4916 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0161; 

FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] 

RIN 1018–BH84 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

With Section 4(d) Rule for Clear Lake 

Hitch 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Clear Lake hitch (Lavinia 

exilicauda chi), a freshwater fish 

subspecies in the North American 

minnow family that is restricted to the 

Clear Lake watershed in Lake County, 

California, as a threatened species under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). This determination also 

serves as our 12-month finding on a 

petition to list the Clear Lake hitch. 

After a review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that listing the Clear Lake hitch 

is warranted. Accordingly, we propose 

to list the Clear Lake hitch as a 

threatened species with protective 

regulations issued under section 4(d) of 

the Act (‘‘4(d) rule’’). If we finalize this 

rule as proposed, it would add the Clear 

Lake hitch to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and extend the 

Act’s protections to this subspecies. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 17, 2025. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

eastern time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by March 3, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R8–ES–2024–0161, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R8–ES–2024–0161, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

species status assessment report, are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0161. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Fris, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage 

Way, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 

916–414–6700. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, deafblind, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0161 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species warrants listing if it 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species (in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range) or a threatened species (likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range). 

If we determine that a species 

warrants listing, we must list the species 

promptly and designate the species’ 

critical habitat to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. We have 

determined that the Clear Lake hitch 

meets the Act’s definition of a 

threatened species; therefore, we are 

proposing to list it as such. Listing a 

species as an endangered or threatened 

species can be completed only by 

issuing a rule through the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. We 

propose to list the Clear Lake hitch as 

a threatened species with a rule issued 

under section 4(d) of the Act. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that the Clear Lake 

hitch meets the definition of a 

threatened species due to the following 

threats: habitat loss, degradation, and 

modifications (Factor A), predation 

(Factor C), competition (Factor E), and 

the effects of climate change (Factor E). 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that 

the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), 

to the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, concurrently with listing 

designate critical habitat for the species. 

Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines 

critical habitat as (i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time it is listed, 

on which are found those physical or 

biological features (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protections; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. At this 

time, critical habitat for the Clear Lake 

hitch is not determinable. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The Clear Lake hitch’s biology, 

range, and population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the subspecies, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4917 

including habitat requirements for 

feeding, breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns and the 

locations of any additional areas 

occupied by the subspecies; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the subspecies, its habitat, 

or both. 

(2) Threats and conservation actions 

affecting the subspecies, including: 

(a) Factors that may be affecting the 

continued existence of the subspecies, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors; 

(b) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this 

subspecies; and 

(c) Existing regulations or 

conservation actions that may be 

addressing threats to this subspecies. 

(3) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status of this 

subspecies. 

(4) Information to assist with applying 

or issuing protective regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act that may be 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the Clear Lake hitch. 

In particular, we seek information 

concerning: 

(a) The extent to which we should 

include any of the section 9 prohibitions 

in the 4(d) rule; or 

(b) Whether we should consider any 

additional exceptions from the 

prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. Our 

final determination may differ from this 

proposal because we will consider all 

comments we receive during the 

comment period as well as any 

information that may become available 

after this proposal. Based on the new 

information we receive (and, if relevant, 

any comments on that new 

information), we may conclude that the 

Clear Lake hitch is endangered instead 

of threatened, or we may conclude that 

the subspecies does not warrant listing 

as either an endangered species or a 

threatened species. In addition, we may 

change the parameters of the 

prohibitions or the exceptions to those 

prohibitions in the 4(d) rule if we 

conclude it is appropriate in light of 

comments and new information 

received. For example, we may expand 

the prohibitions if we conclude that the 

protective regulation as a whole, 

including those additional prohibitions, 

is necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of this subspecies. 

Conversely, we may establish additional 

exceptions to the prohibitions in the 

final rule if we conclude that the 

activities would facilitate or are 

compatible with the conservation and 

recovery of the subspecies. In our final 

rule, we will clearly explain our 

rationale and the basis for our final 

decision, including why we made 

changes, if any, that differ from this 

proposal. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. We 

may hold the public hearing in person 

or virtually via webinar. We will 

announce any public hearing on our 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On September 25, 2012, we received 

a petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity to list the Clear Lake hitch as 

an endangered or threatened species 

under the Act and to designate critical 

habitat. The Service issued a 90-day 

finding on April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19259), 

stating that the petition presented 

substantial information that listing the 

Clear Lake hitch may be warranted and 

initiating a status review of the 

subspecies. On December 3, 2020, we 

published our 12-month finding that the 

Clear Lake hitch was not warranted for 

listing under the Act (85 FR 78029). 

The Center for Biological Diversity 

filed a complaint in the Northern 

District of California on August 17, 

2021, challenging our 12-month notwarranted finding. By stipulated 

settlement agreement approved by the 

court on April 14, 2022, the Service 

agreed to submit to the Federal Register 

a new 12-month finding for the Clear 

Lake hitch on or before January 12, 2025 

(Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, et al., No. 

3:21–cv–06323–RS (N.D. Cal.)). 

Peer Review 

In 2020, a species status assessment 

(SSA) team prepared an SSA report 

(version 1.0; Service 2021, entire) for the 

Clear Lake hitch’s 12-month finding (85 

FR 78029; December 3, 2020). The SSA 

team was composed of Service 

biologists, in consultation with other 

species experts. In 2024, the SSA report 

was updated with new information (e.g., 

survey data, life history information, 

conservation actions) (version 2.0; 

Service 2024, entire). The SSA report 

(version 2.0; Service 2024, entire) 

represents a compilation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the subspecies, 

including the impacts of past, present, 

and future factors (both negative and 

beneficial) affecting the subspecies. 

species. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review in listing and recovery actions 

under the Act (https://www.fws.gov/ 

sites/default/files/documents/peerreview-policy-directors-memo-2016-08- 

22.pdf), we solicited independent 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4918 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

scientific review of the information 

contained in the Clear Lake hitch SSA 

report (version 2.0; Service 2024, 

entire). We sent the SSA report to three 

independent peer reviewers and we 

received responses from two reviewers. 

Results of this structured peer review 

process can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov. In preparing this 

proposed rule, we incorporated the 

results of these reviews, as appropriate, 

into the SSA report, which is the 

foundation for this proposed rule. 

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed above in Peer Review, 

we received comments from two peer 

reviewers on the draft SSA report, 

version 2.0. We reviewed all comments 

we received from the peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the information contained in 

the SSA report. The peer reviewers 

generally concurred with our methods 

and conclusions, and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions, including edits to 

improve the overall report. Otherwise, 

no substantive changes to our analysis 

and conclusions within the SSA report 

were deemed necessary, and peer 

reviewer comments are incorporated in 

version 2.1 of the SSA report (Service 

2024, entire). 

I. Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the Clear 

Lake hitch is presented in the SSA 

report (version 2.1; Service 2024, pp. 

16–36) and in the previous 12-month 

finding (85 FR 78029; December 3, 

2020). The Clear Lake hitch is a 

medium-sized freshwater fish 

subspecies classified in the Lavinia 

genus in the Leuciscidae family (Service 

2024, p. 16). The subspecies is endemic 

to the Clear Lake watershed in the 

northern section of the California Coast 

Ranges. 

Historically, Clear Lake hitch 

occurred in numerous lakes and ponds 

found throughout the Clear Lake 

watershed, including Clear Lake, 

Thurston Lake, Upper Blue Lake, Lower 

Blue Lake, and Lampson Pond. During 

the spring, the Clear Lake hitch could 

also be found spawning in the 

numerous tributaries to these larger 

waterbodies, including Kelsey, Scott, 

Middle, Adobe, Seigler Canyon, 

Manning, Cole, Morrison, and Schindler 

creeks (figure 1). The subspecies still 

occurs in Clear and Thurston Lakes 

throughout the year until the spring, 

when reproductive adults migrate into 

tributaries to spawn. Annual surveys 

conducted in Clear Lake have shown 

that there are fluctuations in the 

estimated abundances from year to year. 

The Clear Lake hitch was thought to be 

extirpated from the Blue Lakes, but 

observations and fish rescue efforts in 

2022 show evidence of hitch in both 

Upper Blue Lake and Lower Blue Lake 

(Ewing 2022a, entire; Santana 2022, 

entire). It is unclear whether Lampson 

Pond still exists (B. Ewing in litt. 2020); 

therefore, the status of the Clear Lake 

hitch in Lampson Pond is unknown. All 

of the described waterbodies besides 

Thurston Lake were hydrologically 

connected in the past, and it appears 

that Thurston Lake and its tributary, 

Thurston Creek, have always been 

isolated from the other waterways (B. 

Ewing in litt. 2020; P. Windrem in litt. 

2020). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4919 

Within the lacustrine habitats, the 

subspecies can be found in either the 

littoral zone (nearshore) as juveniles or 

the limnetic zone (sun-lit, offshore open 

water) as adults. During extreme 

drought conditions, the only successful 

reproduction may be within the lakes. 

Nonnative vegetative growth along the 

lake’s shoreline can outcompete the 

growth of important native wetland 

plant species, such as tule. Nonnative 

plant species, such as Himalayan 

blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), growing 

along the tributaries can become so 

overgrown that they become passage 

barriers or they outcompete native 

species such as willows and 

cottonwoods. 

Clear Lake hitch begin to migrate into 

spawning tributaries when there is 

sufficient runoff, typically between 

February and May, and sometimes into 

June if flows are sufficient (Macedo 

1994, p. 2; California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2014, p. 1). 

Eggs are deposited on fine to mediumsized gravel that is along the margin or 

mid-channel of the stream (Shapovalov 

1940 as cited in Murphy 1948b, p. 102; 

Kimsey 1960, p. 211; CDFW 2014, p. 8), 

where they hatch into larval fish called 

fry. Fry stay in the streams anywhere 

between 11 to 152 days, migrating to the 

lake once stream waters diminish 

(Murphy 1948b, pp. 105, 106, 109; Swift 

1965, pp. 75, 77–79; Moyle et al. 1995, 

p. 154; Feyrer et al. 2019a, p. 1693). 

Juvenile hitch less than 2 inches (in., 50 

millimeters (mm)) standard length (SL, 

length of a fish measured from the tip 

of their mouth/snout to the end of the 

tail, excluding the caudal (tail) fin) are 

found within the nearshore habitat of 

the lake, where they utilize stands of 

tule (Schoenoplectus acutus) and other 

submerged aquatic vegetation for cover 

and feed on various diet items, 

including insects such as the Clear Lake 

gnat (Chaoborus astictopus), Daphnia 

and other planktonic crustaceans, and 

chironomid midges. 

The Clear Lake hitch females are 

known to grow larger than males (Geary 

1978, pp. 7, 9), and larger females 

produce more eggs (average annual 

fecundity is 36,000 eggs, with a range of 

9,000–63,000) (Geary and Moyle 1980, 

p. 387). Males are sexually mature 

within their first or second year, 

whereas females are sexually mature in 

their second or third year (Murphy 

1948b, pp. 103–104, 109; Moyle et al. 

1995, p. 153). Hitch are thought to live 

4 to 6 years based on scale analysis, but 

it is possible some individuals can live 

longer (Moyle 2002, p. 138; CDFW 2014, 

p. 8). 

There is uncertainty around where 

current reproduction and recruitment 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP16JA25.000</GPH>

- -

,~Lue-

-- __ - -- C~l.al<eTLocation 

Map 

Figure 1. Clear Lake Hitch range map with tributaries and lakes. 
4920 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

are successfully occurring, and whether 

other small waterbodies upstream of 

Clear Lake are supporting the Clear Lake 

population. In 2017 and 2018, 280 and 

297 hitch were captured, respectively. 

The Clear Lake hitch was the fifth most 

abundant species/subspecies collected 

over the course of the 2017 survey and 

the most abundant species/subspecies 

captured during the 2018 effort (USGS 

2018, p. 8). However, the number of 

hitch captured during the 2019, 2021, 

and 2022 surveys drastically declined to 

only 76, 40, and 6 individuals, 

respectively. In 2023, the number of 

individuals captured increased to 304 

individuals and included multiple stage 

classes (Clear Lake Hitch Summit 

Agenda and Presentations 2023, p. 84; 

Palm et al. 2023, entire). There is a 

working hypothesis that the increase in 

the number of hitch seen in 2023 is due 

to hitch presence in smaller lakes in the 

watershed (e.g., Blue Lakes, Tule Lake). 

The theory is that small populations of 

the Clear Lake hitch are successfully 

reproducing in these other waterbodies, 

and during a wet year, like the 

historically wet year in 2023, 

individuals were washed from these 

smaller lakes into Clear Lake. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

threatened species. 

The Act defines an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ as a species that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis which is 

further described in the 2009 

Memorandum Opinion on the 

foreseeable future from the Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://

www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.

ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M37021.pdf). The foreseeable future 

extends as far into the future as the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, the 

Services) can make reasonably reliable 

predictions about the threats to the 

species and the species’ responses to 

those threats. We need not identify the 

foreseeable future in terms of a specific 

period of time. We will describe the 

foreseeable future on a case-by-case 

basis, using the best available data and 

consider the species’ life-history 

characteristics, threat-projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

over which we can make reasonably 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction, in light of 

the conservation purposes of the Act. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent our decision on 

whether the species should be proposed 

for listing as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

However, it does provide the scientific 

basis that informs our regulatory 

decisions, which involve the further 

application of standards within the Act 

and its implementing regulations and 

policies. 

To assess the Clear Lake hitch’s 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, 

resiliency is the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years); 

redundancy is the ability of the species 

to withstand catastrophic events (for 

example, droughts, large pollution 

events); and representation is the ability 

of the species to adapt to both nearterm and long-term changes in its 

physical and biological environment 

(for example, climate conditions, 

pathogens). In general, species viability 

will increase with increases in 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 

306). Using these principles, we 

identified the Clear Lake hitch’s 

ecological requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and subspecies levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the subspecies’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4921 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

Clear Lake hitch’s life-history needs. 

The next stage involved an assessment 

of the historical and current condition 

of the subspecies’ demographics and 

habitat characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the subspecies 

arrived at its current condition. The 

final stage of the SSA involved making 

predictions about the subspecies’ 

responses to positive and negative 

environmental and anthropogenic 

influences. Throughout all of these 

stages, we used the best available 

information to characterize viability as 

the ability of the Clear Lake hitch to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time, which we then used to inform our 

regulatory decision. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

report; the full SSA report can be found 

at Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0161 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the Clear Lake 

hitch and its resources, and the threats 

that influence the subspecies’ current 

and future condition, in order to assess 

the subspecies’ overall viability and the 

risks to that viability. 

Additional information regarding the 

subspecies’ needs can be found in the 

SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 24–36). 

Subspecies Needs 

The Clear Lake hitch has four life 

stages: egg/embryo, larvae/fry, juveniles, 

and adults. Below, we assess the best 

available information to identify the 

specific habitat components needed to 

support individual fitness at all four life 

stages for the Clear Lake hitch. Each life 

stage requires different environmental 

and habitat components according to 

the different habitats used throughout 

the species’ lifetime for spawning, 

feeding, and sheltering. Once fertilized, 

Clear Lake hitch eggs require adequate 

stream flow to stay submerged and 

oxygenated; fine to medium-sized, clean 

gravel along the margin or within the 

mid-channel of the stream to hold 

position during development; and 

presumably temperatures between 55.4 

and 64.4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (13 and 

18 degrees Celsius (°C)) for successful 

development (Shapovalov 1940 in 

Murphy 1948b, p. 102; Kimsey 1960, p. 

211; Swift 1965, pp. 75, 77; Moyle et al. 

1995, p. 154; Moyle 2002, p. 138; CDFW 

2014, p. 8; Feyrer 2019a, p. 227). To 

initiate hatching, water temperatures 

must be maintained at 59 to 71.6 °F (15 

to 22 °C) for multiple days (Swift 1965, 

pp. 75, 77; Moyle 2002, p. 138). 

Newly hatched larvae/fry have a small 

yolk sac that they require for 

nourishment until they are able to swim 

freely and capture aquatic invertebrate 

prey (Kimsey 1960, p. 212). For cover 

and temperature regulation, 

downstream migrating fry likely require 

instream and/or overhanging streamside 

vegetation. The fry life stage requires 

adequate stream flow to stay alive, and 

adequate flow needs to be maintained 

until the young of year are able to 

migrate downstream into the lake 

(Murphy 1948b, pp. 105, 106, 109; Swift 

1965, pp. 75, 77–79; Moyle et al. 1995, 

p. 154; Feyrer et al. 2019a, p. 1693). 

Within the lake, Clear Lake hitch fry 

and juveniles require stands of tule and/ 

or other submerged aquatic vegetation to 

act as cover from predators and to 

provide for invertebrate prey items, 

including insects, planktonic 

crustaceans, and chironomid midges. 

Juveniles also require the lake water to 

be of sufficient quality (i.e., welloxygenated (more than 2 milligrams per 

liter (mg/L) of oxygen) and minimally 

contaminated) and for water 

temperatures to be 59 °F (15 °C) or 

greater for survival (Franson 2012, p. 15; 

CDFW 2014, p. 9). Juvenile hitch 

transition to adulthood when they reach 

about 2 in (50 mm) and they move from 

the lake’s nearshore habitat out into the 

open water of the lake. 

Adult Clear Lake hitch require a diet 

almost exclusively composed of 

Daphnia, but also other zooplankton 

species and adult midges and insects 

(Lindquist et al. 1943, p. 199; Geary 

1978, pp. 17, 25; Geary and Moyle 1980, 

p. 388; Moyle et al. 1995, p. 153; Moyle 

2002, pp. 137–138; Moyle et al. 2014, p. 

3). Adult Clear Lake hitch also require 

well-oxygenated (more than 2 mg/L of 

oxygen) and minimally contaminated 

water within the lake to ensure survival 

(Franson 2012, p. 15; CDFW 2014, p. 9). 

Adult Clear Lake hitch are only found 

in the tributaries during the spawning 

season. A reproductive adult that is 

attempting to spawn requires an 

adequate amount of flow to migrate 

upstream to appropriate spawning 

locations and downstream back to the 

lake, and water temperatures between 

55.4 and 64.4 °F (13 and 18 °C) to trigger 

spawning activity (Swift 1965, pp. 75, 

77; Moyle 2002, p. 138; Feyrer 2019a, p. 

227). 

In addition to stream spawning, some 

reproductive adults spawn within the 

lake (or ponds) instead of migrating into 

the lake tributaries. Lake or pond 

spawning Clear Lake hitch have been 

documented spawning in areas with 

only a mud substrate that contains no 

gravel, so it is possible lake- or pondspawning individuals do not require 

gravel to successfully spawn (Kimsey 

1960, p. 214; Geary 1978, p. 22). 

Threats 

In assessing the Clear Lake hitch’s 

viability, we describe the threats acting 

on the subspecies and its habitat. We 

also provide a description of historical 

and ongoing activities or regulations 

that ameliorate the threats and provide 

conservation benefits to the subspecies. 

The threats acting on the Clear Lake 

hitch include habitat loss, degradation, 

and modification; predation; 

competition; mercury mining; and the 

effects of climate change. Due to the 

different aquatic habitats (lake and 

tributary) used by the subspecies, there 

are threats acting on different life stages 

of the subspecies. These threats along 

with other ongoing and future stressors 

acting on the species may act 

synergistically to cause declines in 

resiliency across populations and 

analysis units. An example includes the 

effects of climate change with increased 

temperatures and aridity, may lead to 

more fires in the area. Burned areas 

create more runoff into the lake and 

tributary systems, further degrading 

habitat and affecting all life stages of the 

Clear Lake hitch. We note here that 

Thurston Lake does not have the level 

of threats acting on the subspecies that 

are affecting the hitch in Clear Lake. 

Habitat Loss, Degradation, and 

Modification 

Habitat loss, degradation, and 

modification are affecting the 

subspecies in both the tributary and lake 

systems. Changes to the Clear Lake 

watershed have occurred since the mid1800s. Various forms of past mining 

activities, agricultural and urban 

development, pesticide use, increased 

fire activity, past deforestation, and 

historical grazing practices have all 

contributed to the degradation of the 

Clear Lake watershed and are also the 

cause of toxic cyanobacteria blooms and 

periodic fish kills in the lake. The 

degradation of tributaries has changed 

their hydrology, reducing the amount of 

water retained in the streams over the 

Clear Lake hitch’s spawning season. 

This loss of flow earlier in the season 

and the presence of numerous passage 

barriers in the tributaries have greatly 

reduced reproduction and early life 

stage survival (egg, larvae) of the Clear 

Lake hitch. The conversion of wetland 

habitats surrounding Clear Lake not 

only negatively impacted the lake’s 

water quality but also reduced the 

amount of rearing habitat for any 

juvenile hitch that are able to migrate to 

the lake from their natal stream. This 

loss of rearing habitat also reduces early 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4922 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

life stage survival (juvenile), further 

reducing the likelihood of recruitment. 

The impacts to Clear Lake’s water 

quality affect adult hitch survival, 

especially when poor lake conditions 

result in large fish kills. 

The Clear Lake hitch relies on 

tributary habitat for spawning and early 

rearing (Murphy 1951, p. 480). It is 

estimated that, historically, the 

tributaries to Clear Lake ran until at 

least September; currently, however, 

besides a few tributaries, most are 

known to dry by early summer or late 

spring (Murphy 1951, p. 480; B. Ewing 

in litt. 2020; Ewing 2020, pp. 3–5; Ewing 

2021, pp. 6–7; Ewing 2022b, p. 7; B. 

Ewing in litt. 2024). A combination of 

activities contributed, and are 

continuing to contribute, to the 

reduction in tributary flow during the 

Clear Lake hitch’s spawning season. 

Increased fire activity and legacy effects 

from instream gravel removal and 

deforestation have likely increased the 

rate of runoff within the tributaries 

during the winter. For example, burned 

vegetation removes the root systems that 

hold soil in place and, with subsequent 

rainfall, increases runoff and 

sedimentation into the subspecies’ 

habitat. Those same factors, possibly in 

conjunction with both in-creek and 

groundwater pumping for urban and 

agricultural uses, have greatly reduced 

the amount of flow that actually makes 

it to the lake during the summer 

(Murphy 1951, p. 480). 

Gravel mining activities in the Clear 

Lake watershed first began in the latter 

half of the 19th century and occurred in 

most of the spawning tributaries to Clear 

Lake (Suchanek et al. 2003, pp. 1253– 

1254; Thompson et al. 2013, p. 19). 

Gravel mining originally occurred as 

scattered operations throughout the 

watershed until the early- to mid-20th 

century, when operations became 

centralized within the creeks (County of 

Lake 1992, p. 48; Richerson et al. 1994, 

p. III–19). This time period coincides 

with improved automobile technology 

and increased pressure to build more 

reliable roads (County of Lake 1992, p. 

48). As the human population within 

the county grew in the 1960s and 70s, 

new houses and associated roads 

needed to be constructed to 

accommodate the new residents. Since 

the instream gravel was available as a 

convenient source of material, gravel 

was extracted from the tributaries and 

was used as building material for both 

homes and roads (County of Lake 1992, 

p. 48; Richerson et al. 1994, p. VIII– 

150). Until the 1981 partial moratorium 

on instream gravel extraction, 

approximately 1 million metric tons of 

instream gravel was extracted from the 

watershed (Richerson et al. 1994, pp. 

III–19–III–20; CDFW 2014, p. 29). 

Although the amount of gravel mining 

within the Clear Lake tributaries has 

been reduced, mining and extraction are 

still known to occur in areas where the 

Clear Lake hitch occur, such as Scotts 

and Alley creeks (Murphy 1948b, p. 

106; Richerson et al. 2008, p. A260; 

CDFW 2014, p. 29; B. Ewing in litt. 

2020). 

Past gravel mining in tributaries not 

only removed spawning substrate that 

the subspecies uses for reproduction 

and egg development, but it also 

lowered streambeds and destabilized 

channels, causing increased erosion, 

incision, and channelization. In 

addition, large swaths of riparian 

vegetation were removed from along the 

tributaries to allow access for gravel 

extraction, further exacerbating the 

issues with erosion. The flushing of 

eroded material not only negatively 

impacted tributaries by increasing the 

amount of suspended sediments and silt 

within the creek, ultimately increasing 

turbidity in some tributaries to zero 

visibility, but it also negatively 

impacted the lake ecosystem when 

those sediments eventually were 

transported into the lake (CDFG 1955, 

entire; Richerson et al. 1994, pp. III–19, 

VIII–2; Service 2024, pp. 44–48; 

Suchanek et al. 2003, p. 1254; CDFW 

2014, pp. 29, 45). 

In addition to gravel mining, 

agricultural practices have impacted, 

and still are impacting, the Clear Lake 

hitch’s habitat. Agricultural production 

in the Clear Lake area has been 

important since the mid-1800s with 

crops that included apples, almonds, 

grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, 

plums, and prunes, many of which are 

still grown today (Suchanek et al. 2003, 

p. 1256; U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) 2023, entire). Much of the land 

surrounding Clear Lake has been 

converted from forest lands to 

agricultural use. Large-scale 

deforestation and land conversion 

within the watershed began in the mid19th century. The large-scale forest 

removal within the Clear Lake 

watershed increased the amount of 

erosion occurring in the tributaries, 

contributing to bank incision within the 

tributaries and causing increased 

sediment and nutrient transport into the 

lake (Suchanek et al. 2003, pp. 1247– 

1248). Increased erosion and bank 

cutting decrease the amount of time that 

water is retained within the tributaries, 

which affects water quantity and flow 

needed by the subspecies. 

Agricultural development is found 

throughout the watershed; however, it is 

most concentrated in the southwestern 

area of the watershed, primarily near 

Kelsey and Adobe creeks (USDA 2023, 

entire). The presence of agricultural 

production in the watershed not only 

has an impact on the amount of water 

flowing in the tributaries to Clear Lake, 

but it likely also increases the amounts 

of contaminants, in the form of 

pesticides and fertilizers, and sediment 

entering the lake. 

Pesticides are used for agriculture 

production across the region. Pesticides 

not only affect the habitat but may also 

affect certain life stages of the Clear 

Lake hitch and affect the subspecies’ 

prey species. The reported application 

of pesticides on agricultural lands in the 

region has increased from 2008 to 2021. 

In 2008, more than 589,500 pounds of 

different forms of chemicals used as 

pesticides were applied in Lake County 

(California Pesticide Information Portal 

(CALPIP) 2019, unpaginated). In 2021, 

that amount increased to almost 741,000 

pounds (CALPIP 2021, unpaginated). 

Pesticides are also known to be used for 

illegal cannabis crops, and it is possible 

that pesticides associated with illegal 

grows could drain into the Clear Lake 

watershed, further exacerbating 

declining water quality conditions. The 

primary concerns of pesticide effects on 

Clear Lake hitch are the high toxicity. 

Growers can add these chemicals to 

their irrigation systems, causing the 

chemicals to seep into the surrounding 

soil and waterways (California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

2021, p. 2; USDA 2023, entire). 

Pesticides are known to cause fish 

casualties, growth delays, and 

swimming abnormalities, making fish 

more susceptible to predation (Baker 

2018, pp. 2–3). 

Fertilizers that get into waterways can 

cause nutrient imbalances that affect 

oxygen levels in the water, causing 

cyanobacteria blooms and fish kills 

(Baker 2018, p. 6). Another concern is 

water diversions associated with these 

illegal cultivation sites, which can block 

fish passage, change flow regimes, and 

cause other secondary effects (Baker 

2018, p. 6). However, it is unknown 

what effect agricultural pesticides or 

pesticides associated with illegal grows 

are having on the aquatic environment 

in Clear Lake or if pesticides are being 

transported through tributaries into the 

lake (Suchanek et al. 2003, p. 1252). 

Herbicides Are Used To Control 

Nonnative Aquatic Vegetation in Clear 

Lake 

KomeenTM (copper sulfate) and 

SONARTM (fluridone) have been applied 

in the lake to control Hydrilla 

verticillata, a highly invasive, 

submerged aquatic weed (Suchanek et 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4923 

al. 2003, p. 1250; CDFW 2014, p. 32). 

Two herbicides were used to target 

different parts of the plant; Komeen 

targets Hydrilla vegetative growth, while 

SONAR treats the tubers (Suchanek et 

al. 2003, p. 1250). SONAR is considered 

less toxic than Komeen because SONAR 

is a systemic herbicide that is slowly 

absorbed in the vascular system; 

SONAR also impacts similar non-target 

vegetation such as tule and other 

submerged vegetation (Bairrington 2000, 

pp. 64–65; CDFW 2014, p. 32). Because 

juvenile Clear Lake hitch require tule 

habitat for cover and prey, the use of 

Komeen can indirectly impact the hitch 

by reducing the amount of rearing 

habitat (CDFW 2014, p. 32). The use of 

the herbicide, SONAR, at high 

concentrations may have an impact on 

early hitch development. 

To meet the needs for agricultural 

production, crops require sufficient 

water. Water extraction and the early 

drawdown of the tributaries, in 

conjunction with habitat modifications 

throughout the watershed, likely led to 

the extinction of the Clear Lake splittail 

(Pogonichthys ciscoides), another 

stream-spawning native fish restricted 

to the Clear Lake watershed (Moyle 

2002, pp. 138–139; CDFW 2014, p. 27). 

The Clear Lake splittail spawned later in 

the season than the Clear Lake hitch 

does, and, as the tributaries began to dry 

earlier in the season, Clear Lake splittail 

young were not able to migrate to the 

lake (Cook et al. 1966, p. 146; Moyle 

2002, pp. 138–139; CDFW 2014, p. 27). 

Water extraction continues 

throughout the watershed today for 

agricultural and domestic purposes. 

Both surface and ground water are being 

diverted from Clear Lake tributaries 

(legally and illegally) (CDFW 2014, p. 

27), with the primary supply, about 60 

percent, coming from groundwater 

sources in an average year (County of 

Lake 2014, entire; Clear Lake Hitch 

Summit Agenda and Presentations 2023, 

p. 18). These particular diversions are 

legal extractions conducted under 

riparian and water rights associated 

with land ownership. Surface water is 

diverted via intake pumps, and 

groundwater is extracted via the 

installation of shallow wells near the 

tributary channel where they capture 

underflow (CDFW 2014, p. 27). In 2013 

and 2014, water rights users in Kelsey 

Creek used 85 and 134.5 million gallons 

of water, respectively, as well as 31.4 

million gallons in each of those years 

from Adobe Creek. In addition, from 

2008 to 2014, 18 private water wells 

were permitted for installation along the 

two creeks. Although this amount of 

water withdrawal is legally permissible, 

it is unknown what effects this amount 

of water extraction is having on the 

hydrology of these tributaries and the 

Clear Lake hitch (Big Valley 2015, p. 4). 

Water extractions, both legal and 

illegal, are often cited as one of the 

primary reasons for the reduction in the 

Clear Lake hitch’s population; however, 

although stream gauges are installed in 

some of the tributaries and continue to 

be installed, studies on the effects that 

water extraction is having on Clear Lake 

tributaries or the Clear Lake hitch are 

still in initial stages (Clear Lake Hitch 

Summit Agenda and Presentations 2023, 

pp. 63–72). The CDFW compared stream 

flow conditions at the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) gauge on Kelsey Creek 

(USGS Station 11449500) and catch data 

from the early 1990s. Both 1990 and 

1991 were considered dry water years 

with below average tributary flow 

during the spring; however, the highest 

number of hitch were captured during 

seining efforts during those years. Flow 

conditions improved to average or above 

average for the following 3 years, but the 

number of fish captured declined 

(CDFW 2014, p. 27). Clear Lake hitch 

abundance varies from year to year due 

to a number of factors, including 

streamflow. More data are needed to 

better understand the relationship 

between streamflow and population 

numbers as well as the effects that water 

extraction has on streamflow. 

Historical land conversion was not 

only for the purposes of agricultural 

crops but also for livestock. The effects 

of livestock on the land can include 

overgrazing and the subsequent effects 

of exacerbated erosion and water quality 

degradation. Although overgrazing no 

longer appears to be occurring in the 

Clear Lake watershed, it was an issue 

until the mid-20th century. Past 

overgrazing in the watershed resulted in 

the loss of streamside vegetation, which 

decreased soil stability and increased 

the rate of runoff within the creeks, 

effectively reducing the amount of time 

water is retained within the channel 

(Murphy 1948b, p. 106; Suchanek et al. 

2003, p. 1257). Although the amount of 

grazing pressure has decreased in the 

watershed, the impacts of past practices 

are still contributing to the issues seen 

in the watershed today. 

Clear Lake hitch are affected by 

passage barriers that block the ability of 

the fish to move up and downstream. 

The lack of adequate tributary flow can 

act as a barrier to migrating fish, 

reducing the amount of available 

spawning habitat, and leaving young 

stranded before they can migrate to the 

lake. However, even when flow 

conditions allow for migration, most of 

the tributaries in the watershed contain 

physical barriers that prevent hitch 

passage, reducing the amount of 

spawning and rearing habitat available. 

The installation of dams, diversions, 

roadways, and crossings have had a 

negative impact on migrating hitch by 

eliminating access to portions of stream 

with suitable spawning habitat or 

impeding passage during certain years 

until specific flow conditions (i.e., high 

flow) are met (Suchanek et al. 2003, p. 

1254; CDFW 2014, pp. 45, 69–70). Using 

a variety of data sources, CDFW 

estimated that more than 92 percent of 

the Clear Lake hitch’s historical 180 

stream miles of tributary habitat is 

currently blocked or has reduced access 

due to the presence of barriers (CDFW 

2014, pp. 24–25). In addition, since the 

presence of a barrier on a spawning 

stream reduces the amount of available 

spawning habitat, reproducing adults 

have to compete for available spawning 

substrate. Fertilized eggs have been 

known to accumulate just below a 

barrier to the point that they will die 

due to oxygen deprivation (Robinson 

Rancheria 2015, p. 1). 

Numerous dam structures can be 

found throughout the Clear Lake 

watershed, including dams on Kelsey, 

Adobe, Highland Springs, and Manning 

creeks. These dams were installed in the 

mid- to late 20th century and were 

installed primarily for irrigation and 

recreation (Suchanek et al. 2003, p. 

1248). In addition, CDFW identified 

potential barriers on Lyon’s Creek, 

Scott’s Creek, Seigler Canyon Creek, 

Clover Creek, and Kelsey Creek (Ewing 

2016a, entire). Additional barriers in the 

watershed include flood and water 

infrastructure that are not regularly 

maintained that may block hitch 

passage (CDFW 2014, p. 69). Flood 

control projects have also contributed to 

increased nutrient and sediment 

transport in the watershed by 

channelizing and armoring tributaries 

with rip-rap and by reclaiming large 

portions of wetland habitat that once 

surrounded the lake (CDFW 2014, p. 

29). There are almost 14 miles of levee 

structures that are maintained by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

on Scotts, Middle, Clover, and Alley 

creeks (USACE 2012, p. 3). The loss of 

wetland habitat and increased nutrient 

and sediment transport further 

exacerbates water quality issues within 

Clear Lake, likely reducing hitch 

survival. Further, the loss of wetland 

habitat to install the flood projects 

reduced the amount of rearing habitat 

for juvenile hitch, reducing the 

likelihood of successful recruitment. 

The lake habitat for the Clear Lake hitch 

is also affected by habitat loss, 

degradation, and modification through 

wetland/tule habitat loss, cyanobacteria 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4924 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(blue- green algae) blooms, and fish 

kills. Because of the impacts from the 

historical land conversion, surrounding 

wetland habitats were lost, essentially 

removing Clear Lake’s natural filter. 

Over time, increasing amounts of 

sediment and nutrients from the 

degraded tributaries were transported 

directly into the lake, and nutrient 

inputs from surrounding urban and 

agricultural development ended up in 

the lake. This increase in nutrients and 

sediments entering Clear Lake degraded 

its water quality, resulting in increased 

cyanobacteria blooms that contributed 

to or caused periodic fish kills. 

With the loss of the extensive tule 

expanses within the lake’s nearshore 

habitat, there has been an increase in 

the amount of sedimentation and 

nutrients entering the lake (Prine et al. 

1975, p. 21). Wetlands act as a filter for 

sediments and nutrients transported 

from the tributaries into the lake and the 

loss of these large wetland complexes 

directly surrounding the lake has had 

negative consequences to Clear Lake’s 

water quality (Richerson et al. 1994, pp. 

III–1, V–1, VIII–1; Suchanek et al. 2003, 

p. 1255). One result from the wetland 

loss and water quality impacts is bluegreen algae blooms that occur in Clear 

Lake from phosphorus input. 

The blue-green algae, a cyanobacteria 

and not an actual alga, will float to the 

surface of the lake during the day and 

can form large mats or scums. These 

mats will either be broken down or resubmerged into the lake via wind action 

or will deteriorate from sun exposure. 

Phosphorus is found naturally in 

underlying sediments within the Clear 

Lake watershed (Richerson et al. 1994, 

p. V–99), and the degradation of 

tributaries have exposed those 

sediments, allowing for transport into 

the lake during rain events. A major 

factor in the persistence and formation 

of cyanobacteria blooms in Clear Lake 

relates to periods of anoxia (deficiency 

of oxygen), and where phosphorus is 

released from sediments (Florea et al. 

2022, p. ii). Blue-green algae blooms can 

be toxic to fish (Gorham 1960, p. 242; 

Prine et al. 1975, p. 23; Richerson et al. 

1994, p. III–9); however, it is unknown 

what impact they have on the Clear 

Lake hitch. 

Fires have occurred naturally in the 

Clear Lake watershed as part of the 

ecological cycle; however, with EuroAmerican settlement in the middle of 

the 19th century, widespread 

intentional burning occurred throughout 

the watershed to clear brush or promote 

grass growth for livestock grazing 

(Suchanek et al. 2003, pp. 1243–1245, 

1246–1247). Numerous fires have 

occurred in the Clear Lake area during 

the 20th century, with several large 

((10,000+ acres (ac), 4047 hectares (ha)) 

fires occurring directly in the watershed 

(Suchanek et al. 2003, pp. 1244, 1248). 

The fire seasons in California during 

2017, 2018, and 2020 were some of the 

worst on record. The 2018 Mendocino 

Fire Complex, a portion of which 

occurred in Lake County, was the third 

largest fire on record in California 

(CalFire 2022a, entire). Past fire 

suppression practices within the State 

of California have reduced the 

occurrence of fire, but due to the 

accompanying fuel accumulation, these 

practices have made fires more 

devastating when they do occur 

(Suchanek et al. 2003, p. 1247). Fire 

activity within the watershed results in 

increased erosion and bank incision, 

which channelize the stream and 

increase water turbidity; fire activity is 

likely to continue to increase within the 

Clear Lake watershed (CalFire 2022b, 

entire). Channelization can decrease the 

amount of time water is retained within 

the tributary channel (Murphy 1948b, p. 

106; County of Lake 1992, p. 13). A 

reduction of flow in the tributaries 

during the spawning season can 

eliminate or greatly reduce the 

likelihood for successful reproduction 

and/or recruitment, and due to the Clear 

Lake hitch’s very narrow range, the 

effects of channelization can impact the 

subspecies’ viability. 

Summary of Habitat Loss, Degradation, 

And Modification 

Habitat loss, degradation, and 

modification due to agricultural and 

urban development, pesticide use, 

increased fire activity, and legacy 

impacts from past mining activities, past 

deforestation, and historical grazing 

practices will continue to affect the 

Clear Lake hitch at the individual, 

population, and subspecies level into 

the future throughout its range. 

The Clear Lake hitch habitats that are 

affected include the tributaries and lake 

habitat. Impacts to both habitat types 

will affect the Clear Lake hitch by 

reducing survival and recruitment, 

which reduces resiliency by decreasing 

the size of the overall population. For 

the tributaries, the loss of consistent 

flow during the spawning season is seen 

throughout the Clear Lake hitch’s range. 

This influence is affecting the hitch at 

the individual, population, and 

subspecies level and is likely to 

continue into the future. The loss of 

consistent tributary flow, loss of 

wetland/tule habitat, and reduced lake 

water quality, has reduced, and will 

continue to reduce, population 

resiliency by reducing reproductive 

success, early life stage survival, and the 

likelihood of recruitment. Loss of 

resiliency may reduce the Clear Lake 

hitch’s overall representation and 

redundancy because fewer individuals 

spawn in each of the tributaries and 

natal habitat types. The reduction in 

resiliency may result in a reduction to 

the hitch’s overall representation and 

redundancy. 

There are no existing regulatory 

mechanisms or management actions that 

fully ameliorate habitat loss, 

degradation, and modification within 

the watershed, primarily because much 

of the degradation occurred in the past, 

although the effects are still occurring 

today and will continue into the future. 

There are planned activities associated 

with the Clear Lake watershed, the 

Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction 

and Ecosystem Restoration Project, that 

will benefit improve water quality, 

increase available wetland habitat for 

the Clear Lake hitch and mitigate some 

of the ongoing habitat loss, degradation, 

and modification. 

Construction of this project would 

greatly benefit juvenile hitch by 

providing increased cover from 

predators and competitors, and 

increased prey abundance The county’s 

Clear Lake Shoreline Ordinance has 

prohibited the destruction of tule on 

residential properties along the 

shoreline around Clear Lake and 

requires full mitigation for any tule 

habitat that is destroyed. This ordinance 

benefits the Clear Lake hitch by 

providing a consistent amount of tule 

habitat for juveniles. In addition, the 

county recently began a tule planting 

initiative that informs the public about 

the importance of tule habitat and how 

to plant tule (Lake County 2024a, 

entire). 

Predation 

Non-native fish introduced into Clear 

Lake for recreational or biological 

control purposes are known to prey 

upon the Clear Lake hitch and all 

introduced piscivorous (fish-eating) fish 

species in Clear Lake are potential 

predators of Clear Lake hitch. Clear Lake 

hitch have been found in the stomach 

contents of nonnative fish species in the 

Clear Lake watershed including 

largemouth bass (Micropterus nigricans) 

and channel catfish (Ictalurus 

punctatus; Macedo 1994, p. 5; Moyle et 

al. 1995, pp. 154 –155; Moyle et al. 

2014, p. 10). Mississippi silversides 

(Menidia audens) are also known to 

prey on larval fish, so it is likely some 

predation of Clear Lake hitch larvae by 

silversides is occurring in Clear Lake 

(Bennett and Moyle 1996, pp. 526, 529; 

Moyle et al. 2014, p. 9–10). The 

nonnative species predation will 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4925 

continue to affect the Clear Lake hitch 

at the individual, population, and 

subspecies level into the future 

throughout its range. Nonnative species 

predation pressure within Clear Lake 

impacts the hitch by reducing survival 

and recruitment, which reduces 

resiliency by decreasing the size of the 

overall population. 

Predation pressure within the 

tributaries to Clear Lake impacts the 

hitch by reducing survival, 

reproduction, and recruitment, which 

further reduces resiliency by decreasing 

the size of the spawning population in 

any given year and by reducing the 

overall population altogether. This loss 

of resiliency may reduce the hitch’s 

overall representation and redundancy 

because it results in fewer individuals 

spawning in each of the tributaries and 

natal habitat types. 

Competition 

Competition from other nonnative 

aquatic species affects the Clear Lake 

hitch by reducing the available 

resources for breeding, feeding, and 

sheltering. For example, largemouth 

bass (Micropterus nigricans) feed on 

insects and zooplankton, directly 

competing with both juvenile and adult 

hitch for food resources (Moyle and 

Holzhauser 1978, pp. 577–578, 581). 

Threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) 

and Mississippi silversides also 

compete with the Clear Lake hitch 

because they depend on the same 

aquatic prey base (Anderson et al. 1986, 

entire; Bairrington 2000, p. 33; CDFW 

2014, p. 35). During years when 

silverside or threadfin shad abundances 

are especially high, they could reduce or 

deplete prey resources on which the 

hitch depends. A comparison of hitch 

trend data and abundances of 

silversides and threadfin shad suggests 

there may be a correlation between their 

abundances (CDFW 2014, p. 35), but 

more detailed studies need to be 

completed. There are currently no 

regulatory mechanisms that address 

competition by non-native species. 

Mercury Mining Contaminants 

Historically, small-scale commercial 

mining operations along the shores of 

Clear Lake occurred in 1864 and 1865. 

Originally, the mining included borax 

and sulfur (Suchanek et al. 2003, p. 

1253). Large-scale commercial sulfur 

extraction along the eastern shore of 

Clear Lake began in 1865, when the 

Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine was 

established. The sulfur mining 

operation switched over to mercury 

mining in 1873, after mercury sulfide 

deposits were found beneath their sulfur 

source. Early extraction methods were 

not as destructive; however, in 1927, the 

mine began to implement open- pit 

mining at a large-scale level and would 

bulldoze any waste products into the 

lake (Richerson et al. 2008, p. A259). 

The company continued to mine 

sporadically throughout the 1950s until 

the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine was 

officially closed in 1957, although waste 

continued to contaminate the lake well 

into the 1990s (Suchanek et al. 2008, p. 

A153). 

The highest concentrations of 

mercury were found in the Oaks Arm 

area, near the southeastern area of the 

lake, which is where the Sulphur Bank 

Mercury Mine is located; however, 

elevated mercury levels have also been 

detected lake-wide (Richerson et al. 

2008, p. A271). The use of heavy 

ground-moving equipment associated 

with the open-pit mining also likely 

contributed to the algal blooms seen in 

the lake; this equipment can excavate 

and disturb large swaths of sediments, 

which increase nutrient runoff 

(Richerson et al. 2008, p. A260). 

Mercury and other mining-associated 

contaminants have entered the lake via 

erosion of waste piles, purposeful 

dumping/bulldozing of mine waste, 

atmospheric deposition, and subsurface 

drainage (Richerson et al. 2008, p. 

A275). Since 1992, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has 

implemented numerous remediation 

projects to address the continued 

mercury contamination originating from 

the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine. The 

remediation projects include the 

removal of waste rock piles that erode 

and discharge mercury, removal of 

contaminated soil from residential 

areas, installation of diversions to 

prevent contaminated water and 

sediments from entering Clear Lake, 

closure of three abandoned geothermal 

wells, capping of mine waste used to 

build an old road, and installation of 

two test sediment covers to contain 

mercury- contaminated sediment within 

Clear Lake (Richerson et al. 2008, pp. 

A265, A275; EPA 2019, entire). 

The Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine 

became an EPA Superfund Site in 1990, 

due to the elevated mercury levels 

found in Clear Lake’s larger piscivorous 

fish (Curtis 1977, p. 1; Suchanek et al. 

2003, p. 1253; Thompson et al. 2013, p. 

19). Elevated levels of mercury in fish 

can significantly impair reproductive 

success; however, effects can vary based 

on a multitude of factors, including 

species and life stage, and there are no 

specific studies for the Clear Lake hitch 

(Crump and Trudeau 2008, pp. 902, 904; 

CDFW 2014, pp. 32–33). Mercury 

concentrations found in developed 

hitch caught in Clear Lake in 2019 and 

2020 averaged 0.14 milligrams per 

kilogram (mg/kg) (Pierce et al. 2022, 

entire), which exceed the Regional 

Water Quality Control Board’s proposed 

target of 0.09 mg/kg for fish in trophic 

level 3, which includes the Clear Lake 

hitch (CEPA 2008, p. 1). Although these 

levels may exceed the Regional Water 

Quality Control Board’s target, the best 

available science does not provide the 

lethal concentration of mercury specific 

for Clear Lake hitch or levels that may 

cause acute or chronic health effects to 

the Clear Lake hitch, or whether they 

are currently exposed to those levels in 

Clear Lake. The threat of mercury 

mining contaminants impacts the Clear 

Lake population and has not affected 

the Thurston Lake population. 

Climate Change 

Climate change affects the Clear Lake 

hitch and its habitat due to shifts in 

normal weather patterns. Changes in 

temperature and precipitation regimes 

can affect water quality and quantity for 

the subspecies and can exacerbate other 

effects, such as increased drought and 

fire frequency. Annual average air 

temperatures in California have 

increased by 1.5 °F (0.83 °C) since the 

beginning of the 20th century (Bales 

2013, p. 2). 

Temperatures are expected to 

continue to increase in California’s 

North Coast Region, which includes 

Lake County (Grantham 2018, entire). 

Drought conditions within the Clear 

Lake watershed can have detrimental 

effects on the Clear Lake hitch by 

reducing the amount of flow within the 

tributaries over the spawning season, 

reducing water quality in the lake, and 

possibly reducing emergent vegetation 

growth in the lake. In 1946 and 1947, 

there was almost a complete lack of 

spawning runs due to the lack of water 

flow in the tributaries (Murphy 1948b, 

p. 105). However, the hitch’s ability to 

spawn along the lake shore provides an 

alternative to tributary spawning for at 

least a small proportion of the 

population. 

More arid conditions can impact the 

Clear Lake hitch by reducing the 

amount of water that enters, and the 

time period that water is retained 

within, the tributaries and wetland 

habitats that the hitch requires for 

spawning and rearing. Increases in 

aridity also reduce wetland/emergent 

vegetation growth, which the hitch 

requires for rearing and for cover from 

predators. All of these factors can 

impact the reproductive success and 

recruitment of the hitch; these factors 

could also reduce the hitch’s survival if 

flows drop too drastically in the 

tributaries and wetland habitats, or if 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4926 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

hitch are subject to increased predation 

due to a reduction in cover from aquatic 

vegetation. 

A reduction of flow in the tributaries 

during the spawning season can 

eliminate or greatly reduce the 

likelihood for successful reproduction 

and/or recruitment, and due to the Clear 

Lake hitch’s very narrow range, the 

effects of drought will impact the entire 

subspecies. The ability to spawn along 

the shore provides for some redundancy 

within each population, but it is 

unknown whether shore spawning 

would be able to support a viable 

population in the lakes over the long 

term. Having a longer lifespan (4 to 6+ 

years) is likely an adaptation to variable 

environmental conditions, but 

prolonged droughts can have 

devastating effects on the overall 

population, especially in conjunction 

with other factors that are currently 

acting on the Clear Lake hitch. 

There have been numerous efforts 

over the last 10 years to save Clear Lake 

hitch that become stranded in pools 

within the tributaries when the 

tributaries began to rapidly dry up. In 

March 2014, 197 individuals were 

rescued from two pools within Adobe 

Creek, and the surviving fish were 

released into Kelsey Creek (Ewing 

2014a, entire). A few months later, in 

June 2014, more than 1,400 hitch were 

rescued from Cooper Creek and 389 

hitch were rescued from Adobe Creek 

when the flow within those creeks 

began to rapidly drop. The surviving 

individuals from both rescues were 

released into Rodman Slough and at the 

Konocti Vista Casino boat ramp, 

respectively (Ewing 2014e, pp. 3, 6). 

Unfortunately, during visual spawning 

surveys that same year, approximately 

300 adult hitch were found dead in a 

portion of Adobe Creek that had dried 

(Ewing 2014c, p. 7). 

During the spring of 2018, numerous 

young of year were stranded in a pool 

within Cole Creek when the water flow 

began to rapidly drop. The creek no 

longer had continuous flow into the 

lake, and the small pool where the fish 

were stranded would have eventually 

dried, killing all of the 3,100+ young 

fish. Fortunately, members of Robinson 

Rancheria and CDFW were able to 

rescue the fish and transport them for 

release at Clear Lake State Park, which 

is located where Cole Creek enters the 

lake (Ewing 2018a, p. 1). In April 2022, 

268 individuals were rescued from two 

pools within Adobe Creek and 

transported to Konocti Casino Harbor on 

Clear Lake where they were released 

(Ewing 2022a, p. 1). On August 8, 2022, 

295 hitch were rescued from a pool off 

of Cooper Creek; the rescued hitch were 

translocated to Upper Blue Lake for 

release (Santana 2022, p. 2). The effects 

of climate change will continue to affect 

both Clear Lake hitch populations, Clear 

Lake and Thurston Lake. 

Regulatory mechanisms and 

management actions that are or could 

potentially provide some protection 

from the effects of climate change 

include the California Global Warming 

Solutions Act. This Act addresses 

climate change by reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions within California. There 

are no regulatory mechanisms or 

management actions that fully address 

the effects of the climate change. 

Synergistic Effects 

Multiple influencing factors can act 

on a species or its habitat at the same 

time, which can result in impacts that 

are not accounted for when factors are 

analyzed separately. Factors that appear 

minor when considered alone may have 

greater impacts on individuals, 

populations, or habitat when analyzed 

in combination with other factors. 

The Clear Lake hitch evolved in Lake 

County, California, which has always 

had a highly variable climate with 

natural periodic droughts. However, the 

degradation and loss of water retention 

within their spawning streams and the 

loss of large stretches of suitable 

spawning habitat due to various 

instream barriers has likely reduced 

reproductive success and recruitment. 

During drought conditions this can 

reduce or eliminate all tributary- based 

spawning in a given year. If drought 

conditions persist over multiple years, 

stream- based reproduction can also be 

reduced or eliminated for multiple 

years. Furthermore, climate change 

projections show the Clear Lake area 

will experience more varied 

precipitation and higher air 

temperatures during the spring, which 

could result in even less water flow 

being retained within the tributary 

streams during the hitch’s spawning 

season (Pierce et al. 2013, pp. 842, 844, 

848–850. Although the hitch has the 

ability to spawn within the lake, it is 

unknown whether that method of 

reproduction would be able to sustain a 

viable population of hitch in Clear Lake. 

Additionally, groundwater extraction 

for agriculture and other uses likely 

affects the Clear Lake hitch and its 

habitat, particularly combined with 

other chronic threats, such as habitat 

loss, degradation, and modification 

along with climate change that are 

synergistically acting on the subspecies. 

Water extraction in the summer is likely 

to lower the water level in pool habitat 

that acts as refugia for the subspecies in 

disconnected tributaries until those 

tributaries become reconnected by 

spring rains. It is the loss of this pool 

habitat that affects the Clear Lake hitch 

resiliency. 

The combination of wetland habitat 

loss and drought can increase predation 

pressure and competition. Past habitat 

loss has left only a small proportion of 

wetland habitat surrounding Clear Lake 

and drought conditions can reduce the 

amount of emergent vegetation growth 

within those remaining wetland 

habitats. This reduction in emergent 

vegetative growth reduces the amount of 

cover the hitch uses to hide from 

predators, increasing predation 

pressure. It can also increase 

competition as more fish concentrate 

into this limited habitat type. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The Clear Lake hitch is protected 

through existing regulatory mechanisms 

and management actions that result in 

conservation of the subspecies or its 

habitat or both. Additional actions from 

Tribes and other interested groups also 

provide a benefit to the subspecies. 

Below, we present some of the ongoing 

efforts that provide conservation 

benefits to the Clear Lake hitch or its 

habitat or both from Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local regulations and 

management plans. 

I. Federal 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

The Clear Lake hitch has been 

designated a USFS sensitive species. 

Species identified as sensitive by the 

USFS are species in which population 

viability is a concern, as evidenced by 

significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population 

numbers or density, or significant 

current or predicted downward trends 

in habitat capability that would reduce 

a species’ existing distribution, or both. 

The designation of sensitive species 

ensures USFS: assists States, including 

California, in achieving their goals for 

conservation of endemic species; as part 

of the process under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), reviews programs 

and activities, through a biological 

evaluation, to determine their potential 

effect on sensitive species; avoids or 

minimizes impacts to species whose 

viability has been identified as a 

concern; if impacts cannot be avoided, 

analyzes the significance of potential 

adverse effects on the population or its 

habitat within the area of concern and 

on the species as a whole; establishes 

management objectives in cooperation 

with the States when projects on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4927 

National Forest System lands may have 

a significant effect on sensitive species 

population numbers or distributions; 

and establishes objectives for Federal 

candidate species, in cooperation with 

the Service or National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and the States. Most of the 

Clear Lake hitch’s range is on private 

land and only the headwaters of a few 

tributaries to the east of Clear Lake fall 

within USFS lands. 

II. State 

California Endangered Species Act 

(CESA) 

On August 6, 2014, the CFGC 

determined that the Clear Lake hitch 

warranted listing as a threatened species 

under the CESA due to the present or 

threatened modification or destruction 

of the subspecies’ habitat, predation on 

and competition with the hitch, and the 

anticipated impacts of climate change 

(CDFW 2014, pp. 1–2). Section 2067 of 

the California Fish and Game Code 

defines a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a 

native species or subspecies of bird, 

mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or 

plant that, although not presently 

threatened with extinction, is likely to 

become an endangered species in the 

foreseeable future in the absence of the 

special protection and management 

efforts required by the State. As a 

threatened species under the CESA, the 

take of Clear Lake hitch individuals is 

prohibited unless the take is authorized 

by a State-issued permit. 

However, CESA regulations only 

apply to the take of individuals (i.e., 

they do not apply to the destruction or 

modification of habitat). It should be 

noted that California’s definition of take 

(see section 86 of the California Fish 

and Game Code) is not the same as the 

Act’s definition of take (16 U.S.C. 

1532(19)). 

California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) of 1970 

The CEQA does not regulate land use 

but requires all local and State agencies 

in California to avoid or minimize 

environmental damage, where feasible, 

during the course of proposed projects. 

The CEQA provides protection for 

species that are State-listed or federally 

listed as endangered, threatened, or rare. 

Compliance with the CEQA may be 

required for watershed restoration work 

and any restoration work that requires a 

‘‘lake or streambed alteration 

agreement’’ (also known as a ‘‘1600 

agreement’’; see sections 1600–1616 of 

the California Game and Fish Code). 

Sustainable Groundwater Management 

Act (SGMA) 

The SGMA is a California State law 

that provides a framework for 

sustainable groundwater management in 

California. Under section 10933(b) of 

the California Water Code, groundwater 

basins throughout the State have been 

classified into four categories of 

prioritization (high, medium, low, very 

low). Phase 1 of the categorization 

process was finalized in January 2019, 

and 458 basins were prioritized during 

that phase. Fifty-seven basins were 

categorized under phase 2, which was 

finalized on December 17, 2019 (DWR 

2020, p. AD–3). The SGMA requires 

water agencies and governments of 

high- priority and medium-priority 

basins to reduce overdraft and bring 

groundwater basins into balance. The 

State of California ensures the SGMA 

goals are met as planned. 

Several groundwater basins in the 

Clear Lake watershed were prioritized 

during the phase 1 prioritization. The 

Big Valley basin to the southwest of 

Clear Lake received a medium 

prioritization, whereas the other eight 

basins in the watershed (Scotts Valley, 

Upper Lake Valley, Middle Creek, Long 

Valley, High Valley, Clear Lake Cache 

Formation, Burns Valley, and Lower 

Lake Valley) were given a low priority. 

The high- priority and medium-priority 

basins will be managed by a group of 

local agencies, referred to as 

‘‘groundwater sustainability agencies,’’ 

and they will be tasked with reaching 

sustainability in their basin within 20 

years of implementing their 

groundwater sustainability plans. 

Groundwater sustainability agencies 

have been formed for the Big Valley and 

Scotts Valley basins, and a groundwater 

sustainability plan was developed for 

the Big Valley basin and published in 

January 2022 (DWR 2019a, entire; DWR 

2019b, entire; DWR 2019c, entire; DWR 

2022, entire). Reducing overdraft from 

groundwater pumping in the Big Valley 

basin could improve flow conditions in 

Thompson Creek, Adobe Creek, Kelsey 

Creek, Cole Creek, McGaugh Slough, 

and Manning Creek and could provide 

sufficient water quantity for the Clear 

Lake hitch to traverse the tributaries 

during their spawning season. 

III. Local 

Clear Lake Integrated Watershed 

Management Plan (CLIWMP) 

The local resource conservation 

districts developed CLIWMP to 

document the historical and current 

conditions of the Clear Lake watershed 

and any management actions that have 

been, or are currently being, 

implemented. Actions to enhance and/ 

or protect the watershed are then 

identified using that background 

information and timeframes for each 

action are described. The CLIWMP 

describes specific implementation 

actions needed to create an 

environmentally and economically 

healthy watershed, both for the benefit 

of the existing local community and for 

future generations (County of Lake et al. 

2010a, entire). Implementation of the 

actions described in the CLIWMP would 

benefit the Clear Lake hitch by 

increasing the amount of wetland 

habitat used for rearing, improving fish 

passage within the tributary streams, 

and restoring degraded tributary stream 

and lake habitats. In addition to the 

CLIWMP, the local conservation 

districts also developed watershed 

assessments for Scotts, Middle, and 

Kelsey creeks. The purpose of those 

assessments is similar to the CLIWMP; 

they document the historical and 

current conditions of those watersheds 

and any management actions 

implemented. The assessments will aid 

in educating watershed users and 

landowners on the condition of that 

particular watershed, the management 

and restoration actions that need to be 

implemented to improve conditions, 

and how the conditions of those 

particular watersheds impact the 

condition of Clear Lake (County of Lake 

et al. 2010b, entire; County of Lake et al. 

2010c, entire; County of Lake et al. 

2010d, entire). Aggregate Resources 

Management Plan 

Lake County developed an Aggregate 

Resources Management Plan (County of 

Lake 1992, entire) to address concerns 

about the impacts of gravel mining on 

the watershed. The plan describes the 

policies regarding mining in specific 

areas, identifies areas deemed as 

suitable for future mining projects, and 

informs the public about mining in Lake 

County. The plan calls for a moratorium 

on mining in certain creeks and limits 

mining activities to certain areas 

(County of Lake 1992, pp. 83–86). The 

regulation of gravel mining in the 

county has reduced the rate of erosion 

in the tributaries and increased the 

amount of riparian habitat along the 

stream channels, where the Clear Lake 

hitch occurs. Although instream sources 

of gravel are no longer the primary 

source of aggregate in Lake County 

because gravel is now acquired from 

other sources, illegal gravel mining or 

extraction has been known to occur in 

the watershed (CEPA 2008, pp. 8, 89; B. 

Ewing in litt. 2020). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4928 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction 

and Ecosystem Restoration Project 

The Middle Creek Flood Damage 

Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration 

Project (Middle Creek Project) is both a 

flood risk reduction project for urban 

and agricultural areas along the 

northern end of Clear Lake and an 

ecosystem restoration project that will 

improve degraded wetland habitat and 

water quality in Clear Lake. The Middle 

Creek Project area was once 

approximately 1,400 ac (567 ha) of 

wetland habitat that was lost in the 

early 1900s through the construction of 

levees and conversion to agricultural 

use. 

Because these levees are no longer 

functional and there is an urgent need 

to restore surrounding wetland habitats 

to improve the lake and the watershed, 

Lake County requested USACE 

assistance to evaluate the project in 

1995. The Middle Creek Project consists 

of acquiring reclaimed land, breaching 

existing levees to flood historical 

wetland and floodplain areas, and 

reconnecting Scotts and Middle creeks. 

Final NEPA and CEQA review was 

completed in 2003 and 2004, 

respectively, and the Middle Creek 

Project was authorized under the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 

U.S.C. 2201 et seq.). Federal funding for 

the Middle Creek Project has not yet 

been appropriated to start project 

design; however, funding for land 

acquisition has been acquired (USACE 

2012, pp. 1–2; USACE 2023, entire). 

The Middle Creek Project will benefit 

the Clear Lake watershed by reducing 

the amount of sediment and nutrients 

entering Clear Lake, improving overall 

water quality. It will also increase the 

existing amount of wetland habitat 

within the Clear Lake watershed by 

approximately 79 percent (USACE 2012, 

p. 3). If the Middle Creek Project were 

to be implemented, it would benefit 

adult hitch by improving the water 

quality of Clear Lake, which would 

likely reduce the incidence of large fish 

kills. The Middle Creek Project would 

also greatly benefit juvenile hitch by 

increasing the amount of wetland 

habitat surrounding the lake, providing 

increased cover from predators and 

competitors, and increased prey 

abundance. 

Clear Lake Shoreline Ordinance 

The destruction of woody species and 

tule on residential properties along the 

shoreline around Clear Lake is 

prohibited under section 23–15 of the 

Clear Lake Shoreline Ordinance. These 

types of vegetation can be managed via 

mowing, pruning, or trimming, but 

those activities cannot result in the 

death of the plant. In addition, the 

ordinance applies a no-net-loss program 

for commercial, resort, or public 

properties that require mitigation for 

any areas of vegetation cleared by 

providing replacement plantings 

(County of Lake et al. 2010a, pp. ES–16, 

3–10; CDFW 2014, p. 42). The measures 

associated with this ordinance benefit 

the Clear Lake hitch by providing a 

consistent amount of tule habitat for 

juveniles. 

Clear Lake Hitch Conservation Strategy 

A group including local Tribes, local 

government, State agencies, and Federal 

agencies have been working on the 

development of a conservation strategy 

for the Clear Lake hitch. The strategy, 

which is still in draft form, documents 

the past and current status of the 

subspecies, describes the negative 

influences that have resulted in the 

subspecies’ current status, and identifies 

the actions that will address those 

negative influences in order to maintain 

a viable population of Clear Lake hitch 

throughout the subspecies’ range. This 

conservation strategy will provide 

benefits to the subspecies through 

public outreach regarding Clear Lake 

hitch conservation; it will also direct 

funds to implement actions or projects 

that will specifically benefit the hitch. 

Clear Lake Hitch Task Force 

In August 2022, Tribal leaders and 

members of the Tribal Environmental 

Protection Agencies representing the Big 

Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Elem 

Indian Colony Pomo Tribe, Robinson 

Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, and 

the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake 

went before the CFGC to express their 

concern for the status of the Clear Lake 

hitch. To address these concerns and 

focus attention on the subspecies, the 

Clear Lake Hitch Task Force (Task 

Force) was formed. The Task Force had 

its first meeting on September 14, 2022, 

and consisted of Tribal and CDFW 

representatives. 

Since 2022, the Task Force has 

expanded to include the California 

Department of Water Resources, State 

Water Resources Control Board, Central 

Valley Regional Water Board, Lake 

County Water Resources Department, 

Fish and Game Commission, California 

Natural Resources Agency, Service, 

USGS, California Conservation Corps, 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

USACE, and USFS. The Task Force’s 

mission involves collaborative planning 

for long-term responses to the decline in 

the Clear Lake hitch population, 

coordinating projects, identifying 

funding sources, and facilitating 

information exchange among agencies. 

The Task Force meets monthly and has 

held three summits to help relay 

information and coordinate projects 

between different agencies. 

IV. Miscellaneous 

Lake County, the California 

Department of Transportation, USFS, 

State Water Resources Control Board, 

and BLM have undertaken various 

actions to prevent or reduce nutrients 

and contaminants from entering Clear 

Lake, or to track the amount of water 

being used throughout the watershed 

(West Lake Resource Conservation 

District, undated, entire; CDFW 2014, p. 

41). These actions include the Eightmile 

Valley Sediment Reduction and Habitat 

Enhancement Project, for which BLM 

and the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo 

Indians received a grant (CDFW 2014, p. 

41). CDFW has two conceptual area 

protection plans (CAPPs) that cover 

different areas of the Clear Lake 

watershed. A CAPP allows different 

organizations and agencies to apply for 

land acquisition funding through the 

Wildlife Conservation Board. Both plans 

focus on the protection of wetland and 

riparian habitats, which would benefit 

the Clear Lake hitch during its early life 

stages (CDFW 2014, p. 42). Lastly, the 

State Water Resources Control Board 

issued draft emergency information 

order regulations for the Clear Lake 

watershed in September 2023. These 

regulations were adopted by the Water 

Resources Control Board on December 

6, 2023. These regulations allow the 

Water Resources Control Board to gather 

information on water usage, particularly 

groundwater pumping, in the Clear Lake 

watershed and learn how, if at all, it 

influences surface tributary flow (State 

Water Resource Control Board 2023, 

entire). 

Lastly, the CDFW has begun to 

address some of the fish passage barriers 

in the Clear Lake hitch’s spawning 

tributaries by installing fish ladders. 

The reconstruction of one project 

included installation of holding pools 

for the fish to rest as they move 

upstream and breaks in the ladder to 

help slow the rate of water flow (Ewing 

2017c, entire). 

Cumulative Effects 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have analyzed the 

cumulative effects of identified threats 

and conservation actions on the 

subspecies. To assess the current and 

future condition of the subspecies, we 

evaluate the effects of all the relevant 

factors that may be influencing the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4929 

subspecies, including threats and 

conservation efforts. Because the SSA 

framework considers not just the 

presence of the factors, but to what 

degree they collectively influence risk to 

the entire subspecies, our assessment 

integrates the cumulative effects of the 

factors and replaces a standalone 

cumulative-effects analysis. 

Current Condition 

In order to evaluate the current 

condition of the Clear Lake hitch, we 

describe the resiliency of each 

population along with the redundancy 

and representation of the subspecies. 

We considered demographic factors and 

habitat elements to evaluate the 

population-level resiliency. We divided 

the population in Clear Lake to ensure 

a more focused analysis regarding how 

different areas of the lake contribute to 

the subspecies’ survival. 

We established that there are two 

separate populations of Clear Lake hitch 

within the Clear Lake watershed: one is 

found in Clear Lake and its associated 

tributaries and small lakes (i.e., Blue 

Lakes and Tule Lake), and the other is 

in Thurston Lake and its associated 

tributary. Because Thurston Lake is not 

currently hydrologically connected to 

Clear Lake and possibly never was, we 

do not anticipate it to be connected in 

the future. The Clear Lake and Thurston 

Lake populations were further 

delineated into units to capture the 

aquatic habitat features at a local, subwatershed level. We then grouped some 

of the smaller delineated units into five 

‘‘analysis units’’ using otolith (calcium 

carbonate structure found in the inner 

ear of the Clear Lake hitch) strontium 

signatures that indicated natal origins 

can be assigned to one of five strontium 

isotope groups (SIGs) throughout the 

watershed (Feyrer et al. 2019a, entire). 

The use of adult otoliths for the natal 

habitat strontium groupings indicates 

that those areas associated with the SIGs 

are contributing to reproduction and 

recruitment. The terms ‘‘analysis unit’’ 

and ‘‘SIG’’ may be used interchangeably 

for this analysis. 

We delineated six analysis units 

across the subspecies’ range. Thurston 

Lake and Thurston Creek are described 

as a single analysis unit. The Clear Lake 

population includes five analysis units 

described according to the general 

location: Cole Creek; Kelsey Creek; 

Adobe Creek and Clear Lake; Rodman 

Slough; and Middle, Clover, and Siegler 

Canyon creeks (SIGs 1 through 5, 

respectively; Service 2024, p. 34). 

Additional description of the 

populations and analysis units can be 

found in the SSA report (Service 2024, 

pp. 26–28); see table 2, below, for a list 

of the AUs. 

In order to determine resiliency, we 

assessed the conditions at the 

population and analysis unit levels. We 

used demographic and habitat factors 

associated with each population. The 

demographic factors include 

reproduction, recruitment, and survival 

at both the adult and juvenile life stages. 

The habitat factors we used include 

water quantity (tributaries) and quality 

(lake) and wetland/tule habitat 

condition. 

Influencing those factors is the quality 

and accessibility of Clear Lake hitch 

habitat, which determines how well the 

spawning areas allow for successful 

reproduction, whether the nearshore 

nursery areas allow for young-of-year 

survival and subsequent recruitment, 

and whether individuals can move 

between tributary spawning habitats 

and the lake. Within the tributaries, 

water quantity and quality are important 

factors influencing survival at all life 

stages, reproductive success, and 

recruitment, and water quantity and 

quality are important for connectivity 

between the tributaries and lakes. 

Environmental stochastic events that 

have the potential to affect the 

subspecies include severe storms, 

drought, contaminant exposure, and the 

modification of habitat via natural (i.e., 

fire, drought, etc.) and anthropogenic 

(i.e., conversion to agriculture, 

vegetation management) means. 

Additional information regarding the 

resiliency factors can be found in the 

SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 28–34). 

We describe the population and 

analysis unit resiliency conditions using 

categories of high, medium, and low 

(with transitional stages). The 

methodology for determining the 

condition category includes assessment 

of the demographic and habitat factors 

within each analysis unit and within 

each population (Service 2024, p. 79). 

An overall high condition for a 

population is an indicator of high 

probability of population persistence. 

Populations in high condition have: 

accessible tributaries available 

throughout the spawning season, 

different natal habitats available for 

reproduction, individuals that are 

reproducing successfully and 

populations that are actively recruiting, 

and a sufficient amount and quality of 

spawning and rearing habitat to allow 

for varying population densities. An 

overall moderate condition is an 

indicator that probability of persistence 

for that population may be 

compromised by the lack and/or 

degradation of one or more of the 

subspecies’ needs, and a low overall 

condition indicates low probability of 

population persistence due to the lack 

and/or degradation of multiple of the 

subspecies’ needs. An extirpated 

condition indicates no probability of 

population persistence due to lack and/ 

or degradation of all of the subspecies’ 

needs. Conditions of low/extirpated, 

moderate/low, and high/moderate are 

transitionary between each of the 

qualitative categories. 

In order to determine the current 

population estimates and distribution, 

we used recent data (2015–2023) from 

surveys conducted on spawning in the 

tributaries, along the lake shore, and 

throughout Clear Lake. That data also 

informed the resiliency analysis for each 

population and analysis unit. The 

demographic and habitat parameters 

used in the resiliency analysis for each 

population and analysis unit is 

provided in table 1, below (Service 

2024, p. 67). 

TABLE 1—DEMOGRAPHIC AND HABITAT FACTORS CONDITION CATEGORIES FOR POPULATION AND ANALYSIS UNIT

RESILIENCY WITH HIGH CONDITION AS THE BEST CONDITION AND ZERO AS THE LOWEST CONDITION

Condition 

category 

Demographic factor— 

reproduction 

Demographic factor— 

recruitment 

Habitat element—tributary 

water quantity 

Habitat element—lake 

water quality 

High ................................... Overall total from reproduction analysis is high.Overall total from recruitment analysis is high.Water is retained within 

the tributaries throughout the spawning season.

Lake water is well 

oxygenated and minimally contaminated. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4930 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—DEMOGRAPHIC AND HABITAT FACTORS CONDITION CATEGORIES FOR POPULATION AND ANALYSIS UNIT

RESILIENCY WITH HIGH CONDITION AS THE BEST CONDITION AND ZERO AS THE LOWEST CONDITION—Continued 

Condition 

category 

Demographic factor— 

reproduction 

Demographic factor— 

recruitment 

Habitat element—tributary 

water quantity 

Habitat element—lake 

water quality 

Moderate ........................... Overall total from reproduction analysis is moderate.Overall total from recruitment analysis is moderate.Water is retained within 

the tributaries throughout a large portion of the 

spawning season.

Lake water is oxygenated 

most of the time, 

hypoxic conditions do 

occur periodically. Some 

contaminants are 

present, but not at lethal 

levels. 

Low .................................... Overall total from reproduction analysis is low.Overall total from recruitment analysis is low.Water is retained within 

the tributaries throughout a small portion of 

the spawning season.

Lake water is not well 

oxygenated and hypoxic 

conditions occur frequently. Contaminants 

are present, sometimes 

at lethal levels. 

0 (Zero) .............................. No reproduction ................ No recruitment .................. Water is not retained within the tributaries during 

any portion of the 

spawning season.

Lake water quality is uninhabitable. 

Of the six Clear Lake hitch analysis 

units, for reproduction, there are 

currently three analysis units that are in 

moderate condition (SIGs 1, 2, and 4), 

and two analysis units that are in low 

condition (SIGs 3 and 5). The current 

recruitment condition for SIG 3 is high, 

moderate for SIGs 2 and 4, and low for 

SIGs 1 and 5. The current condition of 

lake water quality is at a low condition 

for all five analysis units, and the 

current condition for tributary water 

quantity is low for SIGs 1, 2, and 3, and 

moderate for SIGs 4 and 5. Currently, 

the Clear Lake population has three 

analysis units at a moderate condition 

(SIGs 2, 3, and 4), and two units at a low 

condition (SIGs 1 and 5), for an overall 

Clear Lake population resiliency of 

moderate (Service 2024, p. 83). The 

Thurston Lake population is currently 

in high condition and, therefore, has 

high resiliency. See table 2, below. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY TABLE OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RESILIENCY FOR EACH POPULATION (P) AND ANALYSIS UNIT (AU) 

Population Analysis unit Current condition Future condition scenario 

1 

Future condition scenario 

2 

Clear Lake ......................... ........................................... Moderate ........................... Moderate/Low ................... Low. 

Cole Creek (SIG 1) ........... Low .................................... Low .................................... Low. 

Kelsey Creek (SIG 2) ........ Moderate ........................... Moderate/Low ................... Low. 

Clear Lake, Adobe Creek 

(SIG 3).

Moderate ........................... Moderate/Low ................... Low. 

Rodman Slough (SIG 4) ... Moderate ........................... Moderate ........................... Moderate/Low. 

Middle Creek, Clover 

Creek, Seigler Canyon 

Creek (SIG 5).

Low .................................... Low .................................... Low. 

Thurston Lake ................... Thurston Lake ................... High ................................... Moderate ........................... Moderate. 

In describing the overall current 

condition, we not only include 

resiliency of each population and 

analysis unit, but also consider the 

representation and redundancy across 

the range of the subspecies. Because 

both populations of the Clear Lake hitch 

are narrowly distributed and occupy the 

same ecological niche, the subspecies 

has likely never had much 

environmental diversity and likely does 

not have much genetic diversity due to 

its endemism to a single watershed, 

suggesting inherently limited 

representation. Given the subspecies’ 

narrow range, both populations of the 

subspecies (Clear Lake and Thurston 

Lake) could be affected simultaneously 

by large-scale events. However, the 

Clear Lake hitch uses different types of 

spawning habitats (tributary, lake, or 

interface between the two) across its 

narrow range, which may provide some 

current capacity to withstand a 

catastrophic drought event. 

Because of the historical connectivity 

within a single, large watershed, Clear 

Lake provided better habitat conditions 

for the subspecies. Currently, Thurston 

Lake does not have the level of threats 

acting on the subspecies that are 

affecting the hitch in Clear Lake. 

Surveys in 2023 of the Clear Lake 

population show there is an influx of 

age classes, thus indicating there is 

reproduction occurring. This diverse 

demographic make- up of the 

subspecies’ population in Clear Lake 

indicates that there is redundancy 

across subspecies’ range and bolsters the 

subspecies’ resiliency. Currently, the 

Clear Lake hitch has two extant 

populations: the Clear Lake population, 

which has a moderate resiliency; and 

the Thurston Lake population, which 

has a high resiliency. Both of these 

populations are able to withstand 

stochastic environmental variation. 

Representation and redundancy are 

similar to historical conditions, with 

both populations narrowly distributed 

and occupying the same ecological 

niche. 

The current resiliency analysis uses 

the best available information; however, 

we recognize there are some 

uncertainties around the subspecies’ life 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4931 

history, including recruitment, and the 

factors that influence its viability. Some 

of the uncertainties include the lack of 

robust, statistically valid population or 

abundance estimates for the historical 

population of the Clear Lake hitch. 

Further, current population estimates 

are still in initial stages, as local Tribes, 

CDFW, and USGS are accruing more 

data to provide a more accurate 

rangewide population estimate. Because 

this information is not available, there is 

no baseline to compare for our current 

condition analysis; therefore, we had to 

use available demographic and habitat 

data to inform our analysis, which could 

result in an overestimation or 

underestimation of population 

resiliency. 

There is some uncertainty in how 

successful recruitment is in the lower 

Clear Lake watershed, including within 

Clear Lake itself. Our analysis in the 

SSA report assumes reproduction is 

successful when adults are documented 

in the tributaries over the spawning 

season and that some lake spawning is 

successful (Service 2024, p. 70). It is 

possible these assumptions are 

overestimating how successful 

reproduction is, resulting in an 

overestimation of population resiliency. 

Future Condition 

In order to determine the Clear Lake 

hitch’s viability in the future, we 

assessed the condition of the 

subspecies’ resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation within a timeframe that 

we can make reliable predictions about 

the threats and the subspecies’ response 

to the threats. The future conditions 

projections were timeframe we applied 

for the future conditions’ analyses found 

that the most reliable timeframe extends 

out to the next 40 to 50 years. We 

considered two plausible future 

scenarios that represent the extremes of 

a range of future changes in 

environmental conditions and success 

of implemented conservation efforts. 

Using these two scenarios allows us to 

consider the full range of future 

possibilities for forecasting future 

viability of the subspecies and 

incorporates any uncertainty regarding 

the impact of future environmental 

conditions and the success of 

implemented conservation efforts. 

The future scenarios project the 

influences on viability into the future 

and consider how those influences 

would potentially impact the Clear Lake 

hitch’s viability. As under Current 

Condition, we assessed the subspecies’ 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation under each future 

scenario. For resiliency, we projected 

the impact to the subspecies’ 

reproduction, recruitment, water 

quantity (tributary), and water quality 

(lake) at the population level and the 

analysis unit level. 

The following six factors affecting the 

Clear Lake hitch were included in both 

of the two plausible future scenarios: 

1. The loss of spawning habitat due to 

past watershed modifications that have 

blocked access to or altered the flow 

regime of tributaries. The lack of 

consistent tributary flow will continue 

due to the effects of past instream gravel 

mining, deforestation, and grazing 

practices; existing flood control project 

infrastructure; fire activity; and water 

utilization for agricultural and urban 

uses. Because the rate of urban 

development has slowed in the last 

decade, we do not anticipate a 

significant amount of urban growth into 

the future. The timeframe for the current 

Lake County General Plan is 20 years 

and only projects growth out to 2028; 

however, we still do not expect growth 

to increase much after 2028. Although 

the amount of agricultural development 

increased substantially leading up to the 

21st century, over the last 10 years or so 

the acreage of fruit, nut, field, seed, and 

vegetable crops in Lake County only 

slightly increased. 

Therefore, we do not anticipate a 

substantial increase in the amount of 

agricultural production into the future 

(Service 2024, pp. 29, 34). Furthermore, 

future climate change is projected to 

further exacerbate the degradation and 

inaccessibility of tributaries by 

increasing the incidence of fire activity, 

flood events, and aridity. Various 

passage barriers, both physical barriers 

and lack of flow, will continue to persist 

in the watershed. And there are no there 

are no groundwater sustainability plans 

for low priority basins. 

2. The loss of wetland/tule habitat. 

The current remaining wetland/tule 

habitat surrounding the lake will persist 

into the future, primarily due to the 

implementation of Lake County’s Clear 

Lake Shoreline Ordinance. 

3. Continued reductions in lake water 

quality due to the past loss of wetland/ 

tule habitat surrounding the lake, 

contamination from past mercury 

mining along the lake’s shore and from 

pesticide use for agricultural and urban 

uses, the input of sediment and 

nutrients from degraded tributaries, and 

nutrient inputs from surrounding urban 

and agricultural development. As 

mentioned above, we do not project 

agricultural production or urban 

development to increase substantially 

into the future. Elevated nutrient and 

sediment inputs continue to contribute 

to periodic cyanobacteria blooms, 

further reducing water quality. Periodic 

fish kills continue to occur. 

4. Nonnative fish species from past 

introductions are still established 

within the lakes. 

5. Drought incidence and intensity 

increase due to climate change, 

reducing tributary flow during the 

spawning season in some years. 

6. The continued implementation of 

current regulatory mechanisms (e.g., 

CESA, Lake County’s Clear Lake 

Shoreline Ordinance) and management 

actions (e.g., Lake County’s Aggregate 

Resources Management Plan, other 

miscellaneous restoration actions 

occurring throughout the watershed). 

Scenario 1 assesses the viability of the 

subspecies if the trend and magnitude of 

threats were to continue at the current 

trajectory into the future with 

implemented management efforts being 

fully successful. Scenario 2 assesses the 

subspecies’ future viability with an 

increase in the trend and magnitude of 

threats with implemented management 

efforts having mixed success. 

Additional details regarding the 

scenarios are described in the SSA 

report (Service 2024, pp. 89–91). 

Under Scenario 1, many of the factors 

that are having an influence on each of 

the Clear Lake hitch populations 

continue at current rates, or slightly 

increase. The effects of climate change, 

specifically increased aridity, are 

already occurring throughout the 

watershed, although the effects of 

increased aridity are not apparent every 

year. Future drought conditions are 

projected to increase in both the number 

of years drought conditions persist and 

the intensity of drought. Due to the 

increased incidence of aridity, and 

because future climate projections show 

the timing of precipitation will change, 

in some years, the number of spawning 

tributaries available to the Clear Lake 

hitch over the spawning season will 

decrease. A slight increase in fire and 

flooding incidence will increase the 

amount of erosion occurring in the 

tributaries, further decreasing lake water 

quality. As conditions worsen in the 

tributaries, the hitch will have to 

increasingly rely on spawning in the 

lake or in the mouths of streams. 

Because the Clear Lake hitch is a Statelisted species, direct take will continue 

to be prohibited without a permit. Due 

to Lake County’s Clear Lake Shoreline 

Ordinance, the amount of existing 

wetland/tule habitats surrounding the 

lake will continue to persist. Under 

Scenario 1, the SGMA has been 

implemented, and general restoration 

projects, such as contaminant 

remediation, tributary function, and 

barrier removal, continue to be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4932 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

implemented at a small scale 

throughout the watershed. 

Under Scenario 1, both populations 

decline in resiliency; the Thurston Lake 

population is in moderate condition, 

and the Clear Lake population is in 

moderate/low condition. Each Clear 

Lake analysis unit is either unchanged 

from current condition, or declines. The 

resiliency for SIGs 1 and 5 remains in 

low condition. SIG 4 remains in 

moderate condition, and SIGs 2 and 3 

decline from moderate to moderate/low 

condition. For representation, because 

both populations of Clear Lake hitch are 

narrowly distributed and occupy the 

same ecological niche, environmental 

and genetic diversity are not expected to 

change dramatically under Scenario 1. 

Therefore, representation for the Clear 

Lake hitch under current conditions is 

maintained under Scenario 1. 

For redundancy, given the narrow 

range, both populations of the 

subspecies could be affected 

simultaneously by large-scale events. 

However, the Clear Lake hitch uses 

different types of spawning habitats 

(tributary, lake, or interface between the 

two) across its narrow range, which may 

increase the ability of the subspecies to 

withstand a catastrophic drought event, 

which is not expected to change 

dramatically under Scenario 1. 

Therefore, redundancy for the Clear 

Lake hitch under current conditions is 

maintained under Scenario 1. 

Under Scenario 2, some of the factors 

that are having an influence on each of 

the Clear Lake hitch populations 

continue at current rates, while others 

will increase (Service 2024, pp. 92–94). 

In this scenario, climate change results 

in more arid conditions throughout the 

subspecies’ range and impacts from 

increased fire and flooding increase 

erosion occurring in the tributaries, 

further decreasing water quality within 

the lake. As conditions worsen in the 

tributaries, the Clear Lake hitch will 

have to increasingly rely on spawning in 

the lake or in the mouths of streams. In 

addition, under this scenario, 

agricultural production slightly 

increases in areas currently not 

prioritized by the SGMA, small-scale 

restoration projects have been 

implemented but not all are successful, 

the Middle Creek Project has not been 

implemented, and few passage barriers 

have been removed. Under Scenario 2, 

Lake County’s Clear Lake Shoreline 

Ordinance will continue to limit tule 

habitat loss, and the CESA will continue 

to limit the take of Clear Lake hitch 

individuals. 

The overall resiliency of each 

population will decline under Scenario 

2. The projections result in a moderate 

condition for the Thurston Lake 

population and low condition for the 

Clear Lake population. Within Clear 

Lake, each SIG declines to or maintains 

a low condition except for Rodman 

Slough, which has a moderate/low 

condition. 

Under Scenario 2, due to declines in 

abundance and recruitment predicted 

under this future scenario, we anticipate 

representation will be somewhat 

reduced from current conditions, and, 

therefore, the subspecies will be less 

able to adapt to changing environmental 

conditions. We also anticipate that 

redundancy will be somewhat reduced 

from current conditions due to 

predicted declines in abundance and 

recruitment, and, therefore, the 

subspecies will be more susceptible to 

a catastrophic event. 

We also present uncertainties 

associated with the future conditions 

analyses for the Clear Lake hitch. As 

described above under Current 

Condition, there is uncertainty regarding 

some of the subspecies’ life-history 

traits, including recruitment, and some 

of the factors influencing the 

subspecies’ viability that were used in 

the future condition scenarios. Although 

there is a current population estimate 

for the subspecies, this estimate is in its 

initial stages and additional years of 

monitoring data are needed to provide 

a more accurate estimate. Because we do 

not have an accurate current number to 

compare to, and therefore cannot project 

changes in the size of either population, 

we must qualitatively describe how 

future influences will impact Clear Lake 

hitch populations. There is uncertainty 

in how successful recruitment is in the 

lower Clear Lake watershed, including 

within Clear Lake itself. Our analysis 

assumes reproduction is successful 

when adults are documented in the 

tributaries over the spawning season 

and that some lake spawning is 

successful. It is possible these 

assumptions are overestimating how 

successful reproduction is, resulting in 

an overestimation of population 

resiliency. 

Lastly, there is uncertainty around the 

degree of impact from water extraction 

for agricultural use on the Clear Lake 

hitch and its habitat. Groundwater 

pumping can deplete surface water in 

streams and reduce flow and available 

water (USGS 2013, entire). Water 

extractions may be one of the reasons 

for the reduction in the Clear Lake 

hitch’s population; however, the Clear 

Lake watershed is complex, and we do 

not fully understand how surface and 

ground water interact in most of the 

watershed because studies have not 

been completed. We also do not have a 

full understanding of where water 

extractions are occurring or how much 

water is being extracted; however, there 

are ongoing studies to better understand 

the magnitude of impacts on the Clear 

Lake watershed (Santana 2024, pers. 

comm.). Although we do not fully 

understand if or how groundwater 

extraction is having an impact on the 

Clear Lake hitch, we do know that water 

extraction in the summer lowers the 

water level in pool habitat that acts as 

refugia for native fish in the 

disconnected streams until they become 

reconnected by spring rains. It is the 

loss of this pool habitat that affects the 

Clear Lake hitch. However, because 

groundwater extraction is likely 

affecting water availability for the 

subspecies, for our analysis, it is a 

logical assumption that groundwater 

pumping for agricultural production is 

likely having a negative impact on the 

subspecies. We also assumed the 

highest rates of pumping are occurring 

where the most agricultural production 

occurs. Therefore, it is possible we are 

overestimating the impact from this 

threat, resulting in an underestimate of 

current population resiliency. 

Additional uncertainty is presented 

regarding future impacts to the 

subspecies and its habitat from climate 

change, the future trajectory of current 

negative influences to the subspecies 

(i.e., agricultural production and urban 

development), the long-term success of 

current conservation actions, and the 

implementation and success of future 

conservation actions. Our overall future 

condition analysis assumes climate 

change will exacerbate the current 

negative influences (e.g., drought) acting 

on the subspecies; both future scenarios 

capture the full risk of this influence 

within the 40-to-50-year timeline. For 

agricultural production and urban 

development, we assume future trends 

will be similar to trends over the last 

decade, which only showed slight 

increases. It is possible we 

underestimated the future trajectory of 

these influences, which would result in 

an overestimation of future population 

resiliency. The number of conservation 

actions being implemented in the 

watershed has increased over the past 

few years; however, we are uncertain 

about their success over the long term 

and whether the current trend in 

implementation will continue into the 

future. Since the two future condition 

scenarios consider the breadth of future 

implementation and success of 

conservation activities for the Clear 

Lake hitch, the overall future condition 

analysis captures the full benefits of this 

influence on the subspecies. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4933 

Determination of the Clear Lake Hitch’s 

Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether a species meets the definition 

of an endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating the threats to the 

Clear Lake hitch and assessing the 

cumulative effect of the threats under 

the Act’s section 4(a)(1) factors, we have 

determined that the overall viability of 

the Clear Lake hitch has declined from 

historical levels due to the past and 

ongoing threats of habitat loss, 

degradation, and modifications (Factor 

A), predation (Factor C), competition 

(Factor E), and the effects of climate 

change (Factor E) . 

Currently, the subspecies has two 

extant populations: the Clear Lake 

population, which has a moderate 

resiliency, and the Thurston Lake 

population, which has a high resiliency. 

Both populations are able to withstand 

stochastic environmental variation. 

Representation and redundancy are 

similar to historical conditions, with 

both populations narrowly distributed 

and occupying the same ecological 

niche. Because of the historical 

connectivity within a single, large 

watershed, Clear Lake provided better 

habitat conditions for the subspecies. 

Currently, Thurston Lake does not have 

the level of threats acting on the 

subspecies that are affecting the hitch in 

Clear Lake. Surveys in 2023 of the Clear 

Lake population show there is an influx 

of age classes, thus indicating there is 

reproduction occurring. The diverse 

demographic makeup of the subspecies’ 

population in Clear Lake provides 

support that there is redundancy across 

the Clear Lake hitch’s range and bolsters 

the subspecies’ resiliency. Therefore, 

the Clear Lake hitch is not currently at 

risk of extinction throughout its range 

and does not meet the Act’s definition 

of an endangered species. 

However, under both future scenarios 

we see declines in population resiliency 

in the foreseeable future as a result of 

factors that will continue to affect the 

subspecies. Our analysis of the past, 

current, and future factors influencing 

viability revealed there are six primary 

factors affecting the viability of the Clear 

Lake hitch. These risks to viability are 

primarily related to habitat changes but 

also includes others with more direct 

effect to the subspecies: 

1. The loss of spawning habitat due to 

past watershed modifications that have 

blocked access to or altered the flow 

regime of tributary streams. 

2. The loss of wetland/tule habitat. 

The current remaining wetland/tule 

habitat surrounding the lake will persist 

into the future, primarily due to the 

implementation of Lake County’s Clear 

Lake Shoreline Ordinance. 

3. Continued reductions in lake water 

quality due to the past loss of wetland/ 

tule habitat surrounding the lake, 

contamination from past mercury 

mining along the lake’s shore and from 

pesticide use for agricultural and urban 

uses, the input of sediment and 

nutrients from degraded tributaries, and 

nutrient inputs from surrounding urban 

and agricultural development. As 

mentioned above, we do not project 

agricultural production or urban 

development to increase substantially 

into the future. Elevated nutrient and 

sediment inputs continue to contribute 

to periodic cyanobacteria blooms, 

further reducing water quality. Periodic 

fish kills continue to occur. 

4. Nonnative fish species from past 

introductions are still established 

within Clear Lake. 

5. Drought incidence and intensity 

increase due to climate change, 

reducing tributary flow during the 

spawning season in some years (Hayhoe 

et al. 2004, pp. 12424–12425, Pierce et 

al. 2013, pp. 848–850). 

6. The continued implementation of 

current regulatory mechanisms (e.g., 

CESA, Lake County’s Clear Lake 

Shoreline Ordinance), management 

actions (e.g., Lake County’s Aggregate 

Resources Management Plan, and other 

miscellaneous restoration actions 

occurring throughout the watershed) 

that limits the amount of gravel extract. 

Under both future scenarios, Thurston 

Lake declines to a moderate resiliency 

and Clear Lake declines to a moderate/ 

low or low resiliency, suggesting the 

subspecies will be less likely to 

withstand stochastic environmental 

variation in the future. Under future 

Scenario 1, redundancy and 

representation are mostly maintained 

but begin to be impacted by the declines 

in population resiliency. Under future 

Scenario 2, both redundancy and 

representation are reduced due to the 

limited availability of some spawning 

habitats and the subspecies being less 

able to adapt to changing environmental 

conditions. Because of this future 

reduction in resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation, the subspecies is 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout its range 

and meets the Act’s definition of a 

threatened species. Thus, after assessing 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available, we conclude that the Clear 

Lake hitch is not in danger of extinction 

but is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The 

court in Center for Biological Diversity 

v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 

2020) (Everson), vacated the provision 

of the Final Policy on Interpretation of 

the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its 

Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s 

Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Species’’ 

and ‘‘Threatened Species’’ (hereafter 

‘‘Final Policy’’; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 

2014) that provided if the Services 

determine that a species is threatened 

throughout all of its range, the Services 

will not analyze whether the species is 

endangered in a significant portion of its 

range. 

Therefore, we proceed to evaluating 

whether the species is endangered in a 

significant portion of its range—that is, 

whether there is any portion of the 

species’ range for which both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction in that 

portion. Depending on the case, it might 

be more efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Everson, we now consider whether the 

Clear Lake hitch is in danger of 

extinction in a significant portion of its 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4934 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

range. In undertaking this analysis for 

the Clear Like hitch, we chose to 

address the significance question first. 

We identified Clear Lake and its 

tributaries as a significant portion of the 

subspecies’ range; this portion is 

biologically meaningful to the 

subspecies due to its large geographical 

size (i.e., it encompasses the greatest 

proportion of the subspecies’ entire 

range and near 95 percent of the 

available lake habitat). Additionally, 

Clear Lake and its tributaries support 

the majority of the subspecies’ entire 

population. We include the tributaries 

in this portion because the Clear Lake 

hitch uses them for spawning, and they 

are important for the reproduction 

aspect of the subspecies’ lifecycle. 

After determining the portion’s 

significance, we evaluated the Clear 

Lake hitch’s status within that portion. 

Since we found the subspecies meets 

the Act’s definition of threatened across 

its entire range, we considered the 

status of the portion to determine if the 

subspecies within Clear Lake and its 

tributaries meets the Act’s definition of 

an endangered species. The current 

resiliency of this population is scored as 

moderate (see table 2, above). Seasonal 

surveys conducted in Clear Lake from 

2017 to 2023 indicate fluctuations in the 

populations; the 2023 surveys yielded 

the highest number (304) of individual 

hitch captured. The increase could 

possibly be due to more water available 

from a rainy year. The 2023 surveys also 

show there is an influx of age classes, 

thus indicating there is reproduction 

occurring across a range of years and 

climatic conditions. This diverse 

demographic makeup of the subspecies’ 

population in Clear Lake provides 

support that there is currently 

redundancy within the portion and 

bolsters the subspecies’ resiliency. 

Representation and redundancy in this 

portion are similar to historical 

conditions, with the population 

narrowly distributed and occupying the 

same ecological niche. The current 

resiliency is moderate for this portion, 

and this portion retains sufficient 

resiliency such that it will be able to 

withstand stochastic environmental 

variation in the near term. Therefore, 

the subspecies is not in danger of 

extinction within this portion of its 

range. 

Therefore, no portion of the species’ 

range provides a basis for determining 

that the species is in danger of 

extinction in a significant portion of its 

range, and we determine that the 

species is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. This does not 

conflict with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 

1070–74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 

Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) 

because, in reaching this conclusion, we 

did not apply the aspects of the Final 

Policy, including the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ that those court decisions 

held to be invalid. 

Determination of Status 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, we 

determine that the Clear Lake hitch 

meets the Act’s definition of a 

threatened species throughout its range. 

Therefore, we propose to list the Clear 

Lake hitch as a threatened species in 

accordance with sections 3(20) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition as a listed species, 

planning and implementation of 

recovery actions, requirements for 

Federal protection, and prohibitions 

against certain practices. Recognition 

through listing results in public 

awareness, and conservation by Federal, 

State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign 

governments, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies, 

including the Service, and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the 

Act calls for the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

The recovery planning process begins 

with development of a recovery outline 

made available to the public soon after 

a final listing determination. The 

recovery outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions while a recovery plan is being 

developed. Recovery teams (composed 

of species experts, Federal and State 

agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) may be 

established to develop and implement 

recovery plans. The recovery planning 

process involves the identification of 

actions that are necessary to halt and 

reverse the species’ decline by 

addressing the threats to its survival and 

recovery. The recovery plan identifies 

recovery criteria for review of when a 

species may be ready for reclassification 

from endangered to threatened 

(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from 

protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan 

may be done to address continuing or 

new threats to the species, as new 

substantive information becomes 

available. The recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, final recovery plan, and 

any revisions will be available on our 

website as they are completed (https:// 

www.fws.gov/program/endangeredspecies), or from our Sacramento Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

If the Clear Lake hitch is listed, 

funding for recovery actions will be 

available from a variety of sources, 

including Federal budgets, State 

programs, and cost-share grants for nonFederal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the State of 

California would be eligible for Federal 

funds to implement management 

actions that promote the protection or 

recovery of the Clear Lake hitch. 

Information on our grant programs that 

are available to aid species recovery can 

be found at: https://www.fws.gov/ 

service/financial-assistance. 

Although the Clear Lake hitch is only 

proposed for listing under the Act at 

this time, please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4935 

efforts for this subspecies. Additionally, 

we invite you to submit any new 

information on this subspecies 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7 of the Act is titled, 

‘‘Interagency Cooperation,’’ and it 

mandates all Federal action agencies to 

use their existing authorities to further 

the conservation purposes of the Act 

and to ensure that their actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Regulations 

implementing section 7 are codified at 

50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal 

action agency shall, in consultation with 

the Secretary, ensure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of designated critical habitat. Each 

Federal agency shall review its action at 

the earliest possible time to determine 

whether it may affect listed species or 

critical habitat. If a determination is 

made that the action may affect listed 

species or critical habitat, formal 

consultation is required (50 CFR 

402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in 

writing that the action is not likely to 

adversely affect listed species or critical 

habitat. At the end of a formal 

consultation, the Service issues a 

biological opinion, containing its 

determination of whether the Federal 

action is likely to result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification. 

In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any action that is likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any species proposed to be listed under 

the Act or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

proposed to be designated for such 

species. Although the conference 

procedures are required only when an 

action is likely to result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification, action agencies 

may voluntarily confer with the Service 

on actions that may affect species 

proposed for listing or critical habitat 

proposed to be designated. In the event 

that the subject species is listed or the 

relevant critical habitat is designated, a 

conference opinion may be adopted as 

a biological opinion and serve as 

compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

Examples of discretionary actions for 

the Clear Lake hitch that may be subject 

to conference and consultation 

procedures under section 7 of the Act 

are management of Federal lands 

administered by BLM and USFS, as well 

as actions that require a Federal permit 

(such as a permit from USACE under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or actions funded by 

Federal agencies such as the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. Federal agencies should 

coordinate with the Sacramento Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific 

questions on section 7 consultation and 

conference requirements. 

Section 9 of the Act provides a 

specific list of prohibitions for 

endangered species but does not 

provide these same prohibitions for 

threatened species. Instead, pursuant to 

section 4(d) of the Act, for any species 

listed as a threatened species, the 

Secretary must issue protective 

regulations that are ‘‘necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of such species’’ (these are 

referred to as ‘‘4(d) rules). Additional 

measures for the Clear Lake hitch are 

described below (see Protective 

Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the 

Act, below). 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving threatened wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits for threatened 

wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.32, 

and general Service permitting 

regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 

13. With regard to threatened wildlife, 

a permit may be issued: for scientific 

purposes, for enhancing the propagation 

or survival of the species, or for take 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities. 

The statute also contains certain 

exemptions from the prohibitions, 

which are found in sections 9 and 10 of 

the Act. 

II. Protective Regulations Under 

Section 4(d) of the Act 

Background 

As discussed in Available 

Conservation Measures, section 9 of the 

Act provides a specific list of 

prohibitions for endangered species but 

does not provide these same 

prohibitions for threatened species. 

Instead, pursuant to section 4(d) of the 

Act, for any species listed as a 

threatened species, the Secretary must 

issue protective regulations that are 

‘‘necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of such species’’ (these 

are referred to as ‘‘4(d) rules’’). Section 

4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. 

The first sentence states that the 

Secretary shall issue such regulations as 

she deems necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of species 

listed as threatened species. 

Conservation is defined in the Act to 

mean the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary. Additionally, 

the second sentence of section 4(d) of 

the Act states that the Secretary may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 

or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case 

of plants. With these two sentences in 

section 4(d), Congress delegated broad 

authority to the Secretary to determine 

what protections would be necessary 

and advisable to provide for the 

conservation of threatened species, and 

even broader authority to put in place 

any of the section 9 prohibitions, for a 

given species. Courts have recognized 

the extent of the Secretary’s discretion 

under section 4(d) to develop rules that 

are appropriate for the conservation of 

a species. For example, courts have 

upheld, as a valid exercise of agency 

authority, rules developed under section 

4(d) that included limited prohibitions 

against takings (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 

2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington 

Environmental Council v. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 

511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have 

also upheld 4(d) rules that do not 

address all of the threats a species faces 

(see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 

F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in 

the legislative history when the Act was 

initially enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on 

the threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to [them] with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. 

[They] may, for example, permit taking, 

but not importation of such species. 

[They] may, for example, permit taking, 

but not importation of such species, or 

[they] may choose to forbid both taking 

and importation but allow the 

transportation of such species’’ (H.R. 

Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 

1973). 

Under our 4(d) authorities, we put in 

place protections intended to both 

prevent a threatened species from 

becoming an endangered species and to 

promote its recovery. We have two ways 

to put in place these protections for a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4936 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

threatened species: (1) we can issue a 

species-specific 4(d) rule (at 50 CFR 

17.40–17.47 or 17.73–17.74), which 

would contain all of the protective 

regulations for that species; or (2) we 

can apply a ‘‘blanket rule’’ (for more 

information, see 89 FR 23919, April 5, 

2024), which extends to threatened 

species without a species-specific rule 

all of the prohibitions that apply to 

endangered species under section 9 

(with certain exceptions applicable to 

threatened species). 

Both ‘‘blanket rules’’ and speciesspecific 4(d) rules explain what is 

prohibited for a threatened species, thus 

making the activity unlawful without a 

permit or authorization under the Act 

for the prohibited activity unless 

otherwise excepted in the 4(d) rule 

(species-specific 4(d) rules may also 

include affirmative requirements). 

Section 4(d) rules are therefore directly 

related to what actions may require 

permits in the future. As discussed in 

Available Conservation Measures, 

permits may be issued for purposes 

described in our threatened species 

permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.32 

and 17.72, including for recovery 

actions, conservation benefit agreements 

(previously referred to as candidate 

conservation agreements with 

assurances and safe harbor agreements), 

or habitat conservation plans. We may 

also except otherwise prohibited 

activities through a 4(d) rule itself, in 

which case threatened species permits 

would not be required for those 

activities. For example, there are two 

categories of exceptions that we 

frequently include in 4(d) rules, and 

these are for otherwise prohibited acts 

or forms or amounts of ‘‘take’’ that are: 

(1) unavoidable while conducting 

beneficial actions for the species, or (2) 

considered inconsequential (de 

minimis) to the conservation of the 

species. For otherwise prohibited take 

activities that require section 10 

permits, programmatic approaches— 

such as general conservation plans and 

template habitat conservation plans— 

may be available as another way for 

project proponents to comply with take 

prohibitions or requirements applicable 

to one or more species while reducing 

the time that would otherwise be 

associated with developing individual 

permit applications. In addition, the 

Service and project proponents can 

reduce the need for such permits by 

developing standardized conservation 

measures that avoid the risk of ‘‘take.’’ 

The provisions of the Clear Lake 

hitch’s proposed protective regulations 

under section 4(d) of the Act are one of 

many tools that we would use to 

promote the conservation of the Clear 

Lake hitch. The proposed protective 

regulations would apply only if and 

when we make final the listing of the 

Clear Lake hitch as a threatened species. 

Nothing in 4(d) rules change in any way 

the recovery planning provisions of 

section 4(f) of the Act or the 

consultation requirements under section 

7 of the Act. As mentioned previously 

in Available Conservation Measures, 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, even before the listing of any 

species or the designation of its critical 

habitat is finalized, section 7(a)(4) of the 

Act requires Federal agencies to confer 

with the Service on any agency action 

which is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any species 

proposed to be listed under the Act or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat proposed 

to be designated for such species. These 

requirements are the same for a 

threatened species regardless of what is 

included in its 4(d) rule. 

Whether a threatened species is 

protected through a ‘‘blanket rule’’ or a 

species- specific 4(d) rule, protective 

regulations do not alter section 7 

obligations, including the criteria for 

informal or formal consultations or the 

analytical process used for biological 

opinions or concurrence letters. Section 

7 consultation is required for Federal 

actions that ‘‘may affect’’ a listed species 

regardless of whether take caused by the 

activity is prohibited or excepted by a 

4(d) rule (the ‘‘blanket rule’’ or a 

species-specific 4(d) rule. 

For example, as with an endangered 

species, if a Federal agency determines 

that an action is ‘‘not likely to adversely 

affect’’ a threatened species, this will 

require the Service’s written 

concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). 

Similarly, if a Federal agency 

determinates that an action is ‘‘likely to 

adversely affect’’ a threatened species, 

the action will require formal 

consultation with the Service and the 

formulation of a biological opinion (50 

CFR 402.14(a)). Because consultation 

obligations and processes are unaffected 

by 4(d) rules, we may consider 

developing tools to streamline future 

intra-Service and interagency 

consultations for actions that result in 

forms of take that are not prohibited by 

the 4(d) rule (but that still require 

consultation). These tools may include 

consultation guidance; streamlined, 

online consultation processes via the 

Service’s digital project planning tool 

(Information for Planning and 

Consultation; https://

ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/); template 

language for biological opinions; or 

programmatic consultations. 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule 

Exercising the Secretary’s authority 

under section 4(d) of the Act, we have 

developed a proposed rule that is 

designed to address the Clear Lake 

hitch’s conservation needs. As 

discussed above under Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats, we have 

concluded that the Clear Lake hitch is 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future primarily 

due to habitat loss, degradation, and 

modification; nonnative species’ 

predation; competition; and the effects 

of climate change. Section 4(d) requires 

the Secretary to issue such regulations 

as she deems necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of each 

threatened species and authorizes the 

Secretary to include among those 

protective regulations any of the 

prohibitions that section 9(a)(1) of the 

Act prescribes for endangered species. 

We are not required to make a 

‘‘necessary and advisable’’ 

determination when we apply or do not 

apply specific section 9 prohibitions to 

a threatened species (In re: Polar Bear 

Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) 

Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 

228 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Sweet Home 

Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. 

Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1993), 

rev’d on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 

(1995))). Nevertheless, even though we 

are not required to make such a 

determination, we have chosen to be as 

transparent as possible and explain 

below why we find that, if finalized, the 

protections, prohibitions, and 

exceptions in this proposed rule as a 

whole satisfy the requirement in section 

4(d) of the Act to issue regulations 

deemed necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of the Clear 

Lake hitch. 

The protective regulations we are 

proposing for the Clear Lake hitch 

incorporate prohibitions from the Act’s 

section 9(a)(1) to address the threats to 

the subspecies. The prohibitions of 

section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and 

implementing regulations codified at 50 

CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States to commit, to attempt to commit, 

to solicit another to commit, or to cause 

to be committed any of the following 

acts with regard to any endangered 

wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, 

the United States; (2) take (which 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4937 

includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct) within the United States, 

within the territorial sea of the United 

States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, 

sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by 

any means whatsoever, any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) 

deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 

in interstate or foreign commerce, by 

any means whatsoever and in the course 

of commercial activity; or (5) sell or 

offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. This protective regulation 

includes all of these prohibitions 

because the Clear Lake hitch is at risk 

of extinction within the foreseeable 

future and putting these prohibitions in 

place would help prevent further 

declines in the subspecies, preserve the 

species remaining populations, and 

decrease synergistic, negative effects 

from other ongoing or future threats. 

In particular, this proposed 4(d) rule 

would provide for the conservation of 

the Clear Lake hitch by prohibiting the 

following activities, unless they fall 

within specific exceptions or are 

otherwise authorized or permitted: 

importing or exporting; take; possession 

and other acts with unlawfully taken 

specimens; delivering, receiving, 

carrying, transporting, or shipping in 

interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of commercial activity; or selling 

or offering for sale in interstate or 

foreign commerce. Under the Act, 

‘‘take’’ means to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct. Some of these provisions 

have been further defined in regulations 

at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result 

knowingly or otherwise, by direct and 

indirect impacts, intentionally or 

incidentally. Regulating take would 

help to sustain water quality and water 

flow within the tributaries and improve 

reproductive success, prevent further 

declines preserve or improve the 

resiliency of the remaining populations, 

and decrease synergistic, negative 

effects from other ongoing or future 

threats. Therefore, we propose to 

prohibit take of the Clear Lake hitch, 

except for take resulting from those 

actions and activities specifically 

excepted by the 4(d) rule. 

Exceptions to the prohibition on take 

would include all of the general 

exceptions to the prohibition on take of 

endangered wildlife, as set forth in 50 

CFR 17.21, and additional exceptions, 

as described below. 

Despite these prohibitions regarding 

threatened species, we may under 

certain circumstances issue permits to 

carry out one or more otherwise 

prohibited activities, including those 

described above. The regulations that 

govern permits for threatened wildlife 

state that the Director may issue a 

permit authorizing any activity 

otherwise prohibited with regard to 

threatened species. These include 

permits issued for the following 

purposes: for scientific purposes, to 

enhance propagation or survival, for 

economic hardship, for zoological 

exhibition, for educational purposes, for 

incidental taking, or for special 

purposes consistent with the purposes 

of the Act (50 CFR 17.32). The statute 

also contains certain exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

In addition, to further the 

conservation of the species, any 

employee or agent of the Service, any 

other Federal land management agency, 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, a 

State conservation agency, or a federally 

recognized Tribe, who is designated by 

their agency or Tribe for such purposes, 

may, when acting in the course of their 

official duties, take threatened wildlife 

without a permit if such action is 

necessary to: (i) Aid a sick, injured, or 

orphaned specimen; (ii) dispose of a 

dead specimen; (iii) salvage a dead 

specimen that may be useful for 

scientific study; or (iv) remove 

specimens that constitute a 

demonstrable but nonimmediate threat 

to human safety, provided that the 

taking is done in a humane manner; the 

taking may involve killing or injuring 

only if it has not been reasonably 

possible to eliminate such threat by live 

capturing and releasing the specimen 

unharmed, in an appropriate area. 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship that we have with our State 

natural resource agency partners in 

contributing to conservation of listed 

species. State agencies often possess 

scientific data and valuable expertise on 

the status and distribution of 

endangered, threatened, and candidate 

species of wildlife and plants. State 

agencies, because of their authorities 

and their close working relationships 

with local governments and 

landowners, are in a unique position to 

assist us in implementing all aspects of 

the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the 

Act provides that we must cooperate to 

the maximum extent practicable with 

the States in carrying out programs 

authorized by the Act. Therefore, any 

qualified employee or agent of a State 

conservation agency that is a party to a 

cooperative agreement with us in 

accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, 

who is designated by his or her agency 

for such purposes, would be able to 

conduct activities designed to conserve 

the Clear Lake hitch that may result in 

otherwise prohibited take without 

additional authorization. 

The proposed 4(d) rule would also 

provide for the conservation of the 

species by allowing exceptions that 

incentivize conservation actions or that, 

while they may have some minimal 

level of take of the Clear Lake hitch, are 

not expected to rise to the level that 

would have a negative impact (i.e., 

would have only de minimis impacts) 

on the subspecies’ conservation. The 

proposed exceptions to these 

prohibitions include activities 

associated with the cleanup of illegal 

cannabis cultivation sites in the Clear 

Lake watershed, Tribal collection, fish 

rescues, fuels and fire management 

activities, habitat management and 

restoration, and nonnative fish species 

removal (described below) that are 

expected to have negligible impacts to 

the Clear Lake hitch and its habitat. 

Cleanup of Illegal Cannabis Cultivation 

Sites 

Illegal cannabis cultivation in 

California has been an ongoing problem, 

and illegal grows are known to occur in 

Lake County within the Clear Lake 

hitch’s range (Lake County News 2023, 

entire; California Statewide Law 

Enforcement Association 2020, entire). 

Although species-specific studies on the 

impact that illegal cannabis grows have 

on the Clear Lake hitch are not currently 

available, these illegal cannabis sites are 

known to impact fish and their habitats, 

not only during active operation but 

also when sites are left abandoned. As 

described above in the Threats section, 

many pesticides can be highly toxic and 

used illegally at cannabis grow sites. 

Fertilizers are also used at these sites. 

Growers can add these chemicals to 

their irrigation systems, causing the 

chemicals to seep into the surrounding 

soil and waterways (California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

2021, p. 2; USDA 2023, entire). 

Fertilizers affect the water quality and 

may increase cyanobacteria blooms and 

fish kills (Baker 2018, p. 6).Water 

diversions associated with illegal 

cannabis cultivation sites, block fish 

passage, change flow regimes, and cause 

other secondary effects (Baker 2018, p. 

6). 

Cleanup efforts to address chemical 

contamination and water diversion 

structures from these illegal grow sites 

will help protect the surrounding 

ecosystem and discourage other growers 

from returning to the same sites (USDA 

2023, entire). During cleanup efforts, 

some localized, short-term disturbances 

to Clear Lake hitch habitat may occur if 

activities occur within or adjacent to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4938 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

that habitat. Implementation of these 

cleanup activities will not appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of survival and 

recovery of the Clear Lake hitch and 

will result in a long-term benefit to the 

subspecies and surrounding ecosystem. 

Therefore, we propose to except take 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities 

that remove toxicants, other chemicals, 

and related water diversion 

infrastructure from illegal cannabis 

cultivation sites in the Clear Lake 

watershed. 

Tribal Collection 

The Clear Lake area is one of the 

earliest known sites to be occupied by 

Native Americans, approximately 

10,000 years ago (Richerson et al. 2008, 

p. A259). For their subsistence, the local 

Pomo Tribes historically relied on the 

large spawning runs of hitch and other 

native migrating fish during the spring, 

drying and storing them to eat 

throughout the year. Tribes continued to 

harvest hitch until the mid-1980s, when 

the spawning runs began to decline (Big 

Valley Environmental Protection 

Agency 2013 in CDFW 2014, p. 26). 

California State regulations allowed 

capture of Clear Lake hitch on 

tributaries by hand or dip-net until the 

subspecies was designated a candidate 

for State listing under the CESA (CDFW 

2014, p. 26). 

In recognizing the Tribe’s longstanding relationship to the subspecies, 

we propose to except take caused by 

collection of Clear Lake hitch by 

members of federally recognized Tribes 

for ceremonial use or traditional 

consumption if the collection is 

conducted pursuant to a Tribal 

conservation plan. 

Fish Rescues 

Clear Lake hitch may become 

stranded during drought or at other 

times when there is low water 

availability. Due to their reliance on 

connectivity between tributaries and 

lakes for the reproductive cycle, a 

reduction of flow in the tributaries 

during the spawning season can 

completely eliminate or greatly reduce 

the likelihood for successful 

reproduction or recruitment or both. 

The effects of drought will affect the 

entire subspecies because of its 

inherently narrow range and will result 

in strandings. Several entities aid 

stranded Clear Lake hitch, including 

State, Federal, Tribal, local, and private 

individuals. 

Therefore, we propose to except take 

caused by rescue of individual Clear 

Lake hitch that are at risk of stranding 

and eventual death in drying or 

warming pools, and the subsequent 

transport and release into a flowing, 

connected tributary stream or into a 

larger waterbody (e.g., Clear Lake, Blue 

Lakes, Tule Lake). 

Fuels and Fire Management Activities 

In certain areas, the use of fire and 

wildfire management such as prescribed 

burns, fuel reduction activities, and 

maintenance of fuel breaks (not 

including the use of heavy equipment 

such as bulldozers, backhoes, or 

tractors) may assist in protecting and 

maintaining land adjacent to the aquatic 

systems used by the Clear Lake hitch. 

Establishing and maintaining required 

minimum vegetation clearance from 

dwellings or structures to reduce 

wildland fire risks to human life and 

property may assist in protecting and 

maintaining habitat for the Clear Lake 

hitch by controlling erosion and 

improving water quality. This process 

includes activities necessary to maintain 

the minimum clearance (defensible 

space) requirement from any occupied 

dwelling or occupied structure, or to the 

property line, whichever is nearer, to 

provide reasonable fire safety and to 

reduce wildfire risks consistent with the 

State of California fire codes or local fire 

codes/ordinances. Therefore, we 

propose to except take incidental to an 

otherwise lawful activity caused by 

fuels and fire management activities 

(such as prescribed fire) to reduce the 

risk or severity of catastrophic wildfire, 

and when such activities will be carried 

out in accordance with an established 

and recognized fuels or forest 

management plan that includes 

measures to minimize impacts to the 

Clear Lake hitch or aquatic habitats and 

will result in conservation benefits to 

the Clear Lake hitch. 

Habitat Management and Restoration 

Clear Lake hitch individuals require 

connectivity to lakes and tributaries 

throughout their lives. Different life 

stages depend on different habitat types. 

Tributaries are used for spawning and 

successful reproduction. During the 

spawning season, most adults likely 

migrate into the connected tributaries; 

however, some reproductive adults may 

stay within the lake and spawn along 

the shore, the mouth of tributaries, or in 

backwater areas (e.g., Rodman Slough in 

Clear Lake). Outside of the spawning 

season, the Clear Lake hitch is primarily 

found in Clear Lake or Thurston Lake, 

but can also be found in Tule Lake, the 

Blue Lakes, and other permanent 

waterbodies such as reservoirs and 

ponds. Within the lacustrine habitats, 

the subspecies can be found in either 

the littoral zone (nearshore) as juveniles 

or the limnetic zone (sun-lit, offshore 

open water) as adults. During extreme 

drought conditions, the only successful 

reproduction may be within the lakes. 

Nonnative vegetative growth along the 

lake’s shoreline can outcompete the 

growth of important native wetland 

plant species, such as tule. Nonnative 

plant species, such as Himalayan 

blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), growing 

along the tributaries can become so 

overgrown that they become passage 

barriers or they outcompete native 

species such as willows and 

cottonwoods. Removal and maintenance 

of excessive nonnative vegetation may 

assist the restoration of wetland and 

riparian habitats throughout the 

watershed so that these habitats can be 

used as breeding and rearing habitat for 

the Clear Lake hitch. 

Therefore, we propose to except take 

incidental to otherwise lawful activity 

caused by habitat management and 

restoration efforts that specifically 

provide for the habitat needs of the 

Clear Lake hitch and include measures 

that minimize impacts to the subspecies 

and its habitat. These efforts must be 

carried out in accordance with finalized 

conservation plans or strategies for the 

Clear Lake hitch that have the approval 

of appropriate State or Federal agencies. 

These activities will most likely have 

some limited short-term impacts but 

overall will provide for conservation of 

the subspecies. 

Nonnative Fish Species Removal 

As noted earlier in this document, 25 

different species of nonnative fish have 

been introduced into Clear Lake for 

recreational or biological control 

purposes, and although not all of them 

have become established, about 20 are 

still found in the lake today (Thompson 

et al. 2013, pp. 12–17). All of the 

piscivorous species in Clear Lake are 

potential predators of the Clear Lake 

hitch, and there have been accounts of 

the subspecies in the digestive tracts of 

both largemouth bass and channel 

catfish (Macedo 1994, p. 5; Moyle et al. 

1995, pp. 154–155; Moyle et al. 2014, p. 

10). Anecdotal reports suggest the Clear 

Lake hitch may be a main prey-item for 

largemouth bass. Predation and 

competition from the nonnative species 

will continue to affect the Clear Lake 

hitch at the individual, population, and 

subspecies level into the future 

throughout its range, reducing survival, 

reproduction, and recruitment, which 

reduces resiliency by decreasing the size 

of the spawning and overall population. 

Nonnative species removal will 

significantly increase the viability of the 

Clear Lake hitch. Actions with the 

primary or secondary purpose of 

removing nonnative fish species that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4939 

compete with, predate upon, or degrade 

the habitat of the Clear Lake hitch are 

beneficial to the Clear Lake hitch. 

Therefore, we propose to exempt take 

incidental to otherwise lawful activity 

caused by removal or eradication of 

nonnative fish species. This exception 

does not include actions that disturb 

habitat or involve the use of chemicals. 

III. Critical Habitat 

Background 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires 

that, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, we designate a 

species’ critical habitat concurrently 

with listing the species. Critical habitat 

is defined in section 3 of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features: 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that each Federal action 

agency ensure, in consultation with the 

Service, that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat. The designation of critical 

habitat does not affect land ownership 

or establish a refuge, wilderness, 

reserve, preserve, or other conservation 

area. Such designation also does not 

allow the government or public to 

access private lands. Such designation 

does not require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures by non-Federal landowners. 

Rather, designation requires that, where 

a landowner requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization for an action 

that may affect an area designated as 

critical habitat, the Federal agency 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may 

affect the listed species itself (such as 

for occupied critical habitat), the 

Federal agency would have already been 

required to consult with the Service 

even absent the designation because of 

the requirement to ensure that the 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. Even 

if the Service were to conclude after 

consultation that the proposed activity 

is likely to result in destruction or 

adverse modification of the critical 

habitat, the Federal action agency and 

the landowner are not required to 

abandon the proposed activity, or to 

restore or recover the species; instead, 

they must implement ‘‘reasonable and 

prudent alternatives’’ to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, those physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species (such as 

space, food, cover, and protected 

habitat). 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

we designate critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information compiled in 

the SSA report and information 

developed during the listing process for 

the species. Additional information 

sources may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. Habitat is 

dynamic, and species may move from 

one area to another over time. 

We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in the 4(d) rule. 

Federally funded or permitted projects 

affecting listed species outside their 

designated critical habitat areas may 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4940 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

still result in jeopardy findings in some 

cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of the species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best scientific 

data available at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of those planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) 

state that critical habitat is not 

determinable when one or both of the 

following situations exist: 

(i) Data sufficient to perform required 

analyses are lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

identify any area that meets the 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the subspecies and habitat 

characteristics where this subspecies is 

located, but sufficient data to perform 

the required consideration of economic 

impacts are lacking at this time. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Clear Lake hitch is not determinable at 

this time. The Act allows the Service an 

additional year to publish a critical 

habitat designation that is not 

determinable at the time of listing (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 

12988 and by the Presidential 

Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write 

all rules in plain language. This means 

that each rule we publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do 

not require an environmental analysis 

under NEPA. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

includes listing, delisting, and 

reclassification rules, as well as critical 

habitat designations and speciesspecific protective regulations 

promulgated concurrently with a 

decision to list or reclassify a species as 

threatened. The courts have upheld this 

position (e.g., Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(critical habitat); Center for Biological 

Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) rule)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government- to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 

1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), the President’s 

memorandum of November 30, 2022 

(Uniform Standards for Tribal 

Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 

2022), and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations (ANCs) on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretary’s Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We contacted all federally recognized 

Tribes in the range of the Clear Lake 

hitch during the initiation of our SSA 

development process. Two of the local 

Tribes provided technical review of the 

SSA report. We will continue to work 

with relevant Tribal entities during the 

development of a final rule for listing of, 

and a proposed rule for the designation 

of critical habitat for, the Clear Lake 

hitch. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are members of Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Species Assessment Team and 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife by adding an entry for ‘‘Hitch, 

Clear Lake’’ in alphabetical order under 

FISHES to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

*******

FISHES


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4941 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

*******

Hitch, Clear Lake ............ Lavinia exilicauda chi ..... Wherever found .............. T [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]; 50 CFR 17.44(mm).4d

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.44 by adding paragraph 

(mm) to read as follows: 

§ 17.44 Species-specific rules—fishes. 

* * * * * 

(mm) Clear Lake hitch (Lavinia 

exilicauda chi). 

(1) Prohibitions. The following 

prohibitions that apply to endangered 

wildlife also apply to the Clear Lake 

hitch. Except as provided under 

paragraph (mm)(2) of this section and 

§§ 17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to commit, to attempt to 

commit, to solicit another to commit, or 

cause to be committed any of the 

following acts in regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) 

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth 

at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. 

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of a commercial activity, as 

set forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. 

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In 

regard to this species, you may: 

(i) Conduct activities as authorized by 

a permit under § 17.32. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) 

through (4) for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b). 

(iv) Possess and engage in other acts 

with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set 

forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Take incidental to an otherwise 

lawful activity caused by: 

(A) Activities that remove toxicants, 

other chemicals, and related water 

diversion infrastructure from illegal 

cannabis cultivation sites in the Clear 

Lake watershed. 

(B) Fuels and fire management 

activities (such as prescribed fire) to 

reduce the risk or severity of 

catastrophic wildfire, and when such 

activities will be carried out in 

accordance with an established and 

recognized fuels or forest management 

plan that includes measures to 

minimize impacts to the Clear Lake 

hitch or aquatic habitats and will result 

in conservation benefits to the Clear 

Lake hitch. This exception does not 

include the use of heavy equipment, 

such as bulldozers, backhoes, or 

tractors, for fuels and fire management 

activities. 

(C) Habitat management and 

restoration efforts that are specifically 

designed to provide for the conservation 

of the Clear Lake hitch’s habitat needs 

and include measures that minimize 

impacts to the Clear Lake hitch and its 

habitat. These efforts must be carried 

out in accordance with finalized 

conservation plans or strategies for the 

Clear Lake hitch that have the approval 

of appropriate State or Federal agencies. 

(D) Removal or eradication of 

nonnative fish species, including, but 

not limited to, carp and goldfish, for the 

conservation benefit of the Clear Lake 

hitch. This exception does not include 

actions that disturb habitat or involve 

the use of chemicals. 

(vi) Purposefully take associated with: 

(A) Collection of Clear Lake hitch 

individuals by members of federally 

recognized Tribes for ceremonial use or 

traditional Tribal consumption if the 

collection is conducted pursuant to a 

Tribal conservation plan. 

(B) Activities associated with rescuing 

Clear Lake hitch individuals that are at 

risk of stranding in drying or warming 

pools and relocating them into 

connected waterways. 

* * * * * 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31756 Filed 1–15–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2