[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5117]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 8, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 17
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Threatened Loach Minnow and
Spikedace; Final Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC24
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Threatened Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) designates critical
habitat for the loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) under the authority of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The loach minnow,
a small fish, was listed as a threatened species under the Act on
October 28, 1986 (51 FR 39468); however, final designation of the
proposed critical habitat was postponed at that time. Critical habitat
is now being designated in approximately 257 kilometers (km) (159 miles
(mi)) of portions of the Gila River in Grant and Catron counties, New
Mexico; the San Francisco and Tularosa rivers and Dry Blue Creek,
Catron County, New Mexico; the San Francisco and Blue rivers and
Campbell Blue Creek, Greenlee County, Arizona; and Aravaipa Creek in
Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona. Federal actions that may affect the
areas designated as critical habitat are now subject to consultation
with the Service, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is April 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arizona Ecological
Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3616 West Thomas,
Suite 6, Phoenix, Arizona 85019. Copies of the ``Analysis of the
Economic Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat for Tiaroga cobitis
(Loach Minnow),'' August 12, 1992, are also available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours, at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Stefferud at the above address
(602/379-4720).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The loach minnow is a small, slender, elongated fish less than 80
millimeters (3 inches) long. It is olivaceous in color with an oblique
terminal mouth and eyes markedly upward-directed. This species is found
in small to large perennial streams, using shallow, turbulent riffles
with primarily cobble substrate and swift currents (Minckley 1973,
Propst et al. 1988, Rinne 1989, Propst and Bestgen 1991). Recurrent
flooding is very important to loach minnow survival in keeping the
substrate free of embedding sediments and helping it maintain a
competitive edge over invading non-native fish species (Minckley and
Meffe 1987, Propst et al. 1988).
The loach minnow was first collected in 1851 from the Rio San Pedro
in Arizona, and was described from those specimens in 1856 by Girard.
The loach minnow was once locally common throughout much of the Verde,
Salt, San Pedro, San Francisco, and Gila (upstream from Phoenix) River
systems, occupying suitable habitat in both the mainstreams and
perennial tributaries, up to about 2,200 meters (m) (7,200 feet (ft))
elevation. Because of habitat destruction and competition and predation
by non-native fish species, its range and abundance have been severely
reduced. It is now restricted to approximately 35 km (22 mi) of
Aravaipa Creek and approximately 1.5 km (1 mi) of Turkey Creek, a
tributary of Aravaipa Creek, Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona;
approximately 120 km (74.5 mi) of the upper Gila River, upstream from
the Middle Box canyon, through the Cliff/Gila Valley, and the area of
the confluence of the West, East, and Middle forks, Grant and Catron
counties, New Mexico; approximately 166 km (103 mi) of the San
Francisco and Tularosa rivers, Catron County, New Mexico; approximately
the lower 1.5 km (1 mi) of Whitewater Creek, a tributary of the San
Francisco River, Catron County, New Mexico; approximately 95 km (59 mi)
of the Blue River and Campbell Blue and Dry Blue creeks, Greenlee
County, Arizona; and 38 km (23.5 mi) of the East and North forks and
mainstem of the White River, Navajo County, Arizona (Barber and
Minckley 1966, Silvey and Thompson 1978, U.S. Department of Agriculture
1979, Britt 1982, Propst et al. 1985, Propst et al. 1988, Propst 1988
to 1992, Papoulius 1989, Minckley et al. 1990 to 1992, Propst and
Bestgen 1991, Bettaso 1992 to 1993). This present range is only 17
percent of the historic range of 2,600 km (1,600 mi) of river.
Critical habitat is being designated for approximately 257 km (159
mi) on rivers currently occupied by loach minnow. Land ownership along
the critical habitat area is mixed and is as follows (distances and
conversions are approximate):
Aravaipa Creek--The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 10
km (6 mi) of the critical habitat as part of the designated Aravaipa
Canyon Wilderness. Thirteen km (8 mi) of the critical habitat above and
below the Wilderness, previously owned by the Defenders of Wildlife's
Whittell Trust, is now owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and
managed as a nature preserve. About 1 km (0.5 mi) of stream is on
privately owned inholdings located within the Preserve.
Gila River--Twenty-eight km (17.2 mi) of privately owned land lie
along the critical habitat in most of the Cliff/Gila Valley, in the
area near Gila Hot Springs, and along the East Fork. Two km (1.2 mi) of
land along the critical habitat upstream from the town of Gila is owned
by TNC. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish owns land along 6 km
(3.8 mi) of the critical habitat on the West and Middle forks of the
Gila River. The New Mexico State Land Office owns land along 0.5 km
(0.2 mi) of the critical habitat in the Cliff/Gila Valley. The National
Park Service's Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument lies along 1 km
(0.5 mi) of the critical habitat on the West Fork. This Monument is
currently being administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The U.S.
Forest Service, Gila National Forest, administers the remaining 55.5 km
(34 mi) of the critical habitat in the Gila River with sections flowing
through three special use areas--the Gila Wilderness, the Lower Gila
River Bird Habitat Management Area, and the Gila River Research Natural
Area.
San Francisco and Tularosa Rivers--The Gila National Forest
administers 27 km (16.8 mi) of the two rivers in the critical habitat.
Privately owned lands occur as scattered inholdings in National Forest
lands along 18 km (11.2 mi) of the critical habitat in both rivers.
Blue River and Campbell and Dry Blue Creeks--The critical habitat
is almost entirely contained within the Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forest, with 75 km (46.5 mi) of forest lands and 20 km (12.5 mi) of
private inholdings.
The loach minnow is included on the State lists of threatened and
endangered species in Arizona and New Mexico (Arizona Game and Fish
Dept. 1988, New Mexico State Game Comm. 1990). It was included as a
Category 1 candidate species in the Service's December 30, 1982,
Vertebrate Notice of Review (47 FR 58454). Category 1 includes those
taxa for which the Service currently has substantial biological
information on hand to support listing the species as endangered or
threatened. A proposed rule to list this species as threatened with
critical habitat was published on June 18, 1985 (50 FR 25380). The
final rule listing the loach minnow as a threatened species was
published on October 28, 1986 (51 FR 39468). The proposed critical
habitat designation was not made final at the time of listing but was
postponed to allow for gathering and analysis of economic data.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the June 18, 1985, proposed rule (50 FR 25380) and associated
notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual
reports or information that might contribute to the development of a
final rule. The original comment period closed on August 19, 1985, but
was reopened on October 7, 1985 (50 FR 37703), to accommodate the
public hearings, and remained open until November 8, 1985. Appropriate
State agencies, county governments, Federal agencies, scientific
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and
requested to comment. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment
were published in the Courier in Prescott, Arizona; in the Eastern
Arizona Courier in Safford, Arizona; and in the Daily Press in Silver
City, New Mexico, on July 5, 10, and 13, 1985, respectively. One
hundred eleven letters of comment were received from 108 separate
parties and are summarized below. Six requests for a public hearing
were received. Public hearings were held in Silver City, New Mexico;
Safford, Arizona; and Phoenix, Arizona, on October 7, 8, and 9, 1985,
respectively. Interested parties were notified of those hearings, and
notices of the hearings were published in the Federal Register on
September 17, 1985 (50 FR 37703); in the Silver City, New Mexico, Daily
Press on September 24, 1985; in the Phoenix, Arizona, Arizona Republic
on September 26, 1985; in the Prescott, Arizona, Courier on September
27, 1985; and in the Safford, Arizona, Eastern Arizona Courier on
October 2, 1985. Thirty-five comments pertaining to the proposed
critical habitat were received at these hearings and are also
summarized below.
Seventy-seven letters of comment were received in support of the
proposed critical habitat, 21 in opposition to the proposal, and an
additional 13 which expressed neither support nor opposition or which
furnished economic information regarding the effects of the proposal.
The 3 public hearings were attended by 107 people, with 32 oral or
written statements given--16 in support of the proposed critical
habitat, 13 in opposition, and 3 neither in support nor opposition. In
addition, three other parties asked questions regarding the proposed
critical habitat. The hearings accepted formal oral and written
statements and also included an informal question and answer session.
Many of the comments addressed concerns regarding specific water-
development or flood-control projects. These comments will not be
addressed here unless they requested or resulted in specific changes to
the rule or to the rule procedure. Economic information supplied in
these comments was incorporated into the economic analysis on proposed
critical habitat (Souder 1992). That analysis is available upon
request, as are copies of hearing transcripts and all letters received
during the comment period (see ADDRESSES section).
Comments in support of the proposed critical habitat were received
from the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Arizona
Game and Fish Department, Arizona Nature Conservancy, Arizona State
University Wildlife Society Chapter, Arizona Wildlife Federation,
Audubon Society Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, Defenders of
Wildlife, Desert Fishes Council, George Whittell Wildlife Trust,
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (now known as the World Conservation Union), Maricopa Audubon
Society, New Mexico Nature Conservancy, Northern Arizona Paddlers Club,
Prescott Audubon Society, Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club,
Southern New Mexico Conservation Coalition, Southern New Mexico Sierra
Club, The Nature Conservancy's Rocky Mountain Natural Heritage Task
Force, Tucson Audubon Society, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Yuma
Audubon Society, 3 members of the New Mexico Interstate Stream
Commission, and 63 biologists and private citizens.
Comments in opposition to the proposed critical habitat were
received from the Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Arizona Division
of Emergency Services, Arizona Mining Association, City of Prescott,
Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona, Coronado Resource Conservation and
Development Board, County of Greenlee, Gila Fish and Gun Club, Gila
Valley Natural Resource Conservation Board, Graham County Board of
Supervisors, Grant County Chamber of Commerce, Hooker Dam Association,
New Mexico State Engineer Office, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Pleasanton
Eastside Ditch Company, Southwest New Mexico Industrial Development
Corporation, Town of Safford, Town of Silver City, Town of Thatcher,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Soil Conservation Service New Mexico State
Office, Upper Gila River Association, and six private citizens.
Nonsubstantive comments or comments containing only economic
information were received from the Arizona State Clearinghouse, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Federal Highway Administration, New Mexico
Game and Fish Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Soil
Conservation Service Arizona State Office, and two private citizens.
Summaries of all substantive comments addressing the issue of
critical habitat for the loach minnow are provided in the following
discussion. Comments of similar content are grouped in a number of
general issues with the Service's response to those issues and
comments.
Issue 1: Three commenters recommended that additional areas be
included in the designation of critical habitat. Two commenters
recommended that the critical habitat designation be changed to include
the watersheds of the rivers being designated, as well as the rivers
themselves.
Dr. Dean Hendrickson questioned why the proposed critical habitat
does not include several areas where loach minnow occur in the San
Francisco River (above the mouth of the Blue River) nor the population
in the White River.
Response: The Service believes that the inclusion of the entire
watershed in a critical habitat designation for this fish is not
necessary to provide adequate protection for the species. However, the
Service recognizes the importance of the watersheds in maintaining
quality habitat for the loach minnow. Any Federal activities in the
watersheds of streams designated as critical habitat that would affect
the critical habitat would be subject to section 7 of the Act. The
Service recognizes that limiting the proposed critical habitat to only
the stream itself may not clearly indicate the importance of the
streambanks and channel to the maintenance of the critical habitat.
Therefore, future revision of the critical habitat to include a portion
of the riparian zone or floodplain may be considered. Such a revision
would require an additional proposed rule and public comment period.
The Service is considering future revision of the critical habitat
designation for loach minnow to include other areas occupied by the
species as well as unoccupied areas that may be critical to recovery of
the species. The population in the White River was believed to have
been extirpated at the time of the proposed designation of critical
habitat and was therefore not included in the proposal. Additional
information on the distribution and status of the White River habitat
and population is now available and the Service believes that portions
of the East and North forks and mainstem White River may qualify for
addition to the critical habitat designation. Populations of loach
minnow found in the areas of stream not included in the critical
habitat are nevertheless protected under the jeopardy provisions of
section 7 and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act.
Issue 2: Four of the commenters recommended that the area of the
Gila River that was being considered in 1985 for damming or other water
development under the Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Upper Gila
Water Supply Study (UGWSS) be excluded from the critical habitat
designation. Such an exclusion could be made under the provisions of
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, which provides that the Secretary of the
Interior may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such
area as critical habitat would result in the extinction of the species.
The four commenters stated that the benefits of the water supply, flood
control, and other associated economic and recreational benefits of the
UGWSS, and Conner Dam in particular, far outweigh the benefits of
critical habitat. One commenter also suggested that areas presently
unoccupied by loach minnow in the Gila River and other streams could be
designated as critical habitat to replace the excluded UGWSS area. The
commenter suggested that such unoccupied areas could then be modified
and managed to provide habitat for loach minnow and then stocked with
captive-reared loach minnow to provide increased populations and
habitat for the species.
Response: Planning for the UGWSS was suspended in 1987 (U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation 1987a, 1987b) due to various economic, environmental,
and water supply factors. Further planning was deferred until the year
2010 when it is predicted the need for the water supply will occur.
Prior to that suspension, discussions between the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Service on tentative alternatives for the UGWSS study indicated
that development of the required water supply would likely be possible
without adversely modifying the proposed critical habitat. Therefore,
no economic or other impacts were anticipated to the UGWSS and no
economic benefits would accrue from exclusion from critical habitat
designation of the Conner Dam and Reservoir area, or any other area
being considered under the UGWSS.
Regarding the suggestion to replace occupied areas in the critical
habitat designation with unoccupied areas of the Gila River--the
Service is considering a possible future revision to the critical
habitat which may contain some presently unoccupied areas as potential
recovery habitat. However, this would be an addition to the critical
habitat, not a substitution. The Service does not believe it would
further the conservation of the species to remove from the protection
of critical habitat designation areas known to support long-term
populations of loach minnow and replace them with areas which do not
currently support loach minnow, but which, with human manipulation,
might support loach minnow in the future. However, the primary
unoccupied area identified by the commenter as a replacement for the
occupied areas is the canyon wilderness between Mogollon Creek and the
East Fork Gila River (above the Cliff/Gila Valley), which probably
never supported loach minnow and does not appear to contain potential
habitat for recovery of the species. The knowledge, expertise, and
physical capability do not exist to modify such areas of non-suitable
habitat into suitable habitat for loach minnow. In addition, such
modification might cause major irreparable harm to other native fish
and aquatic organisms, riparian plant and wildlife communities, and
wilderness values.
Issue 3: Two commenters requested that critical habitat be limited
to areas that would not hinder the construction of flood-control
facilities for the areas of Clifton, Duncan, and Safford, Arizona. As
in Issue 2, this request for exclusion of specific areas was made under
the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Response: The economic analysis (Souder 1992) did not show there to
be significant economic or other benefits of excluding any area for
flood control. Such a limitation of critical habitat is not expected to
be necessary to allow for flood-control measures on the Gila and San
Francisco rivers. Any such projects or activities, if they are
federally funded, authorized, or carried out, would be subject to the
provisions of section 7 regarding both the survival of the loach minnow
and the adverse modification or destruction of its critical habitat.
The Service expects that alternatives and plan modifications formulated
through consultation will allow adequate flood-control measures to be
taken while safeguarding the species and its habitat.
Issue 4: One commenter recommended limiting designated critical
habitat to areas that would not prevent the stocking of sport fish. The
commenter pointed out that many of the non-native fish identified as
predators on loach minnow, such as catfish and trout, provide
recreation for local residents and create revenue from sport fishing
recreation. As in Issues 2 and 3, this request for exclusion of
specific areas is made under the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
Response: The designation of critical habitat as proposed is not
expected to have significant effects on recreational fishing. The
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) does not stock game fish in any
of the waters proposed as critical habitat for loach minnow. The New
Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMGF) stocks only rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) into or near the critical habitat for loach
minnow. Game fish are being stocked by AGFD, NMGF, and the Service into
waters connected to the proposed critical habitat. These stockings must
comply with section 7 consultation requirements for their effects on
the loach minnow, and designation of critical habitat is not expected
to change the outcome of those consultations.
Issue 5: The Pleasanton Eastside Ditch Company, of Glenwood, New
Mexico, requested that its stretch of river be excluded from critical
habitat.
Response: The Pleasanton area of the San Francisco River was not
part of the proposed designation of critical habitat and is not a part
of this final designation. Therefore, no exclusion can or need be made.
Issue 6: Three commenters recommended that various management
techniques, such as habitat improvements, predator control, and
reintroduction of loach minnow from the Service's Dexter National Fish
Hatchery, be implemented for loach minnow in lieu of listing and
designating critical habitat.
Response: Habitat improvement practices, including predator
control, cannot substitute for the listing of a species which meets the
criteria for threatened or endangered status or for designation of its
critical habitat, unless such practices will alleviate all threats to
the species to the point where it no longer requires listing or
critical habitat designation. Many of the threats to the loach minnow
cannot be alleviated by habitat improvements but can be controlled
through designation of critical habitat and through the provisions of
sections 7 and 9 of the Act. Too little is known about the specific
habitat needs of the loach minnow to ensure that habitat improvement
practices and reintroductions would secure the survival of this fish.
Habitat enhancement and reintroduction are measures that are being
considered in the recovery of this species. Extensive study will be
needed to ensure the success of such work.
The Dexter National Fish Hatchery does not presently maintain
stocks of loach minnow. Facility space is limited, and priority is
given to species whose survival depends heavily upon artificial
propagation, a point the loach minnow has not yet reached. Placement of
stocks of loach minnow into that facility may be considered in the
future; however, a number of years are often needed to develop the
techniques required to successfully propagate a given species in
captivity, thus precluding use of captive stock in alleviating the
immediate need for listing and critical habitat designation. In
addition, reintroductions may be more likely to succeed if the
reintroduction area is protected through designation as critical
habitat.
Issue 7: A commenter expressed concerns regarding the value of
designating critical habitat when there is a significant threat to the
loach minnow from predatory and competitive non-native fish species.
The commenter believed that the designation of critical habitat without
a management and statutory effort to control undesirable introduced
fish species is not justified.
Response: The existence of threats to a listed species from other
organisms, such as non-native fishes, does not relieve the Service of
its responsibility to protect the species' habitat. The loach minnow
faces extensive threats to its habitat and will benefit from the
designation of critical habitat. The Service is presently working with
the State Game and Fish departments and other agencies on solutions to
controlling the introduction and spread of non-native fish species,
including game fish.
Issue 8: Three commenters objected to the deferral of analysis of
economic and other impacts of critical habitat designation until the
time of the final rule. They believed such analysis should be done
prior to the proposal and contended that deferral is ``improper both
legally, procedurally and in failing to follow reasonable and necessary
rulemaking steps,'' is ``certainly unreasonable and probably illegal,''
and does not allow the public access to essential information needed to
comment on the impacts and review the adequacy of the Service's
analysis. They further contended that a Regulatory Impact Analysis,
under Executive Order 12291, must be prepared for the critical habitat
proposal.
Response: The economic analysis (Souder 1992) of the proposed loach
minnow critical habitat designation was prepared following the
publication of the proposed rule and prior to the final decision on the
proposed critical habitat designation. This procedure is based upon the
specific requirement of the Act exempting listing actions from economic
considerations. When a listing and critical habitat designation are
proposed concurrently, as is required (with certain exceptions) by the
Act, the economic analysis is not conducted prior to proposal to avoid
illegally influencing or delaying the listing. Because Executive Order
12291 was rescinded on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), a Regulatory
Impact Analysis is not required.
Issue 9: Three commenters stated that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
should be prepared for this critical habitat proposal. They contended
that the 1981 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' Pacific Legal Foundation v.
Andrus decision, which found that an EIS is not required for listings
under the Endangered Species Act, is not applicable to the current
critical habitat proposal. Their reasons for this contention include--
the Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus decision addressed only listing
and not critical habitat designation, the Act now requires the
consideration of economic and other relevant impacts of specifying an
area as critical habitat, and the Act also now requires the Secretary
of the Interior to determine whether the benefits of excluding an area
from critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat.
Response: The Service's position on NEPA compliance for any
regulations adopted pursuant to section (4)(a) of the Act (listing,
critical habitat designation, reclassification, delisting) is set forth
in the Federal Register of October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). In addition
to Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, the Service's position on NEPA
compliance is based on the recommendation of the Council on
Environmental Quality, the fact that the Act stipulates a process to be
followed in promulgating such rules and limits Secretarial discretion
in altering the critical habitat designation, and on the experience of
10 years of preparation of Environmental Assessments on section 4(a)
actions. In those 10 years, 120 Environmental Assessments were
prepared, none of which resulted in a finding of significant impact and
consequent preparation of an EIS.
Analysis of economic impacts for critical habitat designations is
required by Executive Order 12866 and section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act, and the Service has prepared an economic analysis in
compliance with those authorities. When the economic analysis is added
to the administrative record generated through the public comment
process, it provides the functional equivalent of NEPA documentation
and satisfies the information-gathering, analytical, and environmental
goals of NEPA.
Issue 10: Three commenters recommended that, in assessing the
economic impacts of proposed critical habitat, the Service should
consider the cumulative effects of all past species listings and
critical habitat designations and all such actions that are or may be
under consideration in the area to be affected by proposed critical
habitat. They believed that the economic effects caused by past and
future actions for other species are relevant in determining economic
and other impacts in the proposed critical habitat area.
Response: In assessing the impacts of a critical habitat
designation, the Service considers in its baseline the cumulative
effects resulting from earlier listings and critical habitat
designations to the extent that such effects can be determined. Effects
of this critical habitat designation were calculated incrementally
above the baseline of other species listings and critical habitat, as
well as other environmental and land-management regulations.
Consideration is limited to known impacts and does not include
theoretical or hypothetical impacts. Currently, the only other
federally listed species present in streams in which the loach minnow
is found are the threatened spikedace (Meda fulgida) and endangered
razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). The endangered bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occurs near some loach minnow habitat but is
not expected to contribute to cumulative effects for the loach minnow.
No existing critical habitat designations are located in any of the
areas being designated as loach minnow critical habitat. Designation of
critical habitat in areas of loach minnow-occupied streams and adjacent
floodplains and riparian vegetation has been proposed for the spikedace
and the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus).
Expected impacts of designation for the flycatcher are not yet
available but will be detailed in the economic analysis for that
proposal. Expected impacts of designation for the spikedace become
available with the publication of final critical habitat for that
species, concurrent with this rule (in this separate part of the
Federal Register). Cumulative effects may be expected only in areas of
non-overlap where alternative sites for projects may be affected by one
species in one area and the other species in other areas or from
differences in constituent elements for the southwestern willow
flycatcher as compared to the fishes.
Issue 11: One commenter questioned the inclusion of the Middle Box
in proposed critical habitat. The commenter based the question on a
report by the Service's Albuquerque Ecological Services Field Office
(USFWS 1985), which stated that the area of the Middle Box (proposed
site of Conner Dam and Reservoir) has the lowest habitat value for
aquatic species and general ecology in the portion of the Gila River
from Mogollon Creek downstream through the Red Rock area. The report
also stated that the greatest habitat value to the native fishes is
found in the Cliff/Gila/Riverside Valley. That valley has a large
concentration of existing manmade structures. The commenter asked for a
clarification of the apparent contradiction between the low habitat
rating of the Middle Box and its inclusion in the proposed critical
habitat, and of the apparent contradiction between the high habitat
rating of the Cliff/Gila/ Riverside Valley and the statements in the
proposed rule regarding the adverse effects of human activities on
loach minnow habitat.
Response: The Middle Box does provide less overall general aquatic
habitat quality and diversity than other stretches. The critical
habitat proposed for the loach minnow does not include any of the
Middle Box proper; however, the upper end of the Middle Box ``reach''
(as defined by the 1985 Service report) supports a large number of
loach minnow. That area is included in the critical habitat. The
comparatively high habitat value of the Gila/Cliff/ Riverside Valley is
not inconsistent. All manmade structures are not equally destructive of
habitat values. Most of the structures in the Gila/Cliff/Riverside area
are small and have localized impacts on the aquatic habitat. In the
localized areas of those impacts, loach minnow are scarce or do not
exist.
Issue 12: The Graham County (Arizona) Manager asked if the
designation of critical habitat will affect the availability of Federal
money for studies by the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers on dam projects in the area.
Response: Designation of critical habitat will not automatically
alter or stop any studies or projects in the area. Rather, any project
that is federally funded, authorized, or carried out will be subject to
the provisions of section 7 of the Act. These provisions are explained
in this final rule. Studies or projects can be carried out by the
Bureau of Reclamation or Corps of Engineers if those studies or
projects do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat or
jeopardize any listed species.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat, as defined by section 3 of the Act, means--(i)
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection, and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation
of the species.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that critical habitat be
designated to the maximum extent prudent and determinable concurrently
with the determination that a species is endangered or threatened.
Critical habitat is being designated for the loach minnow (Tiaroga
cobitis) in the following areas (distances and conversions are
approximate):
1. Aravaipa Creek, Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona. Twenty-four
km (15 mi) of stream extending from the N\1/2\ of the SW\1/4\ sec. 26,
T.6S., R.17E. upstream to the W\1/2\ of the NE\1/4\ sec. 35, T.6S.,
R.19E.
2. Gila River, Grant and Catron counties, New Mexico. Four sections
of river totaling 93 km (57 mi) in length. The first section is 37 km
(23 mi) long and extends from the north side of St. Peter's Rock (south
boundary of sec. 21, T.17S., R.17W.) upstream to the confluence with
Mogollon Creek. A second section, of 11.5 km (7 mi), extends up the
West Fork from its confluence with the East Fork to the west boundary
of sec. 22, T.12S., R.14W. A third section, of 18 km (11 mi), extends
up the Middle Fork from its mouth to the confluence with Brothers West
Canyon. The fourth section is 26 km (16 mi) long and extends up the
East Fork from the confluence with the West Fork to the north boundary
of sec. 11, T.12S., R.13W.
3. San Francisco River, Catron County, New Mexico, and Greenlee
County, Arizona. Two sections of river totaling 21 km (13 mi) in
length. The first section is 15 km (9 mi) long and extends from the
U.S. Highway 180 bridge upstream to Kelly Flat. The other section is 6
km (4 mi) long and extends from the confluence with Hickey Canyon
upstream to the confluence with the Blue River.
4. Tularosa River, Catron County, New Mexico. Twenty-four km (15
mi) of river from the confluence with Negrito Creek upstream to the
town of Cruzville.
5. Blue River, Greenlee County, Arizona, and Catron County, New
Mexico. Seventy-eight km (48 mi) of river from its confluence with the
San Francisco River upstream to the confluence of Dry Blue Creek and
Campbell Blue Creek.
6. Campbell Blue Creek, Greenlee County, Arizona, and Catron
County, New Mexico. Fourteen km (9 mi) of stream from its junction with
Blue River upstream to the confluence with Coleman Creek.
7. Dry Blue Creek, Catron County, New Mexico. Three km (2 mi) of
stream from its confluence with the Blue River upstream to the springs
located in sec. 32, T.6S., R.21W.
The Service is required to base critical habitat proposals on the
best available scientific information (50 CFR 424.12). In determining
what areas to propose as critical habitat, the Service considers those
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the species and that may require special management considerations
or protection. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, the
following--(1) space for individual growth; (2) food, water, air,
light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of
offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and, generally, (5) habitats
that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the
historic geographical and ecological distributions of the species.
The areas being designated as critical habitat for the loach minnow
possess the necessary factors for survival, growth, and reproduction of
the species. Several areas currently occupied by the loach minnow were
not included in the 1985 proposal for various reasons. Although these
areas were not proposed for designation as critical habitat, they are
considered important for the long-term survival and recovery of the
loach minnow. The Service is considering revising critical habitat in
the future to add these areas. In addition, the Service is considering
adding certain unoccupied areas considered vital for recovery of the
species.
Maintenance of the widely separated populations found in the Gila,
San Francisco, Tularosa, White and Blue rivers and in Aravaipa Creek as
independent entities is critical to buffer against threats to each
individual population. Each of the remnant populations proposed for
critical habitat designation has unique characteristics which
contribute to ensuring this species' future. Genetic studies in
progress indicate that the populations are genetically distinctive
(Tibbets 1992). The Aravaipa Creek population is the only remnant of
the south-central portion of the loach minnow's historic range and is
under the most protective land management. The Blue River (including
Campbell and Dry Blue creeks and the San Francisco River below the
mouth of the Blue) is remote and at present is also relatively secure
from major threats, although damaged by past degradation. It is the
longest stretch of occupied loach minnow habitat unbroken by large
areas of unsuitable habitat. The West and Middle forks of the Gila
River have a relatively low degree of habitat threat and may contribute
genetically to the Cliff/Gila Valley population. The Cliff/Gila
population is the largest existing population of loach minnow and,
although faced with numerous threats, may represent the ``core''
population of the species. Habitat losses in the San Francisco and
Tularosa rivers have resulted in a highly fragmented loach minnow
population in those streams; however, the distribution of remaining
habitat in those rivers may provide valuable information on habitat
requirements of the loach minnow and the causes of the loach minnow's
decline.
When designating critical habitat for a species, the Service also
considers primary constituent elements of critical habitat, which may
include, but are not limited to, the following--roost sites, nesting
grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland,
water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator, geological
formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types. The areas
being designated as critical habitat for loach minnow will provide the
following constituent elements or will be capable, with rehabilitation,
of providing them. Loach minnow constituent elements have been expanded
from the proposed rule. The primary constituent elements include:
--Permanent, flowing, unpolluted water;
--Habitat for adult fish with moderate to swift flow velocities (15-100
centimeters (cm) (0.5-3 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-40 cm (0.1-
1.5 ft) deep) with gravel, cobble, and rubble substrates;
--Habitat for juveniles with moderate to swift flow velocities (15-100
cm (0.5-3 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-40 cm (0.1-1.5 ft) deep)
with sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble substrates;
--Habitat for larval stage with slow to moderate flow velocities (0-30
cm (0-1 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-30 cm (0.1-1 ft) deep) with
sand, gravel, and cobble substrates and abundant instream cover;
--Habitat for spawning with slow to swift flow velocities (3-85 cm
(0.1-2.75 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-30 cm (0.1-1 ft) deep)
with uncemented cobble and rubble substrate;
--Low amounts of fine sediment and substrate embeddedness;
--Riffle, run, and backwater components in the habitat;
--Low to moderate stream gradient (generally 0.5-1.5 percent);
--Water temperatures in the approximate range of 4-30 deg. C (40-
85 deg. F) with natural diurnal and seasonal variation;
--Abundant aquatic insect food base;
--Periodic flooding;
--A natural, unregulated hydrograph;
--Few or no predatory or competitive non-native species present;
--A healthy, intact, riparian community; and
--Moderate to high bank stability.
Section 4(b)(8) requires, for any proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, a description and evaluation of those
activities (public or private) that may adversely modify such habitat
or may be affected by such designation. Any activity that would lessen
the amount of the minimum flow or would alter the natural flow regime
in Aravaipa Creek or the San Francisco, Tularosa, Blue, or upper Gila
rivers could adversely affect the critical habitat. Such activities
include, but are not limited to, groundwater pumping, impoundment, and
water diversions. Any activity that would alter watershed
characteristics of the Aravaipa Creek or upper Gila, San Francisco,
Tularosa, or Blue River watersheds could adversely affect the critical
habitat. Such activities include, but are not limited to, vegetation
manipulation, timber harvest, road construction, prescribed burning,
livestock grazing, mining, and urban or suburban development. Any
activity that would alter the channel morphology in Aravaipa Creek, the
San Francisco, Tularosa, Blue, or upper Gila rivers could adversely
affect the critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not
limited to, channelization, impoundment, deprivation of substrate
source, destruction and alteration of riparian vegetation, and
excessive sedimentation from mining, livestock grazing, road
construction, timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and other watershed
disturbances. Any activity that would alter the water chemistry in
Aravaipa Creek or the San Francisco, Tularosa, Blue, or upper Gila
Rivers could adversely affect the critical habitat. Such activities
include, but are not limited to, release of chemical or biological
pollutants into the waters at a point source or by dispersed release
(non-point). Any activity that would introduce, spread, or augment non-
native fish species in the Gila River basin could adversely affect the
critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not limited to,
stocking of game fish, use of live bait fish, stocking for biological
control, aquaculture, dumping of pet or aquarium fish, construction and
operation of canals, and interbasin water transfers.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to consider
economic and other impacts of designating a particular area as critical
habitat. The Service has considered the critical habitat designation in
light of all additional relevant information obtained during the public
comment period and public hearings. All additional information received
has been addressed in the ``Summary of Comments'' section of this rule
or in the economic documents prepared on the rule. The economic
analysis (Souder 1992) is available upon request; its conclusions are
summarized in the ``Summary of Economic Analysis'' section of this
rule.
Available Conservation Measures
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat.
Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect the listed species or its critical habitat,
the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with
the Service.
No Federal activities on Bureau of Land Management lands on
Aravaipa Creek are expected to be affected by designation of critical
habitat for loach minnow. The Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness is presently
being managed to protect and enhance natural resource values, including
loach minnow. However, if existing or increased recreational use within
the canyon results in streambank degradation and increased sediment or
pollution load in the stream, then section 7 consultation may be
necessary.
On U.S. Forest Service lands on the Gila, San Francisco, Tularosa,
and Blue rivers, little effect on Federal activities is expected as a
result of this rule. Section 7 consultations for grazing, mining,
timber harvest, recreation, or other activities affecting loach minnow
critical habitat would now address effects to the critical habitat in
addition to effects to the loach minnow itself. The primary effect
anticipated by the U.S. Forest Service is possibly increased
administrative costs due to consultation requirements. Designation of
critical habitat may result in some increases in mitigation needs for
various land use activities.
Water development on the upper Gila River, under the Bureau of
Reclamation's Central Arizona Project (CAP), Upper Gila Water Supply
Study, may be affected by this rule. An informal conference (USFWS
1986) and an uncompleted formal consultation pursuant to section 7 have
been conducted on this CAP project and its likelihood to jeopardize the
survival of the loach minnow and adversely modify the proposed critical
habitat. No current proposals exist for CAP water development in any
areas of the designated critical habitat. The potential for designation
of critical habitat to affect future water-development plans is
dependent upon the level and type of adverse effects to the loach
minnow and its habitat. Those effects would depend upon the location,
size, method, and other specifics of the proposed water development. If
major adverse effects on critical habitat are expected, changes in
water-development plans may be required. However, only those changes in
addition to any changes required as a result of section 7 consultation
on the species would be attributable to critical habitat.
Known Federal activities on private lands that might be affected by
this rule would be future flood control funded by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency or carried out by the Soil Conservation Service or
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, future highway and bridge
construction funded, authorized, or carried out by the Federal Highway
Administration, or future federally funded irrigation projects. Private
activities within the stream channels that may require permits under
sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act may also be affected by
this rule. Effects are expected to be limited to administrative costs
for section 7 consultation and costs for altering proposed projects to
minimize or avoid effects to loach minnow and its critical habitat.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the
Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The
Department of the Interior has determined that designation of critical
habitat for the loach minnow will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on the information
discussed in this rule concerning public projects and private
activities within the critical habitat areas, it is not expected that
significant economic impacts will result from the critical habitat
designation. In addition, there are a limited number of actions on
private land that have Federal involvement through funds or permits
that would affect or be affected by the critical habitat designation;
the potential economic impact of the critical habitat designation on
these actions will be minor. Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs,
or information collection or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on
small entities by this designation. This action does not impose any
recordkeeping requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980.
Summary of Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to designate
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and
to consider the economic impact and any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary of
the Interior (Secretary) may exclude any area from critical habitat if
he determines that the benefits of such exclusions outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat,
unless it is determined, based on the best scientific and commercial
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat would result in the extinction of the species concerned. The
Secretary has delegated this authority to the Director of the Service.
The Act thus requires the Service to evaluate those economic and other
effects likely to take place due to the designation of critical
habitat, and to consider whether to exclude any critical habitat.
The economic analysis (Souder 1992) of the potential impacts of
critical habitat designation for the loach minnow concluded that
economic impacts are expected on only three Federal actions--Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) cost-shares to rebuild irrigation
diversions after major flood events; additional fencing and alternative
water developments to prevent cattle grazing in the riparian zones on
the National Forest; and limited preventive measures at developed
recreation sites. The estimated maximum identifiable added costs are
$406,500 ($150,000 of which is attributable to the 84 km (52 mi) of
river that forms part of the critical habitat designated for both the
loach minnow and spikedace). With the exception of $8,412 in local
cost-share for FEMA-eligible irrigation diversion reconstruction
(should a flood occur), any added costs would be to the Federal
government. The Director of the Service has not found it necessary to
exclude from designation any of the areas proposed for designation on
the basis of economic effects.
References Cited
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1988. Threatened native wildlife
in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Publ., Phoenix, AZ. 32 pp.
Barber, W.E., and W.L. Minckley. 1966. Fishes of Aravaipa Creek,
Graham and Pinal Counties, Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 11:313-
324.
Bettaso, R. 1992 to 1993. Aravaipa Creek monitoring data. Arizona
Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, AZ.
Britt, K.D., Jr. 1982. The reproductive biology and aspects of life
history of Tiaroga cobitis in southwestern New Mexico. Unpubl. M.S.
thesis. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.
Girard, C. 1856. Researches upon the cyprinoid fishes inhabiting the
fresh waters of the United States of America, west of the
Mississippi Valley, from specimens in the Museum of the Smithsonian
Institution. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia 8:165-213.
Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Dept. of Game and
Fish. Phoenix, AZ. 293 pp.
Minckley, W.L., and G.K. Meffe. 1987. Differential selection by
flooding in stream fish communities of the arid American southwest.
Pages 93-104 in W.J. Matthews and D.E. Heins (eds.). Evolutionary
and community ecology of North American stream fishes. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Minckley, W.L., T. Velasco, and C. Reimus. 1990 to 1992. Monitoring
reports for Aravaipa Creek. Arizona State University, Tempe.
New Mexico State Game Commission. 1990. Regulation No. 82. New
Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Santa Fe, NM.
Papoulius, D., K. Valenciano, and D.A. Hendrickson. 1989. A fish and
riparian survey of the Clifton Ranger District. Arizona Game and
Fish Department Publ. Phoenix, AZ. 165 pp.
Propst, D.L. 1988 to 1992. Results of October (fall) fish count
monitoring of Gila, San Francisco, and Tularosa Rivers. New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish. Santa Fe, NM.
Propst, D.L., and K.R. Bestgen. 1991. Habitat and biology of the
loach minnow, Tiaroga cobitis, in New Mexico. Copeia 1991(1):29-38.
Propst, D.L., K.R. Bestgen, and C.W. Painter. 1988. Distribution,
status, biology, and conservation of the loach minnow (Tiaroga
cobitis) in New Mexico. Endangered Species Report No. 17. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 75 pp.
Propst, D.L., P.C. Marsh, and W.L. Minckley. 1985. Arizona survey
for spikedace (Meda fulgida) and loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis):
Fort Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations and Eagle
Creek, 1985. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 5, 1985.
8 pp.
Rinne, J.N. 1989. Physical habitat use by loach minnow, Tiaroga
cobitis (Pisces:Cyprinidae), in southwestern desert streams.
Southwestern Naturalist 34(1):109-117.
Silvey, W.T., and M.S. Thompson. 1978. The distribution of fishes in
selected streams on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Arizona
Department of Game and Fish. Phoenix, AZ. 49 pp.
Souder, J. 1992. Analysis of the Economic Impacts of Designating
Critical Habitat for Tiaroga cobitis (loach minnow). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ. 64 pp. + appendices.
Tibbets, C.A. 1992. Allozyme variation in populations of the
spikedace Meda fulgida and the loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis.
Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 24(1992):37.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987a. Upper Gila water supply study,
special report on alternatives. October 1987. Boulder City, NV. 15
pp.+appendices.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987b. Letter from Commissioner to
Senator John C. Stennis, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on
Appropriations, regarding deferral of upper Gila water supply study.
November 5, 1987. Washington, D.C. 3 pp.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1979. Habitat study of
roundtail chub (Gila robusta), loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis). Gila
National Forest, Silver City, New Mexico. November 1979. Final
Report Contract No. RFQ-R3-6-79-lOB. 45 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Planning Aid Memorandum for
the Upper Gila Water Supply Study, Catron, Grant and Hidalgo
Counties, New Mexico. January 4, 1985. Albuquerque, NM. 29 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Endangered Species Act,
section 7 conference report--Upper Gila Water Supply Study and Verde
River Diversions. April 14, 1986. Albuquerque, NM. 11 pp.
Author
The primary author of this rule is S.E. Stefferud (see ADDRESSES
section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat of loach minnow
in the same alphabetical order as the species occurs in 17.11(h).
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
(e) * * *
* * * * *
Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis)
Arizona:
1. Graham and Pinal Counties: Aravaipa Creek, approximately 24
km (15 mi) of stream extending from the N\1/2\ of the SW\1/4\ sec.
26, T.6S., R.17E. upstream to the W\1/2\ of the NE\1/4\ sec. 35,
T.6S., R.19E.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
TR08MR94.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-c
2. Greenlee County:
a. Blue River, approximately 78 km (48 mi) of river, extending
from the confluence with the San Francisco River (SE\1/4\ sec. 31,
T.2S., R.31E.) upstream to the confluence of Campbell Blue and Dry
Blue creeks (SE\1/4\ sec. 6, T.7S., R.21W.) in Catron County, New
Mexico.
b. Campbell Blue Creek, approximately 14 km (9 mi) of stream,
extending from the confluence with the Blue River (SE\1/4\ sec. 6,
T.7S., R.21W.) upstream to the confluence with Coleman Creek (SW\1/
4\ of the NE\1/4\ sec. 32, T.4 \1/2\N., R.31E.). Approximately 0.7
km (0.5 mi) of this stretch is located in Catron County, New Mexico.
c. San Francisco River, approximately 6 km (4 mi) of river,
extending from the confluence with Hickey Canyon (west boundary of
sec. 12, T.3S., R.30E.) upstream to the confluence with the Blue
River (SE\1/4\ sec. 31, T.2S., R.31E.).
New Mexico:
1. Catron County:
a. Dry Blue Creek, approximately 3 km (2 mi) of stream,
extending from the confluence with the Blue River (SE\1/4\ sec. 6,
T.7S., R.21W.) upstream to the west boundary of the SE\1/4\ sec. 32,
T.6S., R.21W.
b. San Francisco River, approximately 15 km (9 mi) of river,
extending from the U.S. Highway 180 bridge (NE\1/4\ of the SW\1/4\
sec. 8, T.1OS., R.20W.) upstream to the east boundary sec. 14,
T.9S., R.20W.
c. Tularosa River, approximately 24 km (15 mi) of river,
extending from the confluence with Negrito Creek (SW\1/4\ of the
NW\1/4\ sec. 19, T.7S. R.18W.) upstream to the town of Cruzville
(south boundary sec. 1, T.6S., R.18W.).
d. Middle Fork Gila River, approximately 18 km (11 mi) of river,
extending from the confluence with the West Fork (SW\1/4\ sec. 25,
T.12S., R.14W.) upstream to the confluence with Brothers West Canyon
(NE\1/4\ sec. 33, T.11S., R.14W.).
2. Grant and Catron Counties:
a. East Fork Gila River, approximately 26 km (16 mi) of river
extending from the confluence with the West Fork (center of sec. 8,
T.13S., R.13W.) upstream to the north boundary of sec. 11, T.12S.,
R.13W.
b. West Fork Gila River, approximately 11.5 km (7 mi) of river
extending from the confluence with the East Fork (center of sec. 8,
T.13S., R.13W.) upstream to the west boundary sec. 22, T.12S.,
R.14W.
3. Grant County: Gila River, approximately 37 km (23 mi) of
river, extending from the south boundary sec. 21, T.17S., R.17W.
upstream to the confluence with Mogollon Creek (NE\1/4\ sec. 31,
T.14S., R.16W.).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
TR08MR94.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Known constituent elements, for all areas of critical habitat,
include permanent, flowing, unpolluted streams with low to moderate
gradient supporting adequate areas of moderate to swift velocities
and shallow depths, over gravel, cobble, and rubble substrates with
little fine sediment. Adequate areas of slower velocities, shallower
depths, and abundant cover are required for early life stages. Known
constituent elements for all areas also include periodic flooding; a
natural, unregulated hydrograph; healthy riparian vegetation;
moderate to high bank stability; and an absence of or few non-native
fishes present.
* * * * *
Dated: February 2, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-5117 Filed 3-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
