8656 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You Children From Environmental Health Dated: January 24, 2014. may submit comments by one of the Risks and Safety Risks A. Stanley Meiburg, following methods: (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal Protection of Children from Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. Environmental Health Risks and Safety eRulemaking Portal: http:// [FR Doc. 2014–02938 Filed 2–12–14; 8:45 am] www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), BILLING CODE 6560–50–P applies to any rule that: (1) is enter FWS–R8–ES–2013–0133, which is determined to be ‘‘economically the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left significant’’ as defined under Executive DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Order 12866, and (2) concerns an side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed environmental health or safety risk that Fish and Wildlife Service EPA has reason to believe may have a Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on disproportionate effect on children. If 50 CFR Part 17 the regulatory action meets both criteria, ‘‘Comment Now!’’ (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail the Agency must evaluate the [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0133; or hand-delivery to: Public Comments environmental health or safety effects of 4500030113] Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2013– the planned rule on children, and RIN 1018–AY78 0133; Division of Policy and Directives explain why the planned regulation is Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife preferable to other potentially effective Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS and reasonably feasible alternatives and Plants; Remove the Modoc Sucker 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. considered by the Agency. From the Federal List of Endangered We request that you send comments This proposed rule is not subject to and Threatened Wildlife only by the methods described above. Executive Order 13045 because it does We will post all comments on http:// not involve decisions intended to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, www.regulations.gov. This generally mitigate environmental health or safety Interior. means that we will post any personal risks. ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month petition finding; notice of availability of information you provide us (see the H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That draft post-delisting monitoring plan. Information Requested section below for Significantly Affect Energy Supply, more information). Distribution, or Use SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Document availability: A copy of the This proposed rule is not subject to Wildlife Service (Service), propose to Species Report referenced throughout Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions remove the Modoc sucker ( this document can be viewed at Concerning Regulations That microps) from the Federal List of http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/ Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. profile/ Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May This determination is based on a speciesProfile.action?spcode=E053, at 22, 2001) because it is not a significant thorough review of the best available http://www.regulations.gov under regulatory action under Executive Order scientific and commercial information, Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0133, or 12866. which indicates that the threats to this at the Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife species have been eliminated or reduced Office’s Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ I. National Technology Transfer and to the point that the species no longer klamathfallsfwo. The draft post- Advancement Act meets the definition of an endangered delisting monitoring plan will be posted Section 12 of the National Technology species or a threatened species under on our Program’s Transfer and Advancement Act the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as national Web page (http:// (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal amended (Act). If finalized, the effects endangered.fws.gov), and the Klamath agencies to evaluate existing technical of this rule would be to remove the Falls Fish and Wildlife Office Web page standards when developing a new Modoc sucker from the List of (http://fws.gov/klamathfallsfwo), and on regulation. To comply with NTTAA, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. the Federal eRulemaking Portal at EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary This proposed rule, if made final, would http://www.regulations.gov. consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available also remove the currently designated FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and applicable when developing critical habitat for the Modoc sucker Laurie Sada, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish programs and policies unless doing so throughout its range. This document and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish would be inconsistent with applicable also constitutes our 12-month finding and Wildlife Office, 1936 California law or otherwise impractical. on a petition to reclassify the Modoc Avenue, Klamath Falls, OR 97601; by EPA believes that VCS are sucker from endangered to threatened. telephone 541–885–8481, or by inapplicable to this action. Today’s We are seeking information and facsimile 541–885–7837. If you use a action does not require the public to comments from the public regarding telecommunications device for the deaf perform activities conducive to the use this 12-month finding and proposed (TDD), call the Federal Information of VCS. rule. In addition to the proposed rule, Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. we are also seeking information and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 comments on the draft post-delisting Environmental protection, Air monitoring plan. Information Requested pollution control, Carbon monoxide, DATES: We will accept comments We intend any final action resulting Incorporation by reference, received or postmarked on or before from this proposal to be based on the Intergovernmental relations, Lead, April 14, 2014. We must receive best scientific and commercial data Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate requests for public hearings, in writing, available, and be as accurate and as matter, Reporting and recordkeeping at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER effective as possible. Therefore, we requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile INFORMATION CONTACT section by March request comments or information from organic compounds. 31, 2014. other governmental agencies, tribes, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8657

scientific community, industry, or other personal identifying information, you determine: (1) Whether a species no interested parties concerning this may request at the top of your document longer meets the definition of proposed rule. We particularly seek that we withhold this information from endangered or threatened and should be comments concerning: public review. However, we cannot removed from the Lists (delisted), (2) (1) Biological information on Modoc guarantee that we will be able to do so. whether a species listed as endangered sucker, including additional We will post all hardcopy submissions more properly meets the definition of information on its distribution, on http://www.regulations.gov. threatened and should be reclassified to population size, and population trend; Comments and materials we receive, threatened (downlisted), or (3) whether (2) Relevant information concerning as well as supporting documentation we a species listed as threatened more any current or likely future threats (or used in preparing this proposed rule, properly meets the definition of lack thereof) to Modoc sucker, including will be available for public inspection endangered and should be reclassified the extent and adequacy of Federal and on http://www.regulations.gov, or by to endangered (uplisted). In accordance State protection and management that appointment, during normal business with 50 CFR 424.11(d), using the best would be provided to Modoc sucker as hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife scientific and commercial data a delisted species; Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife available, we will consider a species for (3) Current or planned activities Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION delisting only if the data substantiate within the range of Modoc sucker and CONTACT). that the species is neither endangered their possible impacts to the species; Public Hearings nor threatened for one or more of the (4) Regional climate change models following reasons: (1) The species is and whether they are reliable and Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for considered extinct; (2) the species is credible to use in assessing the effects one or more public hearings on this considered recovered; or (3) the original of climate change on Modoc sucker and proposal, if requested. We must receive data available when the species was its habitat; your request within 45 days after the listed, or the interpretation of such data, (5) Our draft post-delisting monitoring date of this Federal Register were in error. plan. We request information regarding publication. Send your request to the We published a notice announcing how best to conduct post-delisting address shown in FOR FURTHER the initiation of a review of the status of monitoring, should the proposed INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule Modoc sucker under section 4(c)(2) of delisting lead to a final delisting rule public hearings on this proposal, if any the Act on March 22, 2006 (71 FR (see Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan are requested, and announce the dates, 14538). We notified the public of Overview section below, which briefly times, and places of those hearings, as completion of the 5-year review on May outlines the goals of the draft plan that well as how to obtain reasonable 21, 2010 (75 FR 28636). The 5-year is available for public comment accommodations, in the Federal review, completed on August 17, 2009 concurrent with publication of this Register and local newspapers at least (Service 2009), resulted in a proposed rule). Such information might 15 days before the hearing. recommendation to change the status of include suggestions regarding the Previous Federal Action the species from endangered to monitoring focus, procedures for threatened. A copy of the 2009 5-year determining site occupancy and On January 31, 1984, we proposed to review for Modoc sucker is available on abundance, or for monitoring threats list the Modoc sucker as an endangered the Service’s Environmental and recruitment over the course of at species and designate critical habitat Conservation Online System (http:// least 5 years. under the Act based on threats from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_ Please include sufficient information habitat degradation and loss due to review/doc2546.pdf). with your submission (such as scientific activities (such as overgrazing by cattle) On December 21, 2011, we received a journal articles or other publications) to that cause erosion and siltation (49 FR petition dated December 19, 2011, from allow us to verify any scientific or 3892). These activities and resulting the Pacific Legal Foundation, requesting commercial information you include. erosion were thought to have eliminated the Service to reclassify the Modoc Please note that submissions merely natural barriers separating Modoc sucker from endangered to threatened. stating support for or opposition to the suckers and the Sacramento suckers The petition was based on the analysis action under consideration without (Catostomus occidentalis), allowing and recommendations contained in the providing supporting information, hybridization and a loss of genetic most recent 5-year review. On June 4, although noted, will not be considered integrity of Modoc sucker. We 2012 (77 FR 32922), we published in the in making a determination, as section published a final rule listing Modoc Federal Register a 90-day finding for the 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that sucker as an endangered species and 2011 petition to reclassify the species. determinations as to whether any designating critical habitat in the In our 90-day finding, we determined species is an endangered or threatened Federal Register on June 11, 1985 (50 the 2011 petition provided substantial species must be made ‘‘solely on the FR 24526). The final rule also included information indicating the petitioned basis of the best scientific and predation by the nonnative brown trout actions may be warranted, and we commercial data available.’’ (Salmo trutta) as a threat to Modoc initiated a status review for Modoc You may submit your comments and sucker. sucker. This proposed rule to remove materials concerning this proposed rule Under the Act, we maintain the Lists the Modoc sucker from the Federal List by one of the methods listed in of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife ADDRESSES. We request that you send and Plants in title 50 of the Code of also constitutes the 12-month finding comments only by the methods Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR for the species. described in ADDRESSES. If you submit 17.11 (for ) and 17.12 (for information via http:// plants) (Lists). We amend the Lists by Background www.regulations.gov, your entire publishing final rules in the Federal A completed scientific analysis is submission—including any personal Register. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act presented in detail in the Modoc Sucker identifying information—will be posted requires that we conduct a review of Species Report (Service 2013, entire), on the Web site. If your submission is listed species at least once every 5 years. which is available at http:// made via a hardcopy that includes Section 4(c)(2)(B) requires that we www.regulations.gov at Docket Number

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 8658 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules

FWS–R8–ES–2013–0133. The Species basin were presumed lost due to accordance with the provisions of Report was prepared by Service hybridization with Sacramento suckers [section 4 of the Act], that the species biologists to provide thorough (Catostomus occidentalis). It is now be removed from the list.’’ However, discussion of the species ecology, recognized that the historical revisions to the list (adding, removing, biological needs, and analysis of the distribution also included one or reclassifying a species) must reflect threats that may be impacting the additional stream (Garden Gulch Creek) determinations made in accordance species. The Species Report includes in the Turner Creek sub-basin and three with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. discussion of the following: additional streams in the Goose Lake Section 4(a)(1) requires that the and species description, habitat, sub-basin (Thomas Creek, an unnamed Secretary determine whether a species biology, distribution and abundance, tributary to Thomas Creek, and Cox is endangered or threatened (or not) summary of factors affecting the species, Creek) in southern Oregon, a disjoined, because of one or more of five threat and recovery. This detailed information upstream sub-basin of the Pit River. factors: (A) The present or threatened is summarized in the following Also, a population has been established destruction, modification, or paragraphs of this Background section, in Coffee Mill Creek in the Turner Creek curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) the Recovery and Recovery Plan sub-basin—a stream not known to have overutilization for commercial, Implementation section, and the been occupied at the time of listing—as recreational, scientific, or educational Summary of Factors Affecting the a result of California Department of Fish purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) Species section. and Wildlife transplanting efforts. the inadequacy of existing regulatory The Modoc sucker is a small species The current known distribution of mechanisms; or (E) other natural or of fish in the family . Modoc sucker includes an estimated human-made factors affecting its Individuals measure 2.8 to 3.3 inches 42.5 miles (68.4 kilometers) of occupied continued existence. Section 4(b) of the (70 to 85 millimeters) in length at full habitat in 12 streams within 3 sub- Act requires that the determination be maturity, with few adults exceeding 6.3 basins, compared to an estimated made ‘‘solely on the basis of the best to 7.1 in (160 to 180 mm). Modoc distribution of 12.9 miles (20.8 scientific and commercial data suckers are opportunistic feeders with kilometers) of occupied habitat in 7 available.’’ Therefore, recovery criteria diets consisting of algae, small benthic seven streams within 2 sub-basins at the should indicate when a species is no invertebrates, and detritus. time of listing. Although population longer an endangered species or Modoc sucker are primarily found in trend data is not available because threatened species under the five relatively small (second to fourth order), survey methods have varied among statutory factors. perennial and intermittent streams. years, surveys indicate that Modoc Thus, while recovery plans provide They occupy an intermediate zone sucker populations still occur in all important guidance to the Service, between the high-gradient and higher- streams where Modoc sucker States, and other partners on methods of elevation, coldwater trout zone and the populations were known to occur minimizing threats to listed species and low-gradient and low-elevation, warm- historically. Surveys also indicate that measurable objectives against which to water fish zone. The pool habitat Modoc suckers appear to occupy nearly measure progress towards recovery, they occupied by Modoc suckers generally all available suitable habitat within the are not regulatory documents and includes fine sediments to small cobble streams where they occur in the Turner cannot substitute for the determinations bottoms, substantial detritus, and Creek, Ash Creek, and Goose Lake sub- and promulgation of regulations abundant cover. Spawning habitat basins. Land ownership throughout the appears to include gravel substrates in species’ range is 51 percent public lands required under section 4(a)(1) of the the relatively low-energy, flowing (primarily the Modoc National Forest in Act. A decision to revise the status of or portions of pools or the protected area northeastern California and the remove a species from the Federal List downstream of rocks (Reid 2008a). Fremont-Winema National Forests in of Endangered and Threatened Plants During low summer flows, pools southern Oregon), 48 percent private (50 CFR 17.12) is ultimately based on an inhabited by Modoc suckers can become lands, and 1 percent State land. analysis of the best scientific and isolated, which eliminates interaction of For a detailed discussion of Modoc commercial data then available to suckers within and among streams. sucker taxonomy and species determine whether a species is no Cover can be provided by overhanging description, habitat, biology, and longer an endangered species or a banks, larger rocks, woody debris, and distribution and abundance, please see threatened species, regardless of aquatic rooted vegetation or filamentous the ‘‘Background’’ section of the Species whether that information differs from algae. Larvae occupy shallow vegetated Report, which includes subsections on the recovery plan. margins; juveniles tend to remain free- ‘‘taxonomy and species description’’, At the time of listing, the Service, the swimming in the shallows of large ‘‘habitat’’, ‘‘biology’’, and ‘‘distribution California Department of Fish and pools, particularly near vegetated areas; and abundance’’ (Service 2013, pp. 5– Wildlife (CDFW), and the U.S. Forest and larger juveniles and adults remain 23). Service (USFS) were developing an mostly on, or close to, the bottom ‘‘Action Plan for the Recovery of the (Martin 1972; Moyle and Marciochi Recovery and Recovery Plan Modoc sucker’’ (Action Plan). The April 1975; Moyle 2002). Implementation 27, 1983, revision of this Action Plan At the time of listing, the species was Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to was formally signed by all participants known to occupy seven streams in the develop and implement recovery plans in 1984 (Service 1984). We determined Turner Creek (Turner Creek, for the conservation and survival of that the Action Plan and its 1989 Washington Creek, and Hulbert Creek) endangered and threatened species revisions (Service 1984, 1989) and Ash Creek (Johnson Creek, Rush unless we determine that such a plan adequately fulfilled the requirements of Creek, Dutch Flat Creek, and Ash Creek) will not promote the conservation of the a recovery plan, and in a 1992 sub-basins of the Pit River drainage in species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), memorandum from the Regional northeastern California. However, three recovery plans must, to the maximum Director (Region 1) to the Service’s of those streams (Rush Creek, Dutch Flat extent practicable, include: ‘‘Objective, Director, we adopted it as the Recovery Creek, and Ash Creek) and a fourth measurable criteria which, when met, Plan for the Modoc sucker (Service (Willow Creek) in the Ash Creek sub- would result in a determination, in 1992) and determined we would not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8659

prepare a separate recovery plan Yamagiwa, USFS, personal to 2.4 percent (1.01 mi/42.5 mi) of the pursuant to section 4(f) of the Act. communication). Additionally, since total length of streams occupied by The Recovery Plan included Modoc sucker was listed in 1985, Modoc sucker. Land management downlisting and delisting objectives fencing has been constructed to exclude practices employed on public and (considered to be equivalent to criteria). cattle on Rush Creek and Johnson Creek private lands since the early 1980s are Below, we outline the objectives to below Higgins Flat (Modoc National expected to continue, or improve, reclassify the Modoc sucker from Forest). Fencing led to immediately thereby maintaining stable to upward endangered to threatened and the protecting extant habitat (immediate, habitat trends. Thus, we believe the objectives to remove Modoc sucker from near term), and allowed habitat to integrity of extant habitat has been the List of Endangered and Threatened recover. This improved the quality and maintained (part of downlisting Wildlife, and we discuss progress carrying capacity in the long term, thus objective 1) and the quality of habitat towards meeting the objectives. addressing downlisting objectives 1 and has been restored and maintained Downlisting objective 1: Maintain the 2. Extensive landowner outreach by the through restoration efforts (downlisting integrity of extant habitats and prevent Service, USFS, and State agencies, and objective 2), and we conclude that these the invasion of Sacramento suckers into improved livestock grazing management portions of the downlisting objectives isolated stream reaches of the Turner- practices in Modoc and Lassen Counties have been met. Hulbert-Washington Creek system and have also resulted in improved While part of downlisting objective 1 upper Johnson Creek. The intent of protection of riparian corridors on was to prevent invasion of Sacramento meeting this objective was to halt the private lands in the Turner and Ash sucker, further research into the threat of further loss and degradation of Creek sub-basins. Protection of riparian magnitude and consequences of genetic habitat (Factor A) and to address the habitat by excluding cattle and by introgression with Sacramento suckers threat of genetic introgression from improving livestock grazing has led us to conclude that this part of hybridization with Sacramento sucker management practices on both public the objective is no longer relevant. (Factor E). and private lands has resulted in Observed levels of genetic introgression Downlisting objective 2: Restore and improved habitat conditions along these by Sacramento suckers in streams maintain the quality of aquatic habitat streams as a result of reduced erosion dominated by Modoc suckers are low, conditions within these watersheds and and improved vegetative and hydrologic even when there are no physical barriers thereby increase their carrying capacity characteristics (Reid 2008a, pp. 41, 85– between the two species (Topinka 2006, for Modoc suckers. The intent of this 86). pp. 64–65). This suggests that either objective was to further address habitat Active habitat restoration ecological differences, selective loss and degradation (Factor A) through (downlisting objective 2) has been pressures, or other natural reproductive- active restoration, with the ultimate goal implemented in many locations isolating mechanisms are sufficient to to allow the habitat to support an throughout the species range since the maintain the integrity of the species, increase in population numbers. These species was listed. Restoration on the even after more than a century of habitat efforts would improve the resiliency of Modoc National Forest has led to alteration by human activities. the species (ability to withstand and improved habitat conditions in riparian Currently, only Ash Creek exhibits a recover from stochastic events, such as areas along many of the streams considerable degree of introgression. drought). occupied by Modoc suckers. Willows Scientists who have studied suckers in Downlisting objective 3: Secure have been planted along portions of western North America consider that, populations of Modoc sucker have been streams occupied by Modoc suckers in throughout their evolutionary history, maintained in these creeks for 3 the Turner Creek and Ash Creek sub- hybridization among sympatric native consecutive years. The intent of this basins to stabilize streambanks and fishes is not unusual and may actually objective was to monitor Modoc sucker provide shading and cover (Reid 2008a, provide an adaptive advantage (Dowling populations to ensure recruitment had pp. 85–86; USFS 2008, p. 16). As a and Secor 1997, pp. 612–613; Dowling occurred and is based on the life history result of riparian habitat improvements 2005, p. 10; Topinka 2006, p. 73; Tranah of Modoc suckers, in which individuals and improved livestock grazing and May 2006, p. 313). Reexamination mature at age 2+ years. management practices, channel widths of information on natural barriers, Since the time of listing, actions have have narrowed and created deeper morphological characters, and new been taken to maintain or improve habitat preferred by Modoc suckers genetic information that were Modoc sucker habitat within Turner (USFS 2008, p. 16). Other habitat unavailable at the time of listing Creek, Hulbert Creek, Washington restoration activities include juniper indicate that hybridization is not a Creek, and Johnson Creek as it relates to revetment (the use of cut juniper trees threat to the Modoc sucker and may be downlisting objectives 1 and 2. The to stabilize streambanks), creation and part of its natural evolutionary history. Service and partners have implemented expansion of pool habitat, placement of Thus, because of the new information projects and management that maintain boulders within streams to provide that has become available since the time the integrity of extant habitat cover and shade, and restoration of of listing, we believe this portion of the (downlisting objective 1) and restore channel headcuts (areas of deep erosion) downlisting criterion, to prevent the and maintain the quality of habitat to prevent further downcutting of invasion of Sacramento suckers, is (downlisting objective 2) to provide channels (Reid 2008a, pp. 85–86; USFS obsolete and no longer needs to be met. effective stabilization of stream banks, 2008, p. 16). Several estimates of population size of fencing to exclude livestock grazing in Habitat conditions in designated Modoc suckers in Turner Creek, Hulbert riparian areas, restoration of riparian critical habitat and other occupied Creek, Washington Creek, and Johnson vegetation, and increased instream streams have steadily improved since Creek have been completed since the habitat. On public lands, 1.5 miles of listing and have sustained populations 1970s, which found that Modoc sucker Washington Creek, 0.2 mi of Hulbert of Modoc suckers for at least 25 years, populations have been maintained in Creek, 0.5 mi of Coffee Mill Creek, and although recent habitat surveys indicate the Turner-Hulbert-Washington Creek approximately 1.5 mi of Turner Creek erosion and sedimentation continue to system and upper Johnson Creek for 3 have been fenced to protect riparian be a problem along lower Turner Creek. consecutive years (downlisting objective habitat (Reid 2008a, p. 85; M. However, this degraded reach amounts 3). Modoc suckers appear broadly

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 8660 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules

distributed throughout suitable habitat Delisting objective 3: All populations naturally subject to extended droughts, in these streams. Although the must have sustained themselves through during which even the larger water observations during each survey may a climactic cycle that includes drought bodies such as Goose Lake have dried not be directly comparable due to and flood events. This objective was up (Laird 1971, pp. 57–58). Regional differences in sampling methods, there intended to indicate that Modoc suckers droughts have occurred every 10 to 20 does not appear to be any major changes have responded positively to habitat years in the last century (Reid 2008, pp. in observations of these stream protection and restoration and have a 43–44). Collections of Modoc suckers populations over time. Observations of sufficient number of populations and from Rush Creek and Thomas Creek Modoc suckers in Hulbert Creek and individuals to withstand and recover near the end of the ‘‘dustbowl’’ drought Johnson Creek prior to 2008 appear to from environmental variability and of the 1920s to 1930s (Hubbs 1934, p. be greater than observations made in stochastic events. 1; Reid 2008a, p. 79) indicate that the 2008 and 2012. However, this may be At the time of listing, it was estimated species was able to persist in those explained by differences in survey that Modoc suckers occupied 2.0 mi (3.2 streams even through a prolonged and methods, inclusion of young-of-the-year km) of habitat in Turner Creek, 0.8 mi severe drought. Modoc suckers have suckers in earlier counts, and the fact (1.3 km) of habitat in Hulbert Creek, 0.5 persisted throughout the species’ that some numbers reported are mi (0.8 km) of habitat in Washington historical range since the time it was population estimates rather than counts Creek, 4.6 mi (7.4 km) in Rush Creek, listed in 1985, even though the region on individuals. Although population and 1.2 mi (1.9 km) of habitat in has experienced several pronounced monitoring has not been conducted on Johnson Creek (Reid 2008a, p. 25). Since droughts as well as heavy-precipitation, an annual basis, sucker surveys the time of listing, Reid (2008a, p. 25) high-water years (for example, 2011), conducted in 2008 and 2012 show that estimated that there was 5.5 mi (8.9 km) indicating that the species is at least Modoc sucker populations have been of available habitat in Turner Creek, 3.0 somewhat resilient to weather and maintained, and are still well mi (4.8 km) in Hulbert Creek, 4.1 mi (6.6 hydrologic fluctuations. Therefore, we established, in Turner Creek, km) in Washington Creek, 4.6 mi (7.4 believe delisting objective 3 has been Washington Creek, Hulbert Creek, and km) in Rush Creek, and 2.7 mi (4.3 km) met. Johnson Creek—as well as each of the in Johnson Creek. Habitat conditions The Recovery Plan was based on the other streams known to be occupied at along Turner Creek, Hulbert Creek, best scientific and commercial the time of listing—more than 25 years Washington Creek, and Johnson Creek information available at the time. In after listing. Thus, we believe that have improved since the time of listing. evaluating the extent to which recovery populations of Modoc sucker have been Modoc suckers currently occupy all objectives have been met, we must also maintained (remained stable), available habitats within Turner Creek, assess new information that has become demonstrating successful recruitment Hulbert Creek, Rush Creek, and Johnson available since the species was listed given that individuals mature at 2+ Creek; Modoc suckers occupy 3.4 mi and the recovery action plan prepared. years, and that downlisting objective 3 (5.5 km) of the available habitat in As noted above, research and new has been met. Washington Creek (Reid 2008a, p. 25). information since the time of listing and Delisting objective 1: The remaining Therefore, we believe delisting objective the recovery action plan indicate that suitable, but presently unoccupied, 1 has been met. hybridization and introgression with stream reaches within Turner-Hulbert The Recovery Plan stated that Sacramento sucker is not a substantial Creek-Washington Creek and Rush- additional populations were needed to threat to Modoc suckers. Additionally, Johnson Creek drainages must be provide population redundancy Modoc suckers were found occupying renovated and restored to Modoc (delisting objective 2). New information areas they were not known to occupy at sucker. The intent of this objective was indicates the presence of Modoc sucker the time of listing. This new information to further address habitat loss and populations in four streams that were alters the extent to which the recovery degradation (Factor A) through active not known to be occupied at the time of objectives related to hybridization and restoration. Once occupied, these stream listing (Garden Gulch Creek in the establishing new populations need to be reaches would demonstrate that the Turner Creek sub-basin and Thomas met. In the case of hybridization and habitat is restored and has expanded. Creek, an unnamed tributary to Thomas genetic introgression, we found that This restoration will allow the habitat to Creek, and Cox Creek in the Goose Lake objective no longer relevant given the support an increase in population sub-basin). In addition, a population of lack of threat to the species. With regard numbers, improving redundancy Modoc sucker has been established as a to the objective to establish new (having multiple populations that result of transplanting in Coffee Mill populations, we found that the provide security from the risk of Creek in the Turner Creek sub-basin. In discovery of additional populations extinction of the spices given the low 1987, CDFW transplanted Modoc substantially met the intent of the probability that all populations will be suckers from Washington Creek to objective to provide for population negatively affected by a single Coffee Mill Creek to establish an redundancy so that reestablishing two catastrophic event) and resiliency additional population in the Turner additional populations was no longer (ability to withstand and recover from Creek sub-basin (CDFW 1986, p. 11). needed. stochastic events, such as drought) of Modoc suckers appear to be well Additionally, we must assess whether the species. established and relatively abundant; a recovery plan adequately addresses all Delisting objective 2: Secure spawning adult and juvenile suckers the factors affecting the species. The populations of Modoc suckers must be have been consistently observed there recovery objectives did not directly reestablished in at least two other during visual surveys (Reid 2009, p. 25). address predation by brown trout and streams outside of the above drainages, Therefore, we believe that the intent of other nonnative fish or the point at but within the historical range. The delisting objective 2 has been met by the which that threat would be ameliorated, intent of this objective was to increase discovery of Modoc sucker populations although actions were included. Since both habitat available and the number of in additional locations and the the time of listing, additional predatory populations, thereby increasing establishment of one population. nonnative fish have been recorded in redundancy of the Modoc sucker The northwestern corner of the Great streams containing Modoc suckers. populations. Basin where the Modoc sucker occurs is Actions to address nonnative predatory

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8661

species and an assessment of their are reasonably likely to affect the consider whether the species is in impact are discussed below. While not species in the foreseeable future danger of extinction or likely to become specific to predatory nonnative fish, following the delisting or downlisting so in any significant portion of its range. attainment of delisting objective 3, and the removal or reduction of the At the time of listing, the primary indicating that Modoc sucker Act’s protections. threats to Modoc sucker were threats populations have sustained themselves A species is an ‘‘endangered species’’ from habitat degradation and loss due to since listing in 1985, provides some for purposes of the Act if it is in danger activities (such as overgrazing by cattle) indication that nonnative predatory fish of extinction throughout all or a that cause erosion and siltation, and are no longer a serious threat to the significant portion of its range and is a eliminated natural barriers that resulted species’ persistence. Climate change is ‘‘threatened species’’ if it is likely to in loss of genetic integrity of the species an additional threat identified since become an endangered species within due to hybridization with Sacramento listing and preparation of the Recovery the foreseeable future throughout all or suckers (Catostomus occidentalis). Plan. All threats, including those a significant portion of its range. The Predation by the nonnative brown trout identified since listing and preparation Act does not define the term (Salmo trutta) was also identified as a of the Recovery Plan are further ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ For the purposes threat to Modoc sucker. A thorough analysis and discussion of discussed below. Based on our analysis of this rule, we define the ‘‘foreseeable the current status review initiated with of the best available information, we future’’ to be the extent to which, given our 2012 90-day finding (77 FR 32922) conclude that the downlisting and the amount and substance of available is detailed in the Species Report delisting objectives have been data, we can anticipate events or effects, (Service 2013, entire). The following substantially met. Additional threats not or reliably extrapolate threat trends, directly addressed in the recovery sections provide a summary of the past, such that we reasonably believe that current, and potential future threats objectives are discussed below. reliable predictions can be made Additional information on recovery and impacting the Modoc sucker. These concerning the future as it relates to the threats include activities (such as recovery plan implementation are status of Modoc sucker. Specifically, for described in the ‘‘Recovery’’ section of overgrazing) that cause erosion and Modoc sucker, we consider two factors: siltation (Factor A); elimination of the Species Report (Service 2013, pp. the management of threats and the 58–65). natural barriers (Factor A); climate response of the species to management. change and drought (Factor A); Summary of Factors Affecting the First, as described below, the threats to predation by nonnative species (Factors Species the species have been successfully C); and hybridization and genetic Section 4 of the Act and its ameliorated, largely due to management introgression (infiltration of genes of implementing regulations (50 CFR part plans that are currently in place and another species) (Factor E). 424) set forth the procedures for listing expected to stay in place, and that are Erosion and Cattle Grazing species, reclassifying species, or expected to successfully continue to removing species from listed status. control potential threats (USFS 1989, The listing rule stated that activities ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as entire; USFS 1991, entire). Management (such as overgrazing) that cause a including any species or subspecies of plans that consider natural resources are reduction in riparian vegetation, which fish or wildlife or plants, and any required by law for all Federal lands on then leads to stream erosion, siltation, distinct population segment of any which Modoc sucker occurs, which and incision were a threat to the species of vertebrate fish or wildlife encompasses greater than 50 percent of species. An increase in silt from eroding which interbreeds when mature (16 the species’ range. Management plans banks may fill in the preferred pool U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species may be are required to be in effect at all times habitat of Modoc suckers and can cover determined to be an endangered or and to be in compliance with various gravel substrate used for spawning (50 threatened species because of any one or Federal regulations. Efforts to promote FR 24526, June 11, 1985; Moyle 2002, p. a combination of the five factors conservation of Modoc sucker habitat on 190). Sediment introduced into streams described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: private lands have been successful and can adversely affect fish populations by (A) The present or threatened are expected to continue into the future. inducing embryo mortality, affecting destruction, modification, or Second, the Modoc sucker has primary productivity, and reducing curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) demonstrated a quick positive response available habitat for macroinvertebrates overutilization for commercial, to management over the past 28 years that Modoc suckers feed upon (Moyle recreational, scientific, or educational since the species was listed; based on 2002, p. 191). However, land and purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) this, we anticipate being able to detect resource management, as guided the inadequacy of existing regulatory a species response to any changes in the through regulations and policies, can mechanisms; or (E) other natural or management that may occur because of effectively reduce or control threats to human-made factors affecting its a plan amendment. Therefore, in Modoc sucker. continued existence. A species may be consideration of Modoc sucker’s The National Forest Management Act reclassified on the same basis. positive response to management and (NFMA) and regulations and policies A recovered species is one that no our partners’ commitment to continued implementing the NFMA are the main longer meets the Act’s definition of management, as we describe below, we regulatory mechanisms that guide land threatened or endangered. Determining do not foresee that management management on the Fremont-Winema whether a species is recovered requires practices will change and we anticipate and Modoc National Forests, which consideration of whether the species is that threats to the Modoc sucker will constitute about 51 percent of Modoc endangered or threatened because of the remain ameliorated into the foreseeable suckers’ range. Since listing, the same five categories of threats specified future. The word ‘‘range’’ in the Fremont-Winema National Forests in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species significant portion of its range phrase (USFS 1989, entire) and Modoc National that are already listed as endangered or refers to the range in which the species Forest (USFS 1991, entire) have each threatened, this analysis of threats is an currently exists. For the purposes of this included Modoc sucker and their evaluation of both the threats currently analysis, we first evaluate the status of habitat in their resource management facing the species and the threats that the species throughout all its range, then plans. These plans are required by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 8662 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules

NFMA and the Federal Land Policy and has resulted in continued improvements fish surveys indicate that livestock Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The in riparian vegetative corridors, in- grazing management has improved NFMA requires revision of the Plans stream cover, and channel morphology. greatly, and as a result of reduced every 15 years; however, plans may be In 2012, the Klamath Falls Fish and impact to habitat, there has been no amended or revised as needed. Wildlife Office completed habitat reduction in the distribution of Modoc Management plans are required to be in surveys in Washington Creek, Garden suckers, and grazing results in erosion effect at all times (in other words, if the Gulch Creek, Coffee Mill Creek, Dutch in only a small portion (4.1 percent) of revision does not occur, the previous Flat Creek, Turner Creek, Hulbert Creek, the species’ range. Management plans plan remains in effect) and to be in and Johnson Creek within the Ash Creek that consider natural resources are compliance with various Federal and Turner Creek sub-basins. Data required by law for all Federal lands on regulations. The plans direct these collected indicated that the average which Modoc sucker occurs. national forests to maintain or increase percent bank erosion was low (less than Management plans are required to be in the status of populations of federally 40 percent) at Garden Gulch Creek, effect at all times (in other words, if the endangered or threatened species and Coffee Mill Creek, Hulbert Creek, revision does not occur, the previous their habitats. In addition, these plans Washington Creek, and Johnson Creek. plan remains in effect) and to be in guide riparian management with a goal Bank erosion appeared moderate at the compliance with various Federal of restoring and maintaining aquatic and Dutch Flat Creek site (49 percent) and regulations. Further, several riparian ecosystems to their desired was highest at the Turner Creek site (75 organizations have partnered with management potential (USFS 1989, percent). However, these two degraded private landowners to complete habitat Appendix p. 86; USFS 1991, pp. 4–26, reaches (Dutch Flat Creek and Turner restoration on the private land parcels to Appendix pp. M–1–M–2). Creek) combined amount to only 4.1 benefit fish passage and riparian habitat. Management direction for grazing on percent (1.76 mi/42.5 mi) of Modoc Therefore, based on the best available Forest-managed lands is provided sucker’s total occupied habitat. Bank information and expectation that through allotment management plans erosion along these creeks has resulted current management practices will and permits, which stipulate various in an introduction of silt, which can continue into the future, we conclude grazing strategies that will minimize cover gravel substrate used for spawning that livestock grazing and erosion does adverse effects to the watershed and by Modoc suckers (Moyle 2002, p. 191). not constitute a substantial threat to the listed species. The allotment Land management practices employed Modoc sucker now and is not expected management plans outline grazing on public and private lands since the to in the future. management goals that dictate early 1980s are expected to continue, or rangeland management should maintain improve, thereby maintaining upward Elimination of Natural Barriers productive riparian habitat for habitat trends as documented by survey The listing rule assumed that natural threatened, endangered, and sensitive data. On public lands, the resource passage barriers in streams occupied by species (USFS 1995, p. 1). These grazing management plans are required by Modoc suckers had been eliminated by permits are valid for 10 years though NFMA and FLPMA and continue to be human activities, allowing operating instructions for these permits in effect until revised. Continued hybridization between the Modoc and are issued on an annual basis. Also, as commitment to protection of resources, Sacramento suckers (see Hybridization Federal agencies, the Fremont-Winema including Modoc sucker and riparian and Genetic Introgression below). The and Modoc National Forests comply areas, in future revisions is expected. As lack of barriers was also thought to with the National Environmental Policy an example, within the Fremont- provide exposure to nonnative Act process when evaluating potential Winema National Forest, Thomas Creek predatory fishes (see Predation by land-disturbing projects or changes in is a Priority Watershed under their Nonnative Species below). However, National Forest management. Watershed Condition Framework, and surveys completed since the time of Although State lands comprise only 1 the Forest is currently working on a listing reveal no evidence of historical percent of Modoc suckers’ range, both watershed restoration action plan. The natural barriers that would have acted California and Oregon provide habitat action plan will identify individual as a physical barrier. This is particularly protection. In California on State lands, projects such as fish passage, instream true during higher springtime flows the California Fish and Game Code restoration, and road treatments/ when Sacramento suckers make their affords protection to stream habitats for closures. On State lands, the California upstream spawning migrations (Moyle all perennial, intermittent, and Fish and Game Code affords protection 2002, p. 187). The source of this ephemeral rivers and streams. In to stream habitats for all perennial, misunderstanding appears to have been Oregon, the Oregon Department of Land intermittent, and ephemeral rivers and a purely conjectural discussion by Conservation and Development requires streams. The Oregon Department of Moyle and Marciochi (1975, p. 559) that local land use planning ordinances to Land Conservation and Development was subsequently accepted without protect natural resources, including requires local land use planning validation, and Moyle makes no riparian and wetland habitats. ordinances to protect natural resources, mention of it in his most recent account The improved livestock grazing including riparian and wetland habitats. of Modoc sucker status (Moyle 2002, pp. management practices in these However, there are no formalized 190–191). Since our current management plans have greatly reduced agreements in place with private understanding is that the elimination of impacts to Modoc sucker habitat from landowners that establish protection of passage barriers did not occur, we poor livestock grazing practices since Modoc sucker habitat, though continued conclude that elimination of passage the time of listing. Since listing, some of outreach is expected to occur in the near barriers was incorrectly identified as a the Modoc sucker streams on public future (e.g., through the Service’s threat and is not a threat to Modoc land have been fenced to exclude or Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program). sucker. actively manage livestock grazing for the Although the 2012 habitat surveys benefit of Modoc sucker conservation indicate that livestock grazing still Predation by Nonnative Species (Reid 2008a, pp. 34–36, 85). Riparian results in stream bank erosion along The listing rule identified predation fencing along occupied streams to streams occupied by Modoc suckers, by nonnative brown trout as a threat to exclude cattle during the past 25 years these surveys and the 2008 and 2012 Modoc suckers (50 FR 24526, June 11,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8663

1985). Since the time of listing, separation of the three known basins uncertainty, in our consideration of additional predatory nonnative fish containing Modoc suckers further various aspects of climate change. species have been recorded in streams reduces the probability that a new or The listing rule did not identify containing Modoc suckers (Service existing nonnative predator would drought or climate change as threats to 2009): , sunfish (green impact all three basins simultaneously. the continued existence of the Modoc and bluegill), and brown bullheads. In some instances, natural constraints sucker. However, the northwestern Two of the three known sub-basins with limit the distribution of nonnative corner of the Great Basin is naturally Modoc suckers contain introduced predators, such as cool-water habitat. In subject to extended droughts, during predatory fishes. The Ash Creek sub- other cases, natural or manmade barriers which streams and even the larger water basin contains brown trout and possibly limit potential introductions, as do bodies such as Goose Lake have dried largemouth bass in downstream reaches policies and regulations within Oregon up (Laird 1971, pp. 57–58). Regional of Ash Creek. The Turner Creek sub- and California. State regulations and droughts have occurred every 10 to 20 basin contains a number of warm-water fish stocking policies, in both California years in the last century, and Goose predatory fish. The Goose Lake sub- and Oregon, prohibit transfer of fish Lake went dry as recently as 1992 and basin does not contain any nonnative from one water body to another. 2010 (Reid 2008a, pp. 43–44; R. Larson, predatory fish. Regulations prohibiting transfer of fish KFFWO, personal communication). We The Ash Creek sub-basin contains between water bodies discourage the have no records of how frequently brown trout, which have co-existed with spread of predatory fish species such as Modoc sucker streams went dry. Some Modoc suckers for over 70 years, but brown trout and largemouth bass reaches of occupied streams have been may suppress local native fish throughout the Modoc sucker’s range. In observed to dry up (or flow goes populations in small streams. There are addition, CDFW has discontinued subsurface through the gravel instead of no sources of largemouth bass upstream stocking of the predatory brown trout over the surface) nearly every summer of Modoc sucker populations in the Ash into streams in the Pit River basin, and under current climatic conditions (Reid Creek basin, although they may be the Oregon Department of Fish and 2008, p. 42), indicating that headwater present downstream in warmer, low- Wildlife (ODFW) does not stock brown reaches did stop flowing. In extreme gradient reaches of Ash Creek proper. A trout in the Goose Lake sub-basin. Based droughts, the suckers may have substantial eradication effort in Johnson on current policies and regulations, we withdrawn to permanent main-stem Creek, within the Ash Creek sub-basin, do not expect additional predatory fish streams, such as Rush, Ash, and Turner in 2009 and 2010 removed most brown to be introduced into Modoc sucker Creeks, and later recolonized the trout from occupied Modoc sucker habitat in the future. Therefore, based tributaries. Suckers also take refuge in habitat (Reid 2010, p. 2). on the best available information, we natural spring-fed headwater reaches The Turner Creek sub-basin contains conclude that introduced predators do and in deeper, headwater pools that largemouth bass, sunfish (green and not constitute a substantial threat to the receive subsurface flow even when most bluegill), and brown bullheads, of Modoc sucker now or in the future. of the stream channel is dry (Reid 2008, which only the bass are considered a p. 43). Collections of Modoc suckers significant predator on Modoc suckers. Climate Change and Drought from Rush Creek and Thomas Creek Bass do not appear to reproduce or near the end of the ‘‘dustbowl’’ drought establish stable populations in Turner Our analyses under the Endangered (Hubbs 1934, p. 1; Reid 2008a, p. 79) Creek because the creek’s cool-water Species Act include consideration of and the continued persistence of Modoc habitat is generally unsuitable for ongoing and projected changes in suckers throughout its known range supporting largemouth bass climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and through substantial local drought years populations. Since 2005, the Service has ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the since 1985 demonstrate the resiliency of supported a successful program of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Modoc sucker populations to drought. active management for nonnative fishes Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the Human-induced climate change could in the Turner Creek basin, targeting bass mean and variability of different types exacerbate low-flow conditions in and sunfishes with selective angling and of weather conditions over time, with 30 Modoc sucker habitat during future hand removal methods that do not years being a typical period for such droughts. A warming trend in the adversely impact native fish measurements, although shorter or mountains of western North America is populations (Reid 2008b, p. 1). longer periods also may be used (IPCC expected to decrease snowpack, hasten Redband trout, the only native 2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’ spring runoff, reduce summer stream potential predator of Modoc sucker, also thus refers to a change in the mean or flows, and increase summer water occupies upper Thomas Creek, but there variability of one or more measures of temperatures (Poff et al. 2002, p. 11; are no nonnative fishes (Scheerer et al. climate (e.g., temperature or Koopman et al. 2009, p. 3; PRBO 2010, pp. 278, 281). The upper reaches precipitation) that persists for an Conservation Science 2011, p. 15). of Thomas Creek occupied by Modoc extended period, typically decades or Lower flows as a result of smaller suckers are unlikely to be invaded by longer, whether the change is due to snowpack could reduce sucker habitat, nonnative fishes given the lack of natural variability, human activity, or which might adversely affect Modoc upstream source populations and both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types sucker reproduction and survival. presence of a natural waterfall barrier in of changes in climate can have direct or Warmer water temperatures could lead the lowest reach. indirect effects on species. These effects to physiological stress and could also While Modoc suckers may be may be positive, neutral, or negative and benefit nonnative fishes that prey on or negatively impacted by introduced they may change over time, depending compete with Modoc suckers. Increases predatory fishes, such as brown trout on the species and other relevant in the number and size of forest fires and largemouth bass, they have considerations, such as the effects of could also result from climate change persisted in the presence of nonnative interactions of climate with other (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940) and predators, and populations have variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) could adversely affect watershed remained relatively stable in the Ash (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our function resulting in faster runoff, lower Creek and Turner Creek sub-basins prior analyses, we use our expert judgment to base flows during the summer and fall, to and since the time of listing. The weigh relevant information, including and increased sedimentation rates. It is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 8664 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules

possible that lower flows may result in of a few specimens exhibiting what evidence of first generation hybrids, and increased groundwater withdrawal for were thought to be intermediate it is not clear whether introgression agricultural purposes and thus reduced morphological characters. At the time of occurred due to local hybridization or water availability in certain stream listing in 1985, genetic and complete through immigration by individual reaches occupied by Modoc suckers. morphological information to assess this Modoc suckers carrying Sacramento While these are all possible scenarios, assumption was not available. alleles from other areas where we have no data on which to predict the The morphological evidence for hybridization had occurred. likelihood or magnitude of these hybridization in the listing rule was Scientists who have studied suckers outcomes. based on a limited understanding of in western North America consider that, In summary, droughts may be a morphological variation in Modoc throughout their evolutionary history, concern because they could likely suckers and Sacramento suckers, hybridization among sympatric native constrict the amount of available habitat derived from the small number of fishes is not unusual and may provide and reduce access to spawning habitat. specimens available at that time. The an adaptive advantage (Dowling and However, the species has not declined actual number of specimens identified Secor 1997, pp. 612–613; Dowling 2005, in distribution since the time of listing as apparent hybrids by earlier authors p. 10; Topinka 2006, p. 73; Tranah and in 1985, even though the region where was very small, and many of these May 2006, p. 313). Further, despite any it exists has experienced several specimens came from streams without hybridization that has occurred in the pronounced droughts since listing when established Modoc sucker populations. past, the Modoc sucker maintains its total annual precipitation was Subsequent evaluation of variability in morphological and ecological approximately half of the long-term the two species was based on a larger distinctiveness, even in populations average (Western Regional Climate number of specimens. It showed that the showing low levels of introgression, and Center, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- overlapping characteristics (primarily is clearly distinguishable in its bin/cliMONtpre.pl?ca0161, accessed 23 lateral line and dorsal ray counts) that morphological characteristics from the January 2013). And, although we cannot had been interpreted by earlier authors Sacramento sucker (Kettratad 2001, p. predict future climatic conditions as evidence of hybridization, are 3). The low levels of observed accurately, the persistence of Modoc actually part of the natural meristic introgression by Sacramento suckers in sucker across its range through the (involving counts of body parts such as streams dominated by Modoc suckers, substantial droughts of the last century fins and scales) range for the two even when there are no physical barriers suggests that the species is resilient to species. As a result, this variability is no between the two species, suggests that drought and reduced water availability. longer thought to be the result of genetic either ecological differences, selective Because we are unable at this time to introgression between the two species pressures, or other natural reproductive- predict how climate change will (Kettratad 2001, pp. 52–53). isolating mechanisms are sufficient to exacerbate the effects of drought within We initiated a study in 1999 to maintain the integrity of the species, the Modoc sucker’s range, we cannot examine the genetics of suckers in the even after more than a century of habitat make meaningful projections on how Pit River basin and determine the extent alteration by human activities. the species may react to climate change and role of hybridization between the Therefore, given the levels of observed or how its habitat may be affected. Modoc and Sacramento suckers using introgression in streams dominated by Therefore, based on the best available both nuclear and mitochondrial genes Modoc suckers, the lack of evidence of information, we conclude that droughts (Palmerston et al. 2001, p. 2; Wagman first-generation hybrids, the fact that and climate change, while likely and Markle 2000, p. 2; Dowling 2005, p. Modoc suckers and Sacramento suckers affecting Modoc sucker populations, do 3; Topinka 2006, p. 50). The two species are naturally sympatric, and the not constitute substantial threats to are genetically similar, suggesting that continued ecological and morphological Modoc sucker now and are not expected they are relatively recently integrity of Modoc sucker populations, to in the future. differentiated or have a history of we conclude that hybridization and introgression throughout their range that genetic introgression do not constitute Hybridization and Genetic Introgression has obscured their differences (Dowling threats to the Modoc sucker now and are The listing rule identified 2005, p. 9; Topinka 2006, p. 65). not expected to in the future. hybridization with the Sacramento Although the available evidence cannot sucker as a threat to the Modoc sucker. differentiate between the two Overall Summary of Factors Affecting Hybridization can be cause for concern hypotheses, the genetic similarity in all Modoc Sucker in a species with restricted distribution, three sub-basins, including those Threats to the Modoc sucker that were particularly when a closely related, populations shown to be free of considered in the 1985 listing rule have nonnative species is introduced into its introgression based on species-specific been reduced or ameliorated or are no range, which can lead to loss of genetic genetic markers (Topinka 2006, pp. 64– longer considered to have been actual integrity or even extinction (Rhymer 65), suggests that introgression has threats at the time of listing. Further, and Simberloff 1996, p. 83). At the time occurred on a broad temporal and climate change and drought are not of listing, it was assumed that geographic scale and is not a localized considered substantial threats. Habitat hybridization between Modoc suckers or recent phenomenon. Consequently, conditions on both public and private and Sacramento suckers had been the genetic data suggest that lands have benefited since the time of prevented in the past by the presence of introgression is natural and is not listing as a result of improved livestock natural physical barriers, but that the caused or measurably affected by grazing management practices and loss of these stream barriers was human activities. construction of fencing to exclude cattle allowing interaction and hybridization In a later study, Topinka (2006, p. 50) from riparian areas on several of the between the two species (see analyzed nuclear DNA from each of the streams occupied by Modoc suckers. We Elimination of Natural Barriers above). two species and identified species- expect habitat conditions to remain However, the assumption that extensive specific markers indicating low levels of stable or improve. Although recent hybridization was occurring was based introgression by Sacramento sucker habitat surveys indicate erosion solely on the two species occurring in alleles into most Modoc sucker continues to be a problem along lower the same streams, and the identification populations. However, there was no Turner Creek and in Dutch Flat Creek,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8665

these areas represent 4.1 percent (1.76 of extinction or likely to become so destruction, modification, or mi/42.5 mi) of Modoc sucker’s total because of any of five factors: (A) The curtailment of its habitat or range occupied habitat. Habitat threats are present or threatened destruction, (specifically, erosion due to poor cattle addressed through multiple Federal and modification, or curtailment of its grazing management) (Factor A); State regulations, including NFMA, habitat or range; (B) overutilization for elimination of natural barriers (Factor California and Oregon State water commercial, recreational, scientific, or A); predation by nonnative species regulations, and California Fish and educational purposes; (C) disease or (Factor C); and hybridization or genetic Game Code. Therefore, these impacts predation; (D) the inadequacy of introgression (specifically, from are not considered a substantial threat to existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Sacramento sucker) (Factor E) do not the species. other natural or manmade factors rise to a level of significance, such that Modoc suckers have coexisted with affecting its continued existence. As the species is in danger of extinction brown trout for more than 70 years, and required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act, now or in the foreseeable future. the overlap in distribution of we conducted a review of the status of As a result of the discovery of five largemouth bass and Modoc suckers is this species and assessed the five factors populations not known at the time of limited because bass are warm water to evaluate whether Modoc sucker is listing and the documentation of the fish that occur in lower-elevation endangered or threatened throughout all genetic integrity of populations reaches downstream of many of the of its range. We examined the best considered in the 1985 listing rule to reaches occupied by Modoc sucker, and scientific and commercial information have been lost due to hybridization, the reservoir outflows have been screened available regarding the past, present, known range of the Modoc sucker has to reduce the risk of bass being flushed and future threats faced by the species. increased and it currently occupies its into streams occupied by Modoc sucker. We reviewed information presented in entire known historical range. Further, State regulations in both the 2011 petition, information available Additionally, the distribution of California and Oregon prohibit transfer in our files and gathered through our 90- occupied stream habitat for populations of fish from one water body to another. day finding in response to this petition, known at the time of listing has Thus, introduced predators are not a and other available published and remained stable or expanded slightly significant risk to Modoc sucker unpublished information. We also since the time of listing, even though populations. A greater understanding of consulted with species experts and land the region has experienced several the genetic relationships and natural management staff with the USFS, droughts during this time period. gene flow between the Modoc suckers CDFW, and ODFW, who are actively Additionally, the relevant recovery and Sacramento suckers has reduced managing for the conservation of Modoc objectives outlined in the Recovery Plan concerns over hybridization between sucker. for the Modoc sucker have been met, the two naturally sympatric species. In considering what factors might indicating sustainable populations exist Although none of the factors constitute threats, we must look beyond throughout the species’ range. Finally, discussed above is having a major the mere exposure of the species to the an assessment of factors that may be impact on Modoc sucker, a combination factor to determine whether the impacting the species did not reveal any of factors could potentially have a much exposure causes actual impacts to the significant threats to the species, now or greater effect. For example, effects of species. If there is exposure to a factor, in the future. We have carefully erosion on habitat resulting from poor but no response, or only a positive assessed the best scientific and livestock grazing management practices response, that factor is not a threat. If commercial data available and could worsen during periods of there is exposure and the species determined that Modoc sucker is no prolonged, severe drought when some responds negatively, the factor may be longer in danger of extinction water sources may dry up, resulting in a threat and we then attempt to throughout all of its range, nor is it greater pressure on the remaining determine how significant the threat is. likely to become so in the future. available water sources, which would If the threat is significant, it may drive, Significant Portion of the Range likely degrade Modoc sucker habitat. or contribute to, the risk of extinction of However, the impacts of livestock the species such that the species Having examined the status of Modoc grazing on Modoc sucker habitat has warrants listing as endangered or sucker throughout all its range, we next been greatly reduced or eliminated by threatened as those terms are defined by examine whether the species is in improved grazing management practices the Act. This determination does not danger of extinction in a significant and management plans, which are not necessarily require empirical proof of a portion of its range. The range of a expected to change. Although the types, threat. The combination of exposure and species can theoretically be divided into magnitude, or extent of cumulative some corroborating evidence of how the portions in an infinite number of ways. impacts are difficult to predict, we are species is likely impacted could suffice. However, there is no purpose in not aware of any combination of factors The mere identification of factors that analyzing portions of the range that that has not already or would not be could impact a species negatively is not have no reasonable potential to be addressed through ongoing conservation sufficient to compel a finding that significant or in analyzing portions of measures. Based on this assessment of listing is appropriate; we require the range in which there is no factors potentially impacting the evidence that these factors are operative reasonable potential for the species to be species, we consider Modoc sucker to threats that act on the species to the endangered or threatened. To identify have no substantial threats now or in point that the species meets the only those portions that warrant further the future (see Summary of Factors definition of an endangered species or consideration, we determine whether Affecting the Species section of the threatened species under the Act. there is substantial information Species Report (Service 2013, pp. 23– Significant impacts at the time of indicating that: (1) The portions may be 57). listing that could have resulted in the ‘‘significant’’ and (2) the species may be extirpation of all or parts of populations in danger of extinction there or likely to Finding have been eliminated or reduced since become so within the foreseeable future. An assessment of the need for a listing. We conclude that the previously Depending on the biology of the species, species’ protection under the Act is recognized impacts to Modoc sucker its range, and the threats it faces, it based on whether a species is in danger from the present or threatened might be more efficient for us to address

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 8666 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules

the significance question first or the the foreseeable future due to lack of and the draft post-delisting monitoring status question first. Thus, if we significant threats. Another way to (PDM) plan. A thorough review of determine that a portion of the range is identify portions would be to consider information that we relied on in not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to whether any threats are geographically preparing this proposed rule—including determine whether the species is concentrated in some way that would information on taxonomy, life-history, endangered or threatened there; if we indicate the species could be threatened ecology, population distribution and determine that the species is not or endangered in that area. As noted abundance, and potential threats—is endangered or threatened in a portion of above, erosion due to poor grazing presented in the Modoc Sucker Species its range, we do not need to determine management still occurs within Report (Service 2013) available at if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In approximately 4.1 percent of the Modoc www.regulations.gov (Docket Number practice, a key part of the determination sucker range, and has the potential to FWS–R8–ES–2013–0133). The purpose that a species is in danger of extinction adversely affect Modoc sucker in those of peer review is to ensure that in a significant portion of its range is areas. These two sites are within decisions are based on scientifically whether the threats are geographically different sub-basins and, both sound data, assumptions, and analyses. concentrated in some way. If the threats collectively and per sub-basin, represent A peer review panel will conduct an to the species are essentially uniform a very small fraction of the Modoc assessment of the proposed rule, and the throughout its range, no portion is likely sucker’s range. These areas, individually specific assumptions and conclusions to warrant further consideration. or collectively, are therefore unlikely to regarding the proposed delisting. This Moreover, if any concentration of constitute a significant portion of the assessment will be completed during threats to the species occurs only in species’ range. No other natural the public comment period. portions of the species’ range that divisions occur, and no other potential We will consider all comments and clearly would not meet the biologically remaining threats have been identified. information we receive during the based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ such Therefore, it is our conclusion, based on comment period on this proposed rule portions will not warrant further our evaluation of the current and as we prepare the final determination. consideration. potential threats to Modoc sucker, that Accordingly, the final decision may We consider the ‘‘range’’ of Modoc these threats are neither sufficiently differ from this proposal. sucker to include an estimated 42.5 concentrated nor of sufficient miles (68.4 kilometers) of occupied magnitude to indicate the species is in Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan habitat in 12 streams in the Turner danger of extinction or likely to become Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, Creek, Ash Creek, and Goose Lake sub- so in the foreseeable future in any of the in cooperation with the States, to basins of the Pit River. This amount has areas that support the species, and thus, implement a monitoring program for not improved greatly since the time of it is likely to persist throughout its less than 5 years for all species that have listing, when its known distribution was historical range. limited to an estimated 12.9 miles (20.8 We have carefully assessed the best been recovered and delisted (50 CFR kilometers) of occupied habitat in seven scientific and commercial data available 17.11, 17.12). The purpose of this post- streams in the Turner Creek and Ash and determined that the Modoc sucker delisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify Creek sub-basins. This distribution is no longer in danger of extinction that a species remains secure from risk represents its entire known historical throughout all or significant portions of of extinction after it has been removed range, with the exception of Willow its range, nor is it likely to become so from the protections of the Act. The Creek within the Ash Creek sub-basin. in the future. As a consequence of this PDM is designed to detect the failure of Previous reports of Modoc suckers in determination, we are proposing to any delisted species to sustain itself Willow Creek are based on limited and remove this species from the list of without the protective measures unverifiable reports (Reid 2009, p. 14), endangered and threatened species provided by the Act. If, at any time and their present existence in Willow under the Act. during the monitoring period, data Creek remains questionable (Reid 2008a, indicate that protective status under the p. 25). Therefore, we consider the Effects of This Rule Act should be reinstated, we can initiate confirmed historical range to be If this proposed rule is made final, it listing procedures, including, if occupied. would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove appropriate, emergency listing under We considered whether any portions the Modoc sucker from the List of section 4(b)(7) of the Act. Section 4(g) of of the Modoc sucker range might be Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the Act explicitly requires us to both significant and in danger of and would revise 50 CFR 17.95(e) to cooperate with the States in extinction or likely to become so in the remove designated critical habitat for development and implementation of foreseeable future. One way to identify the species. The prohibitions and PDM programs, but we remain portions would be to identify natural conservation measures provided by the responsible for compliance with section divisions within the range that might be Act, particularly through sections 7 and 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively of biological or conservation 9, would no longer apply to this species. engaged in all phases of PDM. We also importance. Modoc sucker inhabit three Federal agencies would no longer be seek active participation of other sub-basins of the Pit River, one of required to consult with the Service entities that are expected to assume which, the Goose Lake sub-basin, is under section 7 of the Act in the event responsibilities for the species’ disjoined from the other two sub-basins that activities they authorize, fund, or conservation post-delisting. (Turner Creek and Ash Creek sub- carry out may affect Modoc sucker. Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview basins). These sub-basins have the potential to be significant areas to the Peer Review The Service has developed a draft species due to potential geographic In accordance with our joint policy on PDM plan for the Modoc sucker. The isolation. Although the sub-basins have peer review published in the Federal PDM plan is designed to verify that the potential to be significant, the Register on July 1, 1994 (50 FR 34270), Modoc sucker remains secure from risk populations of the species within the we will seek the expert opinions of at of extinction after removal from the sub-basins are not in danger of least three appropriate and independent Federal List of Endangered and extinction or likely to become so within specialists regarding this proposed rule Threatened Wildlife by detecting

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8667

changes in its status and habitat or threats to the species. Within 1 year National Environmental Policy Act throughout its known range. of the end of the PDM period, the We determined we do not need to Although the Act has a minimum Service will conduct a final internal prepare an Environmental Assessment PDM requirement of 5 years, we will review and prepare (or contract with an or an Environmental Impact Statement, monitor Modoc sucker for a 10-year outside entity) a final report as defined under the authority of the monitoring period to account for summarizing the results of monitoring. National Environmental Policy Act of environmental variability (for example, This report will include: (1) A summary 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in drought) that may affect the condition of of the results from the surveys of Modoc habitat and to provide for a sufficient connection with regulations adopted sucker occupancy, states of abundance, pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We number of surveys to document any recruitment, and change in distribution; changes in the abundance of the species. published a notice outlining our reasons and (2) recommendations for any for this determination in the Federal Based on the life history of Modoc actions and plans for the future. The suckers, in which individuals mature at Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR final report will include a discussion of 49244). age 2+ years, a complete survey of whether monitoring should continue previously surveyed areas should be beyond the 10-year period for any References Cited conducted every 2 years within the 10- reason. year monitoring period. This will allow A complete list of all references cited With this notice, we are soliciting us to assess changes in abundance or the in this proposed rule is available on the public comments and peer review on extent of the species’ range over time; Internet at http://www.regulations.gov the draft PDM Plan including its changes in the level of recruitment of under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013– objectives and procedures (see Public reproducing fish into the population; 0133 or upon request from the Field Comments Solicited). All comments on and any potential changes in threats to Supervisor, Klamath Falls Fish and the draft PDM plan from the public and the species. However, if a decline in Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER peer reviewers will be considered and abundance is observed or a substantial INFORMATION CONTACT). incorporated into the final PDM plan as new threat arises, post-delisting appropriate. The draft PDM plan will be Author monitoring may be extended or modified as described below. posted on our Endangered Species The primary author of this proposed A multi-state occupancy approach Program’s national Web page (http:// rule is the Pacific Southwest Regional (MacKenzie et al. 2009, entire) will be endangered.fws.gov) and the Klamath Office in Sacramento, California, in used to estimate the proportion of sites Falls Fish and Wildlife Office Web page coordination with the Klamath Falls occupied, change in site occupancy, and (http://fws.gov/klamathfallsfwo) and on Fish and Wildlife Office in Klamath change in abundance of Modoc suckers. the Federal eRulemaking Portal at Falls, Oregon (see FOR FURTHER Surveys for Modoc suckers will be http://www.regulations.gov. We INFORMATION CONTACT). anticipate finalizing this plan, completed following a modified version List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 of a sampling protocol developed for considering all public and peer review Modoc sucker (Reid 2008b) that is comments, prior to making a final Endangered and threatened species, consistent with the approach used in determination on the proposed delisting Exports, Imports, Reporting and surveys conducted since 2008. This rule. recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. approach will allow for monitoring Required Determinations population status over time as it permits Proposed Regulation Promulgation the estimation of the proportion of sites Clarity of the Rule (within a stream and among all streams) Accordingly, we propose to amend We are required by Executive Orders part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title that are occupied and that are in each 12866 and 12988 and by the state of abundance (low and high). 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Presidential Memorandum of June 1, as set forth below: During occupancy and abundance 1998, to write all rules in plain surveys, we will also monitor threats language. This means that each rule we PART 17—ENDANGERED AND and recruitment. To measure publish must: THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS recruitment, we will estimate the size of (a) Be logically organized; individuals to the nearest centimeter. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 Examination of fish sizes will allow a (b) Use the active voice to address continues to read as follows: determination to be made if recruitment readers directly; is occurring over time. Ideally, surveys Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– (c) Use clear language rather than 1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. will result in diverse size classes of fish, jargon; indicating recruitment is occurring. (d) Be divided into short sections and § 17.11 [Amended] Threats, both biotic (for example, sentences; and ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the nonnative predatory fish) and abiotic entry for ‘‘Sucker, Modoc’’ under (for example, excessive sedimentation) (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible. ‘‘Fishes’’ in the List of Endangered and will also be assessed during surveys Threatened Wildlife. (both day and night). Prior to If you feel that we have not met these completing surveys, sites (pools) within requirements, send us comments by one § 17.95 [Amended] streams will be landmarked and of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To ■ 3. Amend § 17.95(e) by removing the georeferenced to allow relocation for better help us revise the rule, your entry for ‘‘Modoc Sucker (Catostomus subsequent surveys. comments should be as specific as microps)’’. After each complete survey possible. For example, you should tell (conducted once every 2 years), the us the names of the sections or Dated: December 30, 2013. Service and its partners will compare paragraphs that are unclearly written, Stephen Guertin, the results with those from previous which sections or sentences are too Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. surveys and consider the implication of long, the sections where you feel lists or [FR Doc. 2014–01526 Filed 2–12–14; 8:45 am] any observed reductions in abundance tables would be useful, etc. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS