Vol. 76 Wednesday, No. 197 October 12, 2011

Part IV

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12–Month Finding on a Petition To List Northern Leatherside Chub as Endangered or Threatened; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63444 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Background petitions—one for mountain-prairie species, and one for southwest species. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 On February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122), we U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for published a 90-day finding on 165 50 CFR Part 17 any petition to revise the Federal Lists species from the petition to list 206 of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife species in the mountain-prairie region [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0092; MO and Plants that contains substantial of the United States as endangered or 92210–0–0008–B2] scientific or commercial information threatened under the Act. We found that that listing the species may be the petition did not present substantial Endangered and Threatened Wildlife warranted, we make a finding within 12 scientific or commercial information and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a months of the date of receipt of the indicating that listing was warranted for Petition To List Northern Leatherside petition. In this finding, we will these species and, therefore, did not Chub as Endangered or Threatened determine that the petitioned action is: initiate further status reviews in AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) response to the petition. Two additional Interior. warranted, but the immediate proposal species were reviewed in a January 6, of a regulation implementing the 2009, 90-day finding (74 FR 419) and, ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition petitioned action is precluded by other therefore, were not considered further in finding. pending proposals to determine whether the February 5, 2009, 90-day finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and species are endangered or threatened, For the remaining 39 species, we Wildlife Service (Service), announce a and expeditious progress is being made deferred our findings until a later date. 12-month finding on a petition to list to add or remove qualified species from One species of the 39 remaining species, the northern leatherside chub the Federal Lists of Endangered and Sphaeralcea gierischii (Gierisch (Lepidomeda copei) as endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section mallow), was already a candidate threatened and to designate critical 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we species for listing; therefore, 38 species habitat under the Endangered Species treat a petition for which the requested remained. On March 13, 2009, the Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After action is found to be warranted but Service and WildEarth Guardians filed a review of all available scientific and precluded as though resubmitted on the stipulated settlement in the District of commercial information, we find that date of such finding, that is, requiring a Columbia Court, agreeing that the listing the northern leatherside chub subsequent finding to be made within Service would submit to the Federal rangewide is not warranted at this time. 12 months. We must publish these 12- Register a 90-day finding on the We ask the public to submit to us any month findings in the Federal Register. remaining 38 mountain-prairie species new information that becomes available by August 9, 2009. Previous Federal Actions On August 18, 2009, we published a concerning the threats to the northern notice of 90-day finding (74 FR 41649) leatherside chub or its habitat at any On July 30, 2007, we received a on 38 species from the petition to list time. petition dated July 24, 2007, from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians), 206 species in the mountain-prairie DATES: The finding announced in this requesting that the Service: (1) Consider region of the United States as document was made on October 12, all full species in our Mountain Prairie endangered or threatened under the Act. 2011. Region ranked as G1 or G1G2 by the Of the 38 species, we found that the ADDRESSES: This finding is available on organization NatureServe, except those petition presented substantial scientific the Internet at http:// that are currently listed, proposed for and commercial information for 29 species indicating that a listing may be www.regulations.gov at Docket Number listing, or candidates for listing; and (2) warranted. The northern leatherside FWS–R6–ES–2011–0092. Supporting list each species as either endangered or chub addressed in this 12-month documentation we used in preparing threatened. The petition included the finding was included in the list of 29 this finding is available for public northern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda species. We initiated a status review of inspection, by appointment, during copei), which is addressed in this the 29 species to determine if listing normal business hours at the U.S. Fish finding. The petition incorporated all was warranted. We also opened a 60- and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological analysis, references, and documentation day public comment period to allow all Services Field Office, 2369 West Orton provided by NatureServe in its online interested parties an opportunity to Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT database at http://www.natureserve.org/ provide information on the status of the 84119. Please submit any new into the petition. The document clearly 29 species. The public comment period information, materials, comments, or identified itself as a petition and closed on October 19, 2009. We received questions concerning this finding to the included the petitioners’ identification 224 public comments. Of these, five above street address. information, as required in 50 CFR specifically mentioned northern 424.14(a). We sent a letter to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: leatherside chub. All substantial petitioners, dated August 24, 2007, Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah information we received was carefully acknowledging receipt of the petition Ecological Services Field Office (see considered in this finding. This notice and stating that, based on preliminary ADDRESSES); by telephone at 801–975– constitutes the 12-month finding on the review, we found no compelling 3330; or by facsimile at 801–975–3331; July 24, 2007, petition to list the evidence to support an emergency or Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor, Idaho northern leatherside chub as listing for any of the species covered by Ecological Services Field Office; by endangered or threatened. telephone at 208–378–5243; or by the petition. facsimile at 208–378–5262. If you use a On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Species Information telecommunications device for the deaf Guardians filed a complaint (1:08–CV– The northern leatherside chub (TDD), please call the Federal 472–CKK) indicating that the Service (Lepidomeda copei) is a rare desert fish Information Relay Service (FIRS) at failed to comply with its mandatory in the minnow family (Cyprinidae) that 800–877–8339. duty to make a preliminary 90-day occurs in northern Utah and Nevada, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: finding on their two multiple species southern and eastern Idaho, and western

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63445

Wyoming (Johnson et al. 2004, pp. 842– demonstrated that what was previously 2004, p. 850) and are typically 15 843; Utah Division of Wildlife considered the ‘leatherside chub’ is in percent smaller than southern Resources (UDWR) 2009, pp. 28–30; fact two distinct species with discrete leatherside chub of the same age, with McAbee 2011, entire). The species is geographic, ecological, morphological, northern leatherside chub reaching total native to smaller, mid-elevation, desert and genetic characteristics (Johnson et length of approximately 60 mm (2.4 in.) streams in the northeastern portions of al. 2004, pp. 841, 852). Moreover, at age 2 and 71 mm (2.8 in.) at age 3 the Great Basin region (draining to the neither species belongs in the (Belk et al. 2005, pp. 177, 181). Great Salt Lake) and the southern and previously accepted genera, but rather Life History eastern portions of the Pacific both belong in the genus Lepidomeda, a Northwest Region (draining to the group commonly referred to as the Before 1995, the life history of the Pacific Ocean) (Johnson et al. 2004, pp. spinedaces (Johnson et al. 2004, pp. leatherside chub was not well known, 842–843; UDWR 2009, pp. 28–30). Like 841, 852). with just a few observations of age, many western North American non- Three different species concepts growth, or reproduction (Johnson et al. game fish species, little was known validate this taxonomic revision. 1995, p. 183). Investigations of about its biology, ecology, or status until Genetic analysis endorses two populations now known as southern recently (Belk and Johnson 2007, pp. evolutionarily separate species under leatherside chub demonstrated the 67–68). the phylogenetic species concept species could live up to 8 years and (defines a species as a set of organisms reached sexual maturity at age 2 Taxonomy and Species Description with a unique genetic history) (Johnson (Johnson et al. 1995, p. 185). Further The northern leatherside chub is one and Jordan 2000, pp. 1029, 1033; work corroborated that the majority of of two species, along with the southern Johnson et al. 2004, pp. 841, 851). In northern leatherside chub also mature at leatherside chub (Lepidomeda aliciae), addition, morphologic (cranial shape) age 2, but some not until age 4 (Belk et recently re-classified from the single and ecological (feeding and growth al. 2005, p. 181). species ‘leatherside chub’ rates) divergence support two distinct The bulk of our reproductive (Snyderichthys copei or Gila copei) species under the similarity and knowledge about this species comes (Johnson et al. 2004, pp. 841, 852). ecological species models, respectively from the hatchery setting, where Throughout the remainder of this (Johnson et al. 2004, p. 851). It also is successful propagation has occurred. finding, references to leatherside chub worth noting that current taxonomy Northern leatherside chub produce indicate data collected before the two aligns with discrete geographic translucent, whitish fertilized eggs that species were delineated, and references distributions of the species, with the are adhesive and can clump together or to southern leatherside chub and unoccupied Weber River separating the adhere to substrate (Billman et al. northern leatherside chub indicate data two species’ ranges and the 2008a, p. 277). In natural populations, specific to each species, exclusively. uninhabitable Great Salt Lake eggs typically hatch in late June (Belk et Because the northern and southern preventing natural interaction between al. 2005, p. 181), but in hatchery species were only recently separated, individuals of the two species (Belk and conditions, spawning occurs between most species descriptions and life- Johnson 2007, p. 69). Supported by April and September (Billman et al. history investigations are a combination multiple lines of evidence indicating 2008a, p. 276). In controlled hatchery of the two species. While many that southern (Lepidomeda aliciae) and conditions, eggs hatch between 4 and 6 characteristics are common to both northern (L. copei) leatherside chub are days to produce fry that still reside in species, we will describe characteristics two distinct species, the American the substrate (Billman et al. 2008a, p. of only the northern leatherside chub Fisheries Society now recognizes the 277). Six days after hatching, fry emerge when possible. two species as such (Jelks et al. 2008, p. from the substrate, and by 40 days after The taxonomic history of leatherside 390). Because northern leatherside chub hatching most have tripled in length to chub is complex. Even when considered is an acknowledged species, it is a approximately 16 mm (0.63 in.) a single species, taxonomists classified listable entity under the Act. (Billman et al. 2008a, p. 277). the leatherside chub in at least seven The northern leatherside chub is a In the hatchery setting, spawning different genera over the past century small fish, less than 150 millimeters overwhelmingly occurs over cobble and a half (Johnson et al. 2004, p. 841). (mm) (6 inches (in.)) in length, that substrate (which provides interstitial The type locality for leatherside chub received its common name from the space for eggs) and in higher velocity (Squalius copei; Jordan and Gilbert leathery appearance created by small flows (which provide oxygen and 1881) is from the Bear River at scales on a trim, tapering body (Sigler remove fine sediment) (Billman et al. Evanston, Wyoming (UDWR 2009, p. and Sigler 1996, p. 78; UDWR 2009, p. 2008a, p. 277). These conditions 24). Classification by Miller in the mid- 26). It has rounded dorsal and anal fins, indicate main channel riffle or run twentieth century (1945) placed each with eight fin rays (Sigler and habitats are likely the natural location of leatherside chub in the monotypic Sigler 1996, p. 78). Typically, the northern leatherside chub spawning. genus Snyderichthys, but shortly northern leatherside chub is bluish Northern and southern leatherside thereafter Uyeno (1960) assigned it to above and silver below, but orange to chub have similar, relatively broad the genus Gila (the chubs), subgenus red coloration may occur on some fins diets, with aquatic and terrestrial insects Snyderichthys (UDWR 2009, p. 25). (Sigler and Sigler 1996, p. 78). Males and crustaceans accounting for 75 Many fisheries texts accepted Gila copei also have a golden-red speck at the percent of their consumption in one as the taxonomic classification over the upper end of the gill opening and study (Bell and Belk 2004, p. 414). next 40 years (Sigler and Miller 1963, p. between the eyes and the upper jaw Aquatic and terrestrial insects 74; Sigler and Sigler 1996, p. 77), but (Sigler and Sigler 1996, p. 78). dominated the autumnal northern acceptance was not unanimous, as Two characteristics that distinguish leatherside chub diet at the Sulphur evidenced by the American Fisheries northern and southern leatherside chubs Creek sample site (Bell and Belk 2004, Society supporting Snyderichthys copei from each other are cranial shape and p. 414). The species foraged on a wide in 2004 (UDWR 2009, p. 25). Taxonomic size-at-age (UDWR 2009, p. 26). variety of prey items common to both discrepancy was not fully rectified until Northern leatherside chub have deeper the substrate and stream drift (Bell and a short time ago. Recent research heads with shorter snouts (Johnson et al. Belk 2004, p. 414). However, it is likely

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63446 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

that the species’ diet varies throughout evaluated based on their distinct Unit Code (HUC) in the USGS’ NHD or the year and at different locations based geographic range. Summer water HUC8), and current population on available food (Bell and Belk 2004, temperature of occupied habitat is locations at the subwatershed level p. 414). The study results indicate that reportedly 10 to 23 °C (50 to 73.4 °F), (otherwise known as 12-digit HUC or the species’ diet overlaps with other but the current belief is that northern HUC12). We identified population native and nonnative fish, including leatherside chub’s range is actually locations in one to multiple sculpins (Cottidae family), shiners restricted to 15.5 to 20 °C (59.9 to 68 °F) subwatersheds, depending on the (Cyprinids), and cutthroat (UDWR 2009, p. 27). The species does perceived interaction between (Oncorhynchus clarkii) and brown not persist in lakes or reservoirs (UDWR individuals. State wildlife agencies and (Salmo trutta) trout, suggesting possible 2009, p. 27). Northern leatherside chub universities reviewed the document to competitive interactions (Bell and Belk prefer low water velocities (15 to 23 ensure that it summarized their data 2004, p. 414). centimeters per second (cm/s) (0.5 to collection correctly. Information from 0.75 feet per second (fps)), and their our population summary (also known as Habitat probability of occurrence decreases at ‘white paper’) is used throughout this Northern leatherside chub inhabit higher velocities (UDWR 2009, p. 40). finding to inform our conclusions small desert streams between elevations Water velocity and temperature (McAbee 2011, entire). of approximately 1,250 to 2,750 meters generally limit the northern leatherside The documented historical range of (m) (4,100 to 9,000 feet (ft)) in the Bear, chub from occupying high headwater northern leatherside chub includes Snake, and Green River subregions (as streams. Recent habitat investigations portions of the Bear River subregion that defined by the U.S. Geological Survey’s show that northern leatherside chub drain to the Great Salt Lake, and (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset habitat associations are consistent with discontinuous subbasins in the Upper (NHD)) (Idaho Department of Fish and the results for the southern species (Belk Snake River subregion that eventually Game (IDFG) 2005, p. 1). Streams of this and Wesner 2010, p. 12), allowing us to drain to the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1; nature encounter extreme seasonal and consider habitat data for southern Table 1). It is unclear how this species annual physical conditions because of leatherside chub as generally acceptable came to inhabit two presently variation in temperature and for northern leatherside chub. unconnected hydrologic regions. Past precipitation (Wilson and Belk 2001, p. geologic events associated with the Distribution 40). Therefore, northern leatherside draining of Lake Bonneville or the chub must endure cold winters and hot Recent and ongoing investigations connection of the Bear River to the summers (water temperature from 0 to continue to revise the current and Snake River as recently as 30,000 years 25 °C (32 to 77 °F); high, turbid spring historical distributions of northern ago (Behnke 1992, p. 134) are likely runoff and low, clear summer base leatherside chub by verifying or responsible for the separation (UDWR flows; and periodic droughts that reduce invalidating historical specimens, 2009, p. 25). The range of northern water in streams (Wilson and Belk 2001, intensely resampling specific stream leatherside chub has declined over the p. 40). It is likely that enduring these reaches suspected to harbor the species, past 50 years (Wilson and Belk 2001, p. variable extreme habitat conditions and documenting new northern 36; Johnson et al. 2004, pp. 841–842; adapted northern leatherside chub to leatherside chub occurrences. For this UDWR 2009, p. 24), and the verified tolerate varied habitat conditions. finding, we completed a white paper current range of the species is now Most habitat descriptions are the summarizing current and historical limited to five of the eight documented result of investigations before distributions through fall 2010 (McAbee historical subbasins (Table 1). However, leatherside chub was divided into two 2011, entire). We analyzed current and additional survey efforts are planned or species, but habitat descriptions for the historical range at the subbasin level ongoing. northern leatherside chub can be (otherwise known as 8-digit Hydrologic BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63447

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:49 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 EP12OC11.024 63448 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—DOCUMENTED RANGE OF THE NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB BY SUBBASIN

NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET LOCATIONS Status

Subregion (code) Subbasin code and name

Bear River (1601) ...... 16010101 Upper Bear River ...... Currently occupied. 16010102 Central Bear River 16010203 Logan River ...... Historical records only. 16010204 Lower Bear River Upper Snake River (1704) ...... 17040101 Snake Headwaters ...... Currently occupied. 17040105 Salt River 17040211 Goose Creek 17040221 Little Wood River ...... Historical records only. Upper Green River (1404) ...... 14040103 Upper Green—Slate Creek ...... Currently occupied but unconfirmed native range. 14040107 Blacks Fork

In addition to the historical range, two rely on the known, verified collections previously accepted collections were populations are now known from the to analyze the status of the species. refuted, leading to a clearer Upper Green River subregion in the Northern leatherside chub are understanding of the species’ range Colorado River region (Table 1). It is difficult to identify in the field because (Northern Leatherside Chub possible that these occurrences are the they can be confused with other species Conservation Team 2010, p. 4). In fact, result of human introductions. with similar appearances. Therefore, many subbasins once identified as part However, genetic analysis is necessary many collections were incorrectly of the species’ current or historical to confirm the origin of these classified as northern leatherside chub, range are now either questioned or when in fact they were later verified as populations, and this information is not invalidated (Table 2). While we expect Utah chub (Gila atraria), speckled dace yet available. For the purposes of this that the northern leatherside chub’s (Rhinichthys osculus), or redside shiner finding, we acknowledge these (Richardsonius balteatus). natural distribution is more continuous populations’ conservation value. Ichthyologists at Brigham Young and than verifiable historical and current Because verifiable, historical records Idaho State Universities worked to data indicate, we have no specific data are sparse, we are unable to produce a verify historical records and validate to describe this range other than what is large-scale historical range boundary recent collections in order to presented in this finding (Figure 1; with this information. Therefore, we authenticate data. As a result, many Table 3).

TABLE 2—SUSPECTED SUBBASINS THAT ARE NO LONGER CONSIDERED NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB CURRENT OR HISTORICAL RANGE

NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET LOCATIONS Status

Subregion (code) Subregion code and name

Upper Snake River (1704) ...... 17040207 Blackfoot River ...... Historical specimen incorrectly classified; No verified records. 17040210 Raft River ...... Unvouchered historical record not corrobo­ rated by recent sampling; No verified records. 17040213 Salmon Falls Creek ...... Unvouchered recent record not corroborated by repeated sampling; No verified records. 17040219 Big Wood River ...... Unvouchered recent record not corroborated by repeated sampling; No verified records.

Middle Snake (1705) ...... unknown Bruneau & Snake Rivers ...... Historical specimens incorrectly classified; No verified records. 17050104 Upper Owyhee ...... Museum records need to be checked.

Great Salt Lake (1602) ...... 16020309 Curlew Valley ...... Listed in conservation agreement, but no sup­ porting data; No records.

TABLE 3—EXTANT POPULATIONS OF NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB IN 2010

NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET LOCATIONS POPULATION NAME STATE Subregion Subbasin

Bear River ...... Upper Bear ...... Upper Mill/Deadman Creeks ...... UT/WY Upper Sulphur/La Chapelle Creeks ...... WY

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63449

TABLE 3—EXTANT POPULATIONS OF NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB IN 2010—Continued

NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET LOCATIONS POPULATION NAME STATE Subregion Subbasin

Yellow Creek ...... UT/WY Upper Twin Creek ...... WY Rock Creek ...... WY

Central Bear ...... Dry Fork Smiths Fork ...... WY Muddy Creek ...... WY

Snake River ...... Snake Headwaters ...... Pacific Creek ...... WY Salt River ...... Jackknife Creek ...... ID

Goose Creek ...... Trapper Creek ...... ID Beaverdam Creek ...... ID Trout Creek ...... NV/ID

Green River ...... Upper Green River/Slate Creek ...... North Fork Slate Creek ...... WY Blacks Fork ...... Upper Hams Fork ...... WY

Overall, our identification and Yellow Creek populations harbor dense, In the Central Bear River subbasin, the confirmation of a northern leatherside reproducing populations of northern Smiths Fork area harbors at least two population for this finding required the leatherside chub (McKay and Thompson large populations: Dry Fork Smiths Fork presence of multiple age classes, 2010, pp. 4–7). In the Upper Mill/ and Muddy Creek. Both contain collection of a dense number of fish Deadman Creeks population, hundreds of individuals (Colyer and (more than five individuals), and approximately 1,000 individuals per Dahle 2007, p. 8; Belk and Wesner 2010, documentation of fish collections over kilometer are found in Deadman Creek p. 5). Individual fish from this multiple years. Meeting these criteria (McKay and Thompson 2010, pp. 6–7) population can disperse downstream, demonstrated to us that northern and groups occur downstream in Mill but many perish in irrigation canals leatherside chub populations were Creek in Utah and Wyoming (Nadolski before reaching the mainstem Bear River resident, reproducing, and persisting and Thompson 2004, pp. 3, 7; Belk and (Roberts and Rahel 2008, pp. 951, 955). over time. Within the current range of Wesner 2010, p. 5). The Yellow Creek Snake River Subregion the northern leatherside chub, we thus population has groups of individuals delineated 14 extant populations, The Snake River subregion contains from the upper reaches in Utah spread across the Bear (7), Snake (5), eight subbasins with historical northern and Green (2) River subregions (Table downstream through Wyoming and in leatherside chub observations (UDWR 3). Locations where northern leatherside Thief Creek, a tributary (Thompson et 2009, pp. 44, 48). However, biologists chub were collected, but were not al. 2008, pp. 8–9; Zafft et al. 2009, p. 3; have reexamined museum records, classified as a population, are detailed Belk and Wesner 2010, p. 5). The Upper resampled stream reaches with in our white paper analysis (McAbee Sulphur/La Chapelle Creeks population presumed past observations, and refined 2011, entire). above Sulphur Creek Reservoir also the identification key for the species. As harbors abundant northern leatherside a result, four of the eight subbasins, the Bear River Subregion chubs (Zafft et al. 2009, p. 3). This Raft, Big Wood, and Blackfoot Rivers, The Bear River subregion harbors population is likely isolated by the and Salmon Falls Creek, with past seven extant populations of northern presence of Sulphur Creek Reservoir, records were downgraded to ‘‘unlikely leatherside chub across two subbasins: which is unsuitable habitat and is to have contained or to contain northern Five in the Upper Bear River subbasin stocked with predatory nonnative trout leatherside chub’’ (Table 2). One and two in the Central Bear River (brown trout before 2000, rainbow trout subbasin has verified historical records subbasin (Table 3). We are aware of the (Oncorhynchus mykiss) currently) but no current records (Little Wood presence of some individual fish (WGFD 2010, pp. 3–6). River), and is thus considered extirpated upstream (Hayden and Stillwater Forks) unless new information is obtained. Twin Creek, a large tributary to the (Nadolski and Thompson 2004, pp. 3, 4, The remaining three subbasins with Bear River in the Upper Bear River 7; Chase 2010, pers. comm.) and verified current records are Goose subbasin, contains two populations of downstream (mainstem Bear River and Creek, Snake Headwaters, and Salt River lower Sulphur Creek) (Wyoming Game northern leatherside chub: Rock Creek (Table 1; McAbee 2011, p. 2). Within the and Fish Department (WGFD) 2008, pp. and Upper Twin Creek. Multiple Goose Creek subbasin, we know of three 1, 3; Belk and Wesner 2010, p. 5) of tributaries to Twin Creek comprise the reproducing populations at Trapper, these areas; however, we do not Upper Twin Creek population, Beaverdam, and Trout Creeks. All three consider these as populations because including Clear Creek and the North, populations have persisted over the past they do not meet the definition of a East, and South Forks of Twin Creek 10 to 15 years (Grunder et al. 1987, p. population outlined above (specifically (Belk and Wesner 2010, p. 5; Colyer and 80; Wilson and Belk 1996, p. 17; Keeley presence of multiple age classes and Dahle 2010, p. 5). These populations 2010, pp. 3–29). Trapper Creek is collection of a dense number of fish) can presumably interact but are likely isolated from the other two by Oakley due to their low densities and lack of isolated from all other populations Reservoir, but there are no barriers juvenile fish. because sampling has failed to detect between Trout and Beaverdam Creeks, In the Upper Bear River subbasin, the downstream emigrants (McKay and and the populations likely interact. Upper Mill/Deadman Creeks and Thompson 2010, p. 18). Collections of single northern

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63450 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

leatherside chub individuals in is just across the subregion boundary (B) Overutilization for commercial, mainstem Goose Creek (Keeley 2010, with the Dry Fork Smiths Fork recreational, scientific, or educational pp. 24–29) indicate individuals may be population, making it even more purposes; dispersing from these two populations. possible that the population is the result (C) Disease or predation; Recent collections of individuals in Pole of a human introduction. We also are (D) The inadequacy of existing Creek in the Goose Creek subbasin aware of individual fish in the nearby regulatory mechanisms; or suggest a population may occur in this West Fork of the Hams Fork in 2006 (E) Other natural or manmade factors tributary as well (Grunder 2010, p. 3). (Zafft et al. 2009, p. 3), which we affecting its continued existence. However, no juvenile fish were include as part of the Upper Hams Fork In making our 12-month finding on collected, and this is the first year population because they can interact. the petition we considered and northern leatherside were documented These two populations indicate that evaluated the best available scientific in this reach (Keeley 2010, pp. 6–11). northern leatherside chub are persisting and commercial information. Although these collections may in the Green River subregion. Whether Information pertaining to the northern constitute a colonization event, we do these populations are native, or are leatherside chub in relation to the five not consider Pole Creek a population in recent human introductions, has yet to factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the this finding because multiple age classes be resolved. Genetic analysis to answer Act is discussed below. were not present (demonstrating the this question is planned for completion Factor A. The Present or Threatened area has not shown successful in the near future, and will hopefully Destruction, Modification, or reproduction or recruitment). resolve this question. Until proof can be Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range The single population in the Snake presented that these populations are not The following potential threats that Headwaters subbasin is Pacific Creek, native, their conservation value to the which has persisted since its discovery may affect the habitat or range of species must be considered. northern leatherside chub are discussed in the 1950s (Grand Teton National Park It is worth noting that genetic analysis 2009, pp. 1–2; Zafft et al. 2009, pp. 2– in this section, including: (1) Livestock of southern leatherside chub collections grazing; (2) oil and gas development; (3) 5). In the Salt River subbasin, a single in the Fremont River (Green River population is found in Jackknife Creek mining; (4) water development; (5) subregion) demonstrated that they were water quality; and (6) fragmentation and and its tributaries (Isaak and Hubert not native, but rather a genetic match to 2001, pp. 26–27; Keeley 2010, pp. 45– isolation of existing populations. an East Fork Sevier River population 60). The Pacific Creek population is (Barrager and Johnson 2010, p. 7). These Livestock Grazing separated from the Jackknife Creek results show that a successful human population by large stream distances Livestock presence generally disturbs translocation of a surrogate species has and large reservoirs, making individual streamside and instream habitats, occurred, and is possible for the dispersal between the two populations particularly in the arid west where northern leatherside chub. unlikely. In addition, both the Pacific riparian and stream habitats are fragile Creek and Jackknife Creek populations In summary, 14 extant northern ecosystems (Kauffman and Krueger are isolated from the Goose Creek leatherside chub populations persist 1984, p. 431; Helfman 2007, p. 102). subbasin by upwards of 350 stream- across 3 subregions: 7 populations in Livestock grazing is especially kilometers (km) and many large the Bear River subregion; 5 populations detrimental to riparian habitats because reservoirs. in the Snake River subregion; and 2 livestock spend disproportionately more populations in the Green River time near water (Helfman 2007, p. 102). Green River Subregion subregion (Figure 1, Table 1). Land They typically eat and trample riparian There are two northern leatherside ownership is comprised of privately vegetation and compact soil, which chub populations in the Green River owned land (31.5 percent in the States leads to impacts that include increased subregion, one each in the Upper Green of Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming), sediment inputs from runoff, nutrient River/Slate Creek and Blacks Fork as well as lands managed by BLM (30 loading from livestock waste, higher subbasins (Table 3). However, based on percent), NPS (3.5 percent), USFS (30.5 stream temperatures from lack of the lack of historical collections in the percent), and the States of Wyoming (4.3 vegetation shading, and reduction in Green River subregion, the lack of a percent) and Idaho (0.04 percent) invertebrate abundance (Kauffman and documented natural connection (Service 2011, pp. 11–17). We will Krueger 1984, p. 432; Wohl and Carline between the Green River subregion and investigate threats to these extant 1996, p. 264; Stoddard et al. 2005, p. 8). the Bear or Snake River subregions, and populations in the remainder of this These impacts combine to degrade the prevalence of human translocations finding. habitats for many fish species, of fish, we determine that it is unlikely Summary of Information Pertaining to especially species requiring cool, clear that this is the species’ native range. The the Five Factors water and gravel substrate, such as first population was identified in 1988 salmonids (Helfman 2007, p. 34). in North Fork Slate Creek (WGFD 1988 Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) However, some species, such as the in Zafft et al. 2009, p. 2), and and implementing regulations (50 CFR northern leatherside chub, can tolerate represented the first population outside part 424) set forth procedures for adding certain habitat changes and persist the Bear or Snake River subregions. This species to, removing species from, or despite disturbed conditions. Increased population is approximately 30 km (18 reclassifying species on the Federal sediment may alter a fish community mi) east of the Bear and Snake River Lists of Endangered and Threatened and allow for domination by species subregions, making it close enough to be Wildlife and Plants. Under section that thrive or contend well with sandy the result of a human introduction. The 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be substrates (Sutherland et al. 2002, pp. Upper Hams Fork population was later determined to be endangered or 1801–1802) (see Water Quality section identified (Wheeler 1997 in Zafft et al. threatened based on any of the for specific discussion of sedimentation 2009, p. 3), and is located following five factors: and northern leatherside chub). approximately 35 km (22 mi) northeast (A) The present or threatened Similarly, increased water temperature of the North Fork Slate Creek destruction, modification, or also may alter the distribution of population. In addition, this population curtailment of its habitat or range; species, forcing out cold-water species,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63451

and allowing for warm-water species to (Service 2011, pp. 18–24). Because of species itself may be at risk, nor is it enter a habitat (Field et al. 2007, p. 631). the prevalence of grazing across the likely to become so. Northern leatherside chub apparently western United States, the species will Oil and Gas Development can tolerate certain disturbances, largely likely encounter livestock grazing because they can survive extreme effects. However, we expect effects from Oil and gas exploration and environmental conditions to which they livestock grazing will decrease over time development can impact fish habitats, are evolutionarily adapted (Belk and on Federally managed lands as primarily through degraded watershed Johnson 2007, p. 70), such as high water management agencies address livestock health. Increased land disturbance from temperatures (Isaak and Hubert 2001, p. grazing practices. For example, the U.S. roads and pads reduce water quality 27; Wilson and Belk 2001, p. 39), with Forest Service (USFS) recently because of increased sediment loads a critical thermal maximum of implemented changes in the grazing (WGFD 2004, p. 25; Matherne 2006, p. ° ° approximately 30 C (86 F) (Billman et management on the Goose Creek grazing 1). Road culverts also can fragment fish al. 2008b, p. 463) and persist in large allotment that occurs in the upstream habitats if they are designed in a way numbers in areas deemed degraded portions of Beaverdam and Trout Creeks that impedes fish migration (Aedo et al. (Muddy Creek and Upper Twin Creek). (Northern Leatherside Chub 2009, p. 2). Drilling operations often However, we do not have specific data Conservation Team 2011, p. 3). On a require water depletions from local indicating their tolerances to all water broader scale, Bureau of Land water sources and can result in quality conditions. While habitats Management (BLM) guidelines in Idaho accidental spills of contaminants into impacted by grazing may not be (BLM 1997, p. 4, Standard #2), fish habitat (Stalfort 1998, p. ES–2; preferred, populations of northern Wyoming (BLM 2007c, p. 1, Standard Etkin 2009, pp. 35–42). Accumulations leatherside chub persist in locations #2), Utah (BLM 2009, p. 1, Standard of contaminants, such as hydrocarbons deemed degraded and impaired. #1b), and Nevada (BLM 2007b, p. 1, and produced water (water locked away For example, in the Bear River Standard #2) require all streams to have in formation with oil and gas that is subregion, the Upper Twin Creek riparian health consistent with natural, typically not suitable for human or population persists even though functional habitats, indicating that wildlife use), can result in lethal or overgrazing has reduced the riparian grazing impacts will be improving on sublethal impacts across the entire vegetation cover (Colyer and Dahle BLM lands. Upstream land ownership aquatic food chain, including sensitive 2010, pp. 16, 19) to the point that the for all but three occupied sub- fish species (Stalfort 1998, Section 4). streams are classified as degraded (BLM watersheds (11 of 14) is over 50 percent Water depletions can reduce or 2011, entire). In the same subregion, federally owned, demonstrating the eliminate aquatic habitat, creating Muddy Creek is another example of a importance of Federal land management multiple negative effects (see Water dense northern leatherside chub for northern leatherside chub (see Development, below). population that persists (Colyer and detailed discussion of land ownership Dahle 2007, Table 6) despite altered To analyze the potential impacts from under Factor D below). conditions from overgrazing that result oil and gas development, we in a very wide, shallow channel and In summary, there is no apparent investigated past and present levels of degraded riparian habitats (BLM 1999, indication that grazed areas are development and the potential for p. 7; BLM 2007a, pp. 1–2; Prichard negatively impacting existing future development in occupied 1998, p. 8; BLM 2005, p. 5). In the Snake populations of northern leatherside, populations. We summarized the River subregion, populations persist in although grazing has likely affected analysis in an internal white paper Beaverdam and Trapper Creeks water quality (discussed later). (Hotze 2011, pp. 1–8) and reference the although the water quality in both Populations of northern leatherside results throughout this finding. Data streams is impaired, most likely as the chub occur in a wide variety of habitat sources for the investigation included result of overgrazing (Lay 2003, pp. 69– conditions, from unaltered locations to Bureau of Land Management Resource 70, 125). However, it is worth noting those with heavily altered riparian Management Plans (BLM 1985, entire; that impacts from grazing affect conditions impacted by livestock BLM 2010, entire); State databases of oil Beaverdam and Trapper Creeks in grazing practices. In fact, some of the and gas development (Hess et al. 2008, qualitatively different ways (high densest populations occur in areas that entire; Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and suspended sediment) than Muddy and are heavily grazed. Also, there is Mining 2009, entire; Wyoming Oil and Upper Twin Creeks (reduced riparian evidence to indicate that livestock Gas Conservation Commission 2009, cover). grazing impacts will be declining in the entire; State of Idaho 2011, entire); and Data indicate that some level of future, as more sustainable rangeland energy development maps (Garside and livestock grazing occurs across the management practices are applied. We Hess 2007, map; Energy Information entire range of the northern leatherside found no information that grazing may Administration (EIA) 2009a, map; EIA chub and near all existing populations act on this species to the point that the 2009b, map; EIA 2011, entire).

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT IN EXTANT NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB POPULATIONS

National hydrography dataset locations Overlap with Active oil & gas known coalbed Population name State wells (inactive) methane re­ Subregion Subbasin serves (%)

Bear River ...... Upper Bear ...... Upper Mill/Deadman Creeks ... UT/ 0 (6) 4 WY Upper Sulphur/La Chapelle WY 2 (1) 47 Creeks. Yellow Creek ...... UT/ 28 (63) 25 WY Upper Twin Creek ...... WY 0 (0) 9

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63452 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT IN EXTANT NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB POPULATIONS— Continued

National hydrography dataset locations Overlap with Active oil & gas known coalbed Population name State wells (inactive) methane re- Subregion Subbasin serves (%)

Rock Creek ...... WY 0 (1) 131 Central Bear ...... Dry Fork Smiths Fork ...... WY 0 (0) 0.1 Muddy Creek ...... WY 0 (0) 0 Snake River ...... Snake Headwaters ...... Pacific Creek ...... WY 0 (0) 0 Salt River ...... Jackknife Creek ...... ID 0 (0) 16.6 Goose Creek ...... Trapper Creek ...... ID 0 (0) 0 Beaverdam Creek ...... ID 0 (0) 0 Trout Creek ...... NV/ID 0 (0) 0 Green River ...... Upper Green River/Slate Creek North Fork Slate Creek ...... WY 0 (5) 32 Blacks Fork ...... Upper Hams Fork ...... WY 0 (0) 0

We found that throughout the range of occur in the future (Hotze 2011, p. 2). found in the Jackknife Creek population northern leatherside chub, neither Similarly, there is very little overlap (Hotze 2011, p. 2). Finally, the Pacific active development nor potential for between these two populations and Creek population may overlap with the future development of oil and gas are known coalbed reserves (less than 1 Jackson Hole coalbed methane field, but common, with both being limited to one percent of the Dry Fork Smiths Fork management by Grand Teton National localized area, the Yellow Creek population) (Hotze 2011, p. 7), making Park makes it unlikely that development population in the Bear River subregion it unlikely that coalbed methane of these resources will take place (Hotze (Table 4) (Hotze 2011, pp. 1–8). A development will take place in these 2011, p. 2). quarter of the Yellow Creek population populations. In the portions of the Green River overlaps with proven Federal oil and In the remainder of the Bear River subregion occupied by northern gas reserves, mostly in the western and subregion, past and current resource leatherside chub, there is little active or northern portions of the subwatershed development is rare, but resource historical development of any kind and (EIA 2009a, map; Hotze 2011, p. 5). potential exists. The Upper Sulphur/La minor potential for future development Current and past well activity follow Chapelle Creeks population has only exists, chiefly from coalbed methane this overlap, with 63 inactive and 28 one inactive and two active wells, but reserves. The Upper Hams Fork is active wells in the population’s half of the population area overlaps outside of any known coalbed reserves, subwatershed, mainly near the occupied with coalbed methane reserves (Hotze the population is north of the Wyoming areas of Thief Creek and lower Yellow 2011, pp. 2, 7). However, the area has Thrust Belt and west of the Wyoming Creek in Wyoming (Hotze 2011, p. 2). a low potential for resource extraction Overthrust coalbed reserves (Hotze No development activity has occurred demonstrated by the low presence of 2011, pp. 2, 7). As a result, it has no in the upstream portions of Yellow current or past wells and the distance to active or inactive wells within its Creek, which contain high densities of the closest producing well. The Upper boundary, and we consider future northern leatherside chub, and no Mill/Deadman Creeks population has development potential in this proven Federal oil and gas reserves only six inactive wells, all in the Utah population negligible (Hotze 2011, p. 2). occur there. A quarter of the Yellow portion of the population’s The North Fork Slate Creek population Creek population overlaps with coalbed subwatershed (Hotze 2011, p. 2). Less has only five inactive wells within its methane reserves, in the eastern-central than 5 percent of the Upper Mill/ boundary, but overlaps with the portion in Wyoming, suggesting the Deadman Creeks population overlaps Wyoming Overthrust coalbed reserves potential for development (Hotze 2011, with coalbed methane reserves, all in in the upstream third of the population p. 7). the most downstream reaches that do (Hotze 2011, pp. 2, 7). It is possible that The populations in the northern not contain northern leatherside chub development could occur in this portions of the Bear River subregion (Hotze 2011, p. 7). population, but we have no data to have seen little past or current The Snake River subregion indicate that development is planned or development and have a low probability populations occur in areas that do not imminent. Also, without environmental of future development. The Twin Fork have active development and are planning for this development, we drainage has only one inactive well characterized as low potential for future cannot say what impacts the across the Rock and Upper Twin Creek development (Hotze 2011, pp. 1–2). development would have on northern populations (Hotze 2011, p. 2). A small Currently, all populations in the Goose leatherside chub. portion (less than 1 percent) of the Rock Creek subbasin (Trout, Trapper, and To summarize, past, present, and Creek population overlaps with the Beaverdam Creeks) are in areas open for future oil and gas development is likely Collett Creek field, which contains oil and gas leasing, but there are no to impact one population of northern proven Federal oil and gas reserves producing wells in either the Idaho or leatherside chub, Yellow Creek in the (Hotze 2011, pp. 4–5). The Smiths Fork Nevada portions (Hotze 2011, p. 2). Bear River subregion, and only in the drainage is north of the Wyoming Further east, there is potential for downstream half. Only two populations Thrust Belt (an optimal geologic development of the Idaho-Wyoming overlay with proven Federal oil and gas formation for retrieving oil and gas Thrust Belt in the Jackknife Creek reserves, Yellow and Rock Creeks (Table resources), so development of oil population, but the probability of 4). The Rock Creek overlap is reserves has not historically occurred in discovering and developing oil in this insignificant, accounting for less than the Muddy Creek and Dry Fork Smiths area is considered low by BLM (BLM 1 percent of the population’s Fork populations, and is not likely to 2010, p. Q–1). No wells are currently subwatershed. However, the Yellow

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63453

Creek overlap is sizable, at (Helfman 2007, p. 159). Low pH in Twin Creek population. In the Dry Fork approximately a quarter of the aquatic systems also can negatively Smiths Fork population, there are eight population’s subwatershed. affect aquatic plants and quarter sections with one to five mining Correspondingly, only Yellow Creek has macroinvertebrates and thereby reduce claims; however, these are located measurable levels of current energy food sources and habitat for fish primarily downstream of northern development at a moderate scale. (Helfman 2007, pp. 160–161; Trout leatherside chub occupied habitat, are Because the impacts to Yellow Creek are Unlimited 2011, p. 1). Heavy metal not developed, and thus should not downstream of a large portion of the contamination of aquatic habitats also have an effect on occupied habitat occupied area within the population can result from mine water that is (Service 2011, p. 30). boundary, we find oil and gas discharged from mines or that infiltrates In the Snake River subregion, there development does not threaten the and then runs out of waste rock or are no abandoned mines, active mines, persistence of the Yellow Creek tailings piles. Heavy metals such as or mining claims within northern population. Although some resource lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, mercury, leatherside chub habitats in the Trout or potential is found throughout the range aluminum, iron, manganese, and Jackknife Creek populations (Service of the species, future development is selenium can be toxic to fishes at low 2011, pp. 25, 26). The Trapper Creek unlikely to occur or impact all but one concentrations and can ultimately and Beaverdam Creek populations have population (Yellow Creek). Oil and gas interfere with embryonic development, several abandoned mines of lignite and development impacts only a small digestion, respiration, general growth, uranium prospects/deposits that are portion of the species’ total range, and and survival (Helfman 2007, pp. 160, adjacent to northern leatherside chub the impacted population will likely 161; Trout Unlimited 2011, p. 1). occupied habitat (about four to five sites persist in upstream reaches. We found We assessed mining activity within in each drainage) (Service 2011, p. 25). no information that oil and gas the range of northern leatherside chub Because prospects and identified development may act on this species to by reviewing mining location data as deposits usually involve a small the point that the species itself may be reported by State agencies and in disturbance such as a shallow hole or a at risk, nor is it likely to become so. GeoCommunicator, the publication Web short adit (an entrance to an site for the National Integrated Land underground mine which is horizontal Mining System as operated by a joint venture or nearly horizontal), we determine Hardrock mining for such materials as between the BLM and USFS (http:// these features are having negligible gold, copper, iron ore, uranium, and www.Geocommunicator.gov/GeoComm, impact on northern leatherside chub others is the most common mining Mining Claims). This information shows occupied habitat. In the Pacific Creek activity in the western United States that uranium, coal, and non-coal (all population where northern leatherside (Trout Unlimited 2011, p. 1). other mine types) were prospected for in chub are found, there are 11 quarter Underground and surface mining much of the northern leatherside chub sections with 1 to 5 mining claims each activities have the potential to range (Service 2011, pp. 25–32). (Service 2011, p. 27). These mining negatively affect fish species by However, the majority of these mines or claims occur upstream of northern releasing solid wastes and contaminated prospects are historical and are no leatherside chub occupied habitat; these mine water (Helfman 2007, pp. 160– longer in operation (Service 2011, pp. claims are not developed, and we have 161; Trout Unlimited 2011, p. 1). 25–32). no information to suggest that these will Solid waste from mining includes In the Bear River subregion, there are be developed. At this time we have no overburden, which is the topsoil and no abandoned mines, active mines, or information to suggest that any of these surface rock that is above a mineral mining claims in the Upper Mill/ abandoned mines or mining claims are deposit; waste rock, which is the low Deadman Creeks, Upper Sulphur/La having a significant effect on adjacent grade ore that surrounds a mineral Chapelle Creeks, Yellow Creek, or northern leatherside chub at an deposit; and tailings, which are the fine- Muddy Creek populations (Service individual or population level. grained materials that are left over from 2011, pp. 28, 30). In the Rock Creek In the Green River subregion, neither the processing of raw ore (Trout drainage, there are 11 quarter sections the Slate Creek nor the Upper Hams Unlimited 2011, p. 1). Abandoned and with 1 to 5 mining claims each; Fork populations have abandoned currently operating mine sites can however, these are located downstream mines, active mines, or mining claims impact downstream fish species from of northern leatherside chub occupied (Service 2011, pp. 31–32). Thus, there the sedimentation that results from habitat and are not being actively are no effects from mining on northern erosion of waste rock (Helfman 2007, developed (Service 2011, p. 29). The leatherside chub populations in these pp. 112, 113) (see Water Quality section Upper Twin Creek population has one areas. for specific discussion of sedmentation abandoned mine about 2 miles (mi) In summary, recent examination of and northern leatherside chub). upstream of occupied habitat on North mining activity in northern leatherside Contaminated mine water is the Fork Twin Creek, and approximately chub habitat has determined that ground or surface water that four abandoned mines upstream of mining-related impacts are limited. accumulates and is discharged from a occupied habitat on East Fork Twin Mining was historically prevalent in mine or its associated waste rock piles Creek (Service 2011, p. 29). Also, a occupied portions of the Bear and Snake (Trout Unlimited 2011, p. 1). This water small portion of the headwaters of the subregions, but largely absent in can cause deleterious effects to fishes Upper Twin Creek population is under occupied portions of the Green River via acidification and heavy metal an active coal lease; however, the active subregion. Some mines do still operate contamination (Helfman 2007, pp. 160– mining associated with this lease is in northern leatherside chub 161, 168–169). Stream acidification found on the other side of the watershed populations. However, we have no results from drainage of waters from boundary, meaning impacts will not information at this time to suggest that mines or their waste rock by-products. affect northern leatherside chub (WSGS mining activities are having an effect on This water is highly toxic because the 2009, map). We have no information to water resources or habitat of northern associated low pH harms fish indicate that any of these abandoned leatherside chub. We found no respiratory function and can impact mines are having an effect on adjacent information that mining activities may reproduction rates and rearing outcomes northern leatherside chub in the Upper act on this species to the point that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63454 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

species itself may be at risk, nor is it complete loss of habitat in some areas. Dry Fork Smiths Fork (BLM 2002, p. B– likely to become so. In the following analysis, we consider 7); Muddy Creek (Henderson 2011, pers. the impact of complete dewatering and comm.); Pacific Creek (Clark et al. 2004, Water Development entrainment on each northern pp. 26–29; O’Ney 2011, pers. comm.); Water development in western North leatherside chub population. We do not Jackknife Creek (Lyman 2011, pers. America has the potential to impact consider impacts of reduced water comm.); Trapper Creek (Bisson 2011, native fish species by degrading aquatic volume for each population because pers. comm.); Trout Creek (Lay 2003, p. habitats and altering natural ecological leatherside chub have a broad tolerance 8); and Upper Hams Fork (Yarbrough mechanisms (Minckley and Douglas of extreme environmental conditions 2011, pers. comm.). As a result, we 1991, p. 15; Naiman et al. 2002, p. 455). (Belk and Johnson 2007, p. 70) and have determine that these populations are not Water development can affect aquatic persisted in a number of locations threatened by current water species through desiccation (drying that where low water levels occurred. development. results in loss of habitat), reduction in Leatherside chub are adapted to However, six northern leatherside available habitat from reduced flows, periodic low water conditions and can populations did experience complete reduced population connectivity, and survive in remnant pools for several dewatering events in areas adjacent to or decreases in water quality (e.g., higher weeks after the water flow is completely within their known habitat and we water temperatures in summer months eliminated (Belk and Johnson 2007, p. further analyzed effects to these because of lower water volume or 70). Therefore, complete dewatering populations (Table 5). All dewatering increased concentration of pollutants). represents the highest risk for mortality events are seasonal in nature and occur In addition, water diversion structures of individuals and represents the in mid to late summer (Nadolski and often entrain (pull in and trap) fish into primary barrier for movement. Thompson 2004, p. 4; Thompson et al. canal systems along with irrigation Similarly, entrainment creates the risk 2008, p. 20; McKay et al. 2009, pp. 20– water, placing fish in lethal habitats of direct mortality, as entrained fish, 21), when dry weather and irrigation because water supplies are typically especially northern leatherside chub, pressures are highest. We will address shut off at the end of the irrigation are not expected to survive in irrigation dewatering conditions and the season (Roberts and Rahel 2008, p. 951). canals. population response for five population The development of water resources areas (two populations, Rock and Upper Dewatering of Streams in the Bear, Snake, and Green River Twin Creek, are experiencing the same subregions has led to the conversion of We determined occurrences and nearby dewatering, so will be some northern leatherside chub stream temporal extent of recent dewatering considered together): (1) Upper habitats into seasonally dewatered events in occupied populations through Sulphur/La Chapelle Creeks; (2) Yellow channels (complete absence of flowing agency reports and expert accounts. In Creek; (3) Rock and Upper Twin Creeks, water) (Nadolski and Thompson 2004, recent, recorded history, no known all in the Bear River subregion; (4) p. 4; Thompson et al. 2008, p. 20; dewatering events occurred near 8 of the Beaverdam Creek in the Snake River McKay et al. 2009, p. iv; Yarbrough 14 populations: Upper Mill/Deadman subregion; and (5) North Fork Slate 2011, pers. comm.), representing a Creeks (Thompson 2011, pers. comm.); Creek in the Green River subregion.

TABLE 5—NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB POPULATIONS THAT HAVE ENCOUNTERED PAST DEWATERING EVENTS AND THE NATURE OF THESE EVENTS

National hydrography dataset locations Population Nature of dewatering event Subregion Subbasin

Bear River ...... Upper Bear ...... Upper Sulphur/La Chapelle Dewatering upstream in headwaters & downstream Creeks. near reservoir; No threat to population. Yellow Creek ...... In downstream portion; Reproduction still occurs lo­ cally & upstream portions unaffected; No threat to population. Upper Twin Creek ...... Downstream of both populations; Does not prevent Rock Creek movement between populations; No threat to popu­ lations. Snake River ...... Goose Creek ...... Beaverdam Creek ...... In downstream portion; Population sustains in peren­ nial portion but becomes isolated; No threat to pop­ ulation. Green River ...... Slate Creek ...... North Fork Slate Creek ..... Downstream portions are intermittent but local areas perennial; No threat to population.

Irrigation demands periodically (Webber 2008, p. 21). However, neither dewatering is not a threat to this dewater portions of Upper Sulphur of the dewatered areas are the primary population. Creek directly upstream of Sulphur occupied portion of the population, as The lower reaches of Yellow Creek Reservoir (Amadio 2011, pers. comm.), northern leatherside chub occupy (Bear River subregion) have low flows possibly preventing the migration of portions of Sulphur and La Chapelle (Thompson et al. 2008, p. 21) or are northern leatherside chub between the Creek in Wyoming upstream of Sulphur completely dewatered (Nadolski and two occupied areas of the Upper Creek Reservoir, and also downstream Thompson 2004, p. 4) in the summer Sulphur/La Chapelle Creeks population of the Utah border. Because dewatering months. However, successful in the Bear River subregion. events do not impact habitats occupied reproduction was evident in nearby Additionally, headwater portions of this by the population, we conclude upstream portions of Yellow Creek in area were dewatered in Utah in 2007 2002, 2005, and 2008 (Thompson et al.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63455

2008, p. 11). Upper portions of Yellow population is reproducing and self- throughout all of its range by water Creek (from Utah-Wyoming border to sustaining, we conclude that seasonal development, nor is it likely to become the headwaters) retain water throughout dewatering is not currently a threat to so. the year and are occupied by a healthy the population. In summary, while northern northern leatherside chub community Portions of Slate Creek in the Green leatherside chub are adapted to endure (Thompson et al. 2008, p. 21). The River subregion and its tributaries are short-term low water conditions, upper portions of Yellow Creek likely intermittent (Yarbrough 2011, pers. complete dewatering events can result act as a source population to lower comm.). The South and Middle Forks of in the temporary, seasonal loss of Yellow Creek reaches in years of Slate Creek were completely dewatered northern leatherside chub habitat. extreme low water, and for this reason in July 2003 (WGFD 2009, p. 4). We However, in all of the dewatering events dewatering is not a threat to this have little information regarding the described above, individual fish are population. demography of this population, except either not locally impacted by Lower portions of mainstem Twin that several age classes were found in dewatering or are able to move to nearby Creek in the Bear River subregion are mainstem Slate Creek and North Fork of perennial reaches during the dewatered completely dewatered by an irrigation Slate Creek during 2003 (WGFD 2009, p. period. Additionally, future water diversion 6.75 km (4.2 mi) upstream of 5). This suggests reproduction and development is closed in Utah and the Utah-Wyoming border during most juvenile recruitment is not impacted by Idaho, unlikely in Nevada, and small- of the irrigation season (Thompson et al. dewatering in adjacent streams. There is scale in Wyoming. We found no 2008, p. 20). However, northern no record of dewatering in the North information that dewatering may act on leatherside chub are present in several Fork or mainstem of Slate Creek where this species to the point that the species locations upstream of this diversion, northern leatherside chub are found. itself may be at risk, nor is it likely to including two extant populations—the Because dewatering occurs downstream become so. Rock and Upper Twin Creek of occupied habitat and reproduction is Entrainment populations (Belk and Wesner 2010, p. occurring, we do not consider 5; Colyer and Dahle 2010, p. 5). dewatering a threat to this population. Fish encountering unscreened Northern leatherside chub move While the preceding analysis irrigation intake structures are often through the lower mainstem Twin Creek considered past and current water injured or killed, primarily through (downstream of the diversion) to the development, future water development entrainment, the process by which mainstem Bear River during portions of across the range of northern leatherside aquatic organisms are diverted into the year when there is water (Thompson chub may alter the level of impacts. irrigation structures (Zydlewski and et al. 2008, p. 20), demonstrating the Northern leatherside chub-occupied Johnson 2002, p. 1276; Gale et al. 2008, connectivity of these rivers. Because of subwatersheds in Utah and Idaho are p. 1541). Entrainment into irrigation the connection between upstream and closed to new water appropriations for canals is considered a major source of downstream communities within this any significant consumptive use such as mortality for fish populations in the population, and because the upstream large-scale irrigation (Dean 2011, pers. western United States because communities of Rock and Clear Creeks comm.; Jordan 2011, pers. comm.). In individual fish entering canal systems are perennial streams (Wyoming contrast, subwatersheds occupied by typically cannot escape back into stream Department of Environmental Quality northern leatherside chub in Nevada habitat (Carlson and Rahel 2007, p. 2010, p. 15), dewatering is not a threat and Wyoming are still open to new 1335; Roberts and Rahel 2008, p. 951). to these populations. water appropriations (Randall 2011, Near 100 percent mortality is expected Beaverdam Creek in the Snake River pers. comm.; Jacobs and Brosz 2000, p. once an individual enters an irrigation subregion begins at the confluence of 7). However, we expect minimal future canal structure because of the numerous Left Hand Fork Beaverdam Creek and water development near the only unnatural conditions in the canals. Right Hand Fork Beaverdam Creek, with population in Nevada (Trout Creek) Individuals entrained into canals are flow being supported by approximately because of the low human population exposed to higher water temperatures seven intermittent or ephemeral streams density in the area and because we are and non-natural substrate (often (Lay 2003, p. 99). Lower portions of not aware of any new water-intensive concrete), while also becoming easier Beaverdam Creek are commonly land use planned for the area (Randall prey for predatory birds and mammals. dewatered, leading the Idaho 2011, pers. comm.). Although irrigated Those fish that survive for long periods Department of Environmental Quality agriculture production is the largest ultimately encounter the end of the (IDEQ) to identify the lower two-thirds water use in Wyoming’s three northern irrigation season, when water is often of Beaverdam Creek as intermittent (Lay leatherside chub occupied subbasins shut off from the canals (Roberts and 2003, p. 99). These sections include (Schroeder and Hinckley 2007, p. 5–2), Rahel 2008, p. 954), trapping individual portions near the Emery Ranch and the agricultural water use is expected to fish in dewatered, lethal conditions. lowest 3 to 5 km (1.9 to 3.1 mi) of increase at most 9.2, 5.6, and 5.2 percent Screening intake structures is the most stream from Emery Ranch to Goose for the Green, Bear, and Snake common method to minimize Creek (Lay 2003, p. 99). However, Upper subregions in Wyoming, respectively, entrainment of fish (Zydlewski and Beaverdam Creek maintains high between 2007 and 2037 (Schroeder and Johnson 2002, p. 1276; Moyle and Israel enough year-round flow to sustain a Hinckley 2007, pp. 6–2—6–4). We 2005, p. 20; Gale et al. 2008, p. 1541). cutthroat trout population (Lay 2003, p. consider these small increases and However, screening facilities must be 99). Northern leatherside chub conclude that this full development designed to meet individual criteria at populations also are located in the would not be a threat to northern each location, taking into account the perennial waters of upper Beaverdam leatherside chub in Wyoming. Because sizes and swimming abilities of the fish Creek. The effect of ephemeral predictions for future water species that will encounter the dewatering in lower Beaverdam Creek development for occupied subbasins structure. on northern leatherside chub is to indicate water development is either Because they are small minnows with seasonally isolate this population from prohibited or minimal, the available weak swimming abilities, all northern other Goose Creek populations in all but information indicates that the northern leatherside chub entrained into canals the wettest conditions. Because this leatherside chub is not threatened are expected to die (Roberts and Rahel

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63456 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

2008, p. 957). For example, irrigation may reduce the ability of northern quality-limited waters) and a 305(b) facilities in the Smiths Fork River leatherside chub to migrate between report (status of the State’s waters) every entrained an estimated 195 northern populations, but without an irrigation 2 years, making our analysis up-to-date. leatherside chub downstream of two structure diverting the entire stream, Of the 14 northern leatherside populations, Dry Fork Smiths Fork and some individuals should be able to populations, 2 populations that occur in Muddy Creek (Roberts and Rahel 2008, bypass structures. We found no the Goose Creek subbasin (Trapper and p. 957). Similarly, a large irrigation information that entrainment may act on Beaverdam Creeks) are found in streams structure in lower mainstem Twin Creek this species to the point that the species listed in Idaho’s most recent 2008 entrained native fish species, including itself may be at risk, nor is it likely to integrated 303(d)/305(b) report. Trapper northern leatherside chub, downstream become so. Creek’s water quality is listed as of two populations, Upper Twin and impaired from nutrients (defined by Summary of Water Development Rock Creeks (Colyer and Dahle 2010, p. Idaho as including phosphorus, 5). These data show that where northern We determined that current levels of nitrogen, and organic compounds), leatherside encounter irrigation water development—entrainment and specifically total phosphorous, structures, they are entrained. dewatering—impact only a small sediment, and dissolved oxygen (IDEQ Across the range of northern portion of the extant populations of 2010, p. vii). Beaverdam Creek is leatherside chub, irrigation is a common northern leatherside chub, and impaired by nutrients (total practice. However, besides the large primarily occur downstream of the phosphorous), bacteria, temperature, network of irrigation intakes in the inhabited population areas. Because sediment, and dissolved oxygen (Lay Smiths Fork (Carlson and Rahel 2007, p. these factors are not occurring near the 2003, p. xxii). Impaired water-quality 1336) and Twin Creek drainages (Colyer existing core areas, they are largely conditions in both creeks may be the and Dahle 2010, p. 6), we know of no impacting migrating individuals and result of livestock grazing effects (Lay other documented instances of reducing population connectivity, not 2003, pp. 69–70, 125). entrainment. In addition, many of the imperiling overall population These impairments can have varying diversions that could entrain northern persistence. Future water development impacts to fish and stream habitats, leatherside chub in the Twin Creek is closed in Utah and Idaho, unlikely in although we have no information on drainage were updated with screened, Nevada, and small-scale in Wyoming. how these impacted water-quality fish-friendly structures by Trout We found no information that water parameters potentially affect northern Unlimited over the past few years development may act on this species to leatherside chub. Phosphorus is (Colyer and Dahle 2010, p. 6), thereby the point that the species itself may be typically in limited supply in aquatic greatly reducing their threat to northern at risk, nor is it likely to become so. systems and, therefore, excess leatherside chub. Water Quality phosphorus is considered a nutrient Based on the data from the Smiths pollutant. Excess phosphorus can cause Fork and Twin Creek drainages, we Water pollution and habitat eutrophication, which often results in conclude entrainment into canals is degradation impair the ability of aquatic harmful algal blooms. These algal likely preferentially targeting migrating systems to support life for at least 34 blooms, in turn, lead to depleted oxygen individuals because entrainment is percent of the river and stream habitats conditions as they decay (Helfman 2007, occurring primarily downstream of in the United States (Environmental p. 176). The State of Idaho adopted populations. This makes entrainment Protection Agency (EPA) 2002, p. 12). guidelines from EPA that monthly more of an agent of fragmentation than Examples of pollutants of concern for averages of total phosphorus should not a threat to extant populations. We aquatic systems include heavy metals, exceed 0.05 milligram per liter (mg/L) in expect that when irrigation diversions biocides, endocrine disrupters, acid streams that enter a lake or reservoir and are not taking the entire water supply rain, sediments, dissolved solids, and 0.1 mg/L in any stream or other flowing from the stream, an unknown portion of excess nutrients (Stoddard et al. 2005, water to avoid eutrophication (IDEQ individuals can bypass the structure, p. 8; Helfman 2007, p. 158). The effects 2010, p.1). likely providing enough population of pollution on fish can include Trapper Creek, a stream that enters interaction (as shown in other species: immediate death or long-term Oakley Reservoir, is currently listed on Hanson 2001, p. 331; Gale et al. 2008, disabilities, such as increased incidence Idaho’s 303(d) list for phosphorous and p. 1546). For example, because the of disease, abnormalities, and altered sediment (Lay 2003, p. 45). Although documented entrainment in the Smiths behavioral or metabolic responses total phosphorus levels exceeded Fork drainage is downstream of both (Helfman 2007, p. 160). guidelines in Trapper Creek in almost populations, individuals from the Dry Waters that do not meet water-quality all sampling events, there was little Fork Smiths Fork population could standards due to point and non-point evidence of eutrophication (nuisance reach the Muddy Creek population sources of pollution are listed on the algae growth) (Lay 2003, p. 68). without encountering the entraining EPA’s 303(d) list of impaired water Beaverdam Creek exceeded the 0.1 mg/ structure. bodies. Therefore, we used the EPA L total phosphorus limit in 16 out of 41 In summary, while the potential 303(d) list of impaired waters (see sampling events (39 percent) in 2001 impact of entrainment occurs across the discussion under Factor D) to assist in (Lay 2003, p. 45). Although no species’ range (anywhere an unscreened determining if pollution or degraded eutrophication has been seen, these diversion exists), it has been water quality is a threat to northern results suggest that eutrophic conditions documented downstream of only four leatherside chub (EPA 2010, pp. 1–2). could affect aquatic habitats in the populations, all in the Bear River Because the EPA’s water quality future. subregion. While the loss of emigrating standards are thought to be protective of Fish need adequate dissolved oxygen individuals is important to adequate aquatic life, we determined that a in the water to breath. At extremely low species metapopulation dynamics, stream not listed as impaired on the oxygen levels, fish suffocation is entrainment likely affects only a small EPA 303(d) list did not have a high possible; however, it is very uncommon, fraction of migrating individuals and enough magnitude of pollution impacts as fish have evolved a number of does not impact resident individuals in to warrant further analysis. States must mechanisms to escape this fate (Kramer the core population areas. Entrainment submit to the EPA a 303(d) list (water- 1987, p. 81). More common nonlethal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63457

effects of reduced dissolved oxygen is impacted by other ecological factors tolerance range for northern leatherside include reduced growth rates and as well as sediment pollution; the other chub. greater susceptibility to bird predators populations analyzed were southern Water-quality issues have been (fish approach water surface for higher leatherside chub) (Wilson and Belk documented in Beaverdam and Trapper oxygen water and are more easily 2001, p. 38). Because many of the Creeks within the Goose Creek subbasin, identified by birds) (Kramer 1987, p. populations of northern leatherside although aquatic communities in each 82). Idaho established a dissolved chub persist in degraded areas and no of these creeks still persist. For example, oxygen minimum concentration of 6 data exist to clearly link sediment with macroinvertebrate communities in mg/L (Lay 2003, p. 48). This limit negative impacts, we conclude that Trapper Creek and the upper portions of considers salmonid spawning sediment alone is not a threat to Beaverdam Creek were considered requirements (Lay 2003, p. 48) and is northern leatherside chub. However, healthy, and the fish community likely adequate for northern leatherside sediment may act in conjunction with included species believed to tolerate chub. Dissolved oxygen levels are not other impacts to threaten populations. moderately impaired water quality (Lay specifically considered to be impaired Limits of 25 mg/L TSS will provide a 2003, pp. 99–100). However, the for Trapper Creek (IDEQ 2010, p. vii) high level of protection for aquatic macroinvertebrate community in lower and are likely sufficient to fully support organisms and 400 mg/L TSS will Beaverdam Creek was indicative of poor aquatic life, including the northern provide low protection (Lay 2003, p. water quality. Although Trapper Creek leatherside chub. It is likely that 47). Idaho uses a monthly average of 50 does not harbor native trout normally northern leatherside chub can persist in mg/L TSS and a daily maximum of 80 associated with cool water systems (Lay periodic, short-term, low dissolved mg/L TSS as the upper limits for 2003, pp. 67, 68), Trapper Creek has oxygen situations because they have sediment (Lay 2003, p. 47). Both been shown to support the designated been documented to persist in isolated Trapper Creek and Beaverdam Creek beneficial uses of cold-water biota and pool environments even after other exceeded daily maximum and monthly salmonid spawning (IDEQ 2010, p. 9). In summary, impaired water quality species have perished (Belk and average limits for TSS in 2001. (based on 303(d) lists from the various Johnson 2007, pp. 70–71). It is unclear Sediment levels in Trapper Creek are States) affects the habitat of two how they would respond to low highest following runoff events in the populations of northern leatherside dissolved oxygen in the long term, as spring (March-May) (IDEQ 2010, p. 6), chub rangewide (Beaverdam and dissolved oxygen is a key attribute for and appear to negatively affect Trapper Creeks), both in the Idaho fish health. However, unless conditions salmonids in the lower sections of portion of the Goose Creek subbasin were severe, we would expect any low Trapper Creek (Lay 2003, p. 68). One (Snake River subregion), although we dissolved oxygen events to be short- event, from September 2001, know of no specific information on how term in nature. documented a monthly average of 1,649 impaired water quality may affect the Sediment in the water column, also mg/L TSS in Beaverdam Creek, which is species. Levels of total phosphorus and called Total Suspended Solids (TSS), about 33 times the established Idaho suspended sediment have been elevated affects fish by reducing feeding abilities threshold (Lay 2003, p. 102). Elevated in these streams and resulted in (rate and success), degrading habitat TSS conditions such as this may cause correspondingly low dissolved oxygen (filling interstitial substrate space), and low reproductive or feeding success by levels. Because research cited above removing oxygen (Newcombe and filling in substrate used for both egg demonstrates that elevated sediment, Jensen 1996, pp. 694–695). Sediment deposition and macroinvertebrate elevated phosphorus, and reduced pollution can come from various habitat and reducing visibility for dissolved oxygen affect fish life-history sources, including, but not limited to, northern leatherside chub. traits, such as reducing reproductive grazing, mining, and dirt roads. Thermal pollution (unnatural water success (from clogged interstitial space), Hatchery experiments showed that temperatures) can affect fish by altering decreasing feeding success (through northern leatherside chub prefer cobble metabolism and stressing biological impacts to macroinvertebrates), or substrates with adequate interstitial norms. Thermal limits are unique for restricting growth (from low dissolved space for egg deposition (Billman et al. each fish species. Idaho has established oxygen levels), it is possible that these ° 2008a, p. 278), and field research an upper temperature standard of 22 C conditions have depressed population ° determined that northern leatherside (72 F) for an instantaneous limit and 19 abundance in these streams. chub feed on insects in both the water °C (66 °F) as a daily average for cold Only 2 of 14 populations occur in column and the stream substrate (Bell water biota (IDEQ 2010, p. 11). We water-quality-impaired streams and and Belk 2004, p. 414). High sediment determined that these temperature these streams are not known to be lethal loads could interfere with the natural thresholds are adequately conservative to aquatic biota. We found no ecology (e.g., feeding and reproduction) for northern leatherside chub (Lay 2003, information that water quality may act of the northern leatherside chub through pp. 38–39). Northern leatherside chub on this species to the point that the sedimentation of spawning and feeding can tolerate higher stream temperatures species itself may be at risk, nor is it habitats. Correspondingly, microhabitat than salmonids, are documented to likely to become so. analysis does indicate that sand-silt persist in streams as high as 23 °C (73 substrate is negatively associated with °F) (Isaak and Hubert 2001, p. 27), and Fragmentation and Isolation of Existing leatherside chub presence and have an upper incipient lethal Populations leatherside chub are more abundant at temperature of 26 to 30 °C (79 to 86 °F) The arrangement, or interconnected locations with gravel substrate (Wilson (as temperatures are increased in a tank, nature, of species occurrences is and Belk 2001, p. 40). However, this this is the temperature at which 50 especially important when assessing analysis did not include any of the large percent die) (Billman et al. 2008b, pp. species vulnerability, because numerous populations now known to inhabit 463, 468–469). Beaverdam Creek has studies link habitat fragmentation to degraded areas, such as Muddy and reached daily averages of 19.32 °C population declines and increased Upper Twin Creeks, and included only (66.78 °F) and 21.75 °C (71.15 °F), extinction risk (Dunham et al. 1997, p. one population now known as northern although we do not consider these 1126; Fagan et al. 2002, p. 3250; Fagan leatherside chub (Trapper Creek, which temperatures to be outside the thermal et al. 2005, p. 34 and references therein).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63458 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Human modifications to stream systems species having a few clustered, supports the conclusion that northern in the western United States, such as interacting populations being less leatherside chub can move large reservoir creation, nonnative fish vulnerable to extinction than a species distances when suitable pathways exist. introductions, and irrigation practices, with many, isolated populations (Fagan For example, collections of individuals fragment native fish distributions et al. 2002, p. 3254). in lower Sulphur Creek and the (Dunham et al. 1997, p. 1128; It is important to consider the species’ mainstem Bear River are between 17 Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000, p. 513), mobility and colonization ability when and 29 km (10.5 and 18 mi) downstream including those of the northern fragmentation is discussed. For many of the Yellow Creek population and leatherside chub (UDWR 2009, pp. 5, freshwater fish species, most individual between 11 and 19 km (7 and 12 mi) 31). In the western United States, fish do not emigrate from their resident from the Upper Mill/Deadman Creeks physical barriers to dispersal (i.e., dams home area, but those that do tend to population (approximate distances) or culverts) and unsuitable habitat (i.e., move great distances (Fagan et al. 2002, (McAbee 2011, p. 6). The occurrence of lakes, dewatered stretches, or areas with p. 3255). These long-distance dispersers individuals many kilometers increased predator abundance) are the are likely the primary mechanism for downstream in the large inter- most common agents of stream the quick recolonization of extirpated population corridor (whether they be fragmentation (Fagan et al. 2002, p. stream reaches (Peterson and Bayley resident or emigrants) supports a 3255). 1993, p. 199). We know that the conclusion that these two populations Fragmentation of stream systems is surrogate species southern leatherside could potentially interact because unique, because unlike terrestrial chub follows this pattern, with many individual presence demonstrates a organisms, fish species are limited to individuals having high site fidelity, but suitable, occupied pathway exists and is movement through the stream corridor a small cohort (not dependent on being used. Additionally, individuals and cannot simply move around an individual size) moving long distances collected downstream of the Rock Creek obstruction such as a dam (Neraas and for a small minnow species (0.5 to 2 km population were between 8 and 13 km Spruell 2001, p. 1153; Fagan 2002, p. (0.3 to 1.25 mi)) over short time spans (5 and 8 mi) away from the population 3243). Because stream fragmentation is (within 1 year) (Rasmussen 2010, pp. center (Colyer and Dahle 2010, p. 5), often caused by impassable barriers, 42, 48–49). Based on similar physical which is a distance similar to that such as dams or lakes, fish populations capabilities and life histories, it is likely separating the Rock Creek and Upper become isolated. Whether it is the result that northern leatherside chub can move Twin Creek populations. Similarly, of human alterations or natural similar distances. This ability to move individuals entrained in irrigation patchiness in habitat, isolation of local provides a mechanism for individuals to canals were 8 km (5 mi) downstream of populations increases the risk of leave unsuitable habitat when the Muddy Creek population (Roberts extirpation events because immigration conditions warrant and to emigrate to and Rahel 2008, p. 951). Finally, and recolonization events, ‘‘rescue new areas for natural demographic individuals collected in mainstem effects,’’ are precluded (Stacey and reasons. Goose Creek were between 6 and 18 km Taper 1992, p. 26; Dunham et al. 1997, We conclude that when suitable (4 and 11 mi) downstream of the p. 1131; Fagan et al. 2002, p. 3250). migratory corridors exist, northern Beaverdam Creek population, which is When new individuals are unable to leatherside chub will successfully use distance similar to that separating the enter into an area to supplement them. Supporting this conclusion, the Trout Creek population from Beaverdam declining populations or to re-establish collection of individual northern (in the opposite direction). Therefore, a population after a catastrophic leatherside chub throughout habitats based on our knowledge of the northern extirpation event, it is much more likely downstream of known populations may leatherside chub’s movement ability and the population will disappear indicate that either yet undocumented based on the occurrence of individuals permanently. It has been demonstrated populations exist or individuals are many kilometers downstream of extant that the overall number of occurrences migrating into new habitats. Regardless populations, we conclude that of a species is less important to of the distinction, the collection of populations separated by moderate- extinction risk than the fragmentation of individual northern leatherside chub distance (up to about 48 km (30 mi)), occurrences when other variables found large distances away from known barrier-free corridors are able to interact remain constant (abundance, etc.), with populations, as defined in this finding, (Table 6). TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF FRAGMENTATION FOR EXTANT NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB POPULATIONS

NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET LOCATIONS Connected to an­ Multiple occur­ Population name State other population rences Occurrences within population Subregion Subbasin

Bear River ...... Upper Bear ...... Upper Mill/Deadman UT/WY Yes ...... Yes ...... Throughout Mill Creek (UT & WY); Creeks. Deadman Creek. Upper Sulphur/La WY No ...... Yes ...... Upper Sulphur Creek; La Chapelle Chapelle Creeks. Creek. Yellow Creek ...... UT/WY Yes ...... Yes ...... Throughout Yellow Creek (UT & WY); Thief Creek. Upper Twin Creek .. WY Yes ...... Yes ...... Clear Creek; North Fork Twin Creek. Rock Creek ...... WY Yes ...... No ...... Rock Creek.

Central Bear ...... Dry Fork Smiths WY No ...... No ...... Dry Fork Smiths Fork. Fork. Muddy Creek ...... WY Yes ...... Yes ...... Muddy Creek; Mill Creek.

Snake River ...... Snake Headwaters Pacific Creek ...... WY No ...... No ...... Pacific Creek. Salt River ...... Jackknife Creek ...... ID No ...... Yes ...... Jackknife Creek; Squaw Creek; Trail Creek.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63459

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF FRAGMENTATION FOR EXTANT NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB POPULATIONS—Continued

NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET LOCATIONS Connected to an- Multiple occur- Population name State other population rences Occurrences within population Subregion Subbasin

Goose Creek ...... Trapper Creek ...... ID No ...... No ...... Trapper Creek. Beaverdam Creek .. ID Yes ...... No ...... Beaverdam Creek. Trout Creek ...... NV/ID Yes ...... No ...... Trout Creek.

Green River ...... Upper Green River/ North Fork Slate WY No ...... Yes ...... North Fork Slate Creek; Slate Creek. Slate Creek. Creek. Blacks Fork ...... Upper Hams Fork ... WY No ...... Yes ...... Upper Hams Fork; West Fork Hams Fork.

When analyzing the potential threat of the entire population would be Upper Mill/Deadman Creeks; and Rock fragmentation of northern leatherside extirpated. and Upper Twin Creeks in the Bear chub, we considered two patterns of For this finding, we classified each River subregion; and Beaverdam and isolation. First, we assessed the population as either isolated or not Trout Creeks in the Snake River distribution of populations (defined in isolated based on known barriers subregion. These results are this finding as an individual or set of preventing movement into the summarized in Table 6. 12-digit HUC(s)) across the species’ population (reservoirs, culverts (Aedo et We next determined if each range. For example, we can say that the al. 2009, p. 1), or impassable stream population contained multiple Jackknife and Pacific Creek populations distances) (Table 6). If a population occurrences within the population are isolated from other populations over could interact with at least one other boundary. We considered a population the range, but the Upper Twin Creek population, we considered it not to have multiple occurrences if multiple and Rock Creek populations can interact isolated. Also, we focused only on tributaries were occupied or northern with each other (Table 6). Second, we permanent barriers, such as large leatherside chub were in divergent areas assessed the occurrences of individuals reservoirs or stream distances, instead of of the same stream (separated by at least within the population boundaries, or, temporary barriers, because we assumed 10 km (6 mi) of approximate stream more simply stated, how widespread permanent barriers will never be distance). Of the 14 northern leatherside individuals are within the population bypassed, but temporary barriers could chub populations, 3 (Pacific and boundary. For example, we can say that be bypassed at a low frequency with Trapper Creeks in the Snake River the Pacific and Rock Creek populations proper conditions. For example, subregion, and Dry Fork Smiths Fork in have one local occurrence, but that the dewatered stretches were not the Bear River subregion) are isolated Jackknife and Upper Twin Creek considered a large scale barrier, because and likely contain only one occurrence, populations have multiple occurrences in wetter years and wetter seasons they making them vulnerable to a large-scale within one population boundary (Table may carry enough water for bypass. disturbance or stochastic event. 6). In other words, the Jackknife Creek Conditions for recolonization or The Trapper Creek population occurs population has a more continuous immigration need to occur only in an upstream tributary to Oakley distribution within the subwatershed, sporadically to repopulate areas devoid Reservoir. Oakley Reservoir, and other while the Pacific Creek population is of fish. Finally, we focused on barriers reservoirs, act as ‘‘environmental isolated to one area. affecting dispersal only into the filters,’’ preventing movement of small- This two-tiered approach lets us population, because we are primarily bodied fish between tributaries and determine the overall extirpation concerned with recolonization of fragmenting distributions (Matthews (localized extinction) risk to extirpated areas. and Marsh-Matthews 2007, p. 1042). populations because catastrophic events Large reservoirs isolate three Given the difference in stream and lake can range in scale from the entire populations of northern leatherside habitats, and the presence of large- population area to smaller areas within chub: Trapper and Jackknife Creeks in bodied predators in most reservoirs, we the population. In the above population the Snake River subregion; and Upper believe it is unlikely that northern isolation example (Jackknife and Pacific Sulphur/La Chapelle Creeks in the Bear leatherside chub could survive Creeks vs. Upper Twin and Rock River subregion. Large stream distances migrating through Oakley Reservoir Creeks), there are no nearby populations isolated three additional populations because it supports large populations of to recolonize the Jackknife or Pacific from all other populations: Pacific Creek piscivorous (fish-eating) rainbow trout Creek populations if all individuals died in the Snake River subregion; and North (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and walleye from a large-scale disturbance. However, Fork Slate Creek and Upper Hams Fork (Sander vitreus) (IDFG 2010a, p. 2; if all individuals in the Rock Creek in the Green River subregion. 2010b, p. 3). We are not aware of other population died, downstream emigrants Impassable culverts isolated one more northern leatherside chub populations from the Upper Twin Creek population population: Dry Fork Smiths Fork in the that are located in direct tributaries to could recolonize the area. In the second Bear River subregion (Trout Unlimited a reservoir. example, if a catastrophic event affected 2010a, p. 7–8). The other seven Within the Bear River subregion, only part of the Jackknife Creek populations were considered connected culverts surrounding the Dry Fork population (such as the Squaw Creek to at least one other population. Smiths Fork population likely prevent tributary) and all individuals died, the Populations connect primarily in pairs: any immigration of northern leatherside area could be recolonized by another Muddy Creek and Dry Fork Smiths Fork chub into the population, but do not occurrence (such as the Trail Creek (Dry Fork Smiths Fork is isolated from prevent emigration of individuals out of tributary). However, if a catastrophic Muddy Creek, but not vice versa the population, as the barriers primarily event affected the single occurrence in because culverts are impassable only in prevent upstream movement. However, Pacific Creek and killed all individuals, the upstream direction); Yellow and the large population size upstream of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63460 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

these culverts indicates that these habitats. Other isolated populations are Across the northern leatherside barriers have not caused a quantifiable not impacted by fragmentation (Upper chub’s range, permits are required to impact to population size. In fact, these Sulphur/La Chapelle Creek; North Fork collect the species for any reason. barriers may be preventing downstream Slate Creek; Upper Hams Fork), but Individuals have been collected for nonnative trout from entering the area, their isolation puts them at an increased genetic analysis from various thus protecting the population. risk from other large-scale threats and populations across the species’ range Alternatively, these barriers may be stochastic events. We found no (Northern Leatherside Chub causing genetic isolation that could information that fragmentation may act Conservation Team 2011, p. 4). These negatively impact the population. on this species to the point that the collections were permitted under each Rangewide, 7 of the 14 northern species itself may be at risk, nor is it State’s regulatory authority (see below), leatherside chub populations are likely to become so. and because they are a small portion of isolated, which increases risk to large- the local population, should not scale disturbances or stochastic events, Summary of Factor A negatively impact local population such as extreme drought, large wildfire, We found no information that persistence. or invasion of nonnative species (Table livestock grazing, oil and gas Northern leatherside chub are 6). Four of the seven have multiple development, mining, water considered a ‘‘prohibited’’ species under occurrences within the population, development, water quality, or Utah’s Collection, Importation, and offering the potential for rescue effect fragmentation of populations may act on Possession of Zoological Animals Rule dynamics. In fact, this situation may this species to the point that the species (R–657–3–1), which makes it unlawful have recently played out in the itself may be at risk, nor is it likely to to collect, import, or possess northern Jackknife Creek population, where a become so. While these factors leatherside chub without a permit (Harja wildfire in 1991 burned a significant individually have been shown to affect 2009, p. 4). Use of the species for portion of the sub-watershed, but did one or a few extant populations of scientific or educational purposes also not affect upstream portions of Squaw northern leatherside chub, none is is controlled by the UDWR, and the Creek (Isaak and Hubert 2001, pp. 26– considered a significant threat to the agency reviews requests to make sure 27). It is possible that northern species’ persistence. For example, that no negative population impacts will leatherside chub either retreated to stable, reproducing northern leatherside occur (Harja 2009, p. 4). Recently, suitable habitat within Squaw Creek chub populations occur at many northern leatherside chub were collected for a hatchery population during and after the fire, or that locations where degraded habitat emigrants from Squaw Creek housed in Logan, Utah (Billman et al. conditions exist. While these habitat recolonized other portions of Jackknife 2008a, p. 274), and future collections characteristics may not be optimal for Creek. will be required for this population to northern leatherside chub populations, In summary, isolation and persist (Northern Leatherside Chub their continued persistence and fragmentation of northern leatherside Conservation Team 2010, p. 5). successful reproduction demonstrate chub populations in stream systems can However, the number of northern that they have some level of tolerance substantially reduce recolonization leatherside chub taken for scientific and for less than optimal environmental potential, and increase the risk of a local educational purposes is low (UDWR conditions. Because of the sufficient extirpation event due to a large-scale 2009, p. 32). disturbance or stochastic event (Fagan et number of populations, the interaction The species is considered ‘‘protected al. 2002, p. 3255). When migratory between several population locations, non-game’’ under Idaho’s Rules pathways exist, fish species tend to and the large size of many populations, Governing Classification and Protection quickly recolonize a stream (Peterson we conclude that local extirpation risk of Wildlife (IDAPA 13.01.06), which and Bayley 1993, p. 199). However, in to a small number of populations does makes it unlawful to take or possess desert systems, human modifications not constitute a substantial threat to the northern leatherside chub except with a have reduced opportunities for species. The best scientific and permit under Rules Governing the recolonization, eliminating the natural commercial information available Importation, Possession, Release, Sale, counterbalance against extirpation indicates that rangewide the northern or Salvage of Wildlife (IDAPA 13.01.10) (Fagan et al. 2002, p. 3255). Populations leatherside chub is not threatened by (Schriever 2009, p. 1). In Wyoming, a able to interact, such as closely the present or future destruction, rigorous collection permitting system distributed populations, are more likely modification, or curtailment of its restricts commercial, scientific, and to persist because clustered occurrences habitat or range, nor is it likely to educational activities (Miller et al. 2009, increase the probability of become so. p. 3). Small-scale permits are given to recolonization (Fagan et al. 2002, p. Factor B. Overutilization for local residents to seine the Bear River 3255). Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or drainage for baitfish (dead), but these Two fragmented populations of Educational Purposes few permits are not impacting northern leatherside chub, Trapper and populations of northern leatherside Pacific Creeks in the upper Snake River Commercial, recreational, scientific, chub (Miller et al. 2009, p. 4). Northern subregion, are isolated from other and educational utilizations are not leatherside chub is not a protected populations and are vulnerable to common northern leatherside chub- species in Nevada. However, the Nevada stochastic events, including local related activities, and protections are in Department of Wildlife (NDOW) disturbances, such as disease, pollution, place to limit their effect on the species. regulates collections of northern or floods. Conversely, we believe the The use of live baitfish, including leatherside chub through a permitting isolated Dry Fork Smiths Fork northern leatherside chub, is not process (Johnson 2011a, pers. comm.). population is not as vulnerable to a permitted in the species’ range (Harja stochastic event due to its relatively 2009, p. 4; Miller et al. 2009, p. 3; Summary of Factor B large population and its isolation (due UDWR 2009, p. 32). In addition, we are Northern leatherside chub are not to culverts surrounding the population), aware of no evidence that northern overutilized for commercial, which is precluding the migration of the leatherside chub are being illegally recreational, scientific, or educational predatory nonnative brown trout into its collected for any purposes. purposes. A limited number of northern

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63461

leatherside chub are collected from wild chub habitats was cutthroat trout— 1996, p. 205; Stoddard et al. 2005, pp. populations for hatchery augmentation Bonneville cutthroat trout 11–12). Brown trout are highly or scientific investigation purposes, but (Oncorhynchus clarkii utah) in the Bear predatory to the detriment of native fish the level of collection is very small. The River subregion, and Yellowstone communities, often out-competing and best scientific and commercial cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii preying on native predators, while also information available indicates that the bouvieri) in the upper Snake River consuming many small, native fish northern leatherside chub is not subregion (Greswell 1995, pp. 42–43; species (Garman and Nielsen 1982, p. threatened by overutilization for May and Albeke 2005, p. 20; Nannini 862; Behnke 1992, p. 54; Wang and commercial, recreational, scientific, or and Belk 2006, p. 458; May et al. 2007, White 1994, p. 475; Walser et al. 1999, educational purposes, nor is it likely to p. 15). However, these subspecies likely p. 272; Budy et al. 2005, pp. xii–xiii, become so. exerted moderately weak predation 58–73). Brown trout are now commonly pressure on northern leatherside chub distributed throughout adequate Factor C. Disease or Predation over much of their evolutionary history habitats in the Bear and upper Snake Disease and Parasitism because cutthroat trout only become River subregions and have affected primarily piscivorous at larger sizes, native fish in these areas. They have Disease and parasitism do not affect when they tend to inhabit larger river displaced native cutthroat species (Budy northern leatherside chub to a systems where northern leatherside et al. 2005, p. xii), limiting cutthroat significant degree. It is likely that the chub are typically not found (Walser et trout populations to mostly headwater species encounters natural diseases and al. 1999, p. 276; Nannini and Belk 2006, streams where temperatures are parasites. However, we are not aware of pp. 458–459). generally too cold for brown trout any extant, wild population that was Weak predation pressure over survival. Therefore, it is likely that this substantially impacted by a disease or evolutionary timescales often results in introduced predator reduced the parasite; no research project or species losing strong antipredator historical range of northern leatherside collection effort has documented a responses, which in fish species chub. disease or parasite problem. includes escape (strong burst speeds) or The closely related southern There is no discussion of disease or concealment (effective camouflage) leatherside chub has altered habitat parasites in the threats section of the (Nannini and Belk 2006, pp. 453, 460). selection because of predation pressure Rangewide Conservation Agreement and In contrast, short timescale adaptations by brown trout (Walser et al. 1999, p. Strategy for Northern Leatherside Chub to predation pressure include habitat 272). This outcome is not surprising, (described in detail under Factor D shifts or populations of lower carrying given that: (1) Piscivory is a dominant below) (UDWR 2009, p. 32). However, capacity. Meeting this expectation, factor shaping fish community structure one of the conservation elements in the southern leatherside chub have slow in stream ecosystems (Jackson et al. Conservation Agreement and Strategy is and non-complex escape responses 2001, p. 157); (2) other prey species ‘Disease Management,’ the goal of which (Nannini and Belk 2006, p. 460) and retreat to safer periphery habitat when is to determine the extent of infections, respond to intense predation by shifting faced with predation risks (Fraser et al. monitor any known infections, and habitat usage (Walser et al. 1999, p. 1995, p. 1466); and (3) introduced prevent further infections by 272). Southern leatherside chub may be populations of brown trout have implementing biosecurity protocols more vulnerable to predation risks than affected native species worldwide (UDWR 2009, p. 37). An example of other native minnows because they lack (McDowall 2003, pp. 230–231). For disease management already occurred in effective predator responses, making example, in Diamond Fork Creek, Utah, Utah, where UDWR raised a broodstock them a preferred prey (Nannini and Belk southern leatherside chub inhabited less of wild northern leatherside chub and 2006, p. 460). suitable, lateral habitats (cutoff pools used progeny to repatriate (reintroduce Because they share similar ecological and backwaters) when the main channel a population) multiple sites (McKay et niches, such as habitat associations contained brown trout, despite the al. 2010, p. 1–3). Fishes brought into the (Belk and Wesner 2010, p. 12) and presence of suitable main channel hatchery setting were treated for native predators, we expect that microhabitats (Walser et al. 1999, p. internal and external parasites (Billman northern leatherside chub have predator 272). Because unoccupied main channel et al. 2008a, p. 274), ensuring that all responses similar to southern habitats were identical to those restocked and progeny fish are leatherside chub and also are likely occupied in streams without brown pathogen-free (Harja 2009, p. 4). The vulnerable to predation. By losing trout, it is likely that southern UDWR also minimizes within-hatchery effective antipredator responses, leatherside chub select poorer quality diseases, as demonstrated by their northern leatherside chub were able to habitat to avoid brown trout predation efforts to disinfect eggs for maximum divert more energy to other life-history (Walser et al. 1999, p. 275). This survival (FES 2010, pp. 25, 26). characteristics, such as foraging, hypothesis was confirmed on a broad There are no known disease or reproduction, and growth (Nannini and geographic scale. In areas where brown parasite problems for the northern Belk 2006, p. 460). This adaptation trout populations overlapped with leatherside chub. We found no produces benefits under natural, juvenile mountain sucker (Catostomus information that disease or parasites evolutionarily historical conditions platyrhynchus) and southern leatherside may act on this species to the point that where northern leatherside chub chub, the latter two species used the species itself may be at risk, nor is primarily coexisted with other small- backwaters and cut-off pools almost it likely to become so. bodied fish and cutthroat trout species, exclusively, whereas in the absence of but places it at a disadvantage when brown trout, they commonly used main Predation encountering highly predatory species. channel pools (Olsen and Belk 2005, pp. Northern leatherside chub are small One such predatory species is brown 501, 503). This suggests that predation minnows, and as such, are prey for trout. Native to Europe and western is an important factor affecting habitat larger fish and sometimes birds (Sigler Asia, brown trout is an introduced use by small native fish, limiting them and Sigler 1996, pp. 77–78). predator that was widely stocked to areas of less suitable habitat. Historically, the main piscivorous (fish- throughout the United States for its Although considered poorer habitats eating) predator in northern leatherside value as a sportfish (Sigler and Sigler than the main channel, lateral areas

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63462 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

likely offer native fish their only chance acting as a migration barrier. Effective (McKay 2011, pers. comm.). It is not of persistence, because brown trout will aquatic predators can act as a dispersal unreasonable to conclude that high prey on individuals in main channel barrier by killing prey (Fraser et al. densities of brown trout removed habitats. Therefore, it is important to 1995, pp. 1461, 1468). Therefore, the northern leatherside chub from these preserve lateral habitats where northern predation pressure on main channel locations. leatherside chub and brown trout habitats (Walser et al. 1999, p. 272) may Stocking of brown trout also occurred overlap, because even with brown trout prevent northern leatherside chub from in subbasins with extant northern present, small native fish can survive moving between populations, leatherside chub. Near the Utah- with adequate habitat complexity (Olsen exacerbating an already fragmented Wyoming border, Utah and Wyoming and Belk 2005, p. 504). Side channel species distribution. However, like stocked around 250,000 brown trout in habitats are only available in natural resident fish, emigrants are more likely the mainstem Bear River from 1980 to systems with adequate flow, not to survive migrations when complex 1997, and Wyoming stocked around degraded or simplified systems, such as habitat (through adequate water supply) 500,000 in Woodruff Reservoir from de-watered or channelized streams is available (Gilliam and Fraser 2001, 1985 to 1997 (UDWR 2010, pp. 1–45; (Olsen and Belk 2005, p. 504). In the pp. 267, 270). WGFD 2010, pp. 7–10). These locations event that refuge areas are not available, More broadly, predators can fragment centralize an area of unoccupied habitat it is not likely that northern leatherside an otherwise consolidated distribution between the two sets of populations in chub populations can persist under of prey species, forcing the prey to the Upper Bear subbasin. In the Salt such heavy predation pressure. abandon otherwise habitable areas for River subbasin, northern leatherside Based on an analysis of brown trout constricted peripheral locations (Fraser chub no longer occur in any tributaries and southern leatherside chub, we et al. 1995, p. 1461). In fact, it is stocked with brown trout. Lastly, expect that when refuge habitat is not possible that through past population Wyoming stocked around 250,000 available, brown trout predation exerts extirpations combined with current brown trout in Sulphur Creek Reservoir, direct mortality on northern leatherside migration impediments, brown trout are directly downstream of the Sulphur/ chub. Stream experiments revealed that the cause of the current fragmentation of LaChapelle Creeks population before southern leatherside chub are 16 times leatherside populations (Wilson and 2000 (WGFD 2010, pp. 3–6), possibly more likely to survive if brown trout are Belk 2001, p. 41). isolating that population of northern absent than if present (Nannini and Belk An analysis of the range contraction leatherside chub completely. Therefore, 2006, p. 458), which explains why of northern leatherside chub compared it is possible that past stocking events lateral habitats are a safer option. For to brown trout stocking offers some and subsequent migration of brown example, in Diamond Fork Creek, insight into the relationship between the trout shaped the current distribution of southern leatherside chub were absent two species (current fish stocking northern leatherside chub and could in upstream areas without lateral policies are analyzed under Factor D). prevent many populations from habitats in 1999 (Walser et al. 1999, p. Between 1975 and 2005, the States of interacting in the future. 276). Later, when flows were Utah and Wyoming stocked at least 2.28 Within the Snake River drainage, permanently reduced throughout million brown trout in the Bear River populations of northern leatherside Diamond Fork Creek by a water subregion (IDFG 2010c, entire; UDWR chub persist in at least two streams conveyance pipeline, lateral habitats 2010, pp. 1–747; WGFD 2010, pp. 1–10). where brown trout were historically disappeared completely and southern Recent surveys indicate that no extant stocked. In the Goose Creek subbasin, leatherside chub were soon extirpated northern leatherside chub populations Nevada has not stocked brown trout from the entire system, presumably from are in close proximity to the stocking since 1950 (Johnson 2010, pers. comm.), brown trout predation (Hepworth and locations (Service 2011, pp. 33–34). nor has Utah recently stocked any Wiley 2007, pp. 3–4). While this could be simply an artifact of nonnative trout (Schaugaard and Although brown trout and northern suitable habitat or preferential stocking Thompson 2006, pp. 5–6). Idaho leatherside chub can co-occur, the locations, we conclude that the stocked about 5,500 brown trout in presence of brown trout potentially instances of historical extirpation Trapper Creek in 1988 (IDFG 2010c, p. impacts northern leatherside population combined with the ecological influences 10), but they did not persist, as rainbow densities in 3 of 14 populations described above suggest a more trout are the only salmonid recently (Jackknife Creek, Dry Fork Smiths Fork, causative effect. collected in the stream (Keeley 2010, and Muddy Creek). Brown trout were Further support of this causative pp. 3–4). Leatherside chub and brown negatively correlated with the effect is documented in Utah. Between trout also were found together at two probability of encountering southern 1981 and 2005, approximately 400,000 sites in Jackknife Creek, but brown trout leatherside chub over many tributaries brown trout were stocked in the Little made up less than 6 percent of salmonid in the Sevier River drainage (Wilson and Bear/Logan subbasin (UDWR 2010, pp. abundance at both sites (Univeristy of Belk 2001, p. 39). Areas with high 1–747), where northern leatherside chub Wyoming 2010, pp. 1–4). In contrast, in densities of southern leatherside chub historically occurred but are no longer the Twin Creek drainage, where a solely were always free of brown trout, and found (UDWR 2009, p. 42). Surveys of native fish community resides, two areas where the two species overlapped historical northern leatherside chub northern leatherside chub populations had consistent low densities of southern locations in the nearby Lower Bear currently persist, with individuals in leatherside chub (Wilson and Belk 2001, subbasin also yielded no northern many tributaries (Colyer and Dahle p. 41). Low population densities are leatherside chub, but did document 2010, p. 5). likely a result of cumulative losses of large numbers of brown trout (UDWR The presence of brown trout can individuals to predation, preventing 2009, p. 42). Although there are no cumulatively intensify abiotic factors, populations from reaching carrying voucher specimens of northern such as reduced water level from capacity. leatherside chub for these historical drought or irrigation, or increased Even when brown trout do not inhabit locations, UDWR considers collections stream temperature from climate change the same location as northern in the Little Bear River (four preserved (see discussion under Factor E). As was leatherside chub, brown trout can exert skeletons) as reliable because of the demonstrated in Diamond Fork Creek, indirect pressure on the species by reputation of the collector (W.F. Sigler) reduced water levels force native, small-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63463

bodied fish from refuge habitat to main Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are threat because many are characterized channel habitat, where brown trout can another nonnative trout species by abundant, small individuals that are easily prey on them. In fact, brown trout occurring in the northern leatherside not piscivorous and inhabit areas will prey on southern leatherside chub chub’s range. While brook trout are unlikely to support northern leatherside preferentially over redside shiner commonly referred to as carnivorous, chub if they were removed (Nadolski (Nannini and Belk 2006, p. 458). The voracious feeders, they primarily feed 2008, pp. 78–79; WGFD 2009, p. 5). For relationship between water level and on insects throughout their life but will example, at Deadman Creek, brook trout brown trout presence also potentially eat fish when possible (Sigler and Sigler have seemingly overpopulated the impacts migration patterns. Water levels 1996, p. 211). Amazingly, they are portions upstream of a dense northern do not affect prey fish movement in the known to eat amphibians, reptiles, and leatherside population (Nadolski 2008, absence of predators; however, water mammals on rare occasions, p. 78). However, the brook trout levels are an issue when predators are demonstrating their variable diet (Sigler population is comprised of small, present (Gilliam and Fraser 2001, p. and Sigler 1996, p. 211). However, it is sedentary, non-piscivorous fish 270). In other words, when stream levels important to note that even large brook (Nadolski 2008, p. 38; 2011 pers. are low from drought or human use, trout are not especially piscivorous comm.). We note that this is the only northern leatherside chub are predicted (Sigler and Sigler 1996, p. 211), making population where brook trout stomach to move freely if brown trout are absent, them less of a predatory threat than contents have been collected, and it but will likely not move if brown trout either brown or rainbow trout. would improve our understanding of are present. Water level is rendered The most likely impact of brook trout the species if more investigations influential only when a predator is on northern leatherside chub is studied the interactions between brook present (Gilliam and Fraser 2001, p. competition for available resources. trout and northern leatherside chub. As 270). Brook trout populations are known to discussed in more detail under Factor E Northern leatherside chub become locally overabundant to the (climate change), predation impacts populations can endure if brown trout point that the size class of the from brook trout are not expected to are absent or at very low densities. population is stunted and resources are increase if climate change predictions However, based on the ecological scarce (Sigler and Sigler 1996, pp. 212– are accurate. Warming waters (either mechanisms described above and the 213). However, brook trout inhabit from increased air temperatures or lack of strong overlapping distribution, coldwater habitats, such as cool, clear drought conditions) may benefit we conclude that future introduction of headwater streams and spring-fed northern leatherside chub and harm brown trout into streams with extant streams and lakes (Sigler and Sigler brook trout, as northern leatherside northern leatherside chubs, although 1996, p. 212). They seek water chub are more tolerant and ecologically not currently anticipated, would likely temperatures of 10 to 14.4 °C (50 to 58 adapted to warmer water temperatures. impact those populations. °F), high-gradient streams (3 to 6 The presence of native cutthroat trout Other salmonid species, both native percent), and gravel substrate (Sigler species poses a very limited risk to and nonnative, could impact northern and Sigler 1996, pp. 211–212; Nadolski northern leatherside chub persistence leatherside chub populations through 2008, p. 63). In contrast, northern because cutthroat trout are a natural predation as well. Although not leatherside chub occupy streams with predator that does not exert excessive normally as piscivorous as brown trout, higher temperatures (15.6 to 20 °C or 60 predation pressure. In fact, conservation introduced rainbow trout impact native to 68 °F) (Sigler and Sigler 1996, p. 79), actions that remove nonnative trout and fish communities worldwide prefer low stream gradients (0.1 to 4 introduce native cutthroat will likely (Lintermans 2000 in Blinn et al. 1993, percent (Wilson and Belk 2001, p. 39)), produce beneficial effects to northern p. 139; McDowall 2003, p. 231; Vigliano and can tolerate sediment-laden habitats leatherside chub through reduced et al. 2009, p. 1406). In fact, rainbow (UDWR 2009, p. 27). predation. trout likely influence habitat use, Based on available information, we To fully assess the threat of nonnative behavior, and distribution of another conclude that brook trout pose a very trout, we assessed the probability that Lepidomeda species, the Little Colorado limited threat to northern leatherside nonnative trout could currently alter spinedace (L. vittata) (Blinn et al. 1993, chub even though brook trout occur populations or invade existing northern pp. 141–142). The Little Colorado both upstream and concurrently with 6 leatherside chub populations in the spinedace is similar to northern of 14 northern leatherside chub future. Fish stocking policies have leatherside chub, in that it evolved populations. Habitats that are occupied recently changed, resulting in a large without strong predation pressure but is by northern leatherside chub are likely reduction of brown trout stocking in the now forced into suboptimal habitats by suboptimal for brook trout. While area. An analysis of recent collection an introduced predator (Blinn et al. populations of the two species overlap, data shows that nonnative trout 1993, p. 142). We conclude that the densities of brook trout are generally populations are nearby 8 of the 14 introduction of rainbow trout also poses low in these locations, while densities extant northern leatherside chub a threat, albeit less than brown trout, of northern leatherside chub are populations, although the number is because rainbow trout exert similar generally stable and relatively high. We reduced to only 5 when brook trout nonnative predation pressure on also conclude that upstream (which are less piscivorous) are northern leatherside chub. populations of brook trout are not a excluded (Table 7).

TABLE 7—PRESENCE OF NONNATIVE SALMONIDS (BROOK, BROWN, AND RAINBOW TROUT) AND NATIVE CUTTHROAT TROUT AT EXTANT NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB POPULATIONS

National Hydrography Dataset Boundaries Presence of Salmonids Population Nonnative Native Subregion Subbasin (brook, brown, or rainbow) cutthroat

Bear River ...... Upper Bear ...... Upper Mill/Deadman Creeks ...... Brook trout upstream ...... Yes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63464 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 7—PRESENCE OF NONNATIVE SALMONIDS (BROOK, BROWN, AND RAINBOW TROUT) AND NATIVE CUTTHROAT TROUT AT EXTANT NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB POPULATIONS—Continued

National Hydrography Dataset Boundaries Presence of Salmonids Population Nonnative Native Subregion Subbasin (brook, brown, or rainbow) cutthroat

Upper Sulphur/La Chapelle No ...... Yes. Creeks. Yellow Creek ...... No ...... Yes. Upper Twin Creek ...... No ...... Downstream. Rock Creek ...... No ...... Yes. Central Bear ...... Dry Fork Smiths Fork ...... Brown & brook trout downstream Downstream. Muddy Creek ...... Brown & brook trout downstream Downstream. Snake River ...... Snake Headwaters ...... Pacific Creek ...... Brook trout present ...... Yes. Salt River ...... Jackknife Creek ...... Brown trout downstream ...... Yes. Goose Creek ...... Trapper Creek ...... Rainbow trout present ...... No. Beaverdam Creek ...... No ...... No. Trout Creek ...... No ...... Yes. Green River ...... Upper Green River/Slate North Fork Slate Creek ...... Brook trout upstream ...... No. Creek. Blacks Fork ...... Upper Hams Fork ...... Rainbow present/Brook trout up­ No. stream.

In the Bear River subregion, the only 1–4). Brown trout have not moved et al. 1999, p. 272), likely reducing populations accessible by nonnative upstream likely because there are reproductive and forage success. Brown trout are the Dry Fork Smiths Fork, abundant food resources in the reservoir trout hold leatherside chub populations Muddy Creek, and Upper Mill/Deadman and habitat directly upstream of the at low density (Wilson and Belk 2001, Creeks populations. Although the reservoir is degraded by irrigation return p. 41), likely because leatherside chub Muddy Creek and Dry Fork Smiths Fork flow (Amadio 2011, pers. comm.). are preferred prey (Nannini and Belk populations do not currently have In the upper Snake River subregion, 2006, p. 458). nonnative trout in occupied northern nonnative trout co-occur with While the stocking of brown trout has leatherside chub habitat, downstream leatherside chub in two of the five been greatly reduced in recent years in tributaries in the Smiths Fork drainage populations and are downstream of several streams within the range of (not occupied by northern leatherside another population. Brown trout are northern leatherside chub, established chub) contain brown and brook trout found in lower reaches of Jackknife brown trout populations are likely (Roberts and Rahel 2008, p. 951; Trout Creek and were previously shown to co- sustainable in many locations, as shown Unlimited 2010b, pp. 78–91, Table 6). occur with northern leatherside chub in the Salt River subbasin (Isaak and Muddy Creek is accessible to these (Isaak and Hubert 2001, pp. 6, 27), Hubert 2001, p. 6). Currently, the downstream populations, because there although more recently brown trout distribution of brown and rainbow trout is no barrier separating the areas (Colyer were not found at occupied northern overlaps with northern leatherside chub and Dahle 2007, p. 8), but Dry Fork leatherside chub sites (Keeley 2010, pp. populations only in a few locations Smiths Fork is isolated by impassable 45–60). Although brook trout inhabit the (Trapper Creek, Upper Hams Fork, and culverts (Trout Unlimited 2010a, pp. 7– same reach of Pacific Creek occupied by the lowest portion of Jackknife Creek). 8, 10–12). However, the aquatic habitat northern leatherside chub, they Any changes in current stream in Muddy Creek is currently unsuitable generally use different habitats (Grand for brown trout, likely preventing their Teton National Park 2009, p. 1). conditions (i.e., changing water quality colonization of the area. Brook trout are Introduced rainbow trout are and temperatures) could facilitate currently found upstream of occupied documented in Trapper Creek (Keeley upstream distributional shifts for these northern leatherside habitat in Deadman 2010, pp. 4–5), although information is nonnatives, putting northern leatherside Creek, but not in the rest of the system lacking on what if any impact they have chub at increased risk of predation. For (Nadolski and Thompson 2004, p. 3; on the northern leatherside chub example, if the projected changes in Nadolski 2008, p. 78; Belk and Wesner population. climate warms waters across the western United States (EPA 2008, p. 8), 2011, pp. 1–4). In the Green River subbasin, both brown trout could possibly move Although Sulphur Creek Reservoir, northern leatherside chub populations downstream of the Upper Sulphur/La occur downstream of brook trout upstream into currently occupied Chapelle Creeks population, contains (WGFD 2009, pp. 1–5). In addition, low northern leatherside chub habitats; brown and rainbow trout, we conclude densities of rainbow trout occur in the however, we have no specific they cannot access northern leatherside Upper Hams Fork, but they are likely information to indicate that this is likely chub habitat. Prior to 2000, the WGFD not reproducing (WGFD 2009, pp. 1–3). to happen. stocked thousands of brown trout in In summary, we found no information Summary of Predation Sulphur Creek Reservoir (WGFD 2010, that predation may act on this species pp. 3–6), creating a possible source for Nonnative predators, especially to the point that the species itself may colonization into the Upper Sulphur/La brown trout, impact northern be at risk, nor is it likely to become so. Chapelle Creeks population. However, leatherside chub populations. In the Most populations (9 of 14) do not share no brown trout were collected in presence of brown trout, leatherside habitats with nonnative trout of upstream reaches occupied by northern chub occupy lateral habitats that could concern, and 3 of 5 potentially impacted leatherside (Belk and Wesner 2011, pp. provide refuge against predation (Walser populations occur where habitats are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:18 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63465

likely not suitable for salmonids (i.e., currently occur near or downstream to description of how land ownership Muddy Creek), contain migration 5 of 14 northern leatherside chub affects regulatory mechanisms where barriers in the form of impassable populations. While these populations extant northern leatherside chub culverts (i.e., Dry Fork Smiths Fork), or are more vulnerable to predation and populations occur. We first analyze the have only low densities of the nonnative other effects from nonnative trout, we land ownership of the entire upland rainbow trout (i.e., Upper Hams Fork). have no information that indicates area to analyze general effects, and then Therefore only two northern leatherside nonnative trout are currently impacting analyze local riparian corridor chub populations (in the Snake River these populations or the species as a ownership to investigate more local subregion) may be vulnerable to the whole. We found no information that effects. effects of nonnative trout. However, we disease or predation may act on this Currently occupied northern species to the point that the species have no information to indicate how the leatherside chub streams are contained itself may be at risk, nor is it likely to species and its habitats have been in 14 populations based on become so. impacted. Brown trout occur in the subwatersheds (HUC12) covering lower reaches of Jackknife Creek, Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing approximately 242,864 hectares (938 primarily downstream of northern Regulatory Mechanisms square mi). Land ownership in occupied leatherside chub populations in warmer The Act requires us to examine the subwatersheds is comprised of privately waters (although they have been found owned land (31.5 percent in the States to co-occur in past samples). Rainbow inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms with respect to extant of Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming), trout continue to co-occur with northern as well as lands managed by BLM (30 leatherside chub in Trapper Creek threats that place northern leatherside chub in danger of becoming either percent), NPS (3.5 percent), USFS (30.5 where the IDFG continues to stock percent), and the States of Wyoming (4.3 nonnative rainbow trout into Oakley endangered or threatened. Regulatory mechanisms affecting the species fall percent) and Idaho (0.04 percent) Reservoir. Because nonnative trout into three general categories: (1) Land (Service 2011, pp. 11–17). Aside from impact a small proportion of management; (2) State mechanisms; and the subwatersheds in the Upper Bear populations, predation does not act on (3) Federal mechanisms. River subbasin (Upper Mill/Deadman this species to the point that the species Creeks, Upper Sulphur/La Chapelle itself may be at risk, nor is it likely to Land Management Creeks, and Yellow Creek), which are become so. Land ownership in the entire upland almost entirely privately owned, most Summary of Factor C watershed affects aquatic habitats northern leatherside chub because land activities distribute effects subwatersheds are affected by upstream At this time we know of no downslope into the stream corridor. lands that are managed by the BLM and information that indicates that the Subwatersheds harboring populations of the USFS, or the NPS for Pacific Creek presence of parasites or disease northern leatherside chub are (Table 8). However, more than three- significantly affects northern leatherside distributed across BLM, private, State, quarters of northern leatherside chub chub, or is likely to do so. There is USFS, and National Park Service (NPS) subwatersheds have some, or their strong evidence that northern lands and incur varying regulatory entire, occupied habitat on private leatherside chub can be impacted by mechanisms depending on land lands, which typically encompasses the predation from nonnative trout, ownership (USFWS 2011, pp. 11–17). wetted channel and the riparian buffer especially brown trout. Nonnative trout The following section provides a brief surrounding the stream (Table 9).

TABLE 8—LAND OWNERSHIP BY PERCENT OF SUBWATERSHEDS (12-DIGIT HUC) WITH NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB POPULATIONS

Upland watershed land ownership by entity Population name (% land owned) BLM Private State USFS NPS

Bear River Subregion

Upper Mill/Deadman Creeks ...... 0 68 1 31 0 Upper Sulphur/La Chapelle Creeks ...... 6 88 6 0 0 Yellow Creek ...... 1 95 4 0 0 Upper Twin Creek ...... 77 14 6 0 3 Rock Creek ...... 61 19 10 0 10 Dry Fork Smiths Fork ...... 40 26 10 24 0 Muddy Creek ...... 63 19 18 0 0

Total ...... 45 41 8 3 3

Snake River Subregion

Pacific Creek ...... 0 4 0 48 48 Jackknife Creek ...... 1 5 0 94 0 Trapper Creek ...... 12 5 1 82 0 Beaverdam Creek ...... 19 8 1 72 0 Trout Creek ...... 41 8 0 51 0

Total ...... 9 5 <1 71 15

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63466 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 8—LAND OWNERSHIP BY PERCENT OF SUBWATERSHEDS (12-DIGIT HUC) WITH NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB POPULATIONS—Continued

Upland watershed land ownership by entity Population name (% land owned) BLM Private State USFS NPS

Green River Subregion

North Fork Slate Creek ...... 88 9 3 0 0 Upper Hams Fork ...... 12 13 2 73 0

Total ...... 30 13 2 55 0

TABLE 9—ESTIMATED LAND OWNERSHIP IN MILES FOR OCCUPIED HABITAT OF NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB POPULATIONS

Land ownership of occupied habitat Approximate Population name river miles of BLM Private State USFS NPS occupied habi­ (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) tat

Bear River Drainage

Upper Mill/Deadman Creeks ...... 0 100 0 0 0 10 Upper Sulphur/La Chapelle Creeks ...... 0 100 0 0 0 15 Yellow Creek ...... 2 96 2 0 0 27 Upper Twin Creek ...... 40 40 20 0 0 9 Rock Creek ...... 30 70 0 0 0 3 Dry Fork Smiths Fork ...... 65 35 0 0 0 3 Muddy Creek ...... 5 0 95 0 0 5

Snake River Drainage

Pacific Creek ...... 0 0 0 0 100 2 Jackknife Creek ...... 0 0 0 100 0 8 Trapper Creek ...... 15 60 0 25 0 8 Beaverdam Creek ...... 20 50 0 30 0 3 Trout Creek ...... 10 90 0 0 0 5

Green River Drainage

North Fork Slate Creek ...... 80 20 0 0 0 9 Upper Hams Fork ...... 10 15 15 60 0 10

Total Estimated River Miles ...... 117

Quantifying riparian habitat respectively (Table 9). Thus, a total of State Mechanisms ownership for areas surrounding 61 percent of the estimated occupied Collection or Possession occupied northern leatherside chub northern leatherside chub habitat in the stream reaches required an internal 4–State area occurs on privately owned Northern leatherside chub are investigation. No published information land (Service 2011, pp. 11–17). considered ‘‘prohibited’’ species under is available regarding the number of Subwatersheds with significant the Utah Collection Importation and river-kilometers occupied by northern portions of federally owned land allow Possession of Zoological Animals Rule leatherside chub populations; therefore, for greater regulatory control over land (R–657–3–1), making them unlawful to we calculated a basic estimate by using management practices (oil and gas collect or possess (UAC 2011, pp. 18– presence and absence data supplied by development, grazing, water 19). These species receive protection various researchers and agencies. Our development, mining, etc.) that have the from unauthorized collection and take. estimate indicates that occupied river- potential to negatively affect northern In Wyoming, the use of live baitfish is kilometers for northern leatherside chub leatherside chub populations and their prohibited throughout the range of are approximately 188 km (117 mi). habitat. Federal agencies conduct land northern leatherside chub and very few This total includes approximately 115 management activities under various live baitfish collection licenses are sold km (72 mi) on private land in Idaho, legislations (see Federal Mechanisms in the Bear River drainage. Persons that Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming; 29 km (18 below) that do not apply to private have these permits collect baitfish on a mi) on lands managed by the BLM; 14 lands. On private lands, the Clean Water small scale for individual use (Miller et km (9 mi) on lands managed by the Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and al. 2009, pp. 3–4) (see discussion under States of Wyoming and Idaho; and 3 km State mechanisms (see below) are the Factor B). The State of Idaho has (2 mi) and 27 km (17 mi) on lands primary regulatory mechanisms that classified northern leatherside chub as a managed by the NPS and USFS, regulate land use activities. ‘‘Protected Nongame’’ species, and State

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:18 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63467

regulations specify that no person shall introduction of nonnative species into because low water conditions do not take or possess such species at any time Utah waters and states that all stocking threaten the species because they or in any manner except as provided for actions must be consistent with ongoing evolved to persist in drought conditions. in authorized circumstances (Schriever recovery and conservation actions for Future water development in Utah and 2009, p. 1). Northern leatherside chub State of Utah sensitive species, Idaho is limited, and limited increases are not listed as a protected species in including northern leatherside chub. in surface water usage are predicted for the State of Nevada; however, the use of The Nevada Board of Wildlife Nevada (Randall 2011, pers. comm.) and live baitfish is prohibited in the State Commissioners has enacted Wyoming (Schroeder and Hinckley within the species’ range, and the Commission Policy Number 33, which 2007, pp. 6–2 to 6–4) within the range NDOW monitors collection of rare states that waters or reaches of waters of the species, indicating that water species by researchers (UDWR 2009, pp. managed as ‘‘wild’’ or ‘‘native’’ will not development in these States is not a 32–33). These policies are adequately be stocked with hatchery trout (State of significant threat, nor is it likely to protecting northern leatherside chub Nevada Board of Wildlife become so. Available information from overutilization (see Factor B Commissioners 1999, p. 5). This indicates that the State regulatory discussion) and are not expected to includes northern leatherside chub mechanisms in existence adequately change in the future. waters; therefore, no stocking is done protect the northern leatherside chub within the range of the species in from the threat of reduction of habitat Conservation and Protection Nevada (Johnson 2011b, pers. comm.). due to water development projects. The States of Idaho, Wyoming, In Wyoming, northern leatherside chub Federal Mechanisms Nevada, and Utah provide protection waters were historically stocked. There and conservation direction for northern is now better awareness of northern The major Federal mechanisms for leatherside chub under their State leatherside chub-occupied habitat, and protection of northern leatherside chub comprehensive wildlife conservation the State generally does not stock in and its habitat are through the CWA strategies, which are required by the these waters (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). section 404 permitting process, the Service for a State wildlife agency to The State of Idaho operates similar to CWA section 303(d) impaired water receive State wildlife grants. In Wyoming, and there is an informal body list, and the National addition, all States within the range of policy that discourages stocking of Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. the species are signatory to the salmonids in northern leatherside chub 4231 et seq.) (NEPA). Various Executive ‘‘Rangewide Conservation Agreement habitat (Grunder 2011, pers. comm.). Orders (11990 for wetlands, 11988 for and Strategy for Northern Leatherside’’. Although we did not rely on these floodplains, and 13112 for invasive The goals of this document are to ensure policies for our finding, the species) provide guidance and the long-term persistence of the implementation of such policies affords incentives for Federal land management northern leatherside chub within its adequate protection to northern agencies to manage for habitat historical range and to support the leatherside chub. These policies are not characteristics essential for development of multi-State expected to change in the future. conservation. As explained below, conservation efforts through Federal land management agencies coordinated conservation actions and Water Rights (BLM, USFS, and NPS) have legislation regulatory consistency. The objectives of To a considerable extent, water rights that specifies how their lands are the document are to identify and reduce are managed under State law in the four managed for sensitive species. threats to northern leatherside chub and States with northern leatherside chub- As stated above in the Land its habitat, determine the existing range occupied habitat. The doctrine of prior Management section, approximately of the species, maintain and monitor appropriation or ‘‘first in time—first in two-thirds of the lands in existing self-sustaining populations and right’’ is the basis for administering subwatersheds with northern their habitat, restore populations at surface water rights, and each State does leatherside chub are managed by selected localities within the historical so via a State agency, a State Engineer, Federal land agencies, and range, augment selected populations if or some combination of the two (BLM approximately one-third of all occupied necessary, maintain genetic diversity, 2001, entire). As discussed under Factor stream miles are on these lands. The and pursue additional research A (Water Development), much of the northern leatherside chub is designated questions (UDWR 2009, p. 1). Other northern leatherside chub-occupied as a sensitive species by the BLM in signatories to the document include the habitat was historically impacted by Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, and Idaho. Service, BLM, NPS, Bureau of surface water development and The policy in BLM Manual 6840-Special Reclamation, USFS, Trout Unlimited, diversion. Currently, occupied Status Species Management states: and The Nature Conservancy (UDWR subwatersheds in Utah and Idaho are ‘‘Consistent with the principles of 2009, pp. 2–3). While we do not rely on closed to new water appropriations for multiple use and in compliance with these strategies for our finding, they are any significant consumptive use such as existing laws, the BLM shall designate extremely valuable because they help large-scale irrigation (Dean 2011, pers. sensitive species and implement species prioritize conservation actions within comm.; Jordan 2011, pers. comm.). management plans to conserve these each State and form partnerships across However, subwatersheds occupied by species and their habitats and shall the species’ range (UDWR 2009, entire). northern leatherside chub in Nevada ensure that discretionary actions These policies are not expected to and Wyoming are still open to new authorized, funded, or carried out by the change in the future. water appropriations (Randall 2011, BLM would not result in significant pers. comm.; Jacobs and Brosz 2000, p. decreases in the overall range-wide Fish Stocking 7). As described under Factor A (Water species population and their habitats’’ The UDWR follows their Policy for Development), this level of water (BLM 2008, p. 10). BLM land Fish Stocking and Transfer Procedures, development is not a significant threat management practices are intended to and no longer stocks nonnative fish into to extant populations of northern avoid negative effects whenever northern leatherside chub habitat leatherside chub because populations possible, while also providing for (UDWR 2009, p. 32). This Statewide are able to reoccupy temporarily multiple-use mandates; therefore, policy specifies protocols for the dewatered areas when flows return, and maintaining or enhancing northern

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63468 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

leatherside chub habitat is being reservations * * * which purpose is to (CWA 1977, entire). States must considered in conjunction with other conserve the scenery and the natural evaluate all existing and readily agency priorities. Available information and historic objects and the wild life available information in developing indicates that BLM management therein and to provide for the enjoyment their lists of impaired waters (EPA 2002, policies are currently adequately of the same in such manner and by such p. 9). There are several established reducing impacts to northern means as will leave them unimpaired water quality uses including drinking leatherside chub on BLM land. for the enjoyment of future water supply, swimming, and aquatic The USFS Sensitive Species Policy in generations.’’ Consequently, livestock life support (EPA 2002, p. 11). To meet Forest Manual 2670 outlines procedures grazing, timber harvest, mining, and the aquatic life support use, a waterbody for conserving sensitive species. The water development do not occur in must provide suitable habitat for a policy applies to projects executed Grand Teton National Park. The 2006 balanced community of aquatic under the 1982 National Forest NPS Management Policies’ section organisms (EPA 2002, p. 11). Best Management Act (NFMA) implementing 4.4.1.1 (Plant and Animal Population professional judgment, along with regulations. The range of the northern Management Principles) states that the numeric and narrative criteria created leatherside chub is within USFS Region NPS will maintain all native plant and by the State and the EPA, is considered 4 (Intermountain Region), where it is animal species and their habitats inside when evaluating the ability of a water designated a sensitive species by the parks. In addition, these policies state body to serve its uses. USFS (USFS 2010, p. 5), and where the that ‘‘the (National Park) Service will Northern leatherside chub population National Forests have land and resource work with other land managers to areas contain wetland and stream management plans developed under encourage the conservation of the habitats, and section 404 of the CWA NFMA. The USFS manuals and populations and habitats of these regulates fill in wetlands and streams handbooks codify the agency’s policy, species outside parks whenever that meet certain jurisdictional practices, and procedures and are possible’’ (NPS 2006, p. 43). The requirements. Activities that result in sources of administrative direction for implementation of previously described fill of jurisdictional wetland and stream USFS employees. policies should afford some protection habitat require a section 404 permit. We The USFS Region 4 applies practices to northern leatherside chub. Available can review permit applications and outlined in their Soil and Water information indicates that NPS statutes, provide recommendations to avoid and Conservation Practices Handbook to regulations, and management policies minimize impacts and to implement northern leatherside chub habitat (USFS adequately reduce impacts to the conservation measures for fish and 1988, pp. 1–71). This handbook states species. wildlife resources, including the that the USFS will apply watershed The NEPA provides authority for the northern leatherside chub. However, conservation practices to sustain Service to assume a cooperating agency incorporation of Service healthy soil, riparian, and aquatic role for Federal projects undergoing recommendations into section 404 systems. The handbook provides evaluation for significant impacts to the permits is at the discretion of the U.S. management measures with specific human environment. This includes Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). In criteria for implementation. For participating in updates to resource addition, not all activities in wetlands example, Management Measure No. management plans. As a cooperating or streams involve fill and not all 11.01 states: ‘‘The Northern and agency, we have the opportunity to wetlands or streams fall under the Intermountain Regions will manage provide recommendations to the action jurisdiction of the Corps. Regardless, watersheds to avoid irreversible effects agency to avoid impacts or enhance earlier in this finding we evaluated on the soil resource and to produce conservation for northern leatherside threats to northern leatherside chub water of quality and quantity sufficient chub and its habitat. For projects where habitat where fill of wetlands or streams to maintain beneficial uses in we are not a cooperating agency, we may occur, including mining and oil compliance with State Water Quality often review proposed actions and and gas development. We found no Standards.’’ Irreversible effects include provide recommendations to minimize information indicating that impacts reduced natural woody debris, excess and mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife from stream or wetland fill are acting on sediment production that could reduce resources. Acceptance of our NEPA the species to the point that the species fish habitat, water temperature and recommendations is at the discretion of itself may be at risk, nor is it likely to nutrient increases that could affect the action agency. The BLM and USFS become so. beneficial uses, and compacted or land management practices are intended Summary of Factor D disturbed soils that could cause site to ensure avoidance of negative effects productivity loss and increased soil to species whenever possible, while also Available information indicates that erosion. The USFS land management providing for multiple-use mandates; land management regulatory practices are intended to avoid these therefore, maintaining or enhancing mechanisms are sufficiently minimizing effects whenever possible, while also northern leatherside chub habitat is and mitigating potential threats from providing for multiple-use mandates; considered in conjunction with other land development to extant northern therefore, maintaining or enhancing agency priorities. We determine that leatherside chub populations. The BLM northern leatherside chub habitat is NEPA and its implementing regulations and USFS continue to work with being considered in conjunction with and policies are currently adequately permittees on Federal lands to other agency priorities. Available reducing impacts to northern implement beneficial land use practices information indicates that USFS and leatherside chub. and minimize impacts. The BLM and BLM management policies are The CWA is the primary legislation USFS have provided protective adequately reducing impacts to northern protecting water quality in U.S. aquatic mechanisms for conservation agreement leatherside chub on USFS land. habitats and establishes a process to and sensitive species, including the The National Park Service Organic identify and clean polluted waters. northern leatherside chub, which can Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) specifies that Section 303(d) of the CWA requires each minimize impacts from oil and gas the NPS will ‘‘promote and regulate the State to develop a list of impaired drilling, mining, and grazing. We have use of the Federal areas known as waters, defined as a waterbody that does the ability to comment on NEPA national parks, monuments, and not meet certain water-quality uses evaluations for other projects on BLM

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63469

and USFS lands that may impact the Hybridization is commonly associated Climate Change northern leatherside chub. The NPS with disturbed environments (Helfman Stream conditions across the range of mandate to conserve wildlife and leave 2007, p. 215) because in natural, the northern leatherside chub are it unimpaired has allowed NPS lands to complex habitats, different species are shaped by regional climatic conditions, currently be adequately and sufficiently able to reproduce separately by using primarily precipitation and temperature. protected and will sufficiently minimize different habitat types. Additionally, Water and precipitation is limited in future threats on NPS-managed lands. disturbances allow dispersal of species this arid region. Seasonally, conditions As discussed above, the BLM, USFS, to habitats where they did not naturally range from cold, snowy winters to hot, and NPS are also signatories to the occur. For example, water diversions dry summers. Annually, extended ‘‘Rangewide Conservation Agreement and transfers may allow isolated habitat oscillations between wet and dry and Strategy for Northern Leatherside’’, that previously held distinctly separate periods also are common (Barnett et al. the goals of which are to ensure the populations (allopatric) to overlap 2008, p. 1080). Hydrological patterns are long-term persistence of the northern habitats (sympatric) and present an dominated by high-elevation snow opportunity for hybridization to occur. leatherside chub and to support the accumulation that subsequently We are aware of a historical record development of multi-State supports spring runoff and groundwater that fish collections from Sulphur Creek conservation efforts through recharge (Haak et al. 2010, p. 1). coordinated conservation actions and in the Bear River subregion contained redside shiner x leatherside chub Northern leatherside chub evolved in regulatory consistency. As signatories to this arid ecosystem, demonstrating their this conservation strategy these agencies hybrids and that it is possible for leatherside chub to hybridize with ability to withstand historical climatic are addressing issues related to the variability, including drought northern leatherside chub. speckled dace (Baxter and Stone 1995, pp. 70–71); however, we do not know conditions. Although regulatory mechanisms are Predictions of future climatic how this determination was made (i.e., not in place to sufficiently protect the conditions can no longer rely on northern leatherside chub from local or morphologically or via genetic analysis), or when these fish were collected. analysis of past climatic trends, but large-scale water withdrawal and Northern leatherside chub populations must instead take into account development in Wyoming and Nevada, coexist with speckled dace in La predicted global climate change. Both projected development in these States Chapelle, Mill, Sulphur, and Yellow the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate should be minimal in the areas where Creeks, where both species are native to Change and the U.S. Global Climate northern leatherside chub occurs (see these drainages (Amadio et al. 2009, p. Change Program conclude that changes Factor A: Water Development for more 1). Examination of northern leatherside to climatic conditions, such as information regarding water withdrawal chub from these drainages using temperature and precipitation regimes, and development). We found no morphological characteristics suggested are occurring and are expected to information that inadequacy of existing that populations in La Chapelle Creek continue in western North America over regulatory mechanisms may act on this and Yellow Creek were genetically pure, the next 100 years (Parson et al. 2000, species to the point that the species but that specimens from the other two p. 248; Smith et al. 2000, p. 220; itself may be at risk, nor is it likely to creeks exhibited intermediate Solomon et al. 2007, p. 70, Table TS.76; become so. morphological characteristics of both Trenberth et al. 2007, pp. 252–253, 262– Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade species, thereby suggesting potential 263). Climate variability adds Factors Affecting Its Continued hybridization. However, subsequent uncertainty to predictions of water Existence genetic analysis determined that there availability in stream systems, both in was no evidence of genetic mixing; thus volume of water and timing of flows Natural and manmade threats to we conclude that hybridization is not (Haak et al. 2010, p. 2). Therefore, it is northern leatherside chub include: (1) occurring in these drainages at important to consider how future Hybridization; (2) climate change; and significant levels (Amadio et al. 2009, climatic conditions may impact (3) cumulative effects of all activities entire). Although no other northern leatherside chub. that may impact the species. hybridization-specific studies were In western North America, surface warming and precipitation changes Hybridization conducted on northern leatherside chub, other recent genetic investigations resulting in reduced mountain Hybridization can be a concern for have not documented hybridization in snowpack (Trenberth et al. 2007, p. 310; some fish populations. An introgressed extant northern leatherside chub Mote et al. 2005 and Regonda et al. population can result when a populations (Johnson and Jordan 2000, 2005, cited in Vicuna and Dracup 2007, genetically similar species is introduced entire; Johnson et al. 2004, entire). p. 330) and a trend toward earlier into or invades northern leatherside In summary, recent examination of snowmelt (Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 217, chub habitat, the two species interbreed northern leatherside chub from habitats 219, 223) are climatic conditions most (i.e., hybridize), and the resulting where potential northern leatherside likely to impact stream ecosystems hybrids survive and reproduce. If the chub hybrids were historically found (Field et al. 2007, p. 619; EPA 2008, p. hybrids backcross with one or both of has determined that hybridization is not 11; American Fisheries Society 2010, p. the parental species, genetic present. Genetically pure northern 7). Less snow accumulation, along with introgression occurs (Schwaner and leatherside chub still occur at these earlier and more rapid snowmelt, can Sullivan 2009, p. 198). Continual sites, and no new evidence of affect physical ecosystem properties in introgression can eventually lead to the hybridization has surfaced. Despite the many ways, such as: Reducing aquifer loss of genetic identity of one or both historical supposition of hybridization recharge and groundwater supplies for parent species, thus resulting in a in some localized areas, there are no consistent stream flows; increased water ‘‘hybrid swarm’’ consisting entirely of known new occurrences. We found no temperatures associated with lower individual fish that often contain information that hybridization may act summer stream flows; increased spring variable proportions of genetic material on this species to the point that the flooding from rain storms onto from both of the parental species (Miller species itself may be at risk, nor is it snowpack; increased wildfire risk from and Behnke 1985, p. 514). likely to become so. earlier snowmelt and drier vegetation;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63470 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

and prolonged drought conditions native location if they were carried over remains). For example, a 1991 fire (American Fisheries Society 2010, p. 11; fish barriers. As an example of this for centered in the Trail Creek portion of many citations in Haak et al. 2010, p. 2). closely related minnow species, the Jackknife Creek subwatershed The alterations, especially reduction in biologists hypothesize that a monsoonal (Snake River subregion) did not consistent flows and increased water flood event in Clay Creek, a tributary to extirpate the population (Isaak and temperatures, also will have a myriad of the East Fork of the Sevier River, may Hubert 2001, p. 27). Five years after the biotic ecosystem effects, including: be responsible for the extirpation of fire, individuals were found in multiple Reduction in available aquatic habitat aquatic populations, including the locations throughout the Jackknife Creek and resources (increasing competition, southern leatherside chub (Golden et al. subwatershed, indicating population while simultaneously reducing carrying 2009, p. 2; Borden and Cox 2010, p. 2). persistence (Isaak and Hubert 2001, pp. capacity); alteration of migration and The likelihood of entrainment during 26–27). It is worth noting that the entire reproduction patterns; shifting species flood conditions is reduced because subwatershed was not burned and that assemblages as suitable conditions move canals carry less percentage of the river individuals caught in 1996 may be geographically; and increased nonnative into the canal and during high flows, emigrants from a nearby population species invasions (Helfman 2007, pp. most canals are closed to preserve from the tributary Squaw Creek. 185–186; American Fisheries Society infrastructure and fields likely have Regardless, northern leatherside chub 2010, p. 11). Out of this large set of enough water. were found to be persisting in the still impacts, we will analyze the following All species of native fish could be degraded post-fire Trail Creek area, with potential impacts of climate change on impacted by wildfire effects, elevating stream temperatures often exceeding northern leatherside chub because they the topic to a primary concern for 23 °C (73 °F) in the summer because of are the most likely to negatively impact western forest ecosystem management a lack of riparian cover (Isaak and the species: Increased chance of extreme (Rinne 2004, p. 151). Severe wildfires Hubert 2001, p. 27). events (spring floods, severe wildfire, (complete denuding of landscape and Prolonged drought is the third and prolonged drought); shift in death of all vegetation) can alter stream category of extreme event we considered distribution to higher elevation or systems both instantaneously (ash as a potential threat to northern latitude; and upstream shift of inputs changing water chemistry or leatherside chub. Prolonged drought nonnative trout. flames heating stream water) and alters stream conditions by reducing chronically (debris and sediment inputs available water, leading to diminished Increased Chance of Extreme Events from denuded uplands, or water habitat and habitat of lower quality (e.g., The first potential impact from warming from lack of riparian increased temperature, decreased climate change is increased likelihood vegetation) (multiple citations in oxygen) (Helfman 2007, p. 184). The of extreme events, such as spring floods, American Fisheries Society 2010, p. 9). presence of suitable water conditions in wildfire, and drought. Because northern These changes cannot only cause fish streams is fundamentally linked to the leatherside chub populations mostly mortality and population loss, but also distribution, reproduction, fitness, and occur in small, localized areas and in have long-term effects on the food web survival of fish species (Helfman 2007, smaller streams, a localized extreme through macroinvertebrate mortality p. 97; American Fisheries Society 2010, event that alters stream conditions to (Rinne 1996, p. 653). Severe wildfire p. 7). Less available habitat space causes lethal levels could extirpate a local events have caused documented local niches to overlap, increasing predatory population isolated or fragmented from extirpation events for multiple salmonid pressure on prey species and other populations. Furthermore, isolated populations in the western United competitive pressures throughout the populations are at a greater risk of States (Rinne 1996, p. 653; 2004, p. food web, and causing an overall extirpation because recolonization 151), but in areas where nearby source reduction in carrying capacity and following the event may be precluded populations exist, recolonization has supported biomass (Helfman 2007, p. (American Fisheries Society 2010, p. 9). occurred (Howell 2006, p. 983). We 13). Northern leatherside chub diets The three most likely extreme events expect similar responses from northern overlap with many other native fish that would affect northern leatherside leatherside chub because severe species (Bell and Belk 2004, p. 414), and chub are atypical spring floods, severe wildfires often produce conditions that they are a prey species for others, wildfire, and prolonged drought. are more extreme than the occupied demonstrating that these biotic effects Northern leatherside chub seemingly habitats discussed in previous sections, could potentially arise. have a tolerance of short-term, extreme such as under Factor A: Grazing. Prolonged drought also has a human environmental conditions (Belk and Additional impacts arise from fire component, as drought conditions Johnson 2007, pp. 70–71), suggesting suppression efforts that can create generally lead to increased irrigation the species may be able to adapt to physical disturbances (increased erosion demands on stream and groundwater short-term disturbances resulting from and overland flow, temporary reduction resources (Alley et al. 1999, pp. 20–21). climate change. or cessation of flows in small streams This suggests that human demands Uncharacteristic flooding may be a when drafting or dipping water (Backer could exacerbate natural drought large stressor for fish species (Williams et al. 2004, p. 939, Table 1), or chemical conditions created by climate change et al. 2009, p. 533; American Fisheries disturbances (commonly used fire (EPA 2008, p. 12). Additionally, within Society 2010, p. 7), especially small- retardants and suppressant foams are the Bear River subbasin, irrigation bodied individuals (Harvey 1987, p. toxic to aquatic species)) (Gaikowski et canals might take larger percentages of 851) like the northern leatherside chub. al. 1996, p. 252; Buhl and Hamilton the river flow in low-flow years, which A flood event could wash individuals 2000, p. 408; McDonald et al. 1996, p. would likely entrain a correspondingly from local habitats, carrying them 63). It is possible that a severe wildfire higher percentage of fish, including downstream to unsuitable habitats, such could threaten northern leatherside northern leatherside chub (Gale et al. as reservoirs, mainstem channels, or chub through both immediate and long- 2008, p. 1546), but the relationship may even onto upland habitat, or could term effects. not be one to one (Hanson 2001, p. 331). cause direct mortality (Poff 2002, p. Northern leatherside chub are All of these disturbance events 1500). Even if individuals survived, resilient to moderate wildfire conditions currently occur in localized areas across they may not be able to return to their (charred landscape but some vegetation the species’ range. Nevertheless, future

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63471

climate conditions may increase the applied to all extant northern wildfires because they inhabit severity or frequency of the events (EPA leatherside chub populations. elevational bands that are expected to 2008, p. 11). To test this possibility, the Researchers used existing broad-scale have earlier snowmelt and subsequent USGS and Trout Unlimited recently data, combined with local drainage longer fire seasons, except the Goose analyzed how predicted future climatic characteristics, to describe potential Creek subbasin (Table 10) (Haak et al. conditions would alter the risk of future disturbance regimes (Haak et al. 2010, pp. 12, 30, 59; Service 2011, pp. extreme floods, wildfire, and drought 2010, pp. 5–16). Using their results, we 1–4). However, wildfire effects will for all subbasins containing inland determined potential risk to northern likely be local in scale and we expect leatherside chub populations from these native trout species. With this northern leatherside chub can either disturbances. All extant northern information they produced risk retreat to habitat refuges during a fire, or classifications applied at the leatherside chub populations had a low recolonize extirpated areas after a fire subwatershed scale (Haak et al. 2010, risk of extreme winter flooding except pp. 1–16; Service 2011, pp. 1–4). the three populations in the Goose has ended because most populations Because the risk of these three events Creek subbasin, which had moderate have a recolonization potential. All are species-independent (results are risk resulting from a future forecasted populations except for the Pacific Creek based on climate, elevation, etc., and transition from snow to snow/rain mix population (moderate risk from higher not species characteristics), and because (Table 10) (Haak et al. 2010, pp. 9, 30, elevation and higher mean northern leatherside chub distribution 59; Service 2011, pp. 1–4). Rangewide, precipitation) were at a high risk for overlaps with Yellowstone, Bonneville, all northern leatherside chub future forecasted drought impacts (Table and Colorado River cutthroat trout, the populations occur in watersheds 10) (Haak et al. 2010, pp. 15, 31, 60; risk models created in this report can be assessed at high risk for increased Service 2011, pp. 1–4).

TABLE 10—RISK ASSESSMENT OF NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB POPULATIONS [HAAK et al. 2010]

Risks classifications from USGS climate change National hydrography dataset paper subbasin Population Flood Wildfire Drought

Upper Bear ...... Upper Mill/Deadman Creeks ...... Low ...... High ...... High. Upper Sulphur/La Chapelle Creeks ...... Low ...... High ...... High. Yellow Creek ...... Low ...... High ...... High. Upper Twin Creek ...... Low ...... High ...... High. Rock Creek ...... Low ...... High ...... High. Central Bear ...... Dry Fork Smiths Fork ...... Low ...... High ...... High/Moderate. Muddy Creek ...... Low ...... High ...... High. Snake Headwaters ...... Pacific Creek ...... Low ...... High ...... Moderate. Salt River ...... Jackknife Creek ...... Low ...... High ...... High. Goose Creek ...... Trapper Creek ...... Moderate ...... Low ...... High. Beaverdam Creek ...... Moderate/High .. Low ...... High. Trout Creek ...... Moderate/High .. Low ...... High. Upper Green River/Slate Creek ... North Fork Slate Creek ...... Low ...... High ...... High. Blacks Fork ...... Upper Hams Fork ...... Low ...... High ...... High/Moderate.

This analysis demonstrates that most flooding event, which could displace Increased drought is a predicted subwatersheds harboring northern fish downstream into reservoir habitats rangewide problem for northern leatherside chub (11 of 14) are at risk for where predation is a concern or strand leatherside chub populations (Table 10). increased wildfire impacts. Even more individuals into unsuitable habitats or While this species evolved in an arid strikingly, all extant northern out of the water channel. region and dealt with historical drought leatherside chub populations are at risk Although there is evidence that conditions, human modifications to for increased drought conditions wildfire risks will increase, we conclude riverine systems for water consumption because local conditions will not that wildfire also is not a substantial (irrigation diversions, reservoir mitigate predicted regional extreme risk to the entire species, because construction and management, drought. However, most northern wildfires and wildfire effects will likely municipal water use, etc.) have greatly leatherside chub populations (11 of 14) be local in scale relative to the large, altered the natural hydrology over the are not at risk for increased flooding multi-state, widely distributed range of past 200 years. Therefore, current caused by earlier rain on snow events. the species. Local wildfires may conditions, including human water Based on this analysis we conclude extirpate populations, but we expect development, must be analyzed. An that enhanced spring flooding is not a northern leatherside chub can either analysis of water development in extant threat to populations of northern retreat to habitat refuges during a fire, or population locations indicates that leatherside chub because only a fraction recolonize extirpated areas after a fire dewatering is not common in most of the populations are at risk from this has ended because most populations populations, suggesting that these factor. Northern leatherside chub have a recolonization potential (see populations have elasticity to deal with populations assessed at moderate to discussion under Factor A: lower water availability in the future. In moderate/high risk of spring flooding Fragmentation and isolation section). addition, northern leatherside chub are occur in the Goose Creek subbasin, We hypothesize that a similar documented to persist in degraded Snake River subregion. Spring flooding mechanism took place in Jackknife habitats, such as remnant pools, and could be a factor or become a threat Creek in the early 1990s, allowing the seem to persist in short-term low water depending upon the magnitude of the population to persist after a wildfire. conditions (Belk and Johnson 2007, p.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63472 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

71). Because of these adaptations to deal tolerate more wide-ranging water We found no information that with harsh conditions, and their ability temperatures (Sigler and Sigler 1996, p. warming stream temperatures may act to shift habitats as drought conditions 184), their distribution may only on this species to the point that the warrant, drought has a limited effect on moderately change. species itself may be at risk, nor is it the species rangewide. We found no Because brown trout are more tolerant likely to become so. Northern information that drought may act on this of warmer waters than other trout leatherside chub are adapted to warmer species to the point that the species species, increased stream temperatures water temperatures, including seasonal itself may be at risk, nor is it likely to as a result of climate change effects may water temperature changes associated become so. allow brown trout populations to with late summer baseflows in mid- expand their range upstream and elevation streams. Most populations Northern Leatherside Chub and possibly impact three populations of Nonnative Trout Habitat Shifts occur in streams with currently northern leatherside chub, two in the upstream habitats that may become Large-scale climatic warming trends central Bear River subbasin and one in suitable as stream temperatures change, are expected to result in warmer water the Salt River subbasin. For example, allowing populations to shift into temperatures nationwide (EPA 2008, p. brown trout in lower Jackknife Creek are currently unoccupied upstream or 8). Because water temperature is a currently limited by cooler water adjacent stream habitats. One northern keystone feature of fish community temperatures and may be able to migrate leatherside chub population in Jackknife distribution, predicted changes are (shift) upstream if increasing water Creek may become vulnerable to future expected to negatively affect cold-water temperatures result from climate change brown trout predation if brown trout fisheries continent-wide and cool-water effects, as there are no physical barriers redistribute upstream as a result of fisheries in the southern latitudes, while to movement. Although the Jackknife warming waters due to climate change, benefiting warm-water species Creek leatherside chub population may although it is unclear how Jackknife continent-wide and cool-water species be vulnerable to any future brown trout Creek water temperatures will change in the northern latitudes (Field et al. upstream re-distribution from warming and how both chub and brown trout 2007, p. 631). Northern leatherside chub waters, it is unclear how Jackknife Creek will respond in terms of migration into are adapted to warmer water water temperatures will change, and currently unoccupied upstream and temperatures, including seasonal water how chub and brown trout will respond adjacent tributary habitats. temperature changes associated with in terms of migration into currently late summer baseflows in mid-elevation unoccupied upstream and adjacent Summary of Impacts of Climate Change streams (Wilson and Belk 2001, p. 39; tributary habitats. Because northern Because northern leatherside chub are Belk and Johnson 2007, p. 71). As such, leatherside chub currently occur in an able to survive in broad habitat northern leatherside chub may not be as approximately 13-km reach and at least conditions and tolerate warm water vulnerable to warming water trends as two adjacent tributaries, it is highly temperatures (Wilson and Belk 2001; cold-water species such as brook trout. unlikely that the species would be Nannini and Belk 2006, p. 454), we Where suitable upstream habitats are eliminated throughout this reach in the believe that populations will be resilient available and stream gradient permits, event brown trout redistributed to small-scale abiotic changes to habitat we expect that northern leatherside upstream in response to warming water because of climate change (upstream chub populations can transition temperatures. Northern leatherside chub habitat shift caused by temperature upstream, tracking suitable habitat populations in the Dry Fork Smiths Fork changes, etc.). We also believe there is conditions. Across the range of the or Muddy Creek (Bear River subregion) adequate upstream habitat to facilitate species, most extant northern are not considered vulnerable to future upstream migration of populations in leatherside chub populations occur in impacts from downstream brown trout the face of warming stream mid-headwater reaches with upstream populations as a result of climate temperatures. habitat often unoccupied by change, as existing fish passage barriers individuals. For example, for a few and degraded habitat conditions will Recent modeling efforts predict populations in the Bear River and Green likely inhibit their movement. increased frequency of catastrophic River subregions, their upstream We expect that the distribution of events, especially increased wildfires distribution is demarcated by the existing rainbow trout populations will and prolonged drought. We expect presence of brook trout or possibly likely remain similar to today, or only connected, large populations to weather cooler water temperatures, which are change moderately because they are these disturbances with natural predicted to shift upstream and decline thermal generalists. Rainbow trout demographic fluctuations. Wildfire as water temperatures warm if overlap with two extant northern impacts will likely take place on a small forecasted climate change impacts occur leatherside chub populations, and any enough geographic scale to allow some (Field et al. 2007, p. 624). existing impacts are not likely to portion of northern leatherside If predicted water temperatures increase as a result of climate change. populations to survive, which will conditions change across the range of Brook trout populations will likely be allow for recolonization and population the northern leatherside chub, the negatively impacted by climate change expansion after the fire has receded and distribution of other fish species will because they are a cold-water fish habitat has recovered. Prolonged or shift as well, including those that could (Sigler and Sigler 1996, p. 212). We more frequent drought will likely occur impact northern leatherside chub (see expect any future climate change effects on a larger scale. However, we expect discussion under Factor C: Predation). will reduce brook trout abundance northern leatherside chub to persist Low water temperatures are believed to upstream of extant northern leatherside during these periods because currently restrict the distribution of chub populations (i.e., brook trout individuals can survive in broad habitat brown trout (Sigler and Sigler 1996, p. occurrences that are not currently conditions and are tolerant of low water 206), suggesting that region-wide threatening the northern leatherside levels. While the smaller, more isolated warming water temperatures may chub), which could benefit northern northern leatherside chub populations benefit the species through increasing leatherside chub that may migrate are at an increased risk from increased suitable upstream habitats. On the other upstream into suitable habitats no frequency of possible stochastic events hand, because rainbow trout are able to longer inhabited by brook trout. associated with climate change, there is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63473

still uncertainty on how, when, or if, northern leatherside populations harbor quality impairments in these streams these impacts may occur. nearby or resident populations of that would likely impact northern Shifting distributions of nonnative rainbow or brown trout (Table 7): Dry leatherside chub (elevated sediment and trout also are not expected to create Fork Smiths Fork and Muddy Creeks in phosphorous, and low dissolved undue risk to the species. Only one the Bear River subregion; Jackknife and oxygen) would be exacerbated under population of northern leatherside chub Trapper Creeks in the Snake River lower flow conditions that result from in Jackknife Creek may be at increased subregion; and Upper Hams Fork in the future drought conditions. However, risk from shifting nonnative trout; Green River subregion. All five of these because there is no current information therefore, we believe the species as a populations have either high or on how impaired water quality may be whole is resilient to this threat. We moderate-to-high risk of increased impacting existing northern leatherside found no information that climate drought from climate change (Table 10); chub populations, we cannot predict change effects may act on this species to however, none of these five populations how future drought conditions will the point that the species itself may be have experienced dewatering events in effect the species’ habitats or water at risk, nor is it likely to become so. the past (Table 5), indicating that quality. natural flow (not irrigation) conditions Cumulative Impacts Population Fragmentation and Isolation will drive the water supply for habitat. Some of the threats discussed in this Increased drought will not increase in Relation to Other Threats finding can work in concert with one the risk of nonnative trout in the Dry As demonstrated in the preceding another to cumulatively create Fork Smiths Fork or Muddy Creek section, impacts that do not threaten situations that will impact northern populations because lower water northern leatherside chub leatherside chub beyond the scope of conditions will only reduce the chance independently may work together and each individual threat. For example, as of brown trout invasion. As a result of have substantial, cumulative impacts. In discussed under Factor C: Predation, the decreased water supply, Muddy Creek this analysis, we will analyze the impacts of nonnative trout are habitat conditions will become even less cumulative impacts to populations and exacerbated by drought conditions suitable for trout and Dry Fork Smiths the species as a whole, paying particular because individual northern leatherside Fork will be even more isolated by attention to population isolation and chub will be exposed to brown trout if culverts. fragmentation. their side channel habitats are We believe that the northern In the preceding analysis, we eliminated. In the absence of drought leatherside chub populations in the determined that 7 of 14 northern conditions, northern leatherside chub Upper Hams Fork and Trapper Creek leatherside chub populations were can potentially persist in the presence of will become more impacted by the isolated, and 6 of 14 contained only a brown trout, albeit in low densities. resident rainbow trout in drought single documented occurrence of the Similarly, in the absence of brown trout, conditions. However, the low density of species (see Factor A discussion and drought conditions are not a threat to rainbow trout and the high density of Table 6). Because 3 populations were northern leatherside chub because the northern leatherside chub in the Upper both isolated and contained a single species is adapted to withstand a broad Hams Fork do not put this population occurrence, the remaining 11 range of habitat conditions including at risk of extirpation. The Trapper Creek populations were considered higher stream temperatures and low northern leatherside chub population is sufficiently resilient in terms of water levels. Because of this less dense and could experience more of population size and distribution relationship, we will analyze the an impact from rainbow trout predation (connected to other occurrences or cumulative impact of drought (as a in drought conditions than Upper Hams populations) and only minimally result of climate change), water Fork. impacted from the previously analyzed development (human-caused water Under drought conditions as a result threats and, therefore, not at increased reduction), and nonnative trout of climate change, habitat conditions in vulnerability from various threat factors presence. the Jackknife Creek subwatershed may due to isolation and fragmentation. We also analyze the relationship facilitate upstream movement by brown between population size, isolation, and trout. Such warming conditions will Summary of Factor E potential threats. Dense, connected initially be within the tolerable range of Recent examination of northern populations are able to withstand northern leatherside chub, but may leatherside chub from habitats where impacts more vigorously than small, expand the availability of brown trout suspected hybrids were historically isolated populations. Dense populations habitat. However, with the possible found has determined that hybridization are able to lose individuals without a exception of the northern leatherside is not present. Therefore, with no corresponding loss of the entire chub population in Jackknife Creek, the known instances of hybridization, we population, but small populations are species should be resilient to small- conclude that hybridization is not a vulnerable if even a few individuals are scale abiotic changes to habitat because threat to northern leatherside chub. lost. Similarly, connected populations of climate change (upstream habitat Projected impacts from future climate are more secure from threats because shift caused by temperature changes, change effects will likely impact all nearby populations can provide rescue etc.) and there is likely adequate northern leatherside chub populations effects (immigrants and recolonization). upstream and nearby tributary habitats to some degree, although the synergistic In contrast, isolated populations have to adapt to under future drought effect of these impacts with identified no potential to be rescued, so local conditions. and potential threats are uncertain. extirpation is likely permanent. Because stable, reproducing northern Drought and Water Quality leatherside chub populations occur at Drought, Water Development, and Two northern leatherside chub many locations where degraded habitat Nonnative Trout populations that occur in streams listed conditions exist, their continued As mentioned previously, when as 303(d) water quality impaired persistence and successful reproduction nonnative trout are present, drought (Beaverdam and Trapper Creeks) may be demonstrates that they have some level conditions greatly intensify northern at increased risk due to future drought of tolerance for less than optimal leatherside chub mortality risk. Five severity effects (Table 10). The water environmental conditions. We found no

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63474 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

information that other natural or seasonal and annual changes in physical magnitude to indicate that the northern manmade factors affecting its continued conditions. leatherside chub is in danger of existence may act on this species to the The most widely distributed, extinction (endangered), or likely to point that the species itself may be at relatively large populations occur in the become endangered within the risk, nor is it likely to become so. Bear River subregion. Most populations foreseeable future (threatened), in the Bear River subregion are largely throughout its range. Therefore, we find Finding free of threats (Upper Mill/Deadman that listing the northern leatherside As required by the Act, we considered Creeks), contain multiple populations, chub as an endangered or threatened the five factors in assessing whether the can easily interact (Upper Twin Creek species throughout its range is not northern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda and Rock Creek), and include relatively warranted at this time. high-density populations (Upper Mill/ copei) is endangered or threatened Significant Portion of the Range throughout all or a significant portion of Deadman Creeks, Yellow Creek, Dry its range. We examined the best Fork Smiths Fork, Muddy Creek, Rock Having determined that the northern scientific and commercial information Creek, and Upper Twin Creek). As a leatherside chub is not endangered or available regarding the past, present, result, we concluded that the size, threatened throughout its range, we and future threats faced by the northern connectedness, and stability of the Bear must next consider whether there are leatherside chub. We reviewed the River populations are sufficient to any significant portions of the range petition, information available in our ensure the long-term persistence of the where the northern leatherside chub is files, other available published and species as a whole. Although less in danger of extinction or is likely to unpublished information, and we monitoring and collection information become endangered in the foreseeable consulted with recognized northern is available to characterize northern future. The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ leatherside chub experts, other Federal leatherside chub populations within the as any species which is ‘‘in danger of and State agencies, and university Snake River subbasin, most extant extinction throughout all or a significant researchers. We also prepared a white populations in the Snake River subbasin portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened paper that analyzed specific issues to are discontinuous from other populations and have relatively low species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely the species. In considering what factors to become an endangered species within might constitute threats, we must look population numbers. Three of five Snake River populations have one or the foreseeable future throughout all or beyond the mere exposure of the species a significant portion of its range.’’ The to the factor to determine whether the more factors affecting each population, primarily impaired water quality and definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant species responds to the factor in a way to this discussion. The Act defines that causes actual impacts to the nonnative trout. These and other factors were not considered significant or ‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The term species. If there is exposure to a factor, ‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish but no response, or only a positive imminent. We do not fully understand how these current or potential threats or wildlife or plants, and any distinct response, that factor is not a threat. If are impacting the species, and it is population segment [DPS] of any there is exposure and the species believed that northern leatherside chub species of vertebrate fish or wildlife responds negatively, the factor may be tolerate some level of degraded or short- which interbreeds when mature.’’ The a threat and we then attempt to term, extreme conditions. Although the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ determine how significant a threat it is. isolation of some Snake River (SPR) is not defined by the statute, nor If the threat is significant, it may drive populations likely increases their addressed in our regulations: (1) The or contribute to the risk of extinction of vulnerability to the effects of identified consequences of a determination that a the species such that the species threats, these threats do not currently or species is either endangered or likely to warrants listing as endangered or in the foreseeable future pose a become so throughout a significant threatened as those terms are defined by substantial risk to species rangewide. portion of its range, but not throughout the Act. This does not necessarily When evaluating the potential impact all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a require empirical proof of a threat. The to northern leatherside chub and their portion of a range as ‘‘significant.’’ combination of exposure and some habitat from future climate change Two recent district court decisions corroborating evidence of how the effects, it is likely that warming water have addressed whether the SPR species is likely impacted could suffice. temperatures predicted to occur will language allows the Service to list or The mere identification of factors that likely benefit the species, especially in protect less than all members of a could impact a species negatively is not those stream systems with currently defined ‘‘species’’: Defenders of Wildlife sufficient to compel a finding that unoccupied habitats upstream. The v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. listing is appropriate; we require species is tolerant of short-term extreme Mont. 2010), concerning the Service’s evidence that these factors are operative environmental conditions, suggesting delisting of the Northern Rocky threats that act on the species to the the species may be able to survive some Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April. point that the species meets the of the shorter-term disturbances from 2, 2009); and WildEarth Guardians v. definition of endangered or threatened climate change. Because of the Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 under the Act. uncertainty associated with future (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the Northern leatherside chub are a small, climate change predictions, the Service’s 2008 finding on a petition to mid-elevation fish endemic to streams synergistic effect of future climate list the Gunnison’s prairie dog (73 FR within the Bear River, Upper Green change scenarios, with identified or 6660, February. 5, 2008). The Service River, and Upper Snake River Basins. potential threats on stream systems had asserted in both of these The range of the northern leatherside where the northern leatherside chub determinations that it had authority, in chub has declined over the past 50 occurs, are unknown. effect, to protect only some members of years, and there are currently 14 extant Based on our review of the best a ‘‘species,’’ as defined by the Act (i.e., populations spread over the Bear (7), available scientific and commercial species, subspecies, or DPS), under the Snake (5) and Green (2) River information pertaining to the five Act. Both courts ruled that the subregions. The species evolved in an factors, we find that the threats are not determinations were arbitrary and arid ecosystem characterized by extreme of sufficient imminence, intensity, or capricious on the grounds that this

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63475

approach violated the plain and finding, that the significance of the issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there is unambiguous language of the Act. The portion of the range should be sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and courts concluded that reading the SPR determined based on its biological representation elsewhere in the species’ language to allow protecting only a contribution to the conservation of the range that the species would not be in portion of a species’ range is species. For this reason, we describe the danger of extinction throughout its inconsistent with the Act’s definition of threshold for ‘‘significant’’ in terms of range if the population in that portion ‘‘species.’’ The courts concluded that an increase in the risk of extinction for of the range in question became once a determination is made that a the species. We conclude that a extirpated (extinct locally). species (i.e., species, subspecies, or biologically based definition of We recognize that this definition of DPS) meets the definition of ‘‘significant’’ best conforms to the ‘‘significant’’ (a portion of the range of ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened purposes of the Act, is consistent with a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its species,’’ it must be placed on the list judicial interpretations, and best contribution to the viability of the in its entirety and the Act’s protections ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for species is so important that without that applied consistently to all members of the purposes of this finding, and as portion, the species would be in danger that species (subject to modification of explained further below, a portion of the of extinction) establishes a threshold protections through special rules under range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its that is relatively high. On the one hand, sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). contribution to the viability of the given that the consequences of finding Consistent with that interpretation, species is so important that without that a species to be endangered or threatened and for the purposes of this finding, we portion, the species would be in danger in an SPR would be listing the species interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion of extinction. throughout its entire range, it is of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of We evaluate biological significance important to use a threshold for ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened based on the principles of conservation ‘‘significant’’ that is robust. It would not species’’ to provide an independent biology using the concepts of be meaningful or appropriate to basis for listing; thus there are two redundancy, resiliency, and establish a very low threshold whereby situations (or factual bases) under which representation. Resiliency describes the a portion of the range can be considered a species would qualify for listing: A characteristics of a species and its ‘‘significant’’ even if only a negligible species may be endangered or habitat that allow it to recover from increase in extinction risk would result threatened throughout all of its range; or periodic disturbance. Redundancy from its loss. Because nearly any portion a species may be endangered or (having multiple populations of a species’ range can be said to threatened in only a significant portion distributed across the landscape) may be contribute some increment to a species’ of its range. If a species is in danger of needed to provide a margin of safety for viability, use of such a low threshold extinction throughout an SPR, it, the the species to withstand catastrophic would require us to impose restrictions species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ events. Representation (the range of and expend conservation resources The same analysis applies to variation found in a species) ensures disproportionately to conservation ‘‘threatened species.’’ Based on this that the species’ adaptive capabilities benefit: Listing would be rangewide, interpretation and supported by existing are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, even if only a portion of the range of case law, the consequence of finding and representation are not independent minor conservation importance to the that a species is endangered or of each other, and some characteristic of species is imperiled. On the other hand, threatened in only a significant portion a species or area may contribute to all it would be inappropriate to establish a of its range is that the entire species will three. For example, distribution across a threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too be listed as endangered or threatened, wide variety of habitat types is an high. This would be the case if the respectively, and the Act’s protections indicator of representation, but it may standard were, for example, that a will be applied across the species’ entire also indicate a broad geographic portion of the range can be considered range. distribution contributing to redundancy ‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that We conclude, for the purposes of this (decreasing the chance that any one portion result in the entire species’ finding, that interpreting the SPR phrase event affects the entire species), and the being currently endangered or as providing an independent basis for likelihood that some habitat types are threatened. Such a high bar would not listing is the best interpretation of the less susceptible to certain threats, give the SPR phrase independent Act because it is consistent with the contributing to resiliency (the ability of meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in purposes and the plain meaning of the the species to recover from disturbance). Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 key definitions of the Act; it does not None of these concepts is intended to be F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). conflict with established past agency mutually exclusive, and a portion of a The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in practice (i.e., prior to the 2007 species’ range may be determined to be this finding carefully balances these Solicitor’s Opinion), as no consistent, ‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions concerns. By setting a relatively high long-term agency practice has been under any one or more of these threshold, we minimize the degree to established; and it is consistent with the concepts. which restrictions will be imposed or judicial opinions that have most closely For the purposes of this finding, we resources expended that do not examined this issue. Having concluded determine if a portion’s biological contribute substantially to species that the phrase ‘‘significant portion of contribution is so important that the conservation. But we have not set the its range’’ provides an independent portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by threshold so high that the phrase ‘‘in a basis for listing and protecting the entire asking whether without that portion, the significant portion of its range’’ loses species, we next turn to the meaning of representation, redundancy, or independent meaning. Specifically, we ‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold resiliency of the species would be so have not set the threshold as high as it for when such an independent basis for impaired that the species would have an was under the interpretation presented listing exists. increased vulnerability to threats to the by the Service in the Defenders Although there are potentially many point that the overall species would be litigation. Under that interpretation, the ways to determine whether a portion of in danger of extinction (i.e., would be portion of the range would have to be a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we ‘‘endangered’’). Conversely, we would so important that current imperilment conclude, for the purposes of this not consider the portion of the range at there would mean that the species

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63476 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

would be currently imperiled threats to the species occurs only in range of northern leatherside chub everywhere. Under the definition of portions of the species’ range that included the following subbasins: ‘‘significant’’ used in this finding, the clearly would not meet the biologically Upper Bear River, Central Bear River, portion of the range need not rise to based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ such Logan River, Lower Bear River, Snake such an exceptionally high level of portions will not warrant further Headwaters, Salt River, Goose Creek, biological significance. (We recognize consideration. and Little Wood River. that if the species is imperiled in a Decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court Over the past 50 years, the range of portion that rises to that level of of Appeals in Defenders of Wildlife v. the northern leatherside chub has biological significance, then we should Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (2001) and declined, and the current range of the conclude that the species is in fact Tucson Herpetological Society v. species is now contained in five of the imperiled throughout all of its range, Salazar, 566 F.3d 870 (2009) found that eight documented historical subbasins and that we would not need to rely on the Act requires the Service, in (Wilson and Belk 2001, p. 36; Johnson the SPR language for such a listing.) determining whether a species is et al. 2004, pp. 841–842; UDWR 2009, Rather, under this interpretation we ask endangered or threatened throughout a p. 24). Northern leatherside chub are whether the species would be significant portion of its range, to likely extirpated from the Little Wood endangered everywhere without that consider whether lost historical range of River in Idaho, where verified museum portion, i.e., if that portion were a species (as opposed to its current records exist, but recent collections completely extirpated. In other words, range) constitutes a significant portion failed to document any extant the portion of the range need not be so of the range of that species. While this populations. Similarly, northern important that even the species being in is not our interpretation of the statute, leatherside chub are likely extirpated danger of extinction in that portion we first address the lost historical range from the Logan and Lower Bear Rivers would be sufficient to cause the species before addressing the current range. in Utah and Idaho, where recent collections failed to document extant in the remainder of the range to be Lost Historical Range endangered; rather, the complete populations, and past collection The available literature provides extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of records, while accepted as true, cannot limited information on the historical the species in that portion would be be verified (McKay 2011, pers. comm.). distribution of northern leatherside required to cause the species in the Although we acknowledge that there chub. The type locality for the northern remainder of the range to be is some ambiguity in the historical and leatherside chub was discovered in 1881 endangered. current ranges of northern leatherside from the mainstem Bear River near chub (see Background: Distribution), we The range of a species can Evanston, Wyoming (Jordan and Gilbert conclude that the species is extirpated theoretically be divided into portions in 1881 in UDWR 2009, p. 39). The species from three of the eight historically an infinite number of ways. However, is historically documented in portions occupied subbasins: The Logan River, there is no purpose to analyzing of the Bear River and Upper Snake River Lower Bear River, and Little Wood River portions of the range that have no subregions (Figure 1; Table 1). These subbasins. reasonable potential to be significant or historical collections demonstrate that As described earlier (see Background: to analyzing portions of the range in the species existed over a wide Distribution), despite the loss of the which there is no reasonable potential geographic area from Idaho, to three historical populations, there for the species to be endangered or Wyoming, and into Utah. remain 14 northern leatherside threatened. To identify only those Specifically, historical records (during populations distributed across the Bear portions that warrant further the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s) document River, Upper Snake River, and Upper consideration, we determine whether the existence of individuals from three Green River subregions (see Figure 1). there is substantial information subbasins containing four locations that We now consider if the loss of the three indicating that: (1) The portions may be we consider populations today; one historical populations (Logan River, ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) the species may be population in the Snake River subregion Lower Bear River, and Little Wood in danger of extinction there or likely to (Pacific Creek) and three populations in River) is so important that individually become so within the foreseeable future. the Bear River subregion (Yellow Creek, or collectively this loss of range Depending on the biology of the species, Rock Creek, and Muddy Creek) (McAbee qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by asking its range, and the threats it faces, it 2011, pp. 10, 19). Northern leatherside whether without these portions, the might be more efficient for us to address chub were also historically found in representation, redundancy, or the significance question first or the three subbasins that do not contain resiliency of the species is so impaired status question first. Thus, if we extant populations (McAbee 2011, p. 2). that the species has an increased determine that a portion of the range is More recent investigations documented vulnerability to threats to the point that not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to northern leatherside chub at two the overall species is in danger of determine whether the species is subbasins (Salt River and Goose Creek) extinction (see below for more endangered or threatened there; if we within the Snake River subregion, thus information on justification for this determine that the species is not adding four populations (Jackknife assessment). endangered or threatened in a portion of Creek, Trapper Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Although each of the three lost its range, we do not need to determine and Trout Creek) to the accepted northern leatherside chub subbasins if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In historical range (McAbee 2011, p. 19). discussed above likely has features that practice, a key part of the determination The best scientific data allow us to make it unique, we determine that the that a species is in danger of extinction document the historical existence of historical populations were similar in a significant portion of its range is northern leatherside chub only at the geographically and biologically to the whether the threats are geographically subbasin scale. These historical data current species’ locations. For example, concentrated in some way. If the threats have more recently been compared to the species’ potential spawning, feeding, to the species are essentially uniform current distributional information to and sheltering habitat in these locations throughout its range, no portion is likely determine the presence of extant was likely similar to current population to warrant further consideration. historical populations as explained locations (see Background: Life History, Moreover, if any concentration of above. We conclude that the historical Habitat), and all occurred within

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 63477

subregions that are currently occupied or stochastic event such as drought. The Pacific Creek, Jackknife Creek, Trapper (see Figure 1). Pacific Creek population (Snake Creek, and Beaverdam Creek The loss of the three historically Headwaters subbasin) is similarly populations could no longer support occupied subbasins in portions of the isolated (see discussion under Factor A: northern leatherside chub, other species’ range likely resulted in a Fragmentation and Isolation of Existing existing population locations could reduction in the species overall Populations). In Jackknife Creek (Salt support the species’ persistence. The population, but the remaining River subbasin), a brown trout remaining nine population locations are populations are independent of these population occurs downstream of the distributed within the species’ current populations and do not rely on any of northern leatherside chub population and historical range in the Bear River, the lost population’s habitat for life- (see discussion under Factor C: Upper Snake River, and Upper Green history processes (e.g., spawning, Predation). Although this population River subregions (see Figure 1), and feeding, sheltering). Furthermore, this currently coexists with brown trout, offer sufficient representation and potential reduction of reproductive there is the potential that a climate redundancy of habitat and range such output has not reduced the species’ change-induced increase in water that northern leatherside chub would range of variation or adaptive temperature could force a habitat shift, not be in danger of extinction if these capabilities to such a level that they pushing predacious brown trout into five population locations were would be in danger of extinction. core northern leatherside chub habitat completely lost. Despite the loss of these three (see discussion under Factor E: Climate The loss of these five populations in historically occupied subbasins, the Change). The Beaverdam Creek and portions of the species’ range would resiliency of northern leatherside chub Trapper Creek populations (Goose Creek directly result in a reduction in the has not been appreciably impacted, and subbasin) both occur in streams listed as species’ overall population size, but the the species will continue to be able to 303(d) water quality impaired, although loss of individual populations would recover from periodic disturbance and aquatic communities continue to persist not cause a reduction in the local withstand catastrophic events in other (see discussion under Factor A: Water population size of any remaining parts of its range. Quality). These populations could be at population because each northern In summary, although the species is increased risk if future drought leatherside chub population is extirpated from three historically conditions occur (see discussion under independent and does not rely on other occupied subbasins, the species is found Factor E: Drought and Water Quality). population’s habitat for life-history in five other historically occupied The Trapper Creek population co-occurs processes (e.g., spawning, feeding, subbasins and two additional subbasins with rainbow trout and may be sheltering). Also, the loss of the five in the Upper Green River subregion and vulnerable to predation from this populations would not reduce the now comprises 14 populations in these nonnative species (see discussion under species’ range of variation or adaptive subbasins. We conclude that these Factor C: Predation and Table 7). Also, capabilities to such a level that they remaining 14 populations provide this population is isolated, making it would be in danger of extinction. sufficient representation and vulnerable to a large-scale disturbance Without these five population locations, redundancy of northern leatherside or stochastic event such as drought (see we expect that the resiliency of northern chub habitat throughout the species’ discussion under Factor A: leatherside chub would not be current range such that northern Fragmentation and Isolation of Existing appreciably impacted; the species leatherside chub is not in danger of Populations and Table 6). would continue to be able to recover extinction despite the loss of historical Because the northern leatherside chub from periodic disturbances and habitat. Thus, the lost historical range of faces elevated risk from potential threats withstand catastrophic events in other northern leatherside chub does not at the five population locations parts of its range. constitute a significant portion of the discussed above, we next assess In summary, despite having some range of the subspecies. whether these portions of the species’ locations of elevated risk to potential range may meet the biologically based threats, we conclude that the portions of Current Range definition of ‘‘significant.’’ For these the northern leatherside chub’s range After reviewing the potential threats areas, we evaluate whether the where these threats occur are not throughout the range of northern populations’ biological contributions are significant portions of its range. Even if leatherside chub, we determine that five so important that individually or all of these population locations were of fourteen populations within the collectively this hypothetical loss of extirpated at some time in the future, species’ current range could be range would qualify as ‘‘significant’’ by northern leatherside chub would persist considered to have concentrated threats asking whether without that portion, the at population locations not affected by (see discussion under Factor A, Factor representation, redundancy, or these threats. As noted above, there is C, and Factor E). Below, we outline the resiliency of the species would be so little that biologically distinguishes Dry elevated risk from potential threats impaired that the species would have an Fork Smiths Fork, Pacific Creek, found at the five populations and then increased vulnerability to threats to the Jackknife Creek, Trapper Creek, and assess whether these portions of the point that the overall species would be Beaverdam Creek from other population species’ range may meet the definition in danger of extinction. locations for northern leatherside chub. of ‘‘significant,’’ that is, whether the Although each of the five northern The existing, remaining population contributions of these portions of the leatherside chub population locations locations are distributed across the northern leatherside chub’s range to the discussed above likely has features that species’ historical range in the Bear viability of the species is so important make it unique, we determine that they River, Upper Snake River, and Upper that without those portions, the species are similar geographically and Green River subregions and provide would be in danger of extinction. biologically to other species’ locations. adequate redundancy, resiliency, and The Dry Fork Smiths Fork population For example, the species’ spawning, representation for the species. (Central Bear River subbasin) is isolated feeding, and sheltering habitat is Therefore, the five population locations and likely contains only one occurrence essentially the same at all population (whether considered separately or of northern leatherside chub, making it locations (see Background: Life History, combined) are not a ‘‘significant’’ vulnerable to a large-scale disturbance Habitat). If the Dry Fork Smiths Fork, portion of the species’ range because

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 63478 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

their contribution to the viability of the Office (see ADDRESSES section) Authors species is not so important that the whenever it becomes available. New The primary authors of this notice are species would be in danger of extinction information will help us monitor the staff members of the Utah and Idaho without those portions. northern leatherside chub and Ecological Services Field Offices. We find that northern leatherside encourage its conservation. If an chub is not in danger of extinction now, emergency situation develops for the Authority northern leatherside chub or any other nor is it likely to become endangered The authority for this action is section species, we will act to provide within the foreseeable future throughout 4 of the Endangered Species Act of immediate protection. all or a significant portion of its range. 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et Therefore, listing northern leatherside References Cited seq.). chub as endangered or threatened under the Act is not warranted at this time. A complete list of references cited is Dated: September 27, 2011. We request that you submit any new available on the Internet at http:// Rowan Gould, information concerning the status of, or www.regulations.gov and upon request Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. threats to, northern leatherside chub to from the Utah Ecological Services Field [FR Doc. 2011–25810 Filed 10–11–11; 8:45 am] our Utah Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:12 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12OCP4.SGM 12OCP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4