[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 145 (Thursday, July 29, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41061-41068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19360]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC91
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the
Proposed Rule To List the Least Chub as Endangered With Critical
Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We withdraw the September 29, 1995, proposed rule to list the
least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis), a fish, as an endangered species
with critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act). After reviewing all available scientific and
commercial information we find that the least chub is no longer likely
to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Habitat loss and degradation were significant threats to the least
chub at
[[Page 41062]]
the time of the proposed rule and a major causes of the least chub's
decline. Conservation activities implemented in the last several years
have significantly reduced these threats. Enhancement, maintenance, and
protection projects implemented over the last several years have
focused on those specific factors that have contributed to habitat
degradation. Extensive monitoring of the status of the least chub
indicate that the status of the species has improved. The known range
of the least chub was enlarged by the inclusion of three previously
unknown populations discovered during surveys in historical habitats.
The State of Utah, other cooperating agencies and stakeholders
continue as active participants in the effort to reduce or eliminate
threats to the least chub through the implementation of the Least Chub
Conservation Agreement and Strategy (Perkins et al. 1997). This
Agreement calls for enhancement, maintenance, and protection of least
chub habitat, as well as the development of mitigation protocols for
proposed water development and future habitat alteration. Conservation
actions implemented since the publication of the proposed rule include
extensive surveys, habitat protection and enhancement activities, the
acquisition of wetland habitat, genetic studies and the introduction of
the least chub onto Fish Spring National Wildlife Refuge.
ADDRESSES: The complete administrative file for this rule is available
for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Utah Field Office, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
145 East 1300 South, Suite 404, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Reed E. Harris, Field Supervisor,
Utah Field Office, at the above address, telephone (801)524-5001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The least chub is a small monotypic (the sole member of its genera)
minnow (Family Cyprinidae), less than 2.5 inches long, that is endemic
to the Bonneville Basin of Utah, an area within the Great Basin of
southwestern North America. The least chub has a very oblique or
upturned mouth, large scales, and lacks a lateral line (rarely with one
or two pored scales). It has a deeply compressed body and a slender
caudal peduncle (the narrowest section of the rear of the body just
anterior to the caudal fin). A colorful fish, the least chub has a gold
stripe along its blue sides with white to yellow fins. Males are olive-
green above, steel-blue on the sides, and have a golden stripe behind
the upper end of the gill opening. The fins are lemon-amber, and the
paired fins are sometimes bright golden-amber. Females and young are
pale olive above, silvery on the sides and have watery white fins.
Their eyes are silvery with only a little gold coloration, rather than
golden as in the males (Sigler and Miller 1963).
Historically, the least chub was widely distributed within the
Bonneville Basin of northwestern Utah. The species occupied a variety
of aquatic habitats including springs, streams, and ponds and was
classified as excessively common in its preferred habitats (Jordan and
Evermann 1896). The species was historically found in the Beaver River,
ponds near the mouth of the Provo River, tributaries of the Great Salt
Lake and Sevier Lake, Utah Lake, Parawan Creek, Clear Creek, the Provo
River, Gandy Salt Marsh, and the Leland Harris Spring complex (Cope and
Yarrow 1875; Jordan 1891, cited in Jordan and Evermann 1896; Sigler and
Miller 1963; Hickman 1989).
The proposed rule to list the least chub as endangered with
critical habitat (60 FR 50518, September 29, 1995) was based on the
decline of the species' occupied range, its relative abundance, and the
continued threats to the species' survival. A decline in distribution
and abundance of the least chub was first noted in the 1940's and
1950's (Baugh 1980; Holden et al. 1974). The decline of the species has
been attributed to predation and competition from nonnative species,
and habitat loss and alteration. The known distribution of the species
at the time it was proposed for listing was limited to the Snake Valley
in northwestern Utah, where the species inhabits springs, marshes,
pools and stream habitats. Since the proposed rule to list the species
as endangered with critical habitat was published, the existing range
of the species has expanded to include two newly discovered populations
along Utah's Wasatch Front, one newly discovered population at Lucin
Pond in Box Elder County, and a new population at the Fish Springs
National Wildlife Refuge (FSNWR) where the least chub has been
introduced into two springs. Additional introductions at the Refuge are
planned for the spring of 1999.
Conservation actions implemented since publication of the proposed
rule to reduce the threats to the least chub and conserve the species
include--
(1) Extensive surveys throughout least chub historical habitat.
Surveys have identified three previously unknown populations; one at
Lucin Pond in Box Elder County, Utah, where a 1989 least chub
introduction effort was thought to have failed; and two populations
discovered along Utah's Wasatch Front, one at a spring complex in Juab
County and another in the Sevier River drainage in Mills Valley.
(2) Habitat protection and enhancement activities. In 1995, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) constructed a second cattle exclosure
(a barrier for the exclusion of cattle) on part of the Gandy Salt Marsh
Complex in order to protect occupied least chub habitat. BLM has also
entered into an extension agreement with a private landowner to fund an
additional cattle exclosure, a small dam to control water releases, and
fencing materials at and surrounding a spring head in least chub
occupied habitat in the Utah's West Desert. The fencing material will
be used to implement a rotational grazing system to decrease grazing
pressure at this least chub occupied spring head and adjacent marsh
habitat. The project will be completed in the summer of 1999. Plans to
implement an additional rotational grazing system at a nearby spring
source are being negotiated with a private landowner. BLM has also
declined a request from Juab County, Utah, to implement a mosquito
control spraying operation in marsh and spring areas on BLM lands
occupied by least chub. The State of Utah has further begun discussions
with Juab County to protect occupied least chub habitats on private
lands from this threat. BLM conducted several years of intensive
habitat use studies in least chub occupied springs to better define the
habitat needs of the species. The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission (URMCC) also acquired 85.5 acres (ac) (34.6
hectares (ha)) of wetland habitat occupied by least chub along Utah's
Wasatch Front. Negotiations are currently underway with the landowner
to acquire either a conservation easement or fee title for an
additional 20 ac to protect this sensitive habitat. A management plan
for these acquired habitats and fencing projects to exclude cattle are
scheduled for completion by the summer of 1999.
(3) Range expansion activities. In addition to expanding the known
range of the species by locating three additional populations, two
introductions were completed at FSNWR after removal of nonnative
species was completed. Introductions of least chub in two additional
springs at the Refuge will be completed in the spring of 1999 after
nonnative species were removed last fall. An interpretive sign will be
posted at these sites to
[[Page 41063]]
inform visitors to the Refuge of the life history and presence of this
sensitive species. Negotiations are also underway to introduce the
least chub to a suitable spring on lands managed by Hill Air Force
Base. To assist with range expansion activities and the development of
least chub brood stock, as well as other native species, feasibility
studies were done at Gandy and Goshen Warm Springs for a native
aquatic/warm water species hatchery. To further assist with range
expansion activities, potential survey and reintroduction sites were
identified from historic least chub habitat using aerial photography.
(4) Nonnative interactions. To remove the threat to least chub and
other native species from competition and predation by nonnative
species, in 1997 the State of Utah enacted a new policy for Fish
Stocking and Transfer Procedures that specifically protects native
species, including the least chub. Additionally, nonnative species were
removed from springs at the FSNWR prior to introducing least chub.
Nonnative species will also be removed from any new introduction or
reintroduction sites. Selective removal of nonnative species will
continue at occupied least chub habitats.
(5) Genetic analysis. Utah State University is conducting genetic
characterization of all known least chub populations and is expected to
complete this effort by the fall of 1999. This information will be used
for developing broodstock for the planned warmwater fish hatchery and
for reintroduction efforts.
Previous Federal Action
We have conducted three status reviews and prepared two status
reports on the least chub. In 1980, we reviewed all existing
information on the least chub and determined that insufficient data was
available to warrant listing as either endangered or threatened. On
December 30, 1982, we classified the least chub as a category 2
candidate species (47 FR 58454). We included this species again as a
category 2 candidate in the revised vertebrate notice of review of
September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958). Category 2 comprised taxa for which
there was available biological information in our possession indicating
that listing was possibly appropriate, but the information was
insufficient to support listing the species as endangered or
threatened. After preparation of a 1989 status report, we reclassified
the least chub as a category 1 candidate species (54 FR 554; January 6,
1989).
We included this species as a Category 1 candidate in the Animal
Candidate notice of review of November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), and
maintained it as a Category 1 species in the subsequent Animal
Candidate notice of review of November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). Category
1 comprised taxa for which sufficient information was on file to
support proposals for endangered and threatened status. On February 28,
1996, we published a notice of review in the Federal Register (61 FR
7596) that discontinued the use of different categories of candidate
species. Candidate species are now those species for which sufficient
information is on file detailing biological vulnerability and threats
to support issuance of a proposed rule, but issuance of the proposed
rule is precluded by other listing actions.
On September 29, 1995, after reviewing available information, we
proposed the least chub as an endangered species with critical habitat
(60 FR 50518). We solicited public comment on the proposal and informed
the public of the availability of a public hearing upon request.
Several requests for a public hearing were made in writing to our Utah
Field Supervisor. However, due to the moratorium on listing actions
imposed by Congress in 1995, we postponed further actions regarding the
least chub proposal.
A serious backlog of listing actions resulted from decreases in the
listing budget beginning in Fiscal Year 1995 and as a result of a
moratorium on certain listing actions during parts of Fiscal Year 1995
and Fiscal Year 1996. The enactment of Public Law 104-6 in April 1995
rescinded $1.5 million from our budget for carrying out listing
activities through the remainder of Fiscal Year 1995. Public Law 104-6
also prohibited the expenditure of the remaining appropriated funds for
final determinations to list species, whether foreign or domestic, or
designate critical habitat; thus placing a moratorium on those
activities. During the first half of Fiscal Year 1996, the moratorium
continued while a series of continuing resolutions provided little or
no funding for listing activities. The net effect of the moratorium and
reductions in funding resulted in a suspension of all listing
activities. The moratorium on final listings and the immediate budget
constraints remained in effect until April 26, 1996, when President
Clinton approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996 and
exercised the authority that the Act gave him to waive the moratorium.
By that time a backlog of proposed listings for 243 domestic and
foreign species had accrued.
To deal with this considerable backlog, we developed and published
the Interim (61 FR 9651) and Final Listing Priority Guidelines for
Fiscal Year 1996 (61 FR 24722). Using a multi-tiered approach, we
prioritized listing activities giving priority to the processing
emergency listing actions for species that faced an imminent risk of
extinction. During this period, on June 7, 1996, we reopened the
comment period on the least chub proposed listing and announced that a
public hearing would be held on the proposal on June 27, 1996 in
Wendover, Utah (61 FR 29047). At the public hearing numerous
individuals expressed an interest in meeting with us to discuss the
proposed listing of the least chub and other options available to
conserve the species, in particular, the idea of a conservation
agreement. In response to this interest our staff scheduled and
attended a public informational meeting in Partoun, Utah on July 17,
1996.
On December 5, 1996, we published a Final Listing Priority Guidance
for Fiscal Year 1997 (61 FR 64475) that maintained a four tiered
listing priority process, identifying the processing of final decisions
on proposed listings as the tier two activity. However, the effort
required to update status information on the least chub and our work on
other higher priority species delayed publication of a final rule to
list the least chub.
On September 25, 1997, we announced the availability of a draft
conservation agreement for the least chub and comment on the draft
document from the public was solicited (62 FR 50394). On May 8, 1998,
we published in the Federal Register the Final Listing Priority
Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 (63 FR 25502). This new
guidance adopted the existing three-tiered approach and further
identified that during Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 we will concurrently
undertake: tier 1 emergency listing actions and; tier 2, the processing
of final decisions on proposed listings, resolving the conservation
status of candidate species, processing administrative findings on
petitions to add species to the lists and petitions to delist or
reclassify species, and a limited number of delisting or reclassifying
actions. Tier 3 encompasses the processing of critical habitat
determinations. This final listing decision for the least chub is a
tier 2 activity under the current listing priority guidance.
[[Page 41064]]
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the September 29, 1995, proposed rule and the associated
notifications, we invited all interested parties to submit comments or
suggestions concerning biological information and potential threats to
the least chub that might contribute to the development of a final rule
to list the least chub as an endangered species with critical habitat.
We requested comments directly from appropriate Federal and State
agencies, county governments, scientific organizations, and other
interested parties. We also published a notice inviting general public
comment on the proposed listing in the following newspapers-- Salt Lake
Tribune/Deseret News, Millard County Chronicle, Fillmore Chronicle
Progress, Tooele Transcript Bulletin, Nephi Times News, and the
Wendover Times. We received no public comments in response.
We received requests to hold a public hearing on the proposed
listing from three separate parties, all landowners within the Snake
Valley of western Utah. On June 7, 1996, we published a notice in the
Federal Register reopening the comment period on the least chub
proposed listing until July 15, 1996, and also announced that a public
hearing would be held on the proposal on June 27, 1996, in Wendover,
Utah (61 FR 29047). In addition to the announcement in the Federal
Register and in local newspapers, we sent a letter to all interested
parties announcing the date of the public hearing and the extended
closing date for public comment. Six parties presented testimony at a
public hearing held on June 27, 1996, in Wendover, Utah. At the public
hearing many individuals expressed an interest in meeting with us to
discuss the proposed listing of the least chub and other options
available to conserve the species, the idea of a conservation agreement
was of particular interest. In light of the above request, we held a
second public informational meeting in Partoun, Utah on July 17, 1996,
that was attended by nineteen individuals.
During the comment period we received written and oral comments
from 17 parties, including the testimony presented at the public
hearing. We received comments from two State agencies, two
environmental organizations, nine private individuals or groups, and
four representatives of the petroleum and energy industry. Of the 17
comments received, 1 supported the listing, 11 opposed the listing, 2
were neutral, and 3 recommended the development of a conservation
agreement. We have combined written and oral statements from both the
public hearing and the comment period in the following discussion.
Comments and other information submitted by respondents are
incorporated into this notice of withdrawal and organized into specific
issue topics. These issues and our response to each are summarized as
follows--
Issue 1: Several respondents suggested that listing was not
warranted given the current conservation efforts on behalf of the least
chub, including the conservation agreement being developed by the State
of Utah. These comments generally supported efforts in behalf of the
agreement rather than listing the species.
Service Response: We actively participated in the development of
the conservation agreement and believe that its continued
implementation will facilitate the recovery of the species. The
implementation of the conservation measures outlined in the agreement
has reduced the actual and potential threats to the species. These
efforts are directed at restoring and maintaining least chub
populations throughout its historic range to ensure its continued
existence. For a list of conservation actions completed to date, please
refer to the Background discussion of this rule.
Issue 2: Several respondents opposed the listing due to direct
economic impacts to the local livestock industry, petroleum and energy
industries from the proposed listing and designation of critical
habitat.
Service Response: Under the Act, the Secretary must make
determinations on the listing of species solely on the basis of the
best available scientific and commercial information without reference
to economic or other social impacts. The listing of the least chub
could indirectly affect some industry sectors by modifying the
allowable land use practices on certain Federal lands. However, we
believe that if the least chub became listed in a final rule there
would be no significant impact upon either the livestock, petroleum, or
energy industries. The Act requires that Federal agencies consult on
any action they undertake, authorize or fund which may affect a
proposed or listed species. However, in the majority of cases
consultation neither slows or halts project planning or construction.
In fact, the likelihood that any implementation or enforcement actions
resulting from a species listing under the Act would result in economic
impacts is minimal, given the ready availability of conservation tools
and balancing mechanisms such as incidental take permits, habitat
conservation plans, and safe harbor agreements.
Issue 3: One respondent suggested that a more proactive approach be
taken in working with Snake Valley citizens to assure adequate habitat
restoration, species reintroduction, and recovery of the least chub.
Service Response: In response to considerable local concern
regarding the listing of the least chub, we held a public hearing on
June 27, 1996, and a second public informational meeting on July 17,
1996, for the citizens of Snake Valley, Utah. During these meetings
issues such as the development of a conservation agreement, the
possibility of Safe Harbor Agreements, and the local involvement of the
public, especially school children, in the conservation of the species
were discussed.
We are actively working in a cooperative effort with the State of
Utah and with private landowners located within Miller Springs and
Leland Harris Spring Complex, to protect populations of least chub
through the Partners for Wildlife Program. To support this effort,
Federal and State funds were disbursed for such conservation measures
as the purchase of fencing materials to exclude cattle from the spring
heads and to allow for implementation of a rotational grazing regime to
lessen cattle impacts at the spring complexes.
Issue 4: One respondent raised the issue of reintroducing the least
chub onto the FSNWR which is already under our management and within
the historical range of the species.
Service Response: On July 11, 1997, we entered into a Challenge
Cost Share Agreement with the State of Utah under the authority of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667) and the
provisions of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act
(Public Law 104-208, 110 STAT. 3009). The purpose of this agreement is
to facilitate the reintroduction of the least chub onto the FSNWR.
FSNWR is located within the historical range of least chub and offers
high potential for creating refugia for additional populations to aid
recovery. Funds have already been disbursed pursuant to this agreement
to implement structural changes at the Refuge, eliminate nonnative
mosquitofish, and to introduce least chub into two springs on the
refuge. There are also plans for the introduction of least chub into
two additional springs on the Refuge and the construction of an
educational bulletin board alongside one of these springs.
Issue 5: One respondent suggested that since there are no recent
studies
[[Page 41065]]
assessing least chub population status, that such studies be initiated
as soon as possible to ascertain its occurrence, genetic purity, and
habitat condition.
Service Response: Through the combined effort of the Utah Division
of Wildlife Resources, BLM, and ourselves the yearly monitoring of
least chub populations was expanded to include extended surveys for
least chub within historical habitat. These extended surveys have
resulted in the identification of two previously unknown populations of
least chub along Utah's Wasatch Front, where the species was previously
considered extirpated (no longer present), and an additional population
in Box Elder County.
Researchers at Utah State University have initiated the genetic
analysis of all known least chub populations with completion of this
analysis scheduled by Spring of 1999. In separate research efforts,
least chub habitat condition, availability and use are being analyzed
in several different ways. BLM is conducting an extensive habitat use
survey of all known least chub populations in the Snake Valley. The
State of Utah also has conducted aerial photography in Utah's West
Desert and Wasatch Front to identify potential least chub habitat.
Issue 6: One respondent noted that the greatest factor in the
decrease of the least chub population is the 10 years of extended
drought, and suggested that because the least chub has endured drought
in the past that their numbers will again increase when conditions
become wetter and additional springs begin flowing.
Service Response: Researchers have identified nonnative fish
predation and competition (Hickman 1989; Osmundson 1985) and direct
physical habitat loss and habitat degradation (Holden et al. 1974;
Hickman 1989; Crist 1990) as factors in the decline of the least chub.
While drought may play a role in the current reduced numbers of the
species, historically, the species has been able to recover from such
drought-induced declines. Presently, however, other factors such as
habitat loss and degradation, and nonnative fish predation and
competition, may be contributing to slower species recovery.
Issue 7: One respondent noted that cattle have coexisted with least
chub for over 100 years and explained that livestock grazing practices
have improved considerably and that ranchers are no longer mismanaging
pasture land with continuous grazing as in the past.
Service Response: Livestock grazing practices have improved.
However, in the proposed rule to list the least chub as endangered (60
FR 50518), we identified habitat degradation caused by livestock
trampling as a significant threat to the species. Additionally, large
influxes of organic material to springheads as a result of livestock
activities may result in the extirpation of least chub from these
habitats. Local ranchers are working with us in an effort to secure
funding and manpower for fencing projects on private lands to provide
for rotational grazing practices and/or exclusion of cattle from least
chub occupied springheads.
Issue 8: One respondent expressed the opinion that there are
unsurveyed spring complexes that probably contained least chub and
suggested that these areas had not been surveyed because they were on
the military's test and training range where access has been denied.
Service Response: Cooperating staff biologists for the military
continue to periodically advise us of the status of the species and of
the availability of habitat on military lands. Presently there are no
known populations of least chub on military lands. However, we have
joined with staff of the military's test and training range and the
State of Utah to begin discussions with the goal of introducing least
chub into unoccupied springs on military lands in Utah's West Desert.
Issue 9: One respondent, who supported the listing and critical
habitat designation, suggested that BLM needed greater inducements to
abate or prevent habitat degradation than are presently provided under
BLM's current stipulations or activity plan objectives.
Service Response: If the least chub became listed under the Act,
BLM would have an affirmative obligation under section 7(a)(1) of the
Act to utilize its authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act and to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. BLM has been a participating member of both the
Least Chub Conservation Technical Team and the Bonneville Basin
Conservation and Recovery Team since the inception of both teams. BLM
is also involved in several fencing projects designed to exclude cattle
from spring heads occupied by least chub and is currently involved in
evaluating habitat preferences of least chub in the West Desert.
Furthermore, BLM is a signatory to the Least Chub Conservation
Agreement and, as such, has agreed to protect and conserve the species.
Issue 10: One respondent expressed the opinion that although human
activity has had an impact on the welfare of the least chub, it is
endangered primarily because Lake Bonneville has dried up. The
respondent anticipated, therefore, that the endangerment of this fish
was inevitable.
Service Response: Ancient Lake Bonneville has undergone at least
ten separate cycles of desiccation and flooding. The most recent
desiccation occurred approximately 10,000 years ago and the Great Salt
Lake has remained relatively stable since that time. Least chub were
abundant until the 1940's and 1950's at which time a decline in their
distribution and abundance was noted (Baugh 1980). This decline can be
attributed to human intervention through habitat loss and alteration
and the introduction of nonnative species.
Issue 11: One respondent identified that some oil and gas leases
have been denied in anticipation of the least chub endangered species
designation.
Service Response: We proposed the least chub as an endangered
species in September 29, 1995. Prior to this, it was a candidate
species for listing under the Act. As a precautionary measure Federal
agencies proposing projects that may affect sensitive species would
take the sensitive status of the species into consideration, whether or
not it is actually listed under the Act. The protection and
conservation of sensitive species is cost effective for project
proponents as well, for it may preclude the need to list a species as
federally endangered or threatened pursuant to the Act. When a species
is proposed, Federal agencies are required under section 7(a)(4) of the
Act to confer on any action which is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the species.
Issue 12: Several respondents suggested that the economic impacts
of critical habitat designation be minimized by defining the needed
critical habitat as narrowly as possible and restricting it to areas
immediately adjacent to springs where the least chub has been
identified. One respondent was concerned that the designation of
critical habitat would eliminate family operated ranches.
Service Response: In determining what areas to propose as critical
habitat, we must consider those physical and biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management considerations or protection. Such features include
but are not limited to the following: (1) Space for individual and
population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air,
light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) cover,
[[Page 41066]]
shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring;
and generally; (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of the species. In making this critical habitat
determination, areas can only be excluded from the designated critical
habitat if the economic or other benefits of exclusion outweighed the
benefits of designating the area, unless such exclusion would result in
extinction of the species. Critical habitat plays more than an
informational role only through section 7 consultations in which the
Service reviews proposed Federal actions. Activities on private or
state-owned lands that do not involve Federal permits, funding, or
other Federal actions are not restricted by the designation of critical
habitat, although the ``take'' provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the
Act still apply. If no Federal agency is involved in management,
funding, or by other means on non-Federal areas with critical habitat,
activities on private lands are not subject to the section 7
consultation process for critical habitat. Thus, activities on private
or state-owned lands that do not involve Federal permits, funding, or
other Federal actions are not restricted by the designation of critical
habitat.
Peer Review
In accordance with policy promulgated July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
we solicited the expert opinions of independent specialists. In a
letter dated October 20, 1995, we requested review and comments on the
proposed listing rule from knowledgeable parties. This letter further
identified that such advice would be helpful in the decision as to the
proposed rule and specifically requested assistance in--(1) providing
any factual data concerning the conservation of the species; (2)
advising of any special consideration that should be taken into account
prior to our final decision of the species status; (3) advice as to
whether it would be prudent and determinable to designate critical
habitat for the species at this time and; (4) providing any other
relevant advice or guidance. We received no additional comments or
information in response to this request.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
We must consider five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act when determining whether to list a species. These factors, and
their effects on the decision to withdraw the proposal to list the
least chub, are as follows--
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range. Historically, least chub were
widely distributed within the Bonneville Basin of northwestern Utah and
occupied many streams, springs, and ponds (Cope and Yarrow 1875; Jordan
1891, cited by Jordan and Evermann 1896; Sigler and Miller 1963;
Hickman 1989). At the time of the proposed listing of the species,
least chub surveys and monitoring had indicated a steady decline in
their distribution and numbers. Extensive monitoring in pre-established
sites conducted in the three marsh complexes which comprise the
majority of least chub habitat in Utah's West Desert indicated that in
1993, 51.4 percent of springs sampled contained least chub while in
1994, 43.8 percent contained least chub and in 1995, 40.5 percent were
occupied by least chub. Habitat loss and degradation have been
indicated as major causes of the least chub's decline (Holden et al.
1974; Hickman 1989; Crist 1990). Conservation activities implemented
over the last several years have reduced the threats to the least chub
from habitat loss and degradation. The downward trend in least chub
occupied springs in the Utah's West Desert was slowed and in 1998
reversed. Monitoring data from 1996 identified that 40.0 percent of
springs sampled contained least chub while in 1997, 38.4 percent were
occupied and in 1998, 43.1 percent were occupied by least chub.
Enhancement, maintenance, and protection projects implemented over
the last several years have focused on those specific factors that have
contributed to habitat degradation such as livestock trampling and
grazing, water development and mining activities. Many activities are
already underway. In 1995, BLM constructed a second cattle exclosure on
part of the Gandy Salt Marsh Complex in order to protect occupied least
chub habitat. An extension agreement is being developed with a private
landowner to fund an additional cattle exclosure around a springhead in
least chub occupied habitat in Utah's West Desert. In addition, plans
to implement a rotational grazing system to decrease grazing pressure
at sensitive least chub occupied springs are in negotiation with a
private landowner. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has
completed aerial photography mapping of all least chub potential
habitat, in part, to assist in the identification of private and public
lands available for conservation easements and exclosures, acquisition,
wetland revegetation, and water quality improvements. The State of Utah
has also developed plans, in conjunction with the BLM, for the dredging
of springheads to alleviate accelerated succession of spring complexes.
BLM further declined a request from Juab County, Utah, to implement a
mosquito control spraying operation in marsh and spring areas on BLM
lands occupied by least chub. The State of Utah has initiated
discussions with the County to protect occupied least chub habitats on
private lands from this threat. BLM, in addition to the annual habitat
surveys conducted during least chub monitoring, has conducted several
years of intensive habitat use studies in least chub occupied springs
to better define the habitat needs of the species. Acquisition of
wetland habitat occupied by least chub along Utah's Wasatch Front is
underway, with the purchase of approximately 85.5 ac (34.6 ha)
completed by the end of 1998 and additional purchases under
negotiations. This habitat will then be enhanced by removal of cattle,
re-opening springheads that have been impacted by cattle, reseeding
with native vegetation, and selective removal of nonnative species.
In addition to the above completed and planned conservation
activities, the development of the Least Chub Conservation Agreement, a
multi-agency cooperation effort, has established a means to curtail
future habitat loss and degradation. The Agreement calls for
enhancement, maintenance, and protection of least chub habitat, as well
as the development of a mitigation protocol for proposed water
development and future habitat alteration. The Agreement requires; (1)
enhancement and/or restoration of habitat conditions in designated
areas throughout the historical range of least chub, including bank
stabilization, riparian/spring fencing, and sustainable grazing
practices; and (2) maintaining and restoring, where possible, the
natural hydrologic characteristics and water quality.
B. Over utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. Overutilization is not presently a factor in the
decline of the species. Although some least chub specimens have been
collected for scientific and educational purposes (Sigler and Workman
1975; Workman et al. 1979; Crawford 1979; Osmundson 1985), such
collections do not presently present a significant threat. No
commercial or recreational uses for the least chub are known at this
time.
C. Disease or predation. The introduction of nonnative species into
[[Page 41067]]
least chub habitat has contributed to the decline of the least chub
(Workman et al. 1979; Hickman 1989; Osmundson 1985). Predation by
nonnative fishes has been a major factor in the decline and extirpation
of desert fishes in southwestern North America (Shoenherr 1981; Meffe
1985; Minckley et al. 1991). Surveys of spring complexes indicate that
where nonnative fishes have been introduced, few if any least chub
remain (Osmundson 1985). To reduce this threat to the least chub the
following conservation activities have been implemented. In 1997, the
State of Utah enacted a new policy for Fish Stocking and Transfer
Procedures that specifically protects native species, including the
least chub. The new policy puts the protection of native aquatic
species above the enhancement of recreational fisheries providing for
fish stocking and transfer in a manner that does not adversely affect
the long term viability of native aquatic species or their habitat and,
among other things, aiding native species conservation. Additional
activities completed to remove the threat of competition and predation
by nonnative species include the removal of all nonnatives from two
springs at FSNWR prior to introducing least chub, and at two additional
springs in the fall of 1998 prior to reintroductions proposed for 1999.
Nonnative species will be removed from any future introduction or
reintroduction sites. Selective removal of nonnative species has and
will continue to occur at occupied least chub habitats. To educate the
public on the adverse effects of introducing nonnative species to
previously unoccupied habitats, an interpretive billboard has been
developed and will be installed at FSNWR.
In addition to the conservation activities already implemented and
in the planning stages, future threats from disease and predation are
directly addressed in the conservation agreement for the Least Chub.
The selective control of nonnative species is one of the seven
conservation actions to be implemented by the Agreement. Management and
control of nonnative species will focus on--(1) determining where
detrimental interactions, such as predation, competition,
hybridization, or disease occur or could occur; (2) control or
modification of stocking, introductions, and spread of nonnative
aquatic species where appropriate; and (3) eradication of detrimental
nonnative fish where feasible, and control to the maximum extent
possible where eradication is not possible. Several species targeted
for control and/or eradication include mosquitofish, killifish, and in
some cases, nonnative sportfish and forage fish. In addition, in an
effort to reduce such threats, we have planned a public education and
outreach campaign to explain the benefits of ecosystem integrity, the
detrimental effects of nonnative introductions, and the potential for
disease transmission from such introductions.
D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. While the land
ownership of occupied and potential least chub habitat is divided among
Federal, State and private landowners, cooperation among the various
groups is helping to protect the least chub. The establishment by the
State of Utah, in 1997, of a new Fish Stocking and Transfer Procedures
Policy established a regulatory mechanism that has and will afford the
least chub greater protection from the threats to the species from
introductions of nonnative species. Furthermore, the status of the
least chub in Utah has changed, for it is now identified as a
conservation species. This status identifies the species as one which
is currently receiving special management under a conservation
agreement. Signatory parties to the conservation agreement include the
Utah Department of Natural Resources, BLM, Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Commission, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District and the Service. The conservation agreement was
developed to expedite conservation measures needed for the continued
existence and recovery of the least chub. It focuses on two objectives:
(1) To eliminate or significantly reduce threats to least chub and its
habitat to the greatest extent possible, and (2) to restore and
maintain a minimum number of least chub populations throughout its
historical range to ensure the continued existence of least chub. These
objectives will be met through: determining baseline least chub
population, life history, and habitat needs; determining and
maintaining genetic integrity; enhancing, maintaining and protecting
habitat; selectively controlling nonnative species; expanding least
chub populations and range through introduction or reintroduction;
monitoring populations and habitat; and developing a mitigation
protocol for proposed water development and future habitat alteration
that may affect least chub. When the agreement is fully implemented it
will provide for the recovery of the least chub by establishing a
framework for interagency cooperation and coordination on conservation
efforts and setting recovery priorities. In addition to the Agreement,
other partnerships will continue to be developed on specific actions
within the least chub's range involving other interested agencies or
groups. In light of the change in the State status of the least chub,
the adoption of the conservation agreement and of a new State stocking
policy affording greater protection to the least chub, we conclude that
the existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to address significant
threat to the species.
E. Other natural or human caused factors affecting its continued
existence. Competition and hybridization are identified factors
contributing to the decline of the least chub (Lamarra 1981; Sigler and
Sigler 1987; Crawford 1979). We expect the control of nonnative species
identified in the Least Chub Conservation Agreement as identified in C
and D above, to significantly reduce such threats.
A proposed mosquito abatement program for Juab County, Utah, is
also a potential threat to least chub. BLM has declined the county's
request to implement a mosquito control spraying project on Federal
lands. Because spraying by the county may still occur on privately held
lands, the Division of Wildlife Resources for the State of Utah has
begun negotiations with the Juab County mosquito abatement program to
ensure that their activities do not result in additional declines of
least chub.
Due to the small number of populations of least chub, they are very
susceptible to stochastic (random or naturally occurring) events. The
likelihood of such events was identified as a possible threat to the
species in the proposed rule. A single catastrophic event could destroy
a significant portion of remaining chub habitat, or one or more of
their populations. Extensive surveys throughout least chub historical
habitat have been conducted over the last six years, and such efforts
will continue to identify the known range and populations of least
chub. These survey efforts identified three previously unknown
populations; one at Lucin Pond in Box Elder County, Utah, where a 1989
least chub introduction effort was thought to have failed; and two
populations along Utah's Wasatch Front, one at a spring complex in Juab
County and another in the Sevier River drainage in Mills Valley. In
addition to expanding the known range of the species by locating three
additional populations, FSNRW completed two introductions after removal
of nonnative
[[Page 41068]]
species, with the introductions of least chub in two additional springs
in the spring of 1999. Negotiations are also underway to introduce the
least chub to a suitable spring on lands managed by Hill Air Force
Base. These additional populations reduce the likelihood of a single
catastrophic event affecting a major portion of the population. To
assist with range expansion activities and the development of least
chub brood stock, as well as other native species, feasibility studies
were conducted at Gandy and Goshen Warm Springs for a native aquatic/
warm water species hatchery. To further assist with range expansion
activities, all least chub historical habitats were aerial photographed
to identify potential survey and reintroduction sites.
The expansion in the range of least chub is identified in the Least
Chub Conservation Agreement as a necessary action to conserve the
species. To expand the range of the least chub, the conservation
agreement calls for: (1) Establishing additional populations through
introductions or reintroductions from either transplanted (wildstock)
or brood stock least chub raised in a designated hatchery; (2)
identifying and developing broodstock sources, including identification
and taking of wild sources, and hatching and rearing facilities; and
(3) restoring least chub populations into appropriate areas.
Finding and Withdrawal
Section 4(b)(1)(a) of the Act provides that the Secretary shall
make listing decisions solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available and after taking into account those efforts
being made by any State or foreign nation to protect such species. In
accordance with this requirement we have evaluated the species on the
basis of each of the five listing factors discussed above; the current
improved status of the least chub, and the efforts being made by the
State of Utah, other signatories to the Least Chub Conservation
Agreement and other private entities; to protect the species. Based on
our evaluation of the above information, completed and ongoing actions
and protective measures have substantially reduced the threats to the
least chub such that the species is not likely to become endangered in
the foreseeable future and, therefore, listing is not warranted at this
time. We consequently withdraw the proposed rule to list the least chub
as endangered with critical habitat.
Endangered Species Act Oversight
We will continue to monitor the status of the least chub throughout
the term of the conservation agreement and maintain oversight. If it is
deemed necessary, an emergency listing of the least chub would not be
precluded by the 60-day written notice required to withdraw from the
conservation agreement. We will initiate the process for listing the
least chub if--(1) an emergency which poses a significant threat to the
least chub is identified and not immediately and adequately addressed;
(2) the biological status of the least chub becomes such that it is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range; or (3) the biological status of the least chub becomes such that
it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Appropriate notice will be
given to signatory members of the Least Chub Conservation Agreement
should we find that it is necessary to reinitiate the listing process.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available upon request
from the Salt Lake City Field Office (see ADDRESSES above)
Authors: The primary author of this document is Janet A. Mizzi (see
ADDRESSES above).
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 8, 1999.
John G. Rogers, Jr.,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-19360 Filed 7-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P