Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61007 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R6–ES–2008–0088; MO 9921050083– 

B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Least Chub 

(Iotichthys phlegethontis) as 

Threatened or Endangered With 

Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing of the least chub may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a status review of the species, 

and we will issue a 12-month finding to 

determine if the petitioned action is 

warranted. To ensure that the status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

soliciting scientific and commercial data 

regarding this species. We will make a 

determination on critical habitat for this 

species if, and when, we initiate a 

listing action. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before 

December 15, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R6– 

ES–2008–0088; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all information at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Information Solicited section below for 

more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2369 

West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley 

City, UT 84119; telephone 801–975– 

3330, extension 126. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Solicited 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly commence a 

review of the status of the species. To 

ensure that the status review is 

complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are soliciting 

information from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, 

Native American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning the status 

of the least chub. We are seeking 

information regarding the species’ 

historical and current status and 

distribution, its biology and ecology, 

ongoing conservation measures for the 

species and its habitat, and threats to 

the species and its habitat. 

If we determine that listing the least 

chub is warranted, it is our intent to 

propose critical habitat to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable at the 

time we propose to list the species. 

Therefore, with regard to areas within 

the geographical range currently 

occupied by the least chub, we also 

request data and information on what 

may constitute physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, where these features are 

currently found, and whether any of 

these features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. In addition, we request data 

and information regarding whether 

there are areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Please provide specific 

information as to what, if any, critical 

habitat you think we should propose for 

designation if the species is proposed 

for listing, and why such habitat meets 

the requirements of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

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

determinations as to whether any 

species is a threatened or endangered 

species shall be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ At the 

conclusion of the status review, we will 

issue the 12-month finding on the 

petition, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(B)). 

You may submit your information 

concerning this 90-day finding by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We will not accept comments 

sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not 

listed in the ADDRESSES section. Finally, 

we may not consider comments that we 

do not receive by the date specified in 

the DATES section. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. 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 http://www.regulations.gov. 

Information and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this 90-day finding, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Utah Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act requires that we make a 

finding on whether a petition to list, 

delist, or reclassify a species presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. We 

are to base this finding on information 

provided in the petition and supporting 

information otherwise available in our 

files at the time of the petition review. 

To the maximum extent practicable, we 

are to make this finding within 90 days 

of our receipt of the petition, and 

publish our notice of this finding 

promptly in the Federal Register. 

Our standard for substantial 

information as defined in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) regarding a 

90-day petition finding is ‘‘that amount 

of information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we 

find that the petition presented 

substantial information, we are required 

to promptly commence a review of the 

status of the species. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS-1
61008 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

We received a petition from the 

Center for Biological Diversity, 

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute 

Reservation, Great Basin Chapter of 

Trout Unlimited, and Utah Chapter of 

the Sierra Club, dated June 19, 2007, 

requesting that we list the least chub 

(Iotichthys phlegethontis) as threatened 

or endangered under the Act. 

Additionally, the petition requested that 

critical habitat be designated concurrent 

with listing. The petition clearly 

identified itself as a petition and 

included the identification information, 

as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). We 

acknowledged receipt of the petition in 

a letter dated July 13, 2007. In that letter 

we advised the petitioners that we could 

not address their petition at that time 

because existing court orders and 

settlement agreements for other listing 

actions required nearly all of our listing 

funding. We also concluded that 

emergency listing of the least chub was 

not warranted. 

In making this finding, we relied on 

information provided by the petitioners 

that we determined to be reliable after 

reviewing sources referenced in the 

petition and available in our files. We 

evaluated that information in 

accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our 

process for making this 90-day finding 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act is 

limited to a determination of whether 

the information in the petition meets the 

‘‘substantial information’’ threshold. 

Previous Federal Actions 

In 1972, and again in 1989, the least 

chub was recognized as a threatened 

species by the Endangered Species 

Committee of the American Fisheries 

Society (Miller 1972, p. 250; Williams et 

al. 1989, pp. 2, 5). In 1980, the Service 

reviewed the species’ status and 

determined that there was insufficient 

data to warrant its listing as an 

endangered or threatened species. On 

December 30, 1982, the Service 

classified the least chub as a Category 2 

Candidate Species (47 FR 58454). In 

1989, we again conducted a status 

review, and we reclassified least chub as 

a Category 1 Candidate Species (54 FR 

554). On September 29, 1995, the 

Service published a proposed rule to list 

the least chub as endangered with 

critical habitat (60 FR 50518). A listing 

moratorium, imposed by Congress in 

1995, suspended all listing activities 

and further action on the proposal was 

postponed. 

During the moratorium, the Service, 

Utah Department of Natural Resources 

(UDNR), Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 

Utah Reclamation and Mitigation 

Conservation Commission (URMCC), 

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute 

Reservation, and Central Utah Water 

Conservancy District developed a Least 

Chub Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy (LCCAS), and formed the Least 

Chub Conservation Team (Perkins et al. 

1998). The LCCAS was revised in 2005 

(Bailey et al. 2005). The goal of the 

agreement is to ensure the species’ longterm survival within its historic range 

and assist in the development of 

rangewide conservation efforts. The 

objectives of the agreement are to 

eliminate or significantly reduce threats 

to the least chub and its habitat, to the 

greatest extent possible, and to ensure 

the continued existence of the species 

by restoring and maintaining a 

minimum number of least chub 

populations throughout its historic 

range. The Least Chub Conservation 

Team implements the LCCAS, and 

monitors populations, threats, and 

habitat conditions. 

As a result of conservation actions 

and commitments made by signatories 

to the 1998 LCCAS (Perkins et al. 1998, 

p. 10), measures to protect the least 

chub were being addressed and 

implemented. Consequently, the Service 

withdrew the listing proposal on July 

29, 1999 (64 FR 41061). 

Species Information 

The least chub (Iotichthys 

phlegethontis) is a monotypic cyprinid 

(member of the minnow family) that is 

typically less than 6.5 centimeters (2.6 

inches) long. The species has broad 

tolerances to habitat conditions that 

have allowed it to persist in the 

fluctuating environments of the springs 

and marshes of Utah’s West Desert 

(Lamarra 1981, p. 1). Least chub are 

intermittent spawners, releasing a few 

eggs at a time over an extended period 

from February to September (Crawford 

1979, p. 74). They are opportunistic 

feeders and use available food items, 

including algae, diatomaceous material, 

midges, copepods, and ostracods (Sigler 

and Sigler 1987, p. 182; Hickman 1989, 

p. 8), depending on seasons and habitats 

(Crist and Holden 1980, p. 808; Lamarra 

1981, p. 5). 

The species is endemic to the 

Bonneville Basin of Utah where it was 

once widely distributed throughout a 

variety of habitats, including rivers, 

streams, springs, ponds, marshes, and 

swamps (Sigler and Miller 1963, p. 91). 

Over the past 15,000 years, least chub 

have persisted in relic wetland pockets 

left by Bonneville and Provo Lakes, 

which have been receding since the 

Pleistocene period. A decline in the 

abundance of least chub was first noted 

in the 1940s and 1950s (Osmundson 

1985, p. 1). 

Currently, six known, wild, extant 

populations of least chub remain. Three 

are in Snake Valley in Utah’s West 

Desert, and include the Leland Harris 

Spring complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, and 

Bishop Spring: 

(1) Leland Harris—R.R. Miller 

collected the first least chub from the 

Leland Harris Spring complex in 1970 

(Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 182). The site 

is north of the Juab/Millard County line 

and is primarily on BLM land, but 

portions are privately owned. The site 

consists of 12 springheads that feed a 

playa wetland. The habitat fluctuates in 

size seasonally. Least chub is the 

dominant fish species; they are 

abundant and the population appears to 

be stable (Hines et al. 2008, p. 42). The 

site has been monitored annually by the 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR) since 1993 (Hines et al. 2008, 

p. 43). Miller Spring is part of the 

Leland Harris Spring complex, but 

outflows of the two sites are not always 

connected. 

(2) Gandy Salt Marsh—C.L. Hubbs 

collected least chub at this site in 1942 

(Sigler and Miller 1963, p. 82). Gandy 

Salt Marsh is south of the Millard/Juab 

County line and is managed by BLM. It 

consists of 52 small springheads that 

drain into a large playa wetland. Least 

chub numbers fluctuate at this site, but 

they are persistent and nonnative 

species are not present (Hines et al. 

2008, p. 40). 

(3) Bishop Springs (Twin Springs)— 

This spring complex is the largest 

occupied least chub site in Snake 

Valley. The marsh has four large springs 

containing least chub, including Foote 

Reservoir, Central Spring, and two sites 

at Twin Springs. These flow into 

marshlands, seeps, and braided 

channels. The least chub population has 

remained stable; however, nonnatives 

are present and include common carp 

(Cyprinus carpio), bull frogs (Rana 

catesbeiana), and a small number of 

bass (Micropterus sp.) (Hines et al. 2008, 

p. 37). 

The remaining three wild populations 

are located along the Wasatch Front and 

include Mills Valley and Clear Lake in 

the Sevier River drainage and Mona 

Springs in the Utah Lake drainage: 

(4) Mills Valley—The Mills Valley 

population was discovered in 1996 by 

UDWR biologists. The site is in the 

Sevier River drainage in Mills Valley, 

southeast Juab County. It consists of a 

wetland with many springheads 

throughout the complex. Most of Mills 

Valley is privately owned, but a portion 

is on the UDWR Mills Meadows 

Wildlife Management Area (WMA). 

Nonnatives at this site include fathead 

minnows (Pimephales promelas), 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61009 

sunfish (Lepomis sp.), and common carp 

(Cyprinus carpio). Surveys from 1999 to 

2006 indicate a stable least chub 

population; however, fathead minnow 

numbers during this period have 

doubled (Hines et al. 2008, p. 44). 

(5) Clear Lake—In 2003, UDWR 

biologists found least chub at the Clear 

Lake Waterfowl Management Area. This 

reserve consists of a shallow reservoir 

and diked ponds. It is managed by 

UDWR to provide waterfowl habitat and 

is located on the southern edge of the 

Bonneville Basin in Millard County. 

Nonnatives captured at Clear Lake 

include rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) and common carp. Population 

estimates are difficult to determine at 

the Clear Lake site; however, since the 

discovery of this population, successful 

recruitment has been documented 

(Hines et al. 2008, p. 45). 

(6) Mona Springs—The Mona Springs 

population was discovered in 1995 by 

biologists from UDWR. The UDWR and 

BOR acquired 41.5 hectares (ha) (102.6 

acres (ac)) on the Mona Springs complex 

(URMCC 2008). Least chub at this site 

may be extirpated as a result of 

mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) 

infestation (Hines et al. 2008, p. 34). 

Portions of wild least chub 

populations have been introduced into 

captive or natural refuge environments 

by UDWR, including five genetic refuge 

and translocation sites: 

(1) Lucin Pond—Lucin Pond was built 

to provide cooling water for locomotive 

steam engines for the transcontinental 

railroad. The water is collected from 

springs in the Pilot Mountains and 

delivered by an antiquated aqueduct a 

distance of approximately 8 kilometers 

(km) (5 miles (mi)). Forty-two least chub 

were transplanted to Lucin Pond in 

1989 by UDWR biologists; however the 

origin of these fish was not documented. 

Genetic analysis indicates the fish 

originated from both the Gandy Salt 

Marsh and Leland Harris populations in 

Snake Valley (Mock and Miller 2005, p. 

276). Mosquitofish are abundant in the 

pond. 

(2) Antelope Island—Garden Creek is 

a 0.04–ha (0.1–ac) pond that was 

dredged by the Utah Department of 

Parks and Recreation (UDPR), and is fed 

by a perennial stream. In 2004, 947 least 

chub were introduced to the pond. This 

site is considered a genetic refuge for 

the Mona Springs population. 

Reproduction and recruitment are 

occurring, and this transplant area 

appears to be a success (Hines et al. 

2008, p. 46). 

(3) Atherly Reservoir—Atherly 

Reservoir is a waterfowl management 

area located in Rush Valley in Tooele 

County, and operated by UDWR. 

Approximately 13,000 least chub from 

the Mills Valley population were 

introduced in 2006. Common carp are 

present at the site. The status of the 

population will be determined after 

monitoring is conducted (Hines et al. 

2008, p. 50). 

(4) Fish Springs National Wildlife 

Refuge—Attempts in 1995 and 1996 to 

introduce least chub into spring heads 

on the refuge were unsuccessful due to 

the reinvasion of mosquitofish. In 2007, 

least chub were introduced into Ibis and 

Pintail Ponds, two units on the Refuge 

that had been drained and allowed to 

stay dry over the winter. Mosquitofish 

are present, but the sites are large, the 

habitat is diverse and expansive, and 

the ponds can be drained periodically 

(Hines et al. 2008, p. 50). 

(5) Red Knolls Pond—This site is 

located in west Box Elder County. 

Nonnative eradication has been 

conducted, and the pond is fenced to 

exclude livestock. In 2005, 250 least 

chub from Bishop Springs were 

introduced. Successful recruitment was 

observed in 2006 (Hines et al. 2008, p. 

50). 

Least chub are being held and 

produced at the Wahweap State Fish 

Hatchery in Big Water, Utah, and the 

Fisheries Experiment Station in Logan, 

Utah. Fish from these stations are used 

for transplants to reintroduction sites. 

Threats Analysis 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR 424) set forth the procedures for 

adding species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: (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) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Listing actions may be 

warranted based on any of the above 

threat factors, singly or in combination. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding the least chub, as presented in 

the petition and other information 

available in our files at the time of 

petition review, is substantial, thereby 

indicating that listing the least chub as 

threatened or endangered may be 

warranted. Our evaluation is presented 

below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Habitat or Range 

The petitioners state that threats to 

the species’ habitat include: (1) 

Livestock grazing; (2) mining, including 

peat mining and oil and gas leasing and 

exploration; (3) urban development; and 

(4) water withdrawal and diversion. 

Livestock Grazing 

The petitioners state that nearly 100 

percent of the wild, extant least chub 

sites have been impacted by livestock in 

the last 10 years, and that direct and 

indirect impacts from livestock grazing 

to least chub, and aquatic habits in 

general, is well documented in the 

literature (Schultz and Leininger 1990, 

pp. 297–299; Fleischner 1994, pp. 635– 

636). 

The petitioners report that livestock 

grazing impacts at the Mills Valley 

population site are the most serious in 

existing wild chub habitat. Ungulate 

damage occurs at other least chub sites, 

including Mona Springs, Leland Harris, 

and Twin Springs south of the Bishop 

Springs site, and Central Spring and 

Foote Reservoir at the Bishop Springs 

site. They state that most least chub 

habitats are not protected from grazing. 

The petitioners provide general 

information regarding livestock damage 

to least chub habitats, but do not present 

specific information that livestock 

damage has resulted in least chub 

population declines or loss of habitat. 

The LCCAS has identified livestock 

grazing as a potential threat to least 

chub habitats; the Least Chub 

Conservation Team monitors grazing 

conditions at least chub population 

sites, and implements protective 

measures as necessary. At the Mona 

Springs site, an electric fence has been 

installed around the spring and riparian 

area to exclude cattle. Fencing has also 

been installed at Gandy Salt Marsh, 

Leland Harris, and Miller Spring to 

exclude cattle from spring head areas. A 

rotational grazing plan was 

implemented on 75 ha (188 ac) of the 

Leland Harris site to improve habitat 

conditions (Hines et al. 2008, p. 8). 

On the basis of our evaluation of the 

information presented in the petition, 

we determined that the petition does 

not present substantial information 

indicating that listing the least chub 

may be warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range due to 

livestock grazing. The Least Chub 

Conservation Team implements 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

through the LCCAS to reduce the threat 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS-1
61010 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

of livestock grazing to known 

populations of least chub. 

Mining, Oil and Gas Leasing and 

Exploration 

The petitioners state that mining can 

negatively impact least chub 

populations by polluting streams or 

reducing stream flows. The petition 

documents illegal peat mining in Mills 

Valley on private property in the late 

1990s. Mills Valley contains one of the 

larger least chub populations. Although 

the illegal activities have ceased, 

permits have now been issued that 

could allow future peat mining. The 

petitioners acknowledge that peat 

mining has not yet occurred, and they 

reference an evaluation indicating that 

peat mining in Mills Valley might not be 

profitable. 

The petitioners accurately report that 

oil and gas leasing and exploration is 

ongoing in areas occupied by least chub. 

They state that oil and gas exploration 

or development can result in impacts to 

springs, marshes, and riparian and other 

associated vegetation. Water used for 

these operations can impact habitats by 

polluting streams or reducing stream 

flows. 

The petition documents that, in 2006, 

BLM leased multiple parcels north and 

west of Miller Spring and in parts of the 

Leland Harris population site. Most of 

the Gandy Salt Marsh area and portions 

of Mills Valley also have been leased. 

Applications for permits to drill at these 

sites have not yet been pursued. The 

petitioners document that BLM has 

attached directional drilling stipulations 

to the Gandy Salt Marsh leases with the 

intent to minimize impacts to occupied 

least chub habitats. 

Seismic lines have been tested to 

determine locations of oil and gas 

deposits in the Mills Valley area. 

Although lease holders have committed 

to avoiding spring and marsh habitats 

within seismic routes, the petitioners 

believe that impacts will occur from 

seismic exploration. The petitioners 

state that vehicles, including drilling 

rigs and recording trucks, will crush 

vegetation and compact soils. Routes 

used for seismic exploration will likely 

become established roads. Surface 

activities may impact water quality. 

Drilling activities have the potential to 

release drilling fluids into the aquifer or 

fracture underground geologic features 

that are associated with spring 

discharge. 

We are aware of past illegal peat 

mining activities in Mills Valley. We 

reviewed the potential for lawful peat 

mining to occur in the future. As the 

petitioners cite, UDNR contracted an 

analysis of the quality of the peat in 

2003. The report revealed that the peat 

is of inferior quality and would not be 

financially profitable to harvest. 

Therefore, given our current 

understanding of peat quality in the 

area, we believe the threat from largescale peat mining is minimal. 

Oil and gas leasing and exploration 

have the potential to impact least chub 

habitats. The petition provides general 

information regarding the extent of oil 

and gas leasing and potential 

development in least chub habitats. 

However, it does not present specific 

information that this development has 

resulted in losses, or threatens to result 

in losses, of least chub habitat. The 

petition correctly identifies 

conservation measures that BLM has 

attached to leases in occupied least 

chub habitats. 

Much of the information in the 

petition concerning oil and gas leasing 

and exploration identifies potential 

rather than actual impacts. On the basis 

of our evaluation of the information 

presented in the petition, we 

determined that it does not present 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing the least chub may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range due to 

mining or oil and gas leasing or 

exploration. 

Urban and Suburban Development 

The petitioners indicate that urban 

and suburban development affect least 

chub habitats with numerous, diverse, 

direct and indirect impacts, including 

but not limited to: (1) Encroachment 

that changes the hydrology, sediment 

regimes, and pollution input; (2) human 

occupation near streams and springs 

that increases the potential for 

introduction of nonnative plants and 

animals; and (3) alterations of stream 

banks, floodplains, and wetland habitats 

by increased diversions of surface flows 

and connected groundwater. 

The petitioners state that throughout 

the Utah Lake hydrological subunit, 

residential development and 

agricultural and municipal water 

development projects have impacted 

least chub by converting habitats into 

residential areas and altering natural 

flows. They indicate that the Mona 

Springs habitat is experiencing rapid 

growth and that a development is 

expanding to within 2 km (1.25 mi) of 

the least chub site. 

We acknowledge that development 

has impacted the Wasatch Front least 

chub populations. The least chub was 

originally reported to be common 

throughout the Bonneville Basin in a 

variety of habitat types (Sigler and 

Miller 1963, p. 82). Innumerable 

springs, streams, and wetlands along the 

Wasatch Front have been impacted or 

eliminated as a result of development. 

However, within the currently 

occupied range of the least chub, no 

wild populations are known to be at risk 

from urban development. UDWR owns 

the majority of suitable habitat of 

populations near the Wasatch Front, 

including the Mona Springs and Clear 

Lake sites, and a portion of Mills Valley. 

In addition, Mills Valley is largely a 

peat wetland with low development 

potential. On the basis of our evaluation 

of the information presented in the 

petition, we determined that it does not 

present substantial information to 

indicate that listing the least chub may 

be warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range due to 

urban or suburban development. 

Water Withdrawal and Diversion 

The petitioners consider the most 

significant threat to Snake Valley least 

chub populations to be proposed 

groundwater withdrawals from the 

Snake Valley aquifer. They indicate that 

the agency charged with supplying 

water to Las Vegas, the Southern 

Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), has 

proposed drilling nine groundwater 

pumping stations just inside Nevada on 

the Utah/Nevada border in Snake 

Valley, and withdrawing up to 3,048 to 

3,658 hectare-meters (ha-m) (25,000 to 

30,000 ac-ft) a year of groundwater 

(Schaeffer and Harrill 1995, p. 11). The 

petitioners believe the wells will likely 

be drilled at locations where water from 

creeks coming off the Snake Range 

becomes subterranean and enters Utah’s 

portion of Snake Valley. If all permits 

are granted, SNWA intends to start 

pumping in 2015. The petitioners state 

that although SNWA’s formal proposal 

calls for pumping about 3,048 ha-m 

(25,000 ac-ft) of water per year from 

Snake Valley, SNWA has applications 

on file with the Nevada State Engineer 

for pumping roughly double that 

amount—up to 6,177 ha-m (50,665 ac-ft) 

per year. In their Clark, Lincoln, and 

White Pine Counties Groundwater 

Development (GWD) Project Final 

Scoping Package for an Environmental 

Impact Statement, SNWA identified 9 

points of diversion in Snake Valley and 

estimates of 15 to 25 groundwater 

production wells (BLM 2006, pp. 1, 2, 

17, 18). 

The petitioners reference several 

studies predicting impacts to the 

dynamics and overall budget of the 

Snake Valley groundwater system 

(Schaeffer and Harrill 1995, pp. 19–27; 

Kirby and Hurlow 2005, pp. 21–26, 30– 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61011 

34). They state that once groundwater 

pumping at the base of the Snake Range 

begins, spring discharge throughout 

Snake Valley will decrease by an 

unpredictable amount and rate. 

The petitioners present their concerns 

relative to characterization of the aquifer 

and conclude that groundwater 

pumping in Spring Valley, Nevada, will 

affect Utah resources. Reductions in the 

water table of the Spring Valley aquifer 

could decrease the current flow of an 

estimated 488 to 610 ha-m (4,000 to 

5,000 ac-ft) per year through the alluvial 

aquifer that delivers groundwater to 

Snake Valley. The petitioners question 

whether the water in this aquifer is a 

renewable resource. They believe that 

geologic changes may have occurred 

since the aquifers filled, resulting in 

partitioning of the aquifers and 

alteration of flows within the system. 

To evaluate the reliability of the 

petitioners’ statements concerning water 

withdrawals, we reviewed the 

information available to us in our files. 

Aspects of the GWD project have 

changed since the petitioners’ 

description, and will likely continue to 

change as the project progresses. An 

overview of the GWD project indicates 

that the SNWA has applied to the BLM 

for issuance of rights-of-way to 

construct and operate a system of 

regional water supply and conveyance 

facilities. The project would include 

conveyance of up to 24,384 ha-m 

(200,000 ac-ft) of groundwater—20,360 

ha-m (167,000 ac-ft) by SNWA and the 

remaining capacity provided for Lincoln 

County Water District from six 

hydrographic basins (SNWA 2007, p. 1– 

1). The groundwater that SNWA intends 

to convey would be from both existing 

and future permitted water rights in 

hydrographic basins of the Great Salt 

Lake Desert Regional Flow System 

(Nevada and Utah) and White River 

Flow System (Nevada). 

The GWD project includes 

construction and operation of 

groundwater production wells, water 

conveyance facilities, and power 

facilities. The proposed production 

wells and facilities would be located on 

public lands managed by BLM in 

Nevada. No facilities are planned in 

Utah. Two portions of the GWD project, 

the Spring Valley Basin and the Snake 

Valley Basin, may affect Utah resources 

(SNWA 2007, p. 1–1). 

The Nevada State Engineer issued a 

ruling on April 16, 2007, approving a 

major portion of the SNWA 

groundwater rights applications for the 

Spring Valley Hydrographic Basin. 

SNWA can pump 4,877 ha-m (40,000 

ac-ft) annually from the Basin, with the 

potential for an additional 2,438 ha-m 

(20,000 ac-ft) per year based on results 

of 10 years of monitoring (State of 

Nevada 2007, p. 56). The Service and 

other Department of the Interior (DOI) 

agencies (BLM, National Park Service, 

and Bureau of Indian Affairs) protested 

SNWA’s Spring Valley water rights 

applications when they were filed in 

1989, based in part on potential impacts 

to water-dependent resources. 

The DOI agencies reached a stipulated 

agreement with SNWA for the Spring 

Valley withdrawal, and withdrew their 

protests before the Nevada State 

Engineer held a hearing. The Stipulated 

Agreement, signed in September 2006, 

established a process for developing and 

implementing hydrologic and biologic 

monitoring, management, and 

mitigation (State of Nevada 2007, p. 56). 

Representatives from the Service and 

UDWR are participating on the 

Biological Work Group formed under 

the Spring Valley Stipulation 

Agreement. This group is designing and 

implementing a monitoring, 

management, and mitigation plan to 

avoid unreasonable adverse effects to 

water-dependent ecosystems and to 

maintain or enhance baseline biologic 

integrity and ecological health (SNWA 

2006, Exhibit 2). In accordance with the 

Nevada State Engineer’s ruling, 5 years 

of baseline data must be collected and 

analyzed prior to initiation of any 

groundwater pumping. 

The Nevada State Engineer hearings 

on SNWA water rights applications in 

Snake Valley have not yet been 

scheduled. According to the Lincoln 

County Recreation and Development 

Act (LCCRDA) of 2004, before any transbasin diversion from groundwater 

basins located within Nevada and Utah, 

the States must reach an agreement on 

the division of water resources and 

groundwater flow systems. Negotiations 

are occurring, but Nevada and Utah 

have not reached agreement. The 

timeframe for an interstate water 

withdrawal agreement for Snake Valley 

is uncertain. 

The petitioners reference predictions 

of impacts to the Snake Valley aquifer 

from groundwater pumping (Kirby and 

Hurlow 2005, p. 33). We concur that 

some or all of these impacts may occur. 

However, a lack of information on the 

extent of aquifers, their hydraulic 

properties, and the distribution of water 

levels in the aquifers makes it difficult 

to develop a reliable prediction of the 

amount or location of draw-down, or the 

rate of change in natural discharge, 

caused by pumping (Prudic 2006, p. 3). 

A hydrologic groundwater flow model 

specific to the six basins being analyzed 

in the current Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), and outlined in the 

GWD project, is being developed. 

The LCCRDA of 2004 directed a study 

of groundwater quantity, quality, and 

flow characteristics in the carbonate and 

alluvial aquifers of White Pine County, 

Nevada; groundwater basins located in 

White Pine or Lincoln Counties, 

Nevada; and adjacent areas in Utah. 

This Basin and Range Carbonate Aquifer 

System (BARCAS) study was conducted 

by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the 

Desert Research Institute, and the State 

of Utah. USGS released a final report of 

the BARCAS study on February 22, 

2008 (USGS 2008). 

The BARCAS study included a waterresources assessment of the geologic 

framework and hydrologic processes 

influencing the quantity and quality of 

groundwater resources. USGS 

determined that groundwater systems 

underlying many of the valleys in 

eastern Nevada and western Utah are 

not isolated, but rather contribute to or 

receive flow from adjoining basins. 

They also determined that some largevolume springs cannot be supported 

entirely by the local recharge from the 

adjacent mountains; these springs 

depend on water from potentially 

hundreds of miles away (USGS 2008, 

pp. 2–8). 

The BARCAS study is used to guide 

designation of basin and regional 

groundwater ‘‘budgets’’ for 13 

hydrographic areas and the entire study 

area in White Pine County, Nevada. The 

study included assessment of the 

hydrogeology, recharge and discharge, 

and groundwater flow and geochemistry 

of the aquifer system. One result from 

the BARCAS study was documentation 

that the study-wide average annual 

groundwater recharge exceeded annual 

discharge by about 10,973 ha-m (90,000 

ac-ft); most of this groundwater surplus 

exits the study area through Snake 

Valley to the northeast or White River 

Valley to the south (USGS 2008, p. 3). 

In 2007, the Utah State Legislature 

charged the Utah Geological Survey 

with establishing a groundwater 

monitoring network in Utah’s West 

Desert in response to the proposed 

groundwater pumping project. The 

objectives of the monitoring network are 

to define background water level and 

geochemical conditions prior to SNWA 

pumping, and to quantify any changes 

in these conditions after pumping 

begins. 

On the basis of our evaluation of the 

information presented in the petition 

and in our files, we determined that the 

petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing least 

chub as a threatened or endangered 

species may be warranted due to water 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS-1
61012 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

withdrawal and diversion. However, a 

great deal of uncertainty exists regarding 

the long-term effects of the groundwater 

pumping proposal for aquifers and 

surface waters in Utah’s West Desert. 

Numerous models and studies are 

underway that should provide 

additional information that would 

enable us to evaluate effects. 

The GWD project is anticipated to be 

completed in January 2014 (SNWA 

2007, pp. 4–11). Prior to its completion, 

baseline data collection and research on 

biologic and hydrologic impacts will 

continue. Despite lack of specific data at 

this time, the level of concern regarding 

negative impacts to spring discharge 

rates, and ultimately least chub habitats, 

from groundwater pumping is high. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petition states the overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific 

or educational purposes does not 

currently pose a threat to least chub. 

C. Disease or Predation 

The petitioners document that where 

nonnative fishes have been introduced, 

least chub are unlikely to persist 

(Osmundson 1985, p. 2; Hickman 1989, 

pp. 2–3, 9). Introduced game fishes, 

including largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides), rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss), common carp 

(Cyprinus carpio), and brook trout 

(Salvelinus fontinalis), are predators on 

least chub, and these species have been 

stocked into least chub habitats 

(Workman et al. 1979, pp. 1–2, 136; 

Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 183; 

Osmundson 1985, p. 2; Crist 1990, p. 5). 

The petitioners note that mosquitofish 

(Gambusia affinis), in particular, are a 

direct threat because of aggressive 

predation on least chub eggs and young 

(Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 183; Sigler 

and Miller 1963, p. 92). They indicate 

that population declines at Mona 

Springs (Hines et al. 2008, p. 34) and 

Lucin Pond (Thompson 2005, p. 4) have 

been directly attributed to the presence 

of mosquitofish. 

The petitioners note that disease and 

incidence of parasitism are not major 

factors affecting least chub. The parasite 

blackspot (Neascus cuticola) is known 

to be present in the Leland Harris 

population. Infested least chub 

examined to date have appeared to be 

robust and in good condition (Bailey et 

al. 2005, p. 21). 

We find that the petition presents 

substantial information indicating that 

nonnative species, particularly 

mosquitofish, are a predation threat to 

least chub in wild and translocated 

populations. Wasatch Front populations 

are currently impacted the most by 

nonnative species. The Mona Springs 

population is near extirpation (Hines et 

al. 2008, p. 34) due to the invasion of 

mosquitofish. The nonnative fathead 

minnow (Pimephales promelas) is 

prominent at the Mills Valley site, and 

sunfish (Lepomis sp.) and common carp 

also are present; however, no effects 

have been observed to the least chub 

population (Hines et al. 2008, p. 43). 

Rainbow trout and common carp have 

been captured at Clear Lake, and other 

nonnative species may be present; these 

species do not appear to be affecting the 

least chub population. 

Two efforts to translocate least chub 

to Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

failed as a result of predation (and 

competition) by mosquitofish. A similar 

translocation on Antelope Island also 

failed as a result of predation by 

mosquitofish. 

The Least Chub Conservation Team 

implements ongoing efforts to prevent 

the introduction of nonnative species 

into least chub habitats. The Policy for 

Fish Stocking and Transfer Procedures 

includes protocols for the introduction 

of nonnative species, including game, 

and is adhered to by UDWR. All 

stocking actions must be consistent with 

ongoing recovery and conservation 

actions for Utah Sensitive Species 

(UDWR 1997, p. 19). 

In addition, the Least Chub 

Conservation Team (LCCT) has 

attempted mechanical removal of 

mosquitofish from occupied least chub 

habitats, most intensively at the Mona 

Springs complex. The least chub 

population at Mona Springs has been 

steadily declining since 1999. UDWR 

made extensive efforts to mechanically 

remove mosquitofish at this site for 3 

consecutive years, but even after 95 

percent removal, the population 

recovered within a year (Hines et al. 

2008, p. 32). Least chub at this location 

are now near extirpation (Hines et al. 

2008, p. 31). A treatment for 

mosquitofish at Water and Deadman 

Springs on the Fish Springs National 

Wildlife Refuge was conducted in 1995 

and 1996 through a combination of 

Rotenone application and draining the 

ponds. Least chub were then 

transplanted into the ponds, but reinvasion by mosquitofish resulted in 

transplant failure (Wilson and Whiting 

2002, p. 4; Wilson and Mills 2004, pp. 

4–5). 

In 2002, a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between UDWR 

and Mosquito Abatement Districts was 

finalized in order to reduce the spread 

of mosquitofish in Utah. The Mosquito 

Abatement Districts are now restricted 

to stocking in ornamental ponds. In 

2008, UDWR and the Mosquito 

Abatement Districts of Salt Lake and 

Davis Counties will conduct pilot 

studies to determine the effectiveness of 

replacing mosquitofish with least chub 

for mosquito control purposes; however, 

this has not yet been completed. 

Despite efforts to monitor and remove 

mosquitofish, this nonnative species 

continues to be a predation threat (as 

well as a competitor; see Factor E) to the 

least chub. At some sites, such as Mona 

Springs, the threat is large enough that 

extirpation of least chub populations is 

possible. On the basis of our evaluation 

of the information presented in the 

petition, we find that the petition 

presents substantial information 

indicating that listing the least chub as 

a threatened or endangered species may 

be warranted due to the presence and 

potential spread of nonnative predatory 

species in least chub habitats. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The petition reviews the legal 

authorities of each Federal agency 

relative to providing protection for the 

least chub, including the Service, BLM, 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps). The petitioners indicate that 

State, Tribal, and local programs are 

inadequate substitutes for Federal 

protection under the Act (Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Gale Norton, CV 

01–409 TUC DCB, Jan. 13, 2003; 

Doremus and Page 2001, p. 1266). They 

acknowledge other agencies that 

contribute to the LCCAS, but have no 

regulatory authority, including BOR, 

URMCC, and the Central Utah Water 

Conservancy District. 

The petition indicates that the Service 

has no specific authority to take actions 

for recovery of least chub. Consideration 

or implementation of Service 

recommendations is discretionary. The 

petition states that management of least 

chub habitat on BLM lands is likely 

inadequate to prevent further decline of 

the species in Snake Valley because, 

regardless of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 

seq.) and the National Environmental 

Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq.), 

impacts continue to occur to least chub 

sites. The Corps administers issuance of 

dredge and fill permits under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.). These permits regulate a 

wide variety of activities in streams and 

wetlands in both the historic and extant 

range of least chub. Under the 

regulations and policies governing 

implementation of this program, there is 

substantial latitude for allowing 

destruction and degradation of stream 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61013 

habitats, including those that could 

potentially support least chub. 

The least chub is currently classified 

in the State of Utah as a Tier 1 Sensitive 

Species, a status that includes federally 

listed species and species for which a 

Conservation Agreement has been 

completed and implemented (UDWR 

2005, pp. 5–3). 

The petitioners review the extensive 

efforts of UDWR, as a result of the 

LCCAS, to implement conservation 

measures for the least chub. They 

compare proposed measures in the 

LCCAS to completed conservation 

measures of habitat enhancement and 

protection, restoration of hydrologic 

conditions, nonnative control, range 

expansion, monitoring, mitigation, 

regulation, and information and 

education programs. The petitioners 

acknowledge progress made in all 

categories, but conclude that it is not 

adequate; despite the extensive efforts 

and new information on the species, the 

status of the least chub has not 

substantially improved since it was 

determined warranted for listing in 

1995. 

Although the least chub does not have 

protection under the Act, conservation 

provisions have been accomplished. 

The Service is represented on the 

LCCAS Technical Team, and we 

evaluate the progress of actions to 

protect the species. BLM also 

participates on the LCCAS Technical 

Team and assists in on-the-ground 

projects, such as fencing and habitat 

restoration, and has attached 

conservation measures to leases in areas 

of occupied least chub habitats. 

UDWR, through coordinated efforts by 

the Least Chub Conservation Team, has 

implemented site-specific habitat 

enhancement and restoration projects 

that include land acquisition, 

conservation easements, landowner 

agreements, bank stabilization, 

nonnative vegetation removal, fencing 

to exclude livestock, dredging, and 

water line repairs (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 

22–24). Hydrologic conditions of extant 

least chub population habitats in Snake 

Valley have been protected by the 

UDWR. For example, in 2007, UDWR 

purchased water rights in Foote 

Reservoir to maintain water levels at 

Bishop and Twin Springs (Hines et al. 

2008, p. 23). 

Efforts also have been made to protect 

and increase the long-term viability of 

least chub populations. Portions of five 

of the six wild least chub populations 

(Bishop Springs, Mills Valley, Mona 

Springs, Clear Lake, and Leland Harris) 

have been relocated to new sites to 

provide genetic refuge (Hines et al. 

2008, p. 20). In addition, two fish 

hatcheries harbor brood stock for use in 

ongoing relocation efforts and four 

display/educational populations exist. 

To date, BLM has demonstrated 

support for least chub conservation by 

requiring lease stipulations that avoid 

drilling in least chub habitats. UDWR 

has completed conservation measures 

within existing regulatory frameworks, 

such as acquiring water rights, 

purchasing land, and implementing 

habitat restoration. Mosquito Abatement 

Districts are now incorporating least 

chub conservation needs into mosquito 

control programs by removing 

mosquitofish as the primary control 

mechanism and cooperating in research 

efforts. 

Despite extensive efforts, regulatory 

mechanisms have not been able to 

ameliorate the threat from nonnative 

species, and State water regulations are 

not specific enough to ensure long-term 

viability of the least chub. We conclude 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing least 

chub as a threatened or endangered 

species may be warranted due to 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

The petitioners state that other natural 

and manmade threats to the species 

include: (1) Competition from nonnative 

species; (2) hybridization; (3) mosquito 

abatement programs; (4) stochastic 

disturbance and population isolation; 

(5) drought and climate change; and (6) 

cumulative effects. 

Competition from Nonnative Species 

The petitioners indicate that 

nonnative fishes, including 

mosquitofish, rainwater killifish 

(Lucania parva), and plains killifish 

(Fundulus zebrinis), have been released 

into least chub habitats. These species 

have similar diets to the least chub and 

are considered competitors. 

Nonnative fishes exist in least chub 

habitats. Mosquitofish, in addition to 

being a predator on least chub eggs and 

young, are a significant competitor to 

adult least chub for food sources. 

Population declines at Mona Springs 

and Lucin Pond have been directly 

attributed to the presence of 

mosquitofish (Hines et al. 2008, p. 34; 

Thompson 2005, p. 4). See Factor C 

(predation) for a discussion of the 

efforts, mostly unsuccessful, to remove 

and prevent reinvasion of nonnative fish 

in least chub habitats. We find that the 

petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing least 

chub as a threatened or endangered 

species may be warranted due to 

competition from nonnative fish. 

Hybridization 

The petition notes that hybridization 

may occur in compromised habitats. 

Hybrid introgression of least chub with 

Utah chub (Gila atraria), and with 

speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), 

has been reported (Miller and Behnke 

1985, pp. 509–515). In complex habitats, 

reproductive isolating mechanisms can 

be eliminated as a result of habitat 

alteration and degradation; overlaps of 

reproductive niches and breakdowns of 

behavior due to overcrowding then 

occur (Crawford 1979, p. 74; Lamarra 

1981, p. 7). Least chub hybrids have 

been reported from springs near Callao, 

Utah, where least chub once existed 

(Miller and Behnke 1985, p. 510). 

Recent molecular diversity studies on 

existing least chub populations indicate 

that currently no evidence of 

hybridization between least chub and 

Utah chub exists, and suggest that 

previous hybridization reports may have 

been due to a misidentification of 

specimens (Mock and Miller 2003, p. 

10). The information provided by the 

petitioners does not present substantial 

information to indicate that listing the 

least chub may be warranted due to 

hybridization. 

Mosquito Abatement Programs 

The petition indicates that, although 

BLM has rejected Juab County’s request 

for implementing a mosquito control 

spraying program on BLM administered 

lands, the spraying may still occur on 

private lands. The least chub may be 

affected because mosquito larvae are a 

major food item in the least chub diet. 

Least chub have been shown to be 

opportunistic feeders and use available 

food items, including algae, 

diatomaceous material, midges, 

copepods, and ostracods (Sigler and 

Sigler 1987, p. 92; Hickman 1989, p. 8) 

depending on seasons and habitats 

(Crist and Holden 1980, p. 808; Lamarra 

1981, p. 5). As previously stated, an 

MOU between UDWR and Mosquito 

Abatement Districts was finalized in 

order to reduce the spread of 

mosquitofish in Utah. In 2008, UDWR 

and the Mosquito Abatement Districts of 

Salt Lake and Davis Counties will 

conduct studies to determine the 

effectiveness of replacing mosquitofish 

with least chub for mosquito control 

purposes; however, studies have not 

been completed. The petitioners 

conclude that effects of a mosquito 

control program on least chub are 

unknown. The petitioners do not 

present substantial information to 

indicate that listing the least chub may 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS-1
61014 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

be warranted due to effects from 

mosquito abatement programs. 

Stochastic Disturbance and Population 

Isolation 

The petition presents information 

relative to the limited distribution and 

isolation of remaining least chub 

populations. The petitioners cite 

literature on the risks to small, isolated 

populations, including environmental 

and demographic stochasticity (Lande 

1993, pp. 911–917). 

Least chub populations are isolated, 

both naturally and as the result of 

human impacts. Habitat connectivity is 

absent among the three Wasatch Front 

populations as a result of past urban 

development. West Desert populations 

are similarly disconnected except in 

years of exceptionally high water. 

However, the LCCT team has been 

successful in protecting the remaining 

occupied sites. Translocation efforts 

have established five new sites in 

natural habitats (Hines et al. 2008, p. 

20). In addition, results of genetic 

studies indicate that ongoing 

translocation efforts have been 

successful in maintaining genetic 

diversity (Mock and Miller 2005, pp. 

273–277). Therefore, although small, 

isolated populations will remain a 

conservation challenge, we find that the 

petitioners have not presented 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing the least chub may be warranted 

due to effects from stochastic 

disturbance and population isolation. 

Drought and Climate Change 

The petition indicates that a 

prolonged drought has occurred in Utah 

and some least chub habitats, 

particularly the Gandy Salt Marsh 

complex, may have been compromised. 

The petition cites the effects of climate 

change on biodiversity (IPCC 2001, pp. 

5, 16; Davenport et al. 1998, pp. 229– 

238), and the combined effects of 

drought to least chub populations and 

habitats in Utah. The petitioners state 

that climate change, specifically 

increased global temperatures, may be a 

more serious long-term threat to least 

chub than drought. They indicate that 

the effects of increased global 

temperatures include decreased 

duration and depth of winter snowfall 

(IPCC 2001, pp. 6, 9); earlier spring 

runoff and decreased water availability; 

decreased productivity and cover of 

herbaceous vegetation, resulting in 

increased soil erosion; and 

unprecedented rates of vegetation shifts 

due to die off, especially along 

boundaries of semi-arid ecosystems 

(Davenport et al. 1998, p. 231). These 

changes may pose threats to native 

aquatic species as the quality and 

quantity of aquatic, riparian, and mesic 

upland ecosystems decline with 

decreased water availability. 

The petitioners present no direct link 

between climate change and the least 

chub, and we have no information in 

our files to substantiate their claims. 

Therefore, we find that the petitioners 

have not presented substantial 

information to indicate that listing the 

least chub may be warranted due to 

effects from climate change. 

Drought has been documented 

periodically within the range of the least 

chub, and is likely currently affecting 

the species. However, the species has 

continued to exist despite periods of 

natural drought, and on its own, this is 

not considered a significant threat to the 

species. During periods of drought, 

farmers and ranchers rely more heavily 

on water sources for irrigation purposes, 

and this factor combined with drought 

has likely led to the loss of several 

springs in the Snake Valley. However, it 

is currently not possible to separate 

drought from water withdrawals in 

order to analyze it as a threat to the least 

chub. Therefore, we find that the 

petitioners have not presented 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing the least chub may be warranted 

due to effects from drought. 

Cumulative Effects 

The petitioners indicate that many 

possible combinations of effects could 

cumulatively impact least chub 

populations. They discuss possible 

combined effects of climate change, 

drought, and aquifer depletions on the 

least chub and its habitats. 

We cannot predict the cumulative 

effects of climate change and drought on 

least chub at this time. In addition, 

because the effects of proposed 

groundwater withdrawals have not been 

determined, it is difficult to predict how 

the combination of those effects with 

potential climate change and drought 

would affect the least chub. Effects will 

be determined to some extent possibly 

by modeling efforts, and by the results 

of implementation and monitoring of 

future groundwater withdrawals. While 

potential combinations of negative 

impacts are a concern for the least chub, 

we find that the petitioners have not 

presented substantial information to 

indicate that listing the least chub may 

be warranted due to the cumulative 

effects of climate change, drought, and 

aquifer depletions. 

Finding 

We reviewed the petition, supporting 

information provided by the petitioners, 

and information in our files and 

evaluated that information to determine 

whether the sources cited support the 

claims made in the petition. We find the 

petitioners presented substantial 

information under Factor A (Present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range) 

indicating that listing the least chub as 

threatened or endangered under the Act 

may be warranted due to water 

withdrawals and diversions. While 

uncertainty exists on the magnitude of 

effects to the least chub from proposed 

groundwater pumping, concern 

regarding the six extant, wild 

populations is sufficient to warrant 

further analysis. 

We find that the petitioners presented 

substantial information under Factors C 

(Disease or Predation) and E (Other 

Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting 

the Species’ Continued Existence) 

indicating that listing the least chub as 

threatened or endangered under the Act 

may be warranted due to the continuing 

threat of nonnative species, particularly 

mosquitofish, for which there is no 

known means of control. Several 

significant efforts have been made to 

remove mosquitofish from least chub 

habitats, without success. The wild least 

chub population at Mona Springs may 

be extirpated due to mosquitofish. Of 

the six natural populations, five have 

nonnative species present and of five 

refuge sites, two currently have 

mosquitofish present. 

We find that the petitioners presented 

substantial information under Factor D 

(Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms) indicating that listing the 

least chub as threatened or endangered 

under the Act may be warranted due to 

inadequacy of existing regulations. 

Regulatory mechanisms may not be 

adequate to ameliorate the threat from 

nonnative species, and State water 

regulations are not specific enough to 

ensure long-term viability of the least 

chub. 

Based on our consideration of the 

information provided in the petition, 

and in accordance with recent 

applicable court decisions pertaining to 

90-day findings, we find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

information indicating that listing the 

least chub may be warranted. Our 

process for making this 90-day finding 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act is 

limited to a determination of whether 

the information in the petition presents 

‘‘substantial scientific and commercial 

information,’’ which is interpreted in 

our regulations as ‘‘that amount of 

information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61015 

Therefore, we are initiating a status 

review to determine if listing the species 

is warranted. To ensure that the status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

soliciting scientific and commercial 

information regarding the least chub. 

It is important to note that the 

‘‘substantial information’’ standard for a 

90-day finding is in contrast to the Act’s 

‘‘best scientific and commercial data’’ 

standard that applies to a 12-month 

finding as to whether a petitioned action 

is warranted. A 90-day finding is not a 

status assessment of the species and 

does not constitute a status review 

under the Act. Our final determination 

as to whether a petitioned action is 

warranted is not made until we have 

completed a thorough status review of 

the species, which is conducted 

following a positive 90-day finding. 

Because the Act’s standards for 90-day 

and 12-month findings are different, as 

described above, a positive 90-day 

finding does not mean that the 12- 

month finding also will be positive. 

We encourage interested parties to 

continue gathering data that will assist 

with the conservation and monitoring of 

the least chub. The petitioners requested 

that critical habitat be designated for 

this species. If we determine in our 12- 

month finding that listing the least chub 

is warranted, we will address the 

designation of critical habitat at the time 

of the proposed rulemaking. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available upon 

request from the Utah Ecological 

Services Field Office (see the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Author 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff of the Utah Ecological Services 

Field Office (see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Paul R. Schmidt, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–24467 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

RIN 0648–AV61 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Spiny 

Lobster (Panulirus argus) Resources 

of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and 

South Atlantic; Minimum Conservation 

Standards for Imported Spiny Lobster 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Announcement of availability of 

fishery management plan amendments; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 

availability of Amendment 4 to the 

Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) of Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands and Amendment 8 to the 

Joint Spiny Lobster FMP of the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic prepared by 

the Caribbean, South Atlantic, and Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management 

Councils (Councils). Amendments 4 and 

8 would establish minimum 

conservation standards for imported 

spiny lobster. The intended effect of 

Amendments 4 and 8 is to eliminate the 

primary market for lobster that do not 

meet the minimum size limit or mean 

size at sexual maturity, which is 

expected to result in a reduction in the 

foreign harvest of these undersized 

animals and increase the spawning 

stock biomass and long-term potential 

yield within the pan-Caribbean spiny 

lobster fishery. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received no later than 5 p.m., eastern 

time, on December 15, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: 0648–AV61.NOA@noaa.gov. 

Include in the subject line the following 

document identifier: 0648–AV61–NOA. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Jason Rueter, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

• Fax: 727–824–5308, Attention: 

Jason Rueter. 

Copies of Amendments 4 and 8, 

which include an Environmental Impact 

Statement, a Regulatory Impact Review 

(RIR), and an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis are available from 

NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 

13th Avenue South, St Petersburg, FL 

33701; e-mail: jason.rueter@noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Rueter, 727–824–5305; fax 727– 

824–5308; e-mail: 

jason.rueter@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States is a major importer of 

spiny lobster, importing over 88,000 

tons (over 194 million lbs) over the past 

10 years, worth an estimated $2.27 

billion dollars. The United States 

imports over 90 percent of the spiny 

lobster harvested in South and Central 

America and the Caribbean countries. 

Some of the exporting countries have 

minimum size limits, but other 

countries do not. As a result, some of 

the imported product is legally 

harvested, but the majority of the 

undersized product is illegally 

harvested in the exporting countries. 

The major exporters to the United States 

are the Bahamas, Brazil, Honduras, and 

Nicaragua. All of these exporting 

countries have some form of minimum 

size requirement, but the requirements 

are variable and enforcement is severely 

lacking. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries 

Service in coordination with the 

Caribbean, South Atlantic, and Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Councils is 

considering minimum conservation 

standards on imports to curtail the flow 

of imported undersized lobster 

harvested in foreign countries. The panCaribbean spiny lobster stock is 

considered to be fully exploited or overexploited in much of its range. 

Therefore, additional restrictions on the 

harvest of animals below the mean size 

at sexual maturity (i.e., undersized 

animals) would greatly benefit the stock. 

Eliminating the primary market for 

undersized lobster is expected to result 

in a reduction in the foreign harvest of 

undersized animals and increase the 

spawning stock biomass and long-term 

potential yield within the panCaribbean spiny lobster fishery. 

A proposed rule that would 

implement the measures outlined in 

Amendments 4 and 8 has been received 

from the Councils. In accordance with 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS is 

evaluating the proposed rule to 

determine whether it is consistent with 

the FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

and other applicable law. If that 

determination is affirmative, NMFS will 

publish the proposed rule in the Federal 

Register for public review and 

comment. 

Comments received by December 15, 

2008 whether specifically directed to 

the Amendments 4 and 8 or the 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS-1