50518 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Kieschnick ((202) 739–0764).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order Granting Extension of Time

Adopted: September 13, 1995.

Released: September 14, 1995.

By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau:

1. On June 15, 1995, the Commission

initiated a rulemaking proceeding

reexamining the Commission’s rules

governing programming practices of

networks and their affiliates—

specifically the right to reject rule, the

time option rule, the exclusive

affiliation rule, the dual network rule

and the network territorial exclusivity

rule. Notice of Proposed Rule Making in

MM Docket No. 95–92, FCC 95–254

(released June 15, 1995), 60 FR 35369

(July 7, 1995). Comments were due

August 28, 1995, and reply comments

were due September 27, 1995.

2. On August 3, 1995, the Mass Media

Bureau granted a 30-day extension of

the comment period; as a result,

comments were due September 28,

1995, and reply comments were due

October 27, 1995. Order Granting

Extension of Time in MM Docket No.

95–92, DA 95–1711 (released Aug. 3,

1995), 60 FR 40814 (Aug. 10, 1995). The

Bureau did so in response to a request

by the Network Affiliated Stations

Alliance (NASA) for a 60-day extension.

While the Bureau did not agree that a

60-day extension was appropriate, it

stated its belief that a 30-day extension

was warranted to enable parties to

carefully compile a complete record

regarding the complex issues raised in

MM Docket No. 95–92.

3. On August 30, 1995, CBS, Inc.,

National Broadcasting Company, Inc.,

and Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., filed a

motion to extend the comment date in

this proceeding by an additional 30

days, to October 28, 1995. The networks

note that ABC and CBS have recently

entered into major merger agreements,

and that CBS and NBC are involved in

a number of station transactions.

Further, they submit, all three networks

are involved in proceedings involving

the network/affiliate advertising rules,

children’s television and advanced

television (ATV). The networks contend

that these various undertakings have

been occupying the time of their

management and legal personnel and

that a 30-day extension of time in this

proceeding is necessary to provide them

a full opportunity to present their views.

4. As set forth in Section 1.46 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.46, it is

our policy that extensions of time for

filing comments in rulemaking

proceedings shall not be routinely

granted. In response to NASA’s request,

we stated our belief that an extension

until October 28 was excessive. Upon

further reflection, however, and in light

of recent events, we believe that it

would be in the public interest to

extend the comment and reply comment

dates for this proceeding an additional

30 days. This proceeding has the

potential to significantly affect the way

the broadcast networks and their

affiliates do business, and the fact that

both the major networks and the

affiliates feel they need additional time

to prepare comments is persuasive.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered That the

Motion for Extension of Time filed in

MM Docket No. 95–92 by CBS, Inc.,

National Broadcasting Company, Inc.,

and Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., is granted.

5. It is further ordered That the time

for filing comments in the abovecaptioned proceeding is extended to

October 28, 1995, and the time for filing

reply comments is extended to

November 26, 1995.

6. This action is taken pursuant to

authority found in Sections 4(i) and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and

303(r), and Sections 0.204(b), 0.283, and

1.45 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR

0.204(b), 0.283, and 1.45.

Federal Communications Commission.

Roy J. Stewart,

Chief, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–24229 Filed 9–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

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-toyellow fins. Males are olive-green above,

steel-blue on the sides, and have a

golden stripe behind the upper end of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 50519

the gill opening. The fins are lemonamber, 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 °C (60 °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

°C (72 °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 m3 (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 °C (59–90

°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).
50520 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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;
50522 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 privatelyowned 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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
50524 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 § 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:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

SPECIES

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

Fishes.

* * * * * * *

Chub, least ................ Iotichthys

phlegethontis.

U.S.A. (UT) .............. Entire ...................... E .................... 17.95(e) NA

* * * * * * *

3. It is further proposed to amend

§ 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:

§ 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, SW1⁄4 Sec. 31; T9S,

R17W, SE1⁄4 of SE1⁄4 Sec. 36; T10S,

R17W, E1⁄2, of NE1⁄4 Sec. 1, SW1⁄4 Sec.

25, W1⁄2 of SE1⁄4 Sec. 25, S1⁄2 of NW1⁄4

Sec. 25, E1⁄2 of SE1⁄4 Sec. 26, E1⁄2 of E1⁄2

Sec. 35, W1⁄2 Sec. 36,W1⁄2 of E1⁄2 Sec. 36;

T10S, R16W, NW1⁄4 Sec. 6; T11S, R17W,

NW1⁄2 Sec. 1, W1⁄2 of NE1⁄4 Sec. 1.

Note: Map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 50525

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
50526 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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, SW1⁄4 of NE1⁄4 Sec. 22,

SE1⁄4 of NW1⁄4 Sec. 22, NW1⁄4 of NW1⁄4

Sec. 22, N1⁄2 of SW1⁄4 Sec. 22, SE1⁄4 of

SE1⁄4 Sec. 21. W1⁄2 of NE1⁄4 Sec. 28, SE1⁄4

of NW1⁄4 Sec. 28, SW1⁄4 Sec. 28, SE1⁄4 of

SE1⁄4 Sec. 29, NW1⁄4 Sec. 33, NW1⁄4 of

SW1⁄4 Sec. 33, E1⁄2 Sec. 32; T15S, R18W,

E1⁄2 Sec. 5, E1⁄2 Sec. 8, NW1⁄4 of NE1⁄4

Sec. 17, SE1⁄4 of NW1⁄4 Sec. 17, NE1⁄4

Sec. 17, NW1⁄4 of SE1⁄4 Sec. 17, SE1⁄4 of

SE1⁄4 Sec. 18, NW1⁄4 of NW1⁄4 Sec. 20,

NE1⁄4 Sec. 19, SE1⁄4 of NW1⁄4 Sec. 19,

E1⁄2 of SW1⁄4 Sec. 19 W1⁄2 of SE1⁄2 Sec.

19, W1⁄2 of NE1⁄4 Sec. 30, W1⁄2 Sec. 30,

W1⁄2 of NW1⁄4 Sec. 31, SW1⁄4 Sec. 31,

SW1⁄4 of SE1⁄4 Sec. 31; T15S, R19W,

SE1⁄4 of SE1⁄4 Sec. 25, E1⁄2 of SE1⁄4 Sec.

25, E1⁄2 of NE1⁄4 Sec. 36, E1⁄2 of SE1⁄4

Sec. 36; T16S, R18W, E1⁄2 Sec. 6, N1⁄2 of

NW1⁄4 Sec. 6, E1⁄2 Sec. 7, W1⁄2 of W1⁄2

Sec. 8, NE1⁄4 of NE1⁄4 Sec. 18, NW1⁄4 Sec.

17, SW1⁄4 of NE1⁄4 Sec. 17, NE1⁄4 of

SW1⁄4 Sec. 17, SE1⁄4 Sec. 17, S1⁄2 of S1⁄2

Sec. 16, SW1⁄2 of SW1⁄4 Sec. 15, E1⁄2 of

NE1⁄4 Sec. 20, NE1⁄4 of SE1⁄4 Sec. 20, N1⁄2

Sec. 21, N1⁄2 of SW1⁄4 Sec. 21, SE1⁄4 Sec.

21, S1⁄2 of NW1⁄4 Sec. 22, SW1⁄4 of NE1⁄4

Sec. 22, N1⁄2 of SW1⁄4 Sec. 22, SW1⁄4 of

SW1⁄4 Sec. 22, NW1⁄4 of SE1⁄4 Sec. 22,

E1⁄2 of NE1⁄4 Sec. 28, W1⁄2 of NW1⁄4 Sec.

27.

Note. Map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 50527

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
50528 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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, SE1⁄4 of SW1⁄4 Sec. 12,

SW1⁄2 of SE1⁄4 Sec. 12, E1⁄2 of NW1⁄4 Sec.

13, W1⁄2 of NE1⁄4 Sec. 13, S1⁄2 of SE1⁄4

Sec 34; T17S, R15W, E1⁄2 Sec. 3, W1⁄4 of

SW1⁄2 Sec. 2, N1⁄2 of NE1⁄4 Sec. 10, SW1⁄4

of NE1⁄4 Sec. 10, W1⁄2 of SE1⁄4 Sec. 10,

W1⁄2 of NE1⁄4 Sec. 15, E1⁄2 of NW1⁄4 Sec.

15.

Note. Map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 50529

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
50530 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 predatorfree habitat, adequate vegetative cover,

and other environmental features that

may be deemed necessary upon sitespecific 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 227 and 425

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17 and 425

RIN 1018–AD 12

Endangered and Threatened Species;

Proposed Threatened Status for a

Distinct Population Segment of

Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo

salar) in Seven Maine Rivers

AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce; and Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS), Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The NMFS and the FWS

(collectively, the Services) have

completed a status review of U.S.

Atlantic salmon populations and

identified a distinct population segment

(DPS) in seven Maine rivers. Atlantic

salmon in these rivers are likely to

become endangered in the foreseeable

future and therefore are being proposed

for listing as threatened pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act).

This proposed rule includes joint

regulations which apply all prohibitions

of 50 CFR 17.31 to the DPS, but allows

exceptions for incidental take under

sections 4(d) and 10 of the Act. The

special rule allows for a state plan,

approved by the Services, to define the

manner in which certain activities could

be conducted without violating the Act.

If this proposed listing is finalized, the

protective measures of the Act will

extend to the Atlantic salmon in the

seven rivers, and a recovery plan will be

prepared and implemented.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by December

28, 1995. Public hearing requests must

be received by November 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposed rule and

requests for public hearings should be

sent to the Chief, Division of

Endangered Species, FWS, 300 Westgate

Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts

01035, or the Chief, Habitat and

Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester,

Massachusetts 01930.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Nickerson at 413–253–8615 or Mary

Colligan at 508–281–9116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In October and November 1993, the

Services received a petition under the

Act to list anadromous Atlantic salmon

as endangered. The Services published

a notice of finding on January 20, 1994

(59 FR 3067), stating that the petition

presented substantial information

indicating that the requested action may

be warranted. The notice also requested

information from the public. A

biological review team (Team)

comprised of staff from the Services

compiled and analyzed all available

scientific information pertaining to the

status of anadromous Atlantic salmon in

the United States. The Team prepared a

report entitled ‘‘Status Review for

Anadromous Atlantic Salmon in the

United States, January 1995’’ (Status

Review). The Status Review provides

detailed information and references

used as the basis for this proposed rule.

This Status Review was summarized in

a March 17, 1995, finding (60 FR 14410)

and is available upon request (see

ADDRESSES). Further details from the

Status Review are provided below. In

the March 17, 1995, finding, the

Services stated that they would

promptly publish a proposed rule with

appropriate listing actions.

Life History

Anadromous Atlantic salmon have a

relatively complex life history that

extends from spawning and juvenile

rearing in freshwater rivers to extensive

feeding migration in the high seas. As a

result, Atlantic salmon have several

distinct phases in their life history that

are identified by specific behavioral and

physiological changes. Adult Atlantic

salmon ascend the rivers of New

England beginning in spring, a

migration that peaks in June and

continues into fall. Spawning occurs in

late October through November. Good

spawning habitat has a gravel substrate

and adequate water circulation to keep

the eggs well oxygenated. Female

anadromous Atlantic salmon produce

between 1,500 and 1,800 eggs per

kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight;

on average each female Maine Atlantic

salmon produces 7,200 eggs. Eggs hatch

in late March or April and the resulting

alevins remain in the redd for about six

weeks and are nourished by their yolk

sac. When the alevins emerge from the

gravel about mid-May and begin

feeding, they are referred to as fry. Fry

become parr as vertical bars become

visible on the sides of their bodies. In

spring, when the parr are two or three

years of age and 12.5 centimeters (cm)

to 15 cm (5 to 6 inches) long, they

undergo smoltification, a process where

morphological and physiological

changes prepare the smolt for the

transition from fresh to salt water. Most

smolts in New England rivers migrate to

sea in May and begin their ocean

feeding migration.

The marine life history of Atlantic

salmon of U.S. origin is not as well

understood as the freshwater phase.

Scientists have discovered correlations

between natural mortality in the marine

environment and abiotic factors,

particularly sea surface temperature.

Atlantic salmon of U.S. origin are highly

migratory, undertaking long marine

migrations from the mouths of U.S.

rivers to the northwest Atlantic Ocean

where they are distributed seasonally

over much of the region. Upon entry

into the nearshore waters of Canada, the

U.S. post-smolts become part of a

mixture of stocks of Atlantic salmon

from various North American streams.

Data from commercial harvest indicate

that post-smolts overwinter in the

southern Labrador Sea and in the Bay of

Fundy. Direct sampling during the

winter months is needed to better

understand post-smolt Atlantic salmon

distribution in the North Atlantic. Most

Atlantic salmon of U.S. origin spend

two winters in the ocean before

returning to fresh water for spawning.

Those that return after only one year at

sea are called grilse.

Consideration as a ‘‘Species’’ Under the

Act

The Act defines species as ‘‘any

species of fish or wildlife or plants, and

any distinct population segment of any

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that

interbreeds when mature.’’ This

definition allows for the recognition of

distinct population segments at levels

below taxonomically recognized species

or subspecies. To qualify as a DPS, a

population (or group of populations) of

indigenous Atlantic salmon must be

reproductively isolated from conspecific