Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the Least Chub as Endangered With Critical Habitat

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC91

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the

Proposed Rule To List the Least Chub as Endangered With Critical

Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: We withdraw the September 29, 1995, proposed rule to list the

least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis), a fish, as an endangered species

with critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended (Act). After reviewing all available scientific and

commercial information we find that the least chub is no longer likely

to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.

Habitat loss and degradation were significant threats to the least

chub at

[[Page 41062]]

the time of the proposed rule and a major causes of the least chub's

decline. Conservation activities implemented in the last several years

have significantly reduced these threats. Enhancement, maintenance, and

protection projects implemented over the last several years have

focused on those specific factors that have contributed to habitat

degradation. Extensive monitoring of the status of the least chub

indicate that the status of the species has improved. The known range

of the least chub was enlarged by the inclusion of three previously

unknown populations discovered during surveys in historical habitats.

The State of Utah, other cooperating agencies and stakeholders

continue as active participants in the effort to reduce or eliminate

threats to the least chub through the implementation of the Least Chub

Conservation Agreement and Strategy (Perkins et al. 1997). This

Agreement calls for enhancement, maintenance, and protection of least

chub habitat, as well as the development of mitigation protocols for

proposed water development and future habitat alteration. Conservation

actions implemented since the publication of the proposed rule include

extensive surveys, habitat protection and enhancement activities, the

acquisition of wetland habitat, genetic studies and the introduction of

the least chub onto Fish Spring National Wildlife Refuge.

ADDRESSES: The complete administrative file for this rule is available

for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the

Utah Field Office, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

145 East 1300 South, Suite 404, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Reed E. Harris, Field Supervisor,

Utah Field Office, at the above address, telephone (801)524-5001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The least chub is a small monotypic (the sole member of its genera)

minnow (Family Cyprinidae), less than 2.5 inches long, that is endemic

to the Bonneville Basin of Utah, an area within the Great Basin of

southwestern North America. The least chub has a very oblique or

upturned mouth, large scales, and lacks a lateral line (rarely with one

or two pored scales). It has a deeply compressed body and a slender

caudal peduncle (the narrowest section of the rear of the body just

anterior to the caudal fin). A colorful fish, the least chub has a gold

stripe along its blue sides with white to yellow fins. Males are olive-

green above, steel-blue on the sides, and have a golden stripe behind

the upper end of the gill opening. The fins are lemon-amber, and the

paired fins are sometimes bright golden-amber. Females and young are

pale olive above, silvery on the sides and have watery white fins.

Their eyes are silvery with only a little gold coloration, rather than

golden as in the males (Sigler and Miller 1963).

Historically, the least chub was widely distributed within the

Bonneville Basin of northwestern Utah. The species occupied a variety

of aquatic habitats including springs, streams, and ponds and was

classified as excessively common in its preferred habitats (Jordan and

Evermann 1896). The species was historically found in the Beaver River,

ponds near the mouth of the Provo River, tributaries of the Great Salt

Lake and Sevier Lake, Utah Lake, Parawan Creek, Clear Creek, the Provo

River, Gandy Salt Marsh, and the Leland Harris Spring complex (Cope and

Yarrow 1875; Jordan 1891, cited in Jordan and Evermann 1896; Sigler and

Miller 1963; Hickman 1989).

The proposed rule to list the least chub as endangered with

critical habitat (60 FR 50518, September 29, 1995) was based on the

decline of the species' occupied range, its relative abundance, and the

continued threats to the species' survival. A decline in distribution

and abundance of the least chub was first noted in the 1940's and

1950's (Baugh 1980; Holden et al. 1974). The decline of the species has

been attributed to predation and competition from nonnative species,

and habitat loss and alteration. The known distribution of the species

at the time it was proposed for listing was limited to the Snake Valley

in northwestern Utah, where the species inhabits springs, marshes,

pools and stream habitats. Since the proposed rule to list the species

as endangered with critical habitat was published, the existing range

of the species has expanded to include two newly discovered populations

along Utah's Wasatch Front, one newly discovered population at Lucin

Pond in Box Elder County, and a new population at the Fish Springs

National Wildlife Refuge (FSNWR) where the least chub has been

introduced into two springs. Additional introductions at the Refuge are

planned for the spring of 1999.

Conservation actions implemented since publication of the proposed

rule to reduce the threats to the least chub and conserve the species

include--

(1) Extensive surveys throughout least chub historical habitat.

Surveys have identified three previously unknown populations; one at

Lucin Pond in Box Elder County, Utah, where a 1989 least chub

introduction effort was thought to have failed; and two populations

discovered along Utah's Wasatch Front, one at a spring complex in Juab

County and another in the Sevier River drainage in Mills Valley.

(2) Habitat protection and enhancement activities. In 1995, the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) constructed a second cattle exclosure

(a barrier for the exclusion of cattle) on part of the Gandy Salt Marsh

Complex in order to protect occupied least chub habitat. BLM has also

entered into an extension agreement with a private landowner to fund an

additional cattle exclosure, a small dam to control water releases, and

fencing materials at and surrounding a spring head in least chub

occupied habitat in the Utah's West Desert. The fencing material will

be used to implement a rotational grazing system to decrease grazing

pressure at this least chub occupied spring head and adjacent marsh

habitat. The project will be completed in the summer of 1999. Plans to

implement an additional rotational grazing system at a nearby spring

source are being negotiated with a private landowner. BLM has also

declined a request from Juab County, Utah, to implement a mosquito

control spraying operation in marsh and spring areas on BLM lands

occupied by least chub. The State of Utah has further begun discussions

with Juab County to protect occupied least chub habitats on private

lands from this threat. BLM conducted several years of intensive

habitat use studies in least chub occupied springs to better define the

habitat needs of the species. The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and

Conservation Commission (URMCC) also acquired 85.5 acres (ac) (34.6

hectares (ha)) of wetland habitat occupied by least chub along Utah's

Wasatch Front. Negotiations are currently underway with the landowner

to acquire either a conservation easement or fee title for an

additional 20 ac to protect this sensitive habitat. A management plan

for these acquired habitats and fencing projects to exclude cattle are

scheduled for completion by the summer of 1999.

(3) Range expansion activities. In addition to expanding the known

range of the species by locating three additional populations, two

introductions were completed at FSNWR after removal of nonnative

species was completed. Introductions of least chub in two additional

springs at the Refuge will be completed in the spring of 1999 after

nonnative species were removed last fall. An interpretive sign will be

posted at these sites to

[[Page 41063]]

inform visitors to the Refuge of the life history and presence of this

sensitive species. Negotiations are also underway to introduce the

least chub to a suitable spring on lands managed by Hill Air Force

Base. To assist with range expansion activities and the development of

least chub brood stock, as well as other native species, feasibility

studies were done at Gandy and Goshen Warm Springs for a native

aquatic/warm water species hatchery. To further assist with range

expansion activities, potential survey and reintroduction sites were

identified from historic least chub habitat using aerial photography.

(4) Nonnative interactions. To remove the threat to least chub and

other native species from competition and predation by nonnative

species, in 1997 the State of Utah enacted a new policy for Fish

Stocking and Transfer Procedures that specifically protects native

species, including the least chub. Additionally, nonnative species were

removed from springs at the FSNWR prior to introducing least chub.

Nonnative species will also be removed from any new introduction or

reintroduction sites. Selective removal of nonnative species will

continue at occupied least chub habitats.

(5) Genetic analysis. Utah State University is conducting genetic

characterization of all known least chub populations and is expected to

complete this effort by the fall of 1999. This information will be used

for developing broodstock for the planned warmwater fish hatchery and

for reintroduction efforts.

Previous Federal Action

We have conducted three status reviews and prepared two status

reports on the least chub. In 1980, we reviewed all existing

information on the least chub and determined that insufficient data was

available to warrant listing as either endangered or threatened. On

December 30, 1982, we classified the least chub as a category 2

candidate species (47 FR 58454). We included this species again as a

category 2 candidate in the revised vertebrate notice of review of

September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958). Category 2 comprised taxa for which

there was available biological information in our possession indicating

that listing was possibly appropriate, but the information was

insufficient to support listing the species as endangered or

threatened. After preparation of a 1989 status report, we reclassified

the least chub as a category 1 candidate species (54 FR 554; January 6,

1989).

We included this species as a Category 1 candidate in the Animal

Candidate notice of review of November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), and

maintained it as a Category 1 species in the subsequent Animal

Candidate notice of review of November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). Category

1 comprised taxa for which sufficient information was on file to

support proposals for endangered and threatened status. On February 28,

1996, we published a notice of review in the Federal Register (61 FR

7596) that discontinued the use of different categories of candidate

species. Candidate species are now those species for which sufficient

information is on file detailing biological vulnerability and threats

to support issuance of a proposed rule, but issuance of the proposed

rule is precluded by other listing actions.

On September 29, 1995, after reviewing available information, we

proposed the least chub as an endangered species with critical habitat

(60 FR 50518). We solicited public comment on the proposal and informed

the public of the availability of a public hearing upon request.

Several requests for a public hearing were made in writing to our Utah

Field Supervisor. However, due to the moratorium on listing actions

imposed by Congress in 1995, we postponed further actions regarding the

least chub proposal.

A serious backlog of listing actions resulted from decreases in the

listing budget beginning in Fiscal Year 1995 and as a result of a

moratorium on certain listing actions during parts of Fiscal Year 1995

and Fiscal Year 1996. The enactment of Public Law 104-6 in April 1995

rescinded $1.5 million from our budget for carrying out listing

activities through the remainder of Fiscal Year 1995. Public Law 104-6

also prohibited the expenditure of the remaining appropriated funds for

final determinations to list species, whether foreign or domestic, or

designate critical habitat; thus placing a moratorium on those

activities. During the first half of Fiscal Year 1996, the moratorium

continued while a series of continuing resolutions provided little or

no funding for listing activities. The net effect of the moratorium and

reductions in funding resulted in a suspension of all listing

activities. The moratorium on final listings and the immediate budget

constraints remained in effect until April 26, 1996, when President

Clinton approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996 and

exercised the authority that the Act gave him to waive the moratorium.

By that time a backlog of proposed listings for 243 domestic and

foreign species had accrued.

To deal with this considerable backlog, we developed and published

the Interim (61 FR 9651) and Final Listing Priority Guidelines for

Fiscal Year 1996 (61 FR 24722). Using a multi-tiered approach, we

prioritized listing activities giving priority to the processing

emergency listing actions for species that faced an imminent risk of

extinction. During this period, on June 7, 1996, we reopened the

comment period on the least chub proposed listing and announced that a

public hearing would be held on the proposal on June 27, 1996 in

Wendover, Utah (61 FR 29047). At the public hearing numerous

individuals expressed an interest in meeting with us to discuss the

proposed listing of the least chub and other options available to

conserve the species, in particular, the idea of a conservation

agreement. In response to this interest our staff scheduled and

attended a public informational meeting in Partoun, Utah on July 17,

1996.

On December 5, 1996, we published a Final Listing Priority Guidance

for Fiscal Year 1997 (61 FR 64475) that maintained a four tiered

listing priority process, identifying the processing of final decisions

on proposed listings as the tier two activity. However, the effort

required to update status information on the least chub and our work on

other higher priority species delayed publication of a final rule to

list the least chub.

On September 25, 1997, we announced the availability of a draft

conservation agreement for the least chub and comment on the draft

document from the public was solicited (62 FR 50394). On May 8, 1998,

we published in the Federal Register the Final Listing Priority

Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 (63 FR 25502). This new

guidance adopted the existing three-tiered approach and further

identified that during Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 we will concurrently

undertake: tier 1 emergency listing actions and; tier 2, the processing

of final decisions on proposed listings, resolving the conservation

status of candidate species, processing administrative findings on

petitions to add species to the lists and petitions to delist or

reclassify species, and a limited number of delisting or reclassifying

actions. Tier 3 encompasses the processing of critical habitat

determinations. This final listing decision for the least chub is a

tier 2 activity under the current listing priority guidance.

[[Page 41064]]

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the September 29, 1995, proposed rule and the associated

notifications, we invited all interested parties to submit comments or

suggestions concerning biological information and potential threats to

the least chub that might contribute to the development of a final rule

to list the least chub as an endangered species with critical habitat.

We requested comments directly from appropriate Federal and State

agencies, county governments, scientific organizations, and other

interested parties. We also published a notice inviting general public

comment on the proposed listing in the following newspapers-- Salt Lake

Tribune/Deseret News, Millard County Chronicle, Fillmore Chronicle

Progress, Tooele Transcript Bulletin, Nephi Times News, and the

Wendover Times. We received no public comments in response.

We received requests to hold a public hearing on the proposed

listing from three separate parties, all landowners within the Snake

Valley of western Utah. On June 7, 1996, we published a notice in the

Federal Register reopening the comment period on the least chub

proposed listing until July 15, 1996, and also announced that a public

hearing would be held on the proposal on June 27, 1996, in Wendover,

Utah (61 FR 29047). In addition to the announcement in the Federal

Register and in local newspapers, we sent a letter to all interested

parties announcing the date of the public hearing and the extended

closing date for public comment. Six parties presented testimony at a

public hearing held on June 27, 1996, in Wendover, Utah. At the public

hearing many individuals expressed an interest in meeting with us to

discuss the proposed listing of the least chub and other options

available to conserve the species, the idea of a conservation agreement

was of particular interest. In light of the above request, we held a

second public informational meeting in Partoun, Utah on July 17, 1996,

that was attended by nineteen individuals.

During the comment period we received written and oral comments

from 17 parties, including the testimony presented at the public

hearing. We received comments from two State agencies, two

environmental organizations, nine private individuals or groups, and

four representatives of the petroleum and energy industry. Of the 17

comments received, 1 supported the listing, 11 opposed the listing, 2

were neutral, and 3 recommended the development of a conservation

agreement. We have combined written and oral statements from both the

public hearing and the comment period in the following discussion.

Comments and other information submitted by respondents are

incorporated into this notice of withdrawal and organized into specific

issue topics. These issues and our response to each are summarized as

follows--

Issue 1: Several respondents suggested that listing was not

warranted given the current conservation efforts on behalf of the least

chub, including the conservation agreement being developed by the State

of Utah. These comments generally supported efforts in behalf of the

agreement rather than listing the species.

Service Response: We actively participated in the development of

the conservation agreement and believe that its continued

implementation will facilitate the recovery of the species. The

implementation of the conservation measures outlined in the agreement

has reduced the actual and potential threats to the species. These

efforts are directed at restoring and maintaining least chub

populations throughout its historic range to ensure its continued

existence. For a list of conservation actions completed to date, please

refer to the Background discussion of this rule.

Issue 2: Several respondents opposed the listing due to direct

economic impacts to the local livestock industry, petroleum and energy

industries from the proposed listing and designation of critical

habitat.

Service Response: Under the Act, the Secretary must make

determinations on the listing of species solely on the basis of the

best available scientific and commercial information without reference

to economic or other social impacts. The listing of the least chub

could indirectly affect some industry sectors by modifying the

allowable land use practices on certain Federal lands. However, we

believe that if the least chub became listed in a final rule there

would be no significant impact upon either the livestock, petroleum, or

energy industries. The Act requires that Federal agencies consult on

any action they undertake, authorize or fund which may affect a

proposed or listed species. However, in the majority of cases

consultation neither slows or halts project planning or construction.

In fact, the likelihood that any implementation or enforcement actions

resulting from a species listing under the Act would result in economic

impacts is minimal, given the ready availability of conservation tools

and balancing mechanisms such as incidental take permits, habitat

conservation plans, and safe harbor agreements.

Issue 3: One respondent suggested that a more proactive approach be

taken in working with Snake Valley citizens to assure adequate habitat

restoration, species reintroduction, and recovery of the least chub.

Service Response: In response to considerable local concern

regarding the listing of the least chub, we held a public hearing on

June 27, 1996, and a second public informational meeting on July 17,

1996, for the citizens of Snake Valley, Utah. During these meetings

issues such as the development of a conservation agreement, the

possibility of Safe Harbor Agreements, and the local involvement of the

public, especially school children, in the conservation of the species

were discussed.

We are actively working in a cooperative effort with the State of

Utah and with private landowners located within Miller Springs and

Leland Harris Spring Complex, to protect populations of least chub

through the Partners for Wildlife Program. To support this effort,

Federal and State funds were disbursed for such conservation measures

as the purchase of fencing materials to exclude cattle from the spring

heads and to allow for implementation of a rotational grazing regime to

lessen cattle impacts at the spring complexes.

Issue 4: One respondent raised the issue of reintroducing the least

chub onto the FSNWR which is already under our management and within

the historical range of the species.

Service Response: On July 11, 1997, we entered into a Challenge

Cost Share Agreement with the State of Utah under the authority of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667) and the

provisions of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act

(Public Law 104-208, 110 STAT. 3009). The purpose of this agreement is

to facilitate the reintroduction of the least chub onto the FSNWR.

FSNWR is located within the historical range of least chub and offers

high potential for creating refugia for additional populations to aid

recovery. Funds have already been disbursed pursuant to this agreement

to implement structural changes at the Refuge, eliminate nonnative

mosquitofish, and to introduce least chub into two springs on the

refuge. There are also plans for the introduction of least chub into

two additional springs on the Refuge and the construction of an

educational bulletin board alongside one of these springs.

Issue 5: One respondent suggested that since there are no recent

studies

[[Page 41065]]

assessing least chub population status, that such studies be initiated

as soon as possible to ascertain its occurrence, genetic purity, and

habitat condition.

Service Response: Through the combined effort of the Utah Division

of Wildlife Resources, BLM, and ourselves the yearly monitoring of

least chub populations was expanded to include extended surveys for

least chub within historical habitat. These extended surveys have

resulted in the identification of two previously unknown populations of

least chub along Utah's Wasatch Front, where the species was previously

considered extirpated (no longer present), and an additional population

in Box Elder County.

Researchers at Utah State University have initiated the genetic

analysis of all known least chub populations with completion of this

analysis scheduled by Spring of 1999. In separate research efforts,

least chub habitat condition, availability and use are being analyzed

in several different ways. BLM is conducting an extensive habitat use

survey of all known least chub populations in the Snake Valley. The

State of Utah also has conducted aerial photography in Utah's West

Desert and Wasatch Front to identify potential least chub habitat.

Issue 6: One respondent noted that the greatest factor in the

decrease of the least chub population is the 10 years of extended

drought, and suggested that because the least chub has endured drought

in the past that their numbers will again increase when conditions

become wetter and additional springs begin flowing.

Service Response: Researchers have identified nonnative fish

predation and competition (Hickman 1989; Osmundson 1985) and direct

physical habitat loss and habitat degradation (Holden et al. 1974;

Hickman 1989; Crist 1990) as factors in the decline of the least chub.

While drought may play a role in the current reduced numbers of the

species, historically, the species has been able to recover from such

drought-induced declines. Presently, however, other factors such as

habitat loss and degradation, and nonnative fish predation and

competition, may be contributing to slower species recovery.

Issue 7: One respondent noted that cattle have coexisted with least

chub for over 100 years and explained that livestock grazing practices

have improved considerably and that ranchers are no longer mismanaging

pasture land with continuous grazing as in the past.

Service Response: Livestock grazing practices have improved.

However, in the proposed rule to list the least chub as endangered (60

FR 50518), we identified habitat degradation caused by livestock

trampling as a significant threat to the species. Additionally, large

influxes of organic material to springheads as a result of livestock

activities may result in the extirpation of least chub from these

habitats. Local ranchers are working with us in an effort to secure

funding and manpower for fencing projects on private lands to provide

for rotational grazing practices and/or exclusion of cattle from least

chub occupied springheads.

Issue 8: One respondent expressed the opinion that there are

unsurveyed spring complexes that probably contained least chub and

suggested that these areas had not been surveyed because they were on

the military's test and training range where access has been denied.

Service Response: Cooperating staff biologists for the military

continue to periodically advise us of the status of the species and of

the availability of habitat on military lands. Presently there are no

known populations of least chub on military lands. However, we have

joined with staff of the military's test and training range and the

State of Utah to begin discussions with the goal of introducing least

chub into unoccupied springs on military lands in Utah's West Desert.

Issue 9: One respondent, who supported the listing and critical

habitat designation, suggested that BLM needed greater inducements to

abate or prevent habitat degradation than are presently provided under

BLM's current stipulations or activity plan objectives.

Service Response: If the least chub became listed under the Act,

BLM would have an affirmative obligation under section 7(a)(1) of the

Act to utilize its authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the

Act and to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and

threatened species. BLM has been a participating member of both the

Least Chub Conservation Technical Team and the Bonneville Basin

Conservation and Recovery Team since the inception of both teams. BLM

is also involved in several fencing projects designed to exclude cattle

from spring heads occupied by least chub and is currently involved in

evaluating habitat preferences of least chub in the West Desert.

Furthermore, BLM is a signatory to the Least Chub Conservation

Agreement and, as such, has agreed to protect and conserve the species.

Issue 10: One respondent expressed the opinion that although human

activity has had an impact on the welfare of the least chub, it is

endangered primarily because Lake Bonneville has dried up. The

respondent anticipated, therefore, that the endangerment of this fish

was inevitable.

Service Response: Ancient Lake Bonneville has undergone at least

ten separate cycles of desiccation and flooding. The most recent

desiccation occurred approximately 10,000 years ago and the Great Salt

Lake has remained relatively stable since that time. Least chub were

abundant until the 1940's and 1950's at which time a decline in their

distribution and abundance was noted (Baugh 1980). This decline can be

attributed to human intervention through habitat loss and alteration

and the introduction of nonnative species.

Issue 11: One respondent identified that some oil and gas leases

have been denied in anticipation of the least chub endangered species

designation.

Service Response: We proposed the least chub as an endangered

species in September 29, 1995. Prior to this, it was a candidate

species for listing under the Act. As a precautionary measure Federal

agencies proposing projects that may affect sensitive species would

take the sensitive status of the species into consideration, whether or

not it is actually listed under the Act. The protection and

conservation of sensitive species is cost effective for project

proponents as well, for it may preclude the need to list a species as

federally endangered or threatened pursuant to the Act. When a species

is proposed, Federal agencies are required under section 7(a)(4) of the

Act to confer on any action which is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the species.

Issue 12: Several respondents suggested that the economic impacts

of critical habitat designation be minimized by defining the needed

critical habitat as narrowly as possible and restricting it to areas

immediately adjacent to springs where the least chub has been

identified. One respondent was concerned that the designation of

critical habitat would eliminate family operated ranches.

Service Response: In determining what areas to propose as critical

habitat, we must consider those physical and biological features that

are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require

special management considerations or protection. Such features include

but are not limited to the following: (1) Space for individual and

population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air,

light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

(3) cover,

[[Page 41066]]

shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring;

and generally; (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historic geographical and ecological

distributions of the species. In making this critical habitat

determination, areas can only be excluded from the designated critical

habitat if the economic or other benefits of exclusion outweighed the

benefits of designating the area, unless such exclusion would result in

extinction of the species. Critical habitat plays more than an

informational role only through section 7 consultations in which the

Service reviews proposed Federal actions. Activities on private or

state-owned lands that do not involve Federal permits, funding, or

other Federal actions are not restricted by the designation of critical

habitat, although the ``take'' provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the

Act still apply. If no Federal agency is involved in management,

funding, or by other means on non-Federal areas with critical habitat,

activities on private lands are not subject to the section 7

consultation process for critical habitat. Thus, activities on private

or state-owned lands that do not involve Federal permits, funding, or

other Federal actions are not restricted by the designation of critical

habitat.

Peer Review

In accordance with policy promulgated July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),

we solicited the expert opinions of independent specialists. In a

letter dated October 20, 1995, we requested review and comments on the

proposed listing rule from knowledgeable parties. This letter further

identified that such advice would be helpful in the decision as to the

proposed rule and specifically requested assistance in--(1) providing

any factual data concerning the conservation of the species; (2)

advising of any special consideration that should be taken into account

prior to our final decision of the species status; (3) advice as to

whether it would be prudent and determinable to designate critical

habitat for the species at this time and; (4) providing any other

relevant advice or guidance. We received no additional comments or

information in response to this request.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

We must consider five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the

Act when determining whether to list a species. These factors, and

their effects on the decision to withdraw the proposal to list the

least chub, are as follows--

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. Historically, least chub were

widely distributed within the Bonneville Basin of northwestern Utah and

occupied many streams, springs, and ponds (Cope and Yarrow 1875; Jordan

1891, cited by Jordan and Evermann 1896; Sigler and Miller 1963;

Hickman 1989). At the time of the proposed listing of the species,

least chub surveys and monitoring had indicated a steady decline in

their distribution and numbers. Extensive monitoring in pre-established

sites conducted in the three marsh complexes which comprise the

majority of least chub habitat in Utah's West Desert indicated that in

1993, 51.4 percent of springs sampled contained least chub while in

1994, 43.8 percent contained least chub and in 1995, 40.5 percent were

occupied by least chub. Habitat loss and degradation have been

indicated as major causes of the least chub's decline (Holden et al.

1974; Hickman 1989; Crist 1990). Conservation activities implemented

over the last several years have reduced the threats to the least chub

from habitat loss and degradation. The downward trend in least chub

occupied springs in the Utah's West Desert was slowed and in 1998

reversed. Monitoring data from 1996 identified that 40.0 percent of

springs sampled contained least chub while in 1997, 38.4 percent were

occupied and in 1998, 43.1 percent were occupied by least chub.

Enhancement, maintenance, and protection projects implemented over

the last several years have focused on those specific factors that have

contributed to habitat degradation such as livestock trampling and

grazing, water development and mining activities. Many activities are

already underway. In 1995, BLM constructed a second cattle exclosure on

part of the Gandy Salt Marsh Complex in order to protect occupied least

chub habitat. An extension agreement is being developed with a private

landowner to fund an additional cattle exclosure around a springhead in

least chub occupied habitat in Utah's West Desert. In addition, plans

to implement a rotational grazing system to decrease grazing pressure

at sensitive least chub occupied springs are in negotiation with a

private landowner. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has

completed aerial photography mapping of all least chub potential

habitat, in part, to assist in the identification of private and public

lands available for conservation easements and exclosures, acquisition,

wetland revegetation, and water quality improvements. The State of Utah

has also developed plans, in conjunction with the BLM, for the dredging

of springheads to alleviate accelerated succession of spring complexes.

BLM further declined a request from Juab County, Utah, to implement a

mosquito control spraying operation in marsh and spring areas on BLM

lands occupied by least chub. The State of Utah has initiated

discussions with the County to protect occupied least chub habitats on

private lands from this threat. BLM, in addition to the annual habitat

surveys conducted during least chub monitoring, has conducted several

years of intensive habitat use studies in least chub occupied springs

to better define the habitat needs of the species. Acquisition of

wetland habitat occupied by least chub along Utah's Wasatch Front is

underway, with the purchase of approximately 85.5 ac (34.6 ha)

completed by the end of 1998 and additional purchases under

negotiations. This habitat will then be enhanced by removal of cattle,

re-opening springheads that have been impacted by cattle, reseeding

with native vegetation, and selective removal of nonnative species.

In addition to the above completed and planned conservation

activities, the development of the Least Chub Conservation Agreement, a

multi-agency cooperation effort, has established a means to curtail

future habitat loss and degradation. The Agreement calls for

enhancement, maintenance, and protection of least chub habitat, as well

as the development of a mitigation protocol for proposed water

development and future habitat alteration. The Agreement requires; (1)

enhancement and/or restoration of habitat conditions in designated

areas throughout the historical range of least chub, including bank

stabilization, riparian/spring fencing, and sustainable grazing

practices; and (2) maintaining and restoring, where possible, the

natural hydrologic characteristics and water quality.

B. Over utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. Overutilization is not presently a factor in the

decline of the species. Although some least chub specimens have been

collected for scientific and educational purposes (Sigler and Workman

1975; Workman et al. 1979; Crawford 1979; Osmundson 1985), such

collections do not presently present a significant threat. No

commercial or recreational uses for the least chub are known at this

time.

C. Disease or predation. The introduction of nonnative species into

[[Page 41067]]

least chub habitat has contributed to the decline of the least chub

(Workman et al. 1979; Hickman 1989; Osmundson 1985). Predation by

nonnative fishes has been a major factor in the decline and extirpation

of desert fishes in southwestern North America (Shoenherr 1981; Meffe

1985; Minckley et al. 1991). Surveys of spring complexes indicate that

where nonnative fishes have been introduced, few if any least chub

remain (Osmundson 1985). To reduce this threat to the least chub the

following conservation activities have been implemented. In 1997, the

State of Utah enacted a new policy for Fish Stocking and Transfer

Procedures that specifically protects native species, including the

least chub. The new policy puts the protection of native aquatic

species above the enhancement of recreational fisheries providing for

fish stocking and transfer in a manner that does not adversely affect

the long term viability of native aquatic species or their habitat and,

among other things, aiding native species conservation. Additional

activities completed to remove the threat of competition and predation

by nonnative species include the removal of all nonnatives from two

springs at FSNWR prior to introducing least chub, and at two additional

springs in the fall of 1998 prior to reintroductions proposed for 1999.

Nonnative species will be removed from any future introduction or

reintroduction sites. Selective removal of nonnative species has and

will continue to occur at occupied least chub habitats. To educate the

public on the adverse effects of introducing nonnative species to

previously unoccupied habitats, an interpretive billboard has been

developed and will be installed at FSNWR.

In addition to the conservation activities already implemented and

in the planning stages, future threats from disease and predation are

directly addressed in the conservation agreement for the Least Chub.

The selective control of nonnative species is one of the seven

conservation actions to be implemented by the Agreement. Management and

control of nonnative species will focus on--(1) determining where

detrimental interactions, such as predation, competition,

hybridization, or disease occur or could occur; (2) control or

modification of stocking, introductions, and spread of nonnative

aquatic species where appropriate; and (3) eradication of detrimental

nonnative fish where feasible, and control to the maximum extent

possible where eradication is not possible. Several species targeted

for control and/or eradication include mosquitofish, killifish, and in

some cases, nonnative sportfish and forage fish. In addition, in an

effort to reduce such threats, we have planned a public education and

outreach campaign to explain the benefits of ecosystem integrity, the

detrimental effects of nonnative introductions, and the potential for

disease transmission from such introductions.

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. While the land

ownership of occupied and potential least chub habitat is divided among

Federal, State and private landowners, cooperation among the various

groups is helping to protect the least chub. The establishment by the

State of Utah, in 1997, of a new Fish Stocking and Transfer Procedures

Policy established a regulatory mechanism that has and will afford the

least chub greater protection from the threats to the species from

introductions of nonnative species. Furthermore, the status of the

least chub in Utah has changed, for it is now identified as a

conservation species. This status identifies the species as one which

is currently receiving special management under a conservation

agreement. Signatory parties to the conservation agreement include the

Utah Department of Natural Resources, BLM, Utah Reclamation Mitigation

and Conservation Commission, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, the Central Utah Water

Conservancy District and the Service. The conservation agreement was

developed to expedite conservation measures needed for the continued

existence and recovery of the least chub. It focuses on two objectives:

(1) To eliminate or significantly reduce threats to least chub and its

habitat to the greatest extent possible, and (2) to restore and

maintain a minimum number of least chub populations throughout its

historical range to ensure the continued existence of least chub. These

objectives will be met through: determining baseline least chub

population, life history, and habitat needs; determining and

maintaining genetic integrity; enhancing, maintaining and protecting

habitat; selectively controlling nonnative species; expanding least

chub populations and range through introduction or reintroduction;

monitoring populations and habitat; and developing a mitigation

protocol for proposed water development and future habitat alteration

that may affect least chub. When the agreement is fully implemented it

will provide for the recovery of the least chub by establishing a

framework for interagency cooperation and coordination on conservation

efforts and setting recovery priorities. In addition to the Agreement,

other partnerships will continue to be developed on specific actions

within the least chub's range involving other interested agencies or

groups. In light of the change in the State status of the least chub,

the adoption of the conservation agreement and of a new State stocking

policy affording greater protection to the least chub, we conclude that

the existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to address significant

threat to the species.

E. Other natural or human caused factors affecting its continued

existence. Competition and hybridization are identified factors

contributing to the decline of the least chub (Lamarra 1981; Sigler and

Sigler 1987; Crawford 1979). We expect the control of nonnative species

identified in the Least Chub Conservation Agreement as identified in C

and D above, to significantly reduce such threats.

A proposed mosquito abatement program for Juab County, Utah, is

also a potential threat to least chub. BLM has declined the county's

request to implement a mosquito control spraying project on Federal

lands. Because spraying by the county may still occur on privately held

lands, the Division of Wildlife Resources for the State of Utah has

begun negotiations with the Juab County mosquito abatement program to

ensure that their activities do not result in additional declines of

least chub.

Due to the small number of populations of least chub, they are very

susceptible to stochastic (random or naturally occurring) events. The

likelihood of such events was identified as a possible threat to the

species in the proposed rule. A single catastrophic event could destroy

a significant portion of remaining chub habitat, or one or more of

their populations. Extensive surveys throughout least chub historical

habitat have been conducted over the last six years, and such efforts

will continue to identify the known range and populations of least

chub. These survey efforts identified three previously unknown

populations; one at Lucin Pond in Box Elder County, Utah, where a 1989

least chub introduction effort was thought to have failed; and two

populations along Utah's Wasatch Front, one at a spring complex in Juab

County and another in the Sevier River drainage in Mills Valley. In

addition to expanding the known range of the species by locating three

additional populations, FSNRW completed two introductions after removal

of nonnative

[[Page 41068]]

species, with the introductions of least chub in two additional springs

in the spring of 1999. Negotiations are also underway to introduce the

least chub to a suitable spring on lands managed by Hill Air Force

Base. These additional populations reduce the likelihood of a single

catastrophic event affecting a major portion of the population. To

assist with range expansion activities and the development of least

chub brood stock, as well as other native species, feasibility studies

were conducted at Gandy and Goshen Warm Springs for a native aquatic/

warm water species hatchery. To further assist with range expansion

activities, all least chub historical habitats were aerial photographed

to identify potential survey and reintroduction sites.

The expansion in the range of least chub is identified in the Least

Chub Conservation Agreement as a necessary action to conserve the

species. To expand the range of the least chub, the conservation

agreement calls for: (1) Establishing additional populations through

introductions or reintroductions from either transplanted (wildstock)

or brood stock least chub raised in a designated hatchery; (2)

identifying and developing broodstock sources, including identification

and taking of wild sources, and hatching and rearing facilities; and

(3) restoring least chub populations into appropriate areas.

Finding and Withdrawal

Section 4(b)(1)(a) of the Act provides that the Secretary shall

make listing decisions solely on the basis of the best scientific and

commercial data available and after taking into account those efforts

being made by any State or foreign nation to protect such species. In

accordance with this requirement we have evaluated the species on the

basis of each of the five listing factors discussed above; the current

improved status of the least chub, and the efforts being made by the

State of Utah, other signatories to the Least Chub Conservation

Agreement and other private entities; to protect the species. Based on

our evaluation of the above information, completed and ongoing actions

and protective measures have substantially reduced the threats to the

least chub such that the species is not likely to become endangered in

the foreseeable future and, therefore, listing is not warranted at this

time. We consequently withdraw the proposed rule to list the least chub

as endangered with critical habitat.

Endangered Species Act Oversight

We will continue to monitor the status of the least chub throughout

the term of the conservation agreement and maintain oversight. If it is

deemed necessary, an emergency listing of the least chub would not be

precluded by the 60-day written notice required to withdraw from the

conservation agreement. We will initiate the process for listing the

least chub if--(1) an emergency which poses a significant threat to the

least chub is identified and not immediately and adequately addressed;

(2) the biological status of the least chub becomes such that it is in

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its

range; or (3) the biological status of the least chub becomes such that

it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout

all or a significant portion of its range. Appropriate notice will be

given to signatory members of the Least Chub Conservation Agreement

should we find that it is necessary to reinitiate the listing process.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited is available upon request

from the Salt Lake City Field Office (see ADDRESSES above)

Authors: The primary author of this document is Janet A. Mizzi (see

ADDRESSES above).

Authority

The authority for this action is section 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: July 8, 1999.

John G. Rogers, Jr.,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 99-19360 Filed 7-28-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P