[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 145 (Thursday, July 29, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41061-41068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19360]


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

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