Vol. 79 Tuesday, No. 165 August 26, 2014

Part III

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on the Petition To List Least Chub as an Endangered or Threatened Species; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51042 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR and Plants that contains substantial to assist in the development of scientific or commercial information rangewide conservation efforts. The Fish and Wildlife Service indicating that listing the species may objectives of the CCA are to eliminate or be warranted, we make a finding within significantly reduce threats to the least 50 CFR Part 17 12 months of the date of receipt of the chub and its habitat, to the greatest [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2014–0033; petition. In this finding, we determine extent possible, and to ensure the 4500030113] that the petitioned action is: (a) Not continued existence of the species by warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) restoring and maintaining a minimum Endangered and Threatened Wildlife warranted, but immediate proposal of a number of least chub populations and Plants; 12-Month Finding on the regulation implementing the petitioned throughout its historical range. The Petition To List Least Chub as an action is precluded by other pending LCCT implements the CCA and Endangered or Threatened Species proposals to determine whether species monitors populations, threats, and are endangered or threatened, and habitat conditions. These agencies AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, expeditious progress is being made to updated and revised the 1998 CCA in Interior. add or remove qualified species from 2005 (Bailey et al. 2005, entire) and ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition the Federal Lists of Endangered and amended the 2005 CCA in 2014 (LCCT finding. Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 2014, entire; see Previous and Ongoing 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we Conservation Efforts and Future SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and treat a petition for which the requested Conservation Efforts, below). Wildlife Service (Service), announce a action is found to be warranted but Implementation of the CCA resulted in revised 12-month finding on a petition precluded as though resubmitted on the the discovery of two additional wild to list the least chub (Iotichthys date of such finding, that is, requiring a populations, acquisition and protection phlegethontis) as an endangered or subsequent finding to be made within of occupied habitat, fencing of sensitive threatened species and to designate 12 months. We must publish these 12- habitat to limit grazing, removal of critical habitat under the Endangered month findings in the Federal Register. grazing at select sites, an agreement Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). with the mosquito abatement districts to After a review of the best available Previous Federal Actions limit the introduction and use of scientific and commercial information, On December 30, 1982, the Service western mosquitofish (Gambusia we find that listing the least chub is not classified the least chub as a Category 2 affinis), introductions of least chub into warranted at this time. Therefore, we are candidate species (47 FR 58454). unoccupied suitable habitat, removing the species from our list of Category 2 included taxa for which development of memoranda of candidates under the Act. However, we information in the Service’s possession understanding (MOUs) with grazing ask the public to submit to us any new indicated that a proposed listing rule operators on private lands, restoration of information that becomes available was possibly appropriate, but for which occupied habitat, and groundwater concerning threats to the least chub or sufficient data on biological monitoring near natural populations. its habitat at any time. vulnerability and threats were not On June 25, 2007, we received a DATES: The finding announced in this available to support a proposed rule. On document was made on August 26, January 6, 1989, we reclassified the least petition from Center for Biological 2014. chub as a Category 1 candidate species Diversity, Confederated Tribes of the (54 FR 554). Category 1 included taxa Goshute Reservation, Great Basin ADDRESSES: This finding is available on for which the Service had substantial Chapter of Trout Unlimited, and Utah the Internet at http:// information in our possession on Chapter of the Sierra Club requesting www.regulations.gov at Docket No. biological vulnerability and threats to that we list the least chub as threatened FWS–R6–ES–2014–0033. Supporting support preparation of listing proposals. under the Act and designate critical documentation we used in preparing The Service ceased using category habitat for it. Our 90-day finding (73 FR this finding is available for public designations in February 1996. On 61007, October 15, 2008) concluded the inspection, by appointment, during September 29, 1995, we published a petition presented substantial normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and proposed rule to list the least chub as information indicating that listing may Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological endangered with critical habitat (60 FR be warranted. Our subsequent 12-month Services Field Office, 2369 West Orton 50518). A listing moratorium, imposed finding identified least chub as a species Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT by Congress in 1995, suspended all for which listing as endangered or 84119; telephone 801–975–3330. Please listing activities and further action on threatened was warranted but was submit any new information, materials, the proposal was postponed. precluded due to higher priority listing comments, or questions concerning this In 1998, during the moratorium, the decisions, and we assigned the least finding to the above street address. Service, Utah Division of Wildlife chub a listing priority number of 7 (75 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Resources (UDWR), Bureau of Land FR 35398, June 22, 2010). Following the Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah Management (BLM), Bureau of finding, we completed annual candidate Ecological Services Field Office (see Reclamation, Utah Reclamation notices of review (CNORs) in 2010 (75 ADDRESSES section). If you use a Mitigation and Conservation FR 69222, November 10, 2010), 2011 (76 telecommunications device for the deaf Commission (Mitigation Commission), FR 66370, October 26, 2011), 2012 (77 (TDD), call the Federal Information Confederated Tribes of the Goshute FR 69994, November 21, 2012) and 2013 Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. Reservation, and Central Utah Water (78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013), all SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Conservancy District developed a least of which maintained the species as a chub candidate conservation agreement candidate with a listing priority number Background (CCA), and formed the Least Chub of 7. As a result of the Service’s 2011 Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 Conservation Team (LCCT) (Perkins et multidistrict litigation settlement with U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for al. 1998, entire). The goals of the CCA petitioners, a proposed listing rule or a any petition to revise the Federal Lists are to ensure the species’ long-term withdrawal of the 12-month finding is of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife survival within its historical range and required by September 30, 2014 (In re:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51043

Endangered Species Act Section 4 Basin, based on UDWR survey and populations, establishment of additional Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), monitoring data collected since 1993. A least chub populations has been a goal MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, comparison of survey results from the of the LCCT since it was established in 2011)). 1970s (Workman et al. 1979, pp. 156– 1998 (Perkins et al. 1998, entire). With 158) to surveys from 1993 to 2007 the purpose of providing redundancy Species Information (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 36–45) indicates and resiliency to the naturally occurring The least chub is an endemic minnow that approximately 60 percent of the least chub populations, introduced (Family Cyprinidae) of the Bonneville natural populations extant in 1979 were populations provide secure genetic Basin in Utah. Historically, least chub extirpated by 2007 (75 FR 35398). refuges to protect against catastrophic were widely distributed throughout the Least chub are distributed across three loss, mitigate current and future threats basin in a variety of habitat types, Genetic Management Units (GMU)— that may affect natural populations, and including rivers, streams, springs, West Desert GMU, Sevier GMU, and provide a source for reestablishing ponds, marshes, and swamps (Sigler Wasatch Front GMU. The GMUs were naturally occurring populations or and Miller 1963, p. 91). As implied by delineated by the LCCT based on establishing new populations. Since its common name, the least chub is a genetics information that showed 1979, the UDWR attempted small fish, less than 55 millimeters (2.1 population similarities in these areas approximately 30 introductions of least inches) long. It is an opportunistic (Mock and Miller 2005, pp. 271–277). chub to new locations within its feeder, and its diet reflects the Six naturally occurring populations of historical range. Nineteen of these availability and abundance of food least chub remain within these GMUs: attempts through 2008 were described items in different seasons and habitat The Leland Harris Spring Complex, in detail in the 2010 12-month finding. types (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 182; Gandy Marsh, Bishop Springs Complex, However, these early introductions (pre- Crist and Holden 1980, p. 808; Lamarra Mills Valley, Clear Lake, and Mona 2008) were not highly successful or 1981, p. 5; Workman et al. 1979, p. 23). Springs (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 34–45). lacked sufficient monitoring to Least chub in natural systems live two The West Desert GMU is represented determine success; therefore, in our times longer than originally thought; by three of these populations (the 2010 12-month finding (75 FR 35398), some least chub may live to be 6 years Leland Harris Spring Complex, Gandy we did not consider them to be of age (Mills et al. 2004a, p. 409). Marsh, and Bishop Spring Complex) contributing to the conservation of the Differences in growth rates may result (Perkins et al. p. 22, 28–29), which species, and as a result we did not from a variety of interacting processes, occur in the Snake Valley of Utah’s west evaluate whether they faced threats in including food availability, genetically desert and are genetically similar and our 5-factor analysis. based traits, population density, and very close in proximity to each other Since our 2010 12-month finding (75 water temperatures (Mills et al. 2004a, (Mock and Miller 2005, p. 276; Mock FR 35398), we have additional p. 411). and Bjerregaard 2007, pp. 145–146). The monitoring data for the pre-2008 Maintaining hydrologic connections Sevier GMU is represented by the introduced populations. We have also between springheads and marsh areas is genetically similar Mills Valley and developed success criteria for least chub important in fulfilling the least chub’s Clear Lake populations, which are habitat requirements (for specific ecological requirements (Crawford 1979, located in relatively undeveloped sites criteria needed for success, see below). p. 63; Crist and Holden 1980, p. 804; in the Sevier subbasin on the The success criteria allow us to evaluate Lamarra 1981, p. 10). Least chub follow southeastern border of the species’ the ability for each introduced thermal patterns for habitat use. In April native range (Mock and Miller 2003, pp. population to contribute to species and May, they use the flooded, warmer, 17–18; Mock and Miller 2005, p. 276; conservation. The success criteria also vegetated marsh areas (Crawford 1979, Mock and Bjerregaard 2007, pp. 145– guides site selection for new pp. 59, 74), but in late summer and fall 146; Hines et al. 2008, p. 17). The introductions, and was used to establish they retreat to spring heads as the water Wasatch Front GMU is represented by four least chub introduction sites since recedes, to overwinter (Crawford 1979, the Mona Springs site (Perkins et al. 2008. Overall, introduced sites that are p. 58). In the spring, the timing of 1998, pp. 22, 29–31). This GMU occurs occupied by least chub and meet the spawning is a function of temperature in the southeastern portion of the Great success criteria are considered to and photoperiod (Crawford 1979, p. 39). Salt Lake subbasin on the eastern border contribute to conservation, and we Thermal preferences demonstrate the of ancient Lake Bonneville, near the evaluate the threats at those sites in this importance of warm rearing habitats in highly urbanized Wasatch Front (Mock finding; there are 10 least chub producing strong year classes and viable and Miller 2005, p. 276). Least chub are introduced sites that are considered populations (Billman et al. 2006, p. still found in small numbers at the successful, as explained below. When 434). Mona Springs site (Hines et al. 2008, p. experimental introductions fail, they Our 1995 proposed rule (60 FR 50518, 37) which is genetically distinct from typically fail in the first or second year September 29, 1995), 2010 12-month the other populations (Mock and Miller after introduction due to existing threats finding (75 FR 35398, June 22, 2010), 2005, p. 276; Mock and Bjerregaard at the site, including a lack of water and CNORs for the least chub (75 FR 2007, pp. 145–146). The small number quantity and quality, presence of 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR of least chub at Mona Springs does not nonnative fishes, or lack of adequate 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, compose a viable self-sustaining habitat conditions (UDWR 2013b, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, population (LCCT 2008a, p. 3), but entire). November 22, 2013) include a more remains extant due to stocking Success criteria for introduced least detailed description of the species’ life activities. A detailed description of the chub sites were established by the history, taxonomic classification, and naturally occurring least chub LCCT: (1) A documented stable and historical distribution. populations can be found in the 2010 secure water source (preferably with a 12-month finding (75 FR 35398) and water right); (2) water quality suitable Population Distribution 2014 CCA amendment (LCCT 2014, pp. for least chub (appropriate pH, salinity, The current distribution of the least 7–14). and dissolved oxygen levels); (3) no chub is highly reduced from its In addition to actively managing and nonnative fishes present, or if any are historical range in Utah’s Bonneville conserving the remaining wild present they are species or numbers

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51044 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

which are determined not to be a threat recruitment and no significant threats and BLM personnel salvaged as many to least chub persistence (e.g., low (LCCT 2013a, p. 3). fish as possible, and relocated them to numbers of carp, rainbow trout, Our goal for introduced populations, the Fisheries Experiment Station (FES) goldfish); (4) no grazing, or grazing for as agreed to and finalized by the LCCT, hatchery facility. The UDWR is working an agreed upon extent and duration requires the successful establishment of to reestablish an introduction site for which does not appear to have negative three introduced populations in each of the Clear Lake population. Additional impacts on least chub or their habitat; the three GMUs, with the introduced fish will be transported from Clear Lake (5) habitat requirements that are suitable populations providing a genetic to FES in 2014, to increase the founding representation of each of the six wild for long-term persistence of least chub number of individuals for this (e.g., adequate cover, over winter populations (LCCT 2013a, p. 1). This temporary hatchery population. This habitat, size); and (6) the introduction goal has been met or exceeded for all population will be held at FES until a must occur on land where the owner or but one of the naturally occurring agency is signatory to a conservation populations (Table 1; LCCT 2013a, p. 4; suitable introduction site can be agreement, or on land where an LCCT 2013b, p. 6). The Clear Lake established. The Clear Lake population appropriate similar agreement is in population in the Sevier GMU does not was also introduced into Teal Springs in place (LCCT 2013a, pp. 2, 3). have a representative introduced 2013 (UDWR 2013b, p. 21). This Assessments are conducted prior to population (LCCT 2013b, p. 6). In 2013, introduction is considered an least chub introductions to ensure a low a fire and debris flow impacted the experimental population, as it is too level of existing threats (LCCT 2013a, p. population at Willow Springs, which recent to meet all the introduction 2). In addition, the site must maintain was the only introduced site replicating criteria. at least two seasons of documented the Clear Lake population. The UDWR TABLE 1—SUCCESSFUL INTRODUCED LEAST CHUB SITES BY SOURCE GMU AND POPULATION

Number Source years docu- Non-native spe- Name Source GMU pop. Year mented re- Ownership Water right cies Grazing status cruitment

Fitzgerald WMA ... Sevier ...... Mills ...... 2006 8 UDWR ...... Yes ...... Carp, goldfish in Not grazed. low densities. Rosebud Top Sevier ...... Mills ...... 2008 6 Private...... Yes ...... Sterile rainbow Not grazed. Pond. trout in low den- sities. Cluster Springs .... Sevier ...... Mills ...... 2008 6 BLM ...... Yes ...... None ...... Yes, but fenced and managed. Pilot Spring SE ..... Sevier ...... Mills ...... 2008 6 BLM ...... Yes ...... None ...... Yes, but managed. Escalante Elemen- Wasatch Front ..... Mona .... 2006 8 Local Gov’t ...... Yes ...... None ...... Not grazed. tary. Upper Garden Wasatch Front ..... Mona .... 2011 3 Utah State Parks Yes ...... None ...... Not grazed. Creek. Deseret Depot ...... Wasatch Front ..... Mona .... 2011 3 Dept. of Defense Yes ...... None ...... Not grazed. Red Knolls Pond .. West Desert ...... Bishop .. 2005 9 BLM ...... Yes ...... None ...... Not grazed. Keg Spring ...... West Desert ...... Gandy ... 2009 5 BLM ...... Yes ...... None ...... Yes, but fenced and managed. Pilot Spring ...... West Desert ...... Leland ... 2008 6 BLM ...... Yes ...... None ...... Yes, but fenced and managed.

In summary, there are 5 naturally 1998 CCA, the signatories committed to complex, calculating percentage of sites occurring (excluding Mona Springs due continue annual sampling of known occupied and catch-per-unit-effort to a lack of a self-sustaining population) least chub populations (including (CPUE) values for the population and 10 successful introduced introduced populations), to gather (UDWR 2013a, pp. I–3, III–2). The populations of least chub distributed information on least chub life history introduced sites are sampled annually across three GMUs that we conclude can and habitat needs, and report these following the cursory approach, contribute to the conservation of the findings annually (Perkins et al. 1998, p. documenting age class structure (i.e., species (see Table 1). As such, we 4). In 2007 (and updated in 2010), the recruitment) at each site (UDWR 2013a, evaluate the status and threats to these sampling methodology changed to p. I–2). populations throughout the remainder include cursory sampling at each site The sampling in 2010 documented of this document. annually, and an in-depth distribution recruitment at natural and introduced Population Size and Dynamics sampling at each site every third year on sites, but CPUE values exhibited high a rotating annual basis (UDWR 2007, variability across years due to factors The UDWR began surveying least entire; UDWR 2010a, entire; UDWR unrelated to population size (Hogrefe chub in the 1970s, but monitoring was 2013a, pp. III–2). The annual cursory 2001, p. 4; UDWR 2013a, entire). This limited to known populations in the sampling provides a representative variability is likely due to several Snake Valley region (Workman et al. sample (100 individuals) of least chub, factors: In-depth distributional surveys 1979, p. 1). Sites were inconsistently which are individually measured to are only conducted every 3 years per monitored for least chub abundance provide the percentage of juveniles to population (making comparisons through the 1980s (Osmundson 1985, p. adults; the greater number of juveniles difficult across years), and least chub 4), but by 1993, known least chub sites indicates higher recruitment and and their habitats are dynamic (with were monitored annually (Wilson et al. reproductive success (UDWR 2013a, p. seasonally fluctuating water levels least 1999, p. 3) using standardized survey III–2). The distributional surveys chub may not retreat to the springhead methods (Crist 1990, p. 10). Through the monitor designated sites throughout the habitats until after sampling is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51045

completed because of late rains or Harris and Bishop Springs, 60 percent Previous and Ongoing Conservation similar seasonal difference across years) for Mills Valley and, 30 percent for Efforts (Crawford 1979, p. 11). Thus, CPUE and Gandy Marsh (Peterson and Saenz 2013, Below we summarize the previous percentage of occupied sites were the p. 28). These modeled occupancy and ongoing conservation actions only available measure to determine probabilities are considered equilibrium conducted through the 1998 and 2005 least chub status across sites (Hogrefe values, where the occupancy rates at CCAs that provided conservation 2001, p. 4). each site remain stable at these benefits to the least chub. The Knowing the limitations of the survey calculated rates for at least 100 years conservation actions which are methods, signatories to the 2005 CCA (Peterson and Saenz 2013, pp. 28, 70). described below have already been (Bailey et al. 2005, entire) sought These PVA estimations compared implemented by the LCCT, and we have outside assistance in 2011, to develop a favorably to the 16 years of survey data concluded that they are effective at population viability analysis (PVA) and available for Gandy Marsh (30–40 reducing threats to the species. associated adaptive, decision-support percent measured occupancy rate) and The partnership established under the tool (structured decision-making (SDM) Bishop Springs (80 percent measured 1998 CCA has been successful at model) (Peterson and Saenz 2011; p. 2– occupancy rate). This comparison of implementing conservation measures to 3). These tools are being developed to monitoring data with the PVA model protect least chub. The document that assess the current status of least chub served as the foundation for the populations (i.e., increasing, decreasing, provided sufficient evidence that conservation of least chub was the 1998 or stable), provide information on occupancy rates are a defensible metric CCA, which was renewed in 2005 and population and community dynamics, for evaluating the status and trends of amended in 2014 (see Future and predict population responses to least chub populations (Peterson and Conservation Efforts, below) (Perkins et future anthropogenic development and Saenz 2013, p. 28). The results indicate al. 1998, entire; Bailey et al. 2005, conservation strategies. The PVA and that the PVA model can reasonably entire; LCCT 2014, entire). The 1998 SDM method will also allow for the approximate the habitat dynamics of integration of monitoring data so that major portions of the wetlands (i.e., and 2005 CCAs resulted in the reliable information on the status and depth and percent open water) and the coordination and implementation of distribution of least chub can be occupation of the wetlands inhabited by conservation efforts over the last 16 updated as data are collected, thus least chub populations using annual years, including: The acquisition and providing an evaluation of the success survey data, and that these populations protection of occupied habitat, fencing or failure of management actions to exhibit stable occupancy rates over (from grazing) of important habitat, enhance existing populations and a time. Based on this information, we can genetic analysis of natural populations, basis for the development of future infer that the model would provide annual monitoring (to evaluate conservation decisions. similar results for the other populations population status, and habitat and Interim findings are available that are not limited by other factors, population response to conservation (Peterson and Saenz 2011; entire), but such as mosquitofish presence (i.e., actions), successful introduction of new the final population model and report Mona Springs). least chub populations, the creation of are not anticipated until 2015. Thus far, MOUs with grazing operators on private In addition to modeling the lands, habitat restoration, and the analysis reveals what the agencies probability of least chub occupancy, the believed to be true, that CPUE values groundwater monitoring. A summary of initial PVA model found that least chub these previous and ongoing were highly variable and heavily biased populations generally displayed low by sampling method (gear type and conservation actions, by least chub probabilities of extirpation at the location of net deployment), making population site, are described below. individual sites (Peterson and Saenz CPUE an unreliable indicator of least (1) Mona Springs: Habitat in the 2013, p. 29). The simulated mean time chub population status and trends vicinity of Mona Springs was originally to extirpation was greater than 80 years (Peterson and Saenz 2013, p. 31). Once privately owned, but the Mitigation for all populations under most completed, the PVA model will Commission has acquired 84 ha (208 ac) incorporate environmental factors (i.e., simulated conditions except for the of land since 1998, thus wholly precipitation and minimum most extreme catastrophic disturbance protecting occupied least chub habitat at temperatures the previous winter and probabilities (simulating a 90 percent the site (Hines et al. 2008, p. 34; Wilson spring), and habitat characteristics (i.e., habitat reduction) (Peterson and Saenz 2014, pers. comm.). The Mitigation percent open water and average depth) 2013, p. 30). Even under these extreme Commission is a federal agency formed to provide a better indicator of least conditions, simulated mean time to to fund and implement mitigation chub population status and trends in extirpation exceeded 60 years for all projects associated with the Central least chub occupancy at a site populations evaluated (Peterson and Utah Project (a federal water project (occupancy rates), including whether a Saenz 2013, p. 30). The authors suggest authorized in 1956, to develop Utah’s population is increasing, decreasing, or that the PVA should not be used as an allotment of the Colorado River), and stable (Peterson and Saenz 2013, p. 27). absolute prediction of the likelihood of was signatory to the 1998 and 2005 The PVA would provide an immediate species extinction due to the intrinsic CCAs. Livestock grazing was removed gauge of the population’s probability to limitations of any model that uses from the site in 2005, and habitat persist and remain reproductively incomplete information to predict future enhancement projects to deepen the successful in the long term (Peterson events (Reed et al. 2002, pp. 14–15). springs and remove Russian olive (and and Saenz 2013, p. 27). However, the results of the PVA other nonnative vegetation) began in The interim PVA model provides indicate that all 15 natural and 2011. Since 2000, UDWR continues to estimated occupancy probabilities for introduced least chub populations (with conduct nonnative fish removals at the least chub populations at Leland the exception of Mona Springs with Mona Springs. In 2012, UDWR installed Harris Spring Complex, Bishop Springs mosquitofish present) exhibit consistent fish barriers and the number of juveniles Complex, Mills Valley, and Gandy occupancy rates and have a high collected during the 2013 sampling Marsh. The model approximates the likelihood of persistence into the future season was the highest on record, thus occupancy rates at 70 percent for Leland (Peterson and Saenz 2013, pp. 54, 58). documenting successful recruitment for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51046 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

the first time in many years (Grover and annual, rotating basis to counteract the where they impacted vegetated habitat Crockett 2014, p. 17). As previously historical livestock damage. This (Ottenbacher et al. 2010, entire). described, Mona Springs is not restoration effort has resulted in Removal efforts have significantly considered a viable, self-sustaining increased least chub habitat and reduced the common carp population. population; however, the ongoing efforts occupancy. Anecdotal evidence shows an increase to stock Mona Springs have allowed us (4) Bishop Springs Complex: Land in vegetated habitat and decrease in to maintain a population at this site, and ownership includes BLM (50 percent), turbidity following these removal efforts efforts to successfully protect the habitat SITLA (40 percent), and private lands (Wheeler 2014c, pers. comm). in perpetuity provide us with ongoing (10 percent). In 2006, UDWR and the management options into the future. Service entered into a candidate Future Conservation Efforts (2) Leland Harris Spring Complex: conservation agreement with assurances Land ownership for least chub occupied (CCAA) with the landowner to purchase Despite the positive accomplishments habitat at Leland Harris is a water rights for Foote Reservoir and of the 1998 CCA and 2005 CCA, our combination of private (50 percent) and Bishop Twin Springs (USFWS 2006, 2010 12-month finding (75 FR 35398) UDWR (40 percent) lands (following entire). These water bodies provide identified several threats that were still completion of a land swap with State most of the perennial water to the negatively acting on the least chub and and Institutional Trust Lands complex (Hines et al. 2008, p. 37). In its habitat. The remaining threats Administration (SITLA) in 2014), with 2008, UDWR obtained a permit for identified in the 2010 12-month finding about 10 percent owned by the BLM permanent change of use, providing for included: (1) Continued habitat loss and (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 41–42). Miller instream flow on a seasonal schedule. degradation caused by livestock grazing; Spring (located in this complex) and its This instream flow helps to maintain (2) groundwater withdrawal; (3) surrounding wetlands (approximately water levels at Bishop Springs Complex, nonnative fishes; (4) the effects of 20.2 ha (50 ac)) are privately owned but protecting the least chub (Hines et al. climate change and drought; (4) and are managed under a grazing plan 2008, p. 37). Fencing around Foote cumulative interaction of the individual developed by the UDWR and the private Reservoir (Foote Spring) and North factors listed above. The 2010 12-month landowner. Paddocks for rotational Twin Spring to exclude livestock was finding also determined that existing grazing and exclosures to reduce completed in 1993 (Wheeler 2014b, regulatory mechanisms were not springhead access by cattle were pers. comm.), and Russian olive removal adequately addressing the threat of completed at Miller Spring in 1998. As was completed in 2012. These efforts groundwater withdrawal to the species. a result, livestock no longer congregate have limited livestock access to least Based on information provided in the around the vulnerable wetland habitat chub occupied habitat. 2010 12-month finding, the LCCT (5) Mills Valley: Nearly 80 percent of and now use the upland areas (Crockett partners met to evaluate the most recent the occupied habitat at Mills Valley is 2013, pers. comm.), and although least least chub survey information and chub are not regularly monitored at privately owned, and the remaining 20 habitat conditions and amend the 2005 Miller Spring, they are observed percent is owned by UDWR as the Mills CCA. The resulting 2014 CCA schooling along the shoreline each year Meadow Wildlife Management Area amendment outlined several new during Columbia spotted frog (Rana (WMA) (LCCT 2014, p. 14). Livestock conservation actions to address the luteiventris) surveys (Grover 2013, pers. grazing rights on the UDWR WMA were threats that were identified in our 12- comm.). provided to adjacent landowners in (3) Gandy Marsh: Land ownership exchange for UDWR and public access month finding: (1) Development and includes BLM (70 percent), private to UDWR property (Stahli and Crockett implementation of a programmatic lands (29 percent), and SITLA (1 2008, p. 5); however, the grazing rights candidate conservation agreement with percent). The BLM designated 919 ha were purchased back from the private assurances (CCAA) with private (2,270 ac) as an Area of Critical landowner. In addition, the UDWR is landowners; (2) the purchase of grazing Environmental Concern (ACEC) that is encouraging landowners to participate rights on UDWR land; (3) completion of closed to oil and gas leasing to protect in the programmatic CCAA to improve the population viability analysis (PVA) the least chub. The ACEC includes most their current grazing management to evaluate natural and introduced of the lake bed and aquatic habitats and strategies (USFWS 2014a, entire). populations and prioritize conservation is fenced to exclude livestock (BLM (6) Clear Lake: This population was strategies; (4) development of nonnative 1992, pp. 11, 16, 18). Some springheads discovered in 2003 at the Clear Lake fish management plans; (5) additional on the privately owned parcel were WMA, which is wholly owned and fencing and habitat restoration of key voluntarily exclosed by the landowner, managed by UDWR. The site has a water sites; (6) maintenance and monitoring of significantly reducing the entrainment right owned by UDWR. Common carp introduced populations; and (7) rate of livestock—livestock can become were prevalent at the site, but between completion of a study to evaluate the entrained (trapped) in soft spring 2003 and 2013, and through the impact of groundwater level changes on deposits, where they can die, implementation of the 2010 Clear Lake habitat at a natural population site. A decompose, and pollute the springhead. Aquatic Control Plan, UDWR summary of specific conservation Degraded springheads are prioritized successfully removed considerable actions included in the 2014 CCA and selected sites are restored on an numbers of common carp from the lake amendment are listed below in Table 2.

TABLE 2—THREATS TO THE LEAST HUB AS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2010 12-MONTH FINDING (75 FR 35398), THE PLANNED ACTIONS TO ADDRESS THOSE THREATS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2014 CCA AMENDMENT, AND THE STATUS OF THE ACTION [LCCT 2014, Entire]

Threat Agency Conservation actions Status

Livestock grazing ...... UDWR ...... Purchase of grazing rights for Mills Valley. Livestock to be re- Completed. moved September 2015. UDWR, BLM ...... Maintain fencing on their respective lands ...... Annually.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51047

TABLE 2—THREATS TO THE LEAST HUB AS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2010 12-MONTH FINDING (75 FR 35398), THE PLANNED ACTIONS TO ADDRESS THOSE THREATS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2014 CCA AMENDMENT, AND THE STATUS OF THE AC- TION—Continued [LCCT 2014, Entire]

Threat Agency Conservation actions Status

Service, UDWR ...... Encourage private landowners at Mills Valley, Leland, Gandy, After CCAA completion. and Bishop to enroll in the programmatic CCAA. UDWR ...... Complete land-swap package at Leland Harris ...... Completed. BLM ...... Implement guidelines and plans when issuing or renewing graz- Continuous. ing operator permits, and maintain Area of Critical Environ- mental Concern (ACEC) at Gandy. UDWR ...... Purchase privately owned parcels at Gandy and Bishop, if pos- Anytime. sible. BLM ...... Complete Bishop Springs fencing project ...... May 2015. UDWR ...... Enhance habitat of degraded areas ...... Annually. UDWR ...... Submit an annual report ...... Annually. All ...... Adaptively manage grazing at all applicable sites ...... As needed. Ground-water with- UDWR ...... Monitor least chub populations ...... Annually. drawal. Service, UDWR, BLM Protest new water rights applications through the formal protest Continuous. process if the applications for water infringe on water rights and lands with least chub. UDWR ...... Monitor water levels at introduced sites ...... Annually. UDWR ...... Review piezometer data and monitor groundwater levels at Annually. Snake Valley least chub population sites. All ...... Review annual groundwater reports by Utah Geological Survey Annually. (UGS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). All ...... Use the new decision model to assess the continued stability Annually. and suitability of habitats to support least chub. All ...... Integrate monitoring data into the decision model to reduce key 1 year after completion of uncertainties and improve future decision-making and provide PVA. a summary report annually. UDWR ...... Use Leland Harris habitat study (expected in 2015) to develop a After study completion. water level and inundated habitat model. SNWA ...... Consider possible impacts of Southern Nevada Water Authority When applicable. (SNWA) activities and plans on least chub and their habitat. Nonnative fishes ...... UDWR ...... Design/implement nonnative fish management plans ...... May 2015. UDWR ...... Maintain, enforce and educate on UDWR code regulations for Continuous. movement of nonnative fish species. All ...... Use new information in adaptive management planning ...... As needed. Climate change and UDWR ...... Monitor piezometers, surface flow gages, and weather patterns Annually. drought. at the Snake Valley wild population sites. UDWR ...... Apply information from the Leland Harris habitat study (expected Sept. 2015. in 2015) to other sites. All ...... Use PVA and decision tool to guide management under changes 1 year after PVA comple- in drought and climate change conditions. tion. Service, UDWR ...... Evaluate introduced populations and UDWR to establish new Continuous. populations to meet goals. UDWR, BLM ...... Russian olive removal at Bishop Springs ...... April 2015. Cumulative effects ...... All ...... Addressing the threats listed above independently will prevent Not applicable. these threats from acting cumulatively.

We have also completed an analysis effective in our current threats analysis of implementation and six criteria for of the certainty of implementation and and status determination. evaluating the certainty of effectiveness effectiveness of these future actions for conservation efforts. These criteria PECE Analysis pursuant to our Policy for Evaluation of are not considered comprehensive Conservation Efforts When Making The purpose of PECE is to ensure evaluation criteria. The certainty of Listing Decisions (PECE; 68 FR 15100, consistent and adequate evaluation of implementation and the effectiveness of March 28, 2003; USFWS 2014b, entire), recently formalized conservation efforts a formalized conservation effort may which is available on the Internet at when making listing decisions. The also depend on species-specific, habitat- http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ policy provides guidance on how to specific, location-specific, and effort- species/fish/leastchub/. This analysis evaluate conservation efforts that have specific factors. To consider that a pertains only to actions that have not not yet been implemented or have not formalized conservation effort yet been implemented or have been yet demonstrated effectiveness. The contributes to forming a basis for not implemented but are not yet shown to evaluation focuses on the certainty that listing a species, or listing a species as be effective (see PECE Analysis, below). the conservation efforts will be threatened rather than endangered, we Our analysis under PECE allows us to implemented and effectiveness of the must find that the conservation effort is include future actions that have not yet conservation efforts. The policy presents sufficiently certain to be implemented, been implemented or shown to be nine criteria for evaluating the certainty and effective, so as to have contributed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51048 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

to the elimination or adequate reduction habitat at a natural population site. The mining; (4) urban and suburban of one or more threats to the species 2014 CCA amendment has sufficient development; (5) ground water and identified through the section 4(a)(1) annual monitoring and reporting surface water withdrawal and diversion; analysis. The elimination or adequate requirements to ensure that all of the and (6) drought. reduction of section 4(a)(1) threats may conservation measures are implemented Livestock Grazing lead to a determination that the species as planned, and are effective at does not meet the definition of removing threats to the least chub and Livestock grazing was considered a endangered or threatened, or is its habitat. The collaboration among the threat to the species at the time of the threatened rather than endangered. CCA signatories requires regular 2010 12-month finding, particularly for An agreement or plan may contain committee meetings and involvement of the Snake Valley (Leland Harris, Gandy, numerous conservation efforts, not all of all parties in order to fully implement Bishop Springs) and Mills Valley which are sufficiently certain to be the conservation agreement. Based on populations. Grazing animals can implemented and effective. Those the successes of previous actions of the impact aquatic habitats in multiple conservation efforts that are not conservation committee, we have a high ways. Livestock seek springs for food sufficiently certain to be implemented level of certainty that the conservation and water, both of which are limited in and effective cannot contribute to a measures in the 2014 CCA amendment desert habitats; therefore, they spend a determination that listing is will be implemented (for those disproportionate amount of time in unnecessary, or a determination to list measures not already begun) and these areas (Stevens and Meretsky 2008, as threatened rather than endangered. effective, and thus they can be p. 29). As they spend time at springs, Regardless of the adoption of a considered as part of the basis for our livestock eat and trample plants, conservation agreement or plan, final listing determination for the least compact local soils, and collapse the however, if the best available scientific chub. banks (Stevens and Meretsky 2008, p. and commercial data indicate that the Our detailed PECE analysis (USFWS 29). Input of organic wastes increases species meets the definition of 2014b, entire) on the 2014 CCA nutrient concentrations, and some ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened amendment (LCCT 2014, entire) is nutrients (e.g., nitrogen compounds) can species’’ on the day of the listing available for review at http:// become toxic to fish (Taylor et al. 1989, decision, then we must proceed with www.regulations.gov and http:// in Stevens and Meretsky 2008, p. 29). appropriate rulemaking activity under www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ Domestic livestock can also be trapped section 4 of the Act. fish/leastchub/. in soft spring deposits, die and Using the criteria in PECE (68 FR decompose, and pollute the water, 15100, March 28, 2003), we evaluated Summary of Factors Affecting the although this has happened (for those measures not already Species infrequently. All of these effects can implemented) the certainty of Section 4 of the Act and its result in the loss or decline of native implementation and effectiveness of implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) aquatic fauna (Stevens and Meretsky conservation measures pertaining to the set forth the procedures for adding 2008, pp. 29–30) at site-specific least chub. We have determined that the species to the Federal Lists of locations. measures will be effective at eliminating Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Historical livestock grazing impacted or reducing threats to the species and Plants. A species may be five of the six naturally occurring least because they protect and enhance determined to be an endangered or chub sites (Leland Harris, Gandy Marsh, occupied habitat (by reducing further threatened species due to one or more Bishop Springs, Mills Valley, and Mona grazing damage, restoring historically of the five factors described in section Springs). Despite some remaining impacted areas, and removing nonnative 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or localized impacts at a few of these fishes); commit to continued monitoring threatened destruction, modification, or locations, removal of grazing, of populations; and provide new curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) implementation of conservation information, management direction, and overutilization for commercial, activities, continued monitoring efforts, analysis on the populations through the recreational, scientific, or educational habitat restoration, and private PVA model and implementation. We purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) landowner agreements leading to have a high degree of certainty that the the inadequacy of existing regulatory modified grazing practices have measures will be implemented because mechanisms; or (E) other natural or decreased grazing pressure and resultant the LCCT partners have a long track manmade factors affecting its continued impacts at these sites since 2005 (Hines record of implementing conservation existence. Listing actions may be et al. 2008 pp. 22–23; LCCT 2014, pp. measures and CCAs for this species warranted based on any of the above 18–19; Crockett 2013, pers. comm; since 1998. Over approximately the past threat factors, singly or in combination. Wheeler 2013b, pers. comm.). In 16 years of implementation, UDWR, Each of these factors is discussed below. addition, the LCCT has evaluated BLM, and the Mitigation Commission In our previous analysis in the 2010 12- livestock grazing at successful have implemented conservation actions month finding (75 FR 35398), we did introduced population sites and to benefit least chub and its habitat, not evaluate introduced populations, determined that all sites, except one monitored their effectiveness, and which are now evaluated in this (Pilot SE), have been protected from adapted strategies as new information document (see ‘‘Population grazing since establishment, either became available. Distribution,’’ above). through fencing or land management New conservation actions are practices, and thus no grazing related prescribed by the 2014 CCA amendment Factor A. The Present or Threatened impacts are present. The following and are already being implemented, Destruction, Modification, or discussion provides site-specific such as the purchase of grazing rights on Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range analysis of livestock grazing for all least UDWR land, a land swap with SITLA, The following potential threats that chub populations. the creation and implementation of the may affect the habitat or range of least The Clear Lake WMA and Mona PVA, habitat restoration, and data chub are discussed in this section, Springs naturally occurring least chub collection for the study to evaluate the including: (1) Livestock grazing; (2) oil populations are protected from livestock effect of groundwater level changes on and gas leasing and exploration; (3) grazing by the management policies of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51049

UDWR when Clear Lake WMA was (Hogrefe 2001, pp. 7, 20). A rotational improve bank stabilization, and reduce established, and the Mitigation grazing plan was established through a sediment deposition at the South Twin Commission in 2005, respectively. The wildlife extension agreement between spring through funds provided by UDWR never grazed livestock at the the landowner and UDWR on 75 ha (188 UDWR’s Watershed Restoration Clear Lake WMA and the Mitigation ac) of Miller Spring and Leland Harris Initiative, a conservation activity Commission removed grazing from Springs (which also exhibited historical committed to in the 2014 CCA Mona Springs in 2005 (Hines et al. 2008, ungulate damage and bank disturbance) amendment (BLM 2014, entire; LCCT p. 34, 45). that resulted in improved habitat 2014, p. 19). Overall, 75 percent of Livestock damage occurred at Gandy conditions at both sites (Hines et al. springs at the Bishop Springs Complex Marsh during periods of unmanaged 2008, p. 42). Fencing of additional are protected from livestock grazing overgrazing (Hines et al. 2008, p. 39; springs at Leland Harris in 2013 (i.e., via fencing or livestock LCCT 2008b, p. 2). In August 2007, protected another 0.12 ha (0.3 ac) of inaccessibility), and the remaining 25 livestock damage was reported to be habitat on private land and reduced percent of the springs will be fenced extensive when approximately 600 head livestock entrainment (Crockett 2013, and protected from livestock grazing by of cattle were fenced into the northern pers. comm.). Survey data at Leland 2015. area of Gandy Marsh (LCCT 2008b, p. 2; Harris indicate that least chub are On the State-owned WMA portion of Wheeler 2013b, pers. comm.). However, widely distributed throughout the the Mills Valley site, grazing was the number of cattle has decreased to spring complex (UDWR 2012b, pp. II– allowed in return for UDWR access about 12 to 40 head (more than a 90 17), and although least chub are not across private land to monitor least percent decrease) on this privately regularly monitored at Miller Spring, chub status. The damage due to owned Gandy Marsh parcel since 2007, they are observed schooling along the overgrazing on this parcel was and the livestock entrainment rate shoreline each year during Columbia documented as moderate to severe in significantly declined when the spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) surveys 2006 (UDWR 2006, pp. 27–28). The landowner voluntarily fenced about 50 (Grover 2013, pers. comm.). Additional UDWR recently purchased the grazing percent of the springheads (Wheeler efforts to remove livestock grazing at rights for the parcel and grazing will be 2013b, pers. comm.). This change in Leland Harris include a recent land removed by September 2015 (LCCT management is the result of an informal, swap in 2014, between SITLA and 2014, p. 18). The remaining 80 percent voluntary agreement initiated around UDWR, thereby protecting nearly 50 of the least chub site is privately owned, 2008 between the landowner and the percent of the Leland Harris site, which but in general, only springs on the UDWR. The UDWR also manually is approximately 28 percent of the entire eastern edge of the wetland complex restored 25 of the heavily impacted Leland Harris Springs Complex (LCCT (approximately 50 percent of privately springheads at Gandy Marsh and least 2014, p. 19). Overall, 28 percent of owned lands) have suffered from chub re-colonized 75 percent of those habitat at the Leland Harris Springs significant grazing impacts in the past restored areas within several months Complex has no livestock grazing, and (UDWR 2012b, pp. II–19, 20). In 2012, (Wheeler 2013a, p. 3; Wheeler 2014a, p. the remainder of habitat is either under by targeting habitat restoration efforts 10). The BLM also installed fencing to the grazing management plan through and shifting the grazing patterns on a protect springs on their lands at Gandy the 20-year wildlife extension portion of the private lands previously Marsh. Overall, 60 percent of the agreement between UDWR and the impacted, habitat quality improved and no additional accumulation of sediment springs at Gandy Marsh are protected landowner (67 percent) or actively from livestock grazing by fencing (on from grazing was detected after managed for grazing by BLM (5 percent). both private and BLM lands), with restoration at the sites (UDWR 2013a, p. As a signatory to the 2014 CCA nearly 80 percent of the habitat II–8, 9; Grover 2013, pers. comm.). To amendment, the BLM ensures that its managed and regulated via grazing further minimize the remaining grazing permits are issued at levels permits by BLM, and the remaining livestock impacts at Mills Valley, the sufficient to conserve least chub (e.g., habitat managed for livestock grazing UDWR agrees to encourage private turn out dates, number of cattle, rest under the informal, voluntary agreement landowners to enroll in the periods; BLM 1988, entire), and has between UDWR and the landowner, programmatic CCAA (see discussions in committed to continue to implement which is expected to continue into the Previous and Ongoing Conservation Utah Guidelines for Grazing future since the exclosures in place Efforts and Future Conservation Efforts since 2008, minimize livestock Management (BLM 2011, entire) that sections, above), which will incorporate entrainment and loss, thereby providing protect least chub habitat when issuing a grazing management plan with a benefits to landowner and encouraging or renewing grazing permits (LCCT rotational grazing schedule and a continuous agreement by the 2014, p. 19) (see Factor D. Inadequacy establish a maximum number of grazing landowner with UDWR. The UDWR, as of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, units, key rest periods, and livestock signatory to the 2014 CCA amendment, below). turn-out dates for the protection of least agrees to continue efforts to restore Foote Spring and North Twin Spring chub (LCCT 2014, p. 18). Overall, degraded habitat on an annual, rotating at the Bishop Spring Complex have been through UDWR management, 20 percent basis to counteract the historical protected from livestock by fences since of least chub habitat at Mills Valley will livestock damage (LCCT 2014, p. 16). 1993, and Central Spring, although not have no livestock grazing by 2015. Miller Spring and portions of the fenced, is inaccessible to livestock due As described previously, in 2013, the Leland Harris sites (within the Leland to its location in the center of the LCCT established formal introduction Harris Springs Complex) were wetland complex. The remaining spring criteria for establishing new least chub previously considered unsuitable for in the complex, South Twin Spring, was populations (LCCT 2013a, entire). The least chub due to sedimentation, severely impacted by bank sloughing, criteria includes a thorough threat trampling, and poor water quality resulting in shallower water, increased assessment and evaluation of the site; associated with livestock use, but surface area, and sedimentation of the standards requiring that no livestock extensive efforts by UDWR in 1999 and springhead in past years (Wheeler et al. grazing occur at a site, or if there is 2000, to restore and fence the spring 2004, p. 5). In 2014 and 2015, BLM will grazing, it will be for an agreed-upon significantly improved the habitat install a fence structure and water gap, extent and duration that would not have

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51050 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

negative impacts on least chub or their hydrocarbon products into ground and viable project in the future. Past peat habitat; that livestock watering access be surface waters (Stalfort 1998, section 1). mining activities were unsuccessful in limited to a water gap (a notch in a fence Accumulations of contaminants in Mills Valley, and we are unaware of any surrounding a waterbody that allows for floodplains can result in lethal or future private or commercial peat limited watering access for livestock) or sublethal impacts to endemic sensitive mining proposals or permits, including off-site water source; that there are no aquatic species (Stalfort 1998, section 4; any near or within introduced least apparent sedimentation issues; and that Fleeger et al. 2003, p. 207). chub sites (W. Western 2014, pers. the site exhibits stable banks and The closest active well to a natural comm.). minimal vegetation disturbance from least chub population, as reported in In summary, our analysis found one livestock presence (UDWR 2013b, p. 2). our 2010 12-month finding, was 9.7 permit for peat removal in the Mills Ten introduced sites meet the kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi)) away Valley least chub population area, but establishment criteria and are when evaluated using data from 2009 the attempt was abandoned. We are considered successful introductions, (Megown 2009a, entire). However, the unaware of any additional private or two of which have been established activities associated with the active well commercial peat operation activities or since the 2010 12-month finding. Six of 9.7 km (6 mi) away have not increased permits at Mills Valley or any other these sites do not have livestock grazing; drilling operation and maintenance natural or introduced least chub three sites are fenced and managed for vehicle traffic near the least chub site, populations prior to or since the 2010 livestock; and one site has seasonal nor has there been evidence of 12-month finding. We conclude that livestock grazing, but there is no compacted soils, soil erosion, crushed peat mining is not a threat to the least documented damage to least chub vegetation, or contamination runoff near chub. the least chub site. Therefore, we habitats associated with the seasonal Urban and Suburban Development livestock use (Allen 2014, pers. comm.). consider this to be beyond the distance Overall, 90 percent of the successful where least chub or their habitat would Urban and suburban development introduced sites are protected from be reasonably affected. Using the most were not considered threats to the livestock grazing, and 10 percent (1 site) recent information from the State of species at the time of the 2010 12-month has low intensity, seasonal grazing with Utah, Division of Oil, Gas and Mining finding, but our analysis did not no documented habitat damage in the 6 (UDOGM) data, the same analysis in previously evaluate introduced years since its establishment. 2014 revealed no change; the well populations, which are now evaluated In summary, historical livestock examined in 2009 remains the closest in this document. We acknowledge that grazing was widespread across the well to a natural least chub population historical development resulted in the majority of the natural populations and (Jorgensen 2014a, entire). The closest loss of least chub habitats and extensive livestock-related damage (i.e., active well in the UDOGM database to populations across the species’ range. entrainment, sedimentation, trampling) an introduced population is 49.9 km (31 The least chub was originally common had occurred in the recent past at some mi) away (Jorgensen 2014a, entire). throughout the Bonneville Basin in a of the natural sites. However, we find Since oil and gas leasing sites have not variety of habitat types (Sigler and that completed efforts to protect the encroached closer than 9.7 km (6 mi) to Miller 1963, p. 82). In many urbanized populations from grazing (e.g., fencing, the nearest natural least chub site in 5 and agricultural areas, residential livestock management, land and grazing years, wells are nearly 50 km (31 mi) development and water development rights acquisitions) and planned efforts from introduced least chub populations, projects have effectively eliminated under the 2014 CCA amendment (as and we are unaware of any plans for historical habitats and potential described above under PECE Analysis) new exploration or development in reintroduction sites for least chub to continue to improve grazing these areas, oil and gas leasing and (Keleher and Barker 2004, p. 4; management in least chub habitats exploration is not considered a threat to Thompson 2005, p. 9). Development provide an adequate amount of habitat the least chub. and urban encroachment either protection from livestock grazing and functionally or completely eliminated Mining contribute to the long-term conservation most springs, streams, and wetlands of the wetland and springs essential to Mining was not considered a threat to along the Wasatch Front (Keleher and least chub populations across the least chub at the time of our 2010 12- Barker 2004, p. 2). Urban and suburban species’ range. month finding, but our analysis did not development affect least chub habitats previously evaluate introduced through: (1) Changes to hydrology and Oil and Gas Leasing and Exploration populations, which are now evaluated sediment regimes; (2) inputs of Oil and gas leasing and exploration in this document. Peat mining has the pollution from human activities was not considered a threat to least potential to alter the hydrology and (contaminants, fertilizers, and chub in our 2010 12-month finding, but habitat complexity of bog areas with pesticides); (3) introductions of our analysis did not previously evaluate peat and humus resources (Olsen 2004, nonnative plants and animals; and (4) introduced populations, which are now p. 6; Bailey et al. 2005, p. 31). Mills alterations of springheads, stream banks, evaluated in this document. Oil and gas Valley was the only natural least chub floodplains, and wetland habitats by leasing and exploration can have direct population site containing peat and increased diversions of surface flows and indirect impacts on springs, humus suitable for mining at the time of and connected groundwater (Dunne and marshes, and riparian habitats. Vehicles, the 2010 12-month finding. In 2003, a Leopold 1978, pp. 693–702). including drilling rigs and recording Mills Valley landowner received a At the time of our 2010 12-month trucks, can crush vegetation, compact permit from UDOGM to conduct peat finding, of the remaining natural sites, soils, and introduce exotic plant species mining on their private land. Although only the Mona Springs site (Keleher and (BLM 2008, pp. 4–9 to 4–20). Roads and one test hole was dug, no further peat Barker 2004, p. 4; Thompson 2005, p. 9) well pads can affect local drainages and mining occurred in this location. This was considered vulnerable to rapid surface hydrology, and increase erosion peat mining permit is now inactive, and population growth along the Wasatch and sedimentation (Matherne 2006, p. the operation has been abandoned (W. Front. At that time, the human 35). Accidental spills (Etkin 2009, pp. Western 2014, pers. comm), indicating population in the Mona Springs area 36–42, 56) can result in the release of that it is unlikely to be reinitiated as a was increasing and a housing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51051

development had expanded to within 1 Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ reductions and periodic dewatering km (0.6 mi) of the Mona Springs least mountain-prairie/species/fish/ reduced available habitat in the wetland chub site (Megown 2009b, entire). Since leastchub/, for a detailed description of needed for least chub reproduction at then, there has been no additional the history and our current analysis of Bishop Springs (Crawford 1979, p. 38; encroachment at the Mona Springs site, groundwater withdrawal in Utah and Lamarra 1981, p. 10; Wheeler et al. and we know of no additional urban the Snake Valley (an interstate 2004, p. 5). Fortunately, UDWR’s development planned for the other groundwater basin) and large-scale acquisition of water rights through a natural least chub sites (Jorgensen groundwater development projects. A CCAA with a private landowner at 2014b, entire). Naturally occurring summary is provided below. Bishop Springs in 2006, and approval of populations are more than 16 km (10 Effects of Water Withdrawal a permanent change of use to provide mi) away from population centers, and instream flow to the Complex in 2008, 40 percent of introduced sites are more Hydrologic alterations, including addresses these historical low water than 80 km (50 mi) away (Jorgensen water withdrawal and diversion, affect a conditions at the site (USFWS 2006, 2014d, entire). variety of abiotic and biotic factors that entire; Hines et al. 2008, p. 37). Of the introduced population sites, regulate least chub population size and Reductions in water may alter only Escalante is near an urban interface persistence. Abiotic factors include chemical and physical properties of (ponds are located on the property of physical and chemical characteristics of aquatic habitats. As water quantity the Escalante Elementary School in Salt the environment, such as water levels decreases, temperatures may rise Lake City), and we are unaware of any and temperature, while biotic factors (especially in desert ecosystems with future development planned for this include interactions with other little shade cover), dissolved oxygen site. Two additional introduced sites are individuals or other species (Deacon may decrease, and the concentration of near the Wasatch Front, but they are 2007, pp. 1–2). Water withdrawal pollutants may increase (Alley et al. directly reduces available habitat, more than 8 km (5 mi) from 1999, p. 41; Deacon 2007, p. 1). These impacting water depth, water surface development, with the closest modified habitat conditions could area, and flows from springheads (Alley developed site located on military lands significantly impact least chub life- et al. 1999, p. 43). As available habitat (not open to additional development) history processes, possibly beyond the decreases, the characteristics and value (Jorgensen 2014d, entire). There has state at which the species can survive. of the remaining habitat changes. been no alteration to the least chub- For example, the maximum growth rate Reductions in water availability to least occupied spring habitats at these for least chub less than 1 year of age chub habitat reduce the quantity and introduced sites, nor any evidence of occurs at 22.3 °C (72.1 °F). quality of the remaining habitat (Deacon increased sedimentation or Temperatures above or below this have 2007, p. 1). contamination at the sites due to the potential to negatively impact suburban or urban development within Water withdrawal and diversion growth and affect survival rates 8 km (5 mi); therefore, we consider this reduces the size of ponds, springs, and (Billman et al. 2006, p. 438). to be beyond the distance where least other water features that support least chub or their habitat would be chub (Alley et al. 1999, p. 43). Reduced habitat quality and quantity reasonably affected. Assuming that the habitat remains at may cause niche overlaps with other Despite the effects of urban and carrying capacity for the species or, in fish species, increasing hybrid suburban development on historical other words, assuming all population introgression, interspecific competition, populations along the eastern portion of processes (e.g., birth rate and death rate) and predation (see Factor C and E the least chub historical range, most of remain unchanged, smaller habitats discussions). Reduction in spring flows the remaining sites where least chub support fewer individuals by offering reduces opportunities for habitat niche naturally occurs or was introduced fewer resources for the population partitioning; therefore, fewer species are occur in relatively remote portions of (Deacon 2007, p. 1). able to coexist. The effect is especially Utah with minimal human populations. Particularly because least chub live in problematic with respect to introduced We have no information indicating that patchily distributed desert aquatic species. Native species may be able to urban or suburban development poses a systems, reduction in habitat size also coexist with introduced species in threat to the least chub now or in the affects the quality of the habitat. relatively large habitats (see Factor C future. Reduced water depth may isolate areas discussion), but the native species that would be hydrologically connected become increasingly vulnerable to Water Withdrawal and Diversion at higher water levels. Within least chub extirpation as habitat size diminishes Water withdrawals and diversions habitat, springheads offer stable (Deacon 2007, p. 2). were considered a threat to the species environmental conditions, such as Habitat reduction may affect the at the time of the 2010 12-month temperature and oxygen levels, for species by altering individual success. finding. Our analysis was based on refugia and overwintering, but offer Fish and other aquatic species tend to groundwater trends at the time and little food or vegetation (Deacon 2007, p. adjust their maximum size to the proposed large-scale groundwater 2). In contrast, marsh areas offer amount of habitat available, so reduced development projects anticipated in the vegetation for spawning and feeding, habitat may reduce the growth capacity near future. However, there have been but exhibit wide fluctuations in of least chub (Smith 1981, in Deacon changes to the proposed groundwater environmental conditions (Crawford 2007, p. 2). Reproductive output development activities and additional 1979, p. 63; Crist and Holden 1980, p. decreases exponentially as fish size information on groundwater is now 804). Maintaining hydrologic decreases (Smith 1981, in Deacon 2007, available. Furthermore, successful connections between springheads and p. 2). Therefore, reduction of habitat conservation actions have been marsh areas is important because least volume in isolated desert springs and implemented since the 2010 12-month chub migrate between these areas to streams can reduce reproductive output finding. Please refer to our ‘‘Summary of access the full range of their ecological (Deacon 2007, p. 2). Longevity also may Groundwater Withdrawal at Least Chub requirements (Crawford 1979, p. 63; be reduced resulting in fewer Populations Sites’’ (USFWS 2014c, Crist and Holden 1980, p. 804; Lamarra reproductive seasons (Deacon 2007, p. entire), which can be found on the 1981, p. 10). As an example, flow 2).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51052 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Current Groundwater Policy and groundwater policies implemented in Mona Springs, Mills Valley, and Clear Management 1995, 1997, and 2003, for the basins, Lake WMA by preventing further The Utah State Engineer (USE), respectively (Greer 2013, pers. comm.; groundwater development. through the Utah Division of Water UDWRi 1995, entire; UDWRi 1997, Three naturally occurring least chub Rights (UDWRi), is responsible for the entire; UDWRi 2003, entire; UDWRi populations occur within the Snake Valley UDWRi groundwater basin, administration of water rights, including 2013, entire). In addition, we reevaluated the which remains open to appropriations the appropriation, distribution, and available monitoring well data, which (see ‘‘Localized Pumping in Snake management of the State’s surface and previously indicated declines in water Valley,’’ below). Of the three groundwater. This office has broad levels (Burden 2009, pp. 41–43, 46–50, populations occurring in the Snake discretionary powers to implement the 53–55). Our recent analysis of the Valley, two have secured water rights duties required by the office. For monitoring well reports indicates that owned by the UDWR and BLM, groundwater management, Utah is while water levels fluctuate, they are authorizing a combination of instream divided into groundwater basins and not in decline, and have increased flow, and wildlife and riparian habitat policy is determined by basin (UDWRi slightly since 2010 (Burden 2013, pp. uses for the water, which retains 2013, entire; UDWRi 2014a, entire). 41–43, 46–50, 53–55). In our 2010 12- additional water on-site by providing an Based on the extent of groundwater month finding, we concluded that there additional 3 cubic feet per second (cfs) development within each basin, they are were increasing groundwater above the natural flow at each site either, open, closed or restricted to withdrawals in the closed basins (UDWRi 2014b, p. 1–8). These water further appropriations. (populations in closed basins are rights provide additional security and In our 2010 12-month finding, we discussed above), suggesting that legally ensure senior rights over any stated that water rights basins where additional withdrawals had been new appropriations in the vicinity of natural populations of least chub granted. However, we now know that these sites, as well as provide water for occurred were either open or closed, but withdrawals have decreased since 2010 the site beyond that provided by the even closed basins allowed for in the Sevier Desert (Clear Lake natural base flow. Overall, three of the additional groundwater pumping. population) basin or maintained a fairly six natural least chub sites occur in Additionally, in our 2010 12-month similar average to those reported in UDWRi closed basins and of the finding, we reported that groundwater 2010 (Burden 2013, pp. 5–6). Although remaining three sites (Snake Valley), withdrawals were increasing in the we originally reported changes in water two sites have secured water rights; thus closed basins and monitoring wells withdrawals from the closed basins as five of the six natural least chub sites were showing declines in water levels evidence of additional withdrawals, are either fully protected via water based on information in the U.S. they are within the appropriated water rights policy or are secured by existing Geological Survey (USGS) and UDWRi rights issued by USE prior to the basin water rights that provide additional annual Groundwater Conditions in Utah closure policies. Annual variation in water for the sites. Report (Burden 2009, entire). For precipitation explain some of the Least chub introduced populations example, the water rights basins differences in groundwater withdrawals are located primarily in the northern corresponding to the Mona Springs, between years in these closed basins, portion of the Bonneville Basin, which Mills Valley, and Clear Lake WMA least with drought years corresponding to spans numerous UDWRi groundwater chub populations were listed as closed, increases and wet years with decreases basins. The majority of the introduced but the annual Groundwater Conditions in withdrawals (USFWS 2014c, p. 6). In least chub populations (90 percent) are in Utah Report reported new wells addition, not all water rights within open or restricted basins, except drilled in these basins (Burden 2009, p. appropriated are pumped at the same Escalante, which is located within a 5). From this information, it appeared volume each year; thus, differences closed basin under the policy of the Salt that additional groundwater occur among years based on the Lake Valley Groundwater Management withdrawals were being authorized for pumping regime of the water right Plan, finalized in 2002 (UDWRi 2002, these basins by the USE. Thus, our holder (USFWS 2014c, p. 6; J. Greer entire). Despite the water right basin analysis concluded that these basins 2013, pers. comm.). status, all introduced population sites were in effect still open to additional Although no studies have have associated water rights that groundwater pumping which posed a quantitatively characterized the authorize water to be retained on-site threat to all least chub populations. available least chub habitat associated through various ‘‘purposes of use,’’ Since we made our 12-month finding with fluctuations in groundwater including for fish culture use, as a pond in 2010, we reevaluated the information withdrawals, the best available and habitat study, and for stockwatering concerning the reported new well information indicates that the water (which is approved for use by both wild records based upon information levels have remained relatively stable and domestic animals as well as natural provided by UDWRi’s online water and available habitat has remained plant life in the area). Thus, stable water rights and well log database, and we consistent seasonally for least chub at levels can generally be maintained at determined that they were replacement Mona Springs and Mills Valley, but has these sites from natural base flows, but wells for similar pumping capacities shown declines in the past at Clear Lake water retained on-site through the water and not additional appropriations of WMA (UDWR 2012a, pp. II–19–20, III– rights adds additional security. The groundwater (UDWRi 2013, entire; 4; Wheeler 2014c, pers. comm.; Grover security is provided by the legal USFWS 2014c, p. 6; Greer 2013, pers. 2014, pers. comm.). However, the water assurance of senior rights over any new comm.). Additionally, the UDWRi right owned by UDWR at Clear Lake appropriations in the vicinity of these Assistant State Engineer confirmed that WMA, which retains water on-site, sites. the basins corresponding to the Mona provides additional assurance that water In summary, five of six natural least Springs, Mills Valley, and Clear Lake will be available for the site in the event chub populations have existing water WMA naturally occurring least chub of drying or other climatic conditions. rights or occur in closed basins. All of populations were closed, and no new Therefore, with this new and clarified the introduced least chub populations appropriations have been approved information, we believe the closed have existing water rights, which since the closure following the basins protect least chub populations at provide water on site for least chub and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51053

are held by a combination of owners, The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) Delamar, Dry Lake, Cave, and Spring including BLM, UDWR, Utah State began evaluating Snake Valley in 2004, valleys in Nevada, but not Snake Valley, Parks, local government, Department of due to concerns over the proposed and the amount that can be conveyed is Defense, and private landowners. The groundwater development by SNWA limited to 83,988 afy (BLM 2012b, p. ownership of a water right legally (UGS 2013, p. 1.2–4). Because 36). Thus, the SNWA GWD Project is ensures the senior rights over any new monitoring of baseline groundwater not currently authorized to develop appropriations in their respective conditions was relevant to future water- groundwater from the Snake Valley. vicinities and retains the water on-site management, the Utah Legislature The BLM’s ROD and final for use by least chub, beyond the requested UGS to establish a long-term environmental impact statement (FEIS) amount provided by natural flow. (50+ years) groundwater-monitoring for the SNWA GWD Project described Therefore, we conclude that network in Snake Valley to determine hydrological model simulations that groundwater withdrawal is not the baseline groundwater conditions were developed to evaluate the probable anticipated to occur at a level that will and measure changes if future long-term effects of groundwater pose a threat to least chub populations. groundwater development were to occur withdrawal from the project and (UGS 2013, p. 1.2–4). The well network selected alternative on a regional scale Current Status of Large-Scale Snake was completed in December 2009. The (BLM 2012b, p. 16; Service 2014c, Valley Groundwater Pumping UGS groundwater-monitoring network entire). The model evaluated predicted Our 2010 12-month finding consists of 60 piezometers (wells open drawdowns across three time series; at considered the proposed large-scale to the aquifers) to measure groundwater full build-out, full build-out plus 75 groundwater withdrawals from the levels and surface-flow gages to measure years, and full build-out plus 200 years. Snake Valley aquifer to be one of the spring discharge (UGS 2013, Abstract p. Comparison of the simulation results for most significant threats to least chub 3). The monitoring sites were selected the three points in time indicates that populations. At the time of our 2010 12- adjacent to the Snake Valley portion of the drawdown area continues to month finding, several applications for the proposed SNWA GWD Project and progressively expand as pumping large-scale groundwater withdrawal coincide with areas of current continues into the future (BLM 2012a, p. from the Snake Valley aquifer were agricultural groundwater pumping, 3.3–179; BLM 2012b, pp. 16, 17). pending, including water rights for environmentally sensitive and However, even at full build-out, the Southern Nevada Water Authority economically important springs, and drawdown areas are localized in the (SNWA), appropriation of groundwater along possible areas of interbasin flow vicinity of the pumping wells in central by the Central Iron County Water (UGS 2013, Abstract p. 3). and southern Spring Valley, southern Conservancy District and Beaver Although all SNWA facilities were Cave Valley, and Dry Lake Valley; County, Utah, and an increase of water planned for development in Nevada, drawdown in excess of 10 feet would development by the Confederated Tribes associated pumping from the Utah- not occur in the Snake Valley (BLM of the Goshute Reservation (SNWA Nevada shared Snake Valley Basin 2012a, p. 3.3–179). 2008, p. 1–6). Of greatest concern was (SNWA 2008, p. 1–1) was expected to At the full build-out plus 75 years the SNWA Groundwater Development affect Utah groundwater resources and timeframe, there are two distinct (GWD) Project, proposing conveyance of consequently habitats of the least chub drawdown areas (BLM 2012a, p. 3.3– up to 170,000 acre-feet per year (afy) of (Welch et al. 2007, p. 82). However, 184). The northern drawdown area groundwater from hydrographic basins prior to any approved groundwater encompasses most of the valley floor in (approximately 50,600 afy from Snake withdrawals from the shared basin, Spring Valley, and extends into Valley) in Clark, Lincoln, and White federal legislation (known as the northern Hamlin Valley and along the Pine Counties, Nevada, to SNWA Lincoln County Conservation, southwest margin of Snake Valley (BLM member agencies and the Lincoln Recreation, and Development Act of 2012a, p. 3.3–184). The Snake Valley County Water Conservancy District in 2004) requires that the two States shall least chub populations are located in the Las Vegas (SNWA 2008, pp. 1–1, 1–6, reach an agreement regarding the northeast portion of Snake Valley and Table 1–1). The SNWA had also applied division of the water sources prior to would be approximately 32–40 km (20– to the BLM for issuance of rights-of-way any transbasin diversion (Pub. L. 108– 25 mi) from the edge of the drawdown to construct and operate a system of 424, 118 Stat. 2403, sec. 301(e)(3), area, reasonably considered to be regional water supply and conveyance November 30, 2004). To date, no beyond the distance where the least facilities to transport water to Las Vegas agreement between Utah and Nevada chub habitat would be affected. The (SNWA 2008, p. 1–3). has been signed. Thus, there are southern drawdown area extends across In 1990, Department of the Interior significant procedural hurdles to the Delamar, Dry Lake, and Cave valleys (DOI) agencies protested water rights overcome before large-scale in a north-south direction (BLM 2012a, applications in Spring and Snake groundwater development could occur p. 3.3–184) where least chub do not Valleys, based in part on potential in the Snake Valley. occur. By the full build-out plus 200 impacts to water-dependent natural Since the 2010 12-month finding, the years timeframe, the two drawdown resources (Plenert 1990, p. 1; Nevada Nevada State Engineer (NSE), in March areas merge into one that extends State Engineer (NSE) 2007, p. 11). In 2012, granted groundwater rights to approximately 305 km (190 mi) in a 2006, DOI agencies reached a stipulated SNWA for Delamar, Dry Lake, Cave, and north-south direction and up to 80 km agreement with SNWA for the Spring Spring valleys, but not for Snake Valley. (50 mi) in an east-west direction, Valley water rights applications and However, SNWA’s approved flanking the southwestern edge of the withdrew their protests (NSE 2007, p. groundwater rights require pipeline Snake Valley basin (BLM 2012a, p. 3.3– 11). For groundwater pumping planned development and conveyance of the 184). In this scenario, the drawdown in Spring Valley, the stipulated water from these east-central Nevada area is still approximately 24–32 km agreement established a process for valleys to southern Nevada, across BLM (15–20 mi) from the closest least chub developing and implementing land. The BLM published a record of population in Snake Valley, which we hydrological and biological monitoring, decision (ROD) in December 2012, consider to be beyond the distance management, and mitigation for authorizing SNWA groundwater where least chub habitat would be biological impacts (NSE 2007, p. 11). conveyance across BLM lands in affected, because pumping generally

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51054 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

only affects groundwater levels in Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys; located within the same regional monitoring wells up to 8 km (5 mi) from and establishment of standards for groundwater flow system, as distance their pumping center, based on mitigation in the event of a conflict with between groundwater development and localized pumping information (UGS existing water rights or unreasonable least chub populations can be an 2013, p. 5.3.7–35) (see ‘‘Localized effects to the environment or the public indicator of potential impacts, as Pumping in Snake Valley,’’ below). In interest (Seventh Judicial District Court, described below. short, the selected alternative shows no Nevada 2013, pp. 1, 2). It is unclear how Through their efforts to monitor drawdowns in the vicinity of the Snake the requirements by the courts will Snake Valley groundwater with a Valley least chub populations, even 200 operate in conjunction with the monitoring well network, UGS years after full build-out. stipulated agreement and how the NSE determined that localized agricultural Because these drawdown predictions will define standards, thresholds, and groundwater pumping has the potential are based on groundwater models, there triggers for mitigation. With these to affect groundwater levels in are intrinsic limitations that should be uncertainties, the SNWA GWD Project monitoring wells up to 8 km (5 mi) from considered with any interpretive effort. in Delamar, Dry Lake, Cave, and Spring their pumping center, as evidenced by The model may underestimate valleys will likely be delayed until a distinct change in monitoring well groundwater drawdowns because it was further analysis is completed. water level during irrigation season developed for regional scale analysis In summary, the SNWA GWD project (UGS 2013, p. 5.3.7–35). Despite and does not consider changes in was not approved for Snake Valley, the observing this relationship between groundwater elevation of less than 3 location of known least chub groundwater pumping and distance meters (m) (10 feet (ft)) (BLM 2012a, p. populations. Drawdowns from pumping affected, they also found that not all 3.3–87). Thus, the geographical extent of in Spring Valley, if it occurs, are not pumping activities within 8 km (5 mi) groundwater drawdown could be greater anticipated to affect least chub cause changes in monitoring well water than what is presented in the analysis, populations even 200 years following levels, as distance from aquifer recharge and the extent and timing of these full build-out, based on the best areas, and duration and the intensity of effects could vary among springs, based available analysis. Recent court pumping activities can be complicating on their distance from extraction sites decisions have lent uncertainty toward factors (UGS 2013, p. 5.3.7–35). Thus, and location relative to regional the future ability to complete the SNWA within an 8-km (5-mi) distance from groundwater flow paths (Patten et al. Project in Spring Valley, a valley groundwater pumping, additional 2007, pp. 398–399). Despite these outside the historical range of least analysis is necessary to characterize limitations, this model is the most chub. Based on available hydrologic pumping impacts. Based on this advanced analysis currently available to modeling, we do not anticipate that the information, 8 km (5 mi) was considered evaluate pumping impacts from the SNWA GWD project, if it occurs, will a reasonable threshold distance of a SNWA GWD Project, and any modeled pose a threat to least chub. least chub site from a pumping location. impacts would have to increase by 24– If groundwater withdrawal wells were Other Proposed Large-Scale Water 32 km (15–20 mi) to reach habitat located closer than this, either water Development Projects Within or Near occupied by least chub 200 years after level trends at the population sites or Snake Valley full build-out; we consider this level of changes in monitoring well water levels disparity to be unlikely. In addition, the In our 2010 12-month finding, other near the sites were used in our analysis UGS monitoring well network (see the large-scale water development projects to determine if groundwater pumping beginning of the ‘‘Current Status of were anticipated or completed, and was affecting least chub population sites Large-Scale Snake Valley Groundwater included: (1) Beaver County, Utah, for (see ‘‘Localized Pumping in Snake Pumping’’ section) will be used to appropriations in Wah Wah, Pine, and Valley,’’ below, for additional evaluate groundwater drawdowns and Hamlin valleys (UDWRi 2009b, pp. 2, 5, descriptions of monitoring well trends changes in spring discharge rates within 8); (2) SITLA for up to 9,600 afy from at least chub populations sites). the vicinity of the Snake Valley least underground water wells across the Our 2010 12-month finding reported chub populations. Because SNWA has Snake Valley; (3) Central Iron County that the Beaver County applications agreed to avoid and mitigate for any (Utah) Water Conservancy District for were rejected by the USE (UDWRi impacts to least chub and their habitat appropriations in Hamlin Valley, Pine 2009b, pp. 3, 6, 9) and that the SITLA in the 2014 CCA amendment (LCCT Valley, and Wah Wah valleys (UDWRi water rights were granted in 2005 for 2014, p. 20), it is anticipated that UGS 2009a, pp. 2, 12, 23); and (4) The 9,600 afy in the Snake Valley. This monitoring data will be used to initiate Confederated Tribes of the Goshute information remains correct, but further discussions to change groundwater Reservation (located in east-central analysis revealed that the SITLA water pumping if impacts are found to occur Nevada and west-central Utah) for an rights are for 12 separate wells across (as described in more detail below). increase their Deep Creek basin rights the Snake Valley: 1 well at Bishop Although the BLM authorized the (Steele 2008, p. 3). Springs, 1 near Gandy Marsh (6 km (4 SNWA GWD Project conveyance for all To evaluate the potential effects of mi)) away from the nearest least chub valleys except Snake Valley, and water these four large-scale water population), 3 wells north of the nearest rights for those valleys were granted by development projects on least chub and least chub population (10 km (6 mi) NSE, on December 10, 2013, the their habitat, we first evaluated the away), and 7 wells south of the nearest Seventh Judicial District Court in project’s current water rights status least chub population (ranging from 30 Nevada heard petitions and remanded (rejected, pending, or approved). Then, to 50 km (20 to 30 mi) away) (UDWRi the NSE orders that granted the water if found to be pending or approved, we 2009c, entire; UDWRi 2014c, entire). rights to SNWA in Delamar, Dry Lake, determined if it occurs within the same These wells have been active for 9 years, Cave, and Spring valleys (Seventh or a different regional groundwater flow with 2 wells occurring within 8 km (5 Judicial District Court, Nevada 2013, p. system as the Snake Valley least chub mi) of least chub habitat. Several of 1). The Court, through the remand, has populations (i.e., hydrologically those 9 years overlap with the required the following: Recalculation of connected). Lastly, we measured the drawdowns experienced at Bishop water available from the respective proximity of the water development Springs prior to water right acquisition basins; additional hydrological study of project to least chub habitat if it was at the site (although a relationship

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51055

cannot be not confirmed). However, nearest least chub populations, or are change in monitoring well water level since the water right held by UDWR was not hydrologically connected to the during irrigation season (UGS 2013, p. approved in 2008 for instream flows to regional flow system of the Snake 5.3.7–35), we used this measure to benefit wildlife at Bishop Springs, Valley, respectively, and thus not identify our analysis area. The number drawdowns have not occurred at the anticipated to impact least chub of water rights within this distance of site, based on annual monitoring populations in the Snake Valley. the Snake Valley least chub sites were surveys. Furthermore, the UGS well Localized Pumping in Snake Valley evaluated. network has not detected drawdowns at Although there are several wells and the site since piezometer installation in Smaller, localized groundwater spring withdrawals near least chub 2009. It is certainly possible that development has the potential to sites, including one new well in 2012 withdrawals by SITLA near the site decrease flow from springs, including (Jorgensen 2014c, entire), in general, the have affected Bishop Springs in the those supporting least chub. In our 2010 Snake Valley least chub population sites past, but the water right held by UDWR 12-month finding (75 FR 35398), we show stable groundwater levels since providing instream flow has maintained concluded that agricultural pumping, piezometer installations in 2009 suitable flows for least chub at the site combined with drought, has affected (Hurlow 2013, pers. comm.), with the since its acquisition in 2008. several springs in Snake Valley. These exception of Gandy Marsh. Unlike the Central Iron County water rights include Knoll Spring near the sites to the north (Leland and Miller) hearings were held in 2010, but the agricultural town of Eskdale and springs and to the south (Bishop), the Gandy applications remain unapproved by USE on private properties in the agricultural piezometers showed a slight downward town of Callao (Sabey 2008, p. 2). These (UDWRi 2014c, p. 1–9). It is uncertain trend. Gandy’s downward trend is likely sites were all historically documented when or if the water rights will be due to natural cyclic climatic variation locations of least chub that no longer approved. However, the locations of the and not agricultural withdrawals, harbor the species (Hickman 1989, pp. appropriations are in Hamlin Valley, similar to the trends seen in the UGS Pine Valley, and Wah Wah valleys 16–17; Garland 2007, pers. comm.). Since the publication of our 2010 12- remote sites which are not influenced (UDWRi 2014c, p. 1–9). Pine and Wah by local pumping; thus Gandy Marsh is Wah valleys are adjacent to, and are month finding, UGS conducted extensive research of ground and not influenced by local pumping and is within the same regional groundwater only showing a slight downward trend flow system (Great Salt Lake Desert surface water hydrology in Snake Valley. UGS found that groundwater- due to climatic variation, like the trends (GSLD) system) as Snake Valley, but the exhibited at the remote monitoring sites hydrological connection to Snake Valley level hydrographs at monitoring sites in which are not influenced by pumping or its least chub populations is not clear the UGS study area vary according to (Taylor and Alley, 2001, pp . 15–16 in (Welch et al. 2007, p. 5). However, distance from areas of groundwater UGS 2013, p. 5.3.7–31; Hurlow 2013, Hamlin Valley is hydrologically pumping and by their distance from pers. comm.). To date, UGS has not connected to Snake Valley in the south recharge areas (UGS 2013, p. 5.3.7–35). detected effects of irrigation pumping (Welch et al. 2007, p. 5), but the Groundwater levels at sites within about and drawdowns at these least chub sites northernmost Central Iron County water 8 km (5 mi) of agricultural areas can due to the current pumping activities, right application site is nearly 160 km show seasonal response to groundwater but UGS should be able to detect future (100 mi) south of the nearest least chub pumping, if pumping is severe enough changes (if they do occur) through the population, which is reasonably to cause declines (UGS 2013, p. 5.3.7– considered to be beyond the distance 35). monitoring well network currently in where the least chub habitat would be The UGS found that groundwater place (UGS 2013, p. 5.1–1). Not only affected. levels near spring heads naturally have the Bishop Springs and Gandy The Confederated Tribes of the fluctuate by up to 0.9 m (3 ft) per year Marsh sites been able to provide Goshute Reservation application from in response to seasonal changes in sufficient habitat and maintained stable the Deep Creek Valley remains evapotranspiration rates, but that they numbers of least chub, but they also unapproved due to numerous protests, are not declining from year to year (UGS have existing water rights held by the associated hearings, and the application 2013, Abstract p. 3). For spring-gradient BLM and UDWR (UDWRi 2014b, p. 1– is currently being reconsidered by USE sites near least chub populations, 8) that provide additional water for least (UDWRi 2014c, pp. 10–14). Deep Creek groundwater levels in the piezometers chub beyond the natural flows supplied Valley is adjacent to Snake Valley, but naturally fluctuated by about 0.15–0.91 from the on-site springs (totaling 3.0 cfs is part of Goshute Valley regional m (0.5 to 3 ft) seasonally, with lowest per site) (UDWR 2013a, entire; UDWR groundwater flow system, which is not levels during the summer months and 2013b, entire). connected to Snake Valley or its highest levels during the late winter/ Current allocated water rights for the associated GSLD regional flow system early spring months, in response to entire Snake Valley are 12,000 afy in (Welch et al. 2007, p. 5). Thus, we do evapotranspiration in the spring-fed Nevada and 55,000 afy in Utah not expect that any potential approval wetlands ecosystems that are supported (including 20,000 afy reserved for the and use of these water rights would by the spring flow and not from Service’s water rights for Fish Springs impact least chub sites because the groundwater withdrawals (UGS 2013, p. National Wildlife Refuge) (UGS 2013, rights would be located in a different 5.3.4–26). pp. 9.2–1,2). Sustainable yield regional groundwater flow system and We analyzed the number of local calculations (as outlined in the original no least chub populations are located wells in the vicinity of Snake Valley draft interstate agreement, referenced within this other groundwater system. least chub populations to determine above, which remains unsigned), would In summary, current and proposed how local groundwater pumping may be include new development of 35,000 afy large groundwater development affecting the species. Because UGS in Nevada and 6,000 afy in Utah, if the acquisitions, including SITLA, Central determined that localized agricultural maximum allowed development were to Iron County, and the Confederated groundwater pumping can affect occur (UGS 2013, p. 9.2–1,2). Thus an Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, are groundwater levels in monitoring wells additional 6,000 afy could be developed not noticeably causing drawdowns, are up to 8 km (5 mi) from their pumping in Utah’s Snake Valley and not exceed located more than 8 km (5 mi) from the center, as evidenced by a distinct the USE calculated sustainable yield.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51056 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

The UGS suggests that based on the Decreased surface-water resources Therefore, drought is not considered a distribution of recent water rights generally lead to increased groundwater threat to the species. applications, most of the new withdrawal and increased requests for Summary of Factor A groundwater development would likely water-well construction permits (Hutson occur in central and southern Snake et al. 2004, p. 40; Burden 2009, p. 2). At this time, based on best available Valley (UGS 2013, p. 9.2–2). Most of the Past and future climatic conditions (see information, and the addition of current use is for irrigation in south- ‘‘Climate Change’’ section under Factor successful introduced populations, past central Snake Valley near Garrison and E) influence the water available to both conservation actions and anticipated Eskdale, Utah, and Baker, Nevada, and water development and aquatic habitats, conservation actions under the 2014 in southern Snake Valley in Nevada and with water development usually taking CCA amendment, and new information Utah (UGS 2013, p. 9.2–2). Because the priority. concerning the future of water Snake Valley least chub populations are The impacts to least chub habitat from development in the Snake and Spring located in the northeast portion of the drought can include: Reduction in valleys, we conclude that livestock valley and would be approximately 30 habitat carrying capacity; lack of grazing, mining, oil and gas leasing and to 50 km (20 to 30 mi) from these connectivity resulting in isolation of exploration, urban and suburban agricultural areas, it is unlikely that habitats and resources; alteration of development, water withdrawal and these withdrawals would impact the physical and chemical properties of the diversion, and drought do not pose a least chub Snake Valley populations, habitat, such as temperature, oxygen, threat to least chub. Although loss of but UGS should be able to detect future and pollutants; vegetation changes; habitat from urban development and changes (if they do occur) through the niche overlap resulting in hybridization, groundwater withdrawals extirpated monitoring well network currently in competition, and predation; and least chub from all but a fraction of its place (UGS 2013, p. 5.1–1). reduced size and reproductive output historical range, we find that the present (Alley et al. 1999, pp. 41, 43; Deacon or threatened destruction, modification, Summary of Water Withdrawal and 2007, pp. 1–2). These impacts are Diversion or curtailment of the species’ habitat or similar to those associated with water range does not pose a threat to the Least chub populations occur within withdrawal and diversions, as described species now or in the future. several groundwater basins in Utah, under Factor A. where 25 percent occur in basins closed Least chub have survived for Factor B. Overutilization for to groundwater withdrawal (natural and thousands of years with intermittent Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or introduced), 25 percent occur in natural drought conditions. As Educational Purposes restricted basins, and 50 percent occur described in our 2010 12-month finding in basins open to unrestricted (75 FR 35398), the effects of drought Overutilization for commercial, groundwater withdrawal. Eighty percent were considered a threat because we recreational, scientific, or educational of all these populations have secured were concerned that ongoing and purposes was not considered a threat to water rights, which provide onsite water proposed large-scale water withdrawals least chub in our 2010 12-month finding available for the least chub. Those would exacerbate impacts to the least (75 FR 35398). Commercial, without water rights occur in closed chub. The cumulative impact of drought recreational, scientific, and educational basins (Mona Springs, Mills Valley) that and water development for irrigation utilizations are not common least chub- provide protection from additional has led to the loss of springs in the related activities, and protections are in groundwater withdrawals, or are in Snake Valley, including those on the place to limit their effect on the species. basins where groundwater levels are Bagley and Garland Ranches (Garland Least chub are considered a monitored (i.e., Leland Harris in Snake 2007, pers. comm.). ‘‘prohibited’’ species under Utah’s Valley monitored by UGS wells). We However, we no longer conclude that Collection Importation and Possession have also concluded that the SNWA drought is a threat to the least chub in of Zoological Animals Rule (R–657–3– GWD Project will not impact least chub combination with water withdrawals 1), which makes it unlawful to collect populations due to the exclusion of because of changes to our understanding or possess least chub without a permit. Snake Valley (and its least chub of water withdrawals, and ongoing Between 2002 and 2010, two permits populations) from authorizations and conservation actions and amendments were issued by UDWR for survey of modeling that demonstrates Spring in the 2014 CCA. As described above least chub in the wild, and all least chub Valley water withdrawals will not result (see ‘‘Water Withdrawal and collected under the permits were in drawdowns near the Snake Valley Diversion’’), the Snake Valley was released unharmed (Wilson 2009b, p. 1). least chub populations. In addition, data recently excluded from the SNWA GWD No new permits have been issued since from UGS do not suggest that there are Project, so that project is not anticipated 2010 (Mellon 2014, pers. comm.). Use of impacts from local pumping on least to result in drawdowns at Snake Valley least chub for scientific or educational chub populations in the Snake Valley. least chub sites. In addition, there is purposes is also controlled by UDWR, Overall, based on updated information, only slow development of groundwater and the agency typically provides least water withdrawal and diversion are not in the vicinity of the Snake Valley least chub from fish hatchery stocks for these considered a threat to the least chub. chub sites and most sites maintain purposes (Wilson 2009b, pp. 1–4; secure water rights or are located in Mellon 2014, pers. comm.). The UDWR Drought closed basins. Conservation actions in has collected least chub from the natural In our 2010 12-month finding (75 FR the 2014 CCA amendment also and introduced populations (an average 35398), we concluded that drought was moderate the effects of drought by of 528 per year combined for all not a threat on its own, but was a threat ensuring connectivity within sites and populations for the last 17 years) to to the least chub when considered prioritizing for restoration or habitat augment hatchery stocks or for transfer cumulatively with water withdrawals. modification, so that habitat corridors to new or existing introduced sites Prolonged droughts have primary and remain open for least chub (see (UDWR 2014, entire). We are aware of secondary effects on groundwater discussions in Previous and Ongoing no evidence that least chub are being resources. Decreased precipitation leads Conservation Efforts and Future illegally collected for commercial or to decreased recharge of aquifers. Conservation Efforts sections, above). recreational purposes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51057

Summary of Factor B into more than 50 countries (Garcı´a- Introduced game fishes, including Least chub are not being overutilized Berthou et al. 2005, p. 453) to control largemouth bass (Micropterus for commercial, recreational, scientific, mosquito populations (Pyke 2008, p. salmoides), rainbow trout or educational purposes. Least chub that 172). (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and brook trout Mosquito abatement districts are needed for research purposes can be (Salvelinus fontinalis), are predators of throughout Utah have released provided from fish hatchery stocks. A least chub, and these species are present mosquitofish for mosquito control since limited number of least chub are in both native and introduced least chub 1931 (Radant 2002, p. 2), and the collected from wild populations for habitats (Workman et al. 1979, pp. 1–2, mosquitofish has expanded into aquatic 136; Osmundson 1985, p. 2; Sigler and hatchery augmentation or for ecosystems throughout Utah (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 183; Crist 1990, p. 5). translocation purposes, but the available Sigler 1996, pp. 227–229). However, Common carp, in high densities, reduce information does not indicate that this UDWR successfully persuaded the submerged aquatic vegetation (Parkos et causes a threat to extant populations mosquito abatement districts in Utah to al. 2003, p. 187). Aquatic vegetation is now or in the foreseeable future. We restrict stocking of mosquitofish for the preferred least chub-spawning habitat, find that overutilization for commercial, protection of least chub through a and it provides the eggs, larvae, and recreational, scientific, or educational signed MOU established in 2002 (Hines young with oxygen, food, and cover purposes is not a threat to the species et al. 2008, p. 25). Despite this (Crawford 1979, p. 74; Crist and Holden now or likely to become so in the future. protective measure, mosquitofish are 1980, p. 808). As explained below, Clear Factor C. Disease or Predation present in Mills Valley and Mona Lake and Mills Valley least chub Springs. In the fall of 2013, several In our 2010 12-month finding (75 FR populations are currently sympatric mosquitofish individuals were detected 35398), we concluded that nonnative with nonnative fishes. during annual sampling at Mills Valley. Clear Lake is an expansive habitat that fish predation of least chub was a threat The likely source is overland sheet flow allows least chub to coexist with to the continued existence of the species from the Sevier River during a recent nonnative fishes. Common carp are because least chub rarely persist where flood event; however, they are not present in Clear Lake (Hines et al. 2008, nonnative fishes are introduced expected to be widespread yet (LCCT p. 43, Mellon 2011, p. 5), and UDWR (Osmundson 1985, p. 2; Hickman 1989, 2013c, entire), and UDWR will has implemented carp removal efforts in pp. 2–3, 9). The species is tolerant of implement a population-wide Clear Lake, successfully reducing the broad natural habitat conditions and is assessment and removal effort in 2014. carp densities, but efforts to fully well adapted to persist in the extreme, At Mona Springs, extensive chemical extirpate carp are still ongoing (Wheeler yet natural, environments of springs and poisoning and mechanical efforts to 2011, pp. 1–2; UDWR 2013a, p. III–6). playa marshes of the Bonneville Basin, remove mosquitofish were largely The habitat in Mills Valley is a system but they are not an effective competitor unsuccessful until recently. In 2013, of seasonally interconnected springs with nonnative species (Lamarra 1981, least chub recruitment was documented and wetlands that drain into the Sevier p. 1) and are constantly at risk of the at Mona Springs, following barrier River (UDWR 2010, p. II–7). During introduction and presence of nonnative installation and mosquitofish removal spring flooding events least chub fish (Hickman 1989, p. 10). from isolated springheads (Grover and habitats are periodically connected to The mosquitofish is the most Crockett 2014, p. 2). These results are other habitat within the Mills Valley detrimental invasive fish to least chub promising; however, long-term (UDWR 2006, p. 27). Nonnative green (Perkins et al. 1998, p. 23; Mills et al. monitoring of this effort will be needed sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), which is a 2004b, entire). Mosquitofish prey on the to determine if Mona Springs can voracious predator, and fathead minnow eggs and smaller size classes of least successfully sustain least chub without (Pimephales promelas) (Sigler and chub and compete with adults and further intervention. Despite the fact Sigler 1987, p. 306) invaded least chub young (Mills et al. 2004b, p. 713). The that mosquitofish are present at Mills habitat at the Mills Valley in 2005 presence of mosquitofish changes least Valley and Mona Springs, mosquitofish (Hines et al. 2008, p. 43; UDWR 2006, chub behavior and habitat use because are not yet fully established at the Mills pp. 36–37) and spread throughout the young least chub retreat to heavily Valley site and the least chub wetland complex by 2007 (UDWR 2010, vegetated, cooler habitats in an effort to population remains viable, and the p. II–7). Nonnative fish, as a percentage seek cover from predation. In these less mosquitofish removal and restoration of the fish community in the area, optimal environments, they have to efforts in 2013 at Mona Springs have declined annually from 64 percent in compete with small mosquitofish that shown positive results, suggesting that it 2007, to less than 1 percent in 2009 also are seeking refuge from adult may become a viable self-sustaining (UDWR 2010, p. II–16), and although it mosquitofish. This predatory refuge least chub population site in the near is not clear why, it is possibly due to scenario, in turn, affects survivorship future, after several more years of their use of shallower habitats that ice and growth of least chub young-of-year successful least chub reproduction are over in winter (least chub overwinter in (Mills et al. 2004b, pp. 716–717). documented. deeper habitats) that provide unsuitable Mosquitofish tolerate an extensive Other nonnative fishes predate upon habitat conditions for them in some range of environmental conditions and and compete with least chub when years (UDWR 2013a, p. II–8). Thus, the have high reproductive potential (Pyke present in high enough densities. severity of this threat appears to be 2008, pp. 171, 173). The ecological Rainwater killifish (Lucania parva) and minimal at this time, based on the best impact of introduced mosquitofish is plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus) available information. well documented. Mosquitofish were illegally introduced into least chub Although nonnative fish numbers in profoundly alter ecosystem function, habitats by unknown entities at an least chub habitat declined from 2007 to and cause declines of native amphibians unknown time (Perkin et al. 1998, p. 2009 (UDWR 2010, p. II–16), the and small fish (Alcaraz and Garcia- 23). These fish are potential competitors potential for nonnative reinvasion Berthou 2007, pp. 83–84; Pyke 2008, pp. with the least chub because they are during unusually high spring flooding 180–181). The mosquitofish is native closely related to mosquitofish and have events continues to impact the Mills only to the southern United States and similar life histories and habitat Valley least chub population. In light of northern Mexico, but was introduced requirements (Perkins et al. 1998, p. 23). this, the 2014 CCA amendment requires

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51058 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

the drafting of a nonnative fish (Wheeler et al. 2004, p. 5). Although we to least chub, but regulatory management plan by the spring of 2015, have no information that allows us to mechanisms were not in place to to address nonnative fish presence and determine the effect of blackspot on adequately protect the species from removal efforts at both Mills Valley and least chub at the Bishop Springs site, the groundwater withdrawal. We now find Mona Springs least chub populations. population has remained stable for the that regulatory mechanisms related Overall, nonnative fish occur at three past 15 years (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 37– specifically to water management are of the six naturally occurring least chub 39, Peterson and Saenz, p. 69). As sufficient for mitigating potential threats populations (Clear Lake WMA, Mills described in our 2010 12-month finding, to the least chub. The LCCT (comprised Valley, and Mona Springs). parasites exist in least chub habitats and of various agencies that implement Mosquitofish are only present at two of some least chub are known to harbor conservation actions for least chub) has the six naturally occurring sites: Mills parasites, but we do not have scientific successfully worked with the partners to Valley and Mona Springs. Efforts are information that the presence of establish protective mechanisms on ongoing to reduce the impacts of parasites pose a threat to individual most of the existing natural and nonnative species at the naturally least chub or least chub populations. At introduced populations of least chub, occurring least chub sites, and we are this time, the best available information including land acquisitions, easements, seeing recent successes. However, if does not indicate that the presence of instream flows, and establishment of an nonnative species persist and continue parasites or disease poses a threat to the ACEC that precludes oil and gas to negatively impact the naturally least chub now nor is likely to in the development. Furthermore, the changes occurring sites, the recent successful future. to the SNWA GWD Project and the 2014 establishment of introduced least chub CCA amendment that adds conservation Summary of Factor C populations helps to mediate any actions to address Snake Valley concerns for the species because the Least chub are unlikely to persist in groundwater development addresses introduced least chub populations are the presence of mosquitofish without threats to the species. not negatively affected by nonnative human intervention. Mosquitofish prey Regulatory mechanisms affecting the species, as described below. upon least chub eggs and young and species fall into three general categories: Nonnative species are present in only compete with least chub for food items, (1) Land and water management; (2) 2 of the 10 introduced least chub which can result in the decline and State mechanisms; and (3) Federal populations (Fitzgerald WMA and eventual elimination of least chub mechanisms. Rosebud Top Pond; see Table 1, above). populations. Mosquitofish have already The introduced population criteria caused the extirpation of several least Land and Water Management specifically require that for any chub populations. The stocking of Land Management—Populations of introduction to become successful, no mosquitofish into least chub habitat by least chub are distributed across private, nonnatives be present or present only in State mosquito abatement programs is BLM, SITLA, Mitigation Commission, low numbers and of species types that addressed by an MOU that regulates this and UDWR lands, and are protected by do not impact least chub. Mosquitofish practice. However, removing varying regulatory mechanisms are not present in any of the 10 mosquitofish from aquatic habitats has depending on land ownership. The introduced populations. The only recently proven successful, and percentages of managed lands and those populations have remained stable at the they continue to invade new sites on a under landowner or other protective two sites where nonnative fishes co- limited basis. Disease and parasites are agreements are shown in Table 3, below, exist, in low numbers, with least chub. not known to pose a threat to least chub and the details of each natural Based on the successful establishment populations. population are further described in our of the introduced sites, nonnative Overall, we have determined that two 2010 12-month finding (75 FR 35398). species are not considered a threat to of the six least chub naturally occurring The introduced populations are these populations. By including these populations (Mona Springs and possibly described in the 2014 CCA amendment 10 introduced populations in Mills Valley, if mosquitofish (LCCT 2014, entire; UDWR 2013b, conjunction with the naturally successfully establish) are impacted by entire). Table 3 shows that 82 percent of occurring populations, the overall threat the presence of nonnative fish species, all populations have the majority (67 to the species is reduced because these which are currently being addressed percent to 100 percent) of their habitat populations allow us to mitigate the through the 2014 CCA amendment either managed specifically for least potential that some least chub sites may conservation actions. However, chub by State or Federal agencies or become unable to support the species establishment of the 10 introduced managed for least chub by agreements, over time due to nonnative fish populations mitigates the potential that and that 12 of 16 populations have 100 predation pressures. By protecting a some least chub sites may become percent of their habitat either managed variety of habitats and establishing unable to support the species at some by State or Federal agencies or managed introduced populations throughout the point in the future due to nonnative fish by agreements with private landowners. species’ historical range, we increase the predation pressures. Based on the best Water Management—Populations of probability that the species can adjust in scientific and commercial information least chub are distributed across a suite the future to various limiting factors that available to us, we conclude that of groundwater basins with various may affect the population. nonnative fish predation of least chub is levels of groundwater policies and Disease and parasitism have not not a threat to the least chub now nor regulations by UDWRi (i.e., open, affected least chub to a significant is likely to become so in the future. closed, or restricted), with varying degree. Although the parasite blackspot associated protections (see the ‘‘Current (Neascus cuticola) was present at the Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Groundwater Policy and Management’’ Leland Harris Spring Complex site Regulatory Mechanisms section, above). Each groundwater basin during 1977–78, all least chub were In our 2010 12-month finding (75 FR status by site is described above under robust and in good condition (Workman 35398), we concluded that the existing Factor A, with 25 percent of natural and et al. 1979, pp. 2, 103–107). More regulatory mechanisms related introduced least chub populations recently, the parasite was identified in specifically to land management were occurring in closed basins, 25 percent least chub at the Bishop Springs site sufficient for mitigating potential threats occurring in restricted basins, and 50

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51059

percent occurring in open basins. Of rights either occur in closed basins regulatory protection from additional these, 80 percent of all the populations (Mona Springs, Mills Valley), or are groundwater withdrawals. Overall, 94 have water rights providing water located in a basin that monitors percent of the populations have available at the site for least chub (held groundwater levels (i.e., Leland Harris regulatory mechanisms that secure by various entities, including BLM, in Snake Valley monitored by UGS water for the site (water rights) or UDWR, Utah State Parks, local wells). Upon closure of a basin, no protect against additional withdrawals government, Department of Defense, additional appropriations can be issued as enforced by UDWRi (closed basin and private landowners), regardless of by the Utah State Engineer per the status). Thus, we find that the existing their groundwater basin status, thus statutory requirements set forth under regulatory mechanisms are adequate to providing stable water sources for the Utah Code (title 73, chapter 3, sections protect the species from threats due to least chub populations at these sites. 1 and 8; and title 73, chapter 4, section groundwater withdrawals. Populations of least chub without water 1); thus, basin closures provide

TABLE 3—LAND OWNERSHIP AND PERCENT OF NATURAL AND INTRODUCED LEAST CHUB HABITAT MANAGED BY STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCIES, MANAGED UNDER AN AGREEMENT, OR NOT MANAGED, BY SITE

Percent occupied habitat Site Land ownership Managed by state or federal Managed under Not managed agencies agreements

Mona Springs ...... Mitigation Commission ...... 100 ...... Mills Valley ...... UDWR, private ...... 20 ...... 80 Clear Lake WMA ...... UDWR ...... 100 ...... Leland Harris Complex ...... BLM, private, UDWR ...... 33 67 ...... Gandy Marsh ...... BLM, SITLA, private ...... 80 119 1 Bishop Springs ...... BLM, private, SITLA ...... 47 ...... 2 53 Fitzgerald WMA ...... UDWR ...... 100 ...... Rosebud Top Pond ...... Private ...... 100 ...... Cluster Springs ...... BLM ...... 100 ...... Pilot Spring SE ...... BLM ...... 100 ...... Escalante Elementary ...... Local Govt ...... 100 ...... Upper Garden Creek ...... State Parks ...... 100 ...... Deseret Depot ...... Dept. of Defense ...... 100 ...... Red Knolls Pond ...... BLM ...... 100 ...... Keg Spring ...... BLM ...... 100 ...... Pilot Spring ...... BLM ...... 100 ...... 1 Under voluntary, informal agreement between landowner and UDWR. 2 100 percent of springs are fenced from grazing per agreements with SITLA, but lands are not actively managed by SITLA.

(2) State Regulatory Mechanisms Code, the 2003 Policy for Fish Stocking control plan is required by UDWR and Least chub are considered and Transfer Procedures does not allow must include notification and ‘‘prohibited’’ species under the Utah stocking of nonnative fishes, including evaluation of water sources being Collection Importation and Possession mosquitofish, into aquatic habitats considered for fish transfers, fish health of Zoological Animals Rule (Utah Code without appropriate documentation and inspections, and completion of an 657–3), making them unlawful to collect certification. This Statewide policy updated hazard analysis and critical or possess. Thus, the species receives specifies protocols for the introduction control point plan. The Aquatic Invasive regulatory protection from unauthorized of nonnative species into Utah waters Species Act should help reduce the collection and take. While its and states that all stocking actions must probability of additional aquatic classification is not a regulatory be consistent with ongoing recovery and invasive species introductions to least mechanism, the least chub is classified conservation actions for State of Utah chub habitats. in the State of Utah Wildlife Action Plan sensitive species, including least chub. Regulatory mechanisms that relate to as a Tier 1 Sensitive Species, a status This policy is not expected to change in historical groundwater withdrawal are that includes federally listed species the future. Thus, this policy provides implemented through the USE through and species for which a conservation adequate regulation in the prevention of the UDWRi, as described in Factor A, agreement was completed and the primary mode of mosquitofish ‘‘Water Withdrawal and Diversion’’ implemented (Bailey et al. 2005, p. 3). introduction in least chub sites. section, and the Factor D, ‘‘Land and Introduced nonnative fishes for The State of Utah operates under the Water Management’’ section, above. mosquito abatement and game-fishing 2008 Utah Aquatic Invasive Species Groundwater withdrawal in the Snake purposes can be detrimental to the Interdiction Act (Aquatic Invasive Valley for future municipal persistence of least chub (see Factor C Species Act), per title 23, chapter 27 of development by SNWA or other discussion). The primary mode of the Utah Code (and Rule 657–60), which potentially interested parties is subject historical mosquitofish introduction was developed to prevent the movement to both Federal and State regulatory into least chub habitats was through the of aquatic invasive species, including processes (Lincoln County Conservation actions of Utah’s Mosquito Abatement quagga mussels (Dreissena sp.), zebra Recreation and Development Act Districts, which used mosquitofish for mussels (Dreissena sp.), and mud snails (LCCRDA) and Utah Code 73–3, 73–4, vector control (Radant 2002, entire; see (Potamopyrgus sp.) during fish transfer respectively). Therefore, we find that Factor C for detailed discussion). Under operations (UDWR 2009a, entire). Under the State regulatory mechanisms in the authority of 657–16 of the Utah the Aquatic Invasive Species Act, a existence adequately protect the least

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51060 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

chub from the threat of reduction of populations. Section 102(a)(8) of mechanisms, and the BLM has used its habitat. FLPMA specifically recognizes wildlife regulatory authority to implement the and fish resources as being among the specific protections for the least chub as (3) Federal Regulatory Mechanisms uses for which these lands are to be outlined in the 2014 CCA amendment The major Federal regulatory managed. Regulations pursuant to through its ACEC designation and mechanisms for protection of least chub FLPMA address wildlife habitat grazing management under the RMP (as and its habitat are through section 404 protection on BLM administered land. described above). of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 Cumulatively, BLM regulations allow As required through NEPA for federal et seq.), the stipulated agreement for the agency to formally recognize actions, the BLM published a ROD Spring Valley, Federal Land Policy and sensitive species for special authorizing SNWA groundwater Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) management and protection and include conveyance across BLM lands in (FLPMA), and the National them as such in their land management Delamar, Dry Lake, Cave, and Spring Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. plans. The least chub is designated as a valleys in Nevada, but not Snake Valley 4231 et seq.) (NEPA). Additionally, sensitive species by the BLM in Utah. (as described under Factor A). Thus, the various Executive Orders (E.O. 11990 The policy in BLM Manual 6840— SNWA GWD Project is not currently for wetlands, E.O. 11988 for floodplains, Special Status Species Management authorized to develop groundwater from and E.O. 13112 for invasive species) (BLM Manual 6840) states: ‘‘Consistent the Snake Valley. provide guidance and incentives for with the principles of multiple use and NEPA also has a provision for the Federal land management agencies to in compliance with existing laws, the Service to assume a cooperating agency manage for habitat characteristics BLM shall designate sensitive species role for Federal projects undergoing essential for least chub conservation. and implement species management evaluation for significant impacts to the Least chub population areas contain plans to conserve these species and wetland habitats, and section 404 of the human environment. This includes their habitats and shall ensure that Clean Water Act regulates fill in participating in updates to BLM’s RMPs. discretionary actions authorized, wetlands that meet certain jurisdictional As a cooperating agency, we have the funded, or carried out by the BLM requirements. Activities that result in opportunity to provide would not result in significant decreases fill of jurisdictional wetland habitat recommendations to the action agency in the overall range-wide species require a section 404 permit. We can to avoid impacts or enhance population and their habitats’’ (BLM review permit applications and provide conservation for least chub and its 2008, p. 10). Similarly, the BLM Manual recommendations to avoid and habitat. For projects where we are not a 1613—Areas of Critical Environmental minimize impacts and implement cooperating agency, we often review Concern (ACEC) (BLM Manual 1613) conservation measures for fish and proposed actions and provide wildlife resources, including the least allows designation of critical areas for recommendations to minimize and chub. However, incorporation of Service the protection of fish and wildlife mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife recommendations into section 404 resources and natural processes and resources. permits is at the discretion of the U.S. systems (BLM 1988, entire). Designation Acceptance of our NEPA Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, of Gandy Marsh as an ACEC closed the recommendations is at the discretion of not all activities in wetlands involve fill area to oil and gas leasing by BLM in the action agency. The BLM land and not all wetlands are accordance with the House Resource management practices are intended to ‘‘jurisdictional.’’ Regardless, we have Management Plan (RMP) and provides ensure avoidance of negative effects to evaluated threats to the species’ habitat additional protection for least chub species whenever possible, while also where fill of wetlands may occur, beyond that provided by the RMP (BLM providing for multiple-use mandates; including peat mining and oil and gas 1987, entire; BLM 1993, entire). The therefore, maintaining or enhancing development. At this time we do not RMP is BLM’s land use decision-making least chub habitat may be considered in have information to indicate that peat document that provides guidance on conjunction with other agency mining and oil and gas development management decisions for the area, priorities. including issuance of grazing permits pose a threat to the species. Summary of Factor D As described under Factor A, SNWA and oil and gas leasing. The RMP and DOI agencies entered into the specific to the Snake Valley populations We find that regulatory mechanisms Spring Valley Stipulated Agreement in is expected to be updated in related specifically to land management 2007. The Spring Valley Stipulated approximately 10 to 15 years. Any are sufficient for mitigating potential Agreement requires hydrological and change to the management direction impacts from land development to the biological monitoring, and management would be reviewed at the time of the least chub. BLM has provided protective and mitigation of unreasonable adverse update and subject to public comment mechanisms in the form of an ACEC at effects to federal resources from SNWA (BLM 2009a, p. 54). Gandy Marsh. We also retain the ability groundwater pumping in Spring Valley The BLM manual 6840 also to comment on NEPA evaluations for (NSE 2007, entire). For reasons cited establishes management policy and other projects on BLM lands that may previously, we are confident that the direction for BLM’s continued impact the least chub. changes the SNWA GWD Project (which involvement in the 2014 CCA The Spring Valley Stipulated now excludes Snake Valley), UGS amendment and its membership on the Agreement, the lack of trans-basin monitoring, and the 2014 CCA LCCT (LCCT 2014, entire). Furthermore, transfer of water resources without an amendment conservation actions will be the BLM, through the 2014 CCA interstate agreement (per LCCRDA), the effective in protecting least chub habitat amendment, has committed to the closure of groundwater basins in Utah in Snake Valley. continued management and protection (Utah Code 73–3, 73–4), and the The Federal Land Policy and of least chub and its habitat on BLM exclusion of Snake Valley from the Management Act (FLPMA) is the lands (LCCT 2014, p. 18, 19). Although SNWA GWD Project (via BLM’s ROD) primary Federal law governing most CCAs are not regulatory mechanisms, are adequate to sufficiently protect the land uses on BLM-administered lands CCA signatories can implement least chub from local or large-scale across the range of the least chub conservation measures via regulatory groundwater withdrawal.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51061

As evidenced by the discussion system over the past several decades is extent of GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a, above, the species is adequately ‘‘unequivocal’’ (IPCC 2007a, p. 2). In pp. 44–45; Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760– protected by the existing regulatory other words, the IPCC concluded that 764; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555– mechanisms; thus, we conclude that the there is no question that the world’s 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). lack of existing regulatory mechanisms climate system is warming. In addition to basing their projections is not a threat to the species, now or in Examples of other changes include on scientific analyses, the IPCC reports the future. substantial increases in precipitation in projections using a framework for some regions of the world and decreases treatment of uncertainties (e.g., they Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade in other regions (for these and define ‘‘very likely’’ to mean greater Factors Affecting Its Continued additional examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. than 90 percent probability, and Existence 30; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35–54, 82– ‘‘likely’’ to mean greater than 66 percent Our 2010 12-month finding (75 FR 85). Various environmental changes probability; see Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35398) found that natural and manmade (e.g., shifts in the ranges of plant and 22–23). Some of the IPCC’s key threats to the species included: (1) animal species, increasing ground projections of global climate and its Drought and climate change; and (2) instability in permafrost regions, related effects include: (1) It is virtually cumulative effects of drought, climate conditions more favorable to the spread certain there will be warmer and more change, and groundwater withdrawal. of invasive species and of some frequent hot days and nights over most Our 2010 12-month finding also diseases, changes in amount and timing of the earth’s land areas; (2) it is very concluded that hybridization, loss of of water availability) are occurring in likely there will be increased frequency genetic diversity, and stochastic association with changes in climate of warm spells and heat waves over disturbance and population isolation (IPCC 2007a, pp. 2–4, 30–33). most land areas; (3) it is very likely that were not considered a threat to the least Results of scientific analyses the frequency of heavy precipitation chub. We have no information to presented by the IPCC show that most events, or the proportion of total rainfall indicate that those conclusions of our of the observed increase in global from heavy falls, will increase over most 2010 12-month finding should change. average temperature since the mid-20th areas; and (4) it is likely the area While introduced populations were not century cannot be explained by natural affected by droughts will increase, that evaluated under these factors in that 12- variability in climate and is ‘‘very intense tropical cyclone activity will month finding, the introduced likely’’ (defined by the IPCC as 90 increase, and that there will be populations only serve to enhance the percent or higher probability) due to the increased incidence of extreme high sea resiliency and redundancy for the observed increase in greenhouse gas level (IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). species should something unanticipated (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere More recently, the IPCC published happen to the natural populations. as a result of human activities, additional information that provides Therefore, we conclude again that particularly carbon dioxide emissions further insight into observed changes hybridization, loss of genetic diversity, from fossil fuel use (IPCC 2007a, pp. 5– since 1950, as well as projections of and stochastic disturbance and 6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; extreme climate events at global and population isolation are not a threat to Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21–35). Further broad regional scales for the middle and the species. confirmation of the role of GHGs comes end of this century (IPCC 2011, entire). from analyses by Huber and Knutti Various changes in climate may have Climate Change (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is direct or indirect effects on species. Our analyses under the Act include extremely likely that approximately 75 These may be positive, neutral, or consideration of environmental changes percent of global warming since 1950 negative, and they may change over resulting from ongoing and projected has been caused by human activities. time, depending on the species and changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ Scientists use a variety of climate other relevant considerations, such as and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the models, which include consideration of interactions of climate with other Intergovernmental Panel on Climate natural processes and variability, as variables such as habitat fragmentation Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’ well as various scenarios of potential (for examples, see Franco et al. 2006; refers to the mean and variability of levels and timing of GHG emissions, to IPCC 2007b, pp. 8–14, 18–19; Forister et different types of weather conditions evaluate the causes of changes already al. 2010; Galbraith et al. 2010; Chen et over time, with 30 years being a typical observed and to project future changes al. 2011). In addition to considering period for such measurements, although in temperature and other climate individual species, scientists are shorter or longer periods also may be conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007, evaluating possible climate change- used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, related impacts to, and responses of, ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). ecological systems, habitat conditions, in the mean or variability of one or more All combinations of models and and groups of species; these studies measures of climate (e.g., temperature or emissions scenarios yield very similar include acknowledgement of precipitation) that persists for an projections of average global warming uncertainty (e.g., Deutsch et al. 2008; extended period, typically decades or until about 2030. Although projections Berg et al. 2009; Euskirchen et al. 2009; longer, whether the change is due to of the magnitude and rate of warming McKechnie and Wolf 2009; Sinervo et natural variability, human activity, or differ after about 2030, the overall al. 2010; Beaumont et al. 2011; both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). trajectory of all the projections is one of McKelvey et al. 2011; Rogers and Scientific measurements spanning increased global warming through the Schindler 2011). several decades demonstrate that end of this century, even for projections Many analyses involve elements that changes in climate are occurring, and based on scenarios that assume that are common to climate change that the rate of change has been faster GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. vulnerability assessments. In relation to since the 1950s. Based on extensive Thus, there is strong scientific support climate change, vulnerability refers to analyses of global average surface air for projections that warming will the degree to which a species (or temperature, the most widely used continue through the 21st century, and system) is susceptible to, and unable to measure of change, the IPCC concluded that the magnitude and rate of change cope with, adverse effects of climate that warming of the global climate will be influenced substantially by the change, including climate variability

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51062 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

and extremes. Vulnerability is a discharge and wetland inundation, established water rights, and the function of the type, magnitude, and which may indirectly control redundancy of multiple populations. To rate of climate change and variation to population size in the isolated habitat of help the species adapt and be resilient which a species is exposed, its the individual wetland/spring to changing climates, the 2014 CCA sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity complexes in which least chub reside. amendment commits to maintaining (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. Precipitation models predict a habitat corridors between the springs 2011, pp. 19–22). No single method for reduction in mountain snowpack, a and wetlands through habitat conducting such analyses applies to all threat of severe and prolonged episodic modification or restoration activities, if situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We drought (UBRAC 2007, p. 3), and a warming periods close off these use our expert judgment and decline in summer precipitation across important corridors. This scenario is appropriate analytical approaches to all of Utah (UBRAC 2007, p. 18). expected to result in greater habitat weigh relevant information, including However, Utah is in the transition zone connectivity under these circumstances uncertainty, in our consideration of for predicted changes in winter and make the species more resilient to various aspects of climate change. precipitation (between the northwest climate change. As is the case with all stressors that and southwest United States), resulting The species’ resiliency has also been we assess, even if we conclude that a in low confidence in future winter increased by the increased number of species is currently affected or is likely precipitation trends (UBRAC 2007, p introduced populations (increased to be affected in a negative way by one 18). redundancy) that now reside across a or more climate-related impacts, it does More locally to least chub, the significant portion of the northern not necessarily follow that the species hydrology of the Great Salt Lake Basin Bonneville Basin. As detailed in the meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered will be impacted by changes in sections above, there are an additional species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ mountain runoff (UBRAC 2007, p. 18). 10 introduced least chub populations under the Act. If a species is listed as While predictions indicate that the that were not included in the 2010 12- endangered or threatened, knowledge Great Salt Lake Basin will be affected by month finding analysis. Even though regarding the vulnerability of the declining mountain snowpack and the several of these populations were in species to, and known or anticipated resulting runoff, the timing and extent existence at the time, they were not impacts from, climate-associated of these changes are unclear (UBRAC included because information was changes in environmental conditions 2007, p. 19). Drought conditions and limited and their long-term success was can be used to help devise appropriate higher evaporation rates could likely unknown. These populations are spread strategies for its recovery. result in lowered groundwater levels, over an area that is likely to have more The IPCC predicts that the resiliency reduced spring flows, and reductions in diverse microclimates, resulting in a of many ecosystems is likely to be size and depth of pool habitat for least greater variability and ability for the exceeded this century by an chub (Wilson 2006, p. 8). species to adapt to changing climatic unprecedented combination of climate Because the least chub depends on conditions than was originally change, associated disturbances (e.g., small, ephemeral springfed wetlands for considered in our 2010 12-month flooding, drought, wildfire, and insects), major portions of its life history finding. Thus, these additional areas and other global drivers (IPCC 2007, pp. (spawning, nursery niches, and feeding) and their individual micro climates will 31–33). With medium confidence, IPCC and the amount of this habitat available increase species’ resiliency and decrease predicts that approximately 20 to 30 will likely be reduced and restricted to its vulnerability to the effects of climate percent of plant and animal species spring heads, the severity of climate change. assessed by the IPCC so far are likely to change is an important factor in the Since our 2010 12-month finding, the be at an increased risk of extinction if species’ persistence. Under LCCT has secured water rights at least increases in global average temperature circumstances of restricted habitats, chub population locations, which has exceed 1.5 to 2.5 °C (3 to 5 °F) (IPCC both hybridization and extirpation have further increased the resiliency of the 2007a, p. 48). occurred (Hubbs 1955, p. 18; Miller and species and decreased its susceptibility Utah is projected to warm more than Behnke 1985, p. 514). Additionally, the to the effects of climate change. As the average for the entire globe species is bound by dispersal barriers explained in the ‘‘Water Withdrawal (Governor’s Blue Ribbon Advisory throughout its range and cannot retreat and Diversion’’ section above, 3 of the Council on Climate Change (GBRAC) to additional habitats or easily 6 natural populations and all of the 10 2008, p. 14). The expected recolonize areas after they are introduced populations have secure consequences of this warming are fewer extirpated. water rights. Although water rights are frost days, longer growing seasons, and Least chub survival and reproduction, typically subject to changes in yearly more heat waves (GBRAC 2008, p. 14). as described above, are highly runoff or precipitation amounts, they For Utah, the projected increase in dependent upon habitat inundation, are nonetheless regulated by the USE annual mean temperature by year 2100 which in turn is dependent upon and provide assurance of a continued is about 4.5 °C (8 °F) (GBRAC 2008, p. climatic conditions (precipitation and water source for least chub habitats. 14). Because of increased temperature, temperature). Climate change is In summary, least chub habitats are Utah soils are expected to dry more predicted to increase temperatures and isolated from each other and are thus rapidly (GBRAC 2008, p. 20), and this increase the likelihood and duration of limited in adapting to changing climatic is likely to result in reduced inundation drought conditions in Utah. Both of conditions by shifting habitat use (e.g., duration and depth in least chub habitat these effects will reduce inundation move into spring head habitat), but the during certain years. Utah is also depths and amount of wetted habitat expanded geographic range when projected to have more frequent heavy and could impact the least chub. considering the introduced populations precipitation events, separated by longer Despite the predicted effects of climate now encompasses the western half of dry spells as a result of climate change change on least chub and its habitat, Utah in the Bonneville Basin, thereby (GBRAC 2008, p. 15). Drought is a there are several factors that offset the counteracting the effects of climate localized dry spell. Drought conditions effects of climate change and must be change as climatic effects will vary are a potential stressor to the least chub, weighed against potential effects across this 28-million-acre range. In as rainfall determines springhead including habitat restoration, addition, proven successes of habitat

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51063

restoration will allow the LCCT to climate change are likely to occur but drought and changing climate employ an adaptive management that the expanded geographic range of conditions in the Bonneville Basin. process that allows for isolated or all the populations together, when Furthermore, their distribution dewatered areas to be recovered for including the introduced sites, thereby encompasses and is representative of functional least chub habitat. counteract the effects of climate change the known genetic diversity of the Established water rights for a majority of as effects will vary across the full range species (each natural population and natural and introduced least chub sites of the species, and established water GMU is represented in at least one will result in greater protection of rights for the majority of the natural and introduced population). If the species species habitat. For these reasons, we introduced populations will offset any continued to persist in its current conclude that environmental changes significant effects. Since the impacts of distribution, we conclude that it will resulting from climate change, including each of the cumulative threats are have sufficient resiliency, redundancy, drought, will be moderated as a result reduced, these threats cumulatively no and representation to persist now and in of range expansion through previous longer are a threat to the species. the foreseeable future. and anticipated conservation actions in In our 2010 12-month finding (75 FR Finding the 2014 CCA amendment, established 35398), we identified several threats water rights, and broadly distributed As required by the Act, we considered that we expected to significantly impact population, and therefore, we do not the five factors in assessing whether the the status of the species as a whole into consider climate change to be a threat to least chub meets the definition of an the foreseeable future, which was an the species. endangered or threatened species. We appropriate conclusion based on the examined the best scientific and best available scientific and commercial Summary of Factor E commercial information available information available at that time. Least chub have persisted for regarding the past, present, and future However, since that time, activities such thousands of years, and naturally threats faced by the species. Based on as the SNWA GWD Project have been occurring drought does not pose a threat our review of the best available modified substantially, and significant to the species. Climate models predict scientific and commercial information, ongoing and new conservation efforts that Utah may warm more than average, we find that the current and future have reduced the magnitude of potential with more heat waves, less mountain threats are not of sufficient imminence, impacts in the future such that the snowpack, and a decline in summer intensity, or magnitude to indicate that species no longer meets the definition of precipitation. The introduced sites the least chub is in danger of extinction an endangered or threatened species. occur over a large geographic range and (endangered), or likely to become In our 2010 12-month finding, we provide habitat heterogeneity and endangered within the foreseeable identified livestock grazing, redundancy, they are supported by future (threatened). Therefore, the least groundwater development and established water rights, and habitat chub does not meet the definition of an withdrawal, lack of regulatory restoration can be used to offset some endangered or a threatened species, and mechanisms to regulate groundwater effects of climate change. We believe we are withdrawing the least chub from withdrawal, nonnative fishes, and the that this approach provides a buffer our candidate list. Our rationale for this effects of climate change and drought against environmental effects that may finding is outlined below. (and their cumulative effects) as threats result from cumulative effects of Review of least chub historical to the continued existence of the least drought and changing climate population trends shows that the chub. Our conclusion was based on conditions in the Bonneville Basin, and distribution of the least chub was information about past and current we conclude that addressing the threats reduced from its historical range in impacts to least chub habitat due to identified in the 2010 12-month finding Utah’s Bonneville Basin. However, these stressors, information about will prevent these threats from acting UDWR surveys in the 1990s and 2000s continued and future groundwater cumulatively. discovered 3 new populations on the development near least chub habitat, eastern extent of the historical range, and the lack of a sufficient number of Cumulative Effects and 10 successful introduced populations to protect against these We cannot completely predict the populations have been established since stressors. cumulative effects of climate change 2005. We now consider 15 viable, Since the time of our 2010 12-month and drought on least chub at this time, naturally occurring and introduced least finding, the LCCT has made a but we know that each will occur to chub populations to exist (excluding significant effort to develop and some extent and be compounded by the Mona Springs due to lack of a self- implement additional conservation others. In our 2010 12-month finding sustaining population at this current measures (2014 CCA amendment) for (75 FR 35398), the cumulative effects of time). the least chub. The 2005 CCA contained proposed large-scale groundwater The least chub is not in danger of conservation measures that were withdrawal, drought, and climate extinction because 10 successful implemented by the BLM and UDWR change were likely to pose a threat to introduced populations have been that have reduced or eliminated threats the least chub. However, as described established in addition to the naturally to the least chub, including fencing above, because of the changes in the occurring populations, and these projects and private landowner SNWA GWD Project, the addition of populations, when combined, show agreements (see Previous and Ongoing UGS monitoring, and 2014 CCA high likelihood of persistence even Conservation Efforts and Future amendment conservation actions, water under higher probabilities of Conservation Efforts sections, above). In development is no longer a threat to catastrophic events, as analyzed by the addition, through the 2014 CCA least chub, and the effects of drought initial PVA (Peterson and Seanz 2013, p. amendment, the LCCT has implemented and climate change are mitigated by the 30). The introduced sites occur over a several conservation measures that presence of the introduced least chub large geographic range and provide address the threat of livestock grazing populations across a large geographic habitat heterogeneity and redundancy. by acquiring and managing lands for the range. We conclude that they provide a buffer protection of least chub (land-swap and In summary, we find that the against environmental effects that may grazing rights purchase), committing to potential combination of drought and result from cumulative effects of habitat restoration activities, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51064 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

fencing heavily impacted areas. The (above and beyond natural flows) in the of the least chub natural and introduced LCCT has also committed to nonnative event that water levels decrease at some populations. Additional information fish removal by implementing activities, point in the future; and (8) all parties will continue to be accepted on all now described in the 2010 Nonnative have the legal authorities to carry out aspects of the species. We encourage Fish Management Plans, which have their responsibilities under the 2005 interested parties, outside of those been successful at Clear Lake and CCA and the 2014 CCA amendment. In parties already signatories to the 2005 recently at Mona Springs. Furthermore, addition, the estimated occupancy rates CCA and the 2014 CCA amendment, to groundwater withdrawal in the Snake and the presence of recruitment have become involved in the conservation of Valley is being closely monitored remained consistent over the last 10 the species. through the UGS monitoring well years. If at any time data indicate that network and through a bathymetry and We also have high certainty that the protective status under the Act should habitat evaluation of Leland Harris; suite of conservation measures in the be needed, for example, we become once completed, this network will 2005 CCA and the 2014 CCA aware of declining enforcement of or provide us with the ability to track the amendment will be effective at reducing participation in the CCA or CCA projections we make in this document and eliminating threats to the least chub amendment or noncompliance with the regarding the effects of groundwater to the point that the species does not conservation actions, or if there are new withdrawals. Restoration and habitat meet the definition of an endangered or threats or increasing stressors that rise modifications have ensured adequate threatened species. Our certainty arises to the level of a threat, we can initiate habitat corridors for dispersal and from the fact that the 10 successful listing procedures, including, if colonization within population sites, introduced populations have been appropriate, emergency listing pursuant which is expected to increase resilience established, and the CCAs have been to section 4(b)(7) of the Act. successful in implementing to future random natural impacts and Distinct Population Segment Analysis offset the threat of climate change and conservation actions in the past. drought. In addition, water rights at half Furthermore, annual monitoring and After assessing whether the species is of the natural and all of the introduced reporting requirements will ensure that endangered or threatened throughout its least chub sites (held by a variety of all of the conservation measures are range, we considered whether a distinct entities, including UDWR, BLM, local implemented as planned, and are vertebrate population segment (DPS) of government, Department of Defense, effective at removing threats to the least the least chub meets the definition of an and private landowners) will help offset chub and its habitat. Any issues that endangered or threatened species. the effects of climate change and arise will be discussed at annual Under the Service’s Policy Regarding drought by providing dedicated water meetings and the adaptive management the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate sources to help stabilize area water process will be used to address any Population Segments Under the levels and ensure adequate habitat is identified issues until they are resolved. Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, available. The collaboration between us and other February 7, 1996), three elements are stakeholders requires regular meetings considered in the decision concerning As summarized in the Previous and and mandatory involvement of all the establishment and classification of a Ongoing Conservation Efforts, Future signatories and associated parties in possible DPS. These are applied Conservation Efforts, and PECE Analysis order to implement the agreement fully, similarly for additions to or removal sections above, we have a high degree as outlined in the 2014 CCA from the Federal List of Endangered and of certainty that the 2005 CCA and the amendment. Threatened Wildlife. These elements 2014 CCA amendment will continue to In summary, we conclude that the include: be implemented. See Table 2 under conservation efforts have sufficient (1) The discreteness of a population in Future Conservation Efforts for the certainty of implementation and relation to the remainder of the species status of the 2014 CCA amendment effectiveness that they can be relied to which it belongs; conservation actions. Our level of upon in this 12-month finding. Further, (2) The significance of the population certainty is high because: (1) The we conclude that conservation efforts segment to the species to which it signatory agencies have been compliant have reduced or eliminated current and belongs; and with implementation of the future threats to the least chub to the (3) The population segment’s conservation actions of the original 1998 point that the species is not in danger conservation status in relation to the CCA and its 2005 reauthorization; (2) of extinction now or in the foreseeable Act’s standards for listing, delisting, or the authorities for expending funds are future. In addition, we received new reclassification (i.e., is the population in place and least chub research and information that several of the threats segment endangered or threatened). population monitoring has been funded identified in our 2010 12-month finding by signatory agencies for the last 20+ (75 FR 35398) do not reduce the Discreteness years; (3) signatory agencies have been viability of the species to the level that Under the DPS policy, a population responsive to protecting existing habitat it meets the definition of an endangered segment of a vertebrate taxon may be and acquiring new introduction sites for or threatened species under the Act. considered discrete if it satisfies either the species; (4) monitoring and Therefore, we find that listing the least one of the following conditions: documentation of compliance with the chub as endangered or threatened is not (1) It is markedly separated from other conservation measures are in place; (5) warranted. populations of the same taxon as a annual reports of monitoring have been We will continue to monitor the consequence of physical, physiological, completed; (6) adaptive management status of the species through monitoring ecological, or behavioral factors. will be used to reassess conservation requirements in the 2005 CCA and 2014 Quantitative measures of genetic or actions on a regular basis; (7) water CCA amendment, and our evaluation of morphological discontinuity may rights are established for the majority of any other information we receive. These provide evidence of this separation. least chub locations—all of these least monitoring requirements will not only (2) It is delimited by international chub sites have sufficient natural water inform us of the amount of least chub governmental boundaries within which flow to maintain populations, but the habitat protected through the actions, differences in control of exploitation, water rights provide additional security but will also help inform us of the status management of habitat, conservation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51065

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist from other populations of the species in states that (1) if a species is found to be that are significant in light of section its genetic characteristics. endangered or threatened throughout a 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. A population segment needs to satisfy significant portion of its range, the Least chub are distributed across three only one of these conditions to be entire species is listed as endangered or Genetic Management Units (GMU)— considered significant. Furthermore, threatened, respectively, and the Act’s West Desert GMU, Sevier GMU, and other information may be used as protections apply to all individuals of Wasatch Front GMU. The GMUs were appropriate to provide evidence for the species wherever found; (2) a delineated by the LCCT based on significance. portion of the range of a species is genetics information which showed Because of the isolated status of the ‘‘significant’’ if the species is not population similarities in these areas least chub GMUs, each GMU could be currently endangered or threatened (Mock and Miller 2005, pp. 271–277). considered potentially discrete based on throughout all of its range, but the There are 5 naturally occurring the physical, geographic factors portion’s contribution to the viability of (excluding Mona Springs due to a lack separating the existing populations. the species is so important that, without of a self-sustaining population) and 10 However, separate GMUs and the members in that portion, the species successful introduced populations of configurations of GMUs would not meet would be in danger of extinction, or least chub distributed across these three the standard of being significant for likely to become so in the foreseeable GMUs. Least chub in these GMUs are several reasons: They do not occur in an future, throughout all of its range; (3) markedly separated from each as a unusual ecological setting; their loss the range of a species is considered to consequence of physical (geographic) would not result in a significant gap in be the general geographical area within features, and as a result appear to the range of the species; they do not which that species can be found at the exhibit genetic divergence as well. We, represent the last surviving natural time the Service or the National Marine therefore, conclude that the three GMUs occurrence; and they are not markedly Fisheries Service (NMFS) makes any are discrete under the Service’s DPS separate from other populations in their particular status determination; and (4) policy. genetic characteristics. We conclude if a vertebrate species is endangered or that none of the three GMUs were Significance threatened throughout an SPR, and the independently significant because they population in that significant portion is If a population segment is considered would not meet any of the four a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather discrete under one or more of the standards under our policy definition of than the entire taxonomic species or conditions described in the Service’s significant. subspecies. DPS policy, its biological and ecological We determine, based on a review of The SPR policy is applied to all status significance will be considered in light the best available information, that the determinations, including analyses for of Congressional guidance that the least chub GMUs are not independently the purposes of making listing, authority to list DPSs be used significant in relation to the remainder delisting, and reclassification ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the of the taxon. Therefore, these determinations. The procedure for conservation of genetic diversity. In population segments do not qualify as analyzing whether any portion is an making this determination, we consider DPSs under our 1996 DPS policy and SPR is similar, regardless of the type of available scientific evidence of the are not listable entities under the Act. status determination we are making. discrete population segment’s Since we found that the population The first step in our analysis of the importance to the taxon to which it segments do not meet the significance status of a species is to determine its belongs. Since precise circumstances are element and, therefore, do not qualify as status throughout all of its range. If we likely to vary considerably from case to DPSs under the Service’s DPS policy, determine that the species is in danger case, the DPS policy does not describe we will not proceed with an evaluation of extinction, or likely to become so in all the classes of information that might of the status of the population segments the foreseeable future, throughout all of be used in determining the biological under the Act. its range, we list the species as and ecological importance of a discrete Significant Portion of Its Range endangered (or threatened) and no SPR population. However, the DPS policy Analysis analysis will be required. If the species describes four possible classes of is neither endangered nor threatened information that provide evidence of a Under the Act and our implementing throughout all of its range, we population segment’s biological and regulations, a species may warrant determine whether the species is ecological importance to the taxon to listing if it is endangered or threatened endangered or threatened throughout a which it belongs. As specified in the throughout all or a significant portion of significant portion of its range. If it is, DPS policy (61 FR 4722), this its range. The Act defines ‘‘endangered we list the species as endangered or consideration of the population species’’ as any species which is ‘‘in threatened, respectively; if it is not, we segment’s significance may include, but danger of extinction throughout all or a conclude that listing the species is not is not limited to, the following: significant portion of its range,’’ and warranted. (1) Persistence of the discrete ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species When we conduct an SPR analysis, population segment in an ecological which is ‘‘likely to become an we first identify any portions of the setting unusual or unique to the taxon; endangered species within the species’ range that warrant further (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete foreseeable future throughout all or a consideration. The range of a species population segment would result in a significant portion of its range.’’ The can theoretically be divided into significant gap in the range of a taxon; term ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any portions in an infinite number of ways. (3) Evidence that the discrete subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, However, there is no purpose to population segment represents the only and any distinct population segment analyzing portions of the range that are surviving natural occurrence of a taxon [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or not reasonably likely to be significant that may be more abundant elsewhere as wildlife which interbreeds when and endangered or threatened. To an introduced population outside its mature.’’ We published a final policy identify only those portions that warrant historic range; or interpretating the phrase ‘‘Significant further consideration, we determine (4) Evidence that the discrete Portion of its Range’’ (SPR) (79 FR whether there is substantial information population segment differs markedly 37578, July 1, 2014). The final policy indicating that (1) the portions may be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 51066 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

significant and (2) the species may be in identification of an SPR does not create essentially uniform throughout its danger of extinction in those portions or a presumption, prejudgment, or other range, indicating no portion of the range likely to become so within the determination as to whether the species of the species warrants further foreseeable future. We emphasize that in that identified SPR is endangered or consideration of possible endangered or answering these questions in the threatened. We must go through a threatened status under the Act. affirmative is not a determination that separate analysis to determine whether Our review of the best available the species is endangered or threatened the species is endangered or threatened scientific and commercial information throughout a significant portion of its in the SPR. To determine whether a indicates that the least chub is not in range—rather, it is a step in determining species is endangered or threatened danger of extinction (endangered) nor whether a more detailed analysis of the throughout an SPR, we will use the likely to become endangered within the issue is required. In practice, a key part same standards and methodology that foreseeable future (threatened), of this analysis is whether the threats we use to determine if a species is throughout all or a significant portion of are geographically concentrated in some endangered or threatened throughout its its range. Therefore, we find that listing way. If the threats to the species are range. this species as an endangered or affecting it uniformly throughout its Depending on the biology of the threatened species under the Act is not range, no portion is likely to warrant species, its range, and the threats it warranted at this time. further consideration. Moreover, if any faces, it may be more efficient to address We request that you submit any new concentration of threats apply only to the ‘‘significant’’ question first, or the information concerning the status of, or portions of the range that clearly do not status question first. Thus, if we threats to, the least chub to our Utah meet the biologically based definition of determine that a portion of the range is Ecological Services Field Office (see ‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes portion clearly would not be expected to determine whether the species is available. New information will help us increase the vulnerability to extinction endangered or threatened there; if we monitor this species and encourage its of the entire species), those portions determine that the species is not conservation. If an emergency situation will not warrant further consideration. endangered or threatened in a portion of develops for this species, we will act to its range, we do not need to determine provide immediate protection. If we identify any portions that may if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ be both (1) significant and (2) We evaluated the current range of the References Cited endangered or threatened, we engage in least chub to determine if there is any A complete list of references cited is a more detailed analysis to determine apparent geographic concentration of whether these standards are indeed met. available on the Internet at http:// potential threats for the species. The www.regulations.gov and upon request As discussed above, to determine range for least chub is limited to the whether a portion of the range of a from the Utah Ecological Services Field springs and seasonally-connected marsh Office (see ADDRESSES section). species is significant, we consider habitats where they are found. We whether, under a hypothetical scenario, examined potential threats from Authors the portion’s contribution to the livestock grazing, oil and gas leasing The primary authors of this notice are viability of the species is so important and exploration, mining, urban and the staff members of the Utah Ecological that, without the members in that suburban and development, water Services Field Office. portion, the species would be in danger withdrawal and diversion, of extinction or likely to become so in overutilization, disease or predation, the Authority the foreseeable future throughout all of inadequacy of existing regulatory The authority for this action is section its range. This analysis will consider the mechanisms, drought, and climate 4 of the Endangered Species Act of contribution of that portion to the change. We found no concentration of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et viability of the species based on threats that suggests that least chub may seq.). principles of conservation biology. be in danger of extinction in a portion Contribution would be evaluated using of its range. We found no portions of the Dated: August 12, 2014. the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, range where potential threats are Stephen Guertin, and representation. (These concepts can significantly concentrated or Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife similarly be expressed in terms of substantially greater than in other Service. abundance, spatial distribution, portions of its range. Therefore, we find [FR Doc. 2014–19927 Filed 8–25–14; 8:45 am] productivity, and diversity.) The that factors affecting the species are BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Aug 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2