Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To Determine the Least Chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) an Endangered Species With Critical Habitat

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC91

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To

Determine the Least Chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) an Endangered

Species With Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to

determine the least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) to be an endangered

species and to designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended. This small monotypic minnow is endemic

to the Bonneville Basin in Utah where it was once common and widely

distributed. Populations of least chub have declined, and it now only

exists within Snake Valley in western Utah. The continuing decline in

range and abundance of the least club has been attributed to

competition and predation from nonnative species and habitat loss and

alteration.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by

November 28, 1995. Public hearing requests must be received by November

13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be

sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lincoln

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

Comments and materials received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, at the above address during normal business

hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Williams at the above

address, telephone 801/524-5001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The least chub, Iotichthys phlegethontis, is an endemic minnow

(Family Cyprinidae) of the Bonneville Basin of Utah, which is located

in the Great Basin of southwestern North America. E.D. Cope described

the least chub (Clinostomus phlegethontis) from specimens collected in

the Beaver River in 1872 by Dr. H.C. Yarrow and H.W. Henshaw (Cope

1874, cited in Cope and Yarrow 1875). However, the scientific name has

been revised several times: from the genus Clinostomus to Gila (Cope

and Yarrow 1875), to Phoxinus (Jordan and Gilbert 1883, cited in Jordan

and Evermann 1896), to Hemitremia (Jordan 1891), to Leuciscus subgenus

Iotichthys (Jordan and Evermann 1896), and finally to the monotypic

genus Iotichthys (Jordan et al. 1930, cited in Hickman 1989; Robins

1991).

As suggested by its common and scientific names, the least chub is

a small fish (3 (3 to 2,800

ft2) in size and with water depths of 0.1 to 3.6 m (0.4 to 12ft).

In some of these habitats, certain environmental parameters fluctute.

The springs exhibit cool stable temperature, relatively low

conductivity, and little variation in dissolved oxygen content. The

marsh and pool environments exhibit extreme diurnal fluctuations in

dissolved oxygen, and water temperatures that may vary between 15 and

32 deg.C (59-90 deg.F) (Crist and Holden 1980; Lamarra 1981).

Seasonal water quality changes in the marshes and stream segments

result in fish movement back and forth between different hibitat types,

especially between the springs and marshes (Crist and Holden 1980).

Vegetation is an important habitat component for the least chub

(Crist and Holden 1980), and Sigler and Workman (1975) reported that

least chub habitat included aquatic plants that were ``plentiful and

provided excellent cover.'' Water parsnip (Berula erecta), wire rush

(Juncus balticus), and algae are common in and around the springs and

marshes that are inhabited by the fish (Sigler and Workman, 1975).

However, many other plants occur in areas occupied by the fish

including Chara sp., duckweed (Laemna sp.), watercress (Nasturtium

sp.), bulrushes (Sciurpus sp.), cattails (Typha sp.), and sedges

(Cyperus sp.) (Sigler and Sigler 1987).

Least chub has not been collected outside of Snake Valley since

1965 (Hickman 1989). They continue to decline in Snake Valley, and

studies conducted in the past 15 years indicate a steady decline in

their distribution and abundance. Workman et al. (1979) collected least

chub from 36 sites in 5 major spring complexes in Snake Valley, but

Osmundson (1985) found it in only 2 of 5 complexes where it previously

existed. Crist (1990) reported that least chub were extirpated from

springs on the Bagley Ranch and the Redden Springs Complex. Least chub

numbers are now declining within the Gandy Salt Marsh and Leland Harris

Spring Complex. Recent collections by UDWR personnel indicate that

least club occurs in only 3 of 5 springs sampled in the Leland-Harris

Complex and 6 of 12 springs in the Grandy Salt Marsh. A continuing

decline of the least chub has prompted the American Fisheries Society

to recognize it as a threatened species (Deacon et al. 1979).

[[Page 50520]]

As with other endemic southwestern fishes (Courtenay and Stauffer

1984; Meffe 1985; Schoenherr 1991), predation by introduced nonnative

fishes have caused the decline of the least chub. Largemouth bass,

rainbow trout, common carp, and brook trout have been regularly stocked

by government agencies and private citizens into least chub habitat

(Workman et al. 1979; Sigler and Sigler 1987; Osmundson 1985). Hickman

(1989) considered least chub to be ``constantly threatened'' by the

introduction of these gamefish species. However, other nonnative

species also prey upon or compete with the least club, including the

mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and rainwater killifish (Lucania

parva). Introduction of fishes into least chub habitat probably

contributed to the extirpation of least chub outside of Snake Valley,

since few least chub are present in spring complexes in Snake Valley

where nonnative fishes have been introduced (Osmundson 1985; Shirley,

in litt. 1989).

Direct, physical habitat loss and habitat degradation also are

factors in the decline of the least chub (Holden et al. 1974; Hickman

1989; Crist 1990). In spring complexes that contain least chub, habitat

degradation caused by livestock trampling could be a threat although no

studies of the impact of livestock on the springs of Snake Valley have

been conducted to date.

Recent oil and gas exploration and production activity in the West

Desert area may result in increased degradation and/or impacts to least

chub habitat. Exploration results in increased road access to sensitive

areas while surface activities associated with drilling, including

drilling site preparation under water hauling, may impact water

quality. Drilling activities also may release drilling fluids into the

aquifer or may fracture underground geologic features that are

associated with springs.

Water withdrawals also are a potential threat to the least chub.

Not only can reduced water supply diminish the amount of least chub

habitat, and thus the capacity of an area to support least chub, but

lowered levels may cause niche overlaps with other species. These

overlaps may increase hybrid introgression and interspecific

competition (Crawford 1979; Lamarra 1981). Maintenance of certain water

levels is very important to least chub because these levels must be

high enough to allow the fish to migrate between springs and

surrounding marsh areas as environmental conditions change.

Additionally, maintenance of water levels and discharge volumes is

critical in preserving natural sediment transport processes, thereby

maintaining underwater habitat configurations and reducing aquatic

vegetation encroachment into sensitive spring areas.

Present water withdrawals from surface and underground sources are

estimated at 10 percent of the total yearly recharge rate (Van Pelt

1992). These rates do not appear to be threatening to least chub

habitat. However, additional proposed wells in the southern part of

Snake Valley and surrounding areas could lower the water table,

resulting in drying up or lowering the water level in springs and

marshes populated by least chub. These springs are dependant on

underground water sources that flow from the Deep Creek Mountains to

the Snake Valley (M. Barber, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in litt.

1991; Brothers et al. 1993). It is important to note that all surface

streams from the Deep Creek Mountains are currently diverted for

agricultural use.

Several efforts to reintroduce least chub into historic habitat

have been attempted. In 1979, least chub were introduced into a pond

near Salt Lake City, Utah. The following year, young least chub were

collected, verifying successful reproduction. However, introduction of

nonnative fishes, combined with flooding of the pond by the Great Salt

Lake, eliminated this successfully reintroduced population. Two other

attempts to reintroduce least chub were not successful; the reasons for

these failures are not well understood, but competition and/or

predation with nonnative fishes offer a partial explanation (Crist

1990). Additional investigations are necessary prior to future

reintroduction attempts, including reasons for past successes and

failures, and the need to experiment with several reintroduction

techniques. Both the UDWR and BLM are working on developing management

plans that will address these reintroduction issues (L. Lentsch, UDWR,

pers. comm., 1994; R. Fike, BLM, pers. comm., 1994).

Previous Federal Action

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has conducted three status

reviews for the least chub and have prepared two status reports. In

1980, the Service reviewed existing information on the least chub and

determined that there was insufficient data to warrant its listing as

endangered or threatened. On December 30, 1982, the Service classified

the fish as a category 2 candidate species (47 FR 58454). After

preparation of a 1989 status report, the Service reclassified the least

chub as a category 1 candidate species (54 FR 554; January 6, 1989).

The Service continues to evaluate information and data concerning

population declines and increasing threats, and has determined that

listing the least chub as endangered or threatened is warranted.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and regulations (50 CFR Part 424)

promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth

the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may

be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or

more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors

and their application to the least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) are

as follows:

A. The threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its

habitat or range. The least chub was once widely distributed within the

Bonneville Basin of northwestern Utah and occupied many streams,

springs, and ponds. Yarrow and Henshaw found least chub in the Beaver

River (Cope and Yarrow 1875). Jordan (1891, cited by Jordan and

Evermann 1896) collected least chub from ponds near the mouth of the

Provo River. Jordan and Evermann (1896) stated that least chub occurred

in ``tributaries of Great Salt Lake and Sevier Lake.'' More recently,

least chub were observed in Utah Lake, Beaver River, Parowan Creek,

Clear Creek, and the Provo River (reviewed by Sigler and Miller 1963;

Hickman 1989). However, least chub have not been collected outside of

Snake Valley since 1965 (Hickman 1989).

Least chub populations in Snake Valley are not stable and studies

conducted in the past 15 years indicate a steady decline in their

distribution and numbers. Workman et al. (1979) collected least chub

from 36 sites spread throughout 5 major spring complexes in Snake

Valley. A few years later, Osmundson (1985) found least chub in only

two of the five complexes. Further surveys have confirmed that least

chub has been extirpated from springs on the Bagley Ranch and the

Redden Springs Complex (Crist 1990). Recent data suggest that least

chub numbers are now declining within the Gandy Salt Marsh and Leland

Harris Spring Complex. Personnel from UDWR found least chub only in 3

of 5 springs sampled in the Leland-Harris Complex and 6 of 12 springs

in the Gandy Salt Marsh. Some least chub have recently been discovered

in Snake Creek, south of Gandy Salt Marsh. However, no studies

[[Page 50521]]

have been conducted to determine the distribution, abundance, or status

of this Snake Creek population (L. Lentsch, pers. comm., 1993). Service

biologists believe that the numbers of least chub at Snake Creek are

insufficient to reverse this downward trend in its numbers.

Habitat loss and degradation have been indicated as major causes of

the least chub's decline (Holden et al. 1974; Hickman 1989; Crist

1990). Although no studies have been made of the springs in Snake

Valley, numerous other reports link livestock trampling and grazing

with fish habitat degradation in streams and springs (Duff 1977; May

and Somes 1981; Taylor et al. 1989; Bowen and Beauchamp 1992). The

springs in the Snake Valley that are occupied by least chub are not

protected from livestock. The BLM has one fenced exclosure in the Gandy

Salt Marsh Complex and is considering a second exclosure to protect

other springs (R. Fike, BLM, pers. comm., 1993).

Crist and Holden (1990) and Lamarra (1981) indicated that water

levels are important to least chub life history. The Las Vegas Valley

Water District has requested a permit to drill a series of wells in the

southern part of Snake Valley and surrounding areas (M. Barber, in

litt. 1991). This could lower the water table significantly in Snake

Valley, possibly drying up or lowering the water level in springs and

marshes populated by least chub. These springs are totally dependent on

underground water sources which flow from the Deep Creek Mountains to

the west of Snake Valley. Other forms of water use within Snake Valley

pose a minimal threat to least chub habitat at this time, and water

withdrawals from surface and underground sources are estimated at 10

percent of the total yearly recharge rate (Van Pelt 1992).

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. Some specimens have been collected for scientific

and educational purposes (Sigler and Workman 1975; Workman et al. 1979;

Crawford 1979; Osmundson 1985). However, no commercial or recreational

uses for the least chub are known to exist. Overutilization for

commercial or scientific purposes does not pose a threat to least chub.

C. Disease or predation. Disease or incidence of parasitism

presently are not major factors affecting the least chub. Workman et

al. (1979) found a single parasite called blackspot (the metacercariae

of the digenetic trematode) infesting the least chub. Black spot

(Neascus cuticola) produces small, black-pigmented nodules on the skin,

trunk musculature, and fins of fishes and is frequently encountered in

the least chub, Utah chub (Gila atraria), and speckled dace

(Rhinichthyes osculus). Workman et al. (1979) reported black spot

infection rates for the least chub as 1-23 nodules per fish, and that

the infection rate varied from area to area and with season (highest in

late summer and lowest in winter). Despite this moderate infestation

rate, all least chubs examined appeared robust and in good condition.

This parasite is apparently restricted to certain spring and pond

areas.

Predation by nonnative fishes has been a major factor in the

decline and extirpation of desert fishes in southwestern North America

(Schoenherr 1981; Meffe 1985; Minckley et al. 1991). Hickman (1989)

considered least chub to be ``constantly threatened'' by the

introduction of nonnative species. Surveys of spring complexes indicate

that where nonnative fishes were introduced, few if any least chub

remain (Osmundson 1985; Shirley, in litt. 1989). Introduced game fishes

which include largemouth bass, rainbow trout, common carp, and brook

trout, are predators on least chub, and these species have been

regularly stocked in least chub habitat (Workman et al. 1979; Sigler

and Sigler 1987; Osmundson 1985; Crist 1990), no doubt contributing to

the endangerment of least chub. In addition to game fish, other

nonnative fishes also have been released into least chub habitat. Two

fishes, the mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and rainwater killifish

(Luciana parva), have similar diets to the least chub and are

considered potential competitors. The mosquitofish poses a direct

threat to the least chub because of its known aggressive predation on

eggs and young of other fishes. Mosquitofish have been implicated in

the decline of other desert fishes (Schoenherr 1981; Meffe 1985).

Osmundson (1985) and Sigler and Sigler (1987) also indicated that

frogs, ducks, gulls, herons and egrets also are potential predators on

least chub. Under normal circumstances, predation from these sources

probably would not injure healthy populations of least chub. However,

the effect of predation from the above combined sources could cause

further depletion of already fragile populations.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Although the

State of Utah lists the least chub as a protected species, the Service

believes that the present level of protection afforded by the State is

not sufficient. The State does not allow taking of the species without

permits, but it does not protect or control actions which cause harm to

the species or its habitat. The continued introduction of nonnative

predators into least chub habitat and adjacent areas is difficult to

control, and the State's protection does not address this issue.

The BLM has designated the Gandy Salt Marsh as an ``Area of

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).'' This ACEC is inadequate in

protecting the least chub because it does not prevent taking of the

species. The establishment of an ACEC requires a management system

which integrates the protection of riparian areas without infringement

on ``traditional permitted uses'' (Van Pelt 1990). Accordingly, the

Gandy Salt marsh ACEC does not prevent livestock gracing in and around

least chub habitat and it does not extend over the fish's entire

habitat. Finally, the ACEC is a BLM oil and gas leasing category 4,

which normally closes the area to leasing. However, a clause was

written into the BLM's Resource Management Plan which allows the

District Manager to exempt the category 4 protections and to lease ACEC

lands.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. Declines in native desert fishes in the Southwest has been

associated with the introduction and proliferation of nonnative fishes.

These nonnative fishes have, in some documented instances, extirpated

small desert fishes by direct competition and predation (Schoenherr

1981; Meffe 1985; Minckley et al. 1991). The existence of small desert

cyprinids, including the least chub, is presumably the result of a lack

of other small competitors (Smith 1981; Minckley et al. 1991).

Least chub coexist with other native fishes, which include the Utah

chub and speckled dace. However, the tiny and reclusive least chub

competes poorly with nonnative species such as mosquitofish and

rainwater killifish. The mosquitofish, rainbow trout, and largemouth

bass are considered to be direct predators (Sigler and Workman 1975;

Crawford 1979; Sigler and Sigler 1987). Least chub do not build nests

or protect their eggs. Instead, they lay their eggs upon vegetation

where they and the newly hatched larvae are vulnerable to predation

(Crawford 1979).

Hybrid introgression between least chub and the Utah chub and

speckled dace have been reported (Sigler and Sigler 1987). Reproductive

isolating mechanisms have apparently broken down in some areas due to

habitat alteration and degradation. This has resulted in overlaps of

reproductive niches and breakdowns in behavior due to overcrowding

(Crawford 1978;

[[Page 50522]]

Lamarra 1981). Least chub hybrids have been reported from springs near

Callao, Utah, where least chubs once existed. But no hybrids have been

reported from Leland Harris Springs Complex where least chub habitat

has not been greatly altered by humans (Lamarra 1981).

Another potential threat to the least chub is a proposed mosquito

abatement program for Juab County. The BLM has rejected the County's

request to implement a mosquito control spraying program in marsh and

spring areas on BLM administered lands (R. Fike, in litt. 1992). The

rejection does not prevent the county from spraying on privately-owned

lands. The effect of a mosquito control spraying program on the least

chub is uncertain. Past studies (Workman et al. 1979) indicate that

much of the least chub's diet is composed of insects, which includes

mosquito larvae. To date, no studies have been undertaken to determine

the effects of toxins on the chub or its environment.

Due to the extremely limited distribution of this species, least

chub are very susceptible to stochastic events. There are only five

known populations of least chub, and each population is small. A single

catastrophic event could destroy a significant portion of remaining

least chubs, or one or more of their populations. These remaining

populations are vital in maintaining the genetic diversity of the

species.

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by this species in determining whether to propose

this listing action. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is

to list the least chub as endangered since this fish is restricted to

only five known populations. Habitat loss and degradation continue to

reduce its numbers in these remaining populations. Without additional

protection of its habitat, continued degradation by livestock will

result in a further reduction in its numbers. Competition and predation

by other nonnative fishes pose severe threats to the remaining

populations. The least chub is highly susceptible to additional habitat

degradation and to habitat and population losses. For the reasons

discussed below, the Service also is proposing to designate critical

habitat for the least chub.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: ``(i) the

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

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

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

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

considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the

geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed * * *,

upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for

the conservation of the species.''

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

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

longer necessary.

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

regulations require that, to the maximum extent prudent and

determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the same time

the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Critical

habitat is being proposed for the least chub to include the following

areas in Utah.

Northern Snake Valley Group including: Redding Springs Complex

(Tooele County) and Bagley Ranch Springs Complex (Tooele and Juab

Counties).

Southern Snake Valley Group including: Miller Spring (Juab County);

Leland Harris Springs Complex (Juab and Millard Counties); Gandy Salt

Marsh Complex (Millard County); and Bishop Springs Complex (Millard

County).

Tule Valley Group including: Coyote Spring Complex (Millard

County); Willow Spring (Millard County); Tule Springs Complex (Millard

County); and South Tule Springs (Millard County). Legal descriptions

for these areas are provided in the ``Proposed Regulation Promulgation

section.

In determining the areas to designate as critical habitat for a

species, the Service considers those physical and biological attributes

that are essential to species conservation. In addition, the Act

stipulates that the areas containing these elements may require special

management consideration or protection. Such physical and biological

features are stated in 50 CFR 424.12 and include, but are not limited

to, the following items:

(1) Space for individual growth and for normal behavior;

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or

physiological requirements;

(3) Cover or shelter;

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring,

germination, or seed dispersal; and generally,

(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historical, geographical and ecological

distributions of a species.

In designating critical habitat, the Service is concerned with

constituent elements within the defined areas that are essential to the

conservation and recovery of the species. The areas proposed as

critical habitat for the least chub provide the necessary constituent

elements determine essential to the survival and recovery of the least

chub. They include the following:

--adequate water quantity to: (1) maintain underground aquifer

function, spring flow pressure and volume, and spring water surface

elevation, (2) allow the fish to complete its life cycle (spawning,

rearing, feeding, etc.), and (3) allow for movement between integral

parts of its habitat and to reduce the overlap with niches of other

native fishes;

--sufficient vegetation in spring and surrounding marsh riparian areas

to provide cover, food, spawning sites, prevent erosion, and to meet

other life history requirements of the fish; and

--a biological environment in which there is little or no interaction

with nonnative fishes.

The Service recognizes that those habitats proposed as critical are

not sufficient to achieve recovery for the species because they do not

represent the historic range or all of the widely diverse habitat types

that the species historically evolved in and occupied. The UDWR and BLM

are currently surveying least chub habitats throughout its historic

range to determine if the requisites necessary for recovery are still

available. The Service, in the process of developing a ``Least Chub

Recovery Plan,'' may utilize these new data to identify additional

critical habitat areas needed to ensure the recovery of the species.

The Service may, at a future date, repropose critical habitat for the

least chub.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires, for any proposed or final

regulation that designates critical habitat, a brief description and

evaluation of those activities that may adversely modify or destroy

such habitat or those activities that may be affected by such

designation. Activities, such as habitat alterations through livestock

impacts, pollution, or dewatering, would be detrimental to the survival

of this species. Additionally, activities that provide for increased

access to remote spring sites or that alter ground water or deep

aquifer spring sources and flow rates would also be considered

detrimental. Predation and competition from nonnative species on least

chubs

[[Page 50523]]

are considered major factors causing its demise. Future activities on

Federal lands or activities requiring Federal permits in the Snake

Valley area would have to be taken under consultation to prevent

further adverse impacts on the least chub or its habitat.

Impacts generally will be restricted to activities on Federal lands

or on lands where proposed actions require Federal permits. The

greatest impact would be on livestock grazing and its restriction in

and around least chub habitat. Grazing would be limited within the

general area occupied by least chub to prevent any further habitat

degradation within proposed critical habitat. Drilling for water within

proposed critical habitat would also be restricted. Presently, water

regeneration within the Gandy Salt Marsh is adequate to allow for

surface water use by livestock without impacting water levels within

the marsh. Livestock could graze in pastures surrounding the proposed

critical habitat areas if their access to aquatic habitats are

prevented. Oil and gas exploration and production activities would be

restricted within critical habitat. Surface activities and directional

drilling are already restricted on BLM-owned lands that are designated

as ``Category 4'' lands (these lands are already closed to leasing).

Presently, the recharging of ground water is sufficient to offset

current withdrawals. Any federally funded or permitted water

withdrawals (i.e., the Las Vegas Valley Water District permits for well

drilling) would require section 7 consultation if it is shown that

ground water withdrawals would impact critical habitat areas.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to consider

economic impacts of designating a particular area as critical habitat.

The Service will prepare an economic analysis of the impacts of

designating critical habitat for the least chub. Upon completion of the

analysis, the Service will notify the public of its availability and

will request public review and comments.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered

under the Endangered Species Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against take.

Recognition through listing encourages conservation actions by Federal

and State agencies and private individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires

that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The

protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against

taking and harm are discussed, in part, below.

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

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

listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical

habitat, if designated. Regulations implementing this interagency

cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part 402.

Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on

any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a

species proposed for listing or that would result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If the least chub is

listed, section 7(a)(2) of the Act will require Federal agencies to

insure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of this species or to

destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action

could possibly affect the least chub or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the

Service.

Some portions of the least chub's proposed critical habitat are on

private lands. The Federal Government has certain authority which may

influence private undertakings in least chub critical habitat. Private

activities that involve dredging and filling of wetlands would require

a 404 permit (Federal Clean Water Act).

It is the policy of the Service to identify, to the extent known at

the time a species is listed, specified activities that will not be

considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To

the extent possible, activities that will be in violation also will be

identified in as specific a manner as possible. The Service believes

that the actions listed below might potentially result in a violation

of section 9; however, possible violations are not limited to these

actions alone:

(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species;

(2) Destruction or alteration of the species habitat (i.e., water

depletions that significantly modify spring functions; activities that

change water quality or quantity; dredging or other physical

modifications that impact the springs; introduction of nonnative

species);

(3) Improper use of herbicides, fertilizers, or pesticides;

(4) Contamination of soil or ground water by spills, discharges or

dumping of chemicals, silt, or other pollutants associated with

agriculture and oil and gas activities;

Questions regarding whether a specific activity will constitute a

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

the Service's Salt Lake City Field office (see ADDRESSES section).

Requests for copies of regulations concerning listed animals and

general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed

to the Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, P.O. Box 25486,

Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado, (telephone 303/236-7398;

facsimile 303/236/0027).

The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set

forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all

endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in

part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or

export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial

activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce

any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver,

carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken

illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such

permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the

propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in

connection with otherwise lawful activities. Requests for copies of the

regulations on animals and inquiries regarding them may be addressed to

the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486,

Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 (telephone 303/236-7398).

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this

proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,

any comments or suggestions concerning biological information and

potential threats to the least chub are requested from the public,

other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community,

industry, or any other interested party. Comments are sought

particularly concerning:

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

any

[[Page 50524]]

threat (or the lack thereof) to the least chub;

(2) The location of any additional populations of least chub and

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

critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;

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

population size of this species;

(4) Current or planned activities which may adversely modify the

area which is being considered for critical habitat; and

(5) Any foreseeable economic and other impacts resulting from the

proposed designation of critical habitat.

(6) Final promulgation of this regulation on the least chub will

take into consideration the comments and any additional information

received by the Service, and such communications may lead to a final

regulation that differs from this proposal.

The Endangered Species Act provides for a public hearing on this

proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the

date of publication of the proposal. Such requests must be made in

writing to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and

Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the

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

connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the

Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal

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

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

The primary author of this proposed rule is Doug Young (see

ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 59 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, it is hereby proposed to amend part 17, subchapter B

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

below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

2. It is proposed to amend Sec. 17.11(h) is amended by adding the

following, in alphabetical order under fishes, to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

SPECIES Vertebrate population

---------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special

Common name Scientific name threatened habitat rules

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

Fishes...................

* * * * * * *

Chub, least.............. Iotichthys phlegethontis U.S.A. (UT)............. Entire.................. E ........... 17.95(e) NA

* * * * * * *

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

3. It is further proposed to amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical

habitat for the least chub, in the same alphabetical order as the

species occurs in 17.11(h) to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

* * * * *

LEAST CHUB (Iotichthys phlegethontis)

1. Northern Snake Valley Group, Utah: Tooele and Juab Counties,

Snake Valley. The following areas including all springs, outflow pools,

runoffs streams, marshes, and a \1/8\-mile zone on all sides of

springs, pools, streams, and marshes:

T9S, R16W, SW\1/4\ Sec. 31; T9S, R17W, SE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 36;

T10S, R17W, E\1/2\, of NE\1/4\ Sec. 1, SW\1/4\ Sec. 25, W\1/2\ of SE\1/

4\ Sec. 25, S\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 25, E\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 26, E\1/

2\ of E\1/2\ Sec. 35, W\1/2\ Sec. 36,W\1/2\ of E\1/2\ Sec. 36; T10S,

R16W, NW\1/4\ Sec. 6; T11S, R17W, NW\1/2\ Sec. 1, W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\

Sec. 1.

Note: Map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M

[[Page 50525]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP29SE95.015

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 50526]]

2. Southern Snake Valley Group, Utah, Juab and Millard Counties,

Snake Valley. The following areas including all springs, outflow pools,

runoff streams, marshes, and a \1/8\-mile zone on all sides of springs,

pools, streams, and marshes, excluding Foote Reservoir, but including

the spring source for Foote Reservoir:

T14S, R18W, SW\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 22, SE\1/4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 22,

NW\1/4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 22, N\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 22, SE\1/4\ of SE\1/

4\ Sec. 21. W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 28, SE\1/4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 28,

SW\1/4\ Sec. 28, SE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 29, NW\1/4\ Sec. 33, NW\1/4\

of SW\1/4\ Sec. 33, E\1/2\ Sec. 32; T15S, R18W, E\1/2\ Sec. 5, E\1/2\

Sec. 8, NW\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 17, SE\1/4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 17, NE\1/4\

Sec. 17, NW\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 17, SE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 18, NW\1/

4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 20, NE\1/4\ Sec. 19, SE\1/4\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 19,

E\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 19 W\1/2\ of SE\1/2\ Sec. 19, W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\

Sec. 30, W\1/2\ Sec. 30, W\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 31, SW\1/4\ Sec. 31,

SW\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 31; T15S, R19W, SE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 25,

E\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 25, E\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 36, E\1/2\ of SE\1/4\

Sec. 36; T16S, R18W, E\1/2\ Sec. 6, N\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 6, E\1/2\

Sec. 7, W\1/2\ of W\1/2\ Sec. 8, NE\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 18, NW\1/4\

Sec. 17, SW\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 17, NE\1/4\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 17, SE\1/

4\ Sec. 17, S\1/2\ of S\1/2\ Sec. 16, SW\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 15, E\1/

2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 20, NE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 20, N\1/2\ Sec. 21, N\1/

2\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 21, SE\1/4\ Sec. 21, S\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 22,

SW\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 22, N\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 22, SW\1/4\ of SW\1/

4\ Sec. 22, NW\1/4\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 22, E\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 28, W\1/

2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 27.

Note. Map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M

[[Page 50527]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP29SE95.016

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 50528]]

3. Tule Valley Group, Utah: Millard County, Tule Valley. The

following areas including all springs, outflow pools, runoff streams,

marshes, and a \1/8\-mile zone on all sides of springs, pools, streams,

and marshes:

T16S, R15W, SE\1/4\ of SW\1/4\ Sec. 12, SW\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 12,

E\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 13, W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 13, S\1/2\ of SE\1/4\

Sec 34; T17S, R15W, E\1/2\ Sec. 3, W\1/4\ of SW\1/2\ Sec. 2, N\1/2\ of

NE\1/4\ Sec. 10, SW\1/4\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 10, W\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ Sec. 10,

W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ Sec. 15, E\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ Sec. 15.

Note. Map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M

[[Page 50529]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP29SE95.017

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 50530]]

Constituent elements for all areas of critical habitat include

permanent sources of water, water quality and quantity to satisfy

requirements for all life history stages of the fish, a predator-free

habitat, adequate vegetative cover, and other environmental features

that may be deemed necessary upon site-specific evaluations.

Dated: September 18, 1995.

George T. Frampton,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 24320 Filed 9-28-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M