Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow, 66482-66552 [2010-26477]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66482-66552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26477]



[[Page 66481]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status and 
Designation of Critical Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow; 
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 66482]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2010-0072; MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
RIN 1018-AX17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status 
and Designation of Critical Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
change the status of spikedace (Meda fulgida) and loach minnow (Tiaroga 
cobitis) from threatened to endangered under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended, and to designate critical habitat for both 
species. In total, we are proposing approximately 1,168 kilometers (726 
mi) of streams as critical habitat for spikedace, and 1,141 kilometers 
(709 miles) of streams as critical habitat for loach minnow. The 
proposed critical habitat is located in Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, 
Greenlee, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, and 
Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties in New Mexico.

DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before 
December 27, 2010. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section by December 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R2-
ES-2010-0072.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: [Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2010-0072]; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 W. 
Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone (602) 242-
0210; facsimile (602) 242-2513. If you use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) 
at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    This document consists of: (1) A proposed rule to reclassify 
spikedace (Meda fulgida) and loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) from 
threatened to endangered status; and (2) a proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for the two species.
    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which 
are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational
    purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of this species, including the locations of any 
additional populations of this species.
    (3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of 
the species.
    (4) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including whether there 
are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can 
be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that 
increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the 
designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
    (5) Specific information on:
     The amount and distribution of spikedace and loach minnow 
habitat;
     What areas occupied at the time of listing and containing 
features essential to the conservation of the species should be 
included in the designation and why;
     Special management considerations or protections that 
features essential to the conservation of spikedace and loach minnow, 
as identified in this proposal, may require, including managing for the 
potential effects of climate change; and
     What areas not occupied at the time of listing are 
essential for the conservation of the species and why.
    (6) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (7) Any probable economic, national security, or other impacts of 
designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We 
are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities or 
families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit 
these impacts.
    (8) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    (9) Information on whether the benefit of an exclusion of any 
particular area outweighs the benefit of inclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. We specifically solicit the delivery of spikedace- 
and loach minnow-specific management plans for areas included in this 
proposed designation. Management plans considered in previous critical 
habitat exclusions for spikedace and loach minnow are available through 
the contact information listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.
    (10) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on spikedace and loach minnow and on the critical 
habitat areas we are proposing.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information, such as your street address, phone 
number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document 
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

[[Page 66483]]

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the proposed reclassification and proposed designation of critical 
habitat for spikedace and loach minnow in this proposed rule. For more 
information on the species themselves, refer to the final listing rule 
(51 FR 23769, July 1, 1986 (spikedace), and 51 FR 39468, October 28, 
1986 (loach minnow)) and the previous critical habitat designation (72 
FR 13356, March 21, 2007).

Spikedace

    The spikedace is a member of the minnow family Cyprinidae, and is 
the only species in the genus Meda. The spikedace was first collected 
from the San Pedro River in 1851. The spikedace is a small, slim fish 
less than 75 millimeters (mm) (3 inches (in)) in length (Sublette et 
al. 1990, p. 136). Spikedace have olive-gray to brownish skin, with 
silvery sides and vertically elongated black specks. Spikedace have 
spines in the dorsal fin (Minckley 1973, pp. 82, 112, 115).
    Spikedace are found in moderate to large perennial streams, where 
they inhabit shallow riffles (those shallow portions of the stream with 
rougher, choppy water) with sand, gravel, and rubble substrates (Barber 
and Minckley 1966, p. 31; Propst et al. 1986, p. 12; Rinne and Kroeger 
1988, p. 1; Rinne 1991, pp. 8-10). Specific habitat for this species 
consists of shear zones where rapid flow borders slower flow; areas of 
sheet flow at the upper ends of mid-channel sand or gravel bars; and 
eddies at downstream riffle edges (Rinne 1991, p. 11; Rinne and Kroeger 
1988, pp. 1, 4). Recurrent flooding and a natural flow regime are very 
important in maintaining the habitat of spikedace and in helping 
maintain a competitive edge over invading nonnative aquatic species 
(Propst et al. 1986, pp. 76-81; Minckley and Meffe 1987, pp. 97, 103-
104).
    The spikedace was once common throughout much of the Gila River 
basin, including the mainstem Gila River upstream of Phoenix, and the 
Verde, Agua Fria, Salt, San Pedro, and San Francisco subbasins. Habitat 
destruction and competition and predation by nonnative aquatic species 
reduced its range and abundance (Miller 1961, pp. 365, 377, 397-398; 
Lachner et al. 1970, p. 22; Ono et al. 1983, p. 90; Moyle 1986, pp. 28-
34; Moyle et al. 1986, pp. 416-423; Propst et al. 1986, pp. 82-84).
    Spikedace are now restricted to portions of the upper Gila River 
(Grant, Catron, and Hidalgo Counties, New Mexico); Aravaipa Creek 
(Graham and Pinal Counties, Arizona); Eagle Creek (Graham and Greenlee 
Counties, Arizona); and the Verde River (Yavapai County, Arizona) 
(Marsh et al. 1990, pp. 107-108, 111; M. Brouder, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (Service), pers. comm. 2002; Stefferud and Reinthal 
2005, pp. 16-21; Paroz et al. 2006, pp. 62-67; Propst 2007, pp. 7-9, 
11-14).
    In 2007, spikedace were translocated into Hot Springs Canyon, in 
Cochise County, Arizona, and Redfield Canyon, in Cochise and Pima 
Counties, Arizona, and these streams were subsequently augmented 
(Robinson 2008a, pp. 2, 6; T. Robinson, Arizona Game and Fish 
Department (AGFD), pers. comm. 2008b; D. Orabutt, AGFD, pers. comm. 
2009; Robinson 2009a, pp. 2, 5-8). (We use the term ``translocate'' to 
describe stocking fish into an area where suitable habitat exists, but 
for which there are no documented collections.) Both Hot Springs and 
Redfield canyons are tributaries to the San Pedro River. Spikedace were 
also translocated into Fossil Creek, a tributary to the Verde River in 
Gila County, Arizona, in 2007, and were subsequently augmented in 2008 
(Carter 2007b, p. 1; Carter 2008a, p. 1; Robinson 2009b, p. 9; Boyarski 
et al. 2010, in draft, p. 7). In 2008, spikedace were translocated into 
Bonita Creek, a tributary to the Gila River in Graham County, Arizona 
(H. Blasius, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), pers. comm. 2008; D. 
Orabutt, AGFD, pers. comm. 2009; Robinson et al. 2009a, p. 209), and 
were repatriated to the upper San Francisco River in Catron County, New 
Mexico (D. Propst, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF), 
pers. comm. 2010). (We use the term ``repatriate'' to describe stocking 
fish into an area where we have historical records of prior presence.) 
Augmentations with additional fish will occur for the next several 
years at all sites, if adequate numbers of fish are available. 
Monitoring at each of these sites is ongoing to determine if 
populations ultimately become self-sustaining.
    The species is now common only in Aravaipa Creek in Arizona (AGFD 
1994; Arizona State University (ASU) 2002; P. Reinthal, University of 
Arizona, pers. comm. 2008, Reinthal 2009, pp. 1-2) and one section of 
the Gila River south of Cliff, New Mexico (NMDGF 2008; Propst et al. 
2009, pp. 14-17). The Verde River is presumed occupied; however, the 
last captured fish from this river was from a 1999 survey (M. Brouder, 
Service, pers. comm. 2002; AGFD 2004). Spikedace from the Eagle Creek 
population have not been seen for over a decade (Marsh 1996, p. 2), 
although they are still thought to exist in numbers too low for the 
sampling efforts to detect (Carter et al. 2007, p. 3; see Minckley and 
Marsh 2009). The Middle Fork Gila River population is thought to be 
very small and has not been seen since 1991 (Jakle 1992, p. 6), but 
sampling is localized and inadequate to detect a sparse population.
    Population estimates have not been developed as a result of the 
difficulty in detecting the species, the sporadic nature of most 
surveys, and the difference in surveying techniques that have been 
applied over time. Based on the available maps and survey information, 
we estimate the spikedace's present range to be approximately 10 
percent or less of its historical range, and the status of the species 
within occupied areas ranges from common to very rare. Data indicate 
that the population in New Mexico has declined in recent years (Paroz 
et al. 2006, p. 56). Historical and current records for spikedace are 
summarized in three databases (ASU 2002, AGFD 2004, NMDGF 2008), which 
are referenced throughout this document.
    A species' geographic range is the total area that encompasses all 
known locations of that species. As noted above, spikedace occur in 
several streams in portions of Arizona and New Mexico. For purposes of 
this document, we have used watershed boundaries associated with the 
Verde, Salt, San Pedro, Gila, and San Francisco rivers to define the 
geographic range of spikedace. All known records of spikedace occur 
within these watershed boundaries.
    We evaluated species detections and habitat descriptions in various 
databases, formal and informal survey records, agency and researcher 
field notes, and published literature to determine which geographic 
areas were reasonably occupied by the species at the time of listing. 
Surveys have been infrequent or inconsistent for this species. Further, 
even where surveys occur, the species can be difficult to detect due to 
its small body size. As a result, the lack of a positive detection in 
any specific area may not mean that the area is not occupied. 
Therefore, relying strictly on point-specific survey results

[[Page 66484]]

for historical occupancy information would likely create an incomplete 
picture of occupied area. The extent of a stream reach that is occupied 
up- or downstream of a known occupied site is generally limited only by 
availability of suitable habitat. Therefore, we assume that for areas 
where the species has been documented, it was likely also present in 
the adjacent stream segments if adjacent segments were connected and 
contain suitable habitat.
    In addition, this document discusses areas occupied at the time of 
listing. We are defining areas occupied at the time of listing to 
include streams for which we have spikedace records up to 1986, when 
they were first listed. These records include the Agua Fria River; the 
Verde River and its tributaries Beaver Creek and West Clear Creek; the 
Salt River and its tributary Tonto Creek; the San Pedro River and its 
tributary Aravaipa Creek; Eagle Creek; the San Francisco River; and the 
Gila River and its tributaries East, Middle, and West Fork Gila, and 
Blue Creek.

Loach Minnow

    The loach minnow is a member of the minnow family Cyprinidae. The 
loach minnow was first collected in 1851 from the San Pedro River in 
Arizona and was described by those specimens in 1865 by Girard (pp. 
191-192). The loach minnow is a small, slender fish less than 80 mm (3 
in) in length. It is olive-colored overall, with black mottling or 
splotches. Breeding males have vivid red to red-orange markings on the 
bases of fins and adjacent body, on the mouth and lower head, and often 
on the abdomen (Minckley 1973, p. 134; Sublette et al. 1990, p. 186).
    Loach minnow are found in small to large perennial streams and use 
shallow, turbulent riffles with primarily cobble substrate and swift 
currents (Minckley 1973, p. 134; Propst et al. 1988, pp. 36-43; Rinne 
1989, pp. 113-115; Propst and Bestgen 1991, pp. 29, 32-33). The loach 
minnow uses the spaces between, and in the lee (sheltered) side of, 
rocks for resting and spawning. It is rare or absent from habitats 
where fine sediments fill these interstitial spaces (Propst and Bestgen 
1991, p. 34).
    Loach minnow are now restricted to portions of the Gila River and 
its tributaries, the West, Middle, and East Fork Gila River (Grant, 
Catron, and Hidalgo Counties, New Mexico) (Paroz and Propst 2007, p. 
16; Propst 2007, pp. 7-8, 10-11, 13-14); the San Francisco and Tularosa 
rivers and their tributaries Negrito and Whitewater creeks (Catron 
County, New Mexico) (Propst et al. 1988, p. 15; ASU 2002; Paroz and 
Propst 2007, p. 16; Propst 2007, pp. 4-5); the Blue River and its 
tributaries Dry Blue, Campbell Blue, Pace, and Frieborn creeks 
(Greenlee County, Arizona and Catron County, New Mexico) (Miller 1998, 
pp. 4-5; ASU 2002; C. Carter 2005, pp. 1-5; C. Carter, AGFD, pers. 
comm. 2008b; Clarkson et al. 2008, pp. 3-4; Robinson 2009c, p. 3); 
Aravaipa Creek and its tributaries Turkey and Deer creeks (Graham and 
Pinal Counties, Arizona) (Stefferud and Reinthal 2005, pp. 16-21); 
Eagle Creek (Graham and Greenlee Counties, Arizona), (Knowles 1994, pp. 
1-2, 5; Bagley and Marsh 1997, pp. 1-2; Marsh et al. 2003, pp. 666-668; 
Carter et al. 2007, p. 3; Bahm and Robinson 2009a, p. 1); and the North 
Fork East Fork Black River (Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona) 
(Leon 1989, pp. 1-2; M. Lopez, AGFD pers. comm. 2000; S. Gurtin, AGFD, 
pers. comm. 2004; Carter 2007b, p. 2; Robinson et al. 2009b, p. 4); and 
possibly the White River and its tributaries, the East and North Fork 
White River (Apache, Gila, and Navajo Counties, Arizona). The present 
range is 15 to 20 percent of its historical range, and the status of 
the species within occupied areas ranges from common to very rare.
    As noted above, a species' range includes the total area that 
encompasses all known locations of that species. As with spikedace, 
loach minnow are known to occur in several streams in portions of 
Arizona and New Mexico. For purposes of this document, we have used 
watershed boundaries associated with the Verde, Salt, San Pedro, Gila, 
and San Francisco rivers to determine the range of loach minnow. All 
known loach minnow records occur within these watershed boundaries.
    We evaluated species detections and habitat descriptions in various 
databases, formal and informal survey records, agency and researcher 
field notes, and published literature to determine which geographic 
areas were reasonably occupied by the species at the time of listing. 
Surveys have been infrequent or inconsistent for this species. Further, 
even where surveys occur, the species can be difficult to detect due to 
its small body size. As a result, the lack of a positive detection in 
any specific area may not mean that the area is not occupied. 
Therefore, relying strictly on point-specific survey results for 
historical occupancy information would likely create an incomplete 
picture of occupied areas. The extent of a stream reach that is 
occupied up- or downstream of a known occupied site is generally 
limited only by availability of suitable habitat. Therefore, we assume 
that for areas where the species has been documented, it was likely 
also present in the adjacent stream segments if adjacent segments were 
connected and contain suitable habitat.
    In addition, this document discusses areas occupied at the time of 
listing. We are defining areas occupied at the time of listing to 
include streams for which we have loach minnow records up to 1986, when 
the species was first listed. These records include the Verde River and 
its tributary Beaver Creek; the White River and its tributary East Fork 
White River; Aravaipa Creek; the San Pedro River; Eagle Creek; the Blue 
River and its tributaries Campbell Blue, Dry Blue, and Little Blue 
creeks; the San Francisco River and its tributary Tularosa River; and 
the Gila River and its tributaries West Fork, Middle Fork, and East 
Fork Gila Rivers and Whitewater Creek. In addition, loach minnow were 
identified from several tributary streams following 1986. As no 
reintroduction efforts had taken place prior to discovering each of 
these populations, it is assumed they were occupied at listing, but 
undetected. We are therefore including these areas as occupied at 
listing: Deer Creek and Turkey Creek (tributaries to Aravaipa Creek); 
Frieborn Canyon and Pace Creek (tributaries to the Blue River); and 
North Fork East Fork Black River, and Negrito Creek (tributary to the 
Tularosa River).
    Although suitable habitat existed in Hot Springs, Redfield Canyons, 
Fossil Creek, or Bonita Creek, loach minnow had not previously been 
documented there. In 2007, loach minnow were translocated into Hot 
Springs and Redfield canyons in Cochise County, Arizona (Robinson 
2008a, pp. 2, 6; T. Robinson, AGFD, pers. comm. 2008b; D. Orabutt, 
AGFD, pers. comm. 2009); both of these streams are tributaries to the 
San Pedro River. Fish were also translocated into Fossil Creek, a 
tributary to the Verde River in Gila County, Arizona (Carter 2007a, p. 
1; Carter 2008a, p. 1; Robinson 2009b, p. 9; Orabutt and Robinson 2010, 
in draft, p. 12). In 2008, loach minnow were translocated into Bonita 
Creek, a tributary to the Gila River in Graham County, Arizona (H. 
Blasius, BLM, pers. comm. 2008; D. Orabutt, AGFD, pers. comm. 2009). 
Augmentations with additional fish will occur for the next several 
years. Monitoring will be conducted at each of these sites to determine 
if populations ultimately become established at these new locations.
    Loach minnow is now common only in Aravaipa Creek, the Blue River, 
and limited portions of the San Francisco, upper Gila, and Tularosa 
rivers in New Mexico. Since listing, loach minnow have been found in 
small tributary

[[Page 66485]]

streams, including Pace, Frieborn, Negrito, Turkey, and Deer creeks 
(Stefferud and Reinthal 2005, pp. 16-21; Paroz and Propst 2007, p. 16; 
NMDGF 2008). In addition, two previously undocumented populations of 
loach minnow have been discovered, one in Eagle Creek (Knowles 1994, p. 
1; Marsh et al. 2003, p. 666) and one in the North Fork East Fork Black 
River (Bagley et al. 1997, p. 8). However, following a wildfire in the 
Black River watershed, a salvage rescue operation in the area known to 
be occupied by the loach minnow in 2004 resulted in the capture of only 
two loach minnow (S. Gurtin, AGFD, pers. comm. 2004). Both of these 
newly identified populations appear to be very small, but each 
represents a remnant portion of the historical range that was thought 
to be extirpated. Little information is available on the White River 
population due to the proprietary nature of Tribal survey information. 
Historical and current records for loach minnow are summarized in three 
databases (ASU 2002, AGFD 2004, NMDGF 2008), which are referenced 
throughout this document.

Previous Federal Actions

    The spikedace was listed as threatened on July 1, 1986 (51 FR 
23769); the loach minnow was listed as threatened on October 28, 1986 
(51 FR 39468). The Service received a petition to uplist these species 
from threatened to endangered status on September 22, 1993. On July 11, 
1994, we published 90-day and 12-month findings on the petition to 
amend the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (59 FR 35303). We 
found that the petitioners presented substantial scientific information 
indicating that reclassifying spikedace and loach minnow as endangered 
was warranted but precluded by other listing actions (59 FR 35303). We 
restated this conclusion on January 8, 2001 (66 FR 1295), and 
considered the reclassification of spikedace and loach minnow each year 
in our Candidate Notice of Review. Our most recent Candidate Notice of 
Review was published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804).
    We designated critical habitat for both species on March 8, 1994 
(59 FR 10898 (loach minnow); 59 FR 10906 (spikedace)). Those critical 
habitat designations were set aside by court order in Catron County 
Board of Commissioners, New Mexico v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
CIV No. 93-730 HB (D.N.M. 1994) due to our failure to analyze the 
effects of critical habitat designation under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
    We subsequently published a proposed critical habitat designation 
on December 10, 1999 (64 FR 69324), and a final critical habitat 
designation on April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24328). However, in New Mexico 
Cattle Growers' Association and Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico 
Counties for Stable Economic Growth v. United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service, CIV 02-0199 JB/LCS (D.N.M), the plaintiffs challenged the 
April 25, 2000, critical habitat designation for the spikedace and 
loach minnow because the economic analysis had been prepared using the 
same methods that the Tenth Circuit had held to be invalid. The Service 
agreed to a voluntary vacatur of the critical habitat designation, 
except for the Tonto Creek Complex. On August 31, 2004, the United 
States District Court for the District of New Mexico set aside the 
April 25, 2000, critical habitat designation in its entirety and 
remanded it to the Service for preparation of a new proposed and final 
designation.
    On December 20, 2005, we published a proposed critical habitat 
designation (70 FR 75546), and on March 21, 2007, we published a final 
critical habitat designation (72 FR 13356) for the spikedace and loach 
minnow. In Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic 
Growth, et al . v. Salazar, et al. (D.N.M.), two sets of plaintiffs 
challenged the Service's critical habitat designation for the spikedace 
and the loach minnow on the grounds that we designated critical habitat 
without adequate delineation or justification. We filed a motion for 
voluntary remand of the final rule on February 2, 2009, in order to 
reconsider the final rule in light of a recently issued Department of 
the Interior Solicitor's Opinion, which discusses the Secretary of the 
Interior's authority to exclude areas from a critical habitat 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. On May 4, 2009, the Court 
granted our motion for voluntary remand.
    There are differences in the areas included in this proposed 
designation from those included in the critical habitat designations 
published in 1994, 2000, and 2007. We have gained new information on 
species' distribution since the 1994 designation. We have acknowledged 
the flaws in the 2007 designation through our voluntary vacatur. This 
proposal is most similar to the 2000 designation. However, in contrast 
to the 2000 designation, we have not included every complex for 
spikedace and for loach minnow. Instead, we have attempted to consider 
occupancy data and habitat parameters specific to each species, and 
identified some areas that are suitable for one or the other species, 
but not both. While there is still considerable overlap in the 
designation, so that most areas are designated for both species, we 
have included some areas only for spikedace or only for loach minnow 
within this proposed designation.
    For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the 
spikedace and loach minnow, refer to previous publications, including 
listing documents published in 1985 and 1986 (50 FR 25380, June 18, 
1985; 50 FR 25390, June 18, 1985; 51 FR 39468, October 28, 1986; 51 FR 
23769, July 1, 1986), as well as previous critical habitat designations 
in 1994 (59 FR 10898, March 8, 1994; 59 FR 10906, March 8, 1994), 1999 
and 2000 (64 FR 69324, December 10, 1999; 65 FR 24328, April 25, 2000), 
and 2005 and 2007 (70 FR 75546, December 20, 2005; 72 FR 13356, March 
21, 2007).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Both spikedace and loach minnow 
currently exist in a small portion of their historical range (10 
percent, or less, for spikedace, and 15 to 20 percent for loach 
minnow), and the threats continue throughout its range. Accordingly, 
our assessment and determination applies to each species throughout its 
entire range.
    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR part 424), set forth the procedures for adding species to the 
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be 
endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors: 
(1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or 
predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) 
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In 
making this finding, information pertaining to spikedace and loach 
minnow, in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, are discussed below.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, 
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate 
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes 
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor

[[Page 66486]]

and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we 
attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is 
significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of 
the species such that the species warrants listing as endangered or 
threatened as those terms are defined in the Act.

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

    The majority of historical native habitat for spikedace and loach 
minnow has been altered or destroyed. Activities such as groundwater 
pumping, surface water diversions, impoundments, dams, channelization 
(straightening of the natural watercourse, typically for flood control 
purposes), improperly managed livestock grazing, wildfire, agriculture, 
mining, road building, residential development, and recreation all 
contribute to habitat loss and stream habitat degradation in Arizona 
and New Mexico (Minckley and Deacon 1991, pp. 15-18; Tellman et al. 
1997, pp. 1, 4; Propst 1999, pp. 14-15; Minckley and Marsh 2009, pp. 
24-48).
    The aforementioned activities are human-caused; thus the local and 
regional effects of most of these activities are expected to increase 
with an increasing local human population. As of 2005, Arizona was 
recognized as the second fastest in Statewide population growth in the 
nation. The population of the State of Arizona is projected to grow by 
66 percent by the year 2030, while the population in New Mexico is 
expected to grow by 33 percent (Southwest Climate Change 2009, p. 1). 
Arizona experienced a 28.6 percent population growth from 2000 to 2009, 
while New Mexico experienced growth at 10.5 percent during the same 
period (U.S. Census Bureau 2010, pp. 1, 3). An example of this 
population growth is on the Verde River (Yavapai County, Arizona), 
which likely includes a remnant spikedace population, and is important 
recovery habitat for spikedace and loach minnow. Yavapai County 
experienced a 28.8 percent increase in human population between 2000 
and 2009. Groundwater use for municipal, industrial, and agricultural 
purposes has continued to increase since 1971 (Arizona Water Atlas 
2010, p. 292) which increases the competition for the limited water 
resources used by spikedace and loach minnow.
    Portions of some rivers receive protection as specially designated 
areas. In the upper Gila River, spikedace and loach minnow habitat 
receives some protection along the portions of the river that flow 
through the U.S. Forest Service Gila Wilderness and the Gila River 
Research Natural Area, which have use and access restrictions. Some 
portions of the river in the Gila National Forest are still affected by 
past and present uses within the watershed and riparian zone, such as 
grazing, timber harvest, and road development, and by water diversion 
for public and private uses. Other areas designated for special uses 
and subject to access and use restrictions include the Blue Range 
Primitive Area, the lower Gila River Bird Habitat Management Area, and 
the Gila River Research Natural Area.
Water Withdrawals
    Water resources are limited in the Southwestern United States and 
have led to the conversion of portions of habitat to intermittent 
streams or reservoirs unsuitable for spikedace or loach minnow. Growing 
water demands reduce southern Arizona perennial surface water in the 
Gila Basin, and threaten aquatic species. Historically, water 
withdrawals led to the conversion of large portions of flowing streams 
into intermittent streams, large reservoirs, or dewatered channels, 
thus eliminating suitable spikedace and loach minnow habitat in 
impacted areas (Propst et al. 1986, p. 3; Tellman et al. 1997, pp. 37, 
50, 63-64, 66, 103). These habitat changes, together with the 
introduction of nonnative fish species (see factors C and E), have 
resulted in the extirpation of spikedace and loach minnow throughout an 
estimated 80 to 90 percent of their historical ranges.
    After leaving the Mogollon Mountains in New Mexico, the Gila River 
is affected by agricultural and industrial water diversions, 
impoundment, and channelization. In the Gila River, agricultural 
diversions and groundwater pumping have caused declines in the water 
table, and surface flows in the central portion of the river basin are 
diverted for agriculture (Leopold 1997, pp. 63-64; Tellman et al. 1997, 
pp. 101-104; Arizona Department of Water Resources 2000, pp. 16-17). On 
the mainstem Salt River, impoundments have permanently limited the flow 
regime and suitability for spikedace or loach minnow.
    Of particular concern to spikedace and loach minnow survival in the 
Gila River is the implementation of Public Law 108-451, the Arizona 
Water Settlements Act. Title II of the Arizona Water Settlements Act 
would facilitate the exchange of Central Arizona Project water within 
and between southwestern river basins in Arizona and New Mexico. The 
Arizona Water Settlements Act may also result in the construction of 
new water development projects. For example, Section 212 of the Arizona 
Water Settlements Act pertains to the New Mexico Unit of the Central 
Arizona Project. Development of the New Mexico Unit may facilitate 
diversion of water via the construction of an on- or off-stream 
reservoir on the Gila River in New Mexico. Implementation of the 
Arizona Water Settlement Act is in its early stages on the Gila River, 
such that the exact location, scope, scale, timing, and effects of 
those efforts on the spikedace and its habitat in the Gila River cannot 
be definitively analyzed at present. However, should water be diverted 
from the river, there would be a diminished flow that could potentially 
result in direct and indirect loss and degradation of habitat for 
aquatic and riparian species. Because the Gila River is a stronghold 
for spikedace and loach minnow, impacts to those portions of the Gila 
River in New Mexico are of particular concern for the persistence of 
these species.
    The San Francisco River has undergone sedimentation, riparian 
habitat degradation, and extensive water diversion and at present has 
an undependable water supply throughout much of its length. Groundwater 
pumping also poses a threat to surface flows in the remaining spikedace 
and loach minnow habitat in Eagle Creek. Groundwater withdrawal in 
Eagle Creek, primarily for water supply for a large open-pit copper 
mine at Morenci, dries portions of the stream (Sublette et al. 1990, p. 
19; Service 2005; Propst et al. 1986, p. 7). Mining is the largest 
industrial water user in southeastern Arizona. The Morenci mine on 
Eagle Creek is North America's largest producer of copper, covering 
60,000 acres. Water for the mine is imported from the Black River, 
diverted from Eagle Creek as surface flows, or withdrawn from the Upper 
Eagle Creek Well Field (Arizona Department of Water Resources 2009, p. 
1).
    Aravaipa Creek is relatively protected from further habitat loss 
because it is within a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness and 
is a Nature Conservancy preserve. However, Aravaipa Creek is affected 
by upstream uses in the watershed, primarily groundwater pumping for 
irrigation. Irrigation can reduce creek flows, as crop irrigation uses 
large amounts of water, especially during the summer months when the 
creek flows are already at their lowest. Increased groundwater pumping 
from wells is known to be linked to reduced creek flows (Fuller 2000, 
pp. 4-8).
    Water depletion is also a concern for the Verde River. In 2000, the 
Arizona Department of Water Resources (2000,

[[Page 66487]]

p. 1-1) reported that the populations of major cities and towns within 
the Verde River watershed had more than doubled in the last 20 years, 
resulting in more than a 39 percent increase in municipal water usage. 
The Arizona Department of Water Resources (2000, p. 1-1) anticipated 
that human populations in the Verde River watershed are expected to 
double again before 2040, resulting in more than a 400 percent increase 
over the 2000 water usage. The middle and lower Verde River has limited 
or no flow during portions of the year due to agricultural diversion 
and upstream impoundments, and has several impoundments in its middle 
reaches, which could expand the area of impacted spikedace and loach 
minnow habitat. The Little Chino basin within the Verde River watershed 
has already experienced significant groundwater declines that have 
reduced flow in Del Rio Springs (Arizona Department of Water Resources 
2000, pp. 1-1, 1-2). Blasch et al. (2006, p. 2) suggests that 
groundwater storage in the Verde River watershed has already declined 
due to groundwater pumping and reductions in natural channel recharge 
resulting from streamflow diversions.
    Also impacting water in the Verde River, the City of Prescott, 
Arizona, experienced a 22 percent increase in population between 2000 
and 2005 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010b, p. 1), averaging around 4 percent 
growth per year (City of Prescott 2010, p. 1). In addition, the towns 
of Prescott Valley and Chino Valley experienced growth rates of 66 and 
67 percent, respectively (Arizona Department of Commerce 2009a, p. 1; 
2009b, p. 1). This growth is facilitated by groundwater pumping in the 
Verde River basin. In 2004, the cities of Prescott and Prescott Valley 
purchased a ranch in the Big Chino basin in the headwaters of the Verde 
River, with the intent of drilling new wells to supply up to 
approximately 4,000 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater per year. If such 
drilling occurs, it could have serious adverse effects on the mainstem 
and tributaries of the Verde River. Scientific studies have shown a 
link between the Big Chino aquifer and spring flows that form the 
headwaters of the Verde River. It is estimated that 80 to 86 percent of 
baseflow in the upper Verde River comes from the Big Chino aquifer 
(Wirt 2005, p. G8). However, while these withdrawals could potentially 
dewater the upper 42 kilometers (km) (26 miles (mi)) of the Verde River 
(Wirt and Hjalmarson 2000, p. 4), it is uncertain that this project 
will occur given the legal and administrative challenges it faces. This 
upper portion of the Verde River is considered currently occupied by 
spikedace, and barrier construction and stream renovation plans are 
underway with the intention of using this historically occupied area 
for recovery of native fishes including loach minnow. Reductions of 
available water within this reach could preclude its use for recovery 
purposes. This area is currently considered occupied by spikedace, that 
are considered genetically (Tibbets 1993, pp. 25-29) and 
morphologically (Anderson and Hendrickson 1994, pp. 148, 150-154) 
distinct from all other spikedace populations.
    There are numerous surface water diversions in spikedace and loach 
minnow habitats, including the Verde River, Blue River, San Francisco 
River, Gila River, and Eagle Creek. Larger dams may prevent movement of 
fish between populations and dramatically alter the flow regime of 
streams through the impoundment of water (Ligon et al. 1995, pp. 184-
189). These diversions also require periodic maintenance and re-
construction, resulting in potential habitat damages and inputs of 
sediment into the active stream.
    Water withdrawals have occurred historically, and continue to 
occur, throughout the ranges of spikedace and loach minnow. Groundwater 
pumping and surface diversions used for agricultural, industrial, and 
municipal purposes can lead to declines in the water table and 
dewatering of active stream channels. Ongoing water withdrawals are 
known to occur on the Gila, San Francisco, and Verde rivers, and are 
occurring at limited levels, with the potential for increased 
withdrawal, on Aravaipa Creek.
Stream Channelization
    Sections of many Gila Basin rivers and streams have been, and 
continue to be, channelized for flood control, which disrupts natural 
channel dynamics (sediment scouring and deposition) and promotes the 
loss of riparian plant communities. Channelization changes the stream 
gradient above and below the channelization. Water velocity increases 
in the channelized section, which results in increased rates of erosion 
of the stream and its tributaries, accompanied by gradual deposits of 
sediment in downstream reaches that may increase the risk of flooding 
(Emerson 1971, p. 326; Simpson 1982, p. 122). Channelization can affect 
spikedace and loach minnow habitat by reducing its complexity, 
eliminating cover, reducing nutrient input, improving habitat for 
nonnative species, changing sediment transport, altering substrate 
size, increasing flow velocities, and reducing the length of the stream 
(and therefore the amount of aquatic habitat available) (Gorman and 
Karr 1978, pp. 512-513; Simpson 1982, p. 122; Schmetterling et al. 
2001, pp. 7-10). Historical and ongoing channelization will continue to 
contribute to riparian and aquatic habitat decline most notably 
eliminating cover and reducing nutrient input.
Water Quality
    In the past, the threat from water pollution was due primarily to 
catastrophic pollution events (Rathbun 1969, pp. 1-5; Eberhardt 1981, 
pp. 3-6, 8-10) or chronic leakage (Eberhardt 1981, pp. 2, 16) from 
large mining operations. Although this is not as large a problem today 
as it was historically, some damage to spikedace and loach minnow 
populations still occurs from occasional spills or chronic inability to 
meet water quality standards (United States v. ASARCO, No. 98-0137 PHX-
ROS (D. Ariz. June 2, 1998)). Mine tailings from a number of past and 
present facilities throughout the Gila Basin would threaten spikedace 
populations if catastrophic spills occur (Arizona Department of Health 
Services 2010, p. 3). Spills or discharges have occurred in the Gila 
River and affected streams within the watersheds of spikedace and loach 
minnow, including the Gila River, San Francisco River, San Pedro River, 
and some of their tributaries (Environmental Protection Agency 1997, 
pp. 24-67; Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2000, p. 6; 
Church et al. 2005, p. 40; Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
2007, p. 1).
    In January of 2006, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
announced that it had been conducting a remedial investigation at the 
Klondyke Tailings site on Aravaipa Creek, which currently supports one 
of the two remaining populations where spikedace and loach minnow are 
considered common. The Klondyke tailings site was a mill that processed 
ore to recover lead, zinc, copper, silver, and gold between the 1920s 
and the 1970s. There are eight contaminants in the tailings and soil at 
the Klondyke tailings site that are at levels above regulatory limits. 
These contaminants include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 
copper, lead, manganese, and zinc. Samples of shallow groundwater 
collected at the site contained arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 
lead, and nickel above regulatory limits (Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality 2006, p. 2). A preliminary study in Aravaipa 
Creek has found high levels of

[[Page 66488]]

lead in two other native fish species, Sonora sucker (Catostomus 
insignis) and roundtail chub (Gila robusta), as well as in the sediment 
and in some of the invertebrates. These lead levels are high enough 
that they could negatively impact reproduction (P. Reinthal, University 
of Arizona pers. comm. 2010). We do not know with certainty whether 
these levels of lead would affect spikedace or loach minnow, but we 
assume the same negative effects would occur.
    Pollution is increasingly more widespread and more often from non-
point sources. Urban and suburban development is one source of non-
point pollution. Increasing the area subject to runoff from roads, golf 
courses, and other sources of petroleum products, pesticides, and other 
toxic materials, can cause changes in fish communities (Wang et al. 
1997, pp. 6, 9, 11). Nutrient and sediment loads are increasing in 
urban areas (King et al. 1997, pp. 7-24, 38, 39) and, combined with 
depleted stream flows, can be serious threats to aquatic ecosystem 
during some periods of the year. Bridges and roads increase with 
increasing rural and urban populations in Arizona (Arizona Department 
of Transportation 2000, pp. 1-3), and pose significant risks to the 
fish from increases in toxic materials along roadways (Trombulak and 
Frissall 2000, pp. 22-24). As noted previously, human populations 
within the ranges of spikedace and loach minnow are expected to 
increase over the next 20 years. Therefore, we expect a corresponding 
increase in non-point source pollution.
    Based on historical records and long-term tree-ring records, 
wildfires have increased in the ponderosa pine forests of the 
Southwest, including the range of the spikedace and loach minnow 
(Swetnam and Betancourt 1990, pp. 1017, 1019; Swetnam and Betancourt 
1998, pp. 3131-3135). This is due to a combination of decades of fire 
suppression, increases in biomass due to increased precipitation after 
1976, and warming temperatures coupled with recent drought conditions 
(University of Arizona 2006, pp. 1, 3). As wildfires increase, so does 
the use of fire retardant chemical applications. Some fire retardant 
chemicals are ammonia-based, which is toxic to aquatic wildlife; 
however, many formulations also contain yellow prussiate of soda 
(sodium ferrocyanide), which is added as an anticorrosive agent. Such 
formulations are toxic for fish, aquatic invertebrates, and algae 
(Angeler et al. 2006, pp. 171-172; Calfee and Little 2003, pp. 1527-
1530; Little and Calfee 2002, p. 5; Buhl and Hamilton 1998, p. 1598; 
Hamilton et al. 1998, p. 3; Gaikwokski et al. 1996, pp. 1372-1373). 
Toxicity of these formulations is enhanced by sunlight (Calfee and 
Little 2003, pp. 1529-1533). In a 2008 biological opinion issued by the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Forest Service on the nationwide 
use of fire retardants, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded 
that the use of fire retardants can cause mortality to fish by exposing 
them to ammonia. We concluded in the opinion that the proposed action, 
which included the application of fire retardants throughout the range 
of the species, was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
spikedace and loach minnow (Service 2008a).
    Severe wildfires capable of extirpating or decimating fish 
populations are a relatively recent phenomenon, and result from the 
cumulative effects of historical or ongoing grazing (removes the fine 
fuels needed to carry fire) and fire suppression (Madany and West 1983, 
pp. 665-667; Savage and Swetnam 1990, p. 2374; Swetnam 1990, p. 12; 
Touchan et al. 1995, pp. 268-271; Swetnam and Baisan 1996, p. 29; 
Belsky and Blumenthal 1997, pp. 315-316, 324-325; Gresswell 1999, pp. 
193-194, 213). Historical wildfires were primarily cool-burning 
understory fires with return intervals of 4 to 8 years in ponderosa 
pine (Swetnam and Dieterich 1985, pp. 390, 395). Cooper (1960, p. 137) 
concluded that prior to the 1950s, crown fires were extremely rare or 
nonexistent in the region. However, since 1989, high-severity wild 
fires, and subsequent floods and ash flows, have caused the extirpation 
of several populations of Gila trout in the Gila National Forest, New 
Mexico (Propst et al. 1992, pp. 119-120, 123; Brown et al. 2001, pp. 
140-141). It is not known if spikedace or loach minnow have suffered 
local extirpations; however, native fishes, including spikedace and 
loach minnow, in the West Fork Gila River, showed 60 to 80 percent 
decreases in population following the Cub Fire in 2002, due to flooding 
events after the fire (Rinne and Carter 2008, pp. 171). Increased fines 
and ash may be continuing to affect the populations on the West Fork 
Gila, near the Gila Cliff Dwellings (D. Propst. NMDGF, pers. comm. 
2004).
    Effects of fire may be direct and immediate or indirect and 
sustained over time. Because spikedace and loach minnow are found 
primarily in the lower elevation, higher-order streams, they are most 
likely affected by the indirect effects of fire (e.g., ash flows), not 
direct effects (e.g., drastic changes in pH, ammonium concentrations). 
Indirect effects of fire include ash and debris flows, increases in 
water temperature, increased nutrient inputs, and sedimentation (Propst 
et al. 1992, pp. 119-120; Gresswell 1999, pp. 194-211; Rinne and Carter 
2008, pp. 169-171). Of these, ash flows probably have the greatest 
effect on spikedace and loach minnow. Ash and debris flows may occur 
months after fires, when barren soils are eroded during monsoonal rain 
storms (Bozek and Young 1994, pp. 92-94). Ash and fine particulate 
matter created by fire can fill the interstitial spaces between gravel 
particles, eliminating spawning habitat or, depending on the timing, 
suffocating eggs that are in the gravel. Ash and debris flows can also 
decimate aquatic invertebrate populations that the fish depend on for 
food (Molles 1985, p. 281).
Recreation
    The impacts to spikedace and loach minnow from recreation can 
include movement of livestock along streambanks, trampling, loss of 
vegetation, and increased danger of fire (Northern Arizona University 
2005, p. 136; Monz et al. 2010, pp. 553-554). In the arid Gila River 
Basin, recreational impacts are disproportionately distributed along 
streams as a primary focus for recreation (Briggs 1996, p. 36). Within 
the range of spikedace and loach minnow, the majority of the occupied 
areas occur on Federal lands, which are managed for recreation and 
other purposes. Spikedace and loach minnow are experiencing increasing 
habitat impacts from such use in some areas. For example, Fossil Creek 
experienced an increase in trail use at one site, with an estimated 
8,606 hikers using the trail in 1998, and an estimated 19,650 hikers 
using the trail in 2003. Dispersed camping also occurs in the area. The 
greatest impacts from camping were vegetation loss and litter (Northern 
Arizona University 2005, pp. 134-136). Similar impacts have been 
observed at Aravaipa Creek. Vegetation loss is often accompanied by 
soil compaction, which when combined with vegetation loss, can result 
in increased runoff and sedimentation in waterways (Monz et al. 2010, 
pp. 551-553; Andereck 1993, p. 2).
Roads and Bridges
    Roads impact Gila River Basin streams (Dobyns 1981, pp. 120-129, 
167, 198-201), including spikedace, loach minnow, and their habitats 
(Jones et al. 2000, pp. 82-83). The need for bridges and roads 
increases with increasing rural and urban populations in Arizona 
(Arizona Department of

[[Page 66489]]

Transportation 2000, pp. 1-3). In addition, existing roads and bridges 
have ongoing maintenance requirements that result in alterations of 
stream channels within spikedace and loach minnow habitats (Service 
1994a, pp. 8-12; Service 1995a, pp. 10-12; Service 1995b, pp. 5-7; 
Service 1997a, pp. 10-15; Service 1997b, pp. 54-77). Bridge 
construction or repair causes channel alteration and, if not carefully 
executed, can result in long-term channel adjustments, altering 
habitats upstream and downstream. In some areas, low-water ford 
crossings exist within occupied spikedace and loach minnow habitats and 
cause channel modification and habitat disruption. Low-water crossings 
on general-use roads exist in a number of areas that may support 
spikedace and loach minnow. These crossings frequently require 
maintenance following minor flooding.
    Repeated road repairs near the Gila Cliff Dwellings on the West 
Fork Gila River have occurred because the bridge span is too short to 
accommodate peak flows. This is a common problem on bridges that cross 
the Gila River, and on other rivers occupied by spikedace and loach 
minnow in the Southwest. In an attempt to protect bridges, large 
amounts of fill (such as boulders, rip rap, and dirt) are used to 
confine and redirect the river. Typically, this habitat alteration is 
detrimental to spikedace and loach minnow because it changes the 
channel gradient and substrate composition, and reduces habitat 
availability. Eventually, peak flows remove the fill material, roads 
and bridges are damaged, and the resulting repairs and reconstruction 
lead to additional habitat disturbance (Service 1998, 2002, 2005, 
2008b, 2008c, 2009, 2010a).
Livestock Grazing
    Livestock grazing has been one of the most widespread and long-term 
adverse impacts to native fishes and their habitat (Miller 1961, pp. 
394-395, 399), but is one of the few threats where adverse effects to 
species such as spikedace and loach minnow are decreasing, due to 
improved management on Federal lands (Service 1997c, pp. 121-129, 137-
141; Service 2001, pp. 50-67). This improvement occurred primarily by 
discontinuing grazing in the riparian and stream corridors. However, 
although adverse effects are less than in the past, livestock grazing 
within watersheds where spikedace and loach minnow and their habitats 
are located continues to cause adverse effects. These adverse effects 
occur through watershed alteration and subsequent changes in the 
natural flow regime, sediment production, and stream channel morphology 
(Platts 1990, pp. I-9--I-11; Belsky et al. 1999, pp. 1-3, 8-10; Service 
2001, pp. 50-67).
    Livestock grazing can destabilize stream channels and disturb 
riparian ecosystem functions (Platts 1990, pp. I-9--I-11; Armour et al. 
1991, pp. 7-10; Tellman et al. 1997, pp. 20-21, 33, 47, 101-102). 
Improper livestock grazing can negatively affect spikedace and loach 
minnow through removal of riparian vegetation (Propst et al. 1986, p. 
3; Clary and Webster 1989, p. 1; Clary and Medin 1990, p. 1; Schulz and 
Leininger 1990, p. 295; Fleishner 1994, pp. 631-633, 635-636), which 
can result in reduced bank stability and higher water temperatures 
(Kauffman and Krueger 1984, pp. 432-434; Platts and Nelson 1989, pp. 
453, 455; Fleishner 1994, pp. 635-636; Belsky et al. 1999, pp. 2-5, 9-
10). Livestock grazing can also cause increased sediment in the stream 
channel, due to streambank trampling and riparian vegetation loss 
(Weltz and Wood 1986, pp. 364-368; Pearce et al. 1998, pp. 302, 307; 
Belsky et al. 1999, p. 10). Livestock can physically alter the 
streambank through trampling and shearing, leading to bank erosion 
(Trimble and Mendel 1995, pp. 243-244; Belsky et al. 1999, p. 1). In 
combination, loss of riparian vegetation and bank erosion can alter 
channel morphology, including increased erosion and deposition, 
increased sediment loads, downcutting, and an increased width-to-depth 
ratio, all of which lead to a loss of spikedace and loach minnow 
habitat components. Livestock grazing management also continues to 
include construction and maintenance of open stock tanks, which are 
often stocked with nonnative aquatic species harmful to spikedace and 
loach minnow (Service 1997b, pp. 54-77) if they escape or are 
transported to waters where these native fish occur.
Summary of Factor A
    Impacts associated with roads and bridges, changes in water 
quality, and recreation have altered or destroyed many of the rivers, 
streams, and watershed functions in the ranges of the spikedace and 
loach minnow. As discussed above, activities such as groundwater 
pumping, surface water diversions, impoundments, dams, channelization, 
improperly managed livestock grazing, wildfire, agriculture, mining, 
road building, residential development, and recreation all contribute 
to riparian habitat loss and degradation of aquatic resources in 
Arizona and New Mexico. Changes in flow regimes are expected to 
continue into the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that the 
spikedace and loach minnow are threatened by the destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of their habitats.

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

    Currently, collection of spikedace and loach minnow in Arizona is 
prohibited by Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 40, except where 
such collection is authorized by special permit (AGFD 2009, p. 5). The 
collection of these species is prohibited in the State of New Mexico 
except by special scientific permit (NMDGF 2010, p. 4). Because 
spikedace and loach minnow do not grow larger than 80 mm (3 in), we 
believe that angling for this species is not a threat. No known 
commercial uses exist for spikedace or loach minnow. A limited amount 
of scientific collection occurs, but does not pose a threat to these 
species because it is regulated by the States. Therefore, we have 
determined that overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to spikedace or 
loach minnow.

C. Disease or Predation

    The introduction and spread of nonnative species has been 
identified as one of the primary factors in the continuing decline of 
native fishes throughout North America and particularly in the 
Southwest (Miller 1961, pp. 365, 397-398; Lachner et al. 1970, p. 21; 
Ono et al. 1983, pp. 90-91; Carlson and Muth 1989, pp. 222, 234; Fuller 
et al. 1999, p. 1). Miller et al. (1989, pp. 22, 34, 36) concluded that 
introduced nonnative species were a causal factor in 68 percent of fish 
extinctions in North America in the last 100 years. For the 70 percent 
of fish species that are still extant, but are considered to be 
endangered or threatened, introduced nonnative species are a primary 
cause of the decline (Lassuy 1995, pp. 391-394). Release or dispersal 
of new nonnative aquatic organisms is a continuing phenomenon in the 
species' range (Rosen et al. 1995, p. 254). Currently, all native 
fishes in Arizona and 80 percent of native fishes in the Southwest are 
on either State or Federal protection lists.
    Nonnative fish introductions in the Southwestern United States 
began before 1900, and have steadily increased in frequency (Rinne and 
Stefferud 1996b, p. 29). New species are continually being introduced 
through various mechanisms, including aquaculture, aquarium trade, 
sport fish stocking, live bait use, interbasin water

[[Page 66490]]

transfers, and general ``bait bucket transport,'' where people move 
fish from one area to another without authorization and for a variety 
of purposes (Service 1994b, pp. 12-16; Service 1999, pp. 24-59). Nearly 
100 kinds of nonnative fishes have been stocked or introduced into 
streams in the Southwest (Minckley and Marsh 2009, p. 51). Nonnative 
fishes known to occur within the historical range of the spikedace 
include channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), flathead catfish 
(Pylodictis olivaris), red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), fathead 
minnow (Pimephales promelas), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), 
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus 
dolomieui), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), mosquitofish (Gambusia 
affinis), carp (Cyprinus carpio), bluegill (Lepomis macrochiris), 
yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), 
and goldfish (Carassius auratus) (ASU 2002).
    In the Gila River basin, introduction of nonnative species is 
considered a primary factor in the decline of native fish species 
(Minckley 1985, pp. 1, 68; Williams et al. 1985, pp. 1-2; Minckley and 
Deacon 1991, pp. 15-17; Douglas et al. 1994, pp. 9-11; Clarkson et al. 
2005 p. 20; Olden and Poff 2005, pp. 79-87). Aquatic and semi-aquatic 
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, crustaceans, mollusks (snails and 
clams), parasites, disease organisms, and aquatic and riparian vascular 
plants outside of their historical range, have all been documented to 
adversely affect aquatic ecosystems (Cohen and Carlton 1995, pp. i-iv). 
The effects of nonnative fish competition on spikedace and loach minnow 
can be classified as either interference or exploitive. Interference 
competition occurs when individuals directly affect others, such as by 
fighting, producing toxins, or preying upon them (Schoener 1983, p. 
257). Exploitive competition occurs when individuals affect others 
indirectly, such as through use of common resources (Douglas et al. 
1994, p. 14). Interference competition in the form of predation is 
discussed here, while a discussion of the history of nonnative species 
introductions and resulting interference competition for resources are 
discussed under Factor E below.
Predation
    Nonnative channel catfish, flathead catfish, and smallmouth bass 
all prey on spikedace and loach minnow, as indicated by prey remains of 
native fishes in the stomachs of these species (Propst et al. 1986, p. 
82; Propst et al. 1988, p. 64; Bonar et al. 2004, pp. 13, 16-21). 
Channel catfish move into riffles to feed, preying on the same animals 
most important to loach minnows, while juvenile flathead catfish prey 
on loach minnows (Service 1991a, p. 5). Smallmouth bass are known to 
co-occur with spikedace and are documented predators of the species 
(Service 1991b, p. 6). Green sunfish are also thought to be a predator, 
likely responsible for replacement of native species like spikedace and 
loach minnow. While no direct studies have been completed on predation 
by green sunfish on spikedace or loach minnow, they are a known 
predator of fish that size, and they occur within areas occupied by 
these species.
    Declines of native fish species appear linked to increases in 
nonnative fish species. For example, in 1949, 52 spikedace were 
collected at Red Rock on the Gila River, while channel catfish composed 
only 1.65 percent of the 607 fish collected. However, in 1977, only six 
spikedace were located at the same site, and the percentage of channel 
catfish had risen to 14.5 percent of 169 fish collected. The decline of 
spikedace and the increase of channel catfish is likely related 
(Anderson 1978, pp. 2, 13, 50-51). Similarly, interactions between 
native and nonnative fishes were observed in the upper reaches of the 
East Fork of the Gila River. Prior to the 1983 and 1984 floods in the 
Gila River system, native fish were limited, with spikedace being rare 
or absen