69324 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 2. The complete file for this rule will San Francisco subbasins. It occupies be available for public inspection, by suitable habitat in both the mainstream Fish and Wildlife Service appointment, during normal business reaches and moderate-gradient hours at the Arizona Ecological Services perennial tributaries, up to about 2,000 50 CFR Part 17 Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, meters (m) (6,500 feet (ft)) elevation 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, (Miller 1960; Chamberlain 1904; Gilbert RIN 1018±AF76 Phoenix, Arizona 85021. and Scofield 1898; Cope and Yarrow Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 3. We will hold the Thatcher hearing 1875). and Plants; Proposed Designation of at Eastern Arizona College Activity Habitat destruction and competition Critical Habitat for the Spikedace and Center, Lee Little Theater, 1014 N. and predation by nonnative aquatic the Loach Minnow College Avenue, Thatcher, Arizona. We species have severely reduced its range will hold the Silver City hearing at and abundance. It is now restricted to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Western New Mexico University, White approximately 445 km (276 mi) of Interior. Hall Auditorium, 1000 College Street, stream in portions of the upper Gila ACTION: Proposed rule. Silver City, New Mexico. We will hold River (Grant, Catron, and Hidalgo the Camp Verde hearing at the Camp Counties, NM), middle Gila River (Pinal SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Verde Unified Schools Multi-Use County, AZ), lower San Pedro River Wildlife Service (Service), propose Complex Theater, 280 Camp Lincoln (Pinal County, AZ), Aravaipa Creek designation of critical habitat pursuant Road, Camp Verde, Arizona. We will (Graham and Pinal Counties, AZ), Eagle to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, start all hearings promptly at 7:00 p.m. Creek (Graham and Greenlee Counties, as amended (Act), for the spikedace and end them no later than 9:00 p.m. AZ), and the Verde River (Yavapai (Meda fulgida) and the loach minnow FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: County, AZ) (Anderson 1978; Jakle (Tiaroga = (Rhinichthys) cobitis). This Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological 1992; Sublette et al. 1990; Bestgen, proposal is made in response to a court Services Office, at the above address; 1985; Marsh et al. 1990; Bettaso et al. order in Southwest Center for Biological telephone 602/640–2720, facsimile 602/ 1995; Propst et al. 1986; Propst et al. Diversity v. Clark CIV 98–0769 M/JHG, 640–2730. 1985; Stefferud and Rinne 1996). Its directing us to complete designation of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: present range is only about 10–15 critical habitat for the spikedace and percent of the historical range, and the loach minnow by February 17, 2000. Background status of the species within occupied We are proposing as critical habitat a Spikedace areas ranges from common to very rare. total of approximately 1,443 kilometers At present, the species is common only The spikedace is a small, slim fish (km) (894 miles (mi)) of rivers and in Aravaipa Creek and some parts of the less than 80 millimeters (mm) (3 inches creeks for the two species. The entire upper Gila River in New Mexico. (in)) long. It is characterized by very designation is proposed as critical silvery sides and by spines in the dorsal Loach Minnow habitat for the loach minnow, and and pelvic fins (Minckley 1973). This approximately 1,325 km (822 mi) of The loach minnow is a small, slender, species is found in moderate to large those miles are also proposed as critical elongated fish less than 80 mm (3 in.) perennial streams, where it inhabits habitat for the spikedace. Proposed long. It is olivaceous in color with an shallow riffles with sand, gravel, and critical habitat includes portions of the oblique (slanting) terminal mouth and rubble substrates and moderate to swift Gila, San Francisco, Blue, Black, Verde, eyes markedly directed upward currents as well as swift pools over sand and San Pedro rivers, and some of their (Minckley 1973). This species is found or gravel substrates (Barber et al. 1970; in small to large perennial streams, tributaries, in Apache, Cochise, Gila, Propst et al. 1986; Rinne 1991). Specific using shallow, turbulent riffles with Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, and habitat for this species consists of shear primarily cobble substrate and swift Yavapai Counties in Arizona; and zones where rapid flow borders slower currents (Minckley 1973; Propst and Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties in flow, areas of sheet flow at the upper Bestgen 1991; Rinne 1989; Propst et al. New Mexico. ends of mid-channel sand/gravel bars; 1988). Loach minnow uses the spaces If this proposed rule is finalized, and eddies at downstream riffle edges between, and in the lee of, larger Federal agencies proposing actions that (Propst et al. 1986; Rinne and Kroeger substrate for resting and spawning. It is may affect the areas designated as 1988). Recurrent flooding and a natural rare or absent from habitats where fine critical habitat must consult with us on hydrograph (physical conditions, sediments fill the interstitial spaces the effects of the proposed actions, boundaries, flow, and related (small, narrow spaces between rocks or pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act. characteristics of waters) are very other substrate) (Propst and Bestgen DATES: We will consider all comments important in maintaining the habitat of 1991). Recurrent flooding and a natural on the rule, the draft Economic spikedace and in helping the species hydrograph are very important in Analysis, and draft Environmental maintain a competitive edge over maintaining the habitat of loach Assessment received from interested invading nonnative aquatic species minnow and in helping the species parties by January 14, 2000. We will (Propst et al. 1986; Minckley and Meffe maintain a competitive edge over hold public hearings in Thatcher, 1987). invading nonnative aquatic species Arizona, and Silver City, New Mexico The spikedace was first collected in (Propst et al. 1986; Propst and Bestgen on December 15, 1999, and in Camp 1851 from the Rio San Pedro in Arizona 1991). Verde, Arizona, on December 16, 1999. and was described from those The loach minnow was first collected ADDRESSES: 1. Send your comments on specimens in 1856 by Girard. It is the in 1851 from the Rio San Pedro in the rule, the draft Economic Analysis, only species in the genus Meda. The Arizona and was described from those and draft Environmental Assessment to spikedace was once common specimens in 1865 by Girard. The loach the Arizona Ecological Services Office, throughout much of the Gila River minnow was once locally common U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 W. basin, including the mainstem Gila throughout much of the Gila River Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, River upstream of Phoenix, and the basin, including the mainstem Gila Arizona 85021. Verde, Agua Fria, Salt, San Pedro, and River upstream of Phoenix, and the

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69325

Verde, Salt, San Pedro, and San designation to allow us to gather and On September 20, 1999, the United Francisco subbasins. It occupies suitable analyze economic data, in compliance States District Court for the District of habitat in both the mainstream reaches with section 4(b)(2) of the Act. New Mexico, Southwest Center for and moderate-gradient perennial We included the loach minnow as a Biological Diversity v. Clark, CIV 98– tributaries, up to about 2,500 m (8,200 Category 1 candidate species in the 0769 M/JHG, ordered us to complete ft) elevation. Habitat destruction and December 30, 1982, Vertebrate Notice of designation of critical habitat for the competition and predation by nonnative Review (47 FR 58454). On June 18, 1985 spikedace and loach minnow by aquatic species have severely reduced (50 FR 25380) we published a proposed February 17, 2000. its range and abundance. It is now rule to list this species as threatened We completed final recovery plans for restricted to approximately 645 km (400 with critical habitat. We published the spikedace and loach minnow in 1991 mi) of stream in portions of the upper final rule listing the loach minnow as a (Service 1991a, 1991b). We developed Gila River (Grant, Catron, and Hidalgo threatened species on October 28, 1986 those plans under the oversight of the Counties, NM), the San Francisco and (51 FR 39468). We did not finalize the Desert Fishes Recovery Team and other Tularosa Rivers and their tributaries proposed critical habitat designation at biologists familiar with the species. This Negrito and Whitewater Creeks (Catron the time of listing but postponed the proposed rule is based, in part, on County, NM), the Blue River and its designation to allow us to gather and recommendations offered in those tributaries Dry Blue, Campbell Blue, analyze economic data. recovery plans. Little Blue, Pace, and Frieborn Creeks Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires Critical Habitat (Greenlee County, AZ and Catron that, to the maximum extent prudent Critical habitat is defined in section County, NM), Aravaipa Creek and its and determinable, the Secretary tributaries Turkey and Deer Creeks 3(5)(A) of the Act as—(i) the specific designate critical habitat at the time a areas within the geographic area (Graham and Pinal Counties, AZ), Eagle species is determined to be endangered Creek (Graham and Greenlee Counties, occupied by a species, at the time it is or threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR listed in accordance with the Act, on AZ), the White River (Apache, Gila, and 424.12(a)(2)) state that critical habitat is Navajo Counties, AZ), and the Black which are found those physical or not determinable if information biological features (I) essential to the River (Apache and Greenlee Counties, sufficient to perform required analyses AZ) (Bagley et al. 1998; Bagley et al. conservation of the species and (II) that of the impacts of the designation is may require special management 1996; Barber and Minckley 1966; lacking or if the biological needs of the Bettaso et al. 1995; Britt 1982; Leon considerations or protection and; (ii) species are not sufficiently well known specific areas outside the geographic 1989; Marsh et al. 1990; Propst 1996; to permit identification of an area as Propst and Bestgen 1991; Propst et al. area occupied by a species at the time critical habitat. At the time of listing of it is listed, upon a determination that 1985; Springer 1995). The present range the spikedace and loach minnow, we is only 15–20 percent of its historical such areas are essential for the found that critical habitat was not range, and the status of the species conservation of the species. The term determinable because we had within occupied areas ranges from ‘‘conservation,’’ as defined in section insufficient information to perform the common to very rare. At present, the 3(3) of the Act, means ‘‘to use and the required analyses of the impacts of the species is common only in Aravaipa use of all methods and procedures designation. As part of a settlement Creek, the Blue River, and limited which are necessary to bring any order of January 18, 1994, in Greater portions of the San Francisco, upper endangered species or threatened Gila Biodiversity Project v. U.S. Fish Gila, and Tularosa Rivers in New species to the point at which the and Wildlife Service CIV 93–1913 PHX/ Mexico. measures provided pursuant to this Act PGR, we finalized critical habitat are no longer necessary’’ (i.e., the Previous Federal Actions designation for both the spikedace and species is recovered and removed from The spikedace was included as a loach minnow on March 8, 1994 (59 FR the list of endangered and threatened Category 1 candidate species in our 10906 and 10898 respectively). species). December 30, 1982, Vertebrate Notice of Critical habitat for spikedace and Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that Review (47 FR 58454). Category 1 loach minnow was set aside by court we base critical habitat proposals upon included those taxa for which we had order in Catron County Board of the best scientific and commercial data substantial biological information to Commissioners, New Mexico v. U.S. available, taking into consideration the support listing the species as Fish and Wildlife Service CIV No. 93– economic impact, and any other endangered or threatened. We were 730 HB (D.N.M., Order of October 13, relevant impact, of specifying any petitioned on March 14, 1985, by the 1994). The court cited our failure to particular area as critical habitat. We American Fisheries Society (AFS) and analyze the effects of critical habitat can exclude areas from critical habitat on March 18, 1985, by the Desert Fishes designation under the National designation if we determine that the Council (DFC) to list the spikedace as Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as its benefits of exclusion outweigh the threatened. Because the species was basis for setting aside critical habitat for benefits of including the areas as critical already under active petition by AFS, the two species. The United States habitat, provided the exclusion will not the DFC petition was considered a letter District Court for the District of Arizona result in the extinction of the species. of comment. Our evaluation of the AFS recognized the effect of the Catron petition revealed that the petitioned County ruling as a matter of comity in A. Proposed Critical Habitat action was warranted, and we published the Southwest Center for Biological Designation a proposed rule to list this species as Diversity v. Rogers CV 96–018–TUC– In proposing critical habitat for threatened with critical habitat on June JMR (D. Ariz., Order of December 28, spikedace and loach minnow, we 18, 1985 (50 FR 25390). We published 1996). As a result of these court rulings, reviewed the overall approach to the the final rule listing the spikedace as a we removed the critical habitat conservation of the species undertaken threatened species on July 1, 1986 (51 description for spikedace and loach by local, State, Tribal, and Federal FR 23769). We did not finalize the minnow from the Code of Federal agencies and private individuals and proposed critical habitat designation at Regulations on March 25, 1998 (63 FR organizations since the species’ listing the time of listing but postponed the 14378). in 1986. We also considered the

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69326 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules measures identified as necessary for (see description of primary constituent depleted or extirpated is vital to recovery, as outlined in the species’ elements, below). All of the proposed recovery. Some complexes may include recovery plans. Additionally, we areas require special management stream reaches that do not have solicited information from consideration and protection to ensure substantial spikedace- or loach minnow- knowledgeable biologists and their contribution to the species’ specific habitat, but which provide recommendations from the Desert recovery. migration corridors as well as play a Fishes Recovery Team. We also Because of these species’ precarious vital role in the overall health of the reviewed the available information status, mere stabilization of spikedace aquatic ecosystem and, therefore, the pertaining to habitat requirements of the and loach minnow at their present integrity of upstream and downstream two species, including material received levels will not achieve conservation. spikedace and loach minnow habitats. during previous critical habitat Recovery through protection and The areas we selected for proposed proposals and designations. enhancement of the existing critical habitat designation include areas Due to the need for additional populations, plus reestablishment of containing all known remaining genetic information on the two species, habitats, populations in suitable areas of diversity within the two species, with threats, controllability of threats, historical range, is necessary for their the possible exception of the fish on restoration potentials, and other factors, survival. The recovery plans for both certain tribal lands, which we believe no quantitative criteria for delisting species state, ‘‘One of the most critical are capable of persistence without spikedace and loach minnow were set goals to be achieved toward recovery is critical habitat designation (see forth in the recovery plans. However, establishment of secure self-reproducing discussion under Secretarial Order 3206 the recovery plans recommend populations in habitats from which the later in this proposed rule). Information protection of existing populations, species has been extirpated’’ (Service on spikedace and loach minnow enhancement and restoration of habitats 1991a, 1991b). We, therefore, determine indicates a high degree of genetic occupied by depleted populations, and that the unoccupied areas proposed as differentiation among the remnant reestablishment of the two species into critical habitat are essential for the populations (Tibbets 1993), making selected streams within their historical conservation of the species. conservation of each remaining ranges. This proposed designation differs population vital to recovery (Tibbets Both recovery plans call for substantially from the critical habitat 1992). It is also important that the areas designation of critical habitat for all designation we proposed in 1986 and selected for proposed critical habitat stream reaches identified in the 1985 made final in 1994, and which was designation include a representation of proposed rule as well as for subsequently withdrawn under court each major subbasin in the historical consideration of additional stream order. The differences reflect new range of the species. reaches. Except for Eagle Creek, the information we gathered on distribution The proposed designation includes all recovery plans do not identify the of spikedace and loach minnow. The currently known populations of specific streams to be considered for changes also reflect the need to consider spikedace and loach minnow, except critical habitat designation due to the areas in addition to those designated in those on tribal lands. Uncertainty on lack of information to support such 1994. As stated in the 1994 final rules, upstream and downstream identifications available at that time. ‘‘The Service is considering revising distributional limits of some The recovery plans do identify potential critical habitat in the future to add these populations may result in small areas of areas for reestablishment of spikedace areas [referring to newly discovered occupied habitat being excluded from and loach minnow including the San occupied areas]. In addition, the Service the designation. For loach minnow, the Pedro River and its tributaries, the San is considering adding certain proposed designation includes at least Francisco River, Mescal Creek (a middle unoccupied areas considered vital for one remnant population for each major Gila River tributary), and Bonita Creek. recovery of the species.’’ For spikedace, subbasin except the Verde subbasin, The recovery plans also recommend in the 1994 final critical habitat rule, we from which it has been completely evaluation and selection of other stated the same but, in addition, extirpated. For spikedace, no remnant potential sites. specifically recognized the recovery populations exist in the Agua Fria, Salt, Recovery Team discussions since plan recommendation for inclusion of and San Francisco/Blue subbasins. In 1991 identified the need for critical Eagle Creek. those subbasins where no populations habitat designation in Hot Springs and Important considerations in selection of spikedace or loach minnow currently Redfield Canyons; Aravaipa, Eagle, of areas proposed in this rule include exist, the proposed critical habitat Bonita, Beaver, West Clear, Campbell factors specific to each geographic area includes currently unoccupied areas for Blue, and Dry Blue Creeks; and Gila, or complex of areas, such as size, restoration of the species, with the Verde, San Pedro, San Francisco, Blue, connectivity, and habitat diversity, as exception of the Agua Fria subbasin Tularosa, and White Rivers. well as rangewide recovery where no suitable areas are known to The proposed critical habitat considerations, such as genetic diversity remain. described below constitutes our best and representation of all major portions The inclusion of both occupied and assessment of areas needed for the of the species’ historical ranges. The currently unoccupied areas in the conservation of spikedace and loach proposed critical habitat reflects the proposed critical habitat for spikedace minnow and is based on the best need for complexes of sufficient size to and loach minnow is in accordance scientific and commercial information provide habitat for spikedace and/or with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, which available. The proposed areas are loach minnow populations large enough provides that areas outside the essential to the conservation of the to be self-sustaining over time, despite geographical area currently occupied by species because they either currently fluctuations in local conditions. the species may meet the definition of support populations of spikedace and/or Each complex contains critical habitat upon a determination loach minnow, or because they interconnected waters so that spikedace that they are essential for the currently have, or have the potential for and loach minnow can move between conservation of the species. Both developing, the necessary requirements areas, at least during certain flows or spikedace and loach minnow are in for survival, growth, and reproduction seasons. The ability of the fish to serious danger of extinction, and their of the spikedace and/or loach minnow repopulate areas where they are status is declining. In 1994, we made a

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69327 finding on a petition that populations of spikedace, as well as Canyon. Beaver Creek, and its upstream reclassification of spikedace and loach some currently unoccupied by extension in Wet Beaver Creek, minnow from threatened to endangered spikedace, but which are considered historically supported spikedace and was warranted; however, essential for reestablishing populations contain suitable, although degraded, reclassification was precluded by other of spikedace to achieve recovery. The habitat. Above Casner Canyon, gradient higher priority listing actions (59 FR distances and conversions below are and channel morphology changes make 35303–35304). Although additional approximate; more precise estimates are the stream unsuitable for spikedace. populations of loach minnow have been provided in the Regulation e. Oak Creek—54 km (34 mi) of creek found since that time, they are small Promulgation section of this rule. extending from the confluence with the and their contribution to the status of 1. Verde River complex, Yavapai Verde River upstream to the confluence the species is offset by declines in other County, Arizona. The Verde River is with an unnamed tributary (near the populations. currently occupied by spikedace. Its Yavapai/Coconino County boundary). Both of the 1986 listing rules for tributary streams are believed to be The lower portion of Oak Creek is part spikedace and loach minnow currently unoccupied by spikedace. The of the historical range of spikedace and conservatively estimated about 2,600 Verde River complex is unusual in that contains suitable, although degraded, km (1,600 mi) of stream within the a relatively stable thermal and habitat. Above the unnamed tributary, species’ historical ranges. This proposal hydrologic regime is found in the upper the creek becomes unsuitable due to includes approximately half that river and in Fossil Creek. Also, urban and suburban development and to amount for loach minnow and slightly spikedace in the Verde River are increasing gradient and substrate size. less than half for spikedace. Although genetically (Tibbets 1993) and f. Granite Creek—2.3 km (1.4 mi) of this amount is less than the historical morphologically (Anderson and creek extending from the confluence ranges for both species, we believe that Hendrickson 1994) distinct from all with the Verde River upstream to a conservation of spikedace and loach other spikedace populations. spring. As a perennial tributary of the minnow within the proposed areas can a. Verde River—171 km (94 mi) of upper Verde River, Granite Creek is achieve long-term survival and recovery river extending from the confluence considered an important expansion area of these species. with Fossil Creek upstream to Sullivan for spikedace recovery. For each stream reach proposed for Dam, but excluding lands belonging to 2. Black River complex, Apache and designation, the up- and downstream the Yavapai Apache Tribe. Sullivan Greenlee Counties, Arizona. The Salt boundaries are described below. Dam is at the upstream limit of River subbasin is a significant portion of Proposed critical habitat includes the perennial flow in the mainstem Verde spikedace historical range and has no stream channels within the identified River. Perennial flow results from a existing population of spikedace. Large stream reaches and areas within these series of river-channel springs and from areas of the subbasin are unsuitable, reaches potentially inundated during Granite Creek. Below Fossil Creek, the either because of topography or because high flow events. This proposal takes Verde River becomes larger due to the of reservoirs, stream channel alteration into account the naturally dynamic input of Fossil Creek and changes by humans, or overwhelming nonnative nature of riverine systems and character to an extent that it may not species populations. Recovery for recognizes that floodplains are an provide sufficient suitable habitat for spikedace includes reestablishing integral part of the stream ecosystem. A spikedace. populations in the subbasin. The East relatively intact floodplain, along with b. Fossil Creek—8 km (5 mi) of creek and West Forks Black River contain the periodic flooding in a relatively extending from the confluence with the suitable habitat, and the continuing natural pattern, are important elements Verde River upstream to the confluence presence of loach minnow in the East necessary for long-term survival and with an unnamed tributary. The lower Fork is evidence that it may support recovery of spikedace and loach portion of Fossil Creek contains all reestablishment of spikedace, which minnow. Among other things, the elements of spikedace habitat at present, historically occurred with loach floodplain and its riparian vegetation except sufficient discharge. Discharge is minnow in most streams in the Gila provides space for natural flooding currently diverted for hydropower River basin. The following are some of patterns and latitude for necessary generation at the Childs/Irving the most suitable areas for natural channel adjustments to maintain Hydropower site. Relicensing of the reestablishment of spikedace. appropriate channel morphology and Childs/Irving Hydropower project will a. East Fork Black River—8 km (5 mi) geometry, provides nutrient input and provide enhanced flows into lower of river extending from the confluence buffering from sediment and pollutants, Fossil Creek, although the amount of with the West Fork Black River stores water for slow release to maintain that flow restoration is still under upstream to the confluence with Deer base flows, and provides protected side negotiation. Creek. channel and backwater habitats for c. West Clear Creek—12 km (7 mi) of b. North Fork of the East Fork Black larval and juvenile spikedace and loach creek extending from the confluence River—18 km (11 mi) of river extending minnow. with the Verde River upstream to the from the confluence with Deer Creek confluence with Black Mountain upstream to the confluence with Spikedace Canyon. The lower portion of West Boneyard Creek. We propose the following areas as Clear Creek was historically known to c. West Fork Black River—10 km (6 critical habitat for spikedace (see the support spikedace and contains mi) of river extending from the Regulation Promulgation section of this suitable, although degraded, habitat. confluence with the East Fork Black rule for exact descriptions of Gradient and channel morphology River upstream to the confluence with boundaries). The proposed designation changes above Black Mountain Canyon Hay Creek. Above Hay Creek the includes 31 reaches found within make the upstream area unsuitable for gradient and channel morphology are portions of 26 streams; however, spikedace. unsuitable for spikedace. individual streams are not isolated, but d. Beaver/Wet Beaver Creek—33 km 3. Tonto Creek complex, Gila County, are connected with others to form 7 (21 mi) of creek extending from the Arizona. Tonto Creek was historically areas or ‘‘complexes.’’ The complexes confluence with the Verde River occupied by spikedace and loach include those that currently support upstream to the confluence with Casner minnow. Suitable habitat still exists,

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69328 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules although degradation has occurred due the confluence with Stowe Gulch. Owl Canyon, at the upper end of the to watershed uses, water diversion, Aravaipa Creek supports a substantial Gila Box. The Gila Box is not known to agriculture, roads, and nonnative population of spikedace. Stowe Gulch is currently support spikedace, but is species introduction. The presence of the upstream limit of sufficient considered to have a high potential for substantial areas of U.S. Forest Service perennial flow for spikedace. restoration of the species. Both above (USFS) lands make this one of the most 5. Middle-Upper San Pedro River and below the Gila Box, the Gila River promising areas for reestablishment of complex, Cochise, Graham, and Pima is highly modified by agriculture, spikedace in the Salt River subbasin. Counties, Arizona. None of the habitat diversions, and urban development. a. Tonto Creek—47 km (29 mi) of in this complex is currently occupied by b. Bonita Creek—19 km (12 mi) of creek extending from the confluence spikedace. However, the San Pedro creek extending from the confluence with Greenback Creek upstream to the River is the type locality of spikedace, with the Gila River upstream to the confluence with Houston Creek. The and this complex contains important confluence with Martinez Wash. Bonita influence of Roosevelt Lake below restoration area. Creek has no spikedace at present but Greenback Creek, and gradient and a. San Pedro River—74 km (46 mi) of has suitable habitat. Bonita Creek above substrate changes above Houston Creek, river extending from the confluence Martinez Wash lies on the San Carlos make the stream unsuitable for with Alder Wash (near Redfield) Apache Reservation, which is not spikedace. upstream to the confluence with Ash included in this proposed designation. b. Greenback Creek—14 km (8 mi) of Creek (near the Narrows). This middle c. Eagle Creek—74 km (46 mi) of creek creek extending from the confluence portion of the river has increasing extending from the Phelps-Dodge with Tonto Creek upstream to Lime surface flow due to restoration Diversion Dam upstream to the Springs. activities, primarily groundwater confluence of Dry Prong and East Eagle c. Rye Creek—2.1 km (1.3 mi) of creek pumping reductions. Creeks, but excluding lands of the San extending from the confluence with b. Redfield Canyon—22 km (14 mi) of Carlos Apache Reservation. Because the Tonto Creek upstream to the confluence creek extending from the confluence creek repeatedly flows from private or with Brady Canyon. This area of Rye with the San Pedro River upstream to USFS land into the San Carlos Creek still supports a native fish the confluence with Sycamore Canyon. Reservation and back, it is difficult to community indicating high potential for Above Sycamore Canyon, perennial separately calculate stream mileage on spikedace reestablishment. water becomes too scarce, and the tribal lands. Therefore, the above 4. Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/ habitat becomes unsuitable. mileage covers the entire stream Aravaipa Creek complex, Pinal and c. Hot Springs Canyon—19 km (12 mi) segment and is not corrected for tribal Graham Counties, Arizona. This of creek extending from the confluence exclusions. Eagle Creek supports a small complex is occupied by spikedace with with the San Pedro River upstream to population of spikedace. Below the its population status ranging from rare the confluence with Bass Canyon. Hot Phelps-Dodge Diversion Dam, the creek to common. Aravaipa Creek supports Springs Canyon is currently unoccupied is often dry. one of the best and most protected but contains suitable habitat for d. San Francisco River—182 km (113 spikedace populations due to special restoration of spikedace. mi) of river extending from the use designations on Bureau of Land d. Bass Canyon—5 km (3 mi) of creek confluence with the Gila River upstream Management (BLM) land and to extending from the confluence with Hot to the confluence with the Tularosa substantial ownership by The Nature Springs Canyon upstream to the River. Habitat above the Tularosa River Conservancy as well as planned confluence with Pine Canyon. Bass does not appear suitable for spikedace. construction of fish barriers to prevent Canyon is an extension of the Hot The San Francisco River was invasion of nonnative fish species. Springs Canyon habitat. historically occupied by spikedace and Enhancement of downstream habitats in e. San Pedro River—60 km (37 mi) of is important recovery habitat for the San Pedro and Gila Rivers would river extending from the confluence restoration of the species. contribute substantially to recovery of with the Babocomari River upstream to e. Blue River—82 km (51 mi) of river this species. the U.S./Mexico border. Although extending from the confluence with the a. Gila River—63 km (39 mi) of river currently unoccupied, this area is San Francisco River upstream to the extending from Ashurst-Hayden Dam identified in BLM (BLM 1993) planning confluence of Campbell Blue and Dry upstream to the confluence with the San documents as a high-potential Blue creeks. The Blue River is not Pedro River. A small population of restoration area for spikedace. currently occupied by spikedace, but spikedace currently occupies this area. 6. Gila Box/San Francisco River planning among several State and At Ashurst-Hayden Dam, all water is complex, Graham and Greenlee Federal agencies for restoration of native diverted into a canal. Above the Counties, Arizona and Catron County, fishes in the Blue River is under way. confluence with the San Pedro River, New Mexico. The only spikedace f. Campbell Blue Creek—13 km (8 mi) flow in the Gila River is highly population remaining in the complex is of creek extending from the confluence regulated by San Carlos Dam and in Eagle Creek. Substantial restoration of Dry Blue and Campbell Blue Creeks becomes marginally suitable for potential for spikedace exists in the upstream to the confluence with spikedace. remainder of the complex. This complex Coleman Canyon. Above Coleman b. San Pedro River—21 km (13 mi) of has the largest area of habitat suitable Canyon, the creek changes and becomes river extending from the confluence for spikedace restoration. In addition, steeper and rockier, making it with the Gila River upstream to the management in the Gila Box, Bonita unsuitable for spikedace. confluence with Aravaipa Creek. This Creek, and the Blue River are highly g. Little Blue Creek—5 km (3 mi) of area is currently occupied by spikedace. compatible with recovery goals, giving creek extending from the confluence Existing flow in the river comes restoration of spikedace in this complex with the Blue River upstream to the primarily from surface and subsurface a high likelihood of success. mouth of a box canyon. Little Blue contributions from Aravaipa Creek. a. Gila River—36 km (23 mi) of river Creek is not currently occupied by c. Aravaipa Creek—45 km (28 mi) of extending from the Brown Canal spikedace, but contains suitable habitat creek extending from the confluence diversion, at the head of the Safford and is considered an important with the San Pedro River upstream to Valley, upstream to the confluence with restoration area for the species.

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69329

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

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69330 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69331

e. Tularosa River—30 km (19 mi) of confluence of the East and West Forks. shallow water with moderate amounts river extending from the confluence Below Moore Canyon, the river is of instream cover; with the San Francisco River upstream substantially altered by agriculture, 4. Living areas for larval spikedace to the town of Cruzville. Above diversion, and urban development, thus with slow to moderate flow velocities in Cruzville, the habitat becomes making it unsuitable for loach minnow. shallow water with abundant instream unsuitable. b. East Fork Gila River—42 km (26 mi) cover; f. Negrito Creek—7 km (4 mi) of creek of river extending from the confluence 5. Sand, gravel, and cobble substrates extending from the confluence with the with the West Fork Gila River upstream with low to moderate amounts of fine San Francisco River upstream to the to the confluence of Beaver and Taylor sediment and substrate embeddedness; confluence with Cerco Canyon. Above Creeks. 6. Pool, riffle, run, and backwater this area, gradient and channel c. Middle Fork Gila River—19 km (12 components present in the aquatic morphology make the creek unsuitable mi) of river extending from the habitat; for loach minnow. confluence with the West Fork Gila 7. Low stream gradient; River upstream to the confluence with 8. Water temperatures in the g. Whitewater Creek—2 km (1 mi) of ° ° creek extending from the confluence Brothers West Canyon. approximate range of 1–30 C (35–85 F), with the San Francisco River upstream d. West Fork Gila River—12 km (8 mi) with natural diurnal and seasonal to the confluence with Little Whitewater of river extending from the confluence variation; Creek. Upstream gradient and channel with the East Fork Gila River upstream 9. Abundant aquatic insect food base; to the confluence with EE Canyon. This 10. Periodic natural flooding; changes make the portion above Little 11. A natural, unregulated hydrograph Whitewater Creek unsuitable for loach lower portion of the West Fork is occupied by loach minnow, but the or, if the flows are modified or minnow. regulated, then a hydrograph that h. Blue River—82 km (51 mi) of river river becomes unsuitable above EE demonstrates an ability to support a extending from the confluence with the Canyon due to gradient and channel morphology. native fish community; and San Francisco River upstream to the 12. Few or no predatory or confluence of Campbell Blue and Dry B. Primary Constituent Elements competitive nonnative species present. Blue Creeks. Planning is under way by The habitat features (primary The areas we are proposing for several State and Federal agencies to designation as critical habitat for restore native fishes in the Blue River. constituent elements) that provide for the physiological, behavioral, and spikedace provide the above primary i. Campbell Blue Creek—13 km (8 mi) constituent elements or will be capable, of creek extending from the confluence ecological requirements essential for the conservation of the species are with restoration, of providing them. All of Dry Blue and Campbell Blue Creeks of the proposed areas require special upstream to the confluence with described at 50 CFR 424.12, and include, but are not limited to, the management considerations or Coleman Canyon. Above Coleman protection to ensure their contribution Canyon, the creek changes and becomes following: Space for individual and population to the species’ recovery. steeper and rockier, making it growth, and for normal behavior; Loach Minnow unsuitable for loach minnow. Food, water, or other nutritional or j. Dry Blue Creek—5 km (3 mi) of physiological requirements; We determined the primary creek extending from the confluence Cover or shelter; constituent elements for loach minnow with Campbell Blue Creek upstream to Sites for breeding, reproduction, or from studies on their habitat the confluence with Pace Creek. rearing of offspring; and requirements and population biology k. Pace Creek—1.2 km (0.8 mi) of Habitats that are protected from including, but not limited to, Barber and creek extending from the confluence disturbance or are representative of the Minckley 1966; Minckley 1973; with Dry Blue Creek upstream to a historical geographical and ecological Schreiber 1978; Britt 1982; Turner and barrier falls. distributions of a species. Taffanelli 1983; Service 1988; Rinne l. Frieborn Creek—1.8 km ( 1.1 mi) of 1989; Hardy 1990; Vives and Minckley creek extending from the confluence Spikedace 1990; Propst and Bestgen 1991; Douglas with Dry Blue Creek upstream to an We determined the primary et al. 1994; Velasco 1997. These primary unnamed tributary. constituent elements for spikedace from constituent elements include: m. Little Blue Creek—5 km (3 mi) of studies on their habitat requirements 1. Permanent, flowing, unpolluted creek extending from the confluence and population biology including, but water; with the Blue River upstream to the not limited to, Barber et al. 1970; 2. Living areas for adult loach mouth of a box canyon. Little Blue Minckley 1973; Anderson 1978; Barber minnow with moderate to swift flow Creek is not currently occupied by loach and Minckley 1983; Turner and velocities in shallow water with gravel, minnow but contains suitable habitat Taffanelli 1983; Barrett et al. 1985; cobble, and rubble substrates; and is considered an important Propst et al. 1986; Service 1989; Hardy 3. Living areas for juvenile loach restoration area for the species. 1990; Douglas et al. 1994; Stefferud and minnow with moderate to swift flow 7. Upper Gila River complex, Grant Rinne 1996; Velasco 1997. These velocities in shallow water with sand, and Catron Counties, New Mexico. This primary constituent elements include: gravel, cobble, and rubble substrates; complex is occupied by loach minnow 1. Permanent, flowing, unpolluted 4. Living areas for larval loach throughout. It contains what is water; minnow with slow to moderate considered to be the ‘‘core’’ of the 2. Living areas for adult spikedace velocities in shallow water with sand, remaining populations of the species. with slow to swift flow velocities in gravel, and cobble substrates and Because of the remoteness of the area, shallow water with shear zones where abundant instream cover; there is a relatively low degree of habitat rapid flow borders slower flow, areas of 5. Spawning areas for loach minnow threats. sheet flow at the upper ends of mid- with slow to swift flow velocities in a. Gila River—164 km (102 mi) of channel sand/gravel bars, and eddies at shallow water with uncemented cobble river extending from the confluence downstream riffle edges; and rubble substrate; with Moore Canyon (near the Arizona/ 3. Living areas for juvenile spikedace 6. Low amounts of fine sediment and New Mexico border) upstream to the with slow to moderate flow velocities in substrate embeddedness;

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69332 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

7. Riffle, run, and backwater then a hydrograph that demonstrates an protection to ensure their contribution components present in the aquatic ability to support a native fish to the species’ recovery. habitat; community; and C. Land Ownership 8. Low to moderate stream gradient; 13. few or no predatory or competitive Table 1 shows land ownership for 9. Water temperatures in the nonnative species present. approximate range of 1–30°C (35–85°F), areas proposed as critical habitat that with natural diurnal and seasonal The areas we are proposing for are currently occupied by one or both variation; designation as critical habitat for loach species, and Table 2 shows land 10. Abundant aquatic insect food minnow provide the above primary ownership for proposed critical habitat base; constituent elements or will be capable, that is unoccupied. A general 11. Periodic natural flooding; with restoration, of providing them. All description of land ownership in each 12. A natural unregulated hydrograph of the proposed areas require special complex follows. or, if flows are modified or regulated, management considerations or BILLING CODE 4310±55±P

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69333

BILLING CODE 4310±55±C landowner, and there are large areas of Phelps-Dodge Corporation and The 1. Verde River complex—There are private ownership and smaller areas of Nature Conservancy. A large number of large blocks of USFS lands in the upper State of Arizona lands. other private landowners hold lands and lower reaches, with significant 6. Gila Box/San Francisco River within the proposed designation. areas of private ownership in the Verde complex—This complex contains Private lands are primarily used for Valley and along the lower portions of extensive USFS land, some BLM land, grazing and agriculture, but also include Oak, Beaver, and West Clear Creeks. and scattered private, State of Arizona, towns, small-lot residences, and There are also lands belonging to the and New Mexico Game and Fish industrial areas. National Park Service (NPS), Arizona Department (NMGFD) lands. A portion State Parks, and the Arizona Game and of Eagle Creek is on the San Carlos D. Effect of Critical Habitat Designation Fish Department. Apache Reservation, but this area is not The designation of critical habitat 2. Black River complex—The proposed as critical habitat at this time. ownership is predominantly USFS, with directly affects only Federal agencies. The City of Safford holds significant a few small areas of private land. portions of Bonita Creek. The Act requires Federal agencies to 3. Tonto Creek complex—Land here is ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 7. Upper Gila River complex—The mostly USFS on the upper end, but or carry out do not destroy or adversely largest areas are on USFS land, with significant areas of private ownership modify critical habitat to the extent that occur in the lower reaches. small private inholdings. There are large areas of private lands in the Cliff-Gila the action appreciably diminishes the 4. Middle Gila/Lower San Pedro/ value of the critical habitat for the Aravaipa Creek complex—This area Valley, and the BLM administers survival and recovery of the species. includes extensive BLM land as well as significant stretches upstream of the Individuals, organizations, States, local extensive private land, some State of Arizona/New Mexico border. There are Arizona lands, and a small area of also small areas of NMGFD, NPS, and and Tribal governments, and other non- allotted land owned by the San Carlos State of New Mexico lands. Federal entities are only affected by the Apaches. Significant private owners, with lands designation of critical habitat if their 5. Middle-Upper San Pedro scattered among several of the proposed actions occur on Federal lands, require complex—The BLM is the largest critical habitat complexes, include a Federal permit, license, or other

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69334 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules authorization, or involve Federal conference report as the biological timber harvest; access easements; flood funding. opinion when the critical habitat repair and control; groundwater Section 7(a) of the Act requires designation is made final, if no development; channelization; and canal Federal agencies to evaluate their significant new information or changes and other water transport facilities actions with respect to any species that in the action alter the content of the construction and operation. Federal is proposed or listed as endangered or opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). agencies involved with these activities threatened and with respect to its Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us include the USFS, BLM, Service, and proposed or designated critical habitat. to describe in any proposed or final Bureau of Reclamation. Regulations implementing this regulation that designates critical Federal actions taken on private, interagency cooperation provision of the habitat, a description and evaluation of State, or tribal lands on which we Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. those activities involving a Federal consulted in the past for spikedace and Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and action that may adversely modify such loach minnow include irrigation regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require habitat or that may be affected by such diversion construction and Federal agencies to confer with us on designation. Activities that may destroy maintenance; flood repair and control; any action that is likely to jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat game fish stocking; timber harvest; the continued existence of a proposed include those that alter the primary water diversion and development; species or to result in destruction or constituent elements (defined above) to reservoir construction; water quality adverse modification of proposed an extent that the value of critical standards; and riparian habitat critical habitat. habitat for both the survival and restoration. Federal agencies involved If a species is subsequently listed or recovery of the spikedace or loach with these activities include the Natural critical habitat is designated, then minnow is appreciably reduced. Resources Conservation Service, Bureau section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies To properly portray the effects of of Reclamation, Environmental to ensure that activities they authorize, critical habitat designation, we must Protection Agency, Bureau of Indian fund, or carry out are not likely to first compare the section 7 requirements Affairs, Indian Health Services, Federal jeopardize the continued existence of for actions that may affect critical Emergency Management Agency, and such a species or destroy or adversely habitat with the requirements for the Service. modify its critical habitat. To that end, actions that may affect a listed species. Federal actions involving issuance of if a Federal action may affect a listed Section 7 prohibits actions funded, permits to private parties on which we species or its critical habitat, the authorized, or carried out by Federal consulted in the past for spikedace and responsible Federal agency must enter agencies from jeopardizing the loach minnow include issuance of into consultation with us. Regulations at continued existence of a listed species National Discharge Elimination System 50 CFR 402.16 also require Federal or destroying or adversely modifying the permits by the Environmental agencies to reinitiate consultation in listed species’ critical habitat. Actions Protection Agency and issuance of instances where we have already likely to ‘‘jeopardize the continued permits under section 404 of the Clean reviewed an action for its effects on a existence’’ of a species are those that Water Act for dredging and filling in listed species if critical habitat is would appreciably reduce the waterways by the Army Corps of subsequently designated. likelihood of the species’ survival and Engineers. Private actions for which 404 Conference on proposed critical recovery. Actions likely to ‘‘destroy or permits were sought include road and habitat results in a report that may adversely modify’’ critical habitat are bridge construction, repair and provide conservation recommendations those that would appreciably reduce the maintenance; flood control and repair; to assist the action agency in value of critical habitat for the survival and water diversion construction and eliminating or minimizing adverse and recovery of the listed species. repair. effects to the proposed critical habitat Common to both definitions is an Since the original listing of spikedace that may be caused by the proposed appreciable detrimental effect on both and loach minnow in 1986, only three agency action. Our conservation survival and recovery of a listed species. consultations ended in a finding that the recommendations in a conference report Given the similarity of these definitions, proposed action would jeopardize the are advisory. If we subsequently finalize actions likely to destroy or adversely continued existence of spikedace and/or the proposed critical habitat, modify critical habitat would almost loach minnow. An additional four consultation on agency actions that may always result in jeopardy to the species proposed actions received draft findings affect the critical habitat will result in concerned, particularly when the area of of jeopardy, but for three of those, the a biological opinion as to whether the the proposed action is occupied by the requests for consultation were proposed action is likely to destroy or species concerned. In those cases, withdrawn and the fourth is still in adversely modify critical habitat. If we critical habitat provides little additional progress. For the three jeopardy find the proposed agency action is likely protection to a species, and the findings, we included changes to to destroy or adversely modify the ramifications of its designation are few projects and recommended or required critical habitat, our biological opinion or none. measures to reduce or eliminate impacts may also include reasonable and Actions on Federal lands that we to spikedace and loach minnow and to prudent alternatives to the action that reviewed in past consultations on minimize the potential for take of are designed to avoid destruction or spikedace and loach minnow include individuals as follows: Use of available adverse modification of critical habitat. land management plans; land alternative water sources, water As a result of conferencing on the acquisition and disposal; road and conservation measures, development of proposed critical habitat, we may issue bridge construction, maintenance, and alternative water quality criteria; a formal conference report if requested repair; water diversion and toxicity studies with surrogate species; by a Federal agency. Formal conference development; reservoir construction; construction and maintenance of reports on proposed critical habitat off-road vehicle use; livestock grazing barriers to upstream fish movement; contain a biological opinion that is and management; fencing; prescribed monitoring of fish populations; funding prepared according to 50 CFR 402.13, as burning; powerline construction and nonnative species control and listed fish if critical habitat were designated as repair; recovery actions for spikedace recovery work; and information and final. We may adopt the formal and loach minnow; game fish stocking; education programs.

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69335

In the many biological opinions we could destroy or adversely modify the Economic Analysis prepared that did not result in findings critical habitat of either or both species. of jeopardy to spikedace and loach Such activities include, but are not Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that minnow, we recommended nonbinding limited to, channelization, we designate critical habitat on the basis measures to reduce or eliminate impacts impoundment, road and bridge of the best scientific and commercial to the two species, plus required construction, deprivation of substrate information available and consider the measures for the purpose of minimizing source, destruction and alteration of economic and other relevant impacts of the potential for take of individuals. riparian vegetation, reduction of designating a particular area as critical habitat. We based this proposal on the Both our recommended and required available floodplain, removal of gravel best available scientific information, measures included such things as or floodplain terrace materials, and including the recommendations in the adjustment in timing of projects to avoid excessive sedimentation from mining, species’ recovery plan. We will utilize sensitive periods for the species or their livestock grazing, road construction, the economic analysis, and take into habitats; replanting of riparian timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and vegetation; minimization of work and consideration all comments and other watershed and floodplain information submitted during the public vehicle use in the wetted channel; disturbances. restriction of riparian and upland hearing and comment period, to make a vegetation clearing; fencing to exclude Any activity that would significantly final critical habitat designation. We livestock and limit recreational use; use alter the water chemistry in any of the may exclude areas from critical habitat of alternative livestock management 41 stream segments listed above could upon a determination that the benefits techniques; monitoring of riparian destroy or adversely modify the critical of such exclusions outweigh the benefits vegetation, channel morphology, and habitat of either or both species. Such of specifying such areas as critical fish populations; sign installation; activities include, but are not limited to, habitat. We cannot exclude such areas protection of buffer zones; avoidance of release of chemical or biological from critical habitat when such pollution; cooperative planning efforts; pollutants into the surface water or exclusion will result in the extinction of minimization of ground disturbance in connected groundwater at a point the species. We completed a draft the floodplain; use of alternative source or by dispersed release (non- economic analysis, which is available materials sources; storage of equipment point). for public review and comment. Send and staging of operations outside the Any activity that would introduce, your requests for copies of the economic floodplain; use of block nets to exclude spread or augment nonnative aquatic analysis to the Arizona Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section). fish from the work site; use of sediment species could destroy or adversely barriers; removal of fish from the project modify the critical habitat of either or Secretarial Order 3206: American area; access restrictions; and use of best both species. Such activities include, Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal management practices to minimize but are not limited to, stocking for sport, Trust Responsibilities, and the erosion. As stated above, designation of aesthetics, biological control, or other Endangered Species Act purposes; use of live bait fish, critical habitat in areas occupied by The stated purpose of Secretarial spikedace or loach minnow is not aquaculture, or dumping of aquarium fish or other species; construction and Order 3206 (Secretarial Order) is to expected to result in regulatory burden ‘‘clarif(y) the responsibilities of the above that already in place due to the operation of canals; and interbasin water transfers. component agencies, bureaus, and presence of the listed species. However, offices of the Department of the Interior areas designated as critical habitat that In some cases designation of critical and the Department of Commerce, when are not occupied by the species may habitat may assist in focusing actions taken under authority of the Act require protections similar to those conservation activities by identifying and associated implementing provided to occupied areas under past areas that contain essential habitat regulations affect, or may affect, Indian consultations. features (primary constituent elements), lands, tribal trust resources, or the Any activity that would alter the regardless of whether they are currently exercise of American Indian tribal minimum flow or the natural flow occupied by the listed species. This rights.’’ The Secretarial Order regime of any of the 41 stream segments identification alerts the public and land acknowledges the government-to- listed above could destroy or adversely management agencies to the importance government relationship with tribes, modify the critical habitat of either or of an area in the conservation of that and the trust responsibility and treaty both species. Such activities include, species. Critical habitat also identifies obligations of the United States toward but are not limited to, groundwater areas that may require special Indian tribes. pumping, impoundment, water management considerations or In keeping with the principles cited in diversion, and hydropower generation. protection. Any activity that would significantly the Secretarial Order, we are committed alter watershed characteristics of any of If you have questions regarding to assisting Indian tribes in developing the 41 stream segments listed above whether specific activities will likely and expanding tribal programs so that could destroy or adversely modify the constitute destruction or adverse healthy ecosystems are promoted and critical habitat of either or both species. modification of critical habitat, contact conservation regulations, such as Such activities include, but are not the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological designation of critical habitat, on tribal limited to, vegetation manipulation, Services Office (see ADDRESSES section). lands are unnecessary (Principle 3). In timber harvest, road construction and Requests for copies of the regulations on addition to affirmatively assisting maintenance, human-ignited prescribed listed wildlife and inquiries about Indian tribes who wish assistance with and naturally ignited fire, livestock prohibitions and permits may be conservation programs, we recognize grazing, mining, and urban and addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife that tribes are appropriate governmental suburban development. Service, Division of Endangered entities to manage their lands and tribal Any activity that would significantly Species, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, trust resources and support tribal alter the channel morphology of any of New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505– measures that preclude the need for the 41 stream segments listed above 248–6920; facsimile 505–248–6788). conservation regulations.

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69336 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

The Secretarial Order also requires us which the conservation needs of the with our responsibilities under the to consult with Indian tribes that might listed species can be achieved by Secretarial Order to communicate with be affected by the designation of critical limiting the designation to other lands.’’ all tribes potentially affected by the habitat in an area that might impact Again, pursuant to Public Law 106–113 designation. As stated above, the Salt tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee and H.R. 3423, we may not expend River, Ft. McDowell, and Gila River lands, or the exercise of tribal rights. In funds to implement these requirements. Indian Tribes as well as the White our deliberations over this critical However, we must still determine Mountain, San Carlos, and Yavapai habitat proposal, we identified two whether all relevant areas, including Apache Tribes are all located categories of possible effects to tribes or tribal lands, in fact qualify as critical downstream from proposed critical tribal resources. These include: (1) habitat pursuant to Section 3(5) of the habitat for the spikedace and loach effects resulting from designation of Act. With respect to currently occupied minnow. However, many of these tribes critical habitat on Indian lands; and (2) habitat, that provision limits critical either have major impoundments on effects on tribal resources, such as water habitat to areas ‘‘on which are found their reservations or lie below major deliveries, resulting from designation of those physical and biological features (I) impoundments, and release of water critical habitat on non-tribal lands. We essential to the conservation of the from such impoundments may be identified the Indian Reservations of the species and (II) which may require regulated by court decree or other White Mountain, San Carlos, and special management considerations and considerations. Therefore, we are Yavapai Apache Tribes as containing protection.’’ Moreover, pursuant to soliciting information during the stream reaches that may be appropriate Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must comment period on potential effects to for designation of critical habitat. determine whether to exclude particular tribes or tribal resources that may result Additionally, several tribes, including areas from designation because the from critical habitat designation. the Salt River, Ft. McDowell, and Gila benefits of exclusion outweigh the River Indian Tribes, are located benefits of including the areas as critical Public Comments Solicited downstream from designated critical habitat. We spoke with representatives It is our intent that any final action habitat and depend on water deliveries of the White Mountain Apache, San resulting from this proposal will be as from upstream sources. Carlos Apache, and Yavapai Apache accurate and as effective as possible. Public Law 106–113 and H.R. 3423 Tribes, the three tribes which may have Therefore, we solicit comments or prohibit us from using any of our critical habitat for spikedace or loach suggestions from the public, other appropriated funds to implement two minnow on their reservations. However, concerned governmental agencies, the provisions of the Secretarial order: we do not have information on which to scientific community, industry, or any Principle 3(C)(ii) (prohibiting the base an assessment of whether other interested party concerning this imposing of conservation restrictions voluntary tribal measures are adequate proposed rule. We particularly seek involving incidental take if the to achieve conservation of spikedace comments concerning: conservation purposes of the restriction and loach minnow on tribal lands. In (1) The reasons why any habitat can be achieved by reasonable addition, the short time allowed by the should or should not be determined to regulation of non-Indian activities) and court to complete this critical habitat be critical habitat as provided by section Appendix section 3(B)(4) (regarding designation precludes us from engaging 4 of the Act, including whether the designation of critical habitat, including in a level of consultation with the tribes benefits of excluding areas will the requirement that the Service consult on a government-to-government basis, outweigh the benefits of including areas with affected tribes). However, portions which would enable us to make this as critical habitat; of Principle 3(C) unaffected by Public required determination. (2) Specific information on the Law 106–113 and H.R. 3423 require Given the above, we are not proposing amount and distribution of spikedace consultation with affected tribes prior to critical habitat on the Fort Apache, San and loach minnow habitat, and what implementation of any conservation Carlos Apache, or Yavapai Apache habitat is essential to the conservation restriction. Moreover, Presidential Indian Reservations at this time. of the species and why; Memorandum of April 29, 1994, also However, Eagle Creek and the Verde (3) Land use practices and current or requires us to consult with the tribes [on and White Rivers on these reservations planned activities in the subject areas matters that affect them], and section may be critical habitat for the spikedace and their possible impacts on proposed 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to gather and loach minnow. As provided under critical habitat; information regarding the designation of section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are (4) Any foreseeable economic or other critical habitat and the effects thereof soliciting information as to whether impacts resulting from the proposed from all relevant sources, including the these areas should be designated as designation of critical habitat, in tribes. Therefore, although we will not critical habitat and will be discussing particular, any impacts on small entities consult pursuant to Appendix section with the tribes whether their voluntary or families; and 3(B)(4) of the Secretarial Order, we will measures are adequate to conserve these (5) Economic and other values consult with the tribes to the extent species on tribal lands. We will consider associated with designating critical possible in the time allowed by the this information in determining which, habitat for the spikedace and the loach court order pursuant to these other if any, tribal land should be included in minnow, such as those derived from authorities. the final designation as critical habitat nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking, for spikedace or loach minnow. camping, birding, enhanced watershed 1. Designation of Critical Habitat on protection, increased soil retention, Indian Reservations 2. Effects on Tribal Trust Resources ‘‘existence values,’’ and reductions in Appendix 3(B)(4) of the Secretarial from Critical Habitat Designation on administrative costs). Order also states: ‘‘Critical habitat shall Non-Tribal Lands Executive Order 12866 requires each not be designated [on tribal lands] We do not anticipate that proposal of agency to write regulations and notices unless it is determined essential to critical habitat on non-tribal lands will that are easy to understand. We invite conserve a listed species. In designating result in any impact on tribal trust your comments on how to make this critical habitat, the Services shall resources or the exercise of tribal rights. proposed rule easier to understand evaluate and document the extent to However, it is essential in complying including answers to questions such as

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69337 the following: (1) Are the requirements 1. Eastern Arizona College Activity governments or the private sector. A in the document clearly stated? (2) Does Center, Lee Little Theater, 1014 N. statement containing the information the proposed rule contain technical College Avenue, Thatcher, Arizona required by the Unfunded Mandates language or jargon that interferes with 2. Western New Mexico University, Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not the clarity? (3) Does the format of the White Hall Auditorium, 1000 College required. proposed rule (grouping and order of Street, Silver City, New Mexico sections, use of headings, paragraphing, December 16, 1999, from 7:00–9:00 Takings etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the p.m. In accordance with Executive Order description of the proposed rule in the Camp Verde Unified Schools, Multi- 12630, this rule does not have ‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of Use Complex Theater, 280 Camp significant takings implications, and a the preamble helpful in understanding Lincoln Road, Camp Verde, Arizona the document? (5) What else could we takings implication assessment is not do to make the proposed rule easier to Required Determinations required. This proposed rule, if made final, will not ‘‘take’’ private property. understand? Regulatory Planning and Review Our practice is to make comments, However, we will evaluate whether the In accordance with the criteria in including names and home addresses of value of private property is altered by it Executive Order 12866, this rule is a respondents, available for public review being designated as critical habitat on a significant regulatory action. The Office during regular business hours. case by case basis. Critical habitat of Management and Budget reviewed Individual respondents may request that designation is only applicable to Federal this document. We prepared a draft we withhold their home address from lands and to private lands if a Federal economic analysis of this proposed the rulemaking record, which we will nexus exists. We do not designate action to determine the economic honor to the extent allowable by law. private lands as critical habitat unless consequences of designating the specific There also may be circumstances in the areas are essential to the areas as critical habitat. The draft which we would withhold from the conservation of a species. economic analysis is available for public rulemaking record a respondent’s review and comment during the identity, as allowable by law. If you Federalism comment period on this proposed rule wish us to withhold your name and/or (see ADDRESSES section of this rule). The In accordance with Executive Order address, you must state this proposed rule, if made final, will not 13132, this proposed rule, if made final, prominently at the beginning of your significantly impact entitlements, will not affect the structure or role of comment. However, we will not grants, user fees, loan programs, or the States, and will not have direct, consider anonymous comments. We rights and obligations of their recipients. substantial, or significant effects on will make all submissions from This rule will not raise novel legal or States. As previously stated, critical organizations or businesses, and from policy issues. habitat is applicable to Federal lands individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 and to non-Federal lands only when a organizations or businesses, available et seq.) Federal nexus exists. for public inspection in their entirety. In the economic analysis, we In keeping with Department of the In accordance with our policy determined that designation of critical Interior and Department of Commerce published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR habitat will not have a significant effect policy, the Service requested 34270), we will seek the expert opinions on a substantial number of small information from and coordinated of at least three appropriate and entities. development of this critical habitat independent specialists regarding this proposal with appropriate State proposed rule. The purpose of such Small Business Regulatory Enforcement resource agencies in Arizona and New review is to ensure listing decisions are Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)) Mexico, as well as during the listing based on scientifically sound data, In our economic analysis, we process. In addition, both States have assumptions, and analyses. We will determined that designation of critical representatives on our recovery team for send copies of this proposed rule habitat will not cause (a) any effect on this species. We will continue to immediately following publication in the economy of $100 million or more, coordinate any future designation of the Federal Register to these peer (b) any increases in costs or prices for critical habitat for spikedace and loach reviewers. We will invite these peer consumers; individual industries; minnow with the appropriate State reviewers to comment, during the Federal, State, or local government agencies. public comment period, on the specific agencies; or geographic regions, or (c) assumptions and conclusions regarding any significant adverse effects on Civil Justice Reform the proposed designation of critical competition, employment, investment, In accordance with Executive Order habitat. productivity, innovation, or the ability 12988, the Department of the Interior’s We will consider all comments and of U.S.-based enterprises to compete information received during the with foreign-based enterprises. Office of the Solicitor determined that comment period on this proposed rule this rule does not unduly burden the during preparation of a final Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 judicial system and meets the rulemaking. Accordingly, the final U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) decision may differ from this proposal. As outlined in our economic analysis, of the Order. The Office of the Solicitor this rule does not impose an unfundated will review the final determination for Public Hearings mandate on State, local or tribal this proposal. We will make every effort We have scheduled three public governments or the private sector of to ensure that the final determination hearings at the following places and more than $100 million or greater in any contains no drafting errors, provides times: year. The proposed rule, if made final, clear standards, simplifies procedures, December 15, 1999, from 7:00–9:00 does not have a significant or unique reduces burden, and is clearly written p.m. effect on State local or tribal such that litigation risk is minimized.

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69338 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Circuit, such as that of the spikedace recordkeeping requirements, U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and loach minnow, pursuant to the Transportation. Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County This rule does not contain any Proposed Regulation Promulgation information collection requirements for Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish which Office of Management and and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Accordingly, we propose to amend Budget approval under the Paperwork Cir. 1996), we undertake a NEPA part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title Reduction Act is required. analysis for critical habitat designation. 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as Send your requests for copies of the set forth below: National Environmental Policy Act draft environmental assessment for this It is our position that, outside the proposal to the Arizona Ecological PART 17Ð[AMENDED] Services Office (see ADDRESSES section). Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 1. The authority citation for part 17 prepare environmental analyses as References Cited continues to read as follows: defined by the NEPA in connection with designating critical habitat under the A complete list of all references cited Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as in this proposed rule is available upon 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– amended. We published a notice request from the Arizona Ecological 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. outlining our reasons for this Services Office (see ADDRESSES section). 2. Amend § 17.11(h), by revising the determination in the Federal Register Author entry for ‘‘minnow, loach’’ and on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This ‘‘spikedace’’ under ‘‘FISHES’’ to read as assertion was upheld in the courts of the The primary author of this notice is follows: Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Paul J. Barrett (see ADDRESSES section). Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. § 17.11 Endangered and threatened List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). wildlife. However, when the range of the species Endangered and threatened species, * * * * * includes States within the Tenth Exports, Imports, Reporting and (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

******* * FISHES ******* * Minnow, loach ...... Tiaroga (= U.S.A. (AZ, NM), entire ...... T 247 § 17.95(e) NA Rhinichthys) Mexico. cobitis.

******* * Spikedace ...... Meda fulgida ...... U.S.A. (AZ, NM), entire ...... T 236 § 17.95(e) NA Mexico. ******* *

3. Amend § 17.95(e) by adding critical 3. Within these areas, the primary approximate range of 1–30 °C (35–85 °F) with habitat for the spikedace (Meda fulgida) constituent elements include, but are not natural diurnal and seasonal variation; (9) in the same alphabetical order as this limited to, those habitat components that are abundant aquatic insect food base; (10) species occurs in § 17.11(h). essential for the primary biological needs of periodic natural flooding; (11) a natural, foraging, sheltering, and reproduction. These unregulated hydrograph, or if flows are § 17.95 Critical habitatÐfish and wildlife. elements include the following: (1) Permanent, flowing, unpolluted water; (2) modified or regulated, then a hydrograph that * * * * * living areas for adult spikedace with slow to demonstrates an ability to support a native (e) Fishes. swift flow velocities in shallow water with fish community; and (12) few or no predatory shear zones where rapid flow borders slower or competitive nonnative species present. * * * * * flow, areas of sheet flow at the upper ends 4. Arizona (Gila and Salt River Meridian SPIKEDACE (Meda fulgida) of mid-channel sand/gravel bars, and eddies (GSRM) and New Mexico (New Mexico at downstream riffle edges; (3) living areas for 1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Principal Meridian (NMPM)): Areas of land juveniles with slow to moderate water and water as follows (physical features were Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, velocities in shallow water with moderate identified using USGS 7.5′ quadrangle maps; Navajo, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties, amounts of instream cover; (4) living areas Arizona, and Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo for the larval stage with slow to moderate river reach distances were derived from Counties, New Mexico, on the maps and as flow velocities in shallow water with digital data obtained from Arizona Land described below. abundant instream cover; (5) sand, gravel, Resources Information System (ALRIS) and 2. Critical habitat includes the stream and cobble substrates with low to moderate New Mexico Resource Geographic channels within the identified stream reaches amounts of fine sediment and substrate Information System (RGIS)): indicated on the maps below and areas embeddedness; (6) pool, riffle, run, and within these reaches potentially inundated backwater components of the streams; (7) low by high flow events. stream gradient; (8) water temperatures in the

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69339

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69340 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69341

Complex 2. Apache and Greenlee Counties, to the confluence with Deer Creek in GSRM, confluence with Boneyard Creek in GSRM, Arizona T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30. T5N, R29E, SW1/4 Sec. 5. c. West Fork Black River for approximately a. East Fork Black River for approximately b. North Fork of the East Fork Black River 10.3 km (6.4 mi), extending from the 8.2 km (5.1 mi), extending from the for approximately 11.6 km (7.2 mi), extending from the confluence of the East confluence with the East Fork Black River in confluence with the West Fork Black River in GSRM, T.4N, R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream Fork Black River and Deer Creek in GSRM, GSRM, T.4N., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream to the confluence with Hay Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to the T.5N., R.28E., SE1/4, Sec. 19.

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69342 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

Complex 3. Gila County, Arizona confluence with Houston Creek in GSRM, c. Rye Creek for approximately 2.1 km (1.3 a. Tonto Creek for approximately 47.0 km T.9N., R.11E., NE1/4, Sec. 18. mi), extending from the confluence with b. Greenback Creek for approximately 13.5 (29.2 mi), extending from the confluence Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/4 km (8.4 mi), extending from the confluence with Greenback Creek in GSRM, T.5N., Sec. 24 upstream to the confluence with with Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E., Brady Canyon in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/ R.11E., NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to the NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to Lime Springs in 4 Sec. 14. GSRM, T.6N., R.12E., SW1/4 Sec. 20.

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69343

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

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69344 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69345

Complex 5. Cochise, Graham, and Pima R.18E., SW1/4 Sec. 34 upstream to the Hot Springs Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., Counties, Arizona. confluence with Sycamore Canyon in GSRM, NE1/4 Sec. upstream to the confluence with a. San Pedro River for approximately 73.6 T.11S., R.20E., NW1/4 Sec. 28. Pine Canyon in GSRM, T.12S., R.21E., center km (45.8 mi), extending from the confluence c. Hot Springs Canyon for approximately Sec. 20. with Alder Wash in GSRM, T.10S., R.18E., 19.1 km (11.8 mi), extending from the e. San Pedro River for approximately 60.0 SW1/4 Sec.22 upstream to the confluence confluence with the San Pedro River in km (37.2 mi), extending from the confluence with Ash Creek in GSRM, T.16S., R.20E., GSRM, T.13S., R.19E., west center Sec. 23 with the Babocomari River in the San Juan upstream to the confluence with Bass Canyon SE1/4 Sec. 6. de las Boquillas y Nogales land grant b. Redfield Canyon for approximately 22.3 in GSRM, T.12S., R.20E., NE1/4 Sec. 36. upstream to the U.S. border with Mexico in km (13.9 mi), extending from the confluence d. Bass Canyon for approximately 5.1 km with the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.11S., (3.2 mi), extending from the confluence with GSRM, T.24S., R.22E., Sec. 19.

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69346 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69347

Complex 7. Grant and Catron Counties, New from the confluence with the West Fork Gila § 17.95 Critical habitatÐfish and wildlife. Mexico. River in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., SW1/4 Sec. * * * * * a. Gila River for approximately 164.4 km 25 upstream to the confluence with Big Bear (e) Fishes. Canyon in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., NW1/4 (102.2 mi), extending from the confluence * * * * * with Moore Canyon in NMPM, T.18S., Sec. 2. R.21W., SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to the d. West Fork Gila River for approximately LOACH MINNOW (Tiaroga (=Rhinichthys) confluence of the East and West Forks of the 12.4 km (7.7 mi), extending from the cobitis) Gila River in NMPM, T.13S., T.13W., center confluence with the East Fork Gila River in 1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Sec. 8. NMPM, T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, b. East Fork Gila River for approximately upstream to the confluence with EE Canyon Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, 42.1 km (26.1 mi), extending from the in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., east boundary of confluence with the West Fork Gila River in Sec. 21. and Catron and Grant Counties, New Mexico NMPM, T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 * * * * * on the maps and as described below. upstream to the confluence of Beaver and 4. Amend § 17.95(e) by adding critical 2. Critical habitat includes the stream Taylor Creeks in NMPM, T.11S., R.12W., habitat for the loach minnow (Tiaroga channels within the identified stream reaches NE1/4 Sec. 17. (=Rhinichthys) cobitis) in the same indicated on the maps below and areas c. Middle Fork Gila River for alphabetical order as this species occurs in within these reaches potentially inundated approximately 12.3 km (7.7 mi), extending § 17.11(h): by high flow events.

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69348 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

3. Within these areas, the primary sand, gravel, and cobble substrates and demonstrates a retained ability to support a constituent elements include, but are not abundant instream cover; (5) spawning areas native fish community; and (13) few or no limited to, those habitat components that are with slow to swift flow velocities in shallow predatory or competitive nonnative species essential for the primary biological needs of water with uncemented cobble and rubble present. foraging, sheltering, and reproduction. These substrate; (6) low amounts of fine sediment 4. Arizona (Gila and Salt River Meridian elements include the following: (1) and substrate embeddedness; (7) riffle, run, (GSRM)) and New Mexico (New Mexico Permanent flowing, unpolluted water; (2) and backwater components present in the Principal Meridian (NMPM)): Areas of land living areas for adults with moderate to swift aquatic habitat; (8) low to moderate stream and water as follows (physical features were flow velocities in shallow water with gravel, gradient; (9) water temperatures in the identified using USGS 7.5’ quadrangle maps; cobble, and rubble substrates; (3) living areas approximate range of 1–30°C (35–85°F) with river reach distances were derived from for juveniles with moderate to swift flow natural diurnal and seasonal variation; (10) digital data obtained from Arizona Land velocities in shallow water with sand, gravel, abundant aquatic insect food base; (11) Resources Information System (ALRIS) and cobble, and rubble substrates; (4) living areas periodic natural flooding; (12) a natural, New Mexico Resource Geographic for larval loach minnow with slow to unregulated hydrograph, or if flows are Information System (RGIS)): moderate velocities in shallow water with modified or regulated, then a hydrograph that BILLING CODE 4310±55±P

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69349

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

Complex 2. Apache and Greenlee Counties, b. North Fork of the East Fork Black River c. Boneyard Creek for approximately 2.3 Arizona for approximately 18.0 km (11.2 mi), km (1.4 mi), extending from the confluence a. East Fork Black River for approximately extending from the confluence of the East with the North Fork of the East Fork Black 8.2 km (5.1 mi), extending from the Fork Black River and Deer Creek in GSRM, River in GSRM, T.5N., R.29E., SW1/4 Sec. 5 confluence with the West Fork Black River in T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30 upstream to the upstream to the confluence with an unnamed GSRM, T.4N., R.28E., SE1/4 Sec. 11 upstream confluence with an unnamed tributary tributary flowing from the east near Clabber to the confluence with Deer Creek in GSRM, flowing from the east in GSRM, T.6N., City in GSRM, T.6N., R.29E., SE1/4 SE1/4 T.5N., R.29E., NW1/4 Sec. 30. R.29E., center Sec. 30. Sec. 32.

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69350 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

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

Complex 3. Gila County, Arizona confluence with Haigler Creek in GSRM, c. Rye Creek for approximately 2.1 km (1.3 a. Tonto Creek for approximately 70.3 km T.10N., R.12E., NW1/4, Sec. 14. mi), extending from the confluence with b. Greenback Creek for approximately 13.5 Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/4 (43.7 mi), extending from the confluence km (8.4 mi), extending from the confluence Sec. 24 upstream to the confluence with with Greenback Creek in GSRM, T.5N., with Tonto Creek in GSRM, T.5N., R.11E., Brady Canyon in GSRM, T.8N., R.10E., NE1/ R.11E., NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to the NW1/4 Sec. 8 upstream to Lime Springs in 4 Sec. 14. GSRM, T.6N., R.12E., SW1/4 Sec. 20.

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69351

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

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69352 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

Complex 5. Cochise, Graham, and Pima SW1/4 Sec. 22 upstream to the confluence R.18E., SW1/4 Sec. 34 upstream to the Counties, Arizona with Ash Creek in GSRM, T.16S., R.20E., confluence with Sycamore Canyon in GSRM, a. San Pedro River for approximately 73.6 SE1/4 Sec. 6. T.11S., R.20E., NW1/4 Sec. 28. b. Redfield Canyon for approximately 22.3 c. Hot Springs Canyon for approximately km (45.8 mi), extending from the confluence km (13.9 mi), extending from the confluence 19.1 km (11.8 mi), extending from the with Alder Wash in GSRM, T.10S., R.18E., with the San Pedro River in GSRM, T.11S., confluence with the San Pedro River in

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69353

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

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

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 69354 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 69355

Complex 7. Grant and Catron Counties, New NMPM, T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 confluence with the East Fork Gila River in Mexico upstream to the confluence of Beaver and NMPM, T.13S., R.13W., center Sec. 8 a. Gila River for approximately 164.4 km Taylor Creeks in NMPM, T.11S., R.12W., upstream to the confluence with EE Canyon NE1/4 Sec. 17. (102.2 mi), extending from the confluence in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., east boundary of c. Middle Fork Gila River for Sec. 21. with Moore Canyon in NMPM, T.18S., approximately 19.1 km (11.8 mi), extending R.21W., SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 31 upstream to the from the confluence with the West Fork Gila Dated: November 30, 1999. confluence of the East and West Forks of the River in NMPM, T.12S., R.14W., SW1/4 Sec. Donald J. Barry, Gila River in NMPM, T.13S., T.13W., center 25 upstream to the confluence with Brothers Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Sec. 8. West Canyon in NMPM, T.11S., R.14W., Parks. b. East Fork Gila River for approximately NE1/4 Sec. 33. 42.1 km (26.1 mi), extending from the d. West Fork Gila River for approximately [FR Doc. 99–32019 Filed 12–7–99; 10:20 am] confluence with the West Fork Gila River in 12.4 km (7.7 mi), extending from the BILLING CODE 4310±55±P

VerDate 29-OCT-99 19:16 Dec 09, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 10DEP2