Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Threatened Status for the Santa Ana Sucker

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF34

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed

Threatened Status for the Santa Ana Sucker

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, propose threatened status

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for

the Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae). The species is threatened

by potential habitat destruction, natural and human-induced changes in

streamflows, urban development and related land-use practices,

intensive recreation, the introduction of non-native competitors and

predators, and demographics associated with small populations. This

proposed rule, if made final, would invoke the Federal protection and

recovery provisions of the Act for this fish species within the Los

Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana River drainages.

DATES: We must receive comments from all interested parties by March

29, 1999. We must receive public hearing requests by March 12, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and materials concerning this proposal to the

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field

Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments

and materials received will be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Barrett, biologist, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, at the above address (or telephone 760-431-9440;

facsimile 760-431-9624).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae) is a recognized full

species and member of the sucker family (Catostoidae). The Santa Ana

sucker was originally described as Pantosteus santa-anae by Snyder

(1908, as in Moyle 1976). The genus Pantosteus was reduced to a

subgenus of Catostomus and the hyphen omitted from the specific name in

a subsequent revision of the nomenclature (Smith 1966). Moyle (1976)

described the Santa Ana sucker as less than 16 centimeters (6.3 inches

(in)) in length. The Santa Ana sucker is silvery below, darker along

the back with irregular blotches, and the membranes connecting the rays

of the tail are pigmented.

The Santa Ana sucker inhabits streams that are generally small and

shallow, with currents ranging from swift (in canyons) to sluggish (in

the bottomlands). All the streams are subject to periodic severe

flooding (Moyle 1976). Santa Ana suckers appear to be most abundant

where the water is cool (less than 22 deg. Celsius) (72 deg.

Farenheit), unpolluted and clear, although they can tolerate and

survive in seasonally turbid water (Moyle 1976, Moyle and Yoshiyama

1992). Santa Ana suckers feed mostly on algae, which they scrap off of

rocks and other hard substrates. Larger fish generally feed more on

insects than do smaller fish (Moyle 1976).

Santa Ana suckers generally live no more than 3 years (Greenfield

et al. 1970). Spawning occurs from early April to early July. The peak

spawning activity occurs in late May and June. Females produce

approximately 4,000 to 16,000 eggs ranging in size from 78 millimeters

(mm) (3.1 in) to 158 mm (6.2 in), respectively (Moyle 1976). The

combination of early sexual maturity, protracted spawning period, and

high fecundity should allow the Santa Ana sucker to quickly repopulate

streams following periodic flood events that can decimate populations

(Greenfield et al. 1970, Moyle 1976).

The native range of the Santa Ana sucker includes the Los Angeles,

San Gabriel, and Santa Ana River drainage systems in Los Angeles,

Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties (Smith 1966). Although

historic records are scarce, Santa Ana suckers presumably ranged from

near the Pacific Ocean to the uplands in the Los Angeles River in the

San Gabriel River system, and to at least Pump House #1 (near the San

Bernardino National Forest boundary) in the Santa Ana River (Swift et

al. 1993; C. Swift, Loyola Marymount University, pers. comm. 1996).

Within its native range, the species is now restricted to three

noncontiguous populations--lower Big Tujunga Creek (Los Angeles River

drainage), the East, West, and North Forks of the San Gabriel River

(San Gabriel River drainage), and the lower and middle Santa Ana River

(Santa Ana River drainage) (Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992). An introduced

population also occurs in the Santa Clara River drainage system,

Ventura and Los Angeles counties (Moyle 1976, Smith 1966, Swift et al.

1993). Although the Santa Ana sucker was described as common in the

1970s (Moyle 1976), the species has experienced declines throughout

most of its range (Swift et al. 1993). The present distribution is as

follows:

Los Angeles River system. Although historically present, the

species may have been extirpated from the Los Angeles River (Swift et

al. 1993). Santa Ana suckers are still found in portions of Big Tujunga

Creek (a tributary of the Los Angeles River) below Big Tujunga Dam.

Recent surveys downstream of Big Tujunga Dam found the species to be

present but rare (fewer than 20 individuals collected at each site) in

the vicinities of Delta Flat, Wildwood, and Big Tujunga Dam and

abundant (an estimated 200 individuals collected) near Stoneyvale (M.

Wickman, Angeles National Forest, in litt. 1996). The portions of Big

Tujunga Creek occupied by the Santa Ana sucker constitute approximately

25 percent of the total remaining native range of the species.

Approximately 60 percent of the range of the Santa Ana sucker in the

Los Angeles River basin occurs on private lands. The remaining 40

percent of the range in the Los Angeles River basin occurs on Angeles

National Forest lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service.

San Gabriel River system. In light of current threats and the

prevailing absence of management, Moyle and Yoshiyama (1992) suggested

that the only viable population of Santa Ana suckers existing within

the species' native range occurs in the San Gabriel River drainage

system. Dr. Tom Haglund (University of California, Los Angeles, in

litt. 1996) reported surveys in 1995 below Morris Dam failed to locate

any suckers. Therefore, in the San Gabriel River, the Santa Ana sucker

appears extant only upstream of the confluence of the East, West, and

North Forks of the San Gabriel River. Furthermore, the population of

Santa Ana suckers in the

[[Page 3916]]

North Fork is small. The portions of the San Gabriel River occupied by

the Santa Ana sucker constitute approximately 15 percent of the total

remaining native range of the species. However, catch per unit effort

information gathered during sampling suggests the San Gabriel River may

contain the most individuals of any remaining population (R. Ally,

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), in litt. 1996; M.

Guisti, CDFG, in litt. 1996; J. Hernandez, California Department of

Fish and Game, in litt. 1997; Wickman, in litt. 1996). Approximately 15

percent of the range of the Santa Ana sucker in the San Gabriel River

basin occur on private lands. The remaining 85 percent of the range in

the San Gabriel River basin occurs in the Angeles National Forest.

Santa Ana River system. Several hundred Santa Ana suckers were

observed in the Santa Ana River downstream of Prado Dam in 1986 and

1987. In 1996, a general fish survey of the Santa Ana River below Prado

Dam yielded only five suckers from a total of 271 fishes captured (M.

Guisti, CDFG, in litt. 1996). In April 1987, only five suckers were

found during a sampling effort above the Prado Dam from the City of

Norco to about five kilometers upstream. Thus above the dam, fish were

scarce, small individuals were absent, and definite evidence of

reproduction was not obtained (Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992). In 1991,

sampling indicated that although fishery habitat in the Santa Ana River

was primarily fair to poor, Santa Ana suckers were abundant between

Norco and Riverside (Chadwick and Associates 1992). Additionally,

evidence suggested Santa Ana suckers were using tributaries including

Tequesquite Arroyo, Sunnyslope Channel, and Anaza Park Drain for

spawning and nurseries (Chadwick and Associates 1996).

The Santa Ana sucker survives in the lower portions of the Santa

Ana River, from the Imperial Highway (State Route 90) to Rubideaux near

the City of Riverside, but is now apparently absent from the upper

reach of this river in the San Bernardino Mountains (Moyle and

Yoshiyama 1992, Swift et al. 1993). The portions of the Santa Ana River

occupied by the Santa Ana sucker constitute approximately 60 percent of

the total remaining native range of the species. Approximately 95

percent of the range of the Santa Ana sucker in the Santa Ana River

basin occurs on private lands. The balance is within State, county,

city, and regional park lands, with a very small portion, three

percent, on military lands. Chadwick and Associates (1996) noted that

length-frequency analysis indicates Santa Ana suckers are naturally

reproducing in the Santa Ana River system. Furthermore, they asserted

Santa Ana sucker population decreases in the river as evidenced by 1996

surveys (M. Guisti, in litt., 1996) were due to high flows in the basin

between 1991 and 1996. However, T. Haglund (in litt. 1996) contended

the large number of suckers reported in tributaries are juveniles and

may be the progeny of very few adults.

Santa Clara River system. An introduced population of Santa Ana

suckers occurs in the Santa Clara River drainage. (Moyle 1976, Smith

1966, Swift et al. 1993). Santa Ana suckers were present in Piru Creek,

a major Santa Clara tributary, by 1934 and in the Santa Clara River

proper and its Sespe Creek tributary by 1940 (Buth and Crabtree 1982).

Suckers occur from the estuary upstream to several miles upstream from

the confluence of Sespe Creek, in Sespe Creek, and in several reaches

in the Soledad Canyon area bordering the Angeles National Forest.

Portions of the Santa Clara basin population are believed to have

hybridized with another introduced species, the Owens River sucker

(Catostomus fumeiventris) (Greenfield et al. 1970). This hybrid

population occurs in the Sespe Creek area (Swift et al. 1993) in the

lower to middle reach of the Santa Clara River. The hybrid population

is separate and isolated (by dry streambed) from the introduced yet

genetically pure Santa Ana suckers that occur in several portions of

the upper reach of the Santa Clara River, in and downstream from

Soledad Canyon. The dewatered sections of the Santa Clara River

currently act as a barrier keeping the genetically pure Santa Ana

suckers in the upper reach of the Santa Clara River from mixing with

the hybrid population in the middle to lower reach of the river. In the

past, the non-hybridized population of Santa Ana sucker in the Santa

Clara River drainage system was thought to be large (Buth and Crabtree

1982). However, Haglund and Baskins (1992) reported that the Santa

Clara River ``population is in decline and throughout much of the

drainage has hybridized with another introduced sucker.'' Sespe Creek

contained a large number of suckers as recently as 1994; however, in

1996 suckers could not be captured in the creek (T. Haglund, in litt.

1996). The portions of the Santa Clara River occupied by the introduced

pure and hybridized suckers, constitute approximately 50 percent of the

total remaining range of the species. Over 90 percent of the range of

this population occurs on private lands with the balance on federally

managed lands.

In summary, the Santa Ana sucker has declined throughout

significant portions of its range. The Santa Ana sucker has lost

approximately 75 percent of its native range. Recent population

densities range from approximately 246 fish in 1.8 miles on the East

Fork, San Gabriel River (Hernandez 1997) to five fish in 4.5 miles of

the Santa Ana River (Guisti 1996). This apparent overall decline in

population is particularly surprising given the high fecundity and

apparent broad habitat tolerances of the species. Urbanization, water

diversions, dams, introduced competitors and/or predators, and other

human-caused disturbances likely are playing a role in the decline of

the species. These same factors have led to the decline of other

western suckers (Minckley et al. 1991, Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991).

Populations Proposed for Protection

The Santa Ana sucker is recognized as a full species and thus

constitutes a taxon eligible for protection pursuant to the Act. We are

proposing to list the Santa Ana sucker only in its native range, which

consists of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana River basins.

The Santa Clara River population of the Santa Ana sucker is presumed to

be an introduced population, which is located outside of the species

native range. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate the Santa

Clara River population of Santa Ana sucker as threatened pursuant to

the Act. However, we do believe that the Santa Clara River population

is important for recovery of the Santa Ana sucker within the Los

Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana River basins, and may be used in

efforts to re-establish the species within its native range.

Previous Federal Action

On September 6, 1994, we received a petition under the Act to list

the Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae), Santa Ana speckled dace

(Rhinichthys osculus ssp.), and the Shay Creek threespine stickleback

(Gasterosteus aculeatus ssp.) as endangered species. The petition was

submitted by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc., on behalf of

seven groups including the California-Nevada Chapter of the American

Fisheries Society, The Nature School, California Sportfishing

Protection Alliance, Friends of the River, Izaak Walton League of

America, California Trout, and Trout Unlimited. We deferred processing

of this petition because of other higher priority listing actions and

severe funding constraints

[[Page 3917]]

imposed by a number of continuing resolutions between November 1995 and

April 1996.

On July 9, 1996, we published a 90-day petition finding (61 FR

36021) that substantial information had been presented indicating

listing may be warranted for the Santa Ana sucker, and on November 26,

1996, we published a notice Initiating a Status Review for the Santa

Ana Sucker (61 FR 60073). On April 3, 1997, we published a notice of

the 12-month finding for the petition to list the Santa Ana Sucker as

endangered (62 FR 15872). We announced in this finding that listing the

Santa Ana sucker was warranted but precluded by higher listing

priorities. This proposal constitutes the final petition finding of

warranted as well as the proposal to list the species.

The threats facing the Santa Ana sucker have not substantially

changed since the 12-month finding was published, and we consider them

to be imminent but of moderate magnitude (a lower priority for

listing). However, staff at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office

became available to prepare this proposed rule after completing

listings for other species facing threats of higher magnitude. This

proposed rule was prepared in accordance with our final listing

priority guidance published in the Federal Register on May 8, 1998 (63

FR 25502). The guidance calls for giving highest priority to handling

emergency situations (Tier 1); second highest priority (Tier 2) to

resolving the listing status of the outstanding proposed listings,

resolving the conservation status of candidate species, processing

administrative findings on petitions, and processing a limited number

of delistings and reclassifications; and third priority (Tier 3) to

processing proposed and final designations of critical habitat. The

processing of this proposed rule falls under Tier 2.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated

to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures

for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to

be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five

factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the Santa Ana sucker are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. Moyle and Yoshiyama (1992)

concluded that the native range of the Santa Ana sucker is largely

coincident with the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Intensive urban

development of the area has resulted in water diversions, extreme

alteration of stream channels, changes in the watershed that result in

erosion and debris torrents, pollution, and the establishment of

introduced of non-native fishes. Moyle and Yoshiyama (1992) stated,

``[e]ven though Santa Ana suckers seem to be quite generalized in their

habitat requirements, they are intolerant of polluted or highly

modified streams.'' The impact associated with urbanization is likely

the significant cause of the extirpation of this species from lowland

reaches of the Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River.

As the Los Angeles urban area expanded, the Los Angeles, Santa Ana,

and San Gabriel rivers were highly modified, channelized, or moved in

an effort to either capture water runoff or protect property. As Moyle

(1976) stated, ``[t]he lower Los Angeles River is now little more than

a concrete storm drain.'' The same is true for the Santa Ana and San

Gabriel rivers. These channelized rivers and canals with uniform and

altered substrates are not suitable for sustaining Santa Ana sucker

populations (Chadwick and Associates 1996). Past and continuing

projects have resulted (or will result) in channelization and concrete

lining of the Santa Ana River channel throughout most of the native

range of the Santa Ana sucker in Orange County. Urban development also

threatens the Santa Ana sucker in the Los Angeles and Santa Ana river

basins. In addition to physically altering the rivers, this urban

development has resulted in changes in water quality and quantity, as

well as the hydrologic regime of the systems.

All three river systems within the historic range of the Santa Ana

sucker have dams that isolate and fragment fish populations. Dams

likely have resulted in some populations being excluded from suitable

spawning and rearing tributaries. Reservoirs also provide areas where

introduced predators and competitors can live and reproduce (see factor

C of this section). Seven Oaks Dam, now under construction upstream

from the present range of Santa Ana sucker in the Santa Ana River, will

prevent future upstream movement of fish and further isolate the Santa

Ana sucker populations from their native range in the headwaters of the

system.

The West Fork of the San Gabriel River is threatened by accidental

high flows from Cogswell Reservoir, which have devastated this section

of stream several times in the past (Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992; Haglund

and Baskins 1992; T. Haglund, in litt. 1996). T. Haglund (in litt.

1996) stated that, ``[t]he West Fork population was wiped out by a

sluicing event (to remove sediment by releasing a sudden flow of water)

from Cogswell Dam in 1981 (anecdotal data) but recolonized from

tributaries that acted as refugia. However, data (from CDFG, no date)

suggest that the suckers have never returned to their former

abundance.'' Santa Ana suckers have biological adaptations that allow

the fish to quickly repopulate streams following periodic flood events.

However, successive high flows threaten to eliminate the sucker

population in the West Fork of the San Gabriel River by rapidly

depleting the individuals soon after they migrate into the mainstem

from tributaries. Proposals exist to sluice or otherwise remove

sediment from the Cogswell, Morris, and San Gabriel reservoirs on the

San Gabriel River system (W. Phillips, California Regional Water

Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, in litt. 1998). The

potential effects of these proposals, the deposition of large amounts

of silt on the streambed and rapid increase in suspended sediments in

the water column, threaten the Santa Ana sucker populations in the San

Gabriel River.

The petitioners contended that suction dredge mining has increased

in the Cattle Canyon tributary to the East Fork of the San Gabriel

River, threatening the Santa Ana sucker. However, the petitioner did

not provide evidence that suction dredging poses a threat to the

existence of the fish. We received a comment during the petition review

process indicating that no suction dredging has occurred in Cattle

Canyon and suggesting that the petitioners took Moyle and Yoshiyama

(1992) out of context. (G. Hobbs, Public Lands Action Committee, in

litt. 1996). The commenter also questioned the veracity of the report

by Moyle and Yoshiyama and suggested suction dredging is beneficial to

Santa Ana sucker.

The CDFG, (P. Wolf, in litt. 1996) indicated they are not aware of

suction dredging in the Cattle Canyon tributary to the East Fork of the

San Gabriel River. However, they had issued nearly 200 Special Dredge

Permits for the East Fork of the San Garbiel River in 1995, the first

time the East Fork had been dredged in 15 years.

Surveys in June of 1996 and 1997 indicate the East Fork of the San

Gabriel River continues to maintain a healthy Santa Ana sucker

population (R. Ally, CDFG, in litt. 1996; J. Hernandez, CDFG, in litt.

1997). Few studies exist on the impacts of suction dredging on fishes

and none that specifically address Santa

[[Page 3918]]

Ana suckers. In their review of the literature, Harvey et al. (1995)

concluded that small larvae of fish such as suckers are easily damaged

by physical disturbance, but adults and juveniles are unlikely to be

directly affected by entrainment because they either avoid or survive

passage through suction dredges. The impact of increased suspended

sediment is difficult to predict because of the variability in

production of suspended sediment and the ways biota may be affected.

Possible impacts associated with suction dredging include changes in

stream substrates or food supply. Based on this information, we

conclude that suction dredging may impact larvae and eggs of Santa Ana

suckers, particularly if dredging is concentrated in an area containing

spawning suckers.

Although the Santa Ana sucker evolved under conditions that

presumably included droughts, some water diversions and management

practices threaten the continued existence of the species. For example,

stretches of the upper Santa Ana River have been permanently dewatered,

eliminating Santa Ana sucker populations and migration through these

reaches to other areas (Swift et al. 1993, Swift 1996). As previously

discussed, channelization of the rivers of the Los Angeles Basin, water

quality degradation, and dam construction have all combined to lower

the quality of and eliminate historic Santa Ana sucker habitat. Future

human population and urban growth of the basin will further stress the

natural resources of the basin and likely exacerbate these conditions.

Fluctuations in water quality in the Santa Ana and Los Angeles

Rivers may threaten the Santa Ana sucker (Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992).

Several researchers contend nutrient loading rather than acute toxicity

may threaten the fish (C. Swift and T. Haglund, pers. comm. 1996).

However, in 1991 Chadwick & Associates (1992) found suckers to be

common in some areas upstream from Prado Dam where several water

treatment facilities discharge into the Santa Ana River. They attribute

the high sucker numbers to adequate water supplies discharged by the

treatment facilities and the presence of tributaries that offer

spawning areas and refugia to the suckers. Nevertheless, Santa Ana

sucker numbers are much reduced in the Santa Ana River (Moyle and

Yoshiyama 1992; P. Wolf, in litt. 1996). Although water quality

tolerances of this species are unknown, in general, point and non-point

source pollution (e.g., urban runoff, sedimentation, etc.) have

significantly degraded the aquatic resources in most of the native

range of the Santa Ana sucker. In an effort to identify which water

quality parameters affect the Santa Ana sucker, the United States

Geologic Survey, Biological Resources Division in conjunction with us,

the Orange County Water District, the County of Orange, California, and

the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, is initiating a

study of the water quality tolerances of the species. Based on

currently available information, we conclude that increased turbidity

and associated deposition of fine particles and sand likely threaten

the Santa Ana sucker population in the Santa Ana River by decreasing

the availability of cobble and other hard substrates preferred by the

species (Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992).

B. Overutilization for commercial, sporting, scientific, or

educational purposes. The CDFG reported Santa Ana suckers being

illegally caught with gill and throw nets in the Santa Ana River below

Prado Dam (Lt. M. Maytorena, CDFG, pers. comm. 1997). The relative

impact of these collections on the species is unknown.

C. Disease or predation. Moyle and Yoshiyama (1992) concluded that

introduced brown trout (Salmo trutta) may have caused the extirpation

of the Santa Ana sucker from the upper San Gabriel River in the San

Bernardino Mountains. The petitioners noted that centrachids

(sunfishes) and bullheads prey on suckers. In the Los Angeles River

such introduced predators aggregate in pools during droughts,

presumably feeding on native fishes including Santa Ana suckers (Sierra

Club Legal Defense Fund 1994). Similar conditions exist in the Santa

Ana River. Predation by introduced fishes in combination with habitat

destruction has been implicated in the decline of other species of

suckers in the southwest (Minckley et al. 1991, Scoppettone and Vinyard

1991). Accordingly, introduced predators and competitors likely

threaten the continued existence of Santa Ana suckers throughout most

of the species' range.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Despite the

presence of existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation activities

accomplished to date by private, State, and Federal entities, the Santa

Ana sucker has continued to decline throughout a significant portion of

its range. Existing regulatory mechanisms that may provide some

protection for the Santa Ana sucker include--(1) the California

Endangered Species Act, (2) the California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA), (3) the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), (4) the Clean

Water Act, (5) the Federal Endangered Species Act in those cases where

the Santa Ana sucker occurs in areas where other federally listed

species are located, and (6) land management or conservation measures

by Federal, State, or local agencies or by private groups and

organizations.

The State of California considers the Santa Ana sucker a ``species

of special concern.'' However, the Santa Ana sucker is not listed as

endangered or threatened by the State, and ``species of special

concern'' are afforded no protection under the California Endangered

Species Act.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires full

public disclosure of the potential environmental impact of proposed

projects. This law also obligates disclosure of environmental resources

within proposed project areas and may enhance opportunities for

conservation efforts. However, CEQA does not guarantee that such

conservation efforts will be implemented. The public agency with

primary authority or jurisdiction over the project is designated as the

lead agency, and is responsible for conducting a review of the project

and consulting with other agencies concerned with resources affected by

the project. Section 15065 of the CEQA guidelines requires a finding of

significance if a project has the potential to ``reduce the number or

restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.'' Species

that are eligible for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered but

are not so listed are given the same protection as those species that

are officially listed with the State. Once significant impacts are

identified, the lead agency may either require mitigation for effects

through changes in the project or decide that overriding considerations

justify approval of a project with significant impacts. In the latter

case, projects may be approved that cause significant environmental

damage, such as resulting in the loss of sites supporting State-listed

species. Protection of listed species through CEQA is, therefore, not

assured.

Local lead agencies responsible under CEQA have made determinations

that have adversely affected, or would adversely affect, the Santa Ana

sucker and its habitat. Examples of projects that have been completed

or are currently undergoing the review process under CEQA and/or NEPA

and will impact this species include the Santa Ana River Mainstem

Project, which contains multiple projects including Seven Oaks Dam and

the raising of Prado Dam, and continued channelization of the Santa

[[Page 3919]]

Ana River in Orange County. These reviews have not addressed the

effects of the proposed actions on Santa Ana sucker. Similarly, on the

San Gabriel River, proposed silt removal from Cogswell Dam may affect

the sucker. While projects altering a stream course are subject to

review under section 1601 or 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code,

such State regulations have not prevented habitat loss or sufficiently

protected habitat to prevent the decline of the Santa Ana sucker.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act represents the primary Federal

law that affords some protection for the Santa Ana sucker because the

sucker occurs in an aquatic environment. However, the Clean Water Act,

by itself does not provide adequate protection for Santa Ana sucker.

Although the objective of the Clean Water Act is to ``restore and

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the

Nation's waters' (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251), no specific provisions exist

that address the need to conserve rare species. The Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps) is the Federal agency responsible for administering

the section 404 program. Under section 404, nationwide permits may be

issued for certain activities that are considered to have minimal

impacts, including minor dredging and discharges of dredged material,

some road crossings, and minor bank stabilization (December 13, 1996;

61 FR 65873). However, the Corps seldom withholds authorization of an

activity under nationwide permits unless the existence of a listed

threatened or endangered species would be jeopardized. Activities that

do not qualify for authorization under a nationwide permit, including

projects that would result in more than minimal adverse environmental

effects, either individually or cumulatively, may be authorized by an

individual or regional general permit, which are typically subject to

more extensive review. Regardless of the type of permit deemed

necessary under section 404, rare species such as Santa Ana sucker may

receive no special consideration with regard to conservation or

protection unless they are listed under the Act.

As part of the section 404 review process, we provide comments to

the Corps on nationwide permits and individual permits. Our comments

are only advisory, although procedures exist for elevating permit

review within the agencies when disagreements between us and the Corps

arise concerning the issuance of a permit. In practice, the section 404

permit review process has often proven to be inadequate to protect

unlisted but rare species such as the Santa Ana sucker.

The Santa Ana sucker may receive a small amount of benefit from the

possible presence of the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and

southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) on the

Santa Ana River. These two animals are federally listed species.

However, this benefit is diminished because these species occupy

different areas and habitats and have dissimilar ecological

requirements from the Santa Ana sucker. Vireos and flycatchers occur in

well-developed streamside vegetation. Santa Ana suckers inhabit streams

that are generally small and shallow, and subject to periodic severe

flooding. Overlapping range with these listed birds provides little, if

any, protection for the Santa Ana sucker. The San Bernardino kangaroo

rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) is another federally listed species

that occurs along the Santa Ana River; however, it occurs upstream from

the present known range of the Santa Ana sucker. Therefore, the listing

of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat will have little effect on the

status or protection afforded the sucker.

Similarly, critical habitat designation for the least Bell's vireo

and southwestern willow flycatcher offers little direct benefit to the

Santa Ana sucker because these birds occupy different areas and

habitats and have dissimilar ecological requirements from the Santa Ana

sucker. However, these designations may have discouraged some

ecologically damaging projects in the floodplain from being proposed.

This preventative effect may have benefitted the Santa Ana sucker.

Forest Service lands encompass approximately 20 percent of the

current known range of the Santa Ana sucker. Although a small portion

of the range is within a designated wilderness area, the remaining

portions of the range on Forest Service lands are not under wilderness

management. Wilderness designation offers no direct regulatory

protection to the sucker, but it does reduce some human induced impacts

on the stream. For example, machines that require motors are excluded

from these areas. This reduces or eliminates all motorized recreation

and mining activities within the wilderness areas. These types of

activities may harm Santa Ana sucker populations and thus wilderness

designation offers some indirect benefit to the species. However,

thousands of people from the Los Angeles metropolitan area and adjacent

urban communities annually use both wilderness and nonwilderness areas

within the Angeles National Forest's Big Tujunga Creek and San Gabriel

Forks areas for recreation. The impact of the large number of people

using these areas is destruction of streambank vegetation, streambank

erosion, and the disposal of untreated human waste and other refuse

into the creeks, all of which degrade water quality.

The status and threats to the Santa Ana sucker reflect the

inadequacy of existing Federal, State, and local ordinances and

statutes to protect and provide for the conservation of this fish.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. Periodic wildfires may adversely affect Santa Ana suckers by

causing direct mortality, eliminating vegetation that shades the water

and moderates water temperature, or producing silt and ash laden runoff

that can significantly increase the turbidity of rivers. Recent fires,

including the 1996 Biedebach fire, burned near the vicinity of Prairie

Fork on the East Fork of the San Gabriel River. The fires did not burn

the riparian corridor, but may contribute increased runoff and

siltation to the creek.

The high degree of fragmentation of the remaining Santa Ana sucker

populations makes the species especially vulnerable to random events,

environmental factors, and loss of genetic variability. A small

population size increases the rate of inbreeding and may allow

increased expression of deleterious recessive genes occurring in the

population (known as inbreeding depression). Loss of genetic

variability, through random genetic drift (random gene frequency

changes in a small population due to chance), reduces the ability of

small populations to respond successfully to environmental stresses.

Most of the lowland river habitats have been lost and the remaining

populations of Santa Ana suckers are low in numbers, with the exception

of the San Gabriel Forks populations. Random events such as floods,

variations of annual weather patterns, predation and associated

demographic uncertainty (conditions affected by chance events, such as

sex ratios, that influence survival and reproduction in small

populations) or other environmental stresses and human-caused factors

such as chemical spills, may lead to the demise of the remnant

populations in the Los Angeles or Santa Ana basins.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past, present, and future threats

faced by this species in determining to propose this rule. Based on

this evaluation, the preferred action is to list the Santa Ana sucker

(Catostomus santaanae) as threatened. While not in immediate danger of

extinction, the Santa Ana sucker is

[[Page 3920]]

likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future if the

present threats and declines continue. Based on this evaluation, the

preferred action is to list the Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae)

as threatened.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (I) The

specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the

time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those

physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of

the species and (II) that may require special management considerations

or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area

occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination

that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to

bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no

longer necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing

regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time

the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Service

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)) state that critical habitat is not

determinable if information sufficient to perform required analysis of

the impacts of the designation is lacking or if the biological needs of

the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of

an area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to

consider economic and other relevant impacts of designating a

particular area as critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific

data available. The Secretary may exclude any area from critical

habitat if he determines that the economic benefits of such exclusion

outweigh the conservation benefits, unless to do such would result in

the extinction of the species.

We find that critical habitat is not determinable for the Santa Ana

sucker at this time. When a ``not determinable'' finding is made, we

must, within 2 years of the publication date of the original proposed

rule, designate critical habitat, unless the designation is found to be

not prudent.

In designating critical habitat, we consider the following

requirements of the species: space for individual and population growth

and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other

nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for

breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and, generally,

habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of

the historic geographical and ecological distributions of this species

(see 50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to these factors, we also focus on

the known physical and biological features (primary constituent

elements) within the designated area that are essential to the

conservation of the species and may require special management

considerations or protection. The essential features for the Santa Ana

sucker may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food

resources, and water quality and quantity (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)).

Williams and Finnley (1977) stated that the most serious and

frequent threat to a species' existence is alteration of its natural

habitat. Changes come in various ways, but they generally are physical,

chemical, or biological. In an aquatic ecosystem, the components

including a species' primary constituent elements are so tightly

intertwined that effects on one alter others. Physical changes are the

most obvious; they include dams, water diversion structures, stream

channelization and dredging, as well as sedimentation and turbidity

from urban runoff. Chemical alteration from pollution such as

industrial chemicals, pesticides, and high concentrations of nutrients

cause damage to the aquatic environment, frequently upsetting the acid-

base aquatic balance and reducing levels of dissolved oxygen in the

water column. Biological alterations can occur from introducing non-

native species into the habitat resulting in predation, competition, or

hybridization, any of which may adversely affect a native species. In

the case of the Santa Ana sucker, any one or combination of such

physical, chemical, or biological changes may result in negative

impacts to the primary constituent elements and exceed the

environmental limitations of the species thereby reducing population

numbers, decreasing reproductive success, or altering species

distribution through habitat fragmentation.

We conclude that there is insufficient knowledge and understanding

of the biological needs and environmental limitations of the Santa Ana

sucker and the primary constituent elements of its habitat to determine

critical habitat for the fish. We think that the Santa Ana sucker is

intolerant of highly polluted waters but little information is

available concerning these possible limiting factors. Furthermore, in

the Santa Ana River, suckers remain extant, although rare, in the

lowlands where water quality is degraded as compared to the headwaters.

We need additional information on the environmental limits of the

sucker to enable us to accurately designate critical habitat for the

Santa Ana sucker throughout its range. The physical and biological

features including but not limited to water chemistry, water

temperature, instream flows, streambed substrate and structure, and

fauna and flora of the aquatic environment that supports the Santa Ana

sucker are the features about which we need additional information. In

an effort to gain these data, the Orange County Water District, the

County of Orange, California, and the Los Angeles County Department of

Public Works are working cooperatively with the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation, the Biological Resources Division of the United

States Geologic Survey, and us to fund and implement research on the

environmental limitations of the Santa Ana Sucker. The study will

identify environmental parameters, including water quality (e.g.,

dissolved oxygen, turbidity, water chemistry, and water temperature)

and some physical variables (e.g., flows, and streambed substrate and

structure) associated with variations in population densities. If

correlations are found, future research will focus on the variable(s)

most likely to limit sucker populations.

The study began in late 1998 and results should be available in

2000. We will then reevaluate our knowledge of the species and, if

determined prudent, propose critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker.

We will continue in our efforts to obtain more information on Santa Ana

sucker biology and ecology, including distribution, population density,

and essential habitat characteristics particularly in regard to water

quality. We will use the information resulting from these efforts to

identify measures needed to achieve conservation of the species, as

defined under the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in

conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,

and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the States and requires that recovery plans be

developed for all listed species. The

[[Page 3921]]

protection required of Federal agencies are discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to

evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or

listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical

habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR

part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to confer

informally with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a federally listed species or result in

destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat. If a

Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must consult with us.

Federal agencies expected to have involvement with section 7

regarding the Santa Ana sucker include the Army Corps of Engineers and

the Environmental Protection Agency because of their permit authority

under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Forest Service will be

involved through its activities on Angeles National Forest and Los

Padres National Forest. These agencies either administer lands/waters

containing the Santa Ana sucker or authorize, fund, or otherwise

conduct activities that may affect this species.

The Act and implementing regulations set forth a series of general

prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened wildlife not

covered by a special rule. These prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21

and 17.31, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States to take (including harass, harm,

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt

any such conduct), import or export, transport in interstate or foreign

commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for

sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also

illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such

wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to our

agents and State conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations

governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.32. Such permits are available for

scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the

species, and/or for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful

activities. For threatened species, permits also are available for

zoological exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes

consistent with purposes of the Act.

It is our policy, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994

(59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practical at the time

a species is listed those activities that would or would not constitute

a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to

increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and

ongoing activities within a species' range. We believe the following

actions would not likely result in a violation of section 9:

(1) Existing discharges into waters supporting these species,

provided these activities are carried out in accordance with existing

regulations and permit requirements (e.g., activities subject to

sections 402, 404, and 405 of the Clean Water Act including discharges

regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES)).

(2) Actions that may affect the Santa Ana sucker and are

authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal agency when the action

is conducted in accordance with any reasonable and prudent measures

given by us in accordance with section 7 of the Act.

(3) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including

pesticide and herbicide use, that are carried out in accordance with

any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best

management practices.

(4) Development and construction activities designed and

implemented in accordance with State and local water quality

regulations.

(5) Existing recreational activities, such as swimming, wading,

canoeing, and fishing.

(6) Possession, transport within or between States, and import and

export of Santa Ana suckers that have not been sold or offered for sale

and were legally collected prior to the date of publication in the

Federal Register of the final regulation adding this taxa to the list

of threatened and endangered species.

Activities that we believe could potentially harm the Santa Ana

sucker and result in a violation of section 9 of the Act include, but

are not limited to:

(1) Take of Santa Ana suckers without a permit, which includes

harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing,

trapping, capturing, or collecting, or attempting any of these actions.

(2) Possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship illegally

taken Santa Ana suckers.

(3) Unauthorized interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across

state and international boundaries) and import/export.

(4) Introduction of non-native species that compete or hybridize

with, or prey on Santa Ana suckers.

(5) Unauthorized destruction or alteration of Santa Ana sucker

habitat by dredging, channelization, diversion, in-stream vehicle

operation or rock removal, or other activities that result in the

destruction or significant degradation of cover, channel stability,

substrate composition, water quality, water temperature, and migratory

corridors used by the species for foraging, cover, migration, and

spawning.

(6) Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, organic waste,

or other pollutants (such as may result from mining, land development

or land management activities) into waters supporting Santa Ana suckers

that results in death or injury to the species or results in the

destruction or degradation of cover, channel stability, substrate

composition, water quality, water temperature, and migratory corridors

used by the species for foraging, cover, migration, and spawning.

Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a

violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of

the Service's Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section). Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed

wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Endangered

Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181

(telephone 503/231-6241; facsimile 503/231-6243)

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule. Comments particularly are sought

concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;

(2) The location of any additional occurrences of this species and

the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be

critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of this species;

[[Page 3922]]

(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their

possible impacts on the Santa Ana sucker or its habitat;

(5) Information regarding the introduction of the Santa Clara River

population and the role it may play in the recovery of this species.

We will take into consideration your comments and any additional

information received on this species when making a final determination

regarding this proposal. The final determination may differ from this

proposal based upon the information we receive.

You may request a public hearing on this proposal. Your request for

a hearing must be made in writing and filed within 45 days of the date

of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Address your

request to the Field Supervisor of the Service's Carlsbad Fish and

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that

are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this

proposal easier to understand including answers to questions such as

the following: (1) Is the discussion in the ``Supplementary

Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the

proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon

that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposal

(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)

aid or reduce its clarity? What else could we do to make the proposal

easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this

notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,

Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington,

DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to: E[email protected].

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental

Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection

with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice

outlining our reasons for this determination was published in the

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any new collections of information other

than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget

clearance number 1018-0094. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a

person is not required to respond to a collection of information,

unless it displays a currently valid control number. For additional

information concerning permit and associated requirements for

threatened species, see 50 CFR 17.32.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author: The primary author of this document is Dr. Paul J. Barrett,

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see

ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

record keeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service proposes to amend part 17, subchapter B of

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth

below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical

order under FISHES, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPECIES Vertebrate

-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special

Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *

FISHES

* * * * * * *

Sucker,.......................... Catostomus ......... U.S.A. (CA)........ Los Angeles,....... T NA NA

Santa Ana........................ santaanae .......... San Gabriel,.......

and Santa Ana......

River basins.......

* * * * * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3923]]

Dated: January 14, 1999

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 99-1700 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P