[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 189 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50518-50530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-20929]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC91
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To
Determine the Least Chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) an Endangered
Species With Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to
determine the least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) to be an endangered
species and to designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. This small monotypic minnow is endemic
to the Bonneville Basin in Utah where it was once common and widely
distributed. Populations of least chub have declined, and it now only
exists within Snake Valley in western Utah. The continuing decline in
range and abundance of the least club has been attributed to
competition and predation from nonnative species and habitat loss and
alteration.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by
November 28, 1995. Public hearing requests must be received by November
13, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be
sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lincoln
Plaza, Suite 404, 145 East 1300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, at the above address during normal business
hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Williams at the above
address, telephone 801/524-5001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The least chub, Iotichthys phlegethontis, is an endemic minnow
(Family Cyprinidae) of the Bonneville Basin of Utah, which is located
in the Great Basin of southwestern North America. E.D. Cope described
the least chub (Clinostomus phlegethontis) from specimens collected in
the Beaver River in 1872 by Dr. H.C. Yarrow and H.W. Henshaw (Cope
1874, cited in Cope and Yarrow 1875). However, the scientific name has
been revised several times: from the genus Clinostomus to Gila (Cope
and Yarrow 1875), to Phoxinus (Jordan and Gilbert 1883, cited in Jordan
and Evermann 1896), to Hemitremia (Jordan 1891), to Leuciscus subgenus
Iotichthys (Jordan and Evermann 1896), and finally to the monotypic
genus Iotichthys (Jordan et al. 1930, cited in Hickman 1989; Robins
1991).
As suggested by its common and scientific names, the least chub is
a small fish (<45 mm,="" 2.5="" in.)="" that="" is="" identified="" by="" an="" upturned="" or="" oblique="" mouth="" (clinostomus),="" large="" scales,="" and="" absence="" of="" a="" lateral="" line="" (rarely="" with="" one="" or="" two="" pored="" scales).="" it="" was="" a="" deeply="" compressed="" body,="" the="" dorsal="" origin="" lies="" behind="" the="" insertion="" of="" the="" pelvic="" fin,="" and="" the="" caudle="" peduncle="" is="" slender.="" dorsal="" fin="" rays="" number="" eight="" (rarely="" nine),="" and="" it="" has="" eight="" anal="" fin="" rays.="" the="" pharyngeal="" teeth="" (2,5-4,2)="" are="" in="" two="" rows="" (jordan="" and="" evermann="" 1896;="" page="" and="" burr="" 1991).="" the="" colorful="" 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="" [[page="" 50519]]="" the="" gill="" opening.="" the="" fins="" are="" lemon-amber,="" and="" sometimes="" the="" paired="" fins="" are="" 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;="" page="" and="" burr="" 1991).="" sigler="" and="" sigler="" (1987)="" considered="" the="" least="" chub="" to="" be="" a="" short-="" lived="" and="" slow-growing="" species:="" least="" chub="" mature="" within="" 1="" year="" and="" rarely="" live="" beyond="" 3="" years="" of="" age.="" of="" 218="" fish="" aged="" by="" various="" investigators,="" less="" than="" 1="" percent="" of="" the="" fish="" reached="" 4="" years="" of="" age,="" and="" only="" 2="" fish="" reached="" a="" total="" length="" of="" 7.6="" cm="" (3="" in.).="" a="" least="" chub="" of="" average="" size="" would="" be="" about="" 3.3="" cm="" (1.3="" in.)="" and="" weigh="" 0.57="" g="" (0.02="" oz)="" (sigler="" and="" workman="" 1975:="" workman="" et="" al.="" 1976;="" crawford="" 1979).="" least="" chub="" begin="" spawning="" in="" the="" spring="" when="" water="" temperatures="" reach="" about="" 16="" deg.c="" (60="" deg.f;="" sigler="" and="" sigler="" 1987).="" the="" least="" chub="" is="" a="" partial="" and="" intermittent="" spawner.="" crawford="" (1979)="" found="" that="" least="" chub="" females="" produced="" only="" a="" few="" eggs="" at="" any="" time="" but="" release="" eggs="" over="" an="" extended="" period.="" the="" number="" of="" eggs="" produced="" at="" any="" one="" time="" is="" variable="" and="" may="" range="" from="" about="" 300="" to="" 2,700="" (sigler="" and="" sigler="" 1987).="" although="" the="" peak="" spawning="" activity="" occurs="" in="" may,="" the="" reproductive="" season="" lasts="" from="" april="" to="" august,="" and="" perhaps="" longer="" depending="" on="" environmental="" conditions.="" the="" least="" chub="" has="" evolved="" this="" reproductive="" strategy="" (i.e.,="" repetitive="" spawning="" during="" one="" season="" and="" of="" spreading="" the="" spawn="" over="" many="" weeks)="" perhaps="" as="" an="" adaptation="" to="" unpredictable="" environmental="" changes="" that="" are="" present="" in="" desert="" habitats.="" the="" least="" chub="" presumably="" initiates="" spawning="" in="" response="" to="" increases="" in="" water="" temperature="" and="" photoperiod,="" which="" may="" act="" in="" concert="" with="" other="" environmental="" and="" physiological="" factors,="" including="" exposure="" to="" direct="" sunlight="" (crawford="" 1979;="" sigler="" and="" sigler="" 1987).="" the="" least="" chub="" releases="" its="" sex="" products="" over="" vegetation="" (crawford="" 1979).="" the="" adhesive="" eggs="" then="" sink="" and="" usually="" attach="" to="" the="" underwater="" vegetation.="" fertilized="" eggs="" hatch="" in="" about="" 2="" days="" at="" water="" temperatures="" of="" 22="" deg.c="" (72="" deg.f;="" crawford="" 1979).="" the="" presence="" of="" submerged="" vegetation="" provides="" an="" important="" habitat="" for="" eggs="" and="" young="" larvae="" by="" furnishing="" needed="" oxygen="" and="" food="" (crist="" and="" holden="" 1980).="" common="" foods="" of="" the="" least="" chub="" include="" algae="" (chlorophyta="" and="" chrysophyta)="" midges="" (chironomidae),="" and="" microcrustaceans;="" but="" they="" also="" eat="" other="" items="" (sigler="" and="" sigler="" 1987).="" of="" 185="" least="" chub="" taken="" from="" 27="" springs,="" 121="" stomachs="" contained="" 14="" food="" types="" including="" algae,="" crustaceans,="" and="" insects="" (workman="" et="" al.="" 1979).="" it="" also="" is="" believed="" that="" mosquito="" larvae="" make="" up="" a="" significant="" portion="" of="" their="" diet="" (sigler="" and="" miller="" 1963;="" sigler="" and="" workman="" 1975).="" workman="" et="" al.="" (1979)="" noted="" that="" least="" chub="" diet="" changed="" throughout="" the="" year,="" and="" vegetation="" was="" more="" important="" during="" winter="" months.="" the="" least="" chub="" was="" once="" widely="" distributed="" within="" the="" bonneville="" basin="" of="" northwestern="" utah.="" the="" fish="" occupied="" a="" variety="" of="" habitats="" including="" streams,="" springs,="" and="" ponds,="" and="" it="" was="" classified="" as="" ``excessively="" common''="" in="" its="" preferred="" habitats="" (jordan="" and="" everman="" 1896).="" yarrow="" and="" henshaw="" found="" least="" chub="" in="" the="" beaver="" river="" (cope="" and="" yarrow="" 1875).="" jordan="" (1891,="" cited="" by="" jordan="" and="" evermann="" 1896)="" collected="" least="" chub="" from="" ponds="" near="" the="" mouth="" of="" the="" provo="" river.="" jordan="" and="" evermann="" (1896)="" stated="" that="" least="" club="" occurred="" in="" ``tributaries="" of="" great="" salt="" lake="" and="" sevier="" lake,''="" least="" chub="" also="" have="" been="" observed="" in="" utah="" lake,="" beaver="" river,="" parowan="" creek,="" clear="" creek,="" and="" the="" provo="" river="" (reviewed="" by="" sigler="" and="" miller="" 1963;="" hickman="" 1989).="" more="" recently,="" c.d.="" barbour,="" university="" of="" utah,="" (in="" litt.="" 1970)="" collected="" least="" chub="" from="" the="" gandy="" salt="" marsh="" complex="" in="" the="" snake="" valley.="" in="" 1970,="" r.r.="" miller,="" university="" of="" michigan,="" (in="" litt.="" 1971),="" found="" large="" numbers="" of="" least="" chub="" in="" the="" leland="" harris="" springs="" complex,="" also="" in="" snake="" valley.="" a="" decline="" in="" distribution="" and="" abundance="" of="" the="" least="" chub="" was="" first="" noted="" in="" the="" 1940's="" and="" 1950's="" (baugh="" 1980).="" hubbs="" and="" miller="" collected="" least="" chub="" on="" trips="" into="" utah="" during="" the="" 1940's="" and="" 1950's,="" and="" also="" noted="" a="" decrease="" in="" abundance="" (holden="" et="" al.="" 1974).="" the="" fish="" is="" now="" restricted="" to="" the="" snake="" valley="" of="" the="" bonneville="" basin.="" least="" chub="" occur="" on="" a="" mixture="" of="" federal,="" state,="" and="" private="" lands="" at="" five="" locations="" in="" the="" snake="" valley.="" small="" numbers="" of="" least="" chub="" exist="" in="" two="" isolated="" springs:="" central="" spring="" (bishop="" spring="" complex,="" millard="" county)="" and="" miller="" spring="" (juab="" county),="" but="" the="" fish="" is="" most="" abundant="" in="" leland="" harris="" spring="" complex="" (juab="" county)="" and="" gandy="" salt="" marsh="" complex="" (millard="" county).="" recent="" surveys="" by="" the="" utah="" divison="" of="" wildlife="" resources="" (udwr),="" salt="" lake="" city,="" (in="" litt.="" 1993)="" indicated="" that="" some="" least="" chub="" in="" snake="" creek,="" south="" of="" grandy="" salt="" marsh.="" however,="" no="" studies="" have="" been="" conducted="" to="" determine="" the="" distribution,="" abundance,="" or="" status="" of="" this="" snake="" creek="" population="" (l.="" lentsch,="" udwr,="" pers.="" comm.="" 1993).="" historically,="" the="" least="" chub="" inhabited="" a="" variety="" of="" habitat="" types="" in="" different="" environments="" (lamarra="" 1981;="" sigler="" and="" sigler="" 1987).="" least="" chub="" now="" occupy="" springs,="" marshes="" and="" pools,="" and="" stream="" habitats.="" osmundson="" (1988)="" reported="" collections="" of="" least="" chub="" from="" 38="" sites,="" and="" these="" fish="" were="" captured="" in="" pools="" from="" 0.3="" to="" 260="">3 (3 to 2,800
ft2) in size and with water depths of 0.1 to 3.6 m (0.4 to 12ft).
In some of these habitats, certain environmental parameters fluctute.
The springs exhibit cool stable temperature, relatively low
conductivity, and little variation in dissolved oxygen content. The
marsh and pool environments exhibit extreme diurnal fluctuations in
dissolved oxygen, and water temperatures that may vary between 15 and
32 deg.C (59-90 deg.F) (Crist and Holden 1980; Lamarra 1981).
Seasonal water quality changes in the marshes and stream segments
result in fish movement back and forth between different hibitat types,
especially between the springs and marshes (Crist and Holden 1980).
Vegetation is an important habitat component for the least chub
(Crist and Holden 1980), and Sigler and Workman (1975) reported that
least chub habitat included aquatic plants that were ``plentiful and
provided excellent cover.'' Water parsnip (Berula erecta), wire rush
(Juncus balticus), and algae are common in and around the springs and
marshes that are inhabited by the fish (Sigler and Workman, 1975).
However, many other plants occur in areas occupied by the fish
including Chara sp., duckweed (Laemna sp.), watercress (Nasturtium
sp.), bulrushes (Sciurpus sp.), cattails (Typha sp.), and sedges
(Cyperus sp.) (Sigler and Sigler 1987).
Least chub has not been collected outside of Snake Valley since
1965 (Hickman 1989). They continue to decline in Snake Valley, and
studies conducted in the past 15 years indicate a steady decline in
their distribution and abundance. Workman et al. (1979) collected least
chub from 36 sites in 5 major spring complexes in Snake Valley, but
Osmundson (1985) found it in only 2 of 5 complexes where it previously
existed. Crist (1990) reported that least chub were extirpated from
springs on the Bagley Ranch and the Redden Springs Complex. Least chub
numbers are now declining within the Gandy Salt Marsh and Leland Harris
Spring Complex. Recent collections by UDWR personnel indicate that
least club occurs in only 3 of 5 springs sampled in the Leland-Harris
Complex and 6 of 12 springs in the Grandy Salt Marsh. A continuing
decline of the least chub has prompted the American Fisheries Society
to recognize it as a threatened species (Deacon et al. 1979).
[[Page 50520]]
As with other endemic southwestern fishes (Courtenay and Stauffer
1984; Meffe 1985; Schoenherr 1991), predation by introduced nonnative
fishes have caused the decline of the least chub. Largemouth bass,
rainbow trout, common carp, and brook trout have been regularly stocked
by government agencies and private citizens into least chub habitat
(Workman et al. 1979; Sigler and Sigler 1987; Osmundson 1985). Hickman
(1989) considered least chub to be ``constantly threatened'' by the
introduction of these gamefish species. However, other nonnative
species also prey upon or compete with the least club, including the
mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and rainwater killifish (Lucania
parva). Introduction of fishes into least chub habitat probably
contributed to the extirpation of least chub outside of Snake Valley,
since few least chub are present in spring complexes in Snake Valley
where nonnative fishes have been introduced (Osmundson 1985; Shirley,
in litt. 1989).
Direct, physical habitat loss and habitat degradation also are
factors in the decline of the least chub (Holden et al. 1974; Hickman
1989; Crist 1990). In spring complexes that contain least chub, habitat
degradation caused by livestock trampling could be a threat although no
studies of the impact of livestock on the springs of Snake Valley have
been conducted to date.
Recent oil and gas exploration and production activity in the West
Desert area may result in increased degradation and/or impacts to least
chub habitat. Exploration results in increased road access to sensitive
areas while surface activities associated with drilling, including
drilling site preparation under water hauling, may impact water
quality. Drilling activities also may release drilling fluids into the
aquifer or may fracture underground geologic features that are
associated with springs.
Water withdrawals also are a potential threat to the least chub.
Not only can reduced water supply diminish the amount of least chub
habitat, and thus the capacity of an area to support least chub, but
lowered levels may cause niche overlaps with other species. These
overlaps may increase hybrid introgression and interspecific
competition (Crawford 1979; Lamarra 1981). Maintenance of certain water
levels is very important to least chub because these levels must be
high enough to allow the fish to migrate between springs and
surrounding marsh areas as environmental conditions change.
Additionally, maintenance of water levels and discharge volumes is
critical in preserving natural sediment transport processes, thereby
maintaining underwater habitat configurations and reducing aquatic
vegetation encroachment into sensitive spring areas.
Present water withdrawals from surface and underground sources are
estimated at 10 percent of the total yearly recharge rate (Van Pelt
1992). These rates do not appear to be threatening to least chub
habitat. However, additional proposed wells in the southern part of
Snake Valley and surrounding areas could lower the water table,
resulting in drying up or lowering the water level in springs and
marshes populated by least chub. These springs are dependant on
underground water sources that flow from the Deep Creek Mountains to
the Snake Valley (M. Barber, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in litt.
1991; Brothers et al. 1993). It is important to note that all surface
streams from the Deep Creek Mountains are currently diverted for
agricultural use.
Several efforts to reintroduce least chub into historic habitat
have been attempted. In 1979, least chub were introduced into a pond
near Salt Lake City, Utah. The following year, young least chub were
collected, verifying successful reproduction. However, introduction of
nonnative fishes, combined with flooding of the pond by the Great Salt
Lake, eliminated this successfully reintroduced population. Two other
attempts to reintroduce least chub were not successful; the reasons for
these failures are not well understood, but competition and/or
predation with nonnative fishes offer a partial explanation (Crist
1990). Additional investigations are necessary prior to future
reintroduction attempts, including reasons for past successes and
failures, and the need to experiment with several reintroduction
techniques. Both the UDWR and BLM are working on developing management
plans that will address these reintroduction issues (L. Lentsch, UDWR,
pers. comm., 1994; R. Fike, BLM, pers. comm., 1994).
Previous Federal Action
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has conducted three status
reviews for the least chub and have prepared two status reports. In
1980, the Service reviewed existing information on the least chub and
determined that there was insufficient data to warrant its listing as
endangered or threatened. On December 30, 1982, the Service classified
the fish as a category 2 candidate species (47 FR 58454). After
preparation of a 1989 status report, the Service reclassified the least
chub as a category 1 candidate species (54 FR 554; January 6, 1989).
The Service continues to evaluate information and data concerning
population declines and increasing threats, and has determined that
listing the least chub as endangered or threatened is warranted.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and regulations (50 CFR Part 424)
promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth
the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may
be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or
more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors
and their application to the least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) are
as follows:
A. The threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range. The least chub was once widely distributed within the
Bonneville Basin of northwestern Utah and occupied many streams,
springs, and ponds. Yarrow and Henshaw found least chub in the Beaver
River (Cope and Yarrow 1875). Jordan (1891, cited by Jordan and
Evermann 1896) collected least chub from ponds near the mouth of the
Provo River. Jordan and Evermann (1896) stated that least chub occurred
in ``tributaries of Great Salt Lake and Sevier Lake.'' More recently,
least chub were observed in Utah Lake, Beaver River, Parowan Creek,
Clear Creek, and the Provo River (reviewed by Sigler and Miller 1963;
Hickman 1989). However, least chub have not been collected outside of
Snake Valley since 1965 (Hickman 1989).
Least chub populations in Snake Valley are not stable and studies
conducted in the past 15 years indicate a steady decline in their
distribution and numbers. Workman et al. (1979) collected least chub
from 36 sites spread throughout 5 major spring complexes in Snake
Valley. A few years later, Osmundson (1985) found least chub in only
two of the five complexes. Further surveys have confirmed that least
chub has been extirpated from springs on the Bagley Ranch and the
Redden Springs Complex (Crist 1990). Recent data suggest that least
chub numbers are now declining within the Gandy Salt Marsh and Leland
Harris Spring Complex. Personnel from UDWR found least chub only in 3
of 5 springs sampled in the Leland-Harris Complex and 6 of 12 springs
in the Gandy Salt Marsh. Some least chub have recently been discovered
in Snake Creek, south of Gandy Salt Marsh. However, no studies
[[Page 50521]]
have been conducted to determine the distribution, abundance, or status
of this Snake Creek population (L. Lentsch, pers. comm., 1993). Service
biologists believe that the numbers of least chub at Snake Creek are
insufficient to reverse this downward trend in its numbers.
Habitat loss and degradation have been indicated as major causes of
the least chub's decline (Holden et al. 1974; Hickman 1989; Crist
1990). Although no studies have been made of the springs in Snake
Valley, numerous other reports link livestock trampling and grazing
with fish habitat degradation in streams and springs (Duff 1977; May
and Somes 1981; Taylor et al. 1989; Bowen and Beauchamp 1992). The
springs in the Snake Valley that are occupied by least chub are not
protected from livestock. The BLM has one fenced exclosure in the Gandy
Salt Marsh Complex and is considering a second exclosure to protect
other springs (R. Fike, BLM, pers. comm., 1993).
Crist and Holden (1990) and Lamarra (1981) indicated that water
levels are important to least chub life history. The Las Vegas Valley
Water District has requested a permit to drill a series of wells in the
southern part of Snake Valley and surrounding areas (M. Barber, in
litt. 1991). This could lower the water table significantly in Snake
Valley, possibly drying up or lowering the water level in springs and
marshes populated by least chub. These springs are totally dependent on
underground water sources which flow from the Deep Creek Mountains to
the west of Snake Valley. Other forms of water use within Snake Valley
pose a minimal threat to least chub habitat at this time, and water
withdrawals from surface and underground sources are estimated at 10
percent of the total yearly recharge rate (Van Pelt 1992).
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. Some specimens have been collected for scientific
and educational purposes (Sigler and Workman 1975; Workman et al. 1979;
Crawford 1979; Osmundson 1985). However, no commercial or recreational
uses for the least chub are known to exist. Overutilization for
commercial or scientific purposes does not pose a threat to least chub.
C. Disease or predation. Disease or incidence of parasitism
presently are not major factors affecting the least chub. Workman et
al. (1979) found a single parasite called blackspot (the metacercariae
of the digenetic trematode) infesting the least chub. Black spot
(Neascus cuticola) produces small, black-pigmented nodules on the skin,
trunk musculature, and fins of fishes and is frequently encountered in
the least chub, Utah chub (Gila atraria), and speckled dace
(Rhinichthyes osculus). Workman et al. (1979) reported black spot
infection rates for the least chub as 1-23 nodules per fish, and that
the infection rate varied from area to area and with season (highest in
late summer and lowest in winter). Despite this moderate infestation
rate, all least chubs examined appeared robust and in good condition.
This parasite is apparently restricted to certain spring and pond
areas.
Predation by nonnative fishes has been a major factor in the
decline and extirpation of desert fishes in southwestern North America
(Schoenherr 1981; Meffe 1985; Minckley et al. 1991). Hickman (1989)
considered least chub to be ``constantly threatened'' by the
introduction of nonnative species. Surveys of spring complexes indicate
that where nonnative fishes were introduced, few if any least chub
remain (Osmundson 1985; Shirley, in litt. 1989). Introduced game fishes
which include largemouth bass, rainbow trout, common carp, and brook
trout, are predators on least chub, and these species have been
regularly stocked in least chub habitat (Workman et al. 1979; Sigler
and Sigler 1987; Osmundson 1985; Crist 1990), no doubt contributing to
the endangerment of least chub. In addition to game fish, other
nonnative fishes also have been released into least chub habitat. Two
fishes, the mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and rainwater killifish
(Luciana parva), have similar diets to the least chub and are
considered potential competitors. The mosquitofish poses a direct
threat to the least chub because of its known aggressive predation on
eggs and young of other fishes. Mosquitofish have been implicated in
the decline of other desert fishes (Schoenherr 1981; Meffe 1985).
Osmundson (1985) and Sigler and Sigler (1987) also indicated that
frogs, ducks, gulls, herons and egrets also are potential predators on
least chub. Under normal circumstances, predation from these sources
probably would not injure healthy populations of least chub. However,
the effect of predation from the above combined sources could cause
further depletion of already fragile populations.
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Although the
State of Utah lists the least chub as a protected species, the Service
believes that the present level of protection afforded by the State is
not sufficient. The State does not allow taking of the species without
permits, but it does not protect or control actions which cause harm to
the species or its habitat. The continued introduction of nonnative
predators into least chub habitat and adjacent areas is difficult to
control, and the State's protection does not address this issue.
The BLM has designated the Gandy Salt Marsh as an ``Area of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).'' This ACEC is inadequate in
protecting the least chub because it does not prevent taking of the
species. The establishment of an ACEC requires a management system
which integrates the protection of riparian areas without infringement
on ``traditional permitted uses'' (Van Pelt 1990). Accordingly, the
Gandy Salt marsh ACEC does not prevent livestock gracing in and around
least chub habitat and it does not extend over the fish's entire
habitat. Finally, the ACEC is a BLM oil and gas leasing category 4,
which normally closes the area to leasing. However, a clause was
written into the BLM's Resource Management Plan which allows the
District Manager to exempt the category 4 protections and to lease ACEC
lands.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Declines in native desert fishes in the Southwest has been
associated with the introduction and proliferation of nonnative fishes.
These nonnative fishes have, in some documented instances, extirpated
small desert fishes by direct competition and predation (Schoenherr
1981; Meffe 1985; Minckley et al. 1991). The existence of small desert
cyprinids, including the least chub, is presumably the result of a lack
of other small competitors (Smith 1981; Minckley et al. 1991).
Least chub coexist with other native fishes, which include the Utah
chub and speckled dace. However, the tiny and reclusive least chub
competes poorly with nonnative species such as mosquitofish and
rainwater killifish. The mosquitofish, rainbow trout, and largemouth
bass are considered to be direct predators (Sigler and Workman 1975;
Crawford 1979; Sigler and Sigler 1987). Least chub do not build nests
or protect their eggs. Instead, they lay their eggs upon vegetation
where they and the newly hatched larvae are vulnerable to predation
(Crawford 1979).
Hybrid introgression between least chub and the Utah chub and
speckled dace have been reported (Sigler and Sigler 1987). Reproductive
isolating mechanisms have apparently broken down in some areas due to
habitat alteration and degradation. This has resulted in overlaps of
reproductive niches and breakdowns in behavior due to overcrowding
(Crawford 1978;
[[Page 50522]]
Lamarra 1981). Least chub hybrids have been reported from springs near
Callao, Utah, where least chubs once existed. But no hybrids have been
reported from Leland Harris Springs Complex where least chub habitat
has not been greatly altered by humans (Lamarra 1981).
Another potential threat to the least chub is a proposed mosquito
abatement program for Juab County. The BLM has rejected the County's
request to implement a mosquito control spraying program in marsh and
spring areas on BLM administered lands (R. Fike, in litt. 1992). The
rejection does not prevent the county from spraying on privately-owned
lands. The effect of a mosquito control spraying program on the least
chub is uncertain. Past studies (Workman et al. 1979) indicate that
much of the least chub's diet is composed of insects, which includes
mosquito larvae. To date, no studies have been undertaken to determine
the effects of toxins on the chub or its environment.
Due to the extremely limited distribution of this species, least
chub are very susceptible to stochastic events. There are only five
known populations of least chub, and each population is small. A single
catastrophic event could destroy a significant portion of remaining
least chubs, or one or more of their populations. These remaining
populations are vital in maintaining the genetic diversity of the
species.
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by this species in determining whether to propose
this listing action. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is
to list the least chub as endangered since this fish is restricted to
only five known populations. Habitat loss and degradation continue to
reduce its numbers in these remaining populations. Without additional
protection of its habitat, continued degradation by livestock will
result in a further reduction in its numbers. Competition and predation
by other nonnative fishes pose severe threats to the remaining
populations. The least chub is highly susceptible to additional habitat
degradation and to habitat and population losses. For the reasons
discussed below, the Service also is proposing to designate critical
habitat for the least chub.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: ``(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed * * *,
upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for
the conservation of the species.''
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to
bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no
longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations require that, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the same time
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Critical
habitat is being proposed for the least chub to include the following
areas in Utah.
Northern Snake Valley Group including: Redding Springs Complex
(Tooele County) and Bagley Ranch Springs Complex (Tooele and Juab
Counties).
Southern Snake Valley Group including: Miller Spring (Juab County);
Leland Harris Springs Complex (Juab and Millard Counties); Gandy Salt
Marsh Complex (Millard County); and Bishop Springs Complex (Millard
County).
Tule Valley Group including: Coyote Spring Complex (Millard
County); Willow Spring (Millard County); Tule Springs Complex (Millard
County); and South Tule Springs (Millard County). Legal descriptions
for these areas are provided in the ``Proposed Regulation Promulgation
section.
In determining the areas to designate as critical habitat for a
species, the Service considers those physical and biological attributes
that are essential to species conservation. In addition, the Act
stipulates that the areas containing these elements may require special
management consideration or protection. Such physical and biological
features are stated in 50 CFR 424.12 and include, but are not limited
to, the following items:
(1) Space for individual growth and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring,
germination, or seed dispersal; and generally,
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
In designating critical habitat, the Service is concerned with
constituent elements within the defined areas that are essential to the
conservation and recovery of the species. The areas proposed as
critical habitat for the least chub provide the necessary constituent
elements determine essential to the survival and recovery of the least
chub. They include the following:
--adequate water quantity to: (1) maintain underground aquifer
function, spring flow pressure and volume, and spring water surface
elevation, (2) allow the fish to complete its life cycle (spawning,
rearing, feeding, etc.), and (3) allow for movement between integral
parts of its habitat and to reduce the overlap with niches of other
native fishes;
--sufficient vegetation in spring and surrounding marsh riparian areas
to provide cover, food, spawning sites, prevent erosion, and to meet
other life history requirements of the fish; and
--a biological environment in which there is little or no interaction
with nonnative fishes.
The Service recognizes that those habitats proposed as critical are
not sufficient to achieve recovery for the species because they do not
represent the historic range or all of the widely diverse habitat types
that the species historically evolved in and occupied. The UDWR and BLM
are currently surveying least chub habitats throughout its historic
range to determine if the requisites necessary for recovery are still
available. The Service, in the process of developing a ``Least Chub
Recovery Plan,'' may utilize these new data to identify additional
critical habitat areas needed to ensure the recovery of the species.
The Service may, at a future date, repropose critical habitat for the
least chub.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires, for any proposed or final
regulation that designates critical habitat, a brief description and
evaluation of those activities that may adversely modify or destroy
such habitat or those activities that may be affected by such
designation. Activities, such as habitat alterations through livestock
impacts, pollution, or dewatering, would be detrimental to the survival
of this species. Additionally, activities that provide for increased
access to remote spring sites or that alter ground water or deep
aquifer spring sources and flow rates would also be considered
detrimental. Predation and competition from nonnative species on least
chubs
[[Page 50523]]
are considered major factors causing its demise. Future activities on
Federal lands or activities requiring Federal permits in the Snake
Valley area would have to be taken under consultation to prevent
further adverse impacts on the least chub or its habitat.
Impacts generally will be restricted to activities on Federal lands
or on lands where proposed actions require Federal permits. The
greatest impact would be on livestock grazing and its restriction in
and around least chub habitat. Grazing would be limited within the
general area occupied by least chub to prevent any further habitat
degradation within proposed critical habitat. Drilling for water within
proposed critical habitat would also be restricted. Presently, water
regeneration within the Gandy Salt Marsh is adequate to allow for
surface water use by livestock without impacting water levels within
the marsh. Livestock could graze in pastures surrounding the proposed
critical habitat areas if their access to aquatic habitats are
prevented. Oil and gas exploration and production activities would be
restricted within critical habitat. Surface activities and directional
drilling are already restricted on BLM-owned lands that are designated
as ``Category 4'' lands (these lands are already closed to leasing).
Presently, the recharging of ground water is sufficient to offset
current withdrawals. Any federally funded or permitted water
withdrawals (i.e., the Las Vegas Valley Water District permits for well
drilling) would require section 7 consultation if it is shown that
ground water withdrawals would impact critical habitat areas.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to consider
economic impacts of designating a particular area as critical habitat.
The Service will prepare an economic analysis of the impacts of
designating critical habitat for the least chub. Upon completion of the
analysis, the Service will notify the public of its availability and
will request public review and comments.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against take.
Recognition through listing encourages conservation actions by Federal
and State agencies and private individuals. The Act provides for
possible land acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires
that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The
protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against
taking and harm are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical
habitat, if designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on
any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or that would result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If the least chub is
listed, section 7(a)(2) of the Act will require Federal agencies to
insure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of this species or to
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
could possibly affect the least chub or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the
Service.
Some portions of the least chub's proposed critical habitat are on
private lands. The Federal Government has certain authority which may
influence private undertakings in least chub critical habitat. Private
activities that involve dredging and filling of wetlands would require
a 404 permit (Federal Clean Water Act).
It is the policy of the Service to identify, to the extent known at
the time a species is listed, specified activities that will not be
considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To
the extent possible, activities that will be in violation also will be
identified in as specific a manner as possible. The Service believes
that the actions listed below might potentially result in a violation
of section 9; however, possible violations are not limited to these
actions alone:
(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species;
(2) Destruction or alteration of the species habitat (i.e., water
depletions that significantly modify spring functions; activities that
change water quality or quantity; dredging or other physical
modifications that impact the springs; introduction of nonnative
species);
(3) Improper use of herbicides, fertilizers, or pesticides;
(4) Contamination of soil or ground water by spills, discharges or
dumping of chemicals, silt, or other pollutants associated with
agriculture and oil and gas activities;
Questions regarding whether a specific activity will constitute a
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of
the Service's Salt Lake City Field office (see ADDRESSES section).
Requests for copies of regulations concerning listed animals and
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed
to the Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, P.O. Box 25486,
Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado, (telephone 303/236-7398;
facsimile 303/236/0027).
The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or
export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver,
carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such
permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities. Requests for copies of the
regulations on animals and inquiries regarding them may be addressed to
the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486,
Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 (telephone 303/236-7398).
Public Comments Solicited
The Service intends that any final action resulting from this
proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,
any comments or suggestions concerning biological information and
potential threats to the least chub are requested from the public,
other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested party. Comments are sought
particularly concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any
[[Page 50524]]
threat (or the lack thereof) to the least chub;
(2) The location of any additional populations of least chub and
the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size of this species;
(4) Current or planned activities which may adversely modify the
area which is being considered for critical habitat; and
(5) Any foreseeable economic and other impacts resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat.
(6) Final promulgation of this regulation on the least chub will
take into consideration the comments and any additional information
received by the Service, and such communications may lead to a final
regulation that differs from this proposal.
The Endangered Species Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the
date of publication of the proposal. Such requests must be made in
writing to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the
Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary author of this proposed rule is Doug Young (see
ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 59 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, it is hereby proposed to amend part 17, subchapter B
of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. It is proposed to amend Sec. 17.11(h) is amended by adding the
following, in alphabetical order under fishes, to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIES Vertebrate population
---------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special
Common name Scientific name threatened habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes...................
* * * * * * *
Chub, least.............. Iotichthys phlegethontis U.S.A. (UT)............. Entire.................. E ........... 17.95(e) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is further proposed to amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical
habitat for the least chub, in the same alphabetical order as the
species occurs in 17.11(h) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
* * * * *
LEAST CHUB (Iotichthys phlegethontis)
1. Northern Snake Valley Group, Utah: Tooele and Juab Counties,
Snake Valley. The following areas including all springs, outflow pools,
runoffs streams, marshes, and a \1/8\-mile zone on all sides of
springs, pools, streams, and marshes:
T9S, R16W, SW\1/4\ Sec. 31; T9S, R17W, SE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 36;
T10S, R17W, E\1/2\, of NE\1/4\ Sec. 1, SW\1/4\ Sec. 25, W\1/2\ of SE\1/
4\ Sec. 25, S\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 25, E\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 26, E\1/
2\ of E\1/2\ Sec. 35, W\1/2\ Sec. 36,W\1/2\ of E\1/2\ Sec. 36; T10S,
R16W, NW\1/4\ Sec. 6; T11S, R17W, NW\1/2\ Sec. 1, W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\
Sec. 1.
Note: Map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
[[Page 50525]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP29SE95.015
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 50526]]
2. Southern Snake Valley Group, Utah, Juab and Millard Counties,
Snake Valley. The following areas including all springs, outflow pools,
runoff streams, marshes, and a \1/8\-mile zone on all sides of springs,
pools, streams, and marshes, excluding Foote Reservoir, but including
the spring source for Foote Reservoir:
T14S, R18W, SW\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 22, SE\1/4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 22,
NW\1/4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 22, N\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 22, SE\1/4\ of SE\1/
4\ Sec. 21. W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 28, SE\1/4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 28,
SW\1/4\ Sec. 28, SE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 29, NW\1/4\ Sec. 33, NW\1/4\
of SW\1/4\ Sec. 33, E\1/2\ Sec. 32; T15S, R18W, E\1/2\ Sec. 5, E\1/2\
Sec. 8, NW\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 17, SE\1/4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 17, NE\1/4\
Sec. 17, NW\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 17, SE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 18, NW\1/
4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 20, NE\1/4\ Sec. 19, SE\1/4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 19,
E\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 19 W\1/2\ of SE\1/2\ Sec. 19, W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\
Sec. 30, W\1/2\ Sec. 30, W\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 31, SW\1/4\ Sec. 31,
SW\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 31; T15S, R19W, SE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 25,
E\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 25, E\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 36, E\1/2\ of SE\1/4\
Sec. 36; T16S, R18W, E\1/2\ Sec. 6, N\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 6, E\1/2\
Sec. 7, W\1/2\ of W\1/2\ Sec. 8, NE\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 18, NW\1/4\
Sec. 17, SW\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 17, NE\1/4\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 17, SE\1/
4\ Sec. 17, S\1/2\ of S\1/2\ Sec. 16, SW\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 15, E\1/
2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 20, NE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 20, N\1/2\ Sec. 21, N\1/
2\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 21, SE\1/4\ Sec. 21, S\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 22,
SW\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 22, N\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 22, SW\1/4\ of SW\1/
4\ Sec. 22, NW\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 22, E\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 28, W\1/
2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 27.
Note. Map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
[[Page 50527]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP29SE95.016
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 50528]]
3. Tule Valley Group, Utah: Millard County, Tule Valley. The
following areas including all springs, outflow pools, runoff streams,
marshes, and a \1/8\-mile zone on all sides of springs, pools, streams,
and marshes:
T16S, R15W, SE\1/4\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 12, SW\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 12,
E\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 13, W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 13, S\1/2\ of SE\1/4\
Sec 34; T17S, R15W, E\1/2\ Sec. 3, W\1/4\ of SW\1/2\ Sec. 2, N\1/2\ of
NE\1/4\ Sec. 10, SW\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 10, W\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 10,
W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 15, E\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 15.
Note. Map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
[[Page 50529]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP29SE95.017
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 50530]]
Constituent elements for all areas of critical habitat include
permanent sources of water, water quality and quantity to satisfy
requirements for all life history stages of the fish, a predator-free
habitat, adequate vegetative cover, and other environmental features
that may be deemed necessary upon site-specific evaluations.
Dated: September 18, 1995.
George T. Frampton,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 24320 Filed 9-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
