[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5118]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 8, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC24
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Threatened Spikedace (Meda fulgida)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) designates critical
habitat for the spikedace (Meda fulgida) under the authority of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The spikedace, a
small fish, was listed as a threatened species under the Act on July 1,
1986 (51 FR 23769); however, final designation of the proposed critical
habitat was postponed at that time. Critical habitat is now being
designated in a total of approximately 154 kilometers (km) (95 miles
(mi)) of portions of the Gila River in Grant and Catron counties, New
Mexico; the Verde River in Yavapai County, Arizona; and Aravaipa Creek
in Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona. Federal actions that may affect
the areas designated as critical habitat are now subject to
consultation with the Service, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is April 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arizona Ecological
Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3616 West Thomas,
suite 6, Phoenix, Arizona 85019. Copies of the ``Analysis of the
Economic Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat for Meda fulgida
(Spikedace),'' August 12, 1992, are also available for inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the same location.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Stefferud at the above address
(602/379-4720).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The spikedace is a small, slim fish less than 80 millimeters (3
inches) long. It is characterized by very silvery sides and spines in
the dorsal and pelvic fins. This species is found in moderate to large
perennial streams, where it inhabits shallow riffles with sand, gravel,
and rubble substrates and moderate to swift currents as well as swift
pools over sand or gravel substrates (Barber et al. 1970, Propst et al.
1986, Rinne 1991). Recurrent flooding is very important in maintaining
the habitat of the spikedace and also helps it maintain a competitive
edge over invading non-native fish species (Propst et al. 1986,
Minckley and Meffe 1987).
The spikedace was first collected in 1851 from the Rio San Pedro in
Arizona, and was described from those specimens in 1856 by Girard. It
is the only species in the genus Meda. The spikedace was once common
throughout much of the Verde, Agua Fria, Salt, San Pedro, San
Francisco, and Gila (upstream from Phoenix) River systems, occupying
suitable habitat in both the mainstreams and moderate gradient
perennial tributaries, up to 1,800 to 1,900 meters (m) (5,900 to 6,200
feet (ft)) elevation. Because of habitat destruction and competition
and predation by non-native fish species, its range and abundance have
been severely reduced, and it is now restricted to approximately 31 km
(19 mi) of Aravaipa Creek in Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona;
approximately 108 km (67 mi) of the upper Gila River in the Middle Box
canyon, the Cliff/Gila Valley, and the lower end of the West, East, and
Middle forks in Grant and Catron counties, New Mexico; approximately 57
km (35 mi) of the Verde River from the lower end of the Chino Valley
downstream to near the mouth of Sycamore Canyon in Yavapai County,
Arizona; and approximately 40 km (25 mi) of Eagle Creek in Greenlee
County, Arizona (Minckley 1973, Anderson 1978, Barrett et al. 1985,
Bestgen 1985, Propst et al. 1986, Marsh et al. 1990, Propst 1988 to
1992, Minckley et al. 1990 to 1992, Bettaso 1992 to 1993). This present
range is only 9 percent of the historic range of 2,600 km (1,600 mi) of
river.
Critical habitat is being designated for approximately 154 km (95
mi) on rivers currently occupied by spikedace. Land ownership along the
critical habitat area is mixed and is as follows (distances and
conversions are approximate):
Aravaipa Creek--The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 10
km (6 mi) of the critical habitat as part of the designated Aravaipa
Canyon Wilderness. Thirteen km (8 mi) of the critical habitat above and
below the Wilderness, previously owned by the Defenders of Wildlife's
Whittell Trust, is now owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and
managed as a nature preserve. About 1 km (0.5 mi) of stream is on
privately owned inholdings located within the Preserve.
Gila River--The BLM administers 4.5 km (2.8 mi) of the Gila River
critical habitat, just downstream from the mouth of the Middle Box
canyon. This is part of a designated Area of Critical Environmental
Concern, a special use designation of the BLM. Twenty-five km (15.5 mi)
of land along the critical habitat in most of the Cliff/Gila Valley and
in the area near Gila Hot Springs are privately owned. Two km (1.2 mi)
of land along the critical habitat upstream from the town of Gila is
owned by TNC. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish administers
land along 6 km (3.8 mi) of the critical habitat on the West and Middle
forks of the Gila River. The New Mexico State Land Office owns land
along 0.5 km (0.2 mi) of the critical habitat in the Cliff/Gila Valley.
The National Park Service's Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument lies
along 1 km (0.5 mi) of the critical habitat in the West Fork. This
Monument is currently being administered by the U.S. Forest Service.
The U.S. Forest Service, Gila National Forest, administers the
remaining 34 km (21 mi) of the critical habitat in the Gila River with
sections flowing through three special use areas--Gila Wilderness,
Lower Gila River Bird Habitat Management Area, and Gila River Research
Natural Area.
Verde River--Forty-one km (25.5 mi) of spikedace critical habitat
on the Verde River is located in the Prescott National Forest
administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Fifteen km (9 mi) of privately
owned land is located along the critical habitat below Sullivan Lake or
as a few private inholdings along critical habitat within the U.S.
Forest Service lands. The State of Arizona has 4 km (2.5 mi) of
scattered State lands located along the river below Sullivan Lake.
The spikedace is included on the State lists of threatened and
endangered species in Arizona and New Mexico (Arizona Game and Fish
Dept. 1988, New Mexico State Game Comm. 1990). It was included as a
Category 1 candidate species in the Service's December 30, 1982,
Vertebrate Notice of Review (47 FR 58454). Category 1 includes those
taxa for which the Service currently has substantial biological
information to support listing the species as endangered or threatened.
The Service was petitioned on March 14, 1985, by the American Fisheries
Society (AFS) and on March 18, 1985, by the Desert Fishes Council (DFC)
to list the spikedace as threatened. Because the species was already
under active petition by AFS, the DFC petition was accepted only as a
letter of comment. Evaluation of the AFS petition by the Service
revealed that the petitioned action may be warranted. Finding that the
petitioned action was warranted, the Service published a proposed rule
to list this species as threatened with critical habitat on June 18,
1985 (50 FR 25390). The final rule listing the spikedace as a
threatened species was published on July 1, 1986 (51 FR 23769). The
proposed critical habitat designation was not made final at the time of
listing but was postponed to allow for gathering and analysis of
economic data.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the June 18, 1985, proposed rule (50 FR 25390) and associated
notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual
reports or information that might contribute to the development of a
final rule. The original comment period closed on August 19, 1985, but
was reopened on October 7, 1985 (50 FR 37703), to accommodate the
public hearings, and remained open until November 8, 1985. Appropriate
State agencies, county governments, Federal agencies, scientific
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and
requested to comment. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment
were published in the Courier in Prescott, Arizona; in the Eastern
Arizona Courier in Safford, Arizona; and in the Daily Press in Silver
City, New Mexico, on July 5, 10, and 13, 1985, respectively. One
hundred twelve letters of comment were received from 109 separate
parties and are summarized below. Six requests for a public hearing
were received. Public hearings were held in Silver City, New Mexico;
Safford, Arizona; and Phoenix, Arizona, on October 7, 8, and 9, 1985,
respectively. Interested parties were notified of those hearings, and
notices of the hearings were published in the Federal Register on
September 17, 1985 (50 FR 37703); in the Silver City, New Mexico, Daily
Press on September 24, 1985; in the Phoenix, Arizona, Arizona Republic
on September 26, 1985; in the Prescott, Arizona, Courier on September
27, 1985; and in the Safford, Arizona, Eastern Arizona Courier on
October 2, 1985. Thirty-six comments pertaining to the proposed
critical habitat were received at these hearings and are also
summarized below.
Seventy-eight letters of comment were received in support of the
proposed critical habitat, 21 in opposition to the proposal, and an
additional 13 which expressed neither support nor opposition or which
furnished economic information regarding the effects of the proposal.
The 3 public hearings were attended by 107 people, with 33 oral or
written statements given--16 in support of the proposed critical
habitat, 14 in opposition, and 3 neither in support nor opposition. In
addition, three other parties asked questions regarding the proposed
critical habitat. The hearings accepted formal oral and written
statements and also included an informal question and answer session.
Many of the comments addressed concerns regarding specific water-
development or flood-control projects. These comments will not be
addressed here unless they requested or resulted in specific changes to
the rule or to the rule procedure. Economic information supplied in
these comments was incorporated into the economic analysis on proposed
critical habitat (Souder 1992). That analysis is available upon
request, as are copies of hearing transcripts and all letters received
during the comment period (see ADDRESSES section).
Comments in support of the proposed critical habitat were received
from the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Arizona
Game and Fish Department, Arizona Nature Conservancy, Arizona State
University Wildlife Society Chapter, Arizona Wildlife Federation,
Audubon Society Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, Defenders of
Wildlife, Desert Fishes Council, George Whittell Wildlife Trust,
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (now known as the World Conservation Union), Maricopa Audubon
Society, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, New Mexico Nature
Conservancy, Northern Arizona Paddlers Club, Prescott Audubon Society,
Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club, Southern New Mexico Conservation
Coalition, Southern New Mexico Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy's
Rocky Mountain Natural Heritage Task Force, Tucson Audubon Society,
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Audubon Society, 3 members of the
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, and 63 biologists and private
citizens.
Comments in opposition to the proposed critical habitat were
received from the Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Arizona Division
of Emergency Services, Arizona Mining Association, City of Prescott,
Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona, Coronado Resource Conservation and
Development Board, County of Greenlee, Gila Fish and Gun Club, Gila
Valley Natural Resource Conservation Board, Graham County Board of
Supervisors, Grant County Chamber of Commerce, Hooker Dam Association,
New Mexico State Engineer Office, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Southwest
New Mexico Industrial Development Corporation, Town of Safford, Town of
Silver City, Town of Thatcher, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Soil
Conservation Service New Mexico State Office, Upper Gila River
Association, and six private citizens.
Nonsubstantive comments or comments containing only economic
information were received from the Arizona State Clearinghouse, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Salt River
Project, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Soil Conservation Service Arizona
State Office, and two private citizens.
Summaries of all substantive comments addressing the issue of
critical habitat for the spikedace are provided in the following
discussion. Comments of similar content are grouped in a number of
general issues with the Service's response to those issues and
comments.
Issue 1: Four commenters recommended that additional areas be
included in the designation of critical habitat. Two commenters
recommended that the critical habitat designation be changed to include
the watersheds of the rivers being designated, as well as the rivers
themselves.
Drs. Dean Hendrickson and Paul Turner recommended that the critical
habitat designation be extended downstream in the Gila River to include
the area between Red Rock, New Mexico, and the mouth of the Middle Box.
Dr. Hendrickson's 1983-84 work (under contract with the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation) and that of Propst et al. (1986) and Anderson (1978)
documented a large population of primarily larval and juvenile
spikedace in the Red Rock to Middle Box area. He believes that the area
may be an important nursery area for spikedace and may contribute
significantly to upstream populations through upstream migration. The
area would be affected by future water development in the Cliff/Gila
Valley upstream.
Response: The Service believes that inclusion of the entire
watershed in critical habitat designation for this fish is not
necessary to provide adequate protection for the species. However, the
Service recognizes the importance of the watersheds in maintaining
quality habitat for the spikedace. Any Federal activities in the
watersheds of streams designated as critical habitat that would affect
the critical habitat would be subject to section 7 of the Act. The
Service recognizes that limiting the proposed critical habitat to only
the stream itself may not clearly indicate the importance of the
streambanks and channel to the maintenance of the critical habitat.
Therefore, future revision of the critical habitat to include a portion
of the riparian zone or floodplain may be considered.
In the area of the Gila River between Red Rock and the mouth of the
Middle Box, the majority of spikedace are located at the mouth of the
Middle Box and are included in the critical habitat as proposed. The
remainder are downstream from the critical habitat area but are
nevertheless protected under the jeopardy provisions of section 7 and
the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. The area from the mouth of
the Middle Box to the Arizona/New Mexico border is considered to be
potential recovery area for the spikedace and may be considered for
addition to the critical habitat in future revision of the designation.
Revision would require that an additional proposal be published in the
Federal Register.
Issue 2: Four of the commenters recommended that the area of the
Gila River that was being considered in 1985 for damming or other water
development under the Bureau of Reclamation's Upper Gila Water Supply
Study (UGWSS) be excluded from the critical habitat designation. Such
an exclusion could be made under the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of
the Act, which provides that the Secretary of the Interior may exclude
any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as
critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat would result in the extinction of the species. The four
commenters stated that the benefits of the water supply, flood control,
and other associated economic and recreational benefits of the UGWSS,
and Conner Dam in particular, far outweigh the benefits of critical
habitat. One commenter also suggested that areas presently unoccupied
by spikedace in the Gila River, the East Fork of the Gila River, and
other streams could be designated as critical habitat to replace the
excluded UGWSS area. The commenter suggested that such unoccupied areas
could then be modified and managed to provide habitat for spikedace and
then stocked with captive-reared spikedace to provide increased
populations and habitat for the species.
Response: Planning for the UGWSS was suspended in 1987 (U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation 1987a, 1987b) due to various economic, environmental,
and water supply factors. Further planning was deferred until the year
2010 when it is predicted the need for the water supply will occur.
Prior to that suspension, discussions between the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Service on tentative alternatives for the UGWSS study indicated
that development of the required water supply would likely be possible
without adversely modifying the proposed critical habitat. Therefore,
no economic or other impacts were anticipated to the UGWSS and no
economic benefits would accrue from exclusion from critical habitat
designation of the Conner Dam and Reservoir area, or any other area
being considered under the UGWSS.
Regarding the suggestion to replace occupied areas in the critical
habitat designation with unoccupied areas of the Gila River--the
Service is considering a possible future revision to the critical
habitat which may contain some presently unoccupied areas as potential
recovery habitat. However, this would be an addition to the critical
habitat, not a substitution. The Service does not believe it would
further the conservation of the species to remove from the protection
of critical habitat designation areas known to support long-term
populations of spikedace and replace them with areas which do not
currently support spikedace, but which, with human manipulation, might
support spikedace in the future. However, the primary unoccupied area
identified by the commenter as a replacement for the occupied areas is
the canyon wilderness between Mogollon Creek and the East Fork Gila
River (above the Cliff/Gila Valley), which probably never supported
spikedace and does not appear to contain potential habitat for recovery
of the species. The knowledge, expertise, and physical capability do
not exist to modify such areas of non-suitable habitat into suitable
habitat for spikedace. In addition, such modification might cause major
irreparable harm to other native fish and aquatic organisms, riparian
plant and wildlife communities, and wilderness values.
Issue 3: Two commenters requested that critical habitat be limited
to areas that would not hinder the construction of flood-control
facilities for the areas of Clifton, Duncan, and Safford, Arizona. As
in Issue 2, this request for exclusion of specific areas was made under
the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Response: The economic analysis (Souder 1992) did not show there to
be significant economic or other benefits of excluding any area for
flood control. Such a limitation of critical habitat is not expected to
be necessary to allow for flood-control measures on the Gila and San
Francisco rivers. Any such projects or activities, if they are
federally funded, authorized, or carried out, would be subject to the
provisions of section 7 regarding both the survival of the spikedace
and the adverse modification or destruction of its critical habitat.
The Service expects that alternatives and plan modifications formulated
through consultation will allow adequate flood-control measures to be
taken while safeguarding the species and its habitat.
Issue 4: One commenter recommended limiting designated critical
habitat to areas that would not prevent the stocking of sport fish. The
commenter pointed out that many of the non-native fish identified as
predators on spikedace, such as catfish and trout, provide recreation
for local residents and create revenue from sport fishing recreation.
As in Issues 2 and 3, this request for exclusion of specific areas is
made under the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Response: The designation of critical habitat as proposed is not
expected to have significant effects on recreational fishing. The
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) does not stock game fish in any
of the waters proposed as critical habitat for the spikedace. The New
Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMGF) stocks only rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) into or near the critical habitat for spikedace.
Other fish currently being stocked into spikedace critical habitat are
the endangered Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius) and the
endangered razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), both native to the
Gila River basin. Game fish are being stocked by the AGFD, NMGF, and
the Service into waters connected to the proposed critical habitat.
These stockings must comply with section 7 consultation requirements
for their effects on spikedace, and designation of critical habitat is
not expected to change the outcome of those consultations.
Issue 5: Three commenters recommended that various management
techniques, such as habitat improvements, predator control, and
reintroduction of spikedace from the Service's Dexter National Fish
Hatchery, be implemented for spikedace in lieu of designating critical
habitat.
Response: Habitat improvement practices, including predator
control, cannot substitute for designation of critical habitat, unless
such conservation measures alleviate threats to the species to the
point where it no longer requires listing or critical habitat
designation. Many of the threats to the spikedace cannot be alleviated
by habitat improvements but can be controlled through designation of
critical habitat and through the provisions of sections 7 and 9 of the
Act. Too little is known about the specific habitat needs of the
spikedace to ensure that habitat improvement practices and
reintroductions would secure the survival of this fish. Habitat
enhancement and reintroduction are measures that are being considered
in the recovery of this species. Extensive study will be needed to
ensure the success of such work.
The Dexter National Fish Hatchery does not presently maintain
spikedace stocks. Facility space is limited, and priority is given to
species whose survival depends heavily upon artificial propagation, a
point the spikedace has not yet reached. Placement of stocks of
spikedace into that facility may be considered in the future; however,
a number of years are often needed to develop the techniques required
to successfully propagate a given species in captivity, thus precluding
the use of captive stock in alleviating the immediate need for critical
habitat designation. In addition, reintroductions may be more likely to
succeed if the reintroduction area(s) are protected through designation
as critical habitat.
Issue 6: Two commenters expressed concerns regarding the value of
designating critical habitat when there is a significant threat to the
spikedace from predatory and competitive non-native fish. One commenter
believed that the designation of critical habitat without a management
and statutory effort to control undesirable introduced fish species is
not justified. The other commenter believed that critical habitat
designation for the spikedace in the Gila River is futile because of
the impending extinction of the spikedace due to displacement by the
non-native red shiner (Cyprinella (formerly Notropis) lutrensis).
Response: The existence of threats to a listed species from other
organisms, such as non-native fishes, does not relieve the Service of
its responsibility to protect the species' habitat. The spikedace faces
extensive threats to its habitat and will benefit from designation of
critical habitat. The Service is presently working with the State Game
and Fish departments and other agencies on solutions for controlling
the introduction and spread of non-native fish species, including game
fish. Although the red shiner appears to displace the spikedace in some
locations and is considered a serious range-wide threat to the
spikedace, the red shiner populations in the Gila River have remained
small since their initial invasion in the early 1980's. A key factor in
controlling the displacement of spikedace by red shiner is the
protection and enhancement of the habitat. Thus, designation of
critical habitat is expected to be valuable in controlling the threat
from red shiner.
Issue 7: Three commenters objected to the deferral of analysis of
economic and other impacts of critical habitat designation until the
time of the final rule. They believed such analysis should be done
prior to the proposal and contended that deferral is ``improper both
legally, procedurally and in failing to follow reasonable and necessary
rulemaking steps,'' is ``certainly unreasonable and probably illegal,''
and does not allow the public access to essential information needed to
comment on the impacts and review the adequacy of the Service's
analysis. They further contended that a Regulatory Impact Analysis,
under Executive Order 12291, must be prepared for the critical habitat
proposal.
Response: The economic analysis (Souder 1992) of the proposed
spikedace critical habitat designation was prepared following the
publication of the proposed rule and prior to the final decision on the
proposed critical habitat designation. This procedure is based upon the
specific requirement of the Act exempting listing actions from economic
considerations. When a listing and critical habitat designation are
proposed concurrently, as is required (with certain exceptions) by the
Act, the economic analysis is not conducted prior to proposal to avoid
illegally influencing or delaying the listing. Because Executive Order
12291 was rescinded on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), a Regulatory
Impact Analysis is not required.
Issue 8: Three commenters stated that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
should be prepared for this critical habitat proposal. They contended
that the 1981 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' Pacific Legal Foundation v.
Andrus decision, which found that an EIS is not required for listings
under the Endangered Species Act, is not applicable to the current
critical habitat proposal. Their reasons for this contention include--
the Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus decision addressed only listing
and not critical habitat designation, the Act now requires the
consideration of economic and other relevant impacts of specifying an
area as critical habitat, and the Act also now requires the Secretary
of the Interior to determine whether the benefits of excluding an area
from critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat.
Response: The Service's position on NEPA compliance for any
regulations adopted pursuant to section (4)(a) of the Act (listing,
critical habitat designation, reclassification, delisting) is set forth
in the Federal Register of October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). In addition
to Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, the Service's position on NEPA
compliance is based on the recommendation of the Council on
Environmental Quality, the fact that the Act stipulates a process to be
followed in promulgating such rules and limits Secretarial discretion
in altering the critical habitat designation, and on the experience of
10 years of preparation of Environmental Assessments on section 4(a)
actions. In those 10 years, 120 Environmental Assessments were
prepared, none of which resulted in a finding of significant impact and
consequent preparation of an EIS.
Analysis of economic impacts for critical habitat designations is
required by Executive Order 12866 and section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act, and the Service has prepared an economic analysis (Souder
1992) in compliance with those authorities. When the economic analysis
is added to the administrative record generated through the public
comment process, it provides the functional equivalent of NEPA
documentation and satisfies the information-gathering, analytical, and
environmental goals of NEPA.
Issue 9: Three commenters recommended that, in assessing the
economic impacts of proposed critical habitat, the Service should
consider the cumulative effects of all past species listings and
critical habitat designations and all such actions that are or may be
under consideration in the area to be affected by proposed critical
habitat. They believed that the economic effects caused by past and
future actions for other species are relevant in determining economic
and other impacts in the proposed critical habitat area.
Response: In assessing the impacts of a critical habitat
designation, the Service considers in its baseline the cumulative
effects resulting from earlier listings and critical habitat
designations to the extent that such effects can be determined. Effects
of this critical habitat designation were calculated incrementally
above the baseline of other species listings and critical habitat, as
well as other environmental and land-management regulations.
Consideration is limited to known impacts and does not include
theoretical or hypothetical impacts. Currently, the only other
federally listed species present in streams in which the spikedace is
found are the threatened loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), the endangered
razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and a nonessential experimental
population of the Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius).
Nonessential experimental status provides protection equivalent to that
for a proposed species, which includes only limited section 7
protection and thus has little or no economic or other impacts. The
endangered bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occurs near some
spikedace habitat but is not expected to contribute to cumulative
effects for the spikedace. No existing critical habitat designations
are located in any of the areas being designated as spikedace critical
habitat. Designation of critical habitat in areas of spikedace-occupied
streams and adjacent floodplains and riparian vegetation has been
proposed for the loach minnow, the razorback sucker, and the
southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Expected
impacts of designation for the sucker and flycatcher are not yet
available but will be detailed in the economic analyses for those
proposals. Expected impacts of designation for the loach minnow become
available with the publication of final critical habitat for that
species, concurrent with this rule (in this separate part of the
Federal Register). Cumulative economic impacts may be expected only in
areas of non-overlap where alternative sites for projects may be
affected by one species in one area and the other species in other
areas or from differences in constituent elements for the southwestern
willow flycatcher as compared to the fishes.
Issue 10: One commenter questioned the inclusion of the Middle Box
in proposed critical habitat. The commenter based the question on a
report by the Service's Albuquerque Ecological Services Field Office
(USFWS 1985), which stated that the area of the Middle Box (proposed
site of Conner Dam and Reservoir) has the lowest habitat value for
aquatic species and general ecology in the portion of the Gila River
from Mogollon Creek downstream through the Red Rock area. The report
also stated that the greatest habitat value to the native fishes is
found in the Cliff/Gila/Riverside Valley. That valley has a large
concentration of existing manmade structures. The commenter asked for a
clarification of the apparent contradiction between the low habitat
rating of the Middle Box and its inclusion in the proposed critical
habitat, and of the apparent contradiction between the high habitat
rating of the Cliff/Gila/ Riverside Valley and the statements in the
proposed rule regarding the adverse effects of human activities on
spikedace habitat.
Response: The Middle Box does provide less overall general aquatic
habitat quality and diversity than other stretches. However, there are
large numbers of spikedace at the upper end of the Middle Box and at
its mouth. The short unoccupied stretch between those two areas is too
small to be omitted from the critical habitat for biological reasons
and provides an essential element to the critical habitat by providing
a channel for water, fish, and gene flow between the two segments.
Alteration or loss of that connection would likely result in
extirpation of spikedace in the lower area. The comparatively high
habitat value of the Gila/Cliff/ Riverside Valley is not inconsistent.
All manmade structures are not equally destructive of habitat values.
Most of the structures in the Gila/Cliff/Riverside area are small and
have localized impacts on the aquatic habitat. In the localized areas
of those impacts, spikedace are scarce or do not exist.
Issue 11: The Graham County (Arizona) Manager asked if the
designation of critical habitat will affect the availability of Federal
money for studies by the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers on dam projects in the area.
Response: Designation of critical habitat will not automatically
alter or stop any studies or projects in the area. Rather, any project
that is federally funded, authorized, or carried out will be subject to
the provisions of section 7 of the Act. These provisions are explained
in this final rule. Studies or projects can be carried out by the
Bureau of Reclamation or Corps of Engineers if those studies or
projects do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat or
jeopardize any listed species.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat, as defined by section 3 of the Act, means--(i)
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection, and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation
of the species.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that critical habitat be
designated to the maximum extent prudent and determinable concurrently
with the determination that a species is endangered or threatened.
Critical habitat is being designated for the spikedace (Meda fulgida)
in the following areas (distances and conversions are approximate):
1. Aravaipa Creek, Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona. Twenty-four
km (15 mi) of stream extending from the N\1/2\ of the SW\1/4\ sec. 26,
T.6S., R.17E. upstream to the W\1/2\ of the NE\1/4\ sec. 35, T.6S.,
R.19E.
2. Verde River, Yavapai County, Arizona. Fifty-seven km (35 mi) of
river extending from 1 km (0.5 mi) below the confluence with Sycamore
Creek upstream to Sullivan Lake.
3. Gila River, Grant and Catron counties, New Mexico. Three
sections of river totaling 73 km (45 mi) in length. The first section
is 50 km (31 mi) long and extends from the mouth of the Middle Box
canyon upstream to the confluence with Mogollon Creek. A second
section, of 11.5 km (7 mi), extends up the West Fork from its
confluence with the East Fork to the west boundary of sec. 22, T.12S.,
R.14W. The last section is 11.5 km (7 mi) long and extends up the
Middle Fork from its mouth to the confluence with Big Bear Canyon.
One change in the critical habitat originally proposed for
spikedace has been made in this final rule. Sycamore Creek, a tributary
of the Verde River in Yavapai County, Arizona, has been removed from
the final critical habitat designation as a result of new biological
information received. The lower 1.5 km (1 mi) of Sycamore Creek was
included in the proposed critical habitat due to erroneous data on the
presence of spikedace. No records of spikedace in Sycamore Creek are
known; thus potential habitat there is limited to the mouth of the
creek.
The Service is required to base critical habitat proposals on the
best available scientific information (50 CFR 424.12). In determining
what areas to propose as critical habitat, the Service considers those
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the species and that may require special management considerations
or protection. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, the
following--(1) space for individual growth; (2) food, water, air,
light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of
offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and, generally, (5) habitats
that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the
historic geographical and ecological distributions of the species.
The areas being designated as critical habitat for the spikedace
possess the necessary factors for survival, growth, and reproduction of
the species. Several areas currently occupied by the spikedace were not
included in the 1985 proposal for various reasons. Although these areas
were not proposed for designation as critical habitat, they are
considered important for the long-term survival and recovery of the
spikedace. The Service is considering revising critical habitat in the
future to add these areas, including the occupied area recommended for
inclusion as critical habitat in the recovery plan for the species
(USFWS 1991). In addition, the Service is considering adding certain
unoccupied areas considered vital for recovery of the species.
Maintenance of the widely separated populations found in the Gila
and Verde rivers and in Aravaipa Creek as independent entities is
critical to buffer against threats to each individual population. Each
of the remnant populations proposed for critical habitat designation
has unique characteristics which contribute to ensuring this species'
future. Genetic studies in progress indicate that the populations are
genetically distinctive (Tibbets 1992). The Aravaipa Creek population
is one of only two remnants of the south-central portion of the
spikedace's historic range and is under the most protective land
management. The Verde River population is the only remnant of the
northern portion of the historic range. The upper Verde River is
unusual in its relatively stable thermal and hydrologic regime and the
spikedace population there is the most genetically distinct, possibly
to the subspecific or specific level. The West and Middle forks of the
Gila River have a relatively low degree of habitat threat and may
contribute genetically to the Cliff/Gila Valley population. The Cliff/
Gila population is the largest existing population of spikedace and,
although faced with numerous threats, may represent the ``core''
population of the species.
When designating critical habitat for a species, the Service also
considers the primary constituent elements of critical habitat, which
may include, but are not limited to, the following--roost sites,
nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or
dryland, water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator,
geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types.
The areas being designated as critical habitat for spikedace will
provide the following constituent elements or will be capable, with
rehabilitation, of providing them. Spikedace constituent elements have
been expanded from the proposed rule. The primary constituent elements
include:
--Permanent, flowing, unpolluted water;
--Habitat for adult fish with slow to swift flow velocities (0-100
centimeter (cm) (0-3 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-38 cm (0.1-
1.25 ft) deep) with shear zones where rapid flow borders slower flow,
areas of sheet flow at the upper ends of mid-channel sand/gravel bars,
and eddies at downstream riffle edges;
--Habitat for juveniles with slow to moderate flow velocities (0-60 cm
(0-2 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-70 cm (0.1-2.25 ft) deep) with
moderate amounts of instream cover;
--Habitat for larval stage with slow to moderate flow velocities (0-30
cm (0-1 ft) per second) in shallow water (3-30 cm (0.1-1 ft) deep) with
abundant instream cover;
--Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts of
fine sediment and substrate embeddedness;
--Pool, riffle, run, and backwater components in the habitat;
--Low stream gradient (generally 0.5-1.5 percent);
--Water temperatures in the approximate range of 1-30 deg. C (35-
85 deg. F) with natural diurnal and seasonal variation;
--Abundant aquatic insect food base;
--Periodic flooding;
--A natural, unregulated hydrograph;
--Few or no predatory or competitive non-native species present;
--A healthy, intact, riparian community; and
--Moderate to high bank stability.
Section 4(b)(8) requires, for any proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, a description and evaluation of those
activities (public or private) that may adversely modify such habitat
or may be affected by such designation. Any activity that would lessen
the amount of the minimum flow or would alter the natural flow regime
in Aravaipa Creek or the upper Gila or Verde rivers could adversely
affect critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not limited
to, groundwater pumping, impoundment, and water diversions. Any
activity that would alter watershed characteristics of the Aravaipa
Creek or upper Gila or Verde River watersheds could adversely affect
the critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not limited to,
vegetation manipulation, timber harvest, prescribed burning, road
construction, livestock grazing, mining, and urban or suburban
development. Any activity that would alter the channel morphology in
Aravaipa Creek or the upper Gila or Verde rivers could adversely affect
the critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not limited to,
channelization, impoundment, deprivation of substrate source,
destruction and alteration of riparian vegetation, and excessive
sedimentation from mining, livestock grazing, road construction, timber
harvest, off-road vehicle use, and other watershed disturbances. Any
activity that would alter the water chemistry in Aravaipa Creek or the
upper Gila or Verde rivers could adversely affect the critical habitat.
Such activities include, but are not limited to, release of chemical or
biological pollutants into the waters at a point source or by dispersed
release (non-point). Any activity that would introduce, spread, or
augment non-native fish species in the Gila River basin could adversely
affect the critical habitat. Such activities include, but are not
limited to, stocking of game fish, use of live bait fish, stocking for
biological control, aquaculture, dumping of pet or aquarium fish,
construction and operation of canals, and interbasin water transfers.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to consider
economic and other impacts of designating a particular area as critical
habitat. The Service has considered the critical habitat designation in
light of all additional relevant information obtained during the public
comment period and public hearings. All additional information received
has been addressed in the ``Summary of Comments'' section of this rule
or in the economic documents prepared on the rule. The economic
analysis (Souder 1992) is available upon request; its conclusions are
summarized in the ``Summary of Economic Analysis'' section of this
rule.
Available Conservation Measures
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat.
Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the
Service.
No Federal activities on Bureau of Land Management lands on
Aravaipa Creek are expected to be affected by designation of critical
habitat for spikedace. The Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness is presently
being managed to protect and enhance natural resource values. However,
if existing or increased recreational use within the canyon results in
streambank degradation and increased sediment or pollution load in the
stream, then section 7 consultation may be necessary.
On U.S. Forest Service lands on the Gila and Verde rivers, little
effect on Federal activities is expected as a result of this rule.
Section 7 consultations for grazing, mining, timber harvest,
recreation, or other activities affecting spikedace critical habitat
would now address effects to the critical habitat in addition to
effects to the spikedace itself. The primary effect anticipated by the
U.S. Forest Service is possible increased administrative costs due to
consultation requirements. Designation of critical habitat may result
in some increases in mitigation needs for various land use activities.
On Bureau of Land Management lands on the upper Gila River, little
or no effect is expected on present Federal activities because the area
is designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, which
requires management to protect natural resource values.
Water development on the upper Gila and upper Verde rivers, under
the Bureau of Reclamation's Central Arizona Project (CAP), may be
affected by this rule. One informal section 7 conference (USFWS 1986)
and two formal section 7 consultations (one completed (USFWS 1990) and
one not completed) have been conducted on CAP projects and their
likelihood to jeopardize the survival of the spikedace and adversely
modify the proposed critical habitat. No current proposals exist for
CAP water development in either area. The potential for designation of
critical habitat to affect future water-development plans is dependent
upon the level and type of adverse effects to the spikedace and its
habitat. Those effects would depend upon the location, size, method,
and other specifics of the proposed water development. If major adverse
effects on critical habitat are expected, changes in water-development
plans may be required. However, only those changes in addition to any
changes required as a result of section 7 consultation on the species
would be attributable to critical habitat.
Known Federal activities on private lands that might be affected by
this rule would be future flood control funded by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency or carried out by the Soil Conservation Service or
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, future highway and bridge
construction funded, authorized, or carried out by the Federal Highway
Administration, or future federally funded irrigation projects. Private
activities within the stream channels that may require permits under
sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act may also be affected by
this rule. Effects are expected to be limited to administrative costs
for section 7 consultation and costs for altering proposed projects to
minimize or avoid effects to spikedace and its critical habitat.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the
Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The
Department of the Interior has determined that designation of critical
habitat for the spikedace will not have a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on the information
discussed in this rule concerning public projects and private
activities within the critical habitat areas, it is not expected that
significant economic impacts will result from the critical habitat
designation. In addition, there are a limited number of actions on
private land that have Federal involvement through funds or permits
that would affect or be affected by the critical habitat designation;
the potential economic impact of the critical habitat designation on
these actions will be minor. Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs,
or information collection or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on
small entities by this designation. This action does not impose any
recordkeeping requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980.
Summary of Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to designate
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and
to consider the economic impact and any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary of
the Interior (Secretary) may exclude any area from critical habitat if
he determines that the benefits of such exclusions outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat,
unless it is determined, based on the best scientific and commercial
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat would result in the extinction of the species concerned. The
Secretary has delegated this authority to the Director of the Service.
The Act thus requires the Service to evaluate those economic and other
effects likely to take place due to the designation of critical
habitat, and to consider whether to exclude any critical habitat.
The economic analysis (Souder 1992) of the potential impacts of
critical habitat designation for spikedace concluded that economic
impacts are expected on only three Federal actions--Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) cost-shares to rebuild irrigation diversions
after major flood events; additional fencing and alternative water
developments to prevent cattle grazing in the riparian zones on the
National Forest; and limited preventive measures at developed
recreation sites. The estimated maximum identifiable added costs are
$150,000 (all of which is also attributable to critical habitat
designated for the loach minnow, since the two species share 84 km (52
mi) of critical habitat). With the exception of $8,412 in local cost-
share for FEMA-eligible irrigation diversion reconstruction (should a
flood occur), any added costs would be to the Federal government. The
Director of the Service has not found it necessary to exclude from
designation any of the areas proposed for designation on the basis of
economic effects.
References Cited
Anderson, R.M. 1978. The distribution and aspects of the life
history of Meda fulgida in New Mexico. Unpubl. M.S. thesis. New
Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. 62 pp.
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1988. Threatened native wildlife
in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Publ. Phoenix, AZ. 32 pp.
Barber, W.E., D.C. Williams, and W.L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the
Gila spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970:9-18.
Barrett, P.J., W.G. Kepner, J.E. Burton, and M.D. Jakle. 1985. Draft
Upper Verde River aquatic study. Joint study; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arizona Game and Fish Dept., U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
May 1985. Phoenix, AZ. 16 pp.
Bestgen, R.R. 1985. Results of identification of collections of
larval fish made in the upper Salt and Gila Rivers, Arizona. Report
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 7 pp.
Bettaso, R. 1992 to 1993. Aravaipa Creek monitoring data (unpubl.).
Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Phoenix, AZ.
Girard, C. 1856. Researches upon the cyprinoid fishes inhabiting the
fresh waters of the United States of America, west of the
Mississippi Valley, from specimens in the Museum of the Smithsonian
Institution. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia 8:165-213.
Marsh, P.C., J.E. Brooks, D.A. Hendrickson, and W.L. Minckley. 1990.
Fishes of Eagle Creek, Arizona, with records for threatened
spikedace and loach minnow (Cyprinidae). Journal of the Arizona-
Nevada Academy of Science 23(2):107-116.
Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Dept. of Game and
Fish. Phoenix, AZ. 293 pp.
Minckley, W.L., and G.K. Meffe. 1987. Differential selection by
flooding in stream fish communities of the arid American Southwest.
Pages 93-104 in W.J. Matthews and D.E. Heins (eds.). Evolutionary
and community ecology of North American stream fishes. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Minckley, W.L., T. Velasco, and C. Reimus. 1990 to 1992. Monitoring
reports for Aravaipa Creek. Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ.
New Mexico State Game Commission. 1990. Regulation No. 82. New
Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe.
Propst, D.L. 1988 to 1992. Results of October (fall) fish count
monitoring of Gila, San Francisco, and Tularosa Rivers. New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM.
Propst, D.L., K.R. Bestgen, and C.W. Painter. 1986. Distribution,
status, and biology of the spikedace (Meda fulgida) in New Mexico.
Endangered Species Report No. 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Albuquerque, New Mexico. 93 pp.
Rinne, J.N. 1991. Habitat use by spikedace, Meda fulgida (Pisces:
Cyprinidae) in southwestern streams with reference to probable
habitat competition by red shiner, Notropis lutrensis (Pisces:
Cyprinidae). Southwestern Naturalist 36(1):7-13.
Souder, J. 1992. Analysis of the Economic Impacts of Designating
Critical Habitat for Meda fulgida (spikedace). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ. 53 pp. + appendices.
Tibbets, C.A. 1992. Allozyme variation in populations of the
spikedace Meda fulgida and the loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis.
Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 24(1992):37.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987a. Upper Gila water supply study,
special report on alternatives. October 1987. Boulder City, NV. 15
pp. + appendices.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987b. Letter from Commissioner to
Senator John C. Stennis, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on
Appropriations, regarding deferral of upper Gila water supply study.
November 5, 1987. Washington, D.C. 3 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Planning Aid Memorandum for
the Upper Gila Water Supply Study, Catron, Grant and Hidalgo
Counties, New Mexico. January 4, 1985. Albuquerque, NM. 29 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Endangered Species Act,
section 7 conference report--Upper Gila Water Supply Study and Verde
River Diversions. April 14, 1986. Albuquerque, NM. 11 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Biological opinion, Central
Arizona Project, water exchange project, upper Verde River, Arizona.
May 30, 1990. Albuquerque, NM. 48 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Spikedace recovery plan.
Albuquerque, NM. 38 pp.
Author
The primary author of this rule is S.E. Stefferud (see ADDRESSES
section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat of spikedace in
the same alphabetical order as the species occurs in 17.11(h).
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
(e) * * *
* * * * *
Spikedace (Meda fulgida)
Arizona
1. Graham and Pinal Counties: Aravaipa Creek, approximately 24
km (15 mi) of stream extending from the N\1/2\ of the SW\1/4\ sec.
26, T.6S., R.17E. upstream to the W\1/2\ of the NE\1/4\ sec. 35,
T.6S., R.19E.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
TR08MR94.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
2. Yavapai County: Verde River, approximately 57 km (35 mi) of
river, extending from about 1 km (0.5 mi) below the confluence with
Sycamore Creek (south boundary of the NW\1/4\ sec. 17, T.17N.,
R.3E.) upstream to the Sullivan Lake dam (NE\1/4\ of the NW\1/4\
sec. 15, T.17N., R.2W.).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
TR08MR94.003
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
New Mexico
1. Grant County: Gila River, approximately 50 km (31 mi) of
river, extending from the mouth of the Middle Box canyon (NW\1/4\ of
the SW\1/4\ sec. 23, T.18S., R.18W.) upstream to the confluence with
Mogollon Creek (NE\1/4\ sec. 31, T.14S., R.16W.).
2. Grant and Catron Counties: West Fork Gila River,
approximately 11.5 km (7 mi) of river, extending from the confluence
with the East Fork (center of sec. 8, T.13S., R.13W.) upstream to
the west boundary sec. 22, T.12S., R.14W.
3. Catron County: Middle Fork Gila River, approximately 11.5 km
(7 mi) of river, extending from the confluence with the West Fork
(SW\1/4\ sec. 25, T.12S., R.14W.) upstream to the confluence with
Big Bear Canyon (NW\1/4\ sec. 2, T.12S., R.14W.).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
TR08MR94.004
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Known constituent elements, for all areas of critical habitat,
include permanent, flowing, unpolluted streams with low to moderate
gradient supporting adequate areas of shear zones, sheet flows, and
other appropriate habitat with slow to swift velocities and shallow
depths, over sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low to
moderate amounts of fine sediment. Adequate areas of slower
velocities, shallower depths, and abundant cover are required for
early life stages. Known constituent elements for all areas also
include periodic flooding; a natural, unregulated hydrograph;
healthy riparian vegetation; moderate to high bank stability; and an
absence of or few non-native fishes present.
* * * * *
Dated: February 2, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-5118 Filed 3-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
