FR Doc 05-17450

[Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51732-51738]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31au05-38]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AG16

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Gila
Chub as Endangered With Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; notice of availability of draft economic
analysis and draft environmental assessment, reopening of public
comment period, notice of public hearings, and updated legal
descriptions for critical habitat units.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the draft economic analysis and draft environmental
assessment for the proposal to list as endangered and designate
critical habitat for the Gila chub (Gila intermedia) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are also reopening
the public comment period for the proposal to list the Gila chub as
endangered with critical habitat to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment on and request changes to the proposed listing
and critical habitat designation, as well as the associated draft
economic analysis and draft environmental assessment.
The draft economic analysis finds that costs associated with Gila
chub conservation activities are forecast to range from $11.3 million
to $28.1 million in constant dollars over 20 years ($0.8 million to
$1.9 million annually). In addition, we are proposing corrected legal
descriptions for the critical habitat units. Comments previously
submitted on the August 9, 2002, proposed rule need not be resubmitted
as they have been incorporated into the public record and will be fully
considered in preparation of the final rule. We will hold three public
informational sessions and hearings (see DATES and ADDRESSES sections).

DATES: Comments must be submitted directly to the Service (see
ADDRESSES section) on or before September 30, 2005, or at the public
hearings.
We will hold public informational sessions from 3 p.m. to 4:30
p.m., followed by a public hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m., on the
following dates:
1. September 13, 2005: Silver City, New Mexico.
2. September 14, 2005: Thatcher, Arizona.
3. September 15, 2005: Camp Verde, Arizona.

ADDRESSES: Meetings. The public informational sessions and hearings
will be held at the following locations:
1. Silver City, NM: Flame Convention Center, 2800 Pinos Altos Road,
Silver City, New Mexico.
2. Thatcher, AZ: Eastern Arizona College Activity Center, Lee
Little Theater (Information Session--Activity Center Quiet Lounge),
1014 North College Avenue, Thatcher, Arizona.
3. Camp Verde, AZ: Camp Verde Unified School District Multi-Use
Complex Theater, 280 Camp Lincoln Road, Camp Verde, Arizona.

[[Page 51733]]

For information on requesting reasonable accommodations to attend a
session, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section below.
Comments. If you wish to comment on the proposed rule, draft
economic analysis, or draft environmental assessment, you may submit
your comments and materials by any one of several methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information by mail or hand-
delivery to the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021.
2. Written comments may be sent by facsimile to (602) 242-2513.
3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
gilachubcomments@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic

filing of comments, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section
below.
You may obtain copies of the proposed rule, draft economic
analysis, and draft environmental assessment by mail or by visiting our
Web site at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://arizonaes.fws.gov/. You may review comments and

materials received and review supporting documentation used in
preparation of this proposed rule by appointment, during normal
business hours, at the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office
(address provided above).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor,
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (telephone, 602-242-0210;
facsimile, 602-242-2513; or electronic mail, steve_spangle@fws.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning the proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and
the draft environmental assessment. On the basis of public comment on
the proposed rule analysis, the draft economic analysis and the
environmental assessment, and the final economic analysis and
environmental assessment, we may during the development of our final
determination find that areas proposed are not essential, are
appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or not
appropriate for exclusion. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including
whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the
species resulting from designation;
(2) Specific information on the distribution of the Gila chub, the
amount and distribution of the species' habitat, and which habitat is
essential to the conservation of the species and why;
(3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject area and their possible impacts on the species or proposed
critical habitat;
(4) Whether our approach to listing or critical habitat designation
could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concerns and comments;
(5) Any foreseeable environmental impacts directly or indirectly
resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat;
(6) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat or coextensively from the
proposed listing, and in particular, any impacts on small entities or
families;
(7) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local
costs, and if not, what other costs should be included;
(8) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions
regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a
result of the listing of the species or the designation of critical
habitat;
(9) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on
regional costs associated with land- and water-use controls that derive
from the designation;
(10) Whether the critical habitat designation will result in
disproportionate economic impacts to specific areas that should be
evaluated for possible exclusion from the final designation; and
(11) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all
costs that could result from the designation or coextensively from the
listing.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity,
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your
comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arizona
Ecological Servies Field Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
All previous comments and information submitted during the initial
comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you
wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning
this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section).
Our final designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub will take
into consideration all comments and any additional information received
during both comment periods. Please submit electronic comments in ASCII
file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of
encryption. Please also include your name and return address in the
body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the
system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly
by calling our Arizona Ecological Services Field Office at (602) 242-
0210.
Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and
participate in a public hearing should contact Steve Spangle, Field
Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office at the phone
number or address listed in the ADDRESSES section as soon as possible.
In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no
later than one week before the hearing. Information regarding this
proposal is available in alternative formats upon request.

Background

We proposed to list the Gila chub as endangered, and to designate
approximately 211.9 stream miles (mi) (340.9 stream kilometers (km)) of
critical habitat, which includes various stream segments and their
associated riparian areas, including the stream at bankfull width and a
300-foot buffer on either side of the stream banks. The designation
includes Federal, State, tribal, and private lands in Arizona and New
Mexico. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on
August 9, 2002 (67 FR 51948), pursuant

[[Page 51734]]

to a settlement agreement resulting from litigation by the Center for
Biological Diversity and others. The proposed rule also constituted our
12-month finding for the petition to list the Gila chub.
Critical habitat identifies specific areas containing features
essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may require
special management considerations or protection. If the proposed
listing and critical habitat designation is finalized, section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would require that Federal agencies ensure that actions they
fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we consider economic and other
relevant impacts prior to making a final decision on what areas to
designate as critical habitat. We may revise the proposal, or its
supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information
received during the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an
area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of
excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as
critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the
extinction of the species.
The draft economic analysis considers and attempts to quantify the
potential economic effects of efforts to protect the Gila chub and its
habitat, collectively referred to as ``Gila chub conservation
activities,'' in the proposed critical habitat designation, as well as
the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of the
listing or other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat
conservation in the areas proposed for designation. In the case of
habitat conservation, these costs would reflect the costs associated
with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection
measures. The analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts
are likely to be distributed.

Corrected Coordinates for Proposed Units of Critical Habitat

Below we provide corrected legal descriptions for the Gila chub
proposed critical habitat designation. Following the publication of the
proposed rule on August 9, 2002, and in part through comments we
received during the subsequent comment period, we discovered that some
of the critical habitat units were incorrectly described. We have since
corrected the descriptions to accurately reflect what we are
considering for designation of critical habitat, and we provide the
corrected descriptions for all critical habitat units below. Corrected
Geographic Information System (GIS) layers are available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/.
The total corrected amount of critical

habitat being proposed is approximately 211.9 stream mi (340.9 stream
km). Tables 1 and 2 below provide approximate distances by major
landowner type.
All legal descriptions for New Mexico and Arizona are based on the
Public Lands Survey System (PLSS). Within this system, all coordinates
reported for New Mexico are in the New Mexico Principal Meridian
(NMPM), while those in Arizona are in the Gila and Salt River Meridian
(GSRM). Township has been abbreviated as ``T,'' Range as ``R,'' and
section as ``sec.'' Where possible, the ending or starting points have
been described to the nearest quarter-section, abbreviated as ``\1/
4\.'' Cardinal directions are also abbreviated (N = North, S = South, W
= West, and E = East). All mileage calculations were performed using
GIS.

Table 1.--Approximate Critical Habitat in Stream Kilometers and Miles (7 River Units)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico km
Land owner (mi) Arizona km (mi) Total km (mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal....................................................... 18.9 (11.7) 171.1 (106.4) 190.0 (118.1)
State......................................................... 0 17.1 (10.6) 17.1 (10.6)
County........................................................ 0 17.2 (10.7) 17.2 (10.7)
Private....................................................... 3.4 (2.1) 66.1 (41.1) 69.5 (43.2)
Tribal........................................................ 0 47.1 (29.3) 47.1 (29.3)
Total..................................................... 22.3 (13.8) 318.6 (198.1) 340.9 (211.9)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x

Table 2.--Approximate Critical Habitat in Stream Kilometers and Miles (7 River Units), by Individual Landowners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land owner New Mexico Arizona Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gila National Forest............................................ 18.9 (11.7) 0 18.9 (11.7)
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest............................... 0 50.5 (31.4) 50.5 (31.4)
Coconino National Forest........................................ 0 16.9 (10.5) 16.9 (10.5)
Coronado National Forest........................................ 0 15.4 (9.6) 15.4 (9.6)
Prescott National Forest........................................ 0 21.0 (13.1) 21.0 (13.1)
Tonto National Forest........................................... 0 7.4 (4.6) 7.4 (4.6)
-----------------
SUBTOTAL.................................................... 18.9 (11.7) 111.2 (69.2) 130.1 (80.9)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BLM--Phoenix District........................................... 0 7.7 (4.8) 7.7 (4.8)
BLM--Safford District........................................... 0 27.7 (17.2) 27.7 (17.2)
BLM--Tucson District............................................ 0 24.5 (15.2) 24.5 (15.2)
-----------------
SUBTOTAL.................................................... 0 59.9 (37.2) 59.9 (37.2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................................... 18.9 (11.7) 171.1 (106.4) 190.0 (118.1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51735]]

Required Determinations--Amended

This revised proposed rule affirms the information contained in the
August 9, 2002, proposed rule (67 FR 51948) concerning Executive Orders
13132 and 12988; the Paperwork Reduction Act; the National
Environmental Policy Act; and the President's memorandum of April 29,
1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951). Based on the draft economic analysis, we
are amending our required determinations, as provided below, concerning
Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act; Executive
Orders 13211 and 12630; and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, based on our draft economic analysis, it is not anticipated
that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub
would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for
publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed the proposed rule or
accompanying economic analysis.
Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies
promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of
Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to
Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory
action is appropriate, then the agency will need to consider
alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical
habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we must then
evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when
promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant
impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from
the designation of critical habitat, providing that the benefits of
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical
habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of
the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion
or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a
designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5
U.S.C. 802(2)) (SBREFA), whenever an agency is required to publish a
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based upon our draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation, we provide our factual
basis for determining that this rule will not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations and small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a
typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for
the Gila chub would affect a substantial number of small entities, we
considered the number of small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities (e.g., water management and use, livestock
grazing, San Carlos Apache Tribal activities, residential and related
development, Gila chub-specific management activities, recreation
activities, fire management activities, mining, and transportation). We
considered each industry or category individually to determine if
certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small
entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their
activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the
designation.
If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final,
Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect
designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process.
Our economic analysis of this proposed designation evaluated the
potential economic effects on small business entities and small
governments resulting from conservation actions related to the proposed
listing of this species and proposed designation of its critical
habitat. We evaluated small business entities in nine categories: water
management and use, livestock grazing activities, San Carlos Apache
Tribal activities, residential and related development, Gila chub-
specific management activities, recreation activities, fire management
activities, mining, and transportation. Based on our analysis, impacts
are anticipated to occur in water management, livestock grazing, and
tribal enterprises of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. The following is a
summary of the information contained in Appendix B of the draft
economic analysis:
(a) Water Management. Two water supply entities could potentially
be impacted by conservation activities related to water supply for the
Gila chub, both of which are small entities: the City of Safford,
Arizona, and Vail Water Company. The Vail Water Company is considered a
small business because its annual revenues are $99,000. The potential
restriction to this company relates to its ability to sell water from
one of its seven wells. This well is not currently used by Vail Water
Company for domestic supply due to high levels of certain constituents.
The company could begin pumping water from the well for non-potable
uses or for

[[Page 51736]]

potable uses with some treatment. The economic analysis estimates that
the total annualized replacement costs to the company if it is not able
to pump water from the well is $73,000 and $171,000 (discounted at 3
and 7 percent, over 20 years; using high-end estimates of water
replacement needs). If the Vail Water Company's ability to sell non-
potable water from this well is restricted, we find that it would be a
significant effect on the Company.
The potential restriction to the City of Safford as a result of
Gila chub conservation measures is related to its ability to make use
of its water source in Bonita Creek. The annualized water replacement
cost to the City of Safford is $287,000 and $669,000 (discounted at 3
and 7 percent, over 20 years). In the case of Safford, data on the
City's current overall budget is unknown. However, annualized impacts
could represent approximately between 2.3 and 5.3 percent of annual
revenues to the City of Safford's utilities department. If the City is
required to locate a replacement source of water, we find that would be
a significant effect on the City. A section 7 consultation is currently
being developed with the Bureau of Reclamation to expand the City's use
of the infiltration gallery, which may allow the City to continue to
withdraw water from the Creek. However, the consultation is in its
early stages and the outcome is unknown.
(b) Livestock Grazing Activities. Ranching operations are
anticipated to be impacted by conservation activities for the Gila
chub. Approximately 16 ranching operations may be impacted annually.
Annual costs to each of these 16 ranching operations may be between
$1,400 and $11,700. Average revenues of a ranch in the region of the
proposed critical habitat designation are $144,000. These potential
losses represent between 1 and 8 percent of each ranch's estimated
average revenues. Exhibit B-2 in the draft economic analysis presents
the average revenues of ranches by county. Of the 118 beef cattle
ranching and farming operations (NAICS 112111) in Arizona counties with
proposed Gila chub critical habitat, 92 percent are considered small
businesses. Therefore, 15 small ranching operations (92 percent of 16
operations) may experience a reduction in revenues of between 1 and 8
percent annually. The extent to which these impacts are significant to
any of these ranching operations will depend on the individual
financial conditions of the ranch.
(c) Tribal Enterprises. As explained in Appendix B of the draft
economic analysis, Tribal governments are not considered small
governments under RFA/SBREFA but rather as independent sovereigns.
However, tribal enterprises can be considered small entities under the
RFA/SFREFA. For the purpose of this analysis we find that approximately
three livestock associations and one timber operation are considered to
be small entities. Quantified impacts to tribal livestock grazing
activities are estimated to range from $22,000 to $306,000 annually
using a seven percent discount rate ($18,000 to $274,000 discounted at
three percent), or between one percent and 57 percent of annual
revenues to each of the three livestock associations. Quantified
impacts of reduced lumber production are estimated to be approximately
$15,000 annually. These impacts could be borne by a Tribally-owned
timber mill, a private leasee of the mill, and/or a small logging
contractor. There are 25 forestry and logging companies in Arizona.
Based on these data, we have determined that this proposed
designation would not affect a substantial number of small businesses
involved in or affected by water management activities, timber harvest,
or livestock grazing. As such, we are certifying that this proposed
designation of critical habitat would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Please refer
to Appendix B of our draft economic analysis of this designation for a
more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts to small
business entities.

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution,
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due to its
potentially raising novel legal and policy issues, but it is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Appendix B of the draft economic analysis provides a discussion and
analysis of this determination. The Office of Management and Budget has
provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines
nine outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when
compared without the regulatory action under consideration. The draft
economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to
this analysis; thus, energy-related impacts associated with Gila chub
conservation activities within proposed critical habitat are not
expected.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-``Federal intergovernmental
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or tribal governments,'' with two exceptions. It
excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also excludes ``a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,''
unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal program
under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local,
and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the provision
would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' or
``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally

[[Page 51737]]

binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above on to State governments.
(b) The economic analysis discusses potential impacts of critical
habitat designation for the Gila chub on water management activities,
livestock grazing, Tribes, residential and commercial development
activities, recreation activities, fire management activities, mining,
and transportation activities. The analysis estimates that annual costs
of the rule could range from $11.3 million to $28.1 million in constant
dollars over 20 years ($0.8 million to $1.9 million annually). Impacts
are largely anticipated to affect water operators and Federal and State
agencies, with some effects on livestock grazing operations. Impacts on
small governments are not anticipated, or they are anticipated to be
passed through to consumers. For example, costs to water operations
would be expected to be passed on to consumers in the form of price
changes. Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, we do not
believe that the designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub will
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for the Gila chub in a takings implications
assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub does not
pose significant takings implications.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Rule Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. As proposed on August 9, 2002, at 67 FR 51948, amend Sec.
17.11(h) by adding Gila chub, in alphabetical order under ``FISHES'',
to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where When Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Fishes

* * * * * * *
Chub, Gila....................... Gila intermedia..... U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Entire............. E NA 17.95(e) NA
Mexico.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Critical habitat for the Gila chub (Gila intermedia) in Sec.
17.95 (e), which was proposed to be added on August 9, 2002, at 67 FR
51948, is proposed to be amended by revising the critical habitat unit
descriptions as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
(e) Fishes.
* * * * *

Gila chub (Gila intermedia)

1. Critical habitat for the Gila chub in Arizona and New Mexico is
depicted on the following overview map and described in detail
following the map.
* * * * *

Upper Gila River Area 1

a. Turkey Creek--13.7 km (8.5 mi) of creek extending from the edge
of the Gila Wilderness boundary at T14S, R16W, sec. 15 NW\1/4\ and
continuing upstream to T13S, R15W, sec. 30 NE\1/4\. Land ownership:
Gila National Forest.
b. Eagle Creek and East Eagle Creek--39.2 km (24.4 mi) of creek
extending from its confluence with an unnamed tributary at T1N, R28E,
sec. 31 SW\1/4\ upstream to the headwaters of East Eagle Creek just
south of Highway 191 in T3N, R29E, sec. 28 SE\1/4\. Land ownership:
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and private.
c. Harden Cienega Creek--22.6 km (14.0 mi) of creek extending from
its confluence with the San Francisco in GSRM T3S, R31E, sec. 3 SE\1/4\
continuing upstream to the headwaters in NMPM T14S R21W sec. 6 NE\1/4\.
Land ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Gila National
Forest, and private.
d. Dix Creek--Portions of the Creek beginning 1.0 mi upstream from
its confluence with the San Francisco River at a natural rock barrier
in T3S, R31E, sec. 9 NE\1/4\ continuing upstream for 0.9 km (0.6 mi.)
to the confluence of the right and left forks of Dix Creek in T3S,
R31E, sec. 9 center. Left Fork Dix Creek continues upstream 2.0 km
(1.24 mi) to T3S, R31E, section 15 NW\1/4\. Land ownership: Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest. Right Fork Dix Creek continues upstream 4.8
km (3.0 mi) to T3S, R31E, section 20 SE\1/4\. Land ownership: Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest.
* * * * *

Middle Gila River Area 2

a. Mineral Creek--14.4 km (9.0 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Devil's Canyon in T2S, R13E, section 35 NW\1/4\
continuing upstream to its headwaters in T2S, R14E, sec. 15 center at
the confluence of Mineral Creek and an unknown drainage. Land
ownership: Tonto National Forest, State Lands, and private.
b. Blue River--40.5 km (25.2 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence

[[Page 51738]]

with the San Carlos River in T1N R19E, sec. 20 on the border of section
20 and 29, continuing upstream to T3N, R20E, sec. 21 NE\1/4\. Land
ownership: San Carlos Apache Reservation.
c. Bonita Creek--30.6 km (19.0 mi) of Creek extending from T6S,
R28E, sec. 21 SE\1/4\ continuing upstream to T4S, R27E, sec. 18 SW\1/
4\. Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management, Tribal, and private.
* * * * *

Babocomari River Area 3

a. O'Donnell Canyon--10.0 km (6.2 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Turkey Creek at T21S, R18E, sec. 22 SE\1/4\ upstream to
the confluences of Western, Middle, and Pauline Canyons in T22S, R18E,
sec. 17 NE\1/4\. Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management, Coronado
National Forest, and private.
b. Turkey Creek--6.3 km (3.9 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with O'Donnell Canyon in T21S, R18E, sec. 22 SE\1/4\
upstream to where Turkey Creek crosses AZ Highway 83 in T22S, R18E,
sec. 9 NE\1/4\. Land ownership: Coronado National Forest and private.
c. Post Canyon--4.6 km (2.8 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with O'Donnell Canyon in T21S, R18E, sec. 22 SE\1/4\
upstream to Welch Spring at T21S, R18E, sec. 29 NW\1/4\. Land
ownership: Coronado National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and
private.
* * * * *

Lower San Pedro River Area 4

a. Bass Canyon--5.5 km (3.4 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Hot Springs Canyon in T12S, R20E, sec. 36 NE\1/4\
upstream to the confluence with Pine Canyon in T12S, R21E, sec. 20
SW\1/4\. Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management and private.
b. Hot Springs Canyon--10.5 km (6.5 mi) of creek extending from
T13S R20E, sec. 5 NW\1/4\ continuing upstream to its confluence with
Bass Canyon in T12S, R20E, sec. 36 NE\1/4\. Land ownership: Bureau of
Land Management, State Lands, private (The Nature Conservancy).
c. Redfield Canyon--11.6 km (7.2 mi) of creek extending from the
western boundary of T11S, R19E, section 35 upstream to its confluence
with Sycamore Canyon in T11S, R20E, sec. 20 NE\1/4\. Land ownership:
Bureau of Land Management, State Lands, and private.
* * * * *

Lower Santa Cruz River Area 5

a. Cienega Creek--(Two Segments) First segment includes 17.2 km
(10.7 mi) of creek extending from where Cienega Creek becomes Pantano
Wash in T16S, R16E, sec. 10, S\1/2\ to where it crosses I-10 at T17S,
R17E, sec. 1 NW\1/4\. Land ownership: County. Second segment includes
13.6 km (8.4 mi) of creek extending from T18S, R18E, sec. 6 S\1/2\ to
its confluence with an unnamed stream at T19S, R17E, sec. 3 SW\1/4\.
Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management.
b. Mattie Canyon--4.0 km (2.5 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Cienega Creek in T18S, R17E, sec. 23 NE\1/4\ upstream
to the Bureau of Land Management Boundary in T18S, R17E, sec. 25 SW\1/
4\. Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management.
c. Empire Gulch--5.2 km (3.2 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Cienega Creek in T19S, R17E, sec. 3 SE\1/4\ continuing
upstream to T19S, R17E, sec. 16 NW\1/4\ on the western boundary of
section 16. Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management and State.
d. Sabino Canyon--11.1 km (6.9 mi) of creek extending from the
southern boundary of the Coronado National Forest in T13S, R15E, sec. 9
SE\1/4\ upstream to its confluence with the West Fork of Sabino Canyon
in T12S, R15E, sec. 22 NE\1/4\. Land ownership: Coronado National
Forest.
* * * * *

Verde River Area 6

a. Walker Creek--7.6 km (4.7 mi) of creek extending from Prescott
National Forest Road 618 in T15N, R6E, sec. 33 SW\1/4\ upstream to its
confluence with Spring Creek in T14N, R6E, sec. 1, SE\1/4\. Land
ownership: Coconino National Forest and private lands.
b. Red Tank Draw--11.1 km (6.9 mi) of creek extending from the
National Park Service boundary just upstream of its confluence with Wet
Beaver Creek in T15N, R6E, sec. 31 NE\1/4\ upstream to the confluence
of Mullican and Rarick canyons in T15N, R6E, sec. 2 NW\1/4\. Land
ownership: Coconino National Forest and private.
c. Spring Creek--5.7 km (3.6 mi) of creek extending from T16N, R4E,
sec. 27 SE\1/4\ at the boundary of Forest Service land and continuing
upstream to the Arizona Highway 89A crossing in T16N, R4E, sec. 16
SE\1/4\. Land ownership: Coconino National Forest, State Lands, and
private.
d. Williamson Valley Wash--7.2 km (4.4 mi) of creek extending from
the gauging station in T17N, R3W, sec. 7 SE\1/4\ upstream to the
crossing of the Williamson Valley Road in T17N, R4W, sec. 36 NE\1/4\.
Land ownership: private.
* * * * *

Agua Fria River Area 7

a. Little Sycamore Creek--4.7 km (2.9 mi) of creek extending from
its confluence with Sycamore Creek in T11N, R4E, sec. 6 SW\1/4\
upstream to T11N, R4E, sec. 4 NE\1/4\. Land ownership: Prescott
National Forest and private.
b. Sycamore Creek--18.3 km (11.4 mi) of creek extending from its
confluence with Little Sycamore Creek at T11N, R4E, sec. 6 SW\1/4\
upstream to Nelson Place Spring in T11N, R5E, sec. 21 NE\1/4\. Land
ownership: Prescott National Forest and private.
c. Indian Creek--8.4 km (5.2 mi) of creek extending from T11N, R3E,
sec. 35 NE\1/4\ to Upper Water Springs in T11N, R4E, sec. 16 SE\1/4\.
Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management, Prescott National Forest,
and private.
d. Silver Creek--8.5 km (5.3 mi) of creek extending from T10N, R3E,
sec. 10 SE\1/4\ continuing upstream to the spring in T10N, R4E, Sec. 4
SW\1/4\. Land ownership: Tonto National Forest and Bureau of Land
Management.
e. Larry Creek--Portions of the creek from an unnamed tributary and
continuing upstream 0.7 km (0.4 mi) to the confluence of two adjoining
unnamed tributaries, entirely within T9N, R3E, sec. 9 NW\1/4\. Land
ownership: Bureau of Land Management.
f. Lousy Canyon--Portions of the creek from the confluence of an
unnamed tributary upstream to the fork with an unnamed tributary
approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream, all entirely within T9N, R3E,
sec. 5 NW\1/4\. Land ownership: Bureau of Land Management.
* * * * *

Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: August 23, 2005.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-17450 Filed 8-29-05; 2:55 pm]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P