35398 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES); moratorium, imposed by Congress in by telephone at (801) 975-3330; or by 1995, suspended all listing activities Fish and Wildlife Service facsimile at (801) 975-3331. Persons and further action on the proposal was who use a telecommunications device postponed. 50 CFR Part 17 for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal During the moratorium, the Service, [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2008-0088] Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- Utah Division of Wildlife Resources [MO 92210-0-0008-B2] 877-8339. (UDWR), Bureau of Land Management SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Background and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Conservation Commission (URMCC), Petition to List the Least Chub as Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Threatened or Endangered U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for Reservation, and Central Utah Water any petition to revise the Federal Lists Conservancy District (CUWCD) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife developed a Least Chub Conservation Interior. and Plants that contains substantial Agreement and Strategy (LCCAS), and ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition scientific or commercial information formed the Least Chub Conservation finding. indicating that listing the species may Team (LCCT) (Perkins et al. 1998, be warranted, we make a finding within entire). The goals of the LCCAS are to SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 12 months of the date of receipt of the ensure the species’ long–term survival Wildlife Service (Service), announce a petition. In this finding, we determine within its historic range and to assist in 12–month finding on a petition to list that the petitioned action is: (a) Not the development of rangewide the least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis), warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) conservation efforts. The objectives of a fish, as threatened or endangered and warranted, but immediate proposal of a the LCCAS are to eliminate or to designate critical habitat under the regulation implementing the petitioned significantly reduce threats to the least Endangered Species Act of 1973, as action is precluded by other pending chub and its habitat, to the greatest amended (Act). After review of all proposals to determine whether species extent possible, and to ensure the available scientific and commercial are threatened or endangered, and continued existence of the species by information, we find that listing the expeditious progress is being made to restoring and maintaining a minimum least chub as threatened or endangered add or remove qualified species from number of least chub populations under the Act is warranted. Currently, the Federal Lists of Endangered and throughout its historic range. The LCCT however, listing the least chub is Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section implements the LCCAS and monitors precluded by higher priority actions to 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we populations, threats, and habitat amend the Lists of Endangered and treat a petition for which the requested conditions. The LCCAS was updated Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon action is found to be warranted but and revised in 2005 (Bailey et al. 2005, publication of this 12-month petition precluded as though resubmitted on the entire). finding, we will add the least chub to date of such finding, that is, requiring a As a result of conservation actions our list of candidate species with a subsequent finding to be made within and commitments made by signatories listing priority number (LPN) of 7. We 12 months. We must publish these 12– to the 1998 LCCAS (Perkins et al. 1998, will develop a proposed rule to list this month findings in the Federal Register. p. 10), measures to protect the least species as our priorities and funding chub were developed and implemented. Previous Federal Actions allow. We will make any determination Consequently, we withdrew the listing on critical habitat during development In 1980, the Service reviewed the proposal on July 29, 1999 (64 FR 41061). of the proposed listing rule. In the status of the least chub and determined On June 25, 2007, we received a interim, we will address the status of that there was insufficient data to petition dated June 19, 2007, from the candidate taxon through our annual warrant its listing as an endangered or Center for Biological Diversity, Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR). threatened species under the Act. On Confederated Tribes of the Goshute December 30, 1982, we classified the Reservation, Great Basin Chapter of DATES: This finding was made on June least chub as a Category 2 Candidate Trout Unlimited, and Utah Chapter of 22, 2010. Species (47 FR 58454). Category 2 the Sierra Club requesting that the least ADDRESSES: This finding is available on included taxa for which information in chub be listed as threatened under the the Internet at http:// the Service’s possession indicated that a Act and critical habitat be designated. www.regulations.gov at Docket Number proposed listing rule was possibly Included in the petition and supplement FWS-R6-ES-2008-0088 and http:// appropriate, but for which sufficient was supporting information regarding www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ data on biological vulnerability and the species’ taxonomy and ecology, fish/leastchub. Supporting threats were not available to support a historical and current distribution, documentation we used in preparing proposed rule. In 1989, we conducted a present status, and actual and potential this finding is available for public new status review, and reclassified the causes of decline. We acknowledged the inspection, by appointment, during least chub as a Category 1 Candidate receipt of the petition and supplement normal business hours at the U.S. Fish Species (54 FR 554). Category 1 in a letter to Center for Biological and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological included taxa for which the Service had Diversity, Confederated Tribes of the Services Field Office, 2369 West Orton substantial information in our Goshute Reservation, Great Basin Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT possession on biological vulnerability Chapter of Trout Unlimited, and Utah 84119. Please submit any new and threats to support preparation of Chapter of the Sierra Club, dated July information, materials, comments, or listing proposals. The Service ceased 13, 2007. In that letter, we also stated questions concerning this finding to the using category designations in February that because of staff and budget above address. 1996. On September 29, 1995, we limitations, it was not practical for us to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: published a proposed rule to list the begin processing the petition at that Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish least chub as endangered with critical time. Based on the population status and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological habitat (60 FR 50518). A listing and alleged threats described in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35399

petition, we found no compelling 83). The pharyngeal teeth (located near the spring, the timing of spawning is a evidence to support an emergency the pharynx) are in two rows (Sigler and function of temperature and listing at that time. Miller 1963, p. 83). photoperiod (Crawford 1979, p. 39). Funding became available to begin The least chub is a colorful species. The least chub is a partial and Individuals have a gold stripe along work on the 90–day finding in Fiscal intermittent spawner, and spawns blue sides with white to yellow fins Year (FY) 2008. On October 15, 2008, within aquatic vegetation (Crawford (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 182). we published a 90–day finding that the 1979, p. 74). Adhesive eggs attach to the petitioners provided substantial Spawning males are olive–green above, emergent plants that provide the eggs, information indicating that the species steel–blue on the sides, and have a larvae, and young with oxygen, food, may be warranted for listing under the golden stripe behind the upper end of and cover (Crist and Holden 1980, p. Act, initiated the 12–month finding, and the gill opening (Sigler and Sigler 1987, 808). Females release only a few eggs at opened a 60–day public comment p. 182). The fins are lemon–amber, and a time, but continue spawning for an period (73 FR 61007). This notice sometimes the paired fins are bright extended period. Total numbers of eggs constitutes the 12–month finding on the golden–amber (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. produced are an indication of fecundity, June 19, 2007, petition to list the least 182). Females and young are pale olive and individual females produce from chub as threatened or endangered. above, silvery on the sides, and have watery–white fins; their eyes are silvery, 300 to 2,700 eggs (Crawford 1979, p. 62). Species Information with a little gold coloration (Sigler and Fertilized eggs hatch in approximately 2 days at a water temperature of 22 °C (72 Taxonomy and Species Description Sigler 1987, p. 182). °F) (Crawford 1979, p. 74). Although The least chub (Iotichthys Life History peak spawning activity occurs in May, phlegethontis) is an endemic minnow Sigler and Sigler (1987, p. 183) the reproductive season lasts from April (Family Cyprinidae) of the Bonneville considered the least chub to be a slow– to August, and sometimes longer, Basin in Utah. Historically, ancient growing species that rarely lives beyond depending on environmental conditions lakes Bonneville and Provo largely 3 years of age. However, least chub in such as photoperiod and water covered the Bonneville Basin, but over natural systems live longer than temperature (Crawford 1979, pp. 47–48). the past 16,000 years (since the originally thought (some least chub may This reproductive strategy (i.e., Pleistocene period), these lakes receded, live to be 6 years of age) and growth repetitive spawning over a period of leaving behind the current hydrology of rates vary among populations (Mills et many weeks) allows the least chub to the area (Currey et al. 1984, p. 1). Least al. 2004a, p. 409). Differences in growth persist in fluctuating environmental chub likely persisted in peripheral rates may result from a variety of conditions typical of desert habitats freshwater sources to the receding lakes interacting processes, including food (Crawford 1978, p. 2). and were widely distributed in a variety availability, genetically based traits, Larval least chub grow larger and of the resulting habitat types, including population density, and water young fry survive better in silt substrate rivers, streams, springs, ponds, marshes, temperatures (Mills et al. 2004a, p. 411). habitats (Wagner et al. 2006, pp. 1, 4, 7). and swamps (Sigler and Miller 1963, p. Least chub are opportunistic feeders, The maximum growth rate for least 91). and their diets reflect availability and chub less than 1 year of age occurs at The species’ taxonomic classification abundance of food items in different ° ° has evolved over time, as described in 22.3 C (72 F) under captive conditions seasons and habitat types (Crist and (Billman et al. 2006, p. 434). Thermal the 1995 proposed rule (60 FR 50518). Holden 1980, p. 808; Lamarra 1981, p. preferences demonstrate the importance The least chub is currently classified 5; Workman et al. 1979, p. 23). of warm rearing habitats in producing within the monotypic genus (containing Although least chub diets change strong year classes and viable only one species) Iotichthys (Jordan et throughout the year, they regularly populations (Billman et al. 2006, p. al. 1930, in Hickman 1989, p. 16; Robins consume algae (Chlorophyta and 434). et al. 1991, p. 21). Chrysophyta), midges (Chironomidae), As implied by its common name, the microcrustaceans, copepods, ostracods, Distribution least chub is a small fish less than 55 and diatomaceous material (Sigler and millimeters (2.1 inches) long, identified Sigler 1987, p. 183). The first documented collection of by an upturned or oblique mouth, large Maintaining hydrologic connections least chub is from a ‘‘brook’’ near Salt scales, and the absence of an incomplete between springheads and marsh areas is Lake City in 1871 (Hickman 1989, p. lateral line (rarely with one or two important in fulfilling the least chub’s 16). Between 1871 and 1979, many least pored scales) (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. ecological requirements (Crawford 1979, chub occurrences were reported across 182). It has a deeply compressed body, p. 63; Crist and Holden 1980, p. 804; the State, ranging from the eastern with the front–most part of the dorsal Lamarra 1981, p. 10). Least chub follow portions of the Snake Valley to the fin (on the back) lying behind the thermal patterns for habitat use. In April Wasatch Front and from the northern insertion of the pelvic fin (on the and May, they use the flooded, warmer, extent of the Bear River south to the underside of the body), and a slender vegetated marsh areas at water Beaver River (table 1). Least chub were caudle peduncle (area connecting tail temperatures of about 16 °C (60 °F) very common in tributaries to the fin to the body) (Sigler and Miller 1963, (Crawford 1979, pp. 59, 74), but in late Sevier, Utah, and Great Salt Lakes in the p. 83). Dorsal fin rays number eight summer and fall they retreat to spring beginning of the 20th Century (Jordan (rarely nine), and anal fin rays also heads as the water recedes, to 1891, p. 30; Jordan and Evermann 1896, number eight (Sigler and Miller 1963, p. overwinter (Crawford 1979, p. 58). In in Hickman 1989, p. 1).

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF HISTORIC COLLECTIONS OF LEAST CHUB.

Year GEOGRAPH AREA Location Collected Reference

Wasatch Front Northwest Salt Lake City 1933 Hickman 1989, pp. 16-17

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35400 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF HISTORIC COLLECTIONS OF LEAST CHUB.—Continued

Year GEOGRAPH AREA Location Collected Reference

Big Cottonwood Creek 1953 Sigler & Miller 1963, pp. 82-83

Davis County (2 miles west of Centerville) 1964 Hickman 1989, pp. 16-17; Bailey et al. 2005, p. 16

Farmington Bay 1965 Hickman 1989, pp. 16-17; Bailey et al. 2005, p. 16

Provo River 1891 Jordan 1891, p. 30

Provo River (at confluence with Utah Lake) 1931 & 1936 Tanner 1936, p. 170

Northern Bear River 1894 Thompson 2008, p. 1

Southern Beaver River 1875 Cope & Yarrow 1875, pp. 656-657

Beaver River; Parowan Creek; Clear Creek; 1942 Hubbs et al. 1942, in Sigler & Miller 1963, p. 82 & Little Salt Lake

Sevier Lake 1896 Jordan & Evermann 1896, in Bailey et al. 2005, p. 16

Snake Valley Chimneys Spring; Big Spring; Foote Ranch; 1942 Hickman 1989, p. 16-17 Small Knoll; & Gandy area

Leland Harris Spring Complex & Gandy Salt 1970 Hickman 1989, p. 16 Marsh

Leland Harris Spring Complex; Bishop 1979 Workman et al. 1979, pp. 157-159 Spring Complex (Foote Reservoir & Twin Spring); & Gandy Spring Complex

Callao, Utah (Bagley Ranch & Redden 1979 Workman et al. 1979, pp. 157-159 Spring)

By the 1940s and 1950s, the numbers to 2007 (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 36–45) 1979 Population Status in 2007 of least chub were decreasing (Holden indicates that a majority of the natural 1974, in Hickman 1989, p. 2). Only 11 populations extant in 1979 were Clear Lake Wildlife Stable – Not secure known populations existed by 1979 extirpated by 2007 (table 2). Management (Workman et al. 1979, pp. 156–158). By Area* Table 2.—Comparison of least chub 1989, least chub had not been collected collections in 1979 and their updated Mona Springs* Functionally outside of the Snake Valley for the status in 2007. extirpated previous 25 years (Hickman 1989, p. 2). Three wild least chub populations were Asterisk (*) denotes populations Redden Springs Extirpated extant in 1995 (60 FR 50518) (Leland discovered after 1979. Harris Spring Complex, Gandy Salt Status categories: Bagley Ranch Extirpated Complex Marsh, Bishop Spring Complex). • Stable = viable self–sustaining The current distribution of the least population Knoll Spring (not Extirpated chub is highly reduced from its historic verified) range. The UDWR began surveying for • Functionally extirpated = a limited new populations and monitoring number of least chub present but Cecil Garland Ranch Extirpated existing populations Statewide in 1993. population is not self sustaining Tie House Extirpated As a result, UDWR found three • Extirpated = least chub no longer previously unknown populations of present at that location Donner Extirpated least chub: Mona Springs in 1995, Mills • Secure = no immediate threats present Valley in 1998, and Clear Lake in 2003 • Not secure = immediate threat(s) Cold Extirpated (Mock and Miller 2003, p. 3; Hines et al. present 2008, pp. 44–45). The Mona Springs site Five wild, extant populations of least is in the southeastern portion of the 1979 Population Status in 2007 chub remain: the Leland Harris Spring Great Salt Lake subbasin and occurs on Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, Bishop the eastern border of ancient Lake Leland Harris Spring Stable – Secure Springs Complex, Mills Valley, and Bonneville, near the highly urbanized Complex Clear Lake (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 34– Wasatch Front. Clear Lake and Mills 45). Three of these populations (the Valley are both in the Sevier subbasin, Gandy Salt Marsh Stable – Secure Leland Harris Spring Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, and Bishop Spring in relatively undeveloped sites (Hines et Bishop Springs Stable – Secure al. 2008, p. 17). A comparison of survey Complex) occur in the Snake Valley of results from the 1970s (Workman et al. Mills Valley* Stable – Not secure Utah’s west desert and are genetically 1979, pp. 156–158) to surveys from 1993 similar and very close in proximity to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35401

each other (Mock and Miller 2003, pp. Twin Springs (Hines et al. 2008, p. 38). Table 3.—Least chub translocations 17–18). The two remaining extant The least chub population in Bishop attempted from 1979 to 2008. populations (Mills Valley and Clear Springs has remained stable and has Status categories: Lake) are located on the southeastern demonstrated successful reproduction • Stable = viable self–sustaining border of the native range. and recruitment (Hines et al. 2008, p. population Least chub are still found in small 38). The manmade Foote Reservoir does numbers at the Mona Springs site (Hines not contain least chub but contributes • Unstable = a limited number of least et al. 2008, p. 37). However, because water to the playa marshlands that chub present but population is not this small number of least chub does not provide seasonal least chub foraging, self–sustaining compose a viable self–sustaining reproduction, and nursery–type habitat • Extirpated = least chub no longer population (LCCT 2008a, p. 3), we (Crawford 1979, pp. 62–65). present at location consider the least chub population at (4) Mills Valley: UDWR biologists • Secure = no immediate threats present Mona Springs functionally extirpated discovered least chub at multiple • Not secure = immediate threat(s) (see discussion below). The Snake locations at this site in 1998 (Hines et present Valley, Mills Valley, Clear Lake, and al. 2008, p. 44). Mills Valley is in the Mona Springs populations are each Sevier River drainage in southeast Juab • Unknown = no established sampling genetically distinct (Mock and Miller County (Hines et al. 2008, p. 17). It history 2005, p. 276; Mock and Bjerregaard consists of a wetland with numerous 2007, p. 146). A brief description of the springheads throughout the 200–ha Site Year Status extant wild and the Mona Springs least (495–ac) complex. The least chub were chub populations is found below. present during sampling from 2001 Lakepoint Pond 1979 Extirpated (1) Leland Harris Spring Complex: through 2006 (Hines et al. 2008, p. 44). Harley Sanders 1986 Extirpated R.R. Miller first collected least chub at (5) Clear Lake: In 2003, UDWR Pond this site, located north of the Juab/ biologists found least chub at the Clear Millard County line, in 1970 (Sigler and Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA) Red Butte Gardens 1987 Extirpated Sigler 1987, p. 182). The site consists of in Millard County (Hines et al. 2008, p. 12 to 15 springheads that feed a playa 45). This reserve consists of a shallow Walter Springs 1995 Extirpated wetland with habitat fluctuating in size reservoir and diked ponds fed by seasonally. Least chub have had a springs from adjacent Spring Lake. The Deadman Springs 1996 Extirpated persistent presence since monitoring site is managed by UDWR for waterfowl Antelope Island 2000 Extirpated began by the UDWR in 1993 (Hines et habitat (Hines et al. 2008, p. 45). al. 2008, pp. 41–43). Another spring in Information about this least chub Lucin Pond 1989 Unstable – the area, Miller Spring, is part of the population is limited because of its Not Leland Harris Spring Complex, but recent discovery; however, successful secure outflows of the two sites are not always recruitment is occurring (Hines et al. connected. 2008, p. 45). Garden Creek 2004 Stable – Not (2) Gandy Salt Marsh: C.L., L.C., and (6) Mona Springs: The UDWR Pond secure E.L. Hubbs first collected least chub at biologists discovered this least chub site Atherly Reservoir 2006 Unstable – this site in 1942 (Sigler and Miller 1963, in northeast Juab County in 1995 (Mock Not p. 82). Gandy Salt Marsh is south of the and Miller 2003, p. 3). Mona Springs secure Millard/Juab County line and the Leland has provided habitat for a genetically Harris Spring Complex and consists of distinct, naturally occurring population Ibis/Pintail Ponds 2007 Extirpated private Utah School and Institutional of least chub. However, the Mona Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) Springs site is no longer suitable for Red Knolls Pond 2005 Stable – and BLM lands. Measuring least chub because of the presence of Secure approximately 6.4 kilometers (km) (4 nonnative fish; only four least chub Willow Pond 2007 Stable – miles (mi)) long (north and south) and were collected here in 2008 surveys Secure 3.2 km (2 mi) wide (east and west), the (LCCT 2008a, p. 3). Because of the lack complex consists of approximately 52 of population viability at this site, we Seven northern 2008 Unknown small springheads or ponds that drain consider the least chub population at Utah sites into a large playa wetland on Mona Springs functionally extirpated. approximately 1,295 hectares (ha) (3,200 (1) Lakepoint Pond, Tooele County: In acres (ac)) (BLM 1992, p. 11). Least chub Translocations 1979, 200 least chub from the Leland is the dominant fish species at the In an attempt to create refuge (an Harris Spring Complex were released Gandy Salt Marsh site and comprises a artificial place of protection for a into Lakepoint Pond located wild self–sustaining population (Hines species) populations and reestablish approximately 32 km (20 mi) southwest et al. 2008, p. 40). However, the number wild populations, 19 introductions of of Salt Lake City, 1.6 km (1 mi) from the of occupied sites within the marsh has least chub to new locations rangewide shore of the Great Salt Lake. This site decreased about 50 percent since 1994 were attempted by UDWR between 1979 was eliminated by floods in 1983 and (Wilson 2006, p. 8; Hines et al. 2008, p. and 2008 (see table 3). Of these, two 1984 (Hickman 1989, p. 4). 41). sites are currently stable and secure (one (2) Harley Sanders Pond, Box Elder (3) Bishop Springs Complex: Least has persisted for 3 years and another for County: In 1986, UDWR released least chub were documented at this site in 1 year), seven introductions failed, and chub into Harley Sanders Pond and 1942 (Hickman 1989, p. 18). The three are not secure. The long–term spring. No least chub were found during complex is now the largest occupied success of seven of the transplants is sampling in 1988 (Hickman 1989, p. 4). least chub site in Snake Valley. Located currently unknown, because they were (3) Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake south and very near Gandy Salt Marsh, initiated in 2008 and monitoring County: In 1987, least chub were the site has large springs containing information is limited. A description of introduced into the stream and pond at least chub, including Central Spring and each of the translocation efforts follows. the Utah State Arboretum (Red Butte

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35402 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Gardens) near Fort Douglas in Salt Lake does not contain a least chub determine whether these populations City (Hickman 1989, p. 5). Attempts to population. The UDWR is planning to will contribute to the long–term relocate least chub in 1988 were release least chub again in the future conservation of least chub. Monitoring unsuccessful (Hickman 1989, p. 5), so after mosquitofish control issues are of translocated populations will be we consider it extirpated and addressed (LCCT 2008a, p. 3). essential to address the uncertainty that unsuccessful. (11) Red Knolls Pond, Box Elder exists about the success of these actions. (4, 5) Walter/Deadman Springs, County: In 2005, 250 least chub from Due to the uncertainty of the long–term Tooele County: Least chub were Bishop Springs were introduced to Red status of translocated least chub introduced in 1995 and 1996 to these Knolls Pond (Hines et al. 2008, p. 50), populations, they are not considered springs; however, they have been located in the western portion of Box further in this review. replaced by western mosquitofish Elder County on BLM land. Successful (Gambusia affinis) (Wilson and Whiting recruitment was observed in 2005, 2006, Hatchery Broodstock 2002, p. 4; Wilson and Mills 2004, pp. and 2007, indicating that reproduction The Wahweap Warmwater Fish 4–5). Therefore, we consider these sites has been occurring (Hines et al. 2008, p. Hatchery in Big Water, Utah, and the to be extirpated and unsuccessful. 50; Thompson 2008, p. 4). This site is Fisheries Experiment Station in Logan, (6) Antelope Island, Davis County: In currently secure and represents a Utah, each manage least chub December 2000, UDWR introduced least genetic refuge for the Bishop Springs broodstock that were sourced from Mills chub to a human–made spring–fed pond Complex population. Valley and Mona Springs (Hines et al. on Antelope Island. Mosquitofish have (12) Willow Pond, Box Elder County: 2008, p. 27). These hatcheries help replaced least chub at this site On August 22, 2007, 340 least chub preserve the genetic diversity of source (Thompson 2005, pp. 5–6). Therefore, from the Clear Lake population were populations of least chub and provide we consider this site to be extirpated released into this habitat (Hines et al. stock for introduction and and unsuccessful. 2008, p. 50), located in the northwest reintroduction efforts. (7) Lucin Pond, Box Elder County: In portion of Box Elder County. In 2008, 1989, 42 least chub were transplanted least chub were present and recruitment Summary of Information Pertaining to into this site. Lucin Pond is a human– to the population was apparent (LCCT the Five Factors made pond built in the early 1900s. This 2008a, p. 4). This site is currently secure Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), least chub population is currently and represents a genetic refuge for the and implementing regulations (50 CFR considered unstable and not secure Clear Lake population. 424), set forth procedures for adding because mosquitofish are present and (13) The UDWR introduced least chub species to the Federal Lists of the water supply to the pond is into seven additional sites in Cache and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife unreliable (Thompson 2005, pp. 1–4; Box Elder Counties in 2008 (LCCT and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Hines et al. 2008, pp. 47–49). 2008a, p. 4). This effort was conducted Act, a species may be determined to be (8) Garden Creek Pond, Davis County: to establish new refuge populations by endangered or threatened based on any In 2004, 947 least chub were introduced stocking State–hatchery–produced least of the following five factors: (A) The to this pond on Antelope Island in the chub into suitable habitat. Success of present or threatened destruction, Great Salt Lake. It is a 0.04 ha (0.1 ac) these introductions cannot be modification, or curtailment of its pond that was dredged by the Utah determined for several years; however, habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Department of Parks and Recreation and the probability of success for some of commercial, recreational, scientific, or is fed by a perennial stream (stream these introductions may be low because educational purposes; (C) disease or with continuous flow throughout the of the possibility of winter kill and the predation; (D) the inadequacy of year). The site was considered a genetic presence of nonnative species. existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) refuge for the functionally extirpated In summary, we believe that other natural or manmade factors Mona Springs population. Reproduction translocated least chub populations can affecting its continued existence. In and recruitment have been occurring; contribute to the long–term making this finding, information however, the site is threatened by a loss conservation of the species by providing pertaining to the least chub in relation of habitat due to siltation (Thompson a refuge (e.g., hatcheries or other to the five factors provided in section 2005, pp. 6–7; Hines et al. 2008, p. 46; managed systems) for the preservation 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. Thompson 2008, p. 3; LCCT 2008a, pp. of a population’s genetic diversity. In 3–4). addition, translocation to a refugium (a Factor A. The Present or Threatened (9) Atherly Reservoir, Tooele County: native habitat that has escaped Destruction, Modification, or This site is on Faust Creek in Rush ecological changes occurring elsewhere Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or Valley, and is part of the 283–ha (700– and so provides a suitable habitat for a Range. ac) James Walter Fitzgerald WMA. species) contributes to long–term The following potential threats that Approximately 13,000 least chub from conservation of least chub by providing may affect the habitat or range of least the Mills Valley population were conditions necessary to maintain a chub are discussed in this section, introduced in 2006 (Hines et al. 2008, p. viable self–sustaining population. including: (1) Livestock grazing; (2) oil 50). The UDWR monitoring in 2008 However, to date, translocated least and gas leasing and exploration; (3) detected only eight least chub (LCCT chub populations have had relatively mining; (4) urban and suburban 2008a, p. 3). Therefore, we do not poor success because of problems with development; (5) water withdrawal and consider this introduction to be competing nonnative fishes, inadequate diversion; and (6) drought. successful at this time. water supply, or for unknown reasons (10) Ibis/Pintail Ponds, Tooele (i.e., least chub were stocked into a (1) Livestock Grazing County: In 2007, least chub from Leland particular habitat but could not be Grazing animals can impact aquatic Harris Spring Complex were introduced relocated during subsequent habitats in multiple ways. Livestock into Ibis and Pintail Ponds on the Fish monitoring). While two populations seek springs for food and water, both of Springs National Wildlife Refuge (Hines have indications of successful which are limited in desert habitats; et al. 2008, p. 50). This introduction was recruitment and are secure from therefore, they spend a disproportionate unsuccessful, and the site currently immediate threats, it is too early to amount of time in these areas (Stevens

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35403

and Meretsky 2008, p. 29). As they ungulate damage and bank disturbance (Stalfort 1998, section 1). spend time at springs, livestock eat and (Hines et al. 2008, p. 42). A rotational Accumulations of contaminants in trample plants, compact local soils, and grazing plan has been developed with floodplains can result in lethal or collapse banks of springs (Stevens and the landowner and UDWR on 75 ha (188 sublethal impacts to endemic sensitive Meretsky 2008, p. 29). Input of organic ac) of the Leland Harris site to improve aquatic species (Stalfort 1998, section 4; wastes increases nutrient habitat conditions, but damage to Fleeger et al. 2003, p. 207). concentrations, and some nutrients (i.e., springs and riparian vegetation All of the naturally occurring, extant nitrogen compounds) can become toxic continues to impact least chub habitat least chub populations occur within the to fish (Taylor et al. 1989, in Stevens (Hines et al. 2008, p. 42). Fillmore BLM area. The majority of and Meretsky 2008, p. 29). Domestic Twin Springs, at the Bishop Spring BLM land in the Fillmore Field Office animals can also be trapped in soft complex, is partially protected from is open to oil and gas leasing (BLM spring deposits, die and decompose, livestock by fences, but the larger spring 2009a, p. 11). Oil and gas leases have and pollute the water. All of these complex, Twin Springs South, is not been sold within the watershed areas of effects can result in the loss or decline protected from grazing or wild horse most of the naturally occurring least of native aquatic fauna (Stevens and watering access. Twin Springs South chub populations, but the closest active Meretsky 2008, pp. 29–30). has severely impacted banks resulting in well to a least chub population is As explained below, historic livestock shallower water, increased surface area, currently 9.7 km (6 mi) away (Megown grazing impacted four of the five and sedimentation of spring heads 2009a, entire). The Gandy Salt Marsh remaining wild least chub sites, and (Wheeler et al. 2004, p. 5). On the State– population area is closed to leasing by current livestock grazing practices owned WMA portion of the Mills Valley BLM in accordance with the Fillmore continue to impact these sites. The site, grazing is allowed in return for Resource Management Plan (RMP) UDWR monitors these sites and is access across private land. The private because of the occurrence of least chub working on minimizing or removing portion of Mills Valley is overgrazed habitat. This RMP will be updated in livestock grazing threats (Hines et al. and damage to water body banks and approximately 10 to 15 years. Any 2008, pp. 22–23). Livestock grazing riparian vegetation has been reported as change to the management direction impacts occur at Mills Valley (Wilson moderate to severe (UDWR 2006, pp. would be reviewed at this time and and Whiting 2002, pp. 2–3; Bailey 2006, 27–28). The BLM has built fencing subject to public comment (BLM 2009a, p. 30; Hines et al. 2008, p. 43), Gandy around two Gandy Salt Marsh p. 54). Seismic surveys were conducted Salt Marsh (Hines et al. 2008, p. 39; springheads, Pilot Springs and Red on parcels adjacent to the Mills Valley LCCT 2008b, p. 2), Miller Spring/Leland Knolls Pond, to protect least chub population, and BLM anticipates that a Harris Spring Complex (Bailey 2006, p. transplant locations (Hines et al. 2008, Notice of Staking or Application for 11; Hines et al. 2008, pp. 41–42), and p. 24). Permit to Drill may be filed by the lessee Bishop Springs/Foote Reservoir/Twin In summary, our analysis indicates in 2010 (Mansfield 2009, p. 1). Springs (Wheeler and Fridell 2005, p. that, although efforts to control and Based on past drilling history, the 5). The Clear Lake site is protected from minimize damage have been BLM’s Fillmore Field Office determined livestock grazing because it is a WMA implemented and are ongoing, livestock that recoverable oil and gas is likely to managed by the State of Utah (Hines et grazing impacts some habitat at most be of low availability within the range al. 2008, p. 45). wild least chub sites. Grazing damage is of the least chub. They further estimated Fencing at Gandy Salt Marsh and not always severe where it occurs, and that exploratory wells will be drilled at Miller Spring/Leland Harris Spring livestock are effectively excluded from the rate of about one well every year for Complex excludes cattle from portions of occupied habitat. However, the foreseeable future (BLM 2009a, p. springhead areas (Hines et al. 2008, pp. extensive livestock grazing–related 52). Leases near least chub habitat will 39, 41, 43), but livestock damage still damage has occurred in the last couple not be offered for sale until the Fillmore occurs at these sites during periods of of years in some instances, and livestock BLM RMP is revised; the RMP revision unmanaged overgrazing or when fences grazing on private lands where least is not yet scheduled (Naeve 2009a–c, are not maintained (Hines et al. 2008, p. chub occur is still partially unregulated. entire). 39; LCCT 2008b, p. 2). For example, in Therefore, we conclude that current Oil and gas leases in the BLM July 2008, livestock damage was levels of livestock grazing are likely to Fillmore Field Office will include lease reported to be extensive and fencing significantly threaten least chub notices with information on sensitive trapped cattle inside the northern area populations at Leland Harris Spring species and conservation agreement of Gandy Salt Marsh (LCCT 2008b, p. 2). Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, Bishop species where appropriate (BLM 2009a, Impacts from livestock grazing Springs Complex, and Mills Valley, now pp. 14, 98–99). These lease notices include bank erosion and sedimentation and in the foreseeable future. include measures to coordinate with to springheads (LCCT 2008b, p. 5). UDWR to minimize the risk of spreading Miller Spring (at the Leland Harris (2) Oil and Gas Leasing and Exploration aquatic exotic species; avoid surface Spring Complex) was unsuitable for Oil and gas leasing and exploration pumping for water; avoid surface least chub due to sedimentation and can have direct and indirect impacts on disturbances within 100–year trampling associated with livestock use, springs, marshes, and riparian habitats. floodplains; avoid changes to ground poor water quality, and the presence of Vehicles, including drilling rigs and and surface hydrology; and avoid direct rainbow trout (Hogrefe 2001, p. 7). recording trucks, can crush vegetation, disturbances to special status species Extensive efforts by UDWR in 1999 and compact soils, and introduce exotic (BLM 2009a, pp. 98–99). The extent of 2000 to restore and fence the spring and plant species (BLM 2008, pp. 4–9 to 4– implementation of each lease notice, remove nonnatives significantly 20). Roads and well pads can affect local and the success of the lease notices, will improved the habitat (Hogrefe 2001, pp. drainages and surface hydrology, and not be known until development occurs. 7, 20); however, the response of least increase erosion and sedimentation However, the lease notices in chub to improvements at Miller Spring (Matherne 2006, p. 35). Accidental combination with the low energy has not been determined. Most of the spills (Etkin 2009, pp. 36–42, 56) can development potential should ensure other 12 to 15 springs in the Leland result in the release of hydrocarbon that oil and gas development is not a Harris Spring Complex have some products into ground and surface waters significant threat to the species in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35404 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

foreseeable future. Recoverable oil and residential development and water the population is functionally gas across the entire Fillmore Field development projects have effectively extirpated. We have no information Office area is expected to be low, with eliminated historical habitats and suggesting that future urban or suburban a rate of one exploratory well drilled potential reintroduction sites for least development will occur at a level that annually, and the nearest active well is chub (Keleher and Barker 2004, p. 4; will threaten least chub. 9.7 km (6 mi) from an extant least chub Thompson 2005, p. 9). Development (5) Water Withdrawal and Diversion population. We conclude that oil and and urban encroachment have either gas development are not anticipated to functionally or completely eliminated Hydrologic alterations, including occur at a level that will threaten least most springs, streams, and wetlands water withdrawal and diversion, affect a chub. along the Wasatch Front (Keleher and variety of abiotic and biotic factors that Barker 2004, p. 2). regulate least chub population size and (3) Mining The Mona Springs site, as well as persistence. Abiotic factors include Mills Valley contains a bog area with potential reintroduction sites (Keleher physical and chemical characteristics of a peat and humus resource (Olsen 2004, and Barker 2004, p. 4; Thompson 2005, the environment, such as water levels p. 6). Peat mining has the potential to p. 9) on the Wasatch Front, are and temperature, while biotic factors alter the hydrology and habitat vulnerable to rapid population growth. include interactions with other complexity of Mills Valley, making it The human population in the Mona individuals or other species (Deacon unsuitable for least chub (Bailey et al. Springs area has increased 64.9 percent 2007, pp. 1–2). Water withdrawal 2005, p. 31). An illegal peat removal from 2000 to mid 2008 (City–Data 2009, directly reduces available habitat, activity occurred on private lands in the p. 1) and a housing development has impacting water depth, water surface Mills Valley wetlands in 2003 (Wilson expanded to within 1 km (0.6 mi) of the area, and flows from springheads (Alley 2009a, pers. comm.). The illegal activity Mona Springs least chub site (Megown et al. 1999, p. 43). As available habitat was less than 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) in size, and 2009b, entire). The URMCC, which is decreases, the characteristics and value impacts to associated wetlands were responsible for mitigating impacts of the remaining habitat changes. restored (Wilson 2009a, pers. comm.). In caused by Federal reclamation projects Reductions in water availability to least 2003, a Mills Valley landowner received to fish, wildlife, and related recreation chub habitat reduce the quantity and a permit from the Utah Division of Oil, resources in Utah, has purchased and quality of the remaining habitat (Deacon Gas, and Mining to conduct peat mining protected much of the Mona Springs 2007, p. 1). on their private land. Although one test habitat areas for conserving least chub Water withdrawal and diversion hole was dug, no further peat mining and spotted frog populations (see Factor reduces the size of ponds, springs, and occurred in this location. This peat D). However, indirect effects of urban other water features that support least mining permit is now inactive and development such as pollution from chub (Alley et al. 1999, p. 43). noncompliant with State regulations urban stormwater runoff and changes to Assuming that the habitat remains at requiring payment of mining and bond hydrologic sediment regimes (e.g., carrying capacity for the species or, in fees (Wilson 2009a, pers. comm.). Past sedimentation from adjacent other words, assuming all population peat mining activities have been construction activities) could negatively processes (birth rate, death rate, etc.) unsuccessful in Mills Valley, and we are impact the aquatic habitats at Mona remain unchanged, smaller habitats unaware of any future private or Springs. Even if mosquitofish and other support fewer individuals by offering commercial peat mining proposals. predacious nonnative fish (the primary fewer resources for the population In summary, our analysis found one threat at this site) can be controlled in (Deacon 2007, p. 1). illegal peat removal activity and one the future, we believe urban– Because least chub live in patchily abandoned attempt at legal peat removal development–related effects could rise distributed desert aquatic systems, in the Mills Valley least chub to a level that may preclude reduction in habitat size also affects the population area. We are unaware of any reestablishment of a viable least chub quality of the habitat. Reduced water additional private or commercial peat population at Mona Springs. depth may isolate areas that would be operation proposals in Mills Valley. We Despite the effects of urban and hydrologically connected at higher conclude that peat mining is not suburban development on historic water levels. Within least chub habitat, anticipated to occur at a level that will populations of least chub, we have no springheads offer stable environmental threaten least chub. information indicating this is a threat to conditions, such as temperature and the five remaining extant least chub oxygen levels, for refugia and (4) Urban and Suburban Development populations. These least chub overwintering, but offer little food or Urban and suburban development populations occur in relatively remote vegetation (Deacon 2007, p. 2). In affect least chub habitats through: (1) portions of Utah with minimal human contrast, marsh areas offer vegetation for Changes to hydrology and sediment populations. No information is available spawning and feeding, but exhibit wide regimes; (2) inputs of pollution from indicating the level of human fluctuations in environmental human activities (contaminants, occupation near these sites. However, conditions (Crawford 1979, p. 63; Crist fertilizers, and pesticides); (3) the population centers nearest to extant and Holden 1980, p. 804). Maintaining introductions of nonnative plants and least chub populations are more than 16 hydrologic connections between animals; and (4) alterations of km (10 mi) away and have populations springheads and marsh areas is springheads, stream banks, floodplains, of less than 3,000 persons (Utah important because least chub migrate and wetland habitats by increased Governor’s Office of Planning and between these areas to access the full diversions of surface flows and Budget 2009, entire). range of their ecological requirements connected groundwater (Dunne and To summarize, development along the (Crawford 1979, p. 63; Crist and Holden Leopold 1978, pp. 693–702). eastern portion of the least chub historic 1980, p. 804; Lamarra 1981, p. 10). The least chub was originally range has contributed to the elimination Although we have not directly common throughout the Bonneville of most of the historic populations of observed the effects of flow reductions Basin in a variety of habitat types (Sigler least chub. The Mona Springs site is on wild least chub populations, we and Miller 1963, p. 82). In many currently the only site in this geographic believe that flow reductions will reduce urbanized and agricultural areas, area that still contains least chub, but the hydrology that supports wetland

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35405

and wetland/upland transition zones the appropriation, distribution, and groundwater rights (UDWRi 2009d, pp. which, in turn, provide vegetation management of the State’s surface and 3–4). needed for the least chub reproductive groundwater. This office has broad The Clear Lake least chub site is cycle (Crawford 1979, p. 38; Lamarra discretionary powers to implement the located within the Sevier Desert 1981, p. 10). Alterations of natural flow duties required by the office. The USE’s groundwater pumping basin, which had processes also could alter sediment Office was created in 1897, and the 11 new wells with 44,000 afy transport processes that prevent State Engineer is the chief water rights withdrawn in 2008 (Burden 2009, pp. vegetation encroachment into sensitive administrative officer. For groundwater 3–5). This is 32,000 afy more than the spring areas (60 FR 50520). management, Utah is divided into amount of water withdrawn in 1998 Reductions in water may alter groundwater areas, and policy is (12,000 afy) and is a 20,000–afy increase chemical and physical properties of determined by area (BLM 2009b, entire). from the 1998–2007 average (24,000 afy) aquatic habitats. As water quantity A joint report by the U.S. Geological (Burden 2009, p. 6). Since 1997, this decreases, temperatures may rise Survey (USGS) and several State of Utah part of the Sevier River Basin was (especially in desert ecosystems with agencies provided a description of closed to all new appropriations of little shade cover), dissolved oxygen groundwater conditions in the State of groundwater except for domestic filings may decrease, and the concentration of Utah for 2008 (Burden 2009, entire). not exceeding 1.0 acre–foot and for pollutants may increase (Alley et al. Each of the locations occupied by least filings reviewed on an individual basis 1999, p. 41; Deacon 2007, p. 1). These chub had a corresponding summary by in limited areas of the basin (UDWRi modified habitat conditions are likely to valley or hydrographic area for: the 2009d, pp. 5–6). significantly impact least chub life number of wells constructed in 2008; The Snake Valley summary, which history processes, possibly beyond the the total estimated groundwater corresponds to the pumping activity in state at which the species can survive. withdrawn in the area for 2008; the total the vicinity of Leland Harris Spring The maximum growth rate for least estimated groundwater withdrawn for Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, and Bishop chub less than 1 year of age would occur each year for the previous 10 years; and Spring Complex did not report the ° ° number of new wells, but did specify at 22.3 C (72.1 F). Temperatures above groundwater level monitoring results 19,800 and 20,200 afy withdrawn for or below this have the potential to from several monitoring wells for 2007 and 2008, respectively, in Utah negatively impact growth and affect varying periods of record (~20 to 75 (Burden 2009, p. 89). Additional survival rates (Billman et al. 2006, p. years). For all valleys and hydrographic information on groundwater pumping 438). areas, the predominant (greater than 79 Reduced habitat quality and quantity over the last decade was not provided. percent) use of withdrawn groundwater may cause niche overlaps with other State of Nevada Division of Water was for irrigation with remaining uses fish species, increasing hybrid Resources reported that 11,000 afy of including industrial, public supply, introgression, interspecific competition, groundwater was pumped from the domestic, and stock (Burden 2009, pp. and predation (Deacon 2007, p. 2) (see Nevada portion of Snake Valley in 2009 5, 89). Factor C. Predation; Factor E. (NDWR 2009, entire). Groundwater is Hybridization). Reduction in flow of The Juab Valley, where the Mona currently open to appropriation in springs reduces opportunities for habitat Springs least chub site is located, had a Snake Valley in Utah (UDWRi 2009d, niche partitioning; therefore, fewer total of two new wells, and 26,000 acre– pp. 7–9) and Nevada (NDWR 2009, species are able to coexist. The effect is feet per year (afy) withdrawn for 2008 entire). especially problematic with respect to (Burden 2009, pp. 3–5). This is more The previously discussed increases in introduced species. Native species may than double the amount withdrawn in groundwater pumping have occurred at be able to coexist with introduced 1998 (12,000 afy) and is an overall the same time that a declining trend in species in relatively large habitats (see increase from the 1998–2007 average groundwater level was observed at wells Factor C. Predation), but become (22,000 afy) (Burden 2009, p. 6). All monitored in or very near basins with increasingly vulnerable to extirpation as supplies of surface and groundwater are least chub populations (Burden 2009, habitat size diminishes (Deacon 2007, p. fully appropriated; however, new wells pp. 41–57, 89, 96). Groundwater 2). could be developed with existing monitoring shows that water levels Habitat reduction may affect the groundwater rights (UDWRi 2009d, pp. generally rose in the early to mid 1980s, species by altering individual success. 1–2). likely as a result of greater–than–average Fish and other aquatic species tend to Although the Mills Valley population precipitation. However, groundwater adjust their maximum size to the site did not have a corresponding levels generally declined from the mid– amount of habitat available, so reduced pumping area in the report, the Central to–late 1980s to the present. Although habitat may reduce the growth capacity Sevier Valley summary represents drought conditions were present in the of least chub (Smith 1981, in Deacon pumping activity in the river valley eastern Great Basin (areas with extant 2007, p. 2). Reproductive output upstream of this population and may be least chub populations) during this time decreases exponentially as fish size indicative of the potential for (See Factor A. Drought), localized decreases (Deacon 2007, p. 2). groundwater withdrawal effects. The annual precipitation levels were either Therefore, reduction of habitat volume Central Sevier Valley had a total of 13 average to slightly above average (Mona in isolated desert springs and streams new wells, and 24,000 afy withdrawn in Springs and Mills Valley least chub reduces reproductive output (Deacon 2008 (Burden 2009, pp. 3–5). This is sites) or were generally increasing, if 2007, p. 2). Longevity also may be 4,000 afy more than the amount below average (Clear Lake and Snake reduced resulting in fewer reproductive withdrawn in 1998 (20,000 afy) and is Valley least chub sites), during this seasons (Deacon 2007, p. 2). an 8,000–afy increase from the 1998– same timeframe (Burden 2009, pp. 41– 2007 average (16,000 afy) (Burden 2009, 57, 89, 96). Current Groundwater Pumping p. 6). Since 1997, the corresponding part For the four basins discussed above, The Utah State Engineer (USE), of the Sevier River Basin was closed to a more specific analysis of groundwater through the Utah Division of Water all new appropriations of groundwater. level fluctuations over the last decade Rights (UDWRi), is responsible for the However, new groundwater (1998–2009) provides some indication administration of water rights, including development can occur under existing of the scope of change. Groundwater

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35406 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

levels from six monitoring wells in Juab Hamlin Valley approximately 3.2 km (2 Southern Nevada Water Authority Valley (where the Mona Springs least mi) west, and not a result of the lowered Proposed Groundwater Development chub site is located) declined an average precipitation (Summers 2008, p. 3). Project of 6.1 meters (m) (20 feet (ft)) with Although the causal effect of One of the most significant threats to groundwater pumping is unknown in declines ranging from 0.6 to 10.1 m (2 extant least chub populations may be the following observations, UDWR has to 33 ft) (Burden 2009, pp. 41–45). As proposed groundwater withdrawals documented decreases in habitat at two stated above, groundwater monitoring in from the Snake Valley aquifer. Several least chub sites. They recently reported Central Sevier Valley basin represents applications for groundwater decreases in least chub habitat from pumping activity and groundwater withdrawal from the Snake Valley springs drying and decreasing in size at levels in the river valley upstream of the aquifer are pending (SNWA 2008, p. 1– the Clear Lake least chub site (LCCT Mills Valley least chub population and 6), and SNWA has applied to the BLM may be indicative of the potential for 2008b, p. 2). The UDWR found that for issuance of rights–of–way to groundwater withdrawal effects. annual drying of some ponds with least construct and operate a system of Groundwater levels in 10 monitoring chub is becoming a consistent trend regional water supply and conveyance wells in this area declined an average of resulting in declining habitat quality, facilities (SNWA 2008, p. 1–3). The 0.9 m (3 ft) with declines ranging from and is therefore limiting the distribution SNWA GWD Project includes 0 to 1.5 m (0 to 5 ft). Data from 15 of least chub at Clear Lake. Average construction and operation of monitoring wells in the Sevier Desert water depth among affected ponds groundwater production wells, water groundwater pumping basin (where the decreased from 0.5 m (1.6 ft) in 2006 to conveyance facilities, and power Clear Lake least chub site is located) 0.2 m (0.7 ft) in 2008 (LCCT 2008b, p. facilities (SNWA 2008, p. 1–3). The indicated that groundwater levels 2). At the Gandy Salt Marsh site, least declined an average of 2.4 m (8 ft) with chub populations have declined by proposed production wells and facilities declines ranging from 0.3 to 5.5 m (1 to more than 50 percent (from 1993 to would be located predominately on 18 ft), and groundwater monitoring 2006) as a result of a reduction in public lands managed by BLM (SNWA levels in the Snake Valley (in the available habitats due to the drying of 2008, p. 1–3). As proposed, the SNWA GWD Project vicinity of Leland Harris Spring springs throughout the complex (Wilson Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, and Bishop 2006, p. 8). would convey up to 170,000 afy of Spring Complex) declined 1.2 m (4 ft) As described above, current groundwater from hydrographic basins with declines ranging from 0.3 to 3 m groundwater pumping levels have in Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine (1 to 10 ft) (Burden 2009, pp. 46–52, 89– increased in the last 10 years and in Counties, Nevada, to SNWA member 96). some locations have more than doubled. agencies and the Lincoln County Water We have limited information linking Groundwater levels have decreased Conservancy District (SNWA 2008, p. 1– groundwater pumping to decreases in during this same time period while 1). Although all SNWA facilities are flow at sites where least chub precipitation levels were average or planned for development in Nevada, previously existed. Agricultural generally increasing if below average. associated pumping from the Spring pumping, combined with drought, has Negative impacts to least chub habitat Valley and Snake Valley hydrographic affected several springs in Snake Valley. were documented at the same time this basins (SNWA 2008, pp. 1–4, Figures 1– These include Knoll Spring near the scenario was occurring. In addition, all 2) is expected to affect Utah town of Eskdale and springs on private basins where least chub occur are groundwater resources and properties in the town of Callao (Sabey currently open to additional consequently habitats of the least chub 2008, p. 2). These sites were all groundwater pumping. Therefore, we (Welch et al. 2007, p. 82). historically documented locations of conclude that current levels of The SNWA would receive all least chub that no longer harbor the groundwater pumping are likely to groundwater conveyed from the Snake species (Hickman 1989, pp. 16–17; significantly threaten all least chub Valley (approximately 50,679 afy) and Garland 2007, pers. comm.). populations now and in the foreseeable Spring Valley (approximately 68,000 Pumping for agricultural purposes, future. afy) Basins (SNWA 2008, p. 1–6, Table combined with the effects of drought, Snake Valley has harbored the most 1–1). The groundwater that SNWA has impacted flow in a number of secure least chub populations over the intends to convey would be from springs in Snake Valley. Although no past 50 years (Hickman 1989, p. 2; existing and future permitted water least chub historically occurred at Hines et al. 2008, pp. 34–45). As rights (SNWA 2008, p. 1–6, Table 1–1). Needle Point Spring, the BLM has detailed in the following sections of this If all permits are granted, SNWA detailed monitoring information linking document, proposed water development intends to start pumping operations for nearby groundwater pumping and its projects intend to transport water from Spring Valley in 2028 and Snake Valley effect on the spring’s flow. In 2001, the the underlying aquifers in the vicinity of in 2050 (BLM 2009, p. 2–12). As water level at Needle Point Spring in Snake Valley. Projects include a substantiated below, the SNWA GWD Southern Snake Valley dropped to Southern Nevada Water Authority project is likely to significantly threaten levels not seen in 40 years (Summers (SNWA) Groundwater Development least chub populations in the 2008, pp. 1–2). This spring has a long (GWD) Project, appropriation of foreseeable future. history of existence, identified as early groundwater by the Central Iron County The Service has been concerned about as 1939 by the Civilian Conservation Water Conservancy District and Beaver impacts from this proposed large–scale Corps, when springflow was measured County, Utah, and an increase of water water withdrawal for many years. In at 6 gallons per minute (Summers 2008, development by the Confederated Tribes 1990, the Service and other Department p. 1). For the past several decades, the of the Goshute Reservation. These water of the Interior (DOI) agencies (BLM, spring was developed and used for withdrawals threaten to change the National Park Service, and Bureau of watering livestock and wild horses underlying hydrology of the area and Indian Affairs) protested water rights (Summers 2008, p. 1). The 2001 decline may modify least chub habitat and applications in Spring and Snake in groundwater level at Needle Point impact the extant populations in the Valley, based in part on potential Spring was likely the result of, and Snake Valley in the foreseeable future impacts to water–dependent natural coincides with, increased irrigation in (see below for more information). resources (Plenert 1990, p. 1; Nevada

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35407

State Engineer (NSE) 2007, p. 11). In framework and hydrologic processes about 90,000 afy (Welch et al. 2007, pp. 2006, DOI agencies reached a stipulated influencing the quantity and quality of 81-82). However, factoring in human agreement with SNWA for the Spring groundwater resources. The USGS use of groundwater (80,000 afy) into this Valley water rights applications, determined that groundwater systems estimate resulted in a nearly balanced withdrew their protests, and did not underlying many of the valleys in groundwater budget over the study area. participate in the NSE’s hearing (NSE eastern Nevada and western Utah are Thus, future long-term use of 2007, p. 11). For the Spring Valley not isolated, but rather contribute to or groundwater at the current level or any portion of the project, the Stipulated receive flow from adjoining basins increased level (e.g., SNWA GWD Agreement established a process for (Welch et al. 2007, pp. 4-5). They also project) could decrease subsurface developing and implementing determined that some large-volume outflow and spring discharge in the hydrological and biological monitoring, springs cannot be supported entirely by foreseeable future (Welch et al. 2007, p. management, and mitigation for the local recharge from the adjacent 82). The study concluded that biological impacts (NSE 2007, p. 11). mountains; these springs depend on ‘‘decreases in outflow would be more To better understand the potential water from potentially hundreds of likely in sub-basins having high effects of the proposed large–scale miles (kilometers) away (Welch et al. pumping and relatively large outflow, groundwater pumping, the NSE issued 2007, p. 5). such as in Snake Valley’’ (Welch et al. an October 28, 2008 order (Interim Groundwater flows in a general 2007, p. 82). As explained in the Order No. 2 and Scheduling Order) in direction from Spring Valley to Snake previous section (Current Groundwater which the applicant (SNWA) was Valley. Thus, large-scale pumping in Pumping), decreases in flow to some required to provide a groundwater Spring Valley is expected to impact springs have already occurred in Snake model that simulates groundwater groundwater in Snake Valley. Current Valley. pumping and potential impacts from groundwater pumping in Spring Valley In addition to the BARCAS study, in pumping in the amount of 10,000, was estimated at 18,475 afy in 2007 2007 the Utah State Legislature charged 25,000, and 50,000 afy for the (NSE 2007, p. 35). The additional 68,000 the Utah Geological Survey with timeframes of 10, 25, 50, 100, and 200 afy of groundwater pumping being conducting a 2–year study (West Desert years. The NSE hearings on these proposed would be a 368-percent Groundwater Monitoring Project) to applications were scheduled to begin on increase in total groundwater pumped characterize the background water September 28, 2009. These hearings (NSE 2007, p. 56). The proposed total levels and chemistry; understand were postponed based on a pending amount (86,475 afy) is 93 percent of the regional flow in the carbonate and agreement between the States of Nevada estimated 93,000 afy annual natural basin-fill aquifer systems and their and Utah as described below. recharge for the basin and 114 percent connectivity; quantify future According to the Lincoln County of the estimated 76,000-afy annual groundwater drawdowns; and collect Conservation, Recreation, and natural discharge of the basin (Welch et data for future groundwater-flow models Development Act (LCCRDA) of 2004 al. 2007, p. 81). (UGS 2008, entire). The groundwater (LCCRDA 2004, entire), the States must Although current groundwater monitoring network in Utah’s west reach an agreement on the division of pumping for all of Snake Valley (Nevada desert should better define background Snake Valley groundwater prior to any and Utah) was estimated at 35,000 afy water levels and geochemical conditions transbasin groundwater diversions. Utah in 2005, water rights are currently prior to SNWA pumping, and also be and Nevada have reached a draft allocated for 67,000 afy in Nevada able to help quantify changes after agreement that is still under discussion (12,000 afy) and Utah (55,000 afy) pumping begins. and not yet finalized (Kikuchi and (Welch et al. 2007, p. 81; Kikuchi and A lack of information exists on the Conrad 2009, p. 3; Styler and Biaggi Conrad 2009, p. 2). An additional extent of the aquifers, their hydraulic 2009, entire). As drafted, the agreement 41,000 afy of groundwater pumping is properties, and the distribution of water preserves and protects existing water being proposed by the States of Nevada levels that would contribute to a reliable rights, defines the available and Utah in their interstate agreement. prediction of the amount or location of groundwater supply in Snake Valley as This amount of additional groundwater drawdown, or the rate of change in 132,000 afy, provides 41,000 afy of pumping would be in place of the natural discharge, caused by pumping unallocated water to Utah and Nevada, 50,679 afy that the SNWA project (Prudic 2006, p. 3). Despite the lack of and monitors withdrawals to identify intends to pump, and would thus be a site-specific information, we can and avoid adverse impacts (Kikuchi and 61-percent increase in total groundwater reasonably expect that additional Conrad 2009, p. 2). allocated for pumping (SNWA 2008, pp. groundwater withdrawal in Spring and To assist in developing this 1-6, Tables 1-1). The proposed total Snake Valleys will directly reduce agreement, the LCCRDA required a amount (108,000 afy) is 97 percent of spring discharge through reduced flows study of groundwater quantity, quality, the estimated 111,000-afy annual from the shallow basin-fill aquifer or and flow characteristics in the carbonate natural recharge for the basin and 82 through reduction of the hydraulic head and alluvial aquifers of White Pine percent of the estimated 132,000-afy of the deep carbonate aquifer (Welch et County, Nevada; groundwater basins annual natural discharge of the basin al. 2007, p. 82). As those flows become located in White Pine or Lincoln (Welch et al. 2007, p. 81; Kikuchi and increasingly disconnected, habitats lose Counties, Nevada; and adjacent areas of Conrad 2009, p. 2). characteristics essential to aspects of east–central Nevada and western Utah The BARCAS study included complex lifecycles, particularly the (Welch et al. 2007, p. iii). The USGS, the assessments of the hydrogeology, reproductive requirements of least chub Desert Research Institute, and the State recharge, and discharge of groundwater (Deacon 2007, p. 3). Increases in of Utah conducted this Basin and Range flow and geochemistry of 13 groundwater use above the 2005 levels Carbonate Aquifer System (BARCAS) hydrographic areas in eastern Nevada could significantly alter the hydrology study. The USGS released a final report and western Utah, including the Spring in areas surrounding least chub habitat of the BARCAS study on February 22, and Snake Valleys. The BARCAS study (Welch et al. 2007, p. 82). 2008 (Welch et al. 2007, entire). estimated that the study-wide natural The extent and timing of these effects The BARCAS study included a water– average annual groundwater recharge will vary among springs, based on their resources assessment of the geologic exceeded natural annual discharge by distance from extraction sites and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35408 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

location relative to regional Valley and, thus, utilization of this result in decreased subsurface outflow groundwater flow paths (Patten et al. water could impact least chub habitat. and spring discharge in Snake Valley. 2007, pp. 398-399). Some, and maybe The Confederated Tribes of the The Snake Valley contains the only all, predictions of detrimental impacts Goshute Reservation, located in east- remaining naturally occurring and to the Snake Valley Hydrographic Basin central Nevada (White Pine County) and relatively secure populations of least from groundwater pumping are likely to west-central Utah (Juab and Tooele chub. Our analysis indicates that occur (Kirby and Hurlow 2005, p. 33) Counties) is interested in developing groundwater withdrawals will continue and are likely to significantly threaten, their as yet unused water rights. They to increase in the future and lead to a and possibly eliminate, the remaining have a 1905 decreed surface water right decrease in suitable habitat for least least chub populations in Snake Valley along the Deep Creek system in Utah chub; this is a significant threat to the in the foreseeable future. (Steele 2008, p. 2), and are currently species, now and in the foreseeable Prior to the completion of the SNWA planning to increase Deep Creek basin future. rights to provide for community GWD Project, baseline data collection (6) Drought and research on biologic and hydrologic development projects (Steele 2008, p. 3). Prolonged droughts have primary and impacts will continue. Federal, State, They estimate that up to 50,000 afy will secondary effects on groundwater and county government agencies, as be needed for beneficial uses including resources. Decreased precipitation leads well as nongovernmental organizations expanded crop and livestock irrigation, to decreased recharge of aquifers. and private interests, maintain a high fishery management, surface water Decreased surface-water resources level of concern regarding negative reservoir operation and maintenance, generally lead to increased groundwater impacts to spring discharge rates, and and water pipeline conveyance (Steele 2008, p. 3). The USE is currently withdrawal and increased requests for ultimately least chub habitats, from water-well construction permits (Hutson groundwater pumping. reviewing their application to develop 50,000 afy of water from the Deep Creek et al. 2004, p. 40; Burden 2009, p. 2). Other Proposed Water Development Valley. Past and future climatic conditions (See Projects To conclude, we assessed the threat of Factor E. Climate Change) influence the water withdrawal and diversion by water available to both water In addition to SNWA, other analyzing available information on development and aquatic habitats, with municipalities are interested in historic, current, and planned future water development usually taking developing water resources in areas that groundwater development. It is clear priority. are potentially hydrologically connected that historic and current groundwater The impacts to least chub habitat from to least chub habitat. The following withdrawal has impacted least chub and drought can include: reduction in information is provided to characterize caused population extirpations. Future habitat carrying capacity; lack of the additional potential threat of water withdrawals are a significant connectivity resulting in isolation of groundwater development, but does not threat to extant populations. Local habitats and resources; alteration of at this time represent a clear threat to agriculture pumping and drought have physical and chemical properties of the least chub or their habitat. Actual effects historically and are currently habitat, such as temperature, oxygen, will, in part, be dependent on the degree diminishing springs and least chub and pollutants; vegetation changes; of connectivity of water developments habitats in Snake Valley. Many historic niche overlap resulting in hybridization, to least chub habitats. springs are permanently dry, largely competition, and predation; and On October 17, 2006, the Central Iron because of historic groundwater reduced size and reproductive output County (Utah) Water Conservancy withdrawal. New wells are being drilled (Alley et al. 1999, pp. 41, 43; Deacon District filed applications to appropriate on a yearly basis, and the amount of 2007, pp. 1-2). These impacts are similar underground water in Hamlin Valley, groundwater withdrawal is generally to those associated with water Pine Valley, and Wah Wah Valley in the increasing. withdrawal and diversions as described amounts of 10,000, 15,000, and 12,000 In 2008, the NSE approved a major in Factor A. afy, respectively (UDWRi 2009a, pp. 2, portion of the SNWA groundwater Recently, the Utah and Nevada 12, 23). The principal use of this rights applications for the Spring Valley portions of the Great Basin experienced applied-for water is municipal, with Hydrographic Basin. Current active drought conditions from 1999 until minor amounts used for stock watering applications for groundwater 2004 (Lambert 2009, pers. comm.; (UDWRi 2009a, entire). To date, the USE withdrawals in areas supporting least NDMC 2009, entire). The recent drought has not acted upon these applications. chub include SNWA applications in is not unusual for its length, but is for Similarly, Beaver County, Utah, Snake Valley, and potential projects by its severity; water year 2002 will be purchased water right applications in Central Iron County Water Conservancy recorded as one of the driest years on 2007 originally filed on October 6, 1981, District, Beaver County, Utah, and the record for many parts of the Great Basin for Wah Wah, Pine, and Hamlin Valleys Confederated Tribes of the Goshute (Lambert 2009, pers. comm; NDMC (UDWRi 2009b, pp. 2, 5, 8). A hearing Reservation. Because of the 2009, entire). was held on December 10, 2008, on complexities of determining Although it is not possible to separate these Beaver County (successor-in- groundwater budgets and the effects of the effects of drought from the effects of interest) applications, and on September future pumping, it is not possible at this water withdrawal in order to analyze 14, 2009, these water rights were time to determine the degree to which each separately as a threat to the least rejected by the State Engineer (UDWRi least chub habitats would be affected by chub, the cumulative impacts of both 2009b, pp. 3, 6, 9). Lastly, the State of groundwater pumping. However, threats have impacted least chub Utah School and Institutional Trust information on current groundwater populations in the past. The cumulative Lands Administration (SITLA) filed pumping indicates that groundwater impact of drought and water applications for up to 9,600 afy from levels are generally decreasing in basins development for irrigation has led to the underground water wells in the Snake or hydrographic areas with least chub, loss of springs in the Snake Valley, Valley (UDWRi 2009c, entire). These and that future large-scale groundwater including those on the Bagley and water rights all occur in areas that are pumping in or near the Snake Valley Garland Ranches (Garland 2007, pers. hydrologically connected to Snake populations of least chub is predicted to comm.). More recently, a multiyear

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35409

drought from 1999 to 2004 (Lambert rights to partially protect least chub least chub habitat continue to result 2009, pers. comm.; NDMC 2009, entire) populations and habitats at Mona from livestock grazing on private lands impacted least chub habitats, such as Springs, Bishop Springs, and Gandy Salt or in areas where livestock grazing is the Gandy Salt Marsh (Wilson 2006, p. Marsh. Habitat enhancement projects uncontrolled for short periods of time. 8). At this site, UDWR observed the have focused on nonnative vegetation Grazing impacts continue to occur on an reduction of least chub habitat from removal, grazing management, and intermittent basis at Leland Harris springs drying up throughout the springhead and pond restorations. Spring Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, complex (Wilson 2006, p. 8). Efforts are ongoing to control the Bishop Springs Complex, and Mills Although least chub have survived for impacts of nonnative aquatic species, Valley. thousands of years with intermittent such as mosquitofish, but to date these Three of the five extant populations of natural drought conditions, recent methods have been largely unsuccessful least chub persist in close proximity to human settlement has exacerbated (for further discussion of nonnative one another in the Snake Valley and drought conditions via human water use species see Factor D below). occur within the same groundwater (Hutson et al. 2004, p. 2). On its own, The LCCAS has proved invaluable in basin, where they depend on springs drought is not considered a significant providing better information concerning and associated wetlands. Additional threat to the species as this is a natural the least chub’s status and distribution, significant groundwater development is condition with which least chub and implementation of research under expected to occur by 2028 for Spring evolved. However, the documented the LCCAS has increased our Valley and 2050 for Snake Valley with extirpation and population reductions understanding of least chub life history, the possibility of subsequent landscape- of least chub caused by drought and genetics, and interactions with invasive level effects to Snake Valley and groundwater withdrawal, and plans for species (Hines et al. 2008, entire). The remnant least chub populations. future large-scale groundwater LCCT has addressed several of the It is difficult to predict the foreseeable withdrawal, lead us to conclude that factors previously thought to threaten future regarding large-scale groundwater drought is a significant threat to least the least chub and has made substantial withdrawal and resultant effects to least chub. progress on the threat of grazing and chub. We expect that there may be a lag direct habitat loss, as well as the time after pumping commences before Conservation Agreements conservation of least chub genetics. effects will be realized by the species or The LCCAS is the guiding document However, the participants signatory to measured by scientists. Because the for management of least chub (Bailey et the Agreement have no ability to protect agreement that would manage al. 2005, entire) by the multiagency the least chub from the primary threat groundwater allocations in Snake Valley LCCT. Signatories to the LCCAS include of loss of habitat due to groundwater is still in draft form, the groundwater UDWR, the Service, BLM, BOR, development and only limited ability to hydrology of the Snake Valley is not URMCC, the Confederated Tribes of the protect the species from the threat of well known, and the area is already Goshute Reservation, CUWCD, and nonnative fish introduction (Hines et al. experiencing changes in water regime SNWA (Bailey et al. 2005, p. 2). The 2008, entire). Limitations of the LCCAS due to the effects of water withdrawal, LCCAS and the LCCT provide expertise, and its participants also include their drought, and climate change, we cannot recommendations, and coordination of ability to manage livestock grazing on confidently predict when impacts from funding for the conservation of the private and SITLA lands. water withdrawals will occur. species, but do not provide regulatory Therefore, we find the least chub is protection. In 1999, we withdrew a Summary of Factor A threatened by the present or threatened proposed rule to list the least chub after At this time, based on best available destruction, modification, or analyzing the LCCAS and determining information, we do not believe that curtailment of the species’ habitat or that the conservation actions contained mining, and oil and gas leasing and range, now and in the foreseeable within afforded greater protection to the exploration, or urban and suburban future. least chub and rendered the existing development significantly threaten least regulatory mechanisms adequate. We chub now or in the foreseeable future. B. Overutilization for Commercial, revisit that determination here. However, loss of habitat has extirpated Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Numerous conservation actions least chub from all but a fraction of its Purposes. implemented through the LCCAS were historical range primarily as a result of Commercial, recreational, scientific, most recently summarized by UDWR development along the Wasatch Front and educational utilizations are not (Hines et al. 2008, entire). Annual and water diversions throughout the common least chub related activities, surveys and monitoring of least chub Bonneville Basin. Remaining least chub and protections are in place to limit have occurred since at least 1998 across populations are threatened by livestock their effect on the species. Least chub the species’ historic range. These grazing (excluding the Clear Lake site) are considered a ‘‘prohibited’’ species surveys resulted in the discovery of two and development of water resources for under Utah’s Collection Importation and new populations of least chub at Mills agricultural practices and urban Possession of Zoological Animals Rule Valley and Clear Lake. In addition, the development. We find that listing the (R-657-3-1), which makes it unlawful to surveys resulted in identification of a least chub as a threatened or endangered collect or possess least chub without a few suitable reintroduction sites and the species is warranted due to livestock permit. Over the past 8 years only two establishment of refuge populations (as grazing; water withdrawal and permits were issued by UDWR for discussed in the ‘‘Translocations’’ diversion; and drought occurring now survey of least chub in the wild. All fish section above). Research efforts initiated and in the foreseeable future. collected for these studies were released and directed by the LCCAS have Habitat at four of the five extant unharmed (Wilson 2009b, p. 1). Use of improved our knowledge of least chub populations of least chub is currently least chub for scientific or educational life history and genetic structure (Mock impacted by livestock grazing. Although purposes also is controlled by UDWR, and Miller 2005, p. 276; Mock and fencing and limited livestock grazing and the agency typically provides least Bjerregaard 2007, p. 146). The LCCT management have reduced or chub from fish hatchery stocks for these was successful in securing land eliminated many of the negative impacts purposes (Wilson 2009b, pp. 1-4.). The acquisitions, easements, and water associated with this practice, impacts to UDWR has collected least chub from the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35410 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

wild (an average of 334 per year and several studies have demonstrated habitats by unknown entities (Perkin et combined for all extant populations for their effects on the decline of native al. 1998, p. 23). These fish are potential the last 10 years) to augment hatchery amphibians and small fish (Alcaraz and competitors with the least chub because stocks or for transfer to new or existing Garcia-Berthou 2007, pp. 83-84; Pyke they are closely related to mosquitofish translocation sites (Wilson 2009b, pp. 2- 2008, pp. 180-181). The mosquitofish is and have similar life histories and 3). We are aware of no evidence that native only to the southern United habitat requirements (Perkins et al. least chub are being illegally collected States and northern Mexico, but has 1998, p. 23). for commercial or recreational purposes. been introduced into more than 50 Introduced game fishes, including countries (Garcı´a-Berthou et al. 2005, p. largemouth bass (Micropterus Summary of Factor B 453) to control mosquito populations salmoides), rainbow trout Least chub are not being overutilized and malaria (Pyke 2008, p. 172). (Oncorhynchus mykiss), common carp for commercial, recreational, scientific, Mosquito abatement districts (Cyprinus carpio), and brook trout or educational purposes. Fish that are throughout Utah have released (Salvelinus fontinalis) are predators of needed for research purposes can be mosquitofish for mosquito control since least chub, and these species are present provided from fish hatchery stocks. A 1931 (Radant 2002, p. 2). The in both native and introduced least chub limited number of least chub have been mosquitofish have expanded into habitats (Workman et al. 1979, pp. 1-2, collected from wild populations for aquatic ecosystems throughout Utah 136; Osmundson 1985, p. 2; Sigler and hatchery augmentation or for (Sigler and Sigler 1996, pp. 227-229). Sigler 1987, p. 183; Crist 1990, p. 5). translocation purposes, but we have no Despite extensive efforts that include Clear Lake and Mills Valley least chub information to suggest that this causes a chemical poisoning and mechanical populations are currently sympatric threat to extant populations now or in removal, the elimination of with nonnative predators other than the foreseeable future. We find that mosquitofish from least chub habitats mosquitofish. Rainbow trout and overutilization for commercial, has not been successful. Mosquitofish common carp are present in Clear Lake recreational, scientific, or educational have contributed to the functional (Hines et al. 2008, p. 43). Clear Lake is purposes of the least chub is not a threat extirpation of least chub populations at an expansive habitat that allows least now or in the foreseeable future. the naturally occurring Mona Springs chub to temporarily coexist with site (Hines et al. 2008 pp. 35-37), and nonnative fishes, but least chub will C. Disease or Predation. contributed to the extirpation of least become increasingly vulnerable to Predation chub at three translocation sites extinction if habitat size diminishes including Walter and Deadman Springs (Deacon 2007, p. 2) or nonnative Least chub rarely persist where at Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge numbers increase. Nonnative sunfish nonnative fishes have been introduced (Wilson and Whiting 2002, p. 4), and at (Lepomis sp.), which is a voracious (Osmundson 1985, p. 2; Hickman 1989, an Antelope Island pond (Thompson predator, and fathead minnow pp. 2-3, 9). The species is tolerant of 2005, pp. 5-6). (Pimephales promelas) (Sigler and broad natural habitat conditions and is The UDWR implemented a Sigler 1987, p. 306), are established at well adapted to persist in the extreme, Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) the Mills Valley site and are increasing yet natural, environments of springs and with Mosquito Abatement Districts in in number (Hines et al. 2008, p. 43). playa marshes of the Bonneville Basin, an effort to reduce the continued spread In summary, least chub are unlikely to but they are not an effective competitor of mosquitofish (Radant 2002, entire). persist indefinitely in the presence of with nonnative species (Lamarra 1981, The MOA established administrative nonnative species, particularly p. 1), and are constantly threatened by processes and procedures for collecting, mosquitofish. Mosquitofish are a the introduction and presence of holding, propagating, transporting, predator of least chub eggs and young, nonnative fish (Hickman 1989, p. 10). distributing, and releasing mosquitofish and they compete with least chub for The mosquitofish is the most for signatory mosquito abatement food items. The presence of nonnative detrimental invasive fish to least chub districts. Mosquito abatement districts predacious fish results in the decline (Perkins et al. 1998, p. 23; Mills et al. that did not sign the MOA are and eventual elimination of least chub 2004b, entire). Mosquitofish predate on prohibited from engaging in any populations. The stocking of the eggs and the smaller size classes of mosquitofish-related activities (Radant mosquitofish into least chub habitat by least chub and compete with adults 2002, p. 1). The MOA restricts the use Statewide mosquito abatement programs (Mills et al. 2004b, p. 713). The of mosquitofish to locations approved has been addressed by an MOA that presence of mosquitofish changes least by the UDWR (Radant 2002, p. 5). The regulates this practice. Removing chub behavior and habitat use because MOA was established to function in mosquitofish from aquatic habitats has young least chub retreat to heavily perpetuity, but any party to the not been successful, and they continue vegetated, cooler habitats in an effort to agreement can terminate their to invade new sites. Four naturally seek cover from predation. In these less involvement by providing 60 days’ occurring or introduced least chub optimal environments, they have to written notice to the UDWR. populations have been extirpated by compete with small mosquitofish that Termination by one or more parties will mosquitofish (Hines et al. 2008 pp. 35- also are seeking refuge from adult not act to terminate the agreement to 37; Wilson and Whiting 2002, p. 4; mosquitofish. This predatory refuge other parties. Once a signatory Thompson 2005, pp. 5-6). These include scenario, in turn, affects survivorship terminates their involvement in the the sites of Deadman and Walter and growth of least chub young of year MOA, they are prohibited from engaging springs, Antelope Island, and Mona (Mills et al. 2004b, pp. 716-717). in any mosquitofish activities (Radant Springs. Two of the five remaining least Mosquitofish tolerate an extensive 2002, p. 7). This policy is not expected chub populations (Mills Valley and range of environmental conditions and to change in the foreseeable future. Clear Lake) are coexisting with have high reproductive potential (Pyke Other nonnative fishes predate upon nonnative species. Therefore, we 2008, pp. 171, 173). The ecological and compete with least chub. Rainwater determine that the continued existence impact of introduced mosquitofish is killifish (Lucania parva) and plains of least chub is threatened by the well documented. Mosquitofish killifish (Fundulus zebrinis) have been presence of nonnative fish species and profoundly alter ecosystem function, illegally introduced into least chub their potential spread into least chub

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35411

habitat. This threat will become Summary of Factor C managed by URMCC provides exacerbated in the future by any At this time, we know of no protection from direct habitat loss. reductions in water quantity that further information that indicates that the However, land ownership by URMCC fragment and degrade the habitat. presence of parasites or disease cannot protect the springs from loss of water caused by groundwater pumping Disease and Parasitism significantly affects least chub, now or or from the threat of nonnative fish that in the foreseeable future. Disease and parasitism have not are now at this site. There is strong evidence that least affected least chub to a significant (2) Leland Harris Spring Complex: degree. Workman et al. (1979, pp. 2, chub are threatened by the presence of Land ownership for least chub occupied 103-107) found the parasite blackspot nonnative fish species in their habitats. habitat is primarily private although (Neascus cuticola) present in the least Populations of least chub that are there also has been occupied habitat on chub population at the Leland Harris sympatric with nonnative fish have nearby SITLA and BLM land (Hines et Spring Complex site during 1977–78 become extirpated or functionally al. 2008, pp. 41-42; Jimenez 2009, pers. sampling, and at the time determined extirpated, and extant populations comm.; Wilson 2009c, pers. comm.). that all least chub examined appeared generally decline when in the presence Miller Spring (located in this complex) robust and in good condition. More of nonnative fish, especially and surrounding wetlands recently, the parasite was identified in mosquitofish. The MOA with the (approximately 20.2 ha (50 ac)) are least chub at the Bishop Springs site by mosquito abatement districts is a protected through a conservation Wheeler et al. (2004, p. 5). Although we positive step toward prohibiting the easement between UDWR and a private have no information that allows us to spread of mosquitofish in least chub landowner. This level of land determine the effect of blackspot on habitats. Although hatchery stocks management provides some protection least chub at the Bishop Springs site, provide a source for reintroductions, through cooperative grazing monitoring over the past 14 years removal of nonnative fish has not been management under the conservation indicates that the population has successful; sites previously used for easement; however, impacts resulting remained stable (Hines et al. 2008, pp. translocation sites have had limited from livestock grazing still occur (see 37-39). success; and very few new sites that are Factor A. Livestock Grazing). There also The exotic snail Melanoides appropriate for least chub introductions is some protection provided through tuberculata is an intermediate host and are available. Based on the best Federal land management under the vector for parasites known to be scientific and commercial information BLM RMP and future energy lease dangerous to humans, livestock, and available to us, we conclude that notices (See Factor A. Mining, and Oil wild animals, including threatened nonnative fish predation of least chub is and Gas Leasing and Exploration). endemic fishes and amphibians (Rader a threat to the continued existence of However, existing land management et al. 2003, p. 647). M. tuberculata the species, now and in the foreseeable does not protect the site from loss of occurs at the Bishop Springs and Clear future. water due to groundwater pumping or Lake sites, but we do not have any D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory the possibility of nonnative fish information that links this snail species Mechanisms invasion. We are unaware of any land to parasites that are harmful to least management protection mechanisms on chub (Rader et al. 2003, p. 649). M. The Act requires us to examine the SITLA lands. tuberculata appears to be restricted by adequacy of existing regulatory (3) Gandy Salt Marsh: Land water temperature, but has the potential mechanisms with respect to extant ownership includes BLM, SITLA, and to be found in other least chub habitats threats that place least chub in danger private lands (Wilson 2009c, pers. in the future, because sampling for M. of becoming either threatened or comm.). The BLM has designated 919 ha tuberculata has not occurred at all endangered. Regulatory mechanisms (2,270 ac) as an Area of Critical known least chub sites (Rader et al. affecting the species fall into four Environmental Concern (ACEC) that is 2003, pp. 650-651). general categories: (1) Land closed to oil and gas leasing to protect In 2006, least chub from the Leland management, (2) State mechanisms, (3) the least chub. The ACEC includes most Harris Spring Complex population were Federal mechanisms, and (4) of the lake bed and aquatic habitats and subjected to a disease-check regimen at conservation agreements. is fenced to exclude livestock (BLM the Fisheries Experiment Station in (1) Land Management 1992, pp. 11, 16, 18). This level of land Logan, Utah. Eight different parasites management is adequate to protect the were detected on the fish; however, it Wild populations of least chub are site from human-caused impacts was the opinion of LCCT that the distributed across private, BLM, SITLA, associated with energy development presence of these parasites is common and State UDWR lands and incur and livestock grazing on Federal lands, on a seasonal basis for most wild varying regulatory mechanisms but does not protect the habitat on populations of least chub (Wilson depending on land ownership. SITLA or private lands. In addition, 2009b, p. 4). Considering that least chub (1) Mona Springs: Habitat in the there is not protection from the loss of are the dominant fish species at the vicinity of Mona Springs was primarily water due to groundwater pumping or Leland Harris Spring Complex site and private land (Wilson 2009c, pers. the possibility of nonnative fish that their population appears stable comm.). However, the URMCC acquired invasion. (Hines et al. 2008, p. 42), these diseases 34.6 ha (85.5 ac) in 1998 and 7.2 ha (4) Bishop Springs Complex: Land are likely having a minimal effect on the (17.7 ac) in 2006 for the protection of ownership is primarily private, but species. least chub and Utah State sensitive includes SITLA and BLM lands (Wilson Although parasites exist in least chub species the Columbia spotted frog (Rana 2009c, pers. comm.). In 2006, UDWR habitats, and some least chub have been lutreiventris) (Hines et al. 2008, p. 34). purchased water rights from the found to harbor parasites, we do not The URMCC has recently purchased and landowner for Foote Reservoir and have evidence that individual least chub protected an additional 44.5 ha (18 ac) Bishop Twin Springs (a.k.a. Bishop or least chub populations are of land on the north end of the spring Small Springs) (Wilson 2009c, pers. significantly compromised or threatened complex (Wilson 2009c, pers. comm.). comm.). These water bodies provide by the presence of parasites. The amount of habitat owned and most of the perennial water to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35412 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

complex (Hines et al. 2008, p. 37). In of Zoological Animals Rule (R-657-3-1), evaluation of water sources being 2008, UDWR obtained a permit for making them unlawful to collect or considered for fish transfers, fish health permanent change of use from the USE possess. These species receive inspections, and completion of an for instream flow according to a protection from unauthorized collection updated Hazard Analysis and Critical seasonal schedule. This instream flow and take. While its classification is not Control Point Plan. These protocols helps to maintain water levels at Bishop a regulatory mechanism, the least chub should help reduce the probability of Springs Complex, protecting the least is classified in the State of Utah Wildlife additional aquatic invasive species chub and Columbia spotted frog Action Plan as a Tier 1 Sensitive introductions to least chub habitats. populations (Hines et al. 2008, p. 37). Species, a status that includes federally Regulatory mechanisms that relate to The UDWR-owned instream flow water listed species and species for which a historic groundwater withdrawal are rights may protect least chub conservation agreement has been implemented through the USE through populations in this area from loss of completed and implemented (Bailey et the UDWRi, the Lincoln County Water water due to existing private landowner al. 2005, p.3). This classification Conservancy District, and the Central uses. However, this level of land includes species for which there is Iron County Water Conservancy District management cannot protect for the credible scientific evidence to as described in Factor A. Water possibility of nonnative fish invasion or substantiate a threat to continued Withdrawal and Diversion section. impacts associated with livestock population viability. Groundwater withdrawal in the Snake grazing on private lands, and it may not Introduced nonnative fishes for Valley for future municipal be adequate to protect the site from the mosquito abatement and game-fishing development is subject to both Federal indirect loss of water associated with purposes can be detrimental to the and State regulatory processes. The future large-scale groundwater persistence of least chub (see Factor C. LCCRDA directed a study of pumping. We are unaware of any land Predation). The UDWR follows their groundwater quantity, quality, and flow management protection mechanisms on Policy for Fish Stocking and Transfer characteristics in Utah and Nevada SITLA lands. Procedures and no longer stocks counties, and the Utah State Legislature (5) Mills Valley: Most of the Mills nonnative fish into least chub habitat requested a study on groundwater Valley site is privately owned, and no (Hines et al. 2008, p. 25). This Statewide recharge and discharge to better management agreements are in place. policy specifies protocols for the determine effects of planned The UDWR is working with landowners introduction of nonnative species into groundwater withdrawal. The SNWA to improve the current grazing Utah waters and states that all stocking may begin pumping groundwater for a management plans (Hines et al. 2008, p. actions must be consistent with ongoing portion of their proposed projects prior 43). Approximately 36.4 ha (90 ac) is recovery and conservation actions for to completion of the study that will help owned by UDWR as the Mills Meadow State of Utah sensitive species, better disclose effects of the action. A WMA (Wilson 2009c, pers. comm.). including least chub. This policy is not lack of data on effects of groundwater Livestock grazing rights at this WMA are expected to change in the foreseeable withdrawal to least chub is a concern, awarded to adjacent landowners in future. and the ability of water districts to exchange for public and UDWR access Mosquito abatement districts are not effectively manage groundwater to avoid to their property (Stahli and Crockett prohibited from spraying least chub impacts to least chub populations has 2008, p. 5). The limited amount of habitat to control for mosquitoes. This not been demonstrated. (See Factor A. habitat owned by UDWR provides some practice has the potential to reduce least Water Withdrawal and Diversion for protection from direct habitat loss and chub prey items, and it may negatively more detail.) Therefore, we find that the other direct human-caused impacts, and affect potential reintroduction sites. The State regulatory mechanisms in UDWR’s efforts to work with private BLM has rejected a Juab County existence do not adequately protect the landowners may provide protection on (location of Mills Valley and Leland least chub from the threat of reduction some private land. However, this level Harris Springs Complex least chub of habitat due to water development of land management cannot protect the populations) request to implement a projects. area from all impacts associated with mosquito-control spraying program in (3) Federal Mechanisms livestock grazing (see Factor A. marsh and spring areas on BLM- Livestock Grazing), loss of water caused administered lands; however, this does The major Federal mechanisms for by groundwater pumping, or from the not prevent the county from spraying on protection of least chub and its habitat threat of nonnative fish that are now at privately owned lands (Perkins et al. are through section 404 of the Clean this site. 1998, p. 24). Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (6) Clear Lake: This population occurs In summary, abatement districts may permitting process and the National on the Clear Lake WMA, which is be having an effect on least chub Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. managed by UDWR (Wilson 2009c, pers. populations by spraying to reduce 4231 et seq.) (NEPA). Various Executive comm.). The land owned and managed mosquito larvae. On the basis of the Orders (11990 for wetlands, 11988 for by UDWR provides protection from information we have at this time, we do floodplains, and 13112 for invasive direct habitat loss associated with not believe that mosquito spraying is species) provide guidance and human land-uses, including livestock having a significant effect on least chub incentives for Federal land management grazing. However, this level of land at an individual or population level. As agencies to manage for habitat management cannot protect the area a result, we do not find that it is a characteristics essential for least chub from loss of water caused by significant threat to the species. conservation. groundwater pumping or from the threat The State of Utah operates under The primary Federal land of nonnative fish that are now at this guidelines to prevent the movement of management entity across the range of site. aquatic invasive species, including extant least chub populations is the quagga mussels (Dreissena sp.), zebra BLM. The least chub is designated as a (2) State Mechanisms mussels (Dreissena sp.), and mud snails sensitive species by the BLM in Utah. Least chub are considered (Potamopyrgus sp.) during fish transfer The policy in BLM Manual 6840-Special ‘‘prohibited’’ species under the Utah operations (UDWR 2009, entire). Status Species Management states: Collection Importation and Possession Protocols include notification and ‘‘Consistent with the principles of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35413

multiple use and in compliance with require a section 404 permit. We can We find that the inadequacy of existing laws, the BLM shall designate review permit applications and provide existing mechanisms to regulate sensitive species and implement species recommendations to avoid and groundwater withdrawal is a threat now management plans to conserve these minimize impacts and implement and in the foreseeable future for the species and their habitats and shall conservation measures for fish and least chub. ensure that discretionary actions wildlife resources, including the least E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors authorized, funded, or carried out by the chub. However, incorporation of Service Affecting Its Continued Existence. BLM would not result in significant recommendations into section 404 decreases in the overall range-wide permits is at the discretion of the U.S. Natural and manmade threats to the species population and their habitats’’ Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, species include: (1) hybridization; (2) (BLM 2008, p. 10). not all activities in wetlands involve fill loss of genetic diversity; (3) stochastic The NEPA has a provision for the and not all wetlands are ‘‘jurisdictional.’’ disturbance and population isolation; Service to assume a cooperating agency Regardless, we have evaluated threats to (4) drought and climate change; and (5) role for Federal projects undergoing the species’ habitat where fill of cumulative effects. evaluation for significant impacts to the wetlands may occur, including peat (1) Hybridization human environment. This includes mining and oil and gas development. At participating in updates to RMPs. As a this time we do not have information to Hybridization can be a concern for cooperating agency, we have the indicate that this is at a level that some fish populations. An introgressed opportunity to provide threatens the species now or in the population results when a genetically recommendations to the action agency foreseeable future. similar species is introduced into or to avoid impacts or enhance invades least chub habitat, the two conservation for least chub and its Summary of Factor D species interbreed (i.e., hybridize), and habitat. For projects where we are not a We find that regulatory mechanisms the resulting hybrids survive and cooperating agency, we often review related specifically to land management reproduce. If the hybrids backcross with proposed actions and provide are sufficient for mitigating potential one or both of the parental species, recommendations to minimize and threats from land development to the genetic introgression occurs (Schwaner mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife least chub at four of the population and Sullivan 2009, p. 198). Continual resources. sites: Mona Springs (URMCC land introgression can eventually lead to the Acceptance of our NEPA acquisition), Gandy Salt Marsh (BLM loss of genetic identity of one or both recommendations is at the discretion of ACEC), Bishop Springs (protection of parent species, thus resulting in a the action agency. The BLM land water rights), and Clear Lake (UDWR ‘‘hybrid swarm’’ consisting entirely of management practices are intended to WMA). The UDWR continues to work individual fish that often contain ensure avoidance of negative effects to with landowners at Mills Valley and the variable proportions of genetic material species whenever possible, while also Leland Harris Spring Complex to from both of the parental species (Miller providing for multiple-use mandates; implement beneficial grazing practices and Behnke 1985, p. 514). therefore, maintaining or enhancing and maintain fences; however, because Hybridization is commonly associated least chub habitat is considered in livestock-grazing-related impacts are with disturbed environments (Hubbs conjunction with other agency still observed at most extant least chub 1955, p. 18). In complex habitats, priorities. sites, we determined that grazing is reproductive isolator mechanisms can As described in Factor A, BLM considered a significant threat to the be eliminated as a result of habitat designated the Gandy Salt Marsh as an least chub (see Factor A. Livestock alteration and degradation, and ACEC, and it is closed to oil and gas Grazing). resultantly, overlaps of reproductive leasing (Jimenez 2009, pers. comm.). In The BLM has provided protective niches and breakdowns of behavior addition, the Fillmore Oil and Gas mechanisms in the form of lease notices occur due to overcrowding (Crawford Environmental Assessment provides for conservation agreement and 1979, p. 74; Lamarra 1981, p. 7). The lease notices that can protect least chub sensitive species, including the least Bonneville Basin has suffered major and their habitats. We conclude in chub, which can minimize impacts from alterations to its aquatic environments, Factor A that oil and gas recovery on oil and gas drilling. We also retain the including loss of habitat through water BLM lands near least chub habitats is ability to comment on NEPA diversions (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. anticipated to occur at a slow rate and evaluations for other projects on BLM 39). Disturbances allow dispersal of is not considered a significant threat lands that may impact the least chub. species to habitats where they did not now or in the foreseeable future. The We determined that oil and gas drilling naturally occur. Water diversions may aforementioned lease notices and other is not a threat to the least chub given the allow isolated springs that previously potential RMP protection measures will low level of expected energy held distinctly separate populations thus be beneficial for site-specific development in the area (see Factor A. (allopatric) to overlap habitats management; however, we do not Mining, and Oil and Gas Leasing and (sympatry) and present an opportunity anticipate a significant threat from Development). for hybridization to occur. Habitats such activities on BLM lands to the existence Regulatory mechanisms are not in as playa marshes of the Utah west desert of the least chub. Therefore, we find that place to sufficiently protect the least may become restricted to spring heads the current regulatory structure for oil chub from local or large-scale as a result of water diversion, drought, and gas leasing is adequate to protect groundwater withdrawal. See Factor A and climate change. Inadequate habitat least chub and its habitat from this for more information regarding water diversity forces sympatric species into potential threat. rights and proposed groundwater close spawning proximity. Least chub population areas contain withdrawal. Hybridization is even more likely since wetland habitats, and section 404 of the Although mosquito spraying is not least chub are broadcast spawners for an Clean Water Act regulates fill in prevented by regulatory mechanisms, extended period of time, and this wetlands that meet certain jurisdictional we have no information indicating that timeframe can overlap with the requirements. Activities that result in mosquito spraying is a significant threat spawning period of other species, fill of jurisdictional wetland habitat to the least chub. including the native Utah chub and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35414 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

speckled dace (Crawford 1979, p. 74; genetic structuring among these three techniques but may be reflected in Miller and Behnke 1985, p. 509). locations was apparent and consistent behavioral changes and habitat A morphometric study of specimens with patterns of recent and historical adaptations as a result of the hatchery collected in 1977 and 1978 documented hydrogeographic isolation. The most environment. These may cause a loss of hybridization of least chub with Utah genetically divergent population in this fitness in naturally occurring chub (Gila atraria) and speckled dace analysis was in Mona Springs, at the populations if refugia and source (Rhinichthys osculus) at five locations extreme southeastern reach of the Great individuals are used in a supplemental (Workman et al. 1979, pp. 156-158; Salt Lake subbasin, followed by the capacity (Mock and Miller 2005, pp. Miller and Behnke 1985, p. 510). Least Mills Valley population in the Sevier 273-275). chub populations no longer occur at subbasin. The three Snake Valley In summary, we find that extant wild three of these locations, and the other populations (Leland Harris Spring least chub natural populations show two – Gandy Salt Marsh and Bishop Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, and Bishop adequate genetic diversity to sustain Springs (documented as Foote Reservoir Springs) were genetically similar, which healthy populations, and bottlenecks are at the time) – are relatively healthy least is expected due to their spatial not apparent in wild, transplanted, or chub populations that had no evidence proximity. The sixth and southernmost hatchery populations. As described in of hybridization in genetic samples population at Clear Lake was not part (3) of this section, refugia exist for collected in 1997. Although no included in the initial analyses (Mock four of the five persisting wild sites, and hybridization-specific studies have been and Miller 2005, pp. 273-275), but later these can provide supplementation to conducted on least chub, recent genetic analysis indicated that the population is the genetic pools of individual investigations have not documented most similar to the Mills Valley populations if necessary. hybridization in extant least chub population, which is consistent with populations (Mock and Miller 2003, p. their location in the Sevier subbasin. (3) Environmentally Stochastic 10). The Clear Lake population was distinct Disturbance and Population Isolation In summary, most habitats where least from, and possibly more diverse than, Environmentally stochastic events can chub hybrids were found in the late the Mills Valley population (Mock and include several types of natural events, 1970s consisted of altered systems that Bjerregaard 2007, p. 146). such as drought, wildfire and its lacked the complexity required for Genetic diversity within naturally resultant effects, or flood. Least chub reproductive isolation. Least chub no occurring least chub populations populations could be affected by longer occur at three of these sites, and appears to be healthy with respect to drought, especially when exacerbated no new evidence of hybridization has molecular diversity (Mock and Miller by water withdrawal or, potentially, surfaced for the other two extant 2005, pp. 273-275). Gandy Salt Marsh climate change. We address climate locations. Despite the recorded and Leland Harris Spring Complex change in part (4) of this section. incidence of hybridization in the past, contain the highest diversity. This Least chub populations are isolated, there are no known new occurrences. suggests that: (1) These least chub both naturally and as the result of Therefore, hybridization is not populations are large enough to avoid human impacts. Habitat connectivity is considered a significant threat to the significant historical genetic drift as least chub now or in the foreseeable their populations become more isolated absent among the three east/southeast future. from each other; or (2) these populations Bonneville Basin populations, and the west desert populations are similarly (2) Loss of Genetic Diversity have been historically large, and their recent decline has been so rapid that the disconnected except in years of The level of genetic diversity in loss of population genetic diversity is exceptionally high water (Perkins et al. individual fish populations influences not yet detectable. Genetic drift affects 1998, p. 23). We have no evidence of survival and adaptability to the genetic makeup of the population least chub populations being affected by environmental change. Maintaining but, unlike natural selection, through an fire or its resultant effect such as sufficient levels of genetic diversity entirely random process. So although siltation; however, one translocated within all least chub populations is genetic drift is a mechanism of population was eliminated by flooding important, primarily because they exist evolution, it does not work to produce of the Great Salt Lake (see Translocation in small, isolated populations compared adaptations. Thus, genetic drift may section). to the once-expansive historical rapidly reduce population-level genetic Translocated least chub populations populations of Lake Bonneville. diversity if populations stay small or are can successfully maintain genetic Maintaining genetic diversity in refugia subject to continued bottlenecks (Mock diversity of wild populations (Mock and and source populations is important as and Miller 2005, p. 276). Miller 2005, pp. 273-277). Refuge or well. Translocated populations in Lucin hatchery populations are established for The patterns of genetic divergence and Walter Springs maintained the three (Bishop Spring Complex, Mills and diversity within and among genetic identity of their source Valley, and Clear Lake) of the five extant populations were described for five of populations (Gandy Salt Marsh and least chub populations as well as for the the six naturally occurring least chub Leland Harris Spring Complex for Lucin functionally extirpated Mona Springs populations (six including the Springs, and Leland Harris Spring population (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 34- population now functionally extirpated Complex for Walter Springs) and 50). Until management measures can be at Mona Springs), representing three of showed no evidence of a genetic implemented to increase the quantity the known locations (Snake Valley and bottleneck (Mock and Miller 2005, pp. and quality of new sites and existing Mona Springs in the Great Salt Lake 273-275). However, this result is not habitats, refuge populations provide a subbasin, and Mills Valley in the Sevier unusual because these translocated source of genetic material that stores subbasin) (Mock and Miller 2005, pp. populations were separated from their adaptive differences not detectable with 273-275). The analysis included source populations for only a few molecular markers that may vary within amplified fragment-length generations. Bottlenecks in confined, populations. These might include polymorphism analysis and strong-source, and refugial populations habitat quality parameters, seasonal mitochondrial DNA sequencing. can lead to adaptive divergence that is temperature regimes, life-history traits, Pronounced, but temporally shallow, not yet detectable with genetic and morphology (Mock and Miller 2003,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35415

pp. 18-19; Mock and Bjerregaard 2007, longer growing seasons, and more heat information available to us at this time p. 146). waves (UBRAC 2007, p. 2). Although does not suggest that climate change In summary, loss of connectivity exact temperature increases are not alone is a significant threat to least resulting in small, genetically isolated known, projected temperature rise in chub. While climate change is likely to populations is a concern and requires the southwestern United States by 2050 have affected aquatic resources to some ongoing monitoring; however, genetic ranges between 1.4 and 2.0 °C (2.5 and extent in the past, including habitat stocks from four wild least chub 4.5 °F) for a lower emissions scenario, used by least chub, at this time our populations are available from and between 2.5 and 3.1 °C (3.5 and 5.5 analysis indicates that groundwater established refugia to augment the gene °F) for a higher emissions scenario withdrawal historically caused a more pools of extant populations and prevent (USGCRP 2009, p. 129). significant long-term impact and that genetic bottlenecks. Therefore, we have Precipitation models predict a separating the effects of climate change determined that environmentally reduction in mountain snowpack, a from those of groundwater withdrawal stochastic disturbance and population threat of severe and prolonged episodic is not possible. Likewise, we determine isolation is not considered a threat to drought (UBRAC 2007, p. 3), and a that groundwater withdrawal will be the the least chub now or in the foreseeable decline in summer precipitation across overriding impact to least chub in the future. all of Utah (p. 18). However, Utah is in foreseeable future. the transition zone for predicted (4) Climate Change changes in winter precipitation (5) Cumulative Effects The groundwater flow system (between the northwest and southwest We cannot completely predict the encompassing least chub habitat is United States), resulting in low cumulative effects of climate change, affected by natural climatic conditions, confidence in future winter current and future groundwater primarily precipitation and temperature precipitation trends (UBRAC 2007, p withdrawal, and drought on least chub (Welch et al. 2007, p. 37). Least chub 18). at this time, but we know that each will have evolved in the Great Basin desert More locally to least chub, the occur to some extent and be ecosystem, demonstrating their ability hydrology of the Great Salt Lake Basin compounded by the others. At least five to withstand historical climatic will be impacted by changes in Snake Valley populations, and as many variability, including drought mountain runoff (UBRAC 2007, p. 18). as 15 springs of occupied least chub conditions (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 19, While predictions indicate that the sites, have been extirpated in the last 30 26). However, under future climatic Great Salt Lake Basin will be affected by years as a result of drought or irrigation conditions and the added pressure of declining mountain snowpack and the practices (see previous sections, human water consumption, these resulting runoff, the timing and extent Historical Occurrences and Current evolutionary adaptations may not be of these changes are unclear (UBRAC Distribution). Snake Valley harbors the adequate to guarantee long-term 2007, p. 19). Drought conditions and last remaining native habitats and the survival of least chub populations. higher evaporation rates result in last three naturally occurring least chub Climate variability adds uncertainty lowered groundwater levels, reduced populations that are not severely to predictions of water recharge and spring flows, and reductions in size and impacted by nonnative fish and availability of natural aquifers (Welch et depth of pool habitat for least chub urbanization. al. 2007, p. 48). Predictions of future (Wilson 2006, p. 8). Although current climatic conditions can no longer rely data and climate predictions do not The effects of proposed large-scale on analysis of past climatic trends, but indicate the exact nature of future groundwater withdrawal as described in must instead take into account changes to extant least chub habitat Factor A are likely to compound the predicted global climate change. sites, we can assume that similar effects effects that localized groundwater Therefore, it is important to consider will be likely. development has had on least chub. As how future climatic conditions may Because the least chub depends on described above, past water impact least chub. Both the IPCC and small, ephemeral springfed wetlands for development in localized areas has the U.S. Global Climate Change Program major portions of its life history resulted in drying of least chub habitat conclude that changes to climatic (spawning, nursery niches, and feeding) and the extirpation of the species from conditions, such as temperature and and the amount of this habitat available these habitats. Extant least chub habitats precipitation regimes, are occurring and will likely be reduced and restricted to will likely be impacted by reduced are expected to continue in western spring heads, the severity of climate water and consequently wetted area and North America over the next 100 years change is an important factor in the wetland habitat reductions will result (Parson et al. 2000, p. 248; Smith et al. species’ persistence. Under from these threats individually, and will 2000, p. 220; Solomon et al. 2007, p. 70 circumstances of restricted habitats, be compounded cumulatively with Table TS.6; Trenberth et al. 2007, pp. both hybridization and extirpation have drought and climate change. The 252-253, 262-263). In western North occurred (Hubbs 1955, p. 18; Miller and cumulative effect of these three threats America, surface warming corresponds Behnke 1985, p. 514). Additionally, the will likely intensify the probable effects with reduced mountain snowpack (Mote species is bound by dispersal barriers described in Factor A: Water et al. 2005 and Regonda et al. 2005, throughout its range and cannot retreat Withdrawal and Diversions, Drought, cited in Vicuna and Dracup 2007, p. to additional habitats or easily and Factor E: Climate Change. 330; Trenberth et al. 2007, p. 310) and recolonize areas after they have been In summary, we find that the a trend toward earlier snowmelt extirpated. potential combinations of drought, (Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 217, 219, 223). Despite the clear evidence that current and future groundwater Utah has experienced about 1.6 °C climate change has had an effect on withdrawal, and climate change are (2.9 °F) of warming over the last 100 temperature over the last 100 years, as likely to occur and be significant threats years (1908–2007) (Saunders et al. 2008, well as its potential causal association to least chub in the foreseeable future. p. 44). Modeling of future climate with more intense drought conditions Significant effects have already occurred change for Utah projects the State to that were experienced in the as a result of drought and water warm more than the average for the southwestern United States over the last diversions, and least chub populations entire globe, with fewer frost days, decade (see Factor A. Drought), the in Snake Valley have been extirpated.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35416 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Summary of Factor E overriding factor now and in the range; however, one of these We assessed the potential risks of foreseeable future. populations is functionally extirpated. The Service now considers five extant, hybridization, loss of genetic diversity, Finding wild, viable populations to exist, with and environmentally stochastic As required by the Act, we considered disturbance to least chub populations. only three (all in Snake Valley) being the five factors in assessing whether the considered secure from the effects of Limited hybridization was documented least chub is threatened or endangered in the late 1970s at five sites; however, nonnative fish. throughout all or a significant portion of This status review found threats to the least chub are no longer found at these its range. We have carefully examined least chub related to Factors A, C, D, sites or recent genetic analysis shows the best scientific and commercial and E, as described in the following that hybridization is no longer an issue information available regarding the past, paragraphs and summarized in Table 4. for extant populations. Levels of genetic present, and future threats faced by the We find that the best available diversity are appropriate to sustain least least chub. We reviewed the petition, information for Factor A indicates that chub populations, and genetic refuges information available in our files, other listing the least chub as threatened or exist for three of five extant populations. available published and unpublished endangered under the Act is warranted The available information does not information, and we consulted with due to the effects of livestock grazing suggest that environmentally stochastic recognized least chub experts and other and water withdrawal and diversions on disturbance threatens extant least chub Federal, State, and tribal agencies. In the species and its habitat. Although the populations, and if necessary, refugia considering what factors might LCCAS and the UDWR have worked to populations are available to augment constitute threats, we must look beyond protect least chub habitat with grazing existing populations. Based on the best the mere exposure of the species to the enclosures where possible and grazing scientific and commercial information factor to determine whether the species management plans in some areas, available, we conclude that least chub is responds to the factor in a way that livestock-grazing-related impacts are not, now or in the foreseeable future, causes actual impacts to the species. If still observed at most least chub sites. threatened by hybridization, loss of there is exposure and the species There is substantial evidence showing genetic diversity, or environmentally responds negatively, the factor may be the negative effect of historical stochastic disturbance. a threat and we then attempt to groundwater withdrawal on least chub. Least chub have persisted for determine how significant a threat it is. While uncertainty exists on the thousands of years, and naturally If the threat is significant, it may drive magnitude of effects to the least chub occurring drought does not significantly or contribute to the risk of extinction of from proposed large-scale groundwater threaten the species. Climate models the species such that the species pumping, concern regarding the predict that the State may warm more warrants listing as threatened or remaining five extant, wild populations than average, with more heat waves, less endangered as those terms are defined is sufficient to indicate that the species mountain snowpack, and a decline in by the Act. is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable summer precipitation. It also is clear On the basis of the best scientific and future, especially when combined with that historic and current water commercial information available, we the threat of drought. withdrawal, combined with the effects find that listing of the least chub as We find that the best available of drought, have had significant threatened or endangered is warranted. information concerning Factor C negative effects on least chub. It is We will make a determination on the (Predation) indicates that listing the anticipated that these phenomena will status of the species as threatened or least chub as threatened or endangered combine to reduce the quality and endangered when we do a proposed under the Act is warranted due to the quantity of least chub habitat, and that listing determination. However, as continuing threat of nonnative species, when combined with the effects of explained in more detail below, an particularly mosquitofish, for which climate change, these three factors will immediate proposal of a regulation there is no known means of control. significantly threaten the least chub. implementing this action is precluded Several significant efforts have been Therefore, we find that the least chub by higher priority listing actions, and made to remove mosquitofish from least is at risk of extinction now and in the progress is being made to add or remove chub habitats, without success. The foreseeable future because of the qualified species from the Lists of wild least chub population at Mona cumulative effects of climate change, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Springs is functionally extirpated due to current and future groundwater and Plants. mosquitofish, and nonnative fish are withdrawal, and drought. Review of least chub historic present at two of the five remaining It is difficult to predict the foreseeable population trends shows that the viable populations. future regarding the cumulative effects current distribution of the least chub is We find that the best available of climate change, groundwater highly reduced from its historic range. information concerning Factor D withdrawal, and drought and their In the late nineteenth century, least (Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory resultant effects to least chub. Drought chub were very common in tributaries Mechanisms) indicates that the least is a natural event that could happen at to Sevier, Utah, and the Great Salt Lakes chub is at risk of extinction in the any time and is, therefore, a factor and for the next 50 years, surveys foreseeable future due to inadequacy of considered for the foreseeable future. demonstrated that this species was existing regulations to regulate Current estimates for climate change are found across the Bonneville Basin in groundwater withdrawals and most accurate for change in Utah, including Snake Valley. By the ameliorate their effects on least chub temperature, but not precipitation; and 1940s and 1950s, the numbers of least habitat. climatic models are generally accurate chub in range and abundance surveys We find that the best available to about 2030 for this parameter were definitely decreasing with only 11 information concerning Factor E (Other (Solomon et al. 2007, p. 74). Thus, for extant populations existing by 1979, and Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting cumulative effects of climate change, 3 extant wild populations known in Its Continued Existence) indicates that groundwater withdrawal, and drought, 1995. UDWR surveys in the 1990s and the least chub is at risk of extinction in it is anticipated that large-scale 2000s discovered three new populations the foreseeable future because of the groundwater pumping will be the on the eastern extent of the historic cumulative effects of drought, current

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35417

and future groundwater withdrawal, naturally occurring populations in and climate change on the remaining Snake Valley.

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF LEAST CHUB STATUS AND THREATS BY POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

Current Population Status Current & Future Threats

Leland Harris Spring Complex Extant Factor A. Livestock grazing, groundwater withdrawal, drought.

Gandy Salt Marsh Extant

Bishop Springs Complex Extant Factor C. Nonnative fishes.

Mills Valley Extant Factor D. Inadequacy of existing mechanisms to regulate groundwater withdrawal. Factor E. Cumulative effects of climate change, groundwater withdrawal, & drought.

Mona Springs Extirpated Factor A. Groundwater withdrawal, drought. Factor C. Nonnative fishes.

Clear Lake Extant Factor D. Inadequacy of existing mechanisms to regulate groundwater withdrawal. Factor E. Cumulative effects of climate change, groundwater withdrawal, & drought.

Because our finding on the petition to promulgation of such a proposal is complexity of those listing actions; that list is warranted but precluded, we do warranted but precluded by higher- is, more complex actions generally are not need to specifically determine priority listing actions. more costly. For example, during the whether it is appropriate to perform a The resources available for listing past several years, the cost (excluding ‘‘significant portion of the range’’ actions are determined through the publication costs) for preparing a 12– analysis for this species. Because of a annual Congressional appropriations month finding, without a proposed rule, small and restricted population process. The appropriation for the has ranged from approximately $11,000 distribution, and because of threats Listing Program is available to support for one species with a restricted range described above, the least chub should work involving the following listing and involving a relatively be listed as threatened or endangered actions: Proposed and final listing rules; uncomplicated analysis to $305,000 for throughout its entire range. We will 90–day and 12–month findings on another species that is wide-ranging and review whether to list the species as petitions to add species to the Lists of involving a complex analysis. threatened or endangered during the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife We cannot spend more than is proposed listing rule process. and Plants (Lists) or to change the status appropriated for the Listing Program We have reviewed the available of a species from threatened to without violating the Anti-Deficiency information to determine if the existing endangered; annual determinations on Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In and foreseeable threats render the prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ petition addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal species at risk of extinction now such findings as required under section year since then, Congress has placed a that issuing an emergency regulation 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat statutory cap on funds that may be temporarily listing the species as per petition findings; proposed and final expended for the Listing Program, equal section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. rules designating critical habitat; and to the amount expressly appropriated We have determined that issuing an litigation-related, administrative, and for that purpose in that fiscal year. This emergency regulation temporarily program-management functions cap was designed to prevent funds listing the species is not warranted for (including preparing and allocating appropriated for other functions under this species at this time because five budgets, responding to Congressional the Act (for example, recovery funds for populations persist, three are currently and public inquiries, and conducting removing species from the Lists), or for free from nonnative species, and all are public outreach regarding listing and other Service programs, from being used currently free from large-scale critical habitat). for Listing Program actions (see House groundwater pumping. However, if at The work involved in preparing Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st any time we determine that issuing an various listing documents can be Session, July 1, 1997). emergency regulation temporarily extensive and may include, but is not Recognizing that designation of listing the least chub is warranted, we limited to: Gathering and assessing the critical habitat for species already listed will initiate this action at that time. best scientific and commercial data would consume most of the overall available and conducting analyses used Listing Program appropriation, Congress Preclusion and Expeditious Progress as the basis for our decisions; writing also put a critical habitat subcap in Preclusion is a function of the listing and publishing documents; and place in FY 2002 and has retained it priority of a species in relation to the obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating each subsequent year to ensure that resources that are available and public comments and peer review some funds are available for other work competing demands for those resources. comments on proposed rules and in the Listing Program: ‘‘The critical Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), incorporating relevant information into habitat designation subcap will ensure multiple factors dictate whether it will final rules. The number of listing that some funding is available to be possible to undertake work on a actions that we can undertake in a given address other listing activities’’ (House proposed listing regulation or whether year also is influenced by the Report No. 107 - 103, 107th Congress, 1st

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35418 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and habitat designations for species that are high-priority species, we further ranked each year until FY 2006, the Service has already listed). However these funds are the candidate species with an LPN of 2 had to use virtually the entire critical not enough to fully fund all our court- by using the following extinction-risk habitat subcap to address court- ordered and statutory listing actions in type criteria: International Union for the mandated designations of critical FY 2010, so we are using $1,114,417 of Conservation of Nature and Natural habitat, and consequently none of the our critical habitat subcap funds in Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, critical habitat subcap funds have been order to work on all of our required Heritage rank (provided by available for other listing activities. In petition findings and listing NatureServe), Heritage threat rank FY 2007, we were able to use some of determinations. This brings the total (provided by NatureServe), and species the critical habitat subcap funds to fund amount of funds we have for listing currently with fewer than 50 proposed listing determinations for actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. high-priority candidate species. In FY process is to make our determinations of Those species with the highest IUCN 2009, while we were unable to use any preclusion on a nationwide basis to rank (critically endangered), the highest of the critical habitat subcap funds to ensure that the species most in need of Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage fund proposed listing determinations, listing will be addressed first and also threat rank (substantial, imminent we did use some of this money to fund because we allocate our listing budget threats), and currently with fewer than the critical habitat portion of some on a nationwide basis. The $11,585,417 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 proposed listing determinations so that is being used to fund work in the populations, comprised a group of the proposed listing determination and following categories: compliance with approximately 40 candidate species proposed critical habitat designation court orders and court-approved (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate species could be combined into one rule, settlement agreements requiring that have had the highest priority to receive thereby being more efficient in our petition findings or listing funding to work on a proposed listing work. In FY 2010, we are using some of determinations be completed by a determination. As we work on proposed the critical habitat subcap funds to fund specific date; section 4 (of the Act) and final listing rules for these 40 actions with statutory deadlines. listing actions with absolute statutory candidates, we are applying the ranking Thus, through the listing cap, the deadlines; essential litigation-related, criteria to the next group of candidates critical habitat subcap, and the amount administrative, and listing program- with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the of funds needed to address court- management functions; and high- next set of highest priority candidate mandated critical habitat designations, priority listing actions for some of our species. Congress and the courts have in effect candidate species. To be more efficient in our listing determined the amount of money In 2009, the responsibility for listing process, as we work on proposed rules available for other listing activities. foreign species under the Act was for these species in the next several Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, transferred from the Division of years, we are preparing multispecies other than those needed to address Scientific Authority, International proposals when appropriate, and these court-mandated critical habitat for Affairs Program, to the Endangered may include species with lower priority already listed species, set the limits on Species Program. Starting in FY 2010, a if they overlap geographically or have our determinations of preclusion and portion of our funding is being used to the same threats as a species with an expeditious progress. work on the actions described above as LPN of 2. In addition, available staff Congress also recognized that the they apply to listing actions for foreign resources are also a factor in availability of resources was the key species. This has the potential to further determining high-priority species element in deciding, when making a 12– reduce funding available for domestic provided with funding. Finally, month petition finding, whether we listing actions, although there are proposed rules for reclassification of would prepare and issue a listing currently no foreign species issues threatened species to endangered are proposal or instead make a ‘‘warranted included in our high-priority listing lower priority, since as listed species, but precluded’’ finding for a given actions at this time. The allocations for they are already afforded the protection species. The Conference Report each specific listing action are identified of the Act and implementing accompanying Public Law 97-304, in the Service’s FY 2010 Allocation regulations. which established the current statutory Table (part of our administrative We assign the least chub a Listing deadlines and the warranted-but- record). Priority Number (LPN) of 7 based on our precluded finding, states (in a In FY 2007, we had more than 120 finding that the species faces threats discussion on 90–day petition findings species with an LPN of 2, based on our that are of moderate magnitude and high that by its own terms also covers 12– September 21, 1983, guidance for imminence. Under the Service’s LPN month findings) that the deadlines were assigning an LPN for each candidate Guidance (September 21, 1983; 48 FR ‘‘not intended to allow the Secretary to species (48 FR 43098). Using this 43098), the magnitude of threat is the delay commencing the rulemaking guidance, we assign each candidate an first criterion we look at when process for any reason other than that LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the establishing a listing priority. The the existence of pending or imminent magnitude of threats (high vs. moderate guidance indicates that species with the proposals to list species subject to a to low), immediacy of threats (imminent highest magnitude of threat are those greater degree of threat would make or nonimminent), and taxonomic status species facing the greatest threats to allocation of resources to such a petition of the species (in order of priority: their continued existence. These species [that is, for a lower-ranking species] monotypic genus (a species that is the receive the highest listing priority. At unwise.’’ sole member of a genus); species; or part present, the threats facing the least chub In FY 2010, expeditious progress is of a species (subspecies, distinct do not meet the highest magnitude rank, that amount of work that can be population segment, or significant because the threats are not of uniform achieved with $10,471,000, which is the portion of the range)). The lower the intensity and the level of the threats is amount of money that Congress listing priority number, the higher the moderate. Although many of the factors appropriated for the Listing Program listing priority (that is, a species with an we analyzed (e.g., grazing, groundwater (that is, the portion of the Listing LPN of 1 would have the highest listing withdrawal, nonnative species) are Program funding not related to critical priority). Because of the large number of present throughout the range, they are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35419

not to the level that they are causing groundwater withdrawal, and nonnative As explained above, a determination high-magnitude threats to least chub in species predation. that listing is warranted but precluded the majority of the five remaining The third criterion in our LPN must also demonstrate that expeditious populations. Grazing, groundwater guidance is intended to devote progress is being made to add or remove withdrawal, and nonnative predation resources to those species representing qualified species to and from the Lists threats are of high magnitude in some highly distinctive or isolated gene pools of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife populations but are of low magnitude or as reflected by taxonomy. The least and Plants. (Although we do not discuss nonexistent in other populations, such chub is a species within a monotypic it in detail here, we are also making that when considering the overall genus, and therefore it receives a higher expeditious progress in removing species’ range, the threats average out to priority than a species, subspecies, or species from the Lists under the being of moderate magnitude. DPS. Recovery program, which is funded by We will continue to monitor the a separate line item in the budget of the Under our LPN Guidance, the second threats to the least chub, and the Endangered Species Program. As criterion we consider in assigning a species’ status on an annual basis, and explained above in our description of listing priority is the immediacy of should the magnitude or the imminence threats. This criterion is intended to of the threats change, we will revisit our the statutory cap on Listing Program ensure that the species facing actual, assessment of LPN. funds, the Recovery Program funds and identifiable threats are given priority Because we assigned the least chub an actions supported by them cannot be over those for which threats are only LPN of 7, work on a proposed listing considered in determining expeditious potential or that are intrinsically determination for the least chub is progress made in the Listing Program.) vulnerable but are not known to be precluded by work on higher priority As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, presently facing such threats. We listing actions with absolute statutory, expeditious progress in adding qualified consider the threats imminent because court ordered, or court-approved species to the Lists is a function of the we have factual information that the deadlines and final listing resources available and the competing threats are identifiable and that the determinations for those species that demands for those funds. Given that species is currently facing them in many were proposed for listing with funds limitation, we find that we are making portions of its range. These actual, from FY 2009. This work includes all progress in FY 2010 in the Listing identifiable threats are covered in the actions listed in the tables below Program. This progress included greater detail in factors A and C of this under expeditious progress (see tables 5 preparing and publishing the following finding and include livestock grazing, and 6). determinations:

TABLE 5.—FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS.

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages

10/08/2009 Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot Peppergrass) as a Final Listing Threatened 74 FR 52013-52064 Threatened Species Throughout Its Range

10/27/2009 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the American Dipper in the Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 74 FR 55177-55180 Black Hills of South Dakota as Threatened or Endangered Not substantial

10/28/2009 Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in the Upper Notice of Intent to Conduct 74 FR 55524-55525 Missouri River System Status Review

11/03/2009 Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the Proposed Listing Threatened 74 FR 56757-56770 Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act: Proposed rule.

11/03/2009 Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened Throughout Proposed Listing Threatened 74 FR 56770-56791 Its Range with Special Rule

11/23/2009 Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) Notice of Intent to Conduct 74 FR 61100-61102 Status Review

12/03/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Notice of 12–month petition 74 FR 63343-63366 as Threatened or Endangered finding, Not warranted

12/03/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit as Threatened Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 74 FR 63337-63343 or Endangered Substantial

12/15/2009 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine Species of Mussels From Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 74 FR 66260-66271 Texas as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat Substantial

12/16/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 Species in the Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 74 FR 66865-66905 Southwestern United States as Threatened or Endangered With Not substantial and Subtantial Critical Habitat

12/17/2009 12–month Finding on a Petition To Change the Final Listing of the Notice of 12–month petition 74 FR 66937-66950 Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx To Include New finding, Warranted but precluded Mexico

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35420 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 5.—FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS.—Continued

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages

1/05/2010 Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as Endangered Proposed Listing Endangered 75 FR 605-649 Throughout Their Range

1/05/2010 Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their Range Proposed Listing Endangered 75 FR 286-310

1/05/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Cook’s Petrel Proposed rule, withdrawal 75 FR 310-316

1/05/2010 Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel and Heinroth’s Shearwater Final Listing Threatened 75 FR 235-250 as Threatened Throughout Their Ranges

1/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Agave eggersiana and Solanum Notice of Intent to Conduct 75 FR 3190-3191 conocarpum Status Review

2/09/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to List the American Pika as Notice of 12–month petition 75 FR 6437-6471 Threatened or Endangered finding, Not warranted

2/25/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran Desert Popu- Notice of 12–month petition find- 75 FR 8601-8621 lation of the Bald Eagle as a Threatened or Endangered Distinct ing, Not warranted Population Segment

2/25/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the Southwestern Wash- Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to 75 FR 8621-8644 ington/Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of Coastal List Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened

3/18/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave salamander as Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 13068-13071 Endangered Substantial

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Southern Hickorynut Mus- Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 13717-13720 sel (Obovaria jacksoniana) as Endangered or Threatened Not substantial

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Striped Newt as Threat- Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 13720-13726 ened Substantial

3/23/2010 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse Notice of 12–month petition find- 75 FR 13910-14014 (Centrocercus urophasianus)as Threatened or Endangered ing, Warranted but precluded

3/31/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Notice of 12–month petition find- 75 FR 16050-16065 Snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as Threatened or Endan- ing, Warranted but precluded gered with Critical Habitat

4/5/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 17062-17070 as or Endangered Substantial

4/6/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition To List the Mountain Whitefish in Notice of 12–month petition find- 75 FR 17352-17363 the Big Lost River, Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened ing, Not warranted

4/6/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Stonefly (Isoperla jewetti) Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 17363-17367 and a Mayfly (Fallceon eatoni) as Threatened or Endangered Not substantial with Critical Habitat

4/7/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify the Delta Smelt From Notice of 12–month petition find- 75 FR 17667-17680 Threatened to Endangered Throughout Its Range ing, Warranted but precluded

4/13/2010 Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Species on Kauai and Final Listing Endangered 75 FR 18959-19165 Designation of Critical Habitat

4/15/2010 Initiation of Status Review of the North American Wolverine in the Notice of Initiation of Status Re- 75 FR 19591-19592 Contiguous United States view

4/15/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Wyoming Pocket Gopher Notice of 12–month petition find- 75 FR 19592-19607 as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat ing, Not warranted

4/16/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct Population Segment Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 19925-19935 of the Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky Mountain Substantial Range as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat

4/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys Notice of Initiation of Status Re- 75 FR 20547-20548 macrolepidotus) view

4/26/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Harlequin Butterfly as En- Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 21568-21571 dangered Substantial

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35421

TABLE 5.—FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS.—Continued

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages

4/27/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Susan’s Purse-making Notice of 12–month petition find- 75 FR 22012-22025 Caddisfly (Ochrotrichia susanae) as Threatened or Endangered ing, Not warranted

4/27/2010 90–day Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave Ground Squirrel Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 22063-22070 as Endangered with Critical Habitat Substantial

5/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Hermes Copper Butterfly as Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 23654-23663 Threatened or Endangered Substantial

Our expeditious progress also timelines, that is, timelines required they overlap geographically or have the includes work on listing actions that we under the Act. Actions in the bottom same threats as the species with the funded in FY 2010 but have not yet section of the table are high-priority high priority. Including these species been completed to date. These actions listing actions. These actions include together in the same proposed rule are listed below. Actions in the top work primarily on species with an LPN results in considerable savings in time section of the table are being conducted of 2, and selection of these species is and funding, as compared to preparing under a deadline set by a court. Actions partially based on available staff separate proposed rules for each of them in the middle section of the table are resources, and when appropriate, in the future. being conducted to meet statutory include species with a lower priority if

TABLE 6.—ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED.

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

6 Birds from Eurasia Final listing determination

Flat-tailed horned lizard Final listing determination

Mountain plover Final listing determination

6 Birds from Peru Proposed listing determination

Sacramento splittail Proposed listing determination

White-tailed prairie dog 12–month petition finding

Gunnison sage-grouse 12–month petition finding

Wolverine 12–month petition finding

Arctic grayling 12–month petition finding

Agave eggergsiana 12–month petition finding

Solanum conocarpum 12–month petition finding

Mountain plover 12–month petition finding

Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly 12–month petition finding

Hermes copper butterfly 12–month petition finding

Actions with Statutory Deadlines

Casey’s june beetle Final listing determination

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail Final listing determination

2 Hawaiian damselflies Final listing determination

African penguin Final listing determination

3 Foreign bird species (Andean flamingo, Chilean woodstar, St. Lucia forest thrush) Final listing determination

5 Penguin species Final listing determination

Southern rockhopper penguin – Campbell Plateau population Final listing determination

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35422 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 6.—ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED.—Continued

Species Action

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador Final listing determination

7 Bird species from Brazil Final listing determination

Queen Charlotte goshawk Final listing determination

Salmon crested cockatoo Proposed listing determination

Black-footed albatross 12–month petition finding

Mount Charleston blue butterfly 12–month petition finding

Least chub1 12–month petition finding

Mojave fringe-toed lizard1 12–month petition finding

Pygmy rabbit (rangewide)1 12–month petition finding

Kokanee – Lake Sammamish population1 12–month petition finding

Delta smelt (uplisting) 12–month petition finding

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl1 12–month petition finding

Northern leopard frog 12–month petition finding

Tehachapi slender salamander 12–month petition finding

Coqui Llanero 12–month petition finding

White-sided jackrabbit 12–month petition finding

Jemez Mountains salamander 12–month petition finding

Dusky tree vole 12–month petition finding

Eagle Lake trout1 12–month petition finding

29 of 206 species 12–month petition finding

Desert tortoise – Sonoran population 12–month petition finding

Gopher tortoise – eastern population 12–month petition finding

Amargosa toad 12–month petition finding

Pacific walrus 12–month petition finding

Wrights marsh thistle 12–month petition finding

67 of 475 southwest species 12–month petition finding

9 Southwest mussel species 12–month petition finding

14 parrots (foreign species) 12–month petition finding

Berry Cave salamander1 12–month petition finding

Striped Newt1 12–month petition finding

Fisher – Northern Rocky Mountain Range1 12–month petition finding

Mohave Ground Squirrel1 12–month petition finding

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 12–month petition finding

Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover1 90–day petition finding

Eagle Lake trout1 90–day petition finding

Ozark chinquapin1 90–day petition finding

Smooth-billed ani1 90–day petition finding

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 35423

TABLE 6.—ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED.—Continued

Species Action

Bay Springs salamander1 90–day petition finding

32 species of snails and slugs1 90–day petition finding

Calopogon oklahomensis1 90–day petition finding

White-bark pine 90–day petition finding

42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) 90–day petition finding

HI yellow-faced bees 90–day petition finding

Red knot roselaari subspecies 90–day petition finding

Honduran emerald 90–day petition finding

Peary caribou 90–day petition finding

Western gull-billed tern 90–day petition finding

Plain bison 90–day petition finding

Giant Palouse earthworm 90–day petition finding

Mexican gray wolf 90–day petition finding

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly 90–day petition finding

Spring pygmy sunfish 90–day petition finding

San Francisco manzanita 90–day petition finding

Bay skipper 90–day petition finding

Unsilvered fritillary 90–day petition finding

Texas kangaroo rat 90–day petition finding

Spot-tailed earless lizard 90–day petition finding

Eastern small-footed bat 90–day petition finding

Northern long-eared bat 90–day petition finding

Prairie chub 90–day petition finding

10 species of Great Basin butterfly 90–day petition finding

6 sand dune (scarab) beetles 90–day petition finding

Gila monster – Utah population 90–day petition finding

Golden-winged warbler 90–day petition finding

Sand-verbena moth 90–day petition finding

Aztec (beautiful) gilia 90–day petition finding

Arapahoe snowfly 90–day petition finding

High Priority Listing Actions3

19 Oahu candidate species3 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9) Proposed listing

17 Maui-Nui candidate species3 (14 plants, 3 tree snails) (12 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8) Proposed listing

Sand dune lizard3 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing

2 Arizona springsnails3 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) Proposed listing

2 New Mexico springsnails3 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis thermalis (LPN = 11)) Proposed listing

2 mussels3 (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) Proposed listing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 35424 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 6.—ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED.—Continued

Species Action

2 mussels3 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4),) Proposed listing

Ozark hellbender2 (LPN = 3) Proposed listing

Altamaha spinymussel3 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing

5 southeast fish3 (rush darter (LPN = 2), chucky madtom (LPN = 2), yellowcheek darter (LPN = 2), Proposed listing Cumberland darter (LPN = 5), laurel dace (LPN = 5))

8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN Proposed listing = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11))

3 Colorado plants3 (Pagosa skyrocket (Ipomopsis polyantha) (LPN = 2), Parchute beardtongue (Penstemon Proposed listing debilis) (LPN = 2), Debeque phacelia (Phacelia submutica) (LPN = 8)) 1 Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 2 We funded a proposed rule for this subspecies with an LPN of 3 ahead of other species with LPN of 2, because the threats to the species were so imminent and of a high magnitude that we considered emergency listing if we were unable to fund work on a proposed listing rule in FY 2008. 3 Funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009.

We have endeavored to make our Authority over the past 15 years, including the listing actions as efficient and timely as The authority for this action is section discovery of several populations that possible, given the requirements of the 4 of the Endangered Species Act of were unknown when the species was relevant law and regulations, and 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et listed. Minimum flows and other constraints relating to workload and seq.). conservation measures have been personnel. We are continually implemented below two dams in the considering ways to streamline Dated: June 4, 2010 Coosa River, improving habitat and processes or achieve economies of scale, Jeffrey L. Underwood resulting in the expansion of tulotoma such as by batching related actions Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service snail numbers and range in the Coosa together. Given our limited budget for [FR Doc. 2010–15070 Filed 6–21–10; 8:45 am] River. The Alabama Clean Water implementing section 4 of the Act, these BILLING CODE 4310–55–S Partnership has also developed the actions described above collectively Lower Coosa River Basin Management constitute expeditious progress. Plan to address nonpoint source The least chub will be added to the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR pollution and watershed management issues in most Coosa River tributaries list of candidate species upon Fish and Wildlife Service publication of this 12–month finding. occupied by the tulotoma snail. While great strides have been made to improve We will continue to monitor the status 50 CFR Part 17 of this species as new information the species status, additional efforts are becomes available. This review will [FWS–R4–ES–2008–0119; 92220–1113– required to address the remaining determine if a change in status is 0000–C6] threats to the species. We are seeking comments from the public on this warranted, including the need to make RIN 1018–AX01 prompt use of emergency listing proposal. procedures. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife DATES: We will accept comments We intend that any proposed listing and Plants; Proposed Reclassification received or postmarked on or before action for the least chub will be as of the Tulotoma Snail From August 23, 2010. We must receive accurate as possible. Therefore, we will Endangered to Threatened requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER continue to accept additional AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, information and comments from all Interior. INFORMATION CONTACT section by August concerned governmental agencies, the 6, 2010. ACTION: Proposed rule. scientific community, industry, or any ADDRESSES: You may submit comments other interested party concerning this SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and by one of the following methods: finding. Wildlife Service (Service), propose to • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// References Cited reclassify the tulotoma snail (Tulotoma www.regulations.gov. Follow the magnifica) from endangered to instructions for submitting comments A complete list of references cited is threatened, under the authority of the on Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2008–0119. available on the Internet at http:// Endangered Species Act of 1973, as • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public www.regulations.gov and upon request amended (Act). This proposed action is Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018– from the Utah Field Office (see based on a review of the best available AW08; Division of Policy and Directives ADDRESSES section). scientific and commercial data, which Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Authors indicate that the endangered Service; 4401 N. Drive, Suite 222; designation no longer correctly reflects Arlington, VA 22203. The primary authors of this notice are the status of this snail. We have We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We the staff members of the Utah Field documented a substantial improvement will post all comments on http:// Office. in the species’ distribution and numbers www.regulations.gov. This generally

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS