in our supporting
record for this rulemaking.
Justification for Including Unoccupied Areas
As background for this discussion, we note that during the
development of this designation we documented all streams for which
there were historical records for Gila chub. We found that the 1996
AGFD status report on the species had captured most of the historical
Gila chub records, with the exception of one, Haunted Canyon, which was
collected by R.R. Miller in 1959 (UMMZ collection record 176179). We
then documented all currently known occupied streams by consulting
agencies (including AGFD and NMGF) and university researchers, and by
conducting our own surveys. This information is portrayed in Table 1
above, and summarized in the ``Background'' section. Based on our
evaluation of existing information, we have concluded that there is one
area, that includes 6.3 km (3.9 mi) of Turkey Creek (AZ) that is
unoccupied (i.e., does not meet our definition of occupied, as we do
not have records to support occupancy within the last 5 years), but
meets our definition of critical habitat in that it is essential to the
conservation of species. Gila chub were last detected in Turkey Creek
(AZ) in 1991; thus the species occupied this stream in recent times. We
performed surveys of Turkey Creek in 2005 and determined that it
contains sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the life history
functions of the Gila chub. We believe that this stream could support
Gila chub, and we are working with the AGFD to reestablish Gila chub
into this system.
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. As stated in the proposed rule (August 9, 2002; 67 FR
51948), reestablishment of populations into suitable areas of the Gila
chub's historical range will be necessary for the conservation of the
species. Protecting unoccupied areas, such as Turkey Creek in this case
by designating it as critical habitat, can help to ensure that they
will maintain the existing PCEs and provide for the future
reestablishment of Gila chub for the purposes of recovery. We believe
Turkey Creek represents important habitat that: (1) Has been documented
to have been recently occupied by the species; (2) are in proximity to
occupied areas and hydrologically connected to them during wet years;
(3) contains sufficient PCEs to support the life history functions of
the Gila chub; and (4) as noted above, are currently the subject of a
Service/AZGDF partnership to reestablish the Gila chub in this area.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
determined to be occupied at the time of listing contain the primary
constituent elements and may require special management considerations
or protection. We believe each area included in this final designation
requires special management and protections based upon our five factor
threats analysis provided above. Table 1 also identifies the specific
threats to each area.
Special management considerations for each area will depend on the
threats to the Gila chub in that critical habitat area. For example,
special management that addresses the threat of nonnative species could
include efforts to remove nonnative species from a creek, via chemical
compounds that kill fish (e.g. rhotenone) but otherwise do not harm the
environment, and construction of fish barriers that prevent the
upstream movement of nonnative fishes into Gila chub habitat. Special
management that addresses the threat of fire could include using
prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads and prevent catastrophic
wildfires, and salvaging individuals from populations that are
threatened by wildfire. Livestock grazing is only a threat to Gila chub
if not properly
[[Page 66689]]
managed. Proper management may include the use of fencing, rest
rotation grazing systems, and other improvements to allotments such as
new water tanks. With regard to water use, maintaining high quality and
adequate quantities of water for all life stages of Gila chub may
involve special management actions such as retaining an adequate buffer
of riparian vegetation to help filter out sediment and contaminants,
and maintaining streamflow via sustainable levels of ground and surface
water use. We have included below in our description of each of the
critical habitat areas for the chub a description of the threats
occurring in that area requiring special management or protections.
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating approximately 160.3 mi (258.1 km) 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
1973). 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 disconnected habitats throughout the
following counties: Grant County, New Mexico, and Yavapai, Gila,
Coconino, Pinal, Graham, Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise, and Greenlee
counties, Arizona.
For each stream reach, the upstream and downstream boundaries are
described below. Additionally, 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). We chose the bankfull width because
bankfull discharge and width are quantifiable measures as are required
to accurately classify a stream channel and make sound decisions about
management of the stream and its watershed. This 300-foot width defines
the lateral extent of each area of critical habitat that contains
sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the life history
functions of the Gila chub.
We determined the 300-foot lateral extent for several reasons.
First, the implementing regulations of the Act require that critical
habitat be defined by reference points and lines as found on standard
topographic maps of the area (50 CFR 424.12). Although we considered
using the 100-year floodplain, as defined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), we found that it was not included on standard
topographic maps, and the information was not readily available from
FEMA or from the Army Corps of Engineers for the areas we are proposing
to designate. We suspect this is related to the remoteness of many of
the stream reaches where the Gila chub occurs. 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 (see U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' final notice
concerning Issuance and Modification of Nationwide Permits, March 9,
2000, 65 FR 12818-12899).
This designation 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 (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.
The final designation includes seven river areas with a total of
160.3 mi (258.1 km) of stream reaches (see Table 2 below). We are not
designating 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. Instead, we are
designating certain small tributary streams within the watershed of the
rivers listed below. The seven areas designated as critical habitat
are: (1) Upper Gila River Area; (2) Middle Gila River Area; (3)
Babocomari River Area; (4) Lower San Pedro River Area; (5) Lower Santa
Cruz River Area Area; (6) Upper Verde River Area; and (7) Aqua Fria
River Area.
Tables 2, 3, and 4 below show the lands being designated as
critical habitat by landowner and State, by individual Federal
landowner for each State, and by ownership of lands excluded pursuant
to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, respectively.
[[Page 66690]]
Table 2.--Approximate Critical Habitat in Stream Kilometers (km) and Miles (mi) by State and Landowner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico km
Land owner (mi) Arizona km (mi) Total km (mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal................................................ 18.9 (11.7) 153.1 (95.1) 172.0 (106.8)
State.................................................. 0 17.5 (10.9) 17.5 (10.9)
County................................................. 0 13.6 (8.4) 13.6 (8.4)
Private................................................ 4.0 (2.5) 51.0 (31.7) 55.0 (34.2)
-------------------
Total.............................................. 22.9 (14.2) 235.2 (146.1) 258.1 (160.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Approximate Critical Habitat in Stream Kilometers (km) and Miles (mi) by Individual Federal Landowners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico km
Land owner (mi) Arizona km (mi) Total km (mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gila National Forest................................... 18.9 (11.7) 0 18.9 (11.7)
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest...................... 0 50.5 (31.4) 50.5 (31.4)
Coconino National Forest............................... 0 16.9 (10.5) 16.9 (10.5)
Coronado National Forest............................... 0 13.9 (8.7) 13.9 (8.7)
Prescott National Forest............................... 0 21.0 (13.1) 21.0 (13.1)
Tonto National Forest.................................. 0 7.4 (4.6) 7.4 (4.6)
-------------------
Subtotal........................................... 18.9 (11.7) 109.7 (68.3) 128.6 (80.0)
-------------------
BLM--Phoenix District.................................. 0 7.7 (4.8) 7.7 (4.8)
BLM--Safford District.................................. 0 11.9 (7.4) 11.9 (7.4)
BLM--Tucson District................................... 0 23.7 (14.8) 23.7 (14.8)
-------------------
Subtotal........................................... 0 43.4 (27.0) 43.4 (27.0)
===================
Total.............................................. 18.9 (11.7) 153.1 (95.1) 172.0 (106.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Approximate Critical Habitat Excluded in This Final Rule on the Basis of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
in Stream Kilometers (km) and Miles (mi) by Landowner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico km
Land owner (mi) Arizona km (mi) Total km (mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal................................................. 0 47.1 (29.3) 47.1 (29.3)
BLM.................................................... 0 15.8 (9.8) 15.8 (9.8)
Private................................................ 0 14.2 (8.9) 14.2 (8.9)
-------------------
Total.............................................. 0 77.1 (48.0) 77.1 (48.0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below we present brief descriptions of all areas and the segments
within each area, reasons why each area and segment meets the
definition of critical habitat for the Gila chub, a discussion of
occupancy and a general description of land ownership. See Table 1 for
specific occupancy data and sources of information; see the maps and
legal description of critical habitat in the ``Regulation
Promulgation'' section below for more specific coordinate information.
Area 1: Upper Gila River Area
This area lies in Grant County, New Mexico, and Greenlee County,
Arizona. Critical habitat includes several tributary streams: Turkey
Creek, Dix Creek, Harden Cienega Creek, Eagle Creek, and East Eagle
Creek. All of these segments are currently 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. Threats to this critical habitat area
requiring special management and protections include fire, grazing, and
nonnative species (see Table 1 above).
a. Turkey Creek (New Mexico)--22.3 km (13.8 mi) of creek extending
from the edge of the Gila Wilderness boundary and continuing upstream
into the Gila Wilderness in the Gila National Forest. 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; surveys confirmed the
species presence in 2005 (P. C. Marsh, ASU, in litt. 2005). Land
ownership is entirely Gila National Forest and private.
b. Eagle Creek and East Eagle Creek--39.2 km (24.4 mi) of creek
extending from the confluence of Eagle Creek with an unnamed tributary
upstream to its confluence with East Eagle Creek, and including East
Eagle Creek to its headwaters just south of Highway 191. Nine other
native fishes known to
[[Page 66691]]
occupy Eagle Creek include loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), spikedace
(Meda fulgida), longfin dace (Agozia chrysogaster), speckled dace,
Sonora sucker (Catostomus insignis), desert sucker (Catostomus
clarkii), razorback sucker, roundtail chub, and an undetermined trout
species (Oncorhynchus sp.). 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), run areas between these pools, and the necessary vegetation
that provides cover. A diversion dam just below the end of the proposed
critical habitat reach 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, run areas between these pools, and the necessary vegetation
that provides cover. East Eagle Creek is also hydrologically connected
to Eagle Creek. Gila chub were most recently documented in Eagle Creek
in 2005 (Marsh 2005). Land ownership for this segment is predominantly
FS, but includes some private land.
c. Harden Cienega Creek--22.6 km (14.0 mi) of creek extending from
its confluence with the San Francisco River in and continuing upstream
to its headwaters. Harden Cienega Creek contains one or more of the
primary constituent elements, including perennial pools and the
necessary vegetation that provides cover. AGFD surveyed this stream in
2005 and found Gila chub to be abundant (McKell 2005). Land ownership
for this segment is Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Gila National
Forest, and private inholdings.
d. Dix Creek--Portions of the Creek beginning 1.0 mile upstream
from its confluence with the San Francisco River at a natural rock
barrier and continuing upstream for 0.9 km (0.6 mi.) to the confluence
of the right and left forks of Dix Creek. This critical habitat area
also includes the Left Prong of Dix Creek as it continues upstream 2.0
km (1.2 mi), and the Right Prong of Dix Creek as it continues upstream
4.8 km (3.0 mi). The barrier at the lower end of Dix Creek appears to
be effective in isolating the upper drainages from nonnative fish. Dix
Creek contains one or more of the primary constituent elements,
including perennial pools, and is devoid of nonnatives. AGFD surveyed
this stream in 2005 and found Gila chub to be abundant (McKell 2005).
Land ownership for these segments is entirely Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forest.
Area 2: Middle Gila River Area
This area lies in Graham, Gila, and Pinal counties, Arizona.
Critical habitat includes a tributary stream as critical habitat:
Mineral Creek. The Mineral Creek population of Gila chub fills a gap of
what was previously determined unoccupied habitat within the Middle
Gila River Area. This may help to expand future populations of Gila
chub in the Middle Gila River Area. Critical habitat within Mineral
Creek consists of 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 a mine, where it has been
contaminated and does not provide suitable habitat. AGFD documented
Gila chub in Mineral Creek in 2000 (Weedman 2000). The area below the
mine is not being designated as critical habitat. Land ownership for
this segment is Tonto National Forest, Arizona State lands, and
private. Threats to this critical habitat area requiring special
management and protections include fire, grazing, and nonnative species
(see Table 1 above).
Area 3: Babocomari River Area
This area lies in Santa Cruz 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).
Tributaries to this area include O'Donnell Canyon and Turkey Creek,
which are designated as critical habitat. Threats to this critical
habitat area requiring special management and protections include fire,
grazing, and nonnative species (see Table 1 above).
a. O'Donnell Canyon--10.0 km (6.2 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Turkey Creek upstream to the confluences of Western,
Middle, and Pauline Canyons. O'Donnell Canyon provides the full range
of primary constituent elements necessary for the conservation of the
Gila chub. AGFD surveyed O'Donnell Creek and found Gila chub in
O'Donnell Creek, although at very low numbers, in 2004 (Dean Foster,
AGFD, in litt. 2005). Land ownership is BLM, Coronado National Forest,
and private.
b. Turkey Creek--6.3 km (3.9 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with O'Donnell Canyon upstream to where Turkey Creek crosses
AZ Highway 83. Turkey Creek contains one or more of the primary
constituent elements, including perennial pools, the necessary
vegetation that provides cover, and adequate water quality. Gila chub
have not been detected in Turkey Creek since 1991, although in wet
years this segment is connected to occupied habitat in O'Donnell Creek
(Weedman et al. 1996). Land ownership is Coronado National Forest and
private lands.
Area 4: Lower San Pedro River Area
This area lies in Graham and Cochise 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 designating
critical habitat for the east-side drainage areas. Threats to this
critical habitat area requiring special management and protections
include fire, grazing, and nonnative species (see Table 1 above).
a. Bass Canyon--5.5 km (3.4 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Hot Springs Canyon upstream to the confluence with Pine
Canyon. Perennial water was documented by Dave Gori (TNC, in litt.,
1995) 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
were also sampled in the streams each year. Gila chub were collected
from 1992 to 2003 in Bass Canyon (B. Rogers, TNC, in litt. 2005). Bass
Canyon contains one or more of the primary constituent elements,
including perennial pools, the necessary vegetation that provides
cover, and adequate water quality. Land ownership includes BLM and
privately owned lands.
[[Page 66692]]
b. Hot Springs Canyon--10.5 km (6.5 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Bass Canyon downstream. 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. Gila chub were found in Hot
Springs Canyon in 2004 (B. Rogers, TNC, in litt. 2005). Land ownership
includes BLM, State lands, and private.
c. Redfield Canyon--9.8 km (6.1 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Sycamore Canyon downstream. 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, and most recently
in 2003. 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 to 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% of the total
fish caught) (Weedman et al. 1996). TNC surveyed Redfield Canyon in
November 2001, and Gila chub were documented. This segment of Redfield
Canyon is remote and relatively pristine. 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.
Land ownership includes BLM, State lands, and private.
Area 5: Lower Santa Cruz River Area
This area lies in Pima County, Arizona. Tributaries included in the
critical habitat designation are Cienega Creek, Mattie Canyon, Empire
Gulch, and Sabino Canyon. Threats to this critical habitat area
requiring special management and protections include fire, grazing, and
nonnative species (see Table 1 above).
a. Cienega Creek--There are two segments of critical habitat
designated in Cienega Creek. The first segment is in the lower part of
the drainage, and includes 14.2 km (8.8 mi) of creek extending from
where Cienega Creek becomes Pantano Wash to where it crosses Interstate
10. The second segment is in the upper part of the drainage and extends
from its confluence with Empire Gulch on BLM lands to a point 13.6 km
(8.4 mi) downstream. Perennial water exists within the lower segment in
the Cienega Creek Natural Preserve managed by the Pima County Flood
Control District. In June 2005, Gila chub were documented in this lower
segment of Cienega Creek. The upper segment of Cienega Creek is
considered to be one of the finest natural habitats for the Gila chub,
and was the only stream segment with a population of Gila chub
considered stable-secure by Weedman et al. (1996). 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 the upper perennial segment of Cienega Creek. Visual
observations of adult Gila chub made for the aquatic habitat inventory
in 1989 and 1990 found 368 chub along the upper 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. Gila chub were found in the
upper segment of Cienega Creek in 2004 (D. Foster, AGFD, pers. comm.
2005) and in the lower segment in 2005 (D. Duncan, Service, in litt.
2005). Land ownership for the upper segment is BLM. The lower segment
is owned by Pima County.
b. Mattie Canyon--4.0 km (2.5 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Cienega Creek upstream to the BLM Boundary. Gila chub
were observed in Mattie Canyon in 2005 (J. Simms, BLM in litt. 2005).
Mattie Canyon contains one or more of the primary constituent elements,
including perennial pools, the necessary vegetation that provides
cover, and adequate water quality. Land ownership is BLM.
c. Empire Gulch--5.2 km (3.2 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Cienega Creek continuing 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 (67 FR
51948). Land ownership is BLM.
d. Sabino Canyon--11.1 km (6.9 mi) of creek extending from the
southern boundary of the Coronado National Forest upstream to its
confluence with the West Fork of Sabino Canyon. Sabino Canyon is
managed by the Coronado National Forest. Sabino Canyon was devastated
by the Aspen Fire in July 2003. Gila chub were salvaged during the
fire, and later returned in May 2005 (AGFD 2005a). Sabino Canyon
contains one or more of the primary constituent elements, including
perennial pools and adequate water quality. Land ownership is Coronado
National Forest.
Area 6: Upper Verde River Area
This area lies in Yavapai County, Arizona. We are designating four
tributaries within the Verde River drainage as critical habitat: Walker
Creek, Red Tank Draw, Silver Creek, and Williamson Valley Wash. The
Upper Verde River is the northwestern most part of the Gila chub's
historical range. Conserving these Gila chub populations will help
maintain representation of the species throughout its historical range.
All of these segments have at least one of the primary constituent
elements present. Threats to this critical habitat area requiring
special management and protections include fire, grazing, residential
development, water use, and nonnative species (see Table 1 above).
a. Walker Creek--7.6 km (4.7 mi) of creek extending from Prescott
National Forest Road 618 upstream to its confluence with Spring Creek.
The earliest known collection of Gila chub was in 1978 by J. Rinne
(Weedman 1996). Walker Creek was surveyed in 1994 by AGFD at five
different locations; Gila chub were collected at three of those
locations. Gila chub were collected in Walker Creek by Service
biologists in 2005 (Service data). The ephemeral nature of the lower
end of Walker Creek appears to be limiting the invasion of nonnative
species from Wet Beaver Creek (Weedman et al. 1996); the only nonnative
species found in 2005 were virile crayfish (Orconectes virilis). Walker
Creek contains one or more of the primary constituent elements,
including perennial pools and the necessary vegetation that provides
[[Page 66693]]
cover. Land ownership is Coconino National Forest and private lands.
b. Red Tank Draw--11.1 km (6.9 mi) of creek extending from the
National Park Service boundary just upstream of its confluence with Wet
Beaver Creek upstream to the confluence of Mullican and Rarick canyons.
Red Tank Draw is an intermittent stream that offers abundant Gila chub
habitat in the form of perennial pools. Gila chub were documented in
Red Tank Draw in 1996 by AGFD, and by the Service in 2005. Green
sunfish and virile crayfish are present in the downstream reaches of
this stream segment. Red Tank Draw contains one or more of the primary
constituent elements, including perennial pools and the necessary
vegetation that provides cover. Land ownership is Coconino National
Forest and private.
c. Spring Creek--5.7 km (3.6 mi) of creek including all non-private
lands extending from the boundary of Forest Service land and continuing
upstream to the Arizona Highway 89A crossing. Gila chub were documented
in 2005 in Spring Creek by Service biologists (Service data). Spring
Creek contains all of primary constituent elements, with the exception
of habitat free from nonnative aquatic species; virile crayfish are the
only nonnative present. Four other native fish species occur in Spring
Creek: speckled dace, longfin dace, Sonora sucker, and desert sucker.
Land ownership is Coconino National Forest and private.
d. Williamson Valley Wash--7.2 km (4.4 mi) of creek extending from
the gauging station upstream to the crossing of the Williamson Valley
Road. In 1990 Williamson Valley Wash was surveyed for Gila chub and
collected on the Matli Ranch, and a large stretch of stream had
perennial water (Weedman et al. 1996). In July 2001, Williamson Valley
Wash was resurveyed, and Gila chub were abundant (Bryan Bagley in litt.
2001), although they appear to have become much more rare since that
time (Bill Leibfried, in litt. 2005). Williamson Valley Wash contains
the full range of primary constituent elements necessary for the
conservation of the Gila chub. Williamson Valley Wash is entirely on
private lands.
Area 7: Agua Fria River Area
This area lies in Yavapai County, Arizona. There are six
tributaries in the Agua Fria River that are designated as critical
habitat, all of which are currently occupied by Gila chub: Little
Sycamore Creek, Sycamore Creek, Indian Creek, Silver Creek, Lousy
Canyon, and Larry Creek. 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 area. Survey results indicate a good
representation of all age classes. However, the Cave Creek Complex Fire
burned over 248,000 acres in summer 2005, threatening Gila chub
populations in this area; individual fish were salvaged from Gila chub
populations in Sycamore Creek, Indian Creek, and Silver Creek (Knowles
et al. 2005). Gila chub were introduced to Larry Creek and Lousy Canyon
as a conservation action in July 1995 (Weedman et al. 1996) by the BLM.
Conserving these Gila chub populations will help maintain
representation of the species throughout its historical range. Threats
to this critical habitat area requiring special management and
protections include fire, grazing, and nonnative species (see Table 1
above).
a. Little Sycamore Creek--4.7 km (2.9 mi) of creek extending from
its confluence with Sycamore Creek upstream. This segment is
intermittent but always contains some habitat in the form of perennial
pools; Gila chub expand into larger habitats when they are available.
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. Gila chub were documented
in Little Sycamore Creek in 2003 (A. Silas, FS, pers. comm. 2005). Land
ownership is Prescott National Forest and private.
b. Sycamore Creek--18.3 km (11.4 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Little Sycamore Creek upstream to Nelson Place Spring.
Sycamore Creek is perennial throughout most of its length, with the
last 3 km (2 mi) being intermittent. Gila chub were documented in
Sycamore Creek in 2005 when they were removed as part of a salvage
effort to secure the population from the effects of the Cave Creek
Complex Fire (Hedwall et al. 2005). In surveys in 2002, 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. Land ownership is Prescott National Forest and
private.
c. Indian Creek--8.4 km (5.2 mi) of creek extending from Upper
Water Springs downstream into BLM lands. Gila chub were first collected
in Indian Creek in May 1995. Gila chub were salvaged from Indian Creek
in 2005 to secure the population from the Cave Creek Complex Fire (J.
Voeltz, AGFD in litt. 2005). Similar to Little Sycamore Creek, this
segment is intermittent, but there is always some habitat available in
the form of perennial pools; Gila chub expand into larger habitats when
they are available. 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). Land ownership is
BLM, Prescott National Forest, and private.
d. Silver Creek--8.5 km (5.3 mi) of creek extending from a spring
on FS lands downstream onto BLM lands, 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 translocated to
Larry Creek and Lousy Canyon in July 1995. Gila chub were salvaged from
Silver Creek to protect the population from the Cave Creek Complex Fire
in 2005 (D. Weedman, AGFD in litt. 2005). 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).
Land ownership is Tonto National Forest and BLM.
e. Lousy Canyon--Extending from the confluence of an unnamed
tributary upstream to the fork with an another unnamed tributary
approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream. In 1995, BLM introduced Gila
chub from Silver Creek into Lousy Canyon. In 2005, the Service surveyed
the stream and observed Gila chub. Lousy Creek contains one or more of
the primary constituent elements, including perennial pools and the
necessary vegetation that provides cover. 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 is BLM.
[[Page 66694]]
f. Larry Creek--Portions of the creek from an unnamed tributary
upstream 0.7 km (0.4 mi) to the confluence of two adjoining unnamed
tributaries. In 1995, BLM introduced Gila chub from Silver Creek into
Larry Creek, and the population appears to be thriving (Service files).
Larry Creek contains one or more of the primary constituent elements,
including perennial pools and the necessary vegetation that provides
cover (Service files). 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. The Service visually surveyed Larry Creek in
2003 and found Gila chub to be abundant. Land ownership is BLM.
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national
security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from
critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical
habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the species.
In our critical habitat designations, we use the provision outlined
in section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific areas that
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species to
determine which areas to propose and subsequently finalize (i.e.,
designate) as critical habitat. On the basis of our evaluation, we have
determined that the benefits of excluding certain lands from the
designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub outweigh the benefits
of their inclusion, and have subsequently excluded those lands from
this designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act as discussed
below.
Areas excluded pursuant to section 4(b)(2) may include, but are not
limited to, Tribal conservation plans/programs that cover the species
and partnerships, conservation plans/easements, or other type of
formalized relationship/agreement on private lands. The relationship of
critical habitat to these types of areas is discussed in detail in the
following paragraphs.
After consideration under section 4(b)(2), the following areas of
habitat have been excluded from critical habitat for the Gila chub:
Bonita Creek and Blue River within the tribal lands of the San Carlos
Apache Nation; Bonita Creek on BLM and private lands of the City of
Safford; and portions of proposed areas 5(a) and 6(c) to address
economic impacts. A detailed analysis of our exclusion of these lands
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act is provided in the paragraphs that
follow.
General Principles of Section 7 Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2)
Balancing Process
The most direct, and potentially largest, regulatory benefit of
critical habitat is that federally authorized, funded, or carried out
activities require consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act to
ensure that they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. There are two limitations to this regulatory effect. First, it
only applies where there is a Federal nexus--if there is no Federal
nexus, designation itself does not restrict actions that destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. Second, it only limits destruction
or adverse modification. By its nature, the prohibition on adverse
modification is designed to ensure those areas that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species or unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of
the species are not eroded. Critical habitat designation alone,
however, does not require specific steps toward recovery.
Once consultation under section 7 of the Act is triggered, the
process may conclude informally when the Service concurs in writing
that the proposed Federal action is not likely to adversely affect the
listed species or its critical habitat. However, if the Service
determines through informal consultation that adverse impacts are
likely to occur, then formal consultation would be initiated. Formal
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, with separate analyses being
made under both the jeopardy and the adverse modification standards.
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may contain
discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects
to primary constituent elements, but it would not contain any mandatory
reasonable and prudent measures or terms and conditions. Mandatory
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed Federal action
would only be issued when the biological opinion results in a jeopardy
or adverse modification conclusion.
We also note that for 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's
decision in Gifford Pinchot, the Service equated the jeopardy standard
with the standard for destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. The Court ruled that the Service could no longer equate the
two standards and that adverse modification evaluations require
consideration of impacts on the recovery of species. Thus, under the
Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat designations may provide
greater benefits to the recovery of a species. However, we believe the
conservation achieved through implementing management plans is
typically greater than would be achieved through multiple site-by-site,
project-by-project, section 7 consultations involving consideration of
critical habitat. Management plans commit resources to implement long-
term management and protection to particular habitat for at least one
and possibly other listed or sensitive species. Section 7 consultations
only commit Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to
critical habitat caused by the particular project, and they are not
committed to provide conservation or long-term benefits to areas not
affected by the proposed project. Thus, any management plan which
considers enhancement or recovery as the management standard will
always provide as much or more benefit than a consultation for critical
habitat designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth
Circuit in the Gifford Pinchot decision.
The information provided in this section applies to all the
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion
of critical habitat in that it provides the framework for the
consultation process.
Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat
A benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that the
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by
other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value
for the Gila chub. In general the educational benefit of a critical
habitat designation always exists, although in some cases it may be
redundant with other educational effects. For example, habitat
conservation plans have significant public input and may largely
duplicate the educational benefit of a critical habitat designation.
This benefit is closely related to a second, more
[[Page 66695]]
indirect benefit: That designation of critical habitat would inform
State agencies and local governments about areas that could be
conserved under State laws or local ordinances.
However, we believe that there would be little additional
informational benefit gained from the designation of critical habitat
for the exclusions we are making in this rule because these areas were
included in the proposed rule as having essential Gila chub habitat.
Consequently, we believe that the informational benefits are already
provided even though these areas are not designated as critical
habitat. Additionally, the purpose normally served by the designation
of informing State agencies and local governments about areas which
would benefit from protection and enhancement of habitat for the Gila
chub is already well established among State and local governments, and
Federal agencies in those areas that we are excluding from critical
habitat in this rule on the basis of other existing habitat management
protections.
The information provided in this section applies to all the
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion
of critical habitat.
San Carlos Apache Tribe
Relationship of Critical Habitat to American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act
In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175; and
the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of
the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, and other
natural resources on tribal lands are better managed under tribal
authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation
wherever possible and practicable. Based on this philosophy, we believe
that, in many cases, designation of tribal lands as critical habitat
provides very little additional benefit to threatened and endangered
species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by tribes as an
unwanted intrusion into tribal self governance, thus compromising the
government-to-government relationship essential to achieving our mutual
goals of managing for healthy ecosystems upon which the viability of
threatened and endangered species populations depend.
The San Carlos Apache Tribe has two streams within its tribal
lands, the Blue River and a portion of Bonita Creek, that are known to
be currently occupied by Gila chub and its tribal lands contain
features that are essential to the conservation of the Gila chub. The
Tribe has completed and is implementing a Fisheries Management Plan
(FMP) that includes specific management actions for the Gila chub. In
making our determination with regard to tribal lands, we considered
several factors, including our relationship with San Carlos Apache
Tribe, and the degree to which the Tribe's FMP provides specific
management for the Gila chub. Tribal governments protect and manage
their resources in the manner that is most beneficial to them. The San
Carlos Apache Tribe exercises legislative, administrative, and judicial
control over activities within the boundaries of its lands.
Additionally, the Tribe has a natural resource programs and staff and
have enacted the FMP. In addition, as trustee for land held in trust by
the United States for Indian Tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
provides technical assistance to the San Carlos Apache Tribe on
management planning and oversees a variety of programs on their lands.
Gila chub conservation activities have been ongoing on San Carlos
Apache tribal lands, and, prior to the completion of their FMP, their
natural resource management, while not specific to the Gila chub, was
consistent with management of habitat for this species. The development
and implementation of the efforts formalized in the San Carlos Apache
Tribes FMP will continue with or without critical habitat designation.
The San Carlos Apache Tribe highly values its wildlife and natural
resources, and is charged to preserve and protect these resources under
the Tribal Constitution. Consequently, the Tribe has long worked to
manage the habitat of wildlife on its tribal lands, including the
habitat of endangered and threatened species. We understand that it is
the Tribe's position that a designation of critical habitat on its
lands improperly infringes upon its tribal sovereignty and the right to
self-government.
The San Carlos Apache Tribes FMP provides assurances and a
conservation benefit to the Gila chub. Implementation of the FMP will
result in protecting all known Gila chub habitat on San Carlos Tribal
Land and assures no net habitat loss or permanent modification will
occur in the future. The purpose of the FMP includes the long-term
conservation of native fishes, including Gila chub, on tribal lands.
The FMP outlines actions to conserve, enhance, and restore Gila chub
habitat, including efforts to eliminate nonnative fishes from Gila chub
habitat. All habitat restoration activities (whether it is to
rehabilitate or restore native plants) will be conducted under
reasonable coordination with the Service. All reasonable measures will
be taken to ensure that recreational activities do not result in a net
habitat loss or permanent modification of the habitat. All reasonable
measures will be taken to conduct livestock grazing activities in a
manner that will ensure the conservation of Gila chub habitat. Within
funding limitations and under confidentiality guidelines established by
the Tribe, the Tribe will cooperate with the Service to monitor and
survey Gila chub habitat, conduct research, perform habitat
restoration, remove nonnative aquatic species, or conduct other
beneficial Gila chub management activities.
As a result of the assurances, protections, and conservation
benefit provided for the Gila chub and its habitat on San Carlos Apache
Tribal lands described above, we are excluding the Blue River and
portions of Bonita Creek occurring on tribal lands from the Middle Gila
River Area.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
Including lands of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in critical habitat
would provide some additional benefit from section 7 consultation,
because we could consult via the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on
actions that could adversely affect critical habitat. Although we have
not formally conferenced with BIA on any actions affecting Gila chub,
we have conducted six formal conferences with BLM and FS that have
involved proposed critical habitat. Activities covered in these
conferences included livestock grazing, recreation, fish stocking, fire
management, and bank stabilization, and conservation measures that
benefited Gila chub critical habitat included monitoring, fence repair
(to exclude cattle from overusing and thereby damaging Gila chub
habitat), and education programs to inform the public of the need to
avoid actions that damage habitat. However, we note that because the
Gila chub will still be listed under this final rule and will be found
on San Carlos Apache tribal lands, section 7 consultation under the
jeopardy standard will still be required if Tribal or BIA activities
would affect Gila chub, regardless of our excluding
[[Page 66696]]
these lands from the critical habitat designation. As a result, we
expect that inclusion of San Carlos Apache tribal lands would provide
only that additional habitat protection accorded by critical habitat as
discussed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Gifford Pinchot
ruling discussed above.
Nevertheless, few additional benefits would be derived from
including these Tribal Lands in a Gila chub critical habitat
designation beyond what will be achieved through the implementation of
the FMP. As noted above, the primary regulatory benefit of any
designated critical habitat is that federally funded or authorized
activities in such habitat require consultation pursuant to section 7
of the Act. Such consultation would ensure that adequate protection is
provided to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. The San Carlos Apache Tribe has already agreed under the terms
of their FMP to protect Gila chub habitat (PCEs), to ensure no net
loss, to coordinate with the Service in order to prevent any habitat
destruction, and to conduct activities consistent with the conservation
of the Gila chub and its PCEs.
As discussed above, we expect that little additional educational
benefit would be derived from designating lands (Blue River and Bonita
Creek) of the San Carlos Apache as critical habitat. The additional
educational benefits that might arise from critical habitat designation
are largely accomplished through the multiple notice and comments which
accompanied the development of this critical habitat designation, as
evidenced by the San Carlos Apache Tribe currently working with the
Service to address habitat and conservation needs for the Gila chub.
Additionally, we anticipate that the San Carlos Apache Tribe will
continue to actively participate in working groups, and provide for the
timely exchange of management information. The educational benefits
important for the long-term survival and conservation of the Gila chub
are being realized without designating this area as critical habitat.
Educational benefits will continue on these lands if they are excluded
from the designation, because the FMP already recognizes the importance
of those habitat areas to the Gila chub.
Another possible benefit is the additional funding that may be
generated for habitat restoration or improvement by having an area
designated as critical habitat. In some instances, having an area
designated as critical habitat may improve the ranking a project
receives during evaluation for funding. The San Carlos Apache Tribe
often requires additional sources of funding in order to conduct
wildlife-related activities. Therefore, having an area designated as
critical habitat could improve the chances of Tribe receiving funding
for Gila chub-related projects. Additionally, occupancy by Gila chub
also provides benefits to be considered in evaluating funding
proposals. Because there are areas of occupied habitat on San Carlos
Apache lands, the listing of the Gila chub may help secure funding for
management of these areas.
For these reasons, then, we believe that designation of critical
habitat would provide some additional benefits.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
The benefits of excluding the San Carlos Apache Tribal lands from
critical habitat include: (1) The advancement of our Federal Indian
Trust obligations and our deference to Tribes to develop and implement
tribal conservation and natural resource management plans for their
lands and resources, which includes the Gila chub and other Federal
trust species; (2) the maintenance of effective working relationships
to promote the conservation of the Gila chub and their habitat; (3) the
allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation on
Gila chub management and other resources of interest to the Federal
government; (4) the provision of conservation benefits to riparian
ecosystems and a host of species, including the Gila chub and its
habitat, that might not otherwise occur; and (5) the reduction or
elimination of administrative and/or project modification costs as
analyzed in the economic analysis.
During the development of the Gila chub critical habitat proposal
(and coordination for other critical habitat proposals), and other
efforts such as conservation of native fish species in general, we have
met and communicated with the San Carlos Apache Tribe to discuss how
they might be affected by the regulations associated with Gila chub
conservation and the designation of critical habitat. As such, we
established relationships with the San Carlos Apache Tribe specific to
Gila chub conservation. As part of our relationship, we provided
technical assistance to the San Carlos Apache Tribe to develop measures
to conserve the Gila chub and its habitat on their lands. These
measures are contained within the FMP that we have in our supporting
record for this decision (see discussion above). This proactive action
was conducted in accordance with Secretarial Order 3206, ``American
Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175; and
the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of
the Interior (512 DM 2). We believe that the San Carlos Apache Tribe
should be the governmental entity to manage and promote the
conservation of the Gila chub on their lands. During our communication
with the San Carlos Apache Tribe, we recognized and endorsed their
fundamental right to provide for tribal resource management activities,
including those relating to riparian ecosystems.
The designation of critical habitat on the San Carlos Apache Tribal
lands would be expected to adversely impact our working relationship
with them. In fact, during our discussions with the San Carlos Apache
Tribe and from comments received, we were informed that critical
habitat would be viewed as an intrusion on their sovereign abilities to
manage natural resources in accordance with their own policies,
customs, and laws. To this end, we found that the San Carlos Apache
Tribe would prefer to work with us on a government-to-government basis.
For these reasons, we believe that our working relationship with the
San Carlos Apache Tribe would be better maintained if they are excluded
from the designation of critical for the Gila chub. We view this as a
substantial benefit.
We indicated in the proposed rule (August 9, 2002; 67 FR 51948)
that in our final decision concerning designation of critical habitat
on the San Carlos Apache Tribal lands, we would consider our
relationship with the San Carlos Apache Tribe and whether they
developed a Gila chub FMP. We identified that the San Carlos Apache
Tribe had a draft FMP. We also discussed our continued cooperation with
the San Carlos Apache Tribe during the comment period on the
development of the FMP. During the comment period, we received input
from the San Carlos Apache Tribe and BIA offices expressing the view
that designating critical habitat for the Gila chub on Tribal land
would adversely affect the Service's working relationship with the San
Carlos Apache Tribe. They noted the beneficial cooperative working
relationships between the Service and the San Carlos Apache Tribe that
have assisted in the conservation and recovery of listed species and
other natural resources. They indicated that critical habitat
[[Page 66697]]
designation on the San Carlos Apache Tribe would amount to additional
Federal regulation of their sovereign lands, and would be viewed as an
unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into Tribal natural resource
programs. We conclude that our working relationships with the San
Carlos Apache Tribe on a government-to-government basis has been
extremely beneficial in implementing natural resource programs of
mutual interest (including the protection of Gila chubs and their
PCEs), and that these productive relationships would be compromised by
critical habitat designation of the San Carlos Apache Tribal lands.
In addition to management/conservation actions described for the
conservation of the Gila chub, we anticipate future management/
conservation plans to include conservation efforts for other listed
species and their habitat. We believe that many Tribes and Pueblos are
willing to work cooperatively with us to benefit other listed species,
but only if they view the relationship as mutually beneficial.
Consequently, the development of future voluntary management actions
for other listed species will likely be contingent upon whether the San
Carlos Apache Tribal lands are designated as critical habitat for the
Gila chub. Thus, the benefit of excluding these lands would be future
conservation efforts that would benefit other listed species.
The economic analysis conducted for this proposal estimates that
the costs associated with designating this area of the proposed
critical habitat would be $37,000 to $321,200 annually (discounted at 7
percent). These costs would be incurred as a result of changes in
grazing management, fire management, recreation, timber harvest, and
costs associated with compliance with Act. Excluding this reach could
allow some or all of these costs to be avoided. However, considering
that this area is currently occupied by the species, consultation for
activities that might adversely impact the species, including possible
habitat modification, would be required even without the critical
habitat designation; thus the possible economic benefits might not
materialize.
Another benefit of excluding the San Carlos Apache Tribal lands
from the critical habitat designation includes relieving additional
regulatory burden and costs associated with the preparation of portions
of section 7 documents related to critical habitat. While the cost of
adding these additional sections to assessments and consultations is
relatively minor, there could be delays which can generate real costs
to some project proponents. However, because in this case critical
habitat was only proposed for occupied areas already subject to section
7 consultation and a jeopardy analysis, it is anticipated this
reduction would be minimal.
(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We find that the benefits of designating critical habitat for the
Gila chub on San Carlos Apache Tribe lands are small in comparison to
the benefits of exclusion. Exclusion would enhance the partnership
efforts focused on recovery of the Gila chub within this reach and
encourage other stakeholders to become a part of this cooperative
effort. Excluding this area also would reduce some of the
administrative costs during consultation pursuant to section 7 of the
Act.
(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
The San Carlos Apache Tribe has committed to greater conservation
measures on these areas than would be available through the designation
of critical habitat. Because areas of the San Carlos Apache tribal
lands are occupied by the Gila chub which is protected from take under
section 9 of the Act, any actions that might kill Gila chub including
habitat modification that would cause death of the Gila chub, must
either undergo a consultation with the Service under the requirements
of section 7 of the Act or receive a permit from us under section 10 of
the Act. Additionally, we have concluded that excluding these lands
from critical habitat will not result in the extinction of the Gila
chub because the FMP specifically addresses conservation of the Gila
chub. The purpose of the FMP includes the long-term conservation of
native fishes, including Gila chub, on tribal lands. The FMP outlines
actions to conserve, enhance, and restore Gila chub habitat, including
efforts to eliminate nonnative fishes from Gila chub habitat. Such
efforts provide greater conservation benefit than would result for
designation as critical habitat. This is because section 7
consultations for critical habitat only consider listed species in the
project area evaluated and Federal agencies are only committed to
prevent adverse modification to critical habitat caused by the
particular project and are not committed to provide conservation or
long-term benefits to areas not affected by the proposed project. Such
efforts provide greater conservation benefit than would result for
designation as critical habitat. As a result, there is no reason to
believe that this exclusion would result in extinction of the species.
Accordingly, we have determined that the lands of the San Carlos
Apache Tribe should be excluded pursuant to 4(b)(2) of the Act because
the benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat outweigh
the benefits of their inclusion, and the exclusion of these lands from
the designation will not result in the extinction of the species.
Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area and the Bonita Creek
Partnership
As discussed in the ``Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule''
section above, we have determined that proposed critical habitat in
Bonita Creek, Graham County, Arizona, will not be designated as
critical habitat due to our partnership with the BLM, Reclamation, and
City of Safford. The City of Safford operates an infiltration gallery
within Bonita Creek. The infiltration gallery uses submerged intake
pipes to pull water from Bonita Creek which is then transported across
BLM land via pipeline to the City of Safford where it is used for
drinking water. The city is developing a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with BLM to jointly manage the water delivery system, and other
common elements of the area. BLM manages lands both upstream and
downstream of the private parcel on which the city's gallery occurs as
part of the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area (RNCA). We
have reached this determination because we believe the benefits of
excluding this segment from the final critical habitat designation
outweigh the benefits of designating the creek as critical habitat.
The portion of Bonita Creek located within the RNCA provides
excellent habitat for Gila chub. Healthy Gila chub populations have
long been documented in Bonita Creek upstream of the city's
infiltration gallery. Although they are present downstream, they are at
much lower numbers, presumably due to the presence of a number of
nonnative fish species. The city's infiltration gallery, by creating a
dry reach of Bonita Creek, for many years has apparently acted as a
barrier to the upstream movement of nonnative fishes, protecting areas
upstream of the gallery occupied by native fish species, including Gila
chub. Reclamation is also planning to build a fish barrier on Bonita
Creek below the City's infiltration gallery to further this protection.
BLM has a commitment to work toward conserving federally-listed
[[Page 66698]]
species in Bonita Creek that has existed for over a decade. As the
primary land manager, they have conducted intensive monitoring for Gila
chub, and funded research on the life history of Gila chub. They have
also provided a law enforcement ranger to patrol the Gila Box RNCA,
which helps reduce the threat of vandalism or introduction of nonnative
fishes into the Gila chub habitat. BLM has also developed the Gila Box
RNCA Management Plan, which provides management direction for all
activities that occur in the RNCA. This plan specifically addresses
wildlife conservation within Bonita Creek, including native fishes such
as Gila chub. Guidelines for the construction of new roads, closures of
old roads, development of recreational facilities, management of
recreation, management of grazing, management of riparian areas
including riparian vegetation, watershed management, and water quality
management are all covered in the RNCA management plan, and this
management is focused on improving habitats within the RNCA, including
those of the Gila chub.
BLM's Gila Box RNCA management plan also details how BLM will work
cooperatively with the City of Safford to provide for their management
needs, while reducing potential adverse effects to the resources of the
RNCA. The associated management action is to work with the City to
support the management goals of the RNCA along with the management
needs of the City and the effective operation of the public water
system. The City of Safford is developing an MOU with BLM to formalize
this arrangement, and this MOU will specifically address the
conservation of native fishes, including the Gila chub. Additionally,
we are working with Reclamation to build a concrete barrier on Bonita
Creek downstream of the City's infiltration gallery to further protect
the creek from the invasion of nonnative fishes, and to reintroduce
several federally-listed native fish species, both as conservation
measures for Reclamation's operation of the Central Arizona Project
canal (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001b). Collectively, our
partnership has contributed to immediate and long-term benefits to the
conservation and recovery of protected species.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
As stated in the environmental assessment, the primary conservation
value of the proposed critical habitat segments is to sustain existing
populations. As discussed in the ``General Principles of Section 7
Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2) Balancing Process'' section above,
the threshold for reaching destruction or adverse modification would
likely require a reduction in the capability of the habitat to sustain
existing populations. Given that this area of Bonita Creek is being
managed to benefit wildlife, including the Gila chub, it is highly
unlikely that projects would be considered for this area that would
result in depreciable diminishment or a long-term reduction of the
capability of the habitat to sustain existing populations. To the
contrary, activities occurring on these lands have provided benefits,
as described above, to the Gila chub and are expected to continue to do
so. To date, the Service has conducted nine formal consultations for
BLM on management of lands within the RNCA, including three conference
opinions since the Gila chub was proposed for listing in 2003 (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a). These consultations/conferences
involved management actions administered by BLM, all of which are
covered in the RNCA management plan which provides long-term
conservation benefits to the species and its PCEs and none resulted in
adverse modification to proposed critical habitat.
As discussed above, we expect that little additional educational
benefits would be derived from including Bonita Creek in the critical
habitat designation. The additional educational benefits that might
arise from critical habitat designation are largely accomplished
through the multiple notice and comments that accompanied the
development of this critical habitat designation. Because BLM is the
primary land manager, they have conducted surveys and habitat
monitoring for Gila chub at Bonita Creek. Therefore, the potential
designation of critical habitat at Bonita Creek would not provide this
educational benefit because BLM, and the City of Safford via the MOU,
already know the fish are present and are studying its habitat. BLM is
also already aware that Bonita Creek has a robust population of Gila
chub that are important to conservation goals of the species. Likewise
the City of Safford is aware of this through the MOU, as is
Reclamation, through its conservation measure to build a fish barrier
to protect the Bonita Creek fishery.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
The benefits of excluding Bonita Creek from critical habitat
designation include recognizing the value of partnerships with BLM and
the City of Safford, encouraging actions that benefit multiple species,
encouraging local participation in conservation of valuable habitat for
multiple species, facilitating the cooperative activities provided by
the Service, and reducing or eliminating administrative and/or project
modification costs as analyzed in the economic analysis. Additionally,
our existing partnership and the integration of Federal land management
will generate a consistent management approach at Bonita Creek.
The partnership and cohesive management at Bonita Creek will
maintain habitat (PCEs) for Gila chub for the long-term. This
partnership has already generated the development, finalization, and
implementation of Gila Box RNCA management plan that provides long-term
conservation benefits to the species and its PCEs. When finalized, the
MOU will further this conservation benefit. In addition to maintaining
habitat for the long-term at Bonita Creek, this partnership will
include the development of species status and distribution information
for the Gila chub needed to guide conservation efforts and assist in
species conservation outside the area, and the creation of innovative
solutions to conserve species that can be applied wherever similar
needs exist, irrespective of land ownership. The partnership with BLM,
Reclamation, and the City of Safford also facilitates other cooperative
activities with other similarly situated industry, communities, and
landowners. Continued cooperative relations with the City of Safford
are expected to influence other future partners and lead to greater
conservation than would be achieved through multiple section 7
consultations.
Non-Federal landowners or water operators such as the City of
Safford are motivated to work with Reclamation, BLM, and the Service
collaboratively to develop voluntary conservation efforts because of
the economic benefits of such a partnership. Bonita Creek is valuable
to the city both as a clean water supply, and as a tourist destination.
Collaboration of this type often provides greater conservation benefits
than could be achieved through strictly regulatory approaches, such as
a critical habitat designation. The conservation benefits resulting
from this collaborative approach are built upon a foundation of mutual
trust and understanding. It takes considerable time and effort to
establish this foundation, which is one reason it often takes several
years to develop such partnerships. Excluding this area from critical
habitat would help promote and honor that trust by providing certainty
for partners that, once appropriate conservation measures have been
agreed
[[Page 66699]]
to, additional consultation will not be necessary.
In discussions with the Service, the BLM and the City of Safford
have indicated they view critical habitat designation as unwarranted,
and that designation could undermine the conservation benefits that
would be provided by their MOU. There is a concern by BLM and the City
of Safford that designation of critical habitat at Bonita Creek has the
potential to threaten the delivery of water to the City of Safford and
other towns served by the city such as Thatcher and Soloman. Should
this ever come to pass, the results could be significant; however, we
do not believe that scenario is reasonably foreseeable. The Service's
commitment will encourage continued partnerships with these entities
that could result in additional conservation plans or additional lands
protected. Exclusion of areas where our partnership has been
established following years of collaborative efforts will result in
habitat protection for the Gila chub, preservation of these
partnerships, and in promoting more effective conservation actions in
the future.
The economic analysis conducted for this proposal estimates that
the costs associated with designating this segment of the proposed
critical habitat would be about $0.25 to $1.02 million annually. Almost
all of this cost is related to changes in water use and management
required for conservation of the Gila chub. Excluding this reach could
allow some or all of these costs to be avoided. However, considering
that this area is currently occupied by the species, section 7
consultation for activities which might adversely impact the species,
including possible habitat modification, would be required even without
the critical habitat designation, and thus the possible economic
benefits might not materialize.
Another benefit of excluding Bonita Creek from the critical habitat
designation includes relieving additional regulatory burden and costs
associated with the preparation of portions of section 7 consultation
documents related to critical habitat. While the cost of adding these
additional sections to assessments and consultations is relatively
minor, there could be delays which can generate real costs to some
project proponents. However, because critical habitat in this case is
only proposed for occupied areas already subject to section 7
consultation and a jeopardy analysis, it is anticipated this reduction
would be minimal.
(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We find that the benefits of designating critical habitat for the
Gila chub at Bonita Creek are small in comparison to the benefits of
exclusion. In making this finding, we have weighed the benefits of
including Bonita Creek as critical habitat to the benefits of these
lands without critical habitat, with management based on our existing
partnership and management by the BLM and City of Safford. Excluding
Bonita Creek would reduce some additional administrative effort and
cost during the consultation process pursuant to section 7 of the Act.
Excluding Bonita Creek would continue to help foster development of
future partnerships and strengthen our relationship with stakeholders.
To date, BLM management has fostered the development, presence, and
protection of Gila chub habitat. Because Bonita Creek is within the
RCNA, we believe there is virtually no risk of development or extensive
land-use by the BLM that would be expected to result in adverse
modification. Excluding Bonita Creek promotes our partnership with the
City of Safford by eliminating the concern of the City of Safford
regarding the possible risk of loss of water delivery capabilities.
We have, therefore, concluded that the current BLM management of
this area, along with the partnership with BLM, the City of Safford,
and Reclamation, and the conservation commitment to Gila chub habitat
of these entities, outweigh those benefits that would result from the
area being included in the designation. We have therefore excluded
these lands from the final critical habitat designation pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
The City of Safford, Reclamation, and BLM are committing to greater
conservation measures on these areas than would be available through
the designation of critical habitat. As described above, the BLM has
developed the Gila Box RNCA Management Plan, which provides management
direction for all activities that occur in the RNCA. This plan
specifically addresses wildlife conservation within Bonita Creek,
including native fishes such as Gila chub. Additionally, because this
segment is occupied by the Gila chub, which is protected from take
under section 9 of the Act, any actions that might kill the Gila chub,
including habitat modification that would cause the death of Gila chub
must either undergo a consultation with the Service under the
requirements of section 7 of the Act or receive a permit from us under
section 10 of the Act. This exclusion leaves these protections
unchanged from those which would exist if the excluded areas were
designated as critical habitat. Such efforts provide greater
conservation benefit than would result for designation as critical
habitat. This is because section 7 consultations for critical habitat
only consider listed species in the project area evaluated and Federal
agencies are only committed to prevent adverse modification to critical
habitat caused by the particular project and are not committed to
provide conservation or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the
proposed project. Critical habitat is also being designated for the
Gila chub in other areas that will be accorded the protection from
adverse modification by Federal actions using the conservation standard
based on the Ninth Circuit decision in Gifford Pinchot, and the Gila
chub occurs on other lands not being designated as critical habitat
that are protected and managed explicitly to protect natural habitat
values. These considerations, along with the continued persistence of
the Gila chub in Bonita Creek due in part to the partnership BLM, the
City of Safford, and Reclamation, lead us to conclude that there is no
reason to believe that this exclusion would result in extinction of the
species.
Private Lands Proposed for Area 5(a)--Lower Cienega Creek and Area
6(c)--Spring Creek
As discussed in the ``Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule''
section above, we have determined that proposed critical habitat on 1.9
mi of the lower segment of Cienega Creek and on 1.9 mi of Spring Creek
will not be designated as critical habitat due to the potential
economic impact of designating these segments. The economic analysis
indicates possible cost impacts of nearly $36 million from these two
segments. This is both a significant impact and a highly
disproportionate one. The small amount of proposed critical habitat we
are excluding in these two areas bore more than half of the projected
cost impacts from the entire designation (summarized in Exhibit ES-2 of
the economic analysis).
The economic analysis indicates a cost of nearly $40 million for
these two areas overall, but $4 million of this is attributed to a
segment of BLM lands on Cienega Creek that we are not
[[Page 66700]]
excluding. The Service has conducted a consultation with BLM over the
water use addressed in the economic analysis, although that is not
reflected in the analysis, and we accordingly believe that cost is
unlikely to occur.
We have reached this determination because we believe the benefits
of excluding these segments from the final critical habitat designation
outweigh the benefits of designating them as critical habitat.
Section 4(b)(2) allows the Secretary to exclude areas from critical
habitat for economic reasons if she determines that the benefits of
such exclusion exceed the benefits of designating the area as critical
habitat, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the
species concerned. This is a discretionary authority Congress has
provided to the Secretary with respect to critical habitat. Although
economic and other impacts may not be considered when listing a
species, Congress has expressly required their consideration when
designating critical habitat. Exclusions under this section for non-
economic reasons are addressed above.
In general, we have considered in making these two exclusions that
all of the costs predicted in the economic analysis may not be avoided
by excluding the area, due to the fact that the areas in question are
currently occupied by the species and there will be requirements for
consultation under section 7 of the Act, or for permits under section
10 for any take of the species, and other protections for the species
exist elsewhere in the Act and under State and local laws and
regulations. As explained in the analysis, due to the uncertainty
associated with future consultations, cost estimates are given as a
range rather than a single number. We are also aware, and have
considered in making the exclusions, that the low end estimate for the
Spring Creek exclusion is a minimal amount, and that there is no
certainty that either the high or low cost estimates for the Cienega
Creek exclusion will occur absent the exclusion. However, there is a
real risk that these costs might result.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
As stated in the environmental assessment and addressed above, the
primary conservation value of the proposed critical habitat segments is
to sustain existing populations. The areas excluded are currently
occupied by the species. If these areas were designated as critical
habitat, any actions with a Federal nexus which might adversely modify
the critical habitat would require a consultation with us. However,
inasmuch as this area is currently occupied by the species,
consultation for activities which might adversely impact the species,
including possibly habitat modification (see definition of ``harm'' at
50 CFR 17.3) would be required even without the critical habitat
designation. We recognize that consultation for critical habitat would
likely provide some additional benefits to the species under the
provision of the Gifford Pinchot decision; however, we believe that
such benefits are minimal as discussed above.
As discussed above, we expect that little additional educational
benefits would be derived from including these two areas as critical
habitat. The additional educational benefits that might arise from
critical habitat designation are largely accomplished through the
multiple notice and comments which accompanied the development of this
critical habitat designation. We have been in contact with the land
owners in the course of developing the economic analysis, and they are
already aware that maintaining habitat quality on their lands for the
Gila chub is important to conservation of the species.
Some benefits could be derived if water currently available to
private entities at the Cienega Creek segment were required to be made
available to Gila chub. Additionally, designation of critical habitat
in the Spring Creek segment might result in consultations with Federal
agencies or as part of intra-Service consultations for HCPs that may
lead to higher quality habitat in that segment of the creek; however,
we believe any possible benefits would be minimal as derived from
critical habitat because the chub is present in the creek and
consultations are already likely to occur. Designation of critical
habitat in the Spring Creek segment might result in consultations that
lead to higher quality habitat in that segment of the creek. However,
preliminary discussions have begun from which we believe there may be a
formal consultation via a Federal nexus involving permits required by
the Clean Water Act. Because Gila chub are present in Spring Creek,
this potential consultation would have to take place regardless of the
presence of critical habitat. We believe that although some additional
benefit may occur from critical habitat, any additional benefit would
be minimal.
In summary, we believe that designating these proposed segments as
critical habitat would provide little additional Federal regulatory
benefits for the species. Under the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical
habitat designations may provide greater benefits to recovery of a
species than was previously believed. Because the proposed critical
habitat is occupied by the species, there must be consultation with the
Service over any action which might impact it. Some improvements in
habitat quality or water quantity might result from a designation, but
we believe that they would be minimal, as discussed above. The
additional educational benefits which might arise from critical habitat
designation are largely accomplished through the multiple notice and
comments which accompanied the development of this regulation, and
contact with the affected parties during development of the economic
analysis.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
The benefits of excluding these segments from critical habitat
designation are avoidance in up to $36 million in possible economic
impacts, as set out in the economic analysis.
We also believe that excluding these lands, and thus helping
landowners and water users avoid the additional costs that would result
from the designation, will contribute to a more positive climate for
Habitat Conservation Plans and other active conservation measures.
These generally provide greater conservation benefits than result from
designation of critical habitat--even in the post-Gifford Pinchot
environment--which requires only that the there be no adverse
modification resulting from Federally-related actions.
Generally, positive conservation efforts by landowners contribute
more towards recovery of species than the mere avoidance of adverse
impacts required under a critical habitat designation.
(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We find that the benefits of designating critical habitat for the
Gila chub on these two segments of Cienega Creek and Spring Creek are
small in comparison to the benefits of exclusion. As indicated above,
we believe that designation of these stream segments will provide only
minimal benefit to the species. In making this finding, we have weighed
the benefits of including these segments as critical habitat against
the possible costs imposed on private parties as a result of the
designation.
We have therefore excluded these lands from the final critical
habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
[[Page 66701]]
(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
Because these areas are occupied by the Gila chub, which is
protected from take under section 9 of the Act, any actions that might
adversely affect or result in take of the Gila chub, regardless of
whether the Federal nexus needed to trigger consultation for critical
habitat is present, must undergo a consultation with the Service under
the requirements of section 7 of the Act or receive a permit from us
under section 10 of the Act. This exclusion leaves these protections
unchanged from those which would exist if the excluded areas were
designated as critical habitat. Additionally, we have concluded that
excluding these lands from critical habitat will not result in the
extinction of the Gila chub because these exclusions are only a small
percentage of the overall critical habitat designation. The majority of
the area proposed as critical habitat for this species is being
designated as critical habitat.
Effect of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, 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 to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, the
action agency learns whether the Service regards the proposed action as
consistent with section 7(a)(2) or if the Service can suggest
modifications that would avoid jeopardy or adverse modification.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
project, if any are identifiable. ``Reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and
that the Director believes would avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the Gila chub or its designated
critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities on
private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such
as a permit from the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a
section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or some other Federal
action, including funding (e.g., Federal Highway Administration (FHA),
Federal Aviation Administration, or Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)), will also continue to be subject to the section 7 consultation
process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical
habitat, and actions on non-Federal and private lands that are not
federally-funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section 7
consultations.
Since we proposed critical habitat for the Gila chub on August 9,
2002 (67 FR 51948), we have issued a number of formal conference
reports as requested by several Federal agencies. 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 these formal conference reports as
the biological opinion with this final critical habitat designation, if
no significant new information or changes in the action alter the
content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10 (d)).
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat 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 may
also jeopardize the continued existence of the Gila chub. Each of the
specific areas designated in this rule as critical habitat for the Gila
chub have been determined to contain sufficient PCEs to provide for one
or more of the life history functions for the Gila chub. In some cases,
the PCEs exist as a result of ongoing Federal actions. As a result,
ongoing Federal actions at the time of designation will be included in
the baseline in any consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act
conducted subsequent to this designation. Federal activities that, when
carried out, may adversely affect critical habitat for the Gila chub
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Any activity that would significantly alter the minimum flow or
the natural flow regime of any of the designated stream segments. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, groundwater pumping,
impoundment, water diversion, and hydropower generation.
(2) Any activity that might significantly alter watershed
characteristics of any of the designated segments. Such activities may
include, but are not limited to, vegetation manipulation (e.g.,
prescribed burns, timber harvest), road construction and maintenance,
naturally ignited fire (e.g., lightning), livestock grazing, and
mining.
(3) Any activity that would significantly alter the channel
morphology of any of the 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.
(4) Any activity that would significantly alter the water chemistry
in any of the 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).
(5) Any activity that would introduce, spread, or augment nonnative
aquatic species into any of the 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
[[Page 66702]]
operation of canals; and interbasin water transfers (i.e. CAP
aqueduct).
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 above). 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; facsimile (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 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)(2)
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 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.
It is our policy, as 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 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 vehicle use,
camping, and hunting in the vicinity of occupied Gila chub habitat that
do not destroy or significantly degrade Gila chub habitat;
(4) Release, diversion, or withdrawal of water from or near Gila
chub habitat in a manner that does not displace or result in
desiccation 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.
Activities involving this species that we believe could 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 off-road vehicle use in the
vicinity of occupied Gila chub habitat that destroys or significantly
degrades Gila chub habitat.
Not all the activities mentioned above will result in a violation
of section 9 of the Act; only those activities that result
[[Page 66703]]
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 above).
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and to
consider the economic impact, impact to national security, and other
relevant impacts of designating a particular area as critical habitat.
We based this designation on the best available scientific information.
We utilized the economic analysis, and took into consideration comments
and information submitted during the public hearing and comment periods
to make this final listing and critical habitat determination. We may
exclude areas from critical habitat upon a determination that the
benefits of such exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such
areas as critical habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical
habitat when such exclusion will result in the extinction of the
species.
The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical
habitat for the Gila chub. This information is intended to assist the
Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of excluding
particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of
including those areas in the designation. This economic analysis
considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from the
designation, including habitat protections that may be co-extensive
with the listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of
impacts, including an assessment of the potential effects on small
entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by the
Secretary to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly
burden a particular group or economic sector.
This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of the rule.
However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the
absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for
example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and
enforceable management plans and best management practices applied by
other State and Federal agencies. Economic impacts that result from
these types of protections are not included in the analysis as they are
considered to be part of the regulatory and policy baseline.
A draft analysis of the economic effects of the proposed critical
habitat designation was prepared and made available for public review
(August 31, 2005; 70 FR 51732). The economic analysis considers the
economic impacts of conservation measures taken prior to and subsequent
to the final listing and designation of critical habitat for the Gila
chub. Pre-designation impacts are typically defined as all management
efforts that have occurred since the time of listing. The Gila chub has
not been listed, but was proposed for listing on August 9, 2002 (67 FR
51948). Our draft economic analysis found that the total post-
designation costs associated with the seven proposed critical habitat
areas are forecast to range from $11.3 million to $28.1 million in
constant dollars over 20 years, or $0.8 million to $1.9 million
annually (Service 2005a). Estimated costs are primarily due to impacts
on water management, livestock grazing, livestock grazing and timber
management on San Carlos Apache Tribal lands, and fire management and
other activities (species and habitat management, recreation, fire
management, mining, and transportation activities).
Based upon these estimates, we conclude in the final analysis,
which reviewed and incorporated public comments, that no significant
economic impacts are expected from the designation of critical habitat
for Gila chub. A copy of the economic analysis is included in our
supporting record and may be obtained by contacting the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) or online at
http://www.fws.gov/arizonaes/.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, based on our economic analysis, it is not anticipated that the
designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub would result in an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the
economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the
Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not
formally reviewed this final rule or accompanying economic analysis.
Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies
promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of
Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to
Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory
action is appropriate, then the agency will need to consider
alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical
habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we must then
evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when
promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant
impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from
the designation of critical habitat, providing that the benefits of
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical
habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of
the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion
or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a
designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5
U.S.C. 802(2)) (SBREFA), whenever an agency is required to publish a
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect 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
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based upon our draft
economic analysis we certified in our August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51732),
Federal Register notice that this designation would not result in a
significant effect as defined under SBREFA.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations and small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and
[[Page 66704]]
town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as
small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we considered the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation
as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the designation of critical habitat for the Gila
chub would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered
the number of small entities affected within particular types of
economic activities (e.g., water management and use, livestock grazing,
San Carlos Apache Tribal activities, residential and related
development, Gila chub-specific management activities, recreation
activities, fire management activities, mining, and transportation). We
considered each industry or category individually to determine if
certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small
entities potentially affected, we also considered 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
the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the
designation. Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities
may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be
incorporated into the existing consultation process.
Our economic analysis of this designation evaluated the potential
economic effects on small business entities and small governments
resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of this
species and proposed designation of its critical habitat. We evaluated
small business entities in nine categories: Water management and use,
livestock grazing activities, San Carlos Apache Tribal activities,
residential and related development, Gila chub-specific management
activities, recreation activities, fire management activities, mining,
and transportation. Based on our analysis, impacts are anticipated to
occur in livestock grazing. The following is a summary of the
information contained in Appendix B of the economic analysis:
Livestock Grazing Activities
Ranching operations are anticipated to be impacted by conservation
activities for the Gila chub. Approximately 16 ranching operations may
be impacted annually. Annual costs to each of these 16 ranching
operations may be between $1,400 and $11,700. Average revenues of a
ranch in the region of the proposed critical habitat designation are
$144,000. These potential losses represent between 1 and 8 percent of
each ranch's estimated average revenues. Exhibit B-2 in the economic
analysis presents the average revenues of ranches by county. Of the 118
beef cattle ranching and farming operations (NAICS 112111) in Arizona
counties with proposed Gila chub critical habitat, 92 percent are
considered small businesses. Therefore, 15 small ranching operations
(92 percent of 16 operations) may experience a reduction in revenues of
between 1 and 8 percent annually. The extent to which these impacts are
significant to any of these ranching operations will depend on the
individual financial conditions of the ranch.
Based on these data, we have determined that this designation would
not affect a substantial number of small businesses involved in or
affected by livestock grazing. As such, we are certifying that this
designation of critical habitat would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Please refer
to Appendix B of our economic analysis for this designation for a more
detailed discussion of potential economic impacts to small business
entities. Since we have excluded Bonita Creek, Blue River, Cienega
Creek, and Spring Creek from the final designation pursuant to section
4(b)(2) of the Act, as discussed above, we have determined that this
designation would not affect a substantial number of small businesses
involved in or affected by water management activities or timber
harvest.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution,
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This final rule is considered
a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due to its potentially
raising novel legal and policy issues, but it is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Appendix B
of the economic analysis provides a discussion and analysis of this
determination. The Office of Management and Budget has provided
guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine
outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when
compared without the regulatory action under consideration. The
economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to
this analysis; thus, energy-related impacts associated with Gila chub
conservation activities within critical habitat are not expected.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,'' with
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually
to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,''
if the provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government's responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local,
or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the
time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal
[[Page 66705]]
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above on to State governments.
(b) The economic analysis discusses potential impacts of critical
habitat designation for the Gila chub on water management activities,
livestock grazing, Tribes, residential and commercial development
activities, recreation activities, fire management activities, mining,
and transportation activities. The analysis estimates that annual costs
of the rule could range from $20.6 million to $61.8 million in
undiscounted dollars over 20 years ($1.5 million to $3.8 million
annually). Impacts are largely anticipated to affect water operators
and Federal and State agencies, with some effects on livestock grazing
operations. Impacts on small governments are not anticipated, or they
are anticipated to be passed through to consumers. For example, costs
to water operations would be expected to be passed on to consumers in
the form of price changes. Consequently, for the reasons discussed
above, we do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for
the Gila chub will significantly or uniquely affect small government
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for the Gila chub in a takings
implications assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes
that this designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub does not
pose significant takings implications.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, the
Service requested information from, and coordinated development of this
critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies
in Arizona and New Mexico. The impact of the designation on State and
local governments and their activities was fully considered in the
economic analysis. As discussed above, the designation of critical
habitat for the Gila chub would have little incremental impact on State
and local governments and their activities. In fact, the designation of
critical habitat may have some benefit to the State and local resource
agencies in that the areas with features that are essential to the
conservation of this species are more clearly defined, and the primary
constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the conservation of
this species are specifically identified.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance
with the provisions of the Act, as amended. This rule uses standard
property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements
within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the
habitat needs that are essential for the conservation of the Gila chub.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain new or revised information collection
for which Office of Management and Budget approval is required under
the Paperwork Reduction Act. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection
with designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts
of the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir.
Ore. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). However, when the range
of the species includes States within the Tenth Circuit, such as that
of the 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 undertake a NEPA analysis for critical habitat
designation. We conducted a NEPA evaluation and notified the public of
the draft document's availability on August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51732). We
completed an environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact on the designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub; the
final document is available and can be viewed online at http://www/
fws.gov/arizonaes/.
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 have excluded Tribal lands of the San Carlos Apache Nation from the
critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
[[Page 66706]]
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary authors of this rule are the Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office staff (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 602/242-
0210).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Chub, Gila'', in
alphabetical order under ``FISHES'', to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Chub, Gila........................ Gila intermedia..... U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Entire.............. 755 ........... 17.95(e) NA
Mexico..
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95 (e) by adding critical habitat for Gila chub (Gila
intermedia), in the same alphabetical order as this species occurs in
Sec. 17.11(h), to read has follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(e) Fishes.
* * * * *
Gila chub (Gila intermedia)
(1) Critical habitat for the Gila chub in Grant County, New Mexico,
and Yavapai, Gila, Greenlee, Graham, Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz, and
Pinal Counties in Arizona is described in detail and depicted on the
following maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements are the
following:
(i) 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;
(ii) Water temperatures for spawning ranging from 17 to 24[deg] C
(62.6 to 75.2[deg] F), and seasonally appropriate temperatures for all
life stages (e.g. varying from approximately 10[deg]C to 30[deg]C);
(iii) Water quality with reduced levels of contaminants, including
excessive levels of sediments adverse to Gila chub health, and adequate
levels of pH (e.g. ranging from 6.5 to 9.5), dissolved oxygen (e.g.
ranging from 3.0 to 10.0) and conductivity (e.g. 100 to 1000 mmhos);
(iv) Food base consisting of invertebrates (e.g., aquatic and
terrestrial insects) and aquatic plants (e.g., diatoms and filamentous
green algae);
(v) 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, and a high degree of streambank stability and
healthy, intact riparian vegetative community;
(vi) 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; and
(vii) Streams that maintain a natural flow pattern including
periodic flooding.
(3) Each stream segment includes a lateral component that consists
of 300 feet on either side of the stream channel measured from the
stream edge at bank full discharge. This lateral component of critical
habitat is intended as a surrogate for the 100-year floodplain.
(4) Lands located within the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation, but 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,
do not provide habitat or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Gila chub, and generally will not contribute to the
species' recovery.
(5) Critical Habitat Map Areas. Data layers defining map areas, and
mapping of critical habitat areas, was done using Arc GIS and verifying
with USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Legal descriptions for New Mexico and
Arizona are based on the Public Lands Survey System (PLSS). Within this
system, all coordinates reported for New Mexico are in the New Mexico
Principal Meridian (NMPM), while those in Arizona are in the Gila and
Salt River Meridian (GSRM). Township has been abbreviated as ``T'',
Range as ``R'', and section as ``sec.'' Where possible, the ending or
starting points have been described to the nearest quarter-section,
abbreviated as ``\1/4\''. Cardinal directions are also abbreviated (N =
North, S = South, W = West, and E = East). All mileage calculations
were performed using GIS.
(6) Note: Map 1 (index map) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 66707]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO05.036
[[Page 66708]]
(7) Area 1: Upper Gila River--Grant County, New Mexico, and
Greenlee County, Arizona.
(i) Turkey Creek: 22.3 km (13.8 mi) of creek extending from the
edge of the Gila Wilderness boundary at T14S, R16W, sec. 15 NW\1/4\ and
continuing upstream to T13S, R15W, sec. 30 NE\1/4\. Land ownership:
Gila National Forest and private.
(ii) Eagle Creek and East Eagle Creek: 39.2 km (24.4 mi) of creek
extending from its confluence with an unnamed tributary at T1N, R28E,
sec. 31 SW\1/4\ upstream to the headwaters of East Eagle Creek just
south of Highway 191 in T3N, R29E, sec. 28 SE\1/4\. Land ownership:
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and private.
(iii) Harden Cienega Creek: 22.6 km (14.0 mi) of creek extending
from its confluence with the San Francisco River in GSRM T3S, R31E,
sec. 3 SE\1/4\ upstream to the headwaters in NMPM T14S, R21W, sec. 6
NE\1/4\. Land ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Gila
National Forest, and private.
(iv) Dix Creek: Portions of the Creek beginning 1.0 mile upstream
from its confluence with the San Francisco River at a natural rock
barrier in T3S, R31E, sec. 9 NE\1/4\ continuing upstream for 0.9 km
(0.6 mi.) to the confluence of the right and left prongs of Dix Creek
in T3S, R31E, sec. 9 center. Includes Left Prong of Dix Creek upstream
of its confluence with Dix Creek 2.0 km (1.2 mi) to T3S, R31E, section
15 NW\1/4\. Land ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Includes
the Right Prong of Dix Creek continuing upstream of its confluence with
Dix Creek 4.8 km (3.0 mi) to T3S, R31E, section 20 SE\1/4\. Land
ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.
(v) Note: Map of Area 1, Gila River, (Map 2) follows:
[[Page 66709]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO05.037
[[Page 66710]]
(8) Area 2: Middle Gila River--Gila and Pinal Counties, Arizona.
(i) Mineral Creek: 14.4 km (9.0 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Devil's Canyon in T2S, R13E, section 35 NW\1/4\
continuing upstream to its headwaters in T2S, R14E, sec. 15 center at
the confluence of Mineral Creek and an unknown drainage. Land
ownership: Tonto National Forest, State, and private.
(ii) Note: Map of Area Upper Gila River, (Map 3) follows:
[[Page 66711]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO05.038
[[Page 66712]]
(9) Area 3: Babocomari River--Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
(i) O'Donnell Canyon: 10.0 km (6.2 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Turkey Creek at T21S, R18E, sec. 22 SE\1/4\ upstream to
the confluences of Western, Middle, and Pauline Canyons in T22S, R18E,
sec. 17 NE\1/4\. Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management, Coronado
National Forest, and private.
(ii) Turkey Creek: 6.3 km (3.9 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with O'Donnell Canyon in T21S, R18E, sec. 22 SE\1/4\
upstream to where Turkey Creek crosses AZ Highway 83 in T22S, R18E,
sec. 9 NE\1/4\. Land ownership: Coronado National Forest, and private.
(iii) Note: Map of Area 3, Babocomari River, (Map 4) follows:
[[Page 66713]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO05.039
[[Page 66714]]
(10) Area 4: Lower San Pedro River--Cochise and Graham Counties,
Arizona.
(i) Bass Canyon: 5.5 km (3.4 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Hot Springs Canyon in T12S, R20E, sec. 36 NE\1/4\
upstream to the confluence with Pine Canyon in T12S, R21E, sec. 20
SW\1/4\. Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management and private.
(ii) Hot Springs Canyon: 10.5 km (6.5 mi) of creek extending from
T13S R20E, sec. 5 NW\1/4\ continuing upstream to its confluence with
Bass Canyon in T12S, R20E, sec. 36 NE\1/4\. Land ownership: Bureau of
Land Management, State, and private (The Nature Conservancy).
(iii) Redfield Canyon: 9.8 km (6.1 mi) of creek extending from the
western boundary of T11S, R19E, section 35 upstream to its confluence
with Sycamore Canyon in T11S, R20E, sec. 28 NE\1/4\. Land ownership:
Bureau of Land Management, State, and private.
(iv) Note: Map of Area 4, Lower San Pedro River, (Map 5) follows:
[[Page 66715]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO05.040
[[Page 66716]]
(11) Area 5: Lower Santa Cruz River--Pima County, Arizona.
(i) Cienega Creek: (Two Segments). First segment includes 14.2 km
(8.8 mi) of creek extending from where Cienega Creek becomes Pantano
Wash T16S, R16E, at the boundary of sec. 14 and sec. 23 to where it
crosses Interstate 10 at T17S, R17E, sec. 1 NW\1/4\. Land ownership:
County and State Trust. Second segment includes 13.6 km (8.4 mi) of
creek extending from T18S, R18E, sec. 6 S\1/2\ to its confluence with
Empire Gulch at T19S, R17E, sec. 3 SE\1/4\. Land ownership: Bureau of
Land Management and State.
(ii) Mattie Canyon: 4.0 km (2.5 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Cienega Creek in T18S, R17E, sec. 23 NE\1/4\ upstream
to the Bureau of Land Management Boundary in T18S, R17E, sec. 25 SW\1/
4\. Land Ownership: Bureau of Land Management.
(iii) Empire Gulch: 5.2 km (3.2 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Cienega Creek in T19S, R17E, sec. 3 SE\1/4\ continuing
upstream to T19S, R17E, sec. 16 NW\1/4\ on the western boundary of
section 16. Land Ownership: Bureau of Land Management and State.
(iv) Sabino Canyon: 11.1 km (6.9 mi) of creek extending from the
southern boundary of the Coronado National Forest in T13S, R15E, sec. 9
SE\1/4\ upstream to its confluence with the West Fork of Sabino
Canyonin T12S, R15E, sec. 22 NE\1/4\. Land ownership: Coronado National
Forest.
(v) Note: Map of Area 5, Lower Santa Cruz River, (Map 6) follows:
[[Page 66717]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO05.041
[[Page 66718]]
(12) Area 6: Upper Verde River--Yavapai County, Arizona.
(i) Walker Creek: 7.6 km (4.7 mi) of creek extending from Prescott
National Forest Road 618 in T15N, R6E, sec. 33 SW\1/4\ upstream to its
confluence with Spring Creek in T14N, R6E, sec. 1, SE\1/4\. Land
ownership: Coconino National Forest and private.
(ii) Red Tank Draw: 11.1 km (6.9 mi) of creek extending from the
National Park Service boundary just upstream of its confluence with Wet
Beaver Creek in T15N, R6E, sec. 31 NE\1/4\ upstream to the confluence
of Mullican and Rarick canyons in T15N, R6E, sec. 2 NW\1/4\. Land
ownership: Coconino National Forest and private.
(iii) Spring Creek: 2.7 km (1.7 mi) of creek including all non-
private land extending from T16N, R4E, sec. 27 SE\1/4\ at the boundary
of Forest Service land and continuing upstream to the Arizona Highway
89A crossing in T16N, R4E, sec. 16 SE\1/4\. Land ownership: Coconino
National Forest, and State.
(iv) Williamson Valley Wash: 7.2 km (4.4 mi) of creek extending
from the gauging station in T17N, R3W, sec. 7 SE\1/4\ upstream to the
crossing of the Williamson Valley Road in T17N, R4W, sec. 36 NE\1/4\.
Land ownership: private.
(v) Note: Map of Area 6, Upper Verde River, (Map 7) follows:
[[Page 66719]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO05.042
[[Page 66720]]
(13) Area 7: Agua Fria River--Yavapai County, Arizona.
(i) Little Sycamore Creek: 4.7 km (2.9 mi) of creek extending from
its confluence with Sycamore Creek in T11N, R4E, sec. 6 SW\1/4\
upstream to T11N, R4E, sec. 4 NE\1/4\. Land ownership: Prescott
National Forest and private.
(ii) Sycamore Creek: 18.3 km (11.4 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Little Sycamore Creek at T11N, R4E, sec. 6 SW\1/4\
upstream to Nelson Place Spring in T11N, R5E, sec. 21 NE\1/4\. Land
ownership: Prescott National Forest and private.
(iii) Indian Creek: 8.4 km (5.2 mi) of creek extending from T11N,
R3E, sec. 35 NE\1/4\ to Upper Water Springs in T11N, R4E, sec. 16 SE\1/
4\. Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management, Prescott National
Forest, and private.
(iv) Silver Creek: 8.5 km (5.3 mi) of creek extending from T10N,
R3E, sec. 10 SE\1/4\ continuing upstream to the spring in T10N, R4E,
Sec. 4 SW\1/4\. Land ownership: Tonto National Forest and Bureau of
Land Management.
(v) Lousy Canyon: Portions of the creek from the confluence of an
unnamed tributary upstream to the fork with an unnamed tributary
approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream, all entirely T9N, R3E, sec. 5
NW\1/4\. Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management.
(vi) Larry Creek: Portions of the creek from an unnamed tributary
and continuing upstream 0.7 km (0.4 mi) to the confluence of two
adjoining unnamed tributaries, entirely within T9N, R3E, sec. 9 NW\1/
4\. Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management.
(vii) Note: Map of Area 7, Aqua Fria River, (Map 8) follows:
[[Page 66721]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO05.043
* * * * *
Dated: October 24, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-21498 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C