[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35398-35424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15070]



[[Page 35398]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2008-0088]
[MO 92210-0-0008-B2]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition to List the Least Chub as Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the least chub (Iotichthys 
phlegethontis), a fish, as threatened or endangered and to designate 
critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). After review of all available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that listing the least chub as threatened or 
endangered under the Act is warranted. Currently, however, listing the 
least chub is precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of 
this 12-month petition finding, we will add the least chub to our list 
of candidate species with a listing priority number (LPN) of 7. We will 
develop a proposed rule to list this species as our priorities and 
funding allow. We will make any determination on critical habitat 
during development of the proposed listing rule. In the interim, we 
will address the status of the candidate taxon through our annual 
Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR).

DATES: This finding was made on June 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2008-0088 and http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/fish/leastchub. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, 2369 
West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Please submit 
any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this 
finding to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES); by telephone at (801) 975-3330; or by facsimile at (801) 
975-3331. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Threatened and 
Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing the species may be 
warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of 
the petition. In this finding, we determine that the petitioned action 
is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate 
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is 
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are 
threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add 
or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires 
that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.

Previous Federal Actions

    In 1980, the Service reviewed the status of the least chub and 
determined that there was insufficient data to warrant its listing as 
an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On December 30, 
1982, we classified the least chub as a Category 2 Candidate Species 
(47 FR 58454). Category 2 included taxa for which information in the 
Service's possession indicated that a proposed listing rule was 
possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on biological 
vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed 
rule. In 1989, we conducted a new status review, and reclassified the 
least chub as a Category 1 Candidate Species (54 FR 554). Category 1 
included taxa for which the Service had substantial information in our 
possession on biological vulnerability and threats to support 
preparation of listing proposals. The Service ceased using category 
designations in February 1996. On September 29, 1995, we published a 
proposed rule to list the least chub as endangered with critical 
habitat (60 FR 50518). A listing moratorium, imposed by Congress in 
1995, suspended all listing activities and further action on the 
proposal was postponed.
    During the moratorium, the Service, Utah Division of Wildlife 
Resources (UDWR), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of 
Reclamation (BOR), Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
Commission (URMCC), Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, and 
Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) developed a Least Chub 
Conservation Agreement and Strategy (LCCAS), and formed the Least Chub 
Conservation Team (LCCT) (Perkins et al. 1998, entire). The goals of 
the LCCAS are to ensure the species' long-term survival within its 
historic range and to assist in the development of rangewide 
conservation efforts. The objectives of the LCCAS are to eliminate or 
significantly reduce threats to the least chub and its habitat, to the 
greatest extent possible, and to ensure the continued existence of the 
species by restoring and maintaining a minimum number of least chub 
populations throughout its historic range. The LCCT implements the 
LCCAS and monitors populations, threats, and habitat conditions. The 
LCCAS was updated and revised in 2005 (Bailey et al. 2005, entire).
    As a result of conservation actions and commitments made by 
signatories to the 1998 LCCAS (Perkins et al. 1998, p. 10), measures to 
protect the least chub were developed and implemented. Consequently, we 
withdrew the listing proposal on July 29, 1999 (64 FR 41061).
    On June 25, 2007, we received a petition dated June 19, 2007, from 
Center for Biological Diversity, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute 
Reservation, Great Basin Chapter of Trout Unlimited, and Utah Chapter 
of the Sierra Club requesting that the least chub be listed as 
threatened under the Act and critical habitat be designated. Included 
in the petition and supplement was supporting information regarding the 
species' taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution, 
present status, and actual and potential causes of decline. We 
acknowledged the receipt of the petition and supplement in a letter to 
Center for Biological Diversity, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute 
Reservation, Great Basin Chapter of Trout Unlimited, and Utah Chapter 
of the Sierra Club, dated July 13, 2007. In that letter, we also stated 
that because of staff and budget limitations, it was not practical for 
us to begin processing the petition at that time. Based on the 
population status and alleged threats described in the

[[Page 35399]]

petition, we found no compelling evidence to support an emergency 
listing at that time.
    Funding became available to begin work on the 90-day finding in 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. On October 15, 2008, we published a 90-day 
finding that the petitioners provided substantial information 
indicating that the species may be warranted for listing under the Act, 
initiated the 12-month finding, and opened a 60-day public comment 
period (73 FR 61007). This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on 
the June 19, 2007, petition to list the least chub as threatened or 
endangered.

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description
    The least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) is an endemic minnow 
(Family Cyprinidae) of the Bonneville Basin in Utah. Historically, 
ancient lakes Bonneville and Provo largely covered the Bonneville 
Basin, but over the past 16,000 years (since the Pleistocene period), 
these lakes receded, leaving behind the current hydrology of the area 
(Currey et al. 1984, p. 1). Least chub likely persisted in peripheral 
freshwater sources to the receding lakes and were widely distributed in 
a variety of the resulting habitat types, including rivers, streams, 
springs, ponds, marshes, and swamps (Sigler and Miller 1963, p. 91).
    The species' taxonomic classification has evolved over time, as 
described in the 1995 proposed rule (60 FR 50518). The least chub is 
currently classified within the monotypic genus (containing only one 
species) Iotichthys (Jordan et al. 1930, in Hickman 1989, p. 16; Robins 
et al. 1991, p. 21).
    As implied by its common name, the least chub is a small fish less 
than 55 millimeters (2.1 inches) long, identified by an upturned or 
oblique mouth, large scales, and the absence of an incomplete lateral 
line (rarely with one or two pored scales) (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 
182). It has a deeply compressed body, with the front-most part of the 
dorsal fin (on the back) lying behind the insertion of the pelvic fin 
(on the underside of the body), and a slender caudle peduncle (area 
connecting tail fin to the body) (Sigler and Miller 1963, p. 83). 
Dorsal fin rays number eight (rarely nine), and anal fin rays also 
number eight (Sigler and Miller 1963, p. 83). The pharyngeal teeth 
(located near the pharynx) are in two rows (Sigler and Miller 1963, p. 
83).
    The least chub is a colorful species. Individuals have a gold 
stripe along blue sides with white to yellow fins (Sigler and Sigler 
1987, p. 182). Spawning males are olive-green above, steel-blue on the 
sides, and have a golden stripe behind the upper end of the gill 
opening (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 182). The fins are lemon-amber, and 
sometimes the paired fins are bright golden-amber (Sigler and Sigler 
1987, p. 182). Females and young are pale olive above, silvery on the 
sides, and have watery-white fins; their eyes are silvery, with a 
little gold coloration (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 182).
Life History
    Sigler and Sigler (1987, p. 183) considered the least chub to be a 
slow-growing species that rarely lives beyond 3 years of age. However, 
least chub in natural systems live longer than originally thought (some 
least chub may live to be 6 years of age) and growth rates vary among 
populations (Mills et al. 2004a, p. 409). Differences in growth rates 
may result from a variety of interacting processes, including food 
availability, genetically based traits, population density, and water 
temperatures (Mills et al. 2004a, p. 411).
    Least chub are opportunistic feeders, and their diets reflect 
availability and abundance of food items in different seasons and 
habitat types (Crist and Holden 1980, p. 808; Lamarra 1981, p. 5; 
Workman et al. 1979, p. 23). Although least chub diets change 
throughout the year, they regularly consume algae (Chlorophyta and 
Chrysophyta), midges (Chironomidae), microcrustaceans, copepods, 
ostracods, and diatomaceous material (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 183).
    Maintaining hydrologic connections between springheads and marsh 
areas is important in fulfilling the least chub's ecological 
requirements (Crawford 1979, p. 63; Crist and Holden 1980, p. 804; 
Lamarra 1981, p. 10). Least chub follow thermal patterns for habitat 
use. In April and May, they use the flooded, warmer, vegetated marsh 
areas at water temperatures of about 16 [deg]C (60 [deg]F) (Crawford 
1979, pp. 59, 74), but in late summer and fall they retreat to spring 
heads as the water recedes, to overwinter (Crawford 1979, p. 58). In 
the spring, the timing of spawning is a function of temperature and 
photoperiod (Crawford 1979, p. 39).
    The least chub is a partial and intermittent spawner, and spawns 
within aquatic vegetation (Crawford 1979, p. 74). Adhesive eggs attach 
to the emergent plants that provide the eggs, larvae, and young with 
oxygen, food, and cover (Crist and Holden 1980, p. 808). Females 
release only a few eggs at a time, but continue spawning for an 
extended period. Total numbers of eggs produced are an indication of 
fecundity, and individual females produce from 300 to 2,700 eggs 
(Crawford 1979, p. 62). Fertilized eggs hatch in approximately 2 days 
at a water temperature of 22 [deg]C (72 [deg]F) (Crawford 1979, p. 74). 
Although peak spawning activity occurs in May, the reproductive season 
lasts from April to August, and sometimes longer, depending on 
environmental conditions such as photoperiod and water temperature 
(Crawford 1979, pp. 47-48). This reproductive strategy (i.e., 
repetitive spawning over a period of many weeks) allows the least chub 
to persist in fluctuating environmental conditions typical of desert 
habitats (Crawford 1978, p. 2).
    Larval least chub grow larger and young fry survive better in silt 
substrate habitats (Wagner et al. 2006, pp. 1, 4, 7). The maximum 
growth rate for least chub less than 1 year of age occurs at 22.3 
[deg]C (72 [deg]F) under captive conditions (Billman et al. 2006, p. 
434). Thermal preferences demonstrate the importance of warm rearing 
habitats in producing strong year classes and viable populations 
(Billman et al. 2006, p. 434).
Distribution
    The first documented collection of least chub is from a ``brook'' 
near Salt Lake City in 1871 (Hickman 1989, p. 16). Between 1871 and 
1979, many least chub occurrences were reported across the State, 
ranging from the eastern portions of the Snake Valley to the Wasatch 
Front and from the northern extent of the Bear River south to the 
Beaver River (table 1). Least chub were very common in tributaries to 
the Sevier, Utah, and Great Salt Lakes in the beginning of the 20th 
Century (Jordan 1891, p. 30; Jordan and Evermann 1896, in Hickman 1989, 
p. 1).

                            Table 1.--Summary of historic collections of least chub.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            GEOGRAPH AREA                      Location             Year  Collected             Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasatch Front                          Northwest Salt Lake      1933                     Hickman 1989, pp. 16-17
                                        City
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
qdrt;;
[[Page 35400]]

 
                                       Big Cottonwood Creek     1953                     Sigler & Miller 1963,
                                                                                          pp. 82-83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       qdrt;;Davis County (2    1964                     Hickman 1989, pp. 16-
                                        miles west of                                     17; Bailey et al.
                                        Centerville)                                      2005, p. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       qdrt;;Farmington Bay     1965                     Hickman 1989, pp. 16-
                                                                                          17; Bailey et al.
                                                                                          2005, p. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       qdrt;;Provo River        1891                     Jordan 1891, p. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       qdrt;;Provo River (at    1931 & 1936              Tanner 1936, p. 170
                                        confluence with Utah
                                        Lake)
======================================
Northern                               Bear River               1894                     Thompson 2008, p. 1
======================================
Southern                               Beaver River             1875                     Cope & Yarrow 1875, pp.
                                                                                          656-657
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       qdrt;;Beaver River;      1942                     Hubbs et al. 1942, in
                                        Parowan Creek; Clear                              Sigler & Miller 1963,
                                        Creek; & Little Salt                              p. 82
                                        Lake
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       qdrt;;Sevier Lake        1896                     Jordan & Evermann 1896,
                                                                                          in Bailey et al. 2005,
                                                                                          p. 16
======================================
Snake Valley                           Chimneys Spring; Big     1942                     Hickman 1989, p. 16-17
                                        Spring; Foote Ranch;
                                        Small Knoll; & Gandy
                                        area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       qdrt;;Leland Harris      1970                     Hickman 1989, p. 16
                                        Spring Complex & Gandy
                                        Salt Marsh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       qdrt;;Leland Harris      1979                     Workman et al. 1979,
                                        Spring Complex; Bishop                            pp. 157-159
                                        Spring Complex (Foote
                                        Reservoir & Twin
                                        Spring); & Gandy
                                        Spring Complex
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       qdrt;;Callao, Utah       1979                     Workman et al. 1979,
                                        (Bagley Ranch & Redden                            pp. 157-159
                                        Spring)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By the 1940s and 1950s, the numbers of least chub were decreasing 
(Holden 1974, in Hickman 1989, p. 2). Only 11 known populations existed 
by 1979 (Workman et al. 1979, pp. 156-158). By 1989, least chub had not 
been collected outside of the Snake Valley for the previous 25 years 
(Hickman 1989, p. 2). Three wild least chub populations were extant in 
1995 (60 FR 50518) (Leland Harris Spring Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, 
Bishop Spring Complex).
    The current distribution of the least chub is highly reduced from 
its historic range. The UDWR began surveying for new populations and 
monitoring existing populations Statewide in 1993. As a result, UDWR 
found three previously unknown populations of least chub: Mona Springs 
in 1995, Mills Valley in 1998, and Clear Lake in 2003 (Mock and Miller 
2003, p. 3; Hines et al. 2008, pp. 44-45). The Mona Springs site is in 
the southeastern portion of the Great Salt Lake subbasin and occurs on 
the eastern border of ancient Lake Bonneville, near the highly 
urbanized Wasatch Front. Clear Lake and Mills Valley are both in the 
Sevier subbasin, in relatively undeveloped sites (Hines et al. 2008, p. 
17). A comparison of survey results from the 1970s (Workman et al. 
1979, pp. 156-158) to surveys from 1993 to 2007 (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 
36-45) indicates that a majority of the natural populations extant in 
1979 were extirpated by 2007 (table 2).

Table 2.--Comparison of least chub collections in 1979 and their 
updated status in 2007.

    Asterisk (*) denotes populations discovered after 1979.
    Status categories:
 Stable = viable self-sustaining population
 Functionally extirpated = a limited number of least chub 
present but population is not self sustaining
 Extirpated = least chub no longer present at that location
 Secure = no immediate threats present
 Not secure = immediate threat(s) present

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              1979 Population                      Status in 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leland Harris Spring Complex                Stable - Secure
===========================================
Gandy Salt Marsh                            Stable - Secure
===========================================
Bishop Springs                              Stable - Secure
===========================================
Mills Valley*                               Stable - Not secure
===========================================
Clear Lake Wildlife Management Area*        Stable - Not secure
===========================================
Mona Springs*                               Functionally
                                            extirpated
===========================================
Redden Springs                              Extirpated
===========================================
Bagley Ranch Complex                        Extirpated
===========================================
Knoll Spring (not verified)                 Extirpated
===========================================
Cecil Garland Ranch                         Extirpated
===========================================
Tie House                                   Extirpated
===========================================
Donner                                      Extirpated
===========================================
Cold                                        Extirpated
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Five wild, extant populations of least chub remain: the Leland 
Harris Spring Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, Bishop Springs Complex, Mills 
Valley, and Clear Lake (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 34-45). Three of these 
populations (the Leland Harris Spring Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, and 
Bishop Spring Complex) occur in the Snake Valley of Utah's west desert 
and are genetically similar and very close in proximity to

[[Page 35401]]

each other (Mock and Miller 2003, pp. 17-18). The two remaining extant 
populations (Mills Valley and Clear Lake) are located on the 
southeastern border of the native range.
    Least chub are still found in small numbers at the Mona Springs 
site (Hines et al. 2008, p. 37). However, because this small number of 
least chub does not compose a viable self-sustaining population (LCCT 
2008a, p. 3), we consider the least chub population at Mona Springs 
functionally extirpated (see discussion below). The Snake Valley, Mills 
Valley, Clear Lake, and Mona Springs populations are each genetically 
distinct (Mock and Miller 2005, p. 276; Mock and Bjerregaard 2007, p. 
146). A brief description of the extant wild and the Mona Springs least 
chub populations is found below.
    (1) Leland Harris Spring Complex: R.R. Miller first collected least 
chub at this site, located north of the Juab/Millard County line, in 
1970 (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 182). The site consists of 12 to 15 
springheads that feed a playa wetland with habitat fluctuating in size 
seasonally. Least chub have had a persistent presence since monitoring 
began by the UDWR in 1993 (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 41-43). Another 
spring in the area, Miller Spring, is part of the Leland Harris Spring 
Complex, but outflows of the two sites are not always connected.
    (2) Gandy Salt Marsh: C.L., L.C., and E.L. Hubbs first collected 
least chub at this site in 1942 (Sigler and Miller 1963, p. 82). Gandy 
Salt Marsh is south of the Millard/Juab County line and the Leland 
Harris Spring Complex and consists of private Utah School and 
Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) and BLM lands. 
Measuring approximately 6.4 kilometers (km) (4 miles (mi)) long (north 
and south) and 3.2 km (2 mi) wide (east and west), the complex consists 
of approximately 52 small springheads or ponds that drain into a large 
playa wetland on approximately 1,295 hectares (ha) (3,200 acres (ac)) 
(BLM 1992, p. 11). Least chub is the dominant fish species at the Gandy 
Salt Marsh site and comprises a wild self-sustaining population (Hines 
et al. 2008, p. 40). However, the number of occupied sites within the 
marsh has decreased about 50 percent since 1994 (Wilson 2006, p. 8; 
Hines et al. 2008, p. 41).
    (3) Bishop Springs Complex: Least chub were documented at this site 
in 1942 (Hickman 1989, p. 18). The complex is now the largest occupied 
least chub site in Snake Valley. Located south and very near Gandy Salt 
Marsh, the site has large springs containing least chub, including 
Central Spring and Twin Springs (Hines et al. 2008, p. 38). The least 
chub population in Bishop Springs has remained stable and has 
demonstrated successful reproduction and recruitment (Hines et al. 
2008, p. 38). The manmade Foote Reservoir does not contain least chub 
but contributes water to the playa marshlands that provide seasonal 
least chub foraging, reproduction, and nursery-type habitat (Crawford 
1979, pp. 62-65).
    (4) Mills Valley: UDWR biologists discovered least chub at multiple 
locations at this site in 1998 (Hines et al. 2008, p. 44). Mills Valley 
is in the Sevier River drainage in southeast Juab County (Hines et al. 
2008, p. 17). It consists of a wetland with numerous springheads 
throughout the 200-ha (495-ac) complex. The least chub were present 
during sampling from 2001 through 2006 (Hines et al. 2008, p. 44).
    (5) Clear Lake: In 2003, UDWR biologists found least chub at the 
Clear Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in Millard County (Hines et 
al. 2008, p. 45). This reserve consists of a shallow reservoir and 
diked ponds fed by springs from adjacent Spring Lake. The site is 
managed by UDWR for waterfowl habitat (Hines et al. 2008, p. 45). 
Information about this least chub population is limited because of its 
recent discovery; however, successful recruitment is occurring (Hines 
et al. 2008, p. 45).
    (6) Mona Springs: The UDWR biologists discovered this least chub 
site in northeast Juab County in 1995 (Mock and Miller 2003, p. 3). 
Mona Springs has provided habitat for a genetically distinct, naturally 
occurring population of least chub. However, the Mona Springs site is 
no longer suitable for least chub because of the presence of nonnative 
fish; only four least chub were collected here in 2008 surveys (LCCT 
2008a, p. 3). Because of the lack of population viability at this site, 
we consider the least chub population at Mona Springs functionally 
extirpated.
Translocations
    In an attempt to create refuge (an artificial place of protection 
for a species) populations and reestablish wild populations, 19 
introductions of least chub to new locations rangewide were attempted 
by UDWR between 1979 and 2008 (see table 3). Of these, two sites are 
currently stable and secure (one has persisted for 3 years and another 
for 1 year), seven introductions failed, and three are not secure. The 
long-term success of seven of the transplants is currently unknown, 
because they were initiated in 2008 and monitoring information is 
limited. A description of each of the translocation efforts follows.

Table 3.--Least chub translocations attempted from 1979 to 2008.

    Status categories:
 Stable = viable self-sustaining population
 Unstable = a limited number of least chub present but 
population is not self-sustaining
 Extirpated = least chub no longer present at location
 Secure = no immediate threats present
 Not secure = immediate threat(s) present
 Unknown = no established sampling history

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Site                       Year               Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lakepoint Pond                    1979                Extirpated
=================================
Harley Sanders Pond               1986                Extirpated
=================================
Red Butte Gardens                 1987                Extirpated
=================================
Walter Springs                    1995                Extirpated
=================================
Deadman Springs                   1996                Extirpated
=================================
Antelope Island                   2000                Extirpated
=================================
Lucin Pond                        1989                Unstable - Not
                                                      secure
=================================
Garden Creek Pond                 2004                Stable - Not
                                                       secure
=================================
Atherly Reservoir                 2006                Unstable - Not
                                                      secure
=================================
Ibis/Pintail Ponds                2007                Extirpated
=================================
Red Knolls Pond                   2005                Stable -
                                                      Secure
=================================
Willow Pond                       2007                Stable -
                                                      Secure
=================================
Seven northern Utah sites         2008                Unknown
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Lakepoint Pond, Tooele County: In 1979, 200 least chub from the 
Leland Harris Spring Complex were released into Lakepoint Pond located 
approximately 32 km (20 mi) southwest of Salt Lake City, 1.6 km (1 mi) 
from the shore of the Great Salt Lake. This site was eliminated by 
floods in 1983 and 1984 (Hickman 1989, p. 4).
    (2) Harley Sanders Pond, Box Elder County: In 1986, UDWR released 
least chub into Harley Sanders Pond and spring. No least chub were 
found during sampling in 1988 (Hickman 1989, p. 4).
    (3) Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake County: In 1987, least chub were 
introduced into the stream and pond at the Utah State Arboretum (Red 
Butte

[[Page 35402]]

Gardens) near Fort Douglas in Salt Lake City (Hickman 1989, p. 5). 
Attempts to relocate least chub in 1988 were unsuccessful (Hickman 
1989, p. 5), so we consider it extirpated and unsuccessful.
    (4, 5) Walter/Deadman Springs, Tooele County: Least chub were 
introduced in 1995 and 1996 to these springs; however, they have been 
replaced by western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) (Wilson and Whiting 
2002, p. 4; Wilson and Mills 2004, pp. 4-5). Therefore, we consider 
these sites to be extirpated and unsuccessful.
    (6) Antelope Island, Davis County: In December 2000, UDWR 
introduced least chub to a human-made spring-fed pond on Antelope 
Island. Mosquitofish have replaced least chub at this site (Thompson 
2005, pp. 5-6). Therefore, we consider this site to be extirpated and 
unsuccessful.
    (7) Lucin Pond, Box Elder County: In 1989, 42 least chub were 
transplanted into this site. Lucin Pond is a human-made pond built in 
the early 1900s. This least chub population is currently considered 
unstable and not secure because mosquitofish are present and the water 
supply to the pond is unreliable (Thompson 2005, pp. 1-4; Hines et al. 
2008, pp. 47-49).
    (8) Garden Creek Pond, Davis County: In 2004, 947 least chub were 
introduced to this pond on Antelope Island in the Great Salt Lake. It 
is a 0.04 ha (0.1 ac) pond that was dredged by the Utah Department of 
Parks and Recreation and is fed by a perennial stream (stream with 
continuous flow throughout the year). The site was considered a genetic 
refuge for the functionally extirpated Mona Springs population. 
Reproduction and recruitment have been occurring; however, the site is 
threatened by a loss of habitat due to siltation (Thompson 2005, pp. 6-
7; Hines et al. 2008, p. 46; Thompson 2008, p. 3; LCCT 2008a, pp. 3-4).
    (9) Atherly Reservoir, Tooele County: This site is on Faust Creek 
in Rush Valley, and is part of the 283-ha (700-ac) James Walter 
Fitzgerald WMA. Approximately 13,000 least chub from the Mills Valley 
population were introduced in 2006 (Hines et al. 2008, p. 50). The UDWR 
monitoring in 2008 detected only eight least chub (LCCT 2008a, p. 3). 
Therefore, we do not consider this introduction to be successful at 
this time.
    (10) Ibis/Pintail Ponds, Tooele County: In 2007, least chub from 
Leland Harris Spring Complex were introduced into Ibis and Pintail 
Ponds on the Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge (Hines et al. 2008, 
p. 50). This introduction was unsuccessful, and the site currently does 
not contain a least chub population. The UDWR is planning to release 
least chub again in the future after mosquitofish control issues are 
addressed (LCCT 2008a, p. 3).
    (11) Red Knolls Pond, Box Elder County: In 2005, 250 least chub 
from Bishop Springs were introduced to Red Knolls Pond (Hines et al. 
2008, p. 50), located in the western portion of Box Elder County on BLM 
land. Successful recruitment was observed in 2005, 2006, and 2007, 
indicating that reproduction has been occurring (Hines et al. 2008, p. 
50; Thompson 2008, p. 4). This site is currently secure and represents 
a genetic refuge for the Bishop Springs Complex population.
    (12) Willow Pond, Box Elder County: On August 22, 2007, 340 least 
chub from the Clear Lake population were released into this habitat 
(Hines et al. 2008, p. 50), located in the northwest portion of Box 
Elder County. In 2008, least chub were present and recruitment to the 
population was apparent (LCCT 2008a, p. 4). This site is currently 
secure and represents a genetic refuge for the Clear Lake population.
    (13) The UDWR introduced least chub into seven additional sites in 
Cache and Box Elder Counties in 2008 (LCCT 2008a, p. 4). This effort 
was conducted to establish new refuge populations by stocking State-
hatchery-produced least chub into suitable habitat. Success of these 
introductions cannot be determined for several years; however, the 
probability of success for some of these introductions may be low 
because of the possibility of winter kill and the presence of nonnative 
species.
    In summary, we believe that translocated least chub populations can 
contribute to the long-term conservation of the species by providing a 
refuge (e.g., hatcheries or other managed systems) for the preservation 
of a population's genetic diversity. In addition, translocation to a 
refugium (a native habitat that has escaped ecological changes 
occurring elsewhere and so provides a suitable habitat for a species) 
contributes to long-term conservation of least chub by providing 
conditions necessary to maintain a viable self-sustaining population. 
However, to date, translocated least chub populations have had 
relatively poor success because of problems with competing nonnative 
fishes, inadequate water supply, or for unknown reasons (i.e., least 
chub were stocked into a particular habitat but could not be relocated 
during subsequent monitoring). While two populations have indications 
of successful recruitment and are secure from immediate threats, it is 
too early to determine whether these populations will contribute to the 
long-term conservation of least chub. Monitoring of translocated 
populations will be essential to address the uncertainty that exists 
about the success of these actions. Due to the uncertainty of the long-
term status of translocated least chub populations, they are not 
considered further in this review.
Hatchery Broodstock
    The Wahweap Warmwater Fish Hatchery in Big Water, Utah, and the 
Fisheries Experiment Station in Logan, Utah, each manage least chub 
broodstock that were sourced from Mills Valley and Mona Springs (Hines 
et al. 2008, p. 27). These hatcheries help preserve the genetic 
diversity of source populations of least chub and provide stock for 
introduction and reintroduction efforts.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR 424), set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or 
threatened based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat 
or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. In making this finding, 
information pertaining to the least chub in relation to the five 
factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range.

    The following potential threats that may affect the habitat or 
range of least chub are discussed in this section, including: (1) 
Livestock grazing; (2) oil and gas leasing and exploration; (3) mining; 
(4) urban and suburban development; (5) water withdrawal and diversion; 
and (6) drought.
(1) Livestock Grazing
    Grazing animals can impact aquatic habitats in multiple ways. 
Livestock seek springs for food and water, both of which are limited in 
desert habitats; therefore, they spend a disproportionate amount of 
time in these areas (Stevens

[[Page 35403]]

and Meretsky 2008, p. 29). As they spend time at springs, livestock eat 
and trample plants, compact local soils, and collapse banks of springs 
(Stevens and Meretsky 2008, p. 29). Input of organic wastes increases 
nutrient concentrations, and some nutrients (i.e., nitrogen compounds) 
can become toxic to fish (Taylor et al. 1989, in Stevens and Meretsky 
2008, p. 29). Domestic animals can also be trapped in soft spring 
deposits, die and decompose, and pollute the water. All of these 
effects can result in the loss or decline of native aquatic fauna 
(Stevens and Meretsky 2008, pp. 29-30).
    As explained below, historic livestock grazing impacted four of the 
five remaining wild least chub sites, and current livestock grazing 
practices continue to impact these sites. The UDWR monitors these sites 
and is working on minimizing or removing livestock grazing threats 
(Hines et al. 2008, pp. 22-23). Livestock grazing impacts occur at 
Mills Valley (Wilson and Whiting 2002, pp. 2-3; Bailey 2006, p. 30; 
Hines et al. 2008, p. 43), Gandy Salt Marsh (Hines et al. 2008, p. 39; 
LCCT 2008b, p. 2), Miller Spring/Leland Harris Spring Complex (Bailey 
2006, p. 11; Hines et al. 2008, pp. 41-42), and Bishop Springs/Foote 
Reservoir/Twin Springs (Wheeler and Fridell 2005, p. 5). The Clear Lake 
site is protected from livestock grazing because it is a WMA managed by 
the State of Utah (Hines et al. 2008, p. 45).
    Fencing at Gandy Salt Marsh and Miller Spring/Leland Harris Spring 
Complex excludes cattle from springhead areas (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 
39, 41, 43), but livestock damage still occurs at these sites during 
periods of unmanaged overgrazing or when fences are not maintained 
(Hines et al. 2008, p. 39; LCCT 2008b, p. 2). For example, in July 
2008, livestock damage was reported to be extensive and fencing trapped 
cattle inside the northern area of Gandy Salt Marsh (LCCT 2008b, p. 2).
    Impacts from livestock grazing include bank erosion and 
sedimentation to springheads (LCCT 2008b, p. 5). Miller Spring (at the 
Leland Harris Spring Complex) was unsuitable for least chub due to 
sedimentation and trampling associated with livestock use, poor water 
quality, and the presence of rainbow trout (Hogrefe 2001, p. 7). 
Extensive efforts by UDWR in 1999 and 2000 to restore and fence the 
spring and remove nonnatives significantly improved the habitat 
(Hogrefe 2001, pp. 7, 20); however, the response of least chub to 
improvements at Miller Spring has not been determined. Most of the 
other 12 to 15 springs in the Leland Harris Spring Complex have some 
ungulate damage and bank disturbance (Hines et al. 2008, p. 42). A 
rotational grazing plan has been developed with the landowner and UDWR 
on 75 ha (188 ac) of the Leland Harris site to improve habitat 
conditions, but damage to springs and riparian vegetation continues to 
impact least chub habitat (Hines et al. 2008, p. 42).
    Twin Springs, at the Bishop Spring complex, is partially protected 
from livestock by fences, but the larger spring complex, Twin Springs 
South, is not protected from grazing or wild horse watering access. 
Twin Springs South has severely impacted banks resulting in shallower 
water, increased surface area, and sedimentation of spring heads 
(Wheeler et al. 2004, p. 5). On the State-owned WMA portion of the 
Mills Valley site, grazing is allowed in return for access across 
private land. The private portion of Mills Valley is overgrazed and 
damage to water body banks and riparian vegetation has been reported as 
moderate to severe (UDWR 2006, pp. 27-28). The BLM has built fencing 
around two Gandy Salt Marsh springheads, Pilot Springs and Red Knolls 
Pond, to protect least chub transplant locations (Hines et al. 2008, p. 
24).
    In summary, our analysis indicates that, although efforts to 
control and minimize damage have been implemented and are ongoing, 
livestock grazing impacts some habitat at most wild least chub sites. 
Grazing damage is not always severe where it occurs, and livestock are 
effectively excluded from portions of occupied habitat. However, 
extensive livestock grazing-related damage has occurred in the last 
couple of years in some instances, and livestock grazing on private 
lands where least chub occur is still partially unregulated. Therefore, 
we conclude that current levels of livestock grazing are likely to 
significantly threaten least chub populations at Leland Harris Spring 
Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, Bishop Springs Complex, and Mills Valley, 
now and in the foreseeable future.
(2) Oil and Gas Leasing and Exploration
    Oil and gas leasing and exploration can have direct and indirect 
impacts on springs, marshes, and riparian habitats. Vehicles, including 
drilling rigs and recording trucks, can crush vegetation, compact 
soils, and introduce exotic plant species (BLM 2008, pp. 4-9 to 4-20). 
Roads and well pads can affect local drainages and surface hydrology, 
and increase erosion and sedimentation (Matherne 2006, p. 35). 
Accidental spills (Etkin 2009, pp. 36-42, 56) can result in the release 
of hydrocarbon products into ground and surface waters (Stalfort 1998, 
section 1). Accumulations of contaminants in floodplains can result in 
lethal or sublethal impacts to endemic sensitive aquatic species 
(Stalfort 1998, section 4; Fleeger et al. 2003, p. 207).
    All of the naturally occurring, extant least chub populations occur 
within the Fillmore BLM area. The majority of BLM land in the Fillmore 
Field Office is open to oil and gas leasing (BLM 2009a, p. 11). Oil and 
gas leases have been sold within the watershed areas of most of the 
naturally occurring least chub populations, but the closest active well 
to a least chub population is currently 9.7 km (6 mi) away (Megown 
2009a, entire). The Gandy Salt Marsh population area is closed to 
leasing by BLM in accordance with the Fillmore Resource Management Plan 
(RMP) because of the occurrence of least chub habitat. This RMP will be 
updated in approximately 10 to 15 years. Any change to the management 
direction would be reviewed at this time and subject to public comment 
(BLM 2009a, p. 54). Seismic surveys were conducted on parcels adjacent 
to the Mills Valley population, and BLM anticipates that a Notice of 
Staking or Application for Permit to Drill may be filed by the lessee 
in 2010 (Mansfield 2009, p. 1).
    Based on past drilling history, the BLM's Fillmore Field Office 
determined that recoverable oil and gas is likely to be of low 
availability within the range of the least chub. They further estimated 
that exploratory wells will be drilled at the rate of about one well 
every year for the foreseeable future (BLM 2009a, p. 52). Leases near 
least chub habitat will not be offered for sale until the Fillmore BLM 
RMP is revised; the RMP revision is not yet scheduled (Naeve 2009a-c, 
entire).
    Oil and gas leases in the BLM Fillmore Field Office will include 
lease notices with information on sensitive species and conservation 
agreement species where appropriate (BLM 2009a, pp. 14, 98-99). These 
lease notices include measures to coordinate with UDWR to minimize the 
risk of spreading aquatic exotic species; avoid surface pumping for 
water; avoid surface disturbances within 100-year floodplains; avoid 
changes to ground and surface hydrology; and avoid direct disturbances 
to special status species (BLM 2009a, pp. 98-99). The extent of 
implementation of each lease notice, and the success of the lease 
notices, will not be known until development occurs. However, the lease 
notices in combination with the low energy development potential should 
ensure that oil and gas development is not a significant threat to the 
species in the

[[Page 35404]]

foreseeable future. Recoverable oil and gas across the entire Fillmore 
Field Office area is expected to be low, with a rate of one exploratory 
well drilled annually, and the nearest active well is 9.7 km (6 mi) 
from an extant least chub population. We conclude that oil and gas 
development are not anticipated to occur at a level that will threaten 
least chub.
(3) Mining
    Mills Valley contains a bog area with a peat and humus resource 
(Olsen 2004, p. 6). Peat mining has the potential to alter the 
hydrology and habitat complexity of Mills Valley, making it unsuitable 
for least chub (Bailey et al. 2005, p. 31). An illegal peat removal 
activity occurred on private lands in the Mills Valley wetlands in 2003 
(Wilson 2009a, pers. comm.). The illegal activity was less than 0.2 ha 
(0.5 ac) in size, and impacts to associated wetlands were restored 
(Wilson 2009a, pers. comm.). In 2003, a Mills Valley landowner received 
a permit from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining to conduct peat 
mining on their private land. Although one test hole was dug, no 
further peat mining occurred in this location. This peat mining permit 
is now inactive and noncompliant with State regulations requiring 
payment of mining and bond fees (Wilson 2009a, pers. comm.). Past peat 
mining activities have been unsuccessful in Mills Valley, and we are 
unaware of any future private or commercial peat mining proposals.
    In summary, our analysis found one illegal peat removal activity 
and one abandoned attempt at legal peat removal in the Mills Valley 
least chub population area. We are unaware of any additional private or 
commercial peat operation proposals in Mills Valley. We conclude that 
peat mining is not anticipated to occur at a level that will threaten 
least chub.
(4) Urban and Suburban Development
    Urban and suburban development affect least chub habitats through: 
(1) Changes to hydrology and sediment regimes; (2) inputs of pollution 
from human activities (contaminants, fertilizers, and pesticides); (3) 
introductions of nonnative plants and animals; and (4) alterations of 
springheads, stream banks, floodplains, and wetland habitats by 
increased diversions of surface flows and connected groundwater (Dunne 
and Leopold 1978, pp. 693-702).
    The least chub was originally common throughout the Bonneville 
Basin in a variety of habitat types (Sigler and Miller 1963, p. 82). In 
many urbanized and agricultural areas, residential development and 
water development projects have effectively eliminated historical 
habitats and potential reintroduction sites for least chub (Keleher and 
Barker 2004, p. 4; Thompson 2005, p. 9). Development and urban 
encroachment have either functionally or completely eliminated most 
springs, streams, and wetlands along the Wasatch Front (Keleher and 
Barker 2004, p. 2).
    The Mona Springs site, as well as potential reintroduction sites 
(Keleher and Barker 2004, p. 4; Thompson 2005, p. 9) on the Wasatch 
Front, are vulnerable to rapid population growth. The human population 
in the Mona Springs area has increased 64.9 percent from 2000 to mid 
2008 (City-Data 2009, p. 1) and a housing development has expanded to 
within 1 km (0.6 mi) of the Mona Springs least chub site (Megown 2009b, 
entire). The URMCC, which is responsible for mitigating impacts caused 
by Federal reclamation projects to fish, wildlife, and related 
recreation resources in Utah, has purchased and protected much of the 
Mona Springs habitat areas for conserving least chub and spotted frog 
populations (see Factor D). However, indirect effects of urban 
development such as pollution from urban stormwater runoff and changes 
to hydrologic sediment regimes (e.g., sedimentation from adjacent 
construction activities) could negatively impact the aquatic habitats 
at Mona Springs. Even if mosquitofish and other predacious nonnative 
fish (the primary threat at this site) can be controlled in the future, 
we believe urban-development-related effects could rise to a level that 
may preclude reestablishment of a viable least chub population at Mona 
Springs.
    Despite the effects of urban and suburban development on historic 
populations of least chub, we have no information indicating this is a 
threat to the five remaining extant least chub populations. These least 
chub populations occur in relatively remote portions of Utah with 
minimal human populations. No information is available indicating the 
level of human occupation near these sites. However, the population 
centers nearest to extant least chub populations are more than 16 km 
(10 mi) away and have populations of less than 3,000 persons (Utah 
Governor's Office of Planning and Budget 2009, entire).
    To summarize, development along the eastern portion of the least 
chub historic range has contributed to the elimination of most of the 
historic populations of least chub. The Mona Springs site is currently 
the only site in this geographic area that still contains least chub, 
but the population is functionally extirpated. We have no information 
suggesting that future urban or suburban development will occur at a 
level that will threaten least chub.
(5) Water Withdrawal and Diversion
    Hydrologic alterations, including water withdrawal and diversion, 
affect a variety of abiotic and biotic factors that regulate least chub 
population size and persistence. Abiotic factors include physical and 
chemical characteristics of the environment, such as water levels and 
temperature, while biotic factors include interactions with other 
individuals or other species (Deacon 2007, pp. 1-2). Water withdrawal 
directly reduces available habitat, impacting water depth, water 
surface area, and flows from springheads (Alley et al. 1999, p. 43). As 
available habitat decreases, the characteristics and value of the 
remaining habitat changes. Reductions in water availability to least 
chub habitat reduce the quantity and quality of the remaining habitat 
(Deacon 2007, p. 1).
    Water withdrawal and diversion reduces the size of ponds, springs, 
and other water features that support least chub (Alley et al. 1999, p. 
43). Assuming that the habitat remains at carrying capacity for the 
species or, in other words, assuming all population processes (birth 
rate, death rate, etc.) remain unchanged, smaller habitats support 
fewer individuals by offering fewer resources for the population 
(Deacon 2007, p. 1).
    Because least chub live in patchily distributed desert aquatic 
systems, reduction in habitat size also affects the quality of the 
habitat. Reduced water depth may isolate areas that would be 
hydrologically connected at higher water levels. Within least chub 
habitat, springheads offer stable environmental conditions, such as 
temperature and oxygen levels, for refugia and overwintering, but offer 
little food or vegetation (Deacon 2007, p. 2). In contrast, marsh areas 
offer vegetation for spawning and feeding, but exhibit wide 
fluctuations in environmental conditions (Crawford 1979, p. 63; Crist 
and Holden 1980, p. 804). Maintaining hydrologic connections between 
springheads and marsh areas is important because least chub migrate 
between these areas to access the full range of their ecological 
requirements (Crawford 1979, p. 63; Crist and Holden 1980, p. 804; 
Lamarra 1981, p. 10).
    Although we have not directly observed the effects of flow 
reductions on wild least chub populations, we believe that flow 
reductions will reduce the hydrology that supports wetland

[[Page 35405]]

and wetland/upland transition zones which, in turn, provide vegetation 
needed for the least chub reproductive cycle (Crawford 1979, p. 38; 
Lamarra 1981, p. 10). Alterations of natural flow processes also could 
alter sediment transport processes that prevent vegetation encroachment 
into sensitive spring areas (60 FR 50520).
    Reductions in water may alter chemical and physical properties of 
aquatic habitats. As water quantity decreases, temperatures may rise 
(especially in desert ecosystems with little shade cover), dissolved 
oxygen may decrease, and the concentration of pollutants may increase 
(Alley et al. 1999, p. 41; Deacon 2007, p. 1). These modified habitat 
conditions are likely to significantly impact least chub life history 
processes, possibly beyond the state at which the species can survive. 
The maximum growth rate for least chub less than 1 year of age would 
occur at 22.3 [deg]C (72.1 [deg]F). Temperatures above or below this 
have the potential to negatively impact growth and affect survival 
rates (Billman et al. 2006, p. 438).
    Reduced habitat quality and quantity may cause niche overlaps with 
other fish species, increasing hybrid introgression, interspecific 
competition, and predation (Deacon 2007, p. 2) (see Factor C. 
Predation; Factor E. Hybridization). Reduction in flow of springs 
reduces opportunities for habitat niche partitioning; therefore, fewer 
species are able to coexist. The effect is especially problematic with 
respect to introduced species. Native species may be able to coexist 
with introduced species in relatively large habitats (see Factor C. 
Predation), but become increasingly vulnerable to extirpation as 
habitat size diminishes (Deacon 2007, p. 2).
    Habitat reduction may affect the species by altering individual 
success. Fish and other aquatic species tend to adjust their maximum 
size to the amount of habitat available, so reduced habitat may reduce 
the growth capacity of least chub (Smith 1981, in Deacon 2007, p. 2). 
Reproductive output decreases exponentially as fish size decreases 
(Deacon 2007, p. 2). Therefore, reduction of habitat volume in isolated 
desert springs and streams reduces reproductive output (Deacon 2007, p. 
2). Longevity also may be reduced resulting in fewer reproductive 
seasons (Deacon 2007, p. 2).
Current Groundwater Pumping
    The Utah State Engineer (USE), through the Utah Division of Water 
Rights (UDWRi), is responsible for the administration of water rights, 
including the appropriation, distribution, and management of the 
State's surface and groundwater. This office has broad discretionary 
powers to implement the duties required by the office. The USE's Office 
was created in 1897, and the State Engineer is the chief water rights 
administrative officer. For groundwater management, Utah is divided 
into groundwater areas, and policy is determined by area (BLM 2009b, 
entire).
    A joint report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and several 
State of Utah agencies provided a description of groundwater conditions 
in the State of Utah for 2008 (Burden 2009, entire). Each of the 
locations occupied by least chub had a corresponding summary by valley 
or hydrographic area for: the number of wells constructed in 2008; the 
total estimated groundwater withdrawn in the area for 2008; the total 
estimated groundwater withdrawn for each year for the previous 10 
years; and groundwater level monitoring results from several monitoring 
wells for varying periods of record (~20 to 75 years). For all valleys 
and hydrographic areas, the predominant (greater than 79 percent) use 
of withdrawn groundwater was for irrigation with remaining uses 
including industrial, public supply, domestic, and stock (Burden 2009, 
pp. 5, 89).
    The Juab Valley, where the Mona Springs least chub site is located, 
had a total of two new wells, and 26,000 acre-feet per year (afy) 
withdrawn for 2008 (Burden 2009, pp. 3-5). This is more than double the 
amount withdrawn in 1998 (12,000 afy) and is an overall increase from 
the 1998-2007 average (22,000 afy) (Burden 2009, p. 6). All supplies of 
surface and groundwater are fully appropriated; however, new wells 
could be developed with existing groundwater rights (UDWRi 2009d, pp. 
1-2).
    Although the Mills Valley population site did not have a 
corresponding pumping area in the report, the Central Sevier Valley 
summary represents pumping activity in the river valley upstream of 
this population and may be indicative of the potential for groundwater 
withdrawal effects. The Central Sevier Valley had a total of 13 new 
wells, and 24,000 afy withdrawn in 2008 (Burden 2009, pp. 3-5). This is 
4,000 afy more than the amount withdrawn in 1998 (20,000 afy) and is an 
8,000-afy increase from the 1998-2007 average (16,000 afy) (Burden 
2009, p. 6). Since 1997, the corresponding part of the Sevier River 
Basin was closed to all new appropriations of groundwater. However, new 
groundwater development can occur under existing groundwater rights 
(UDWRi 2009d, pp. 3-4).
    The Clear Lake least chub site is located within the Sevier Desert 
groundwater pumping basin, which had 11 new wells with 44,000 afy 
withdrawn in 2008 (Burden 2009, pp. 3-5). This is 32,000 afy more than 
the amount of water withdrawn in 1998 (12,000 afy) and is a 20,000-afy 
increase from the 1998-2007 average (24,000 afy) (Burden 2009, p. 6). 
Since 1997, this part of the Sevier River Basin was closed to all new 
appropriations of groundwater except for domestic filings not exceeding 
1.0 acre-foot and for filings reviewed on an individual basis in 
limited areas of the basin (UDWRi 2009d, pp. 5-6).
    The Snake Valley summary, which corresponds to the pumping activity 
in the vicinity of Leland Harris Spring Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, and 
Bishop Spring Complex did not report the number of new wells, but did 
specify 19,800 and 20,200 afy withdrawn for 2007 and 2008, 
respectively, in Utah (Burden 2009, p. 89). Additional information on 
groundwater pumping over the last decade was not provided. State of 
Nevada Division of Water Resources reported that 11,000 afy of 
groundwater was pumped from the Nevada portion of Snake Valley in 2009 
(NDWR 2009, entire). Groundwater is currently open to appropriation in 
Snake Valley in Utah (UDWRi 2009d, pp. 7-9) and Nevada (NDWR 2009, 
entire).
    The previously discussed increases in groundwater pumping have 
occurred at the same time that a declining trend in groundwater level 
was observed at wells monitored in or very near basins with least chub 
populations (Burden 2009, pp. 41-57, 89, 96). Groundwater monitoring 
shows that water levels generally rose in the early to mid 1980s, 
likely as a result of greater-than-average precipitation. However, 
groundwater levels generally declined from the mid-to-late 1980s to the 
present. Although drought conditions were present in the eastern Great 
Basin (areas with extant least chub populations) during this time (See 
Factor A. Drought), localized annual precipitation levels were either 
average to slightly above average (Mona Springs and Mills Valley least 
chub sites) or were generally increasing, if below average (Clear Lake 
and Snake Valley least chub sites), during this same timeframe (Burden 
2009, pp. 41-57, 89, 96).
    For the four basins discussed above, a more specific analysis of 
groundwater level fluctuations over the last decade (1998-2009) 
provides some indication of the scope of change. Groundwater

[[Page 35406]]

levels from six monitoring wells in Juab Valley (where the Mona Springs 
least chub site is located) declined an average of 6.1 meters (m) (20 
feet (ft)) with declines ranging from 0.6 to 10.1 m (2 to 33 ft) 
(Burden 2009, pp. 41-45). As stated above, groundwater monitoring in 
Central Sevier Valley basin represents pumping activity and groundwater 
levels in the river valley upstream of the Mills Valley least chub 
population and may be indicative of the potential for groundwater 
withdrawal effects. Groundwater levels in 10 monitoring wells in this 
area declined an average of 0.9 m (3 ft) with declines ranging from 0 
to 1.5 m (0 to 5 ft). Data from 15 monitoring wells in the Sevier 
Desert groundwater pumping basin (where the Clear Lake least chub site 
is located) indicated that groundwater levels declined an average of 
2.4 m (8 ft) with declines ranging from 0.3 to 5.5 m (1 to 18 ft), and 
groundwater monitoring levels in the Snake Valley (in the vicinity of 
Leland Harris Spring Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, and Bishop Spring 
Complex) declined 1.2 m (4 ft) with declines ranging from 0.3 to 3 m (1 
to 10 ft) (Burden 2009, pp. 46-52, 89-96).
    We have limited information linking groundwater pumping to 
decreases in flow at sites where least chub previously existed. 
Agricultural pumping, combined with drought, has affected several 
springs in Snake Valley. These include Knoll Spring near the town of 
Eskdale and springs on private properties in the town of Callao (Sabey 
2008, p. 2). These sites were all historically documented locations of 
least chub that no longer harbor the species (Hickman 1989, pp. 16-17; 
Garland 2007, pers. comm.).
    Pumping for agricultural purposes, combined with the effects of 
drought, has impacted flow in a number of springs in Snake Valley. 
Although no least chub historically occurred at Needle Point Spring, 
the BLM has detailed monitoring information linking nearby groundwater 
pumping and its effect on the spring's flow. In 2001, the water level 
at Needle Point Spring in Southern Snake Valley dropped to levels not 
seen in 40 years (Summers 2008, pp. 1-2). This spring has a long 
history of existence, identified as early as 1939 by the Civilian 
Conservation Corps, when springflow was measured at 6 gallons per 
minute (Summers 2008, p. 1). For the past several decades, the spring 
was developed and used for watering livestock and wild horses (Summers 
2008, p. 1). The 2001 decline in groundwater level at Needle Point 
Spring was likely the result of, and coincides with, increased 
irrigation in Hamlin Valley approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) west, and not a 
result of the lowered precipitation (Summers 2008, p. 3).
    Although the causal effect of groundwater pumping is unknown in the 
following observations, UDWR has documented decreases in habitat at two 
least chub sites. They recently reported decreases in least chub 
habitat from springs drying and decreasing in size at the Clear Lake 
least chub site (LCCT 2008b, p. 2). The UDWR found that annual drying 
of some ponds with least chub is becoming a consistent trend resulting 
in declining habitat quality, and is therefore limiting the 
distribution of least chub at Clear Lake. Average water depth among 
affected ponds decreased from 0.5 m (1.6 ft) in 2006 to 0.2 m (0.7 ft) 
in 2008 (LCCT 2008b, p. 2). At the Gandy Salt Marsh site, least chub 
populations have declined by more than 50 percent (from 1993 to 2006) 
as a result of a reduction in available habitats due to the drying of 
springs throughout the complex (Wilson 2006, p. 8).
    As described above, current groundwater pumping levels have 
increased in the last 10 years and in some locations have more than 
doubled. Groundwater levels have decreased during this same time period 
while precipitation levels were average or generally increasing if 
below average. Negative impacts to least chub habitat were documented 
at the same time this scenario was occurring. In addition, all basins 
where least chub occur are currently open to additional groundwater 
pumping. Therefore, we conclude that current levels of groundwater 
pumping are likely to significantly threaten all least chub populations 
now and in the foreseeable future.
    Snake Valley has harbored the most secure least chub populations 
over the past 50 years (Hickman 1989, p. 2; Hines et al. 2008, pp. 34-
45). As detailed in the following sections of this document, proposed 
water development projects intend to transport water from the 
underlying aquifers in the vicinity of Snake Valley. Projects include a 
Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) Groundwater Development (GWD) 
Project, appropriation of groundwater by the Central Iron County Water 
Conservancy District and Beaver County, Utah, and an increase of water 
development by the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation. 
These water withdrawals threaten to change the underlying hydrology of 
the area and may modify least chub habitat and impact the extant 
populations in the Snake Valley in the foreseeable future (see below 
for more information).
Southern Nevada Water Authority Proposed Groundwater Development 
Project
    One of the most significant threats to extant least chub 
populations may be proposed groundwater withdrawals from the Snake 
Valley aquifer. Several applications for groundwater withdrawal from 
the Snake Valley aquifer are pending (SNWA 2008, p. 1-6), and SNWA has 
applied to the BLM for issuance of rights-of-way to construct and 
operate a system of regional water supply and conveyance facilities 
(SNWA 2008, p. 1-3). The SNWA GWD Project includes construction and 
operation of groundwater production wells, water conveyance facilities, 
and power facilities (SNWA 2008, p. 1-3). The proposed production wells 
and facilities would be located predominately on public lands managed 
by BLM (SNWA 2008, p. 1-3).
    As proposed, the SNWA GWD Project would convey up to 170,000 afy of 
groundwater from hydrographic basins in Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine 
Counties, Nevada, to SNWA member agencies and the Lincoln County Water 
Conservancy District (SNWA 2008, p. 1-1). Although all SNWA facilities 
are planned for development in Nevada, associated pumping from the 
Spring Valley and Snake Valley hydrographic basins (SNWA 2008, pp. 1-4, 
Figures 1-2) is expected to affect Utah groundwater resources and 
consequently habitats of the least chub (Welch et al. 2007, p. 82).
    The SNWA would receive all groundwater conveyed from the Snake 
Valley (approximately 50,679 afy) and Spring Valley (approximately 
68,000 afy) Basins (SNWA 2008, p. 1-6, Table 1-1). The groundwater that 
SNWA intends to convey would be from existing and future permitted 
water rights (SNWA 2008, p. 1-6, Table 1-1). If all permits are 
granted, SNWA intends to start pumping operations for Spring Valley in 
2028 and Snake Valley in 2050 (BLM 2009, p. 2-12). As substantiated 
below, the SNWA GWD project is likely to significantly threaten least 
chub populations in the foreseeable future.
    The Service has been concerned about impacts from this proposed 
large-scale water withdrawal for many years. In 1990, the Service and 
other Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies (BLM, National Park 
Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs) protested water rights 
applications in Spring and Snake Valley, based in part on potential 
impacts to water-dependent natural resources (Plenert 1990, p. 1; 
Nevada

[[Page 35407]]

State Engineer (NSE) 2007, p. 11). In 2006, DOI agencies reached a 
stipulated agreement with SNWA for the Spring Valley water rights 
applications, withdrew their protests, and did not participate in the 
NSE's hearing (NSE 2007, p. 11). For the Spring Valley portion of the 
project, the Stipulated Agreement established a process for developing 
and implementing hydrological and biological monitoring, management, 
and mitigation for biological impacts (NSE 2007, p. 11).
    To better understand the potential effects of the proposed large-
scale groundwater pumping, the NSE issued an October 28, 2008 order 
(Interim Order No. 2 and Scheduling Order) in which the applicant 
(SNWA) was required to provide a groundwater model that simulates 
groundwater pumping and potential impacts from pumping in the amount of 
10,000, 25,000, and 50,000 afy for the timeframes of 10, 25, 50, 100, 
and 200 years. The NSE hearings on these applications were scheduled to 
begin on September 28, 2009. These hearings were postponed based on a 
pending agreement between the States of Nevada and Utah as described 
below.
    According to the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and 
Development Act (LCCRDA) of 2004 (LCCRDA 2004, entire), the States must 
reach an agreement on the division of Snake Valley groundwater prior to 
any transbasin groundwater diversions. Utah and Nevada have reached a 
draft agreement that is still under discussion and not yet finalized 
(Kikuchi and Conrad 2009, p. 3; Styler and Biaggi 2009, entire). As 
drafted, the agreement preserves and protects existing water rights, 
defines the available groundwater supply in Snake Valley as 132,000 
afy, provides 41,000 afy of unallocated water to Utah and Nevada, and 
monitors withdrawals to identify and avoid adverse impacts (Kikuchi and 
Conrad 2009, p. 2).
    To assist in developing this agreement, the LCCRDA required a study 
of groundwater quantity, quality, and flow characteristics in the 
carbonate and alluvial aquifers of White Pine County, Nevada; 
groundwater basins located in White Pine or Lincoln Counties, Nevada; 
and adjacent areas of east-central Nevada and western Utah (Welch et 
al. 2007, p. iii). The USGS, the Desert Research Institute, and the 
State of Utah conducted this Basin and Range Carbonate Aquifer System 
(BARCAS) study. The USGS released a final report of the BARCAS study on 
February 22, 2008 (Welch et al. 2007, entire).
    The BARCAS study included a water-resources assessment of the 
geologic framework and hydrologic processes influencing the quantity 
and quality of groundwater resources. The USGS determined that 
groundwater systems underlying many of the valleys in eastern Nevada 
and western Utah are not isolated, but rather contribute to or receive 
flow from adjoining basins (Welch et al. 2007, pp. 4-5). They also 
determined that some large-volume springs cannot be supported entirely 
by the local recharge from the adjacent mountains; these springs depend 
on water from potentially hundreds of miles (kilometers) away (Welch et 
al. 2007, p. 5).
    Groundwater flows in a general direction from Spring Valley to 
Snake Valley. Thus, large-scale pumping in Spring Valley is expected to 
impact groundwater in Snake Valley. Current groundwater pumping in 
Spring Valley was estimated at 18,475 afy in 2007 (NSE 2007, p. 35). 
The additional 68,000 afy of groundwater pumping being proposed would 
be a 368-percent increase in total groundwater pumped (NSE 2007, p. 
56). The proposed total amount (86,475 afy) is 93 percent of the 
estimated 93,000 afy annual natural recharge for the basin and 114 
percent of the estimated 76,000-afy annual natural discharge of the 
basin (Welch et al. 2007, p. 81).
    Although current groundwater pumping for all of Snake Valley 
(Nevada and Utah) was estimated at 35,000 afy in 2005, water rights are 
currently allocated for 67,000 afy in Nevada (12,000 afy) and Utah 
(55,000 afy) (Welch et al. 2007, p. 81; Kikuchi and Conrad 2009, p. 2). 
An additional 41,000 afy of groundwater pumping is being proposed by 
the States of Nevada and Utah in their interstate agreement. This 
amount of additional groundwater pumping would be in place of the 
50,679 afy that the SNWA project intends to pump, and would thus be a 
61-percent increase in total groundwater allocated for pumping (SNWA 
2008, pp. 1-6, Tables 1-1). The proposed total amount (108,000 afy) is 
97 percent of the estimated 111,000-afy annual natural recharge for the 
basin and 82 percent of the estimated 132,000-afy annual natural 
discharge of the basin (Welch et al. 2007, p. 81; Kikuchi and Conrad 
2009, p. 2).
    The BARCAS study included assessments of the hydrogeology, 
recharge, and discharge of groundwater flow and geochemistry of 13 
hydrographic areas in eastern Nevada and western Utah, including the 
Spring and Snake Valleys. The BARCAS study estimated that the study-
wide natural average annual groundwater recharge exceeded natural 
annual discharge by about 90,000 afy (Welch et al. 2007, pp. 81-82). 
However, factoring in human use of groundwater (80,000 afy) into this 
estimate resulted in a nearly balanced groundwater budget over the 
study area. Thus, future long-term use of groundwater at the current 
level or any increased level (e.g., SNWA GWD project) could decrease 
subsurface outflow and spring discharge in the foreseeable future 
(Welch et al. 2007, p. 82). The study concluded that ``decreases in 
outflow would be more likely in sub-basins having high pumping and 
relatively large outflow, such as in Snake Valley'' (Welch et al. 2007, 
p. 82). As explained in the previous section (Current Groundwater 
Pumping), decreases in flow to some springs have already occurred in 
Snake Valley.
    In addition to the BARCAS study, in 2007 the Utah State Legislature 
charged the Utah Geological Survey with conducting a 2-year study (West 
Desert Groundwater Monitoring Project) to characterize the background 
water levels and chemistry; understand regional flow in the carbonate 
and basin-fill aquifer systems and their connectivity; quantify future 
groundwater drawdowns; and collect data for future groundwater-flow 
models (UGS 2008, entire). The groundwater monitoring network in Utah's 
west desert should better define background water levels and 
geochemical conditions prior to SNWA pumping, and also be able to help 
quantify changes after pumping begins.
    A lack of information exists on the extent of the aquifers, their 
hydraulic properties, and the distribution of water levels that would 
contribute to a reliable prediction of the amount or location of 
drawdown, or the rate of change in natural discharge, caused by pumping 
(Prudic 2006, p. 3). Despite the lack of site-specific information, we 
can reasonably expect that additional groundwater withdrawal in Spring 
and Snake Valleys will directly reduce spring discharge through reduced 
flows from the shallow basin-fill aquifer or through reduction of the 
hydraulic head of the deep carbonate aquifer (Welch et al. 2007, p. 
82). As those flows become increasingly disconnected, habitats lose 
characteristics essential to aspects of complex lifecycles, 
particularly the reproductive requirements of least chub (Deacon 2007, 
p. 3). Increases in groundwater use above the 2005 levels could 
significantly alter the hydrology in areas surrounding least chub 
habitat (Welch et al. 2007, p. 82).
    The extent and timing of these effects will vary among springs, 
based on their distance from extraction sites and

[[Page 35408]]

location relative to regional groundwater flow paths (Patten et al. 
2007, pp. 398-399). Some, and maybe all, predictions of detrimental 
impacts to the Snake Valley Hydrographic Basin from groundwater pumping 
are likely to occur (Kirby and Hurlow 2005, p. 33) and are likely to 
significantly threaten, and possibly eliminate, the remaining least 
chub populations in Snake Valley in the foreseeable future.
    Prior to the completion of the SNWA GWD Project, baseline data 
collection and research on biologic and hydrologic impacts will 
continue. Federal, State, and county government agencies, as well as 
nongovernmental organizations and private interests, maintain a high 
level of concern regarding negative impacts to spring discharge rates, 
and ultimately least chub habitats, from groundwater pumping.
Other Proposed Water Development Projects
    In addition to SNWA, other municipalities are interested in 
developing water resources in areas that are potentially hydrologically 
connected to least chub habitat. The following information is provided 
to characterize the additional potential threat of groundwater 
development, but does not at this time represent a clear threat to 
least chub or their habitat. Actual effects will, in part, be dependent 
on the degree of connectivity of water developments to least chub 
habitats.
    On October 17, 2006, the Central Iron County (Utah) Water 
Conservancy District filed applications to appropriate underground 
water in Hamlin Valley, Pine Valley, and Wah Wah Valley in the amounts 
of 10,000, 15,000, and 12,000 afy, respectively (UDWRi 2009a, pp. 2, 
12, 23). The principal use of this applied-for water is municipal, with 
minor amounts used for stock watering (UDWRi 2009a, entire). To date, 
the USE has not acted upon these applications. Similarly, Beaver 
County, Utah, purchased water right applications in 2007 originally 
filed on October 6, 1981, for Wah Wah, Pine, and Hamlin Valleys (UDWRi 
2009b, pp. 2, 5, 8). A hearing was held on December 10, 2008, on these 
Beaver County (successor-in-interest) applications, and on September 
14, 2009, these water rights were rejected by the State Engineer (UDWRi 
2009b, pp. 3, 6, 9). Lastly, the State of Utah School and Institutional 
Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) filed applications for up to 9,600 
afy from underground water wells in the Snake Valley (UDWRi 2009c, 
entire). These water rights all occur in areas that are hydrologically 
connected to Snake Valley and, thus, utilization of this water could 
impact least chub habitat.
    The Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, located in 
east-central Nevada (White Pine County) and west-central Utah (Juab and 
Tooele Counties) is interested in developing their as yet unused water 
rights. They have a 1905 decreed surface water right along the Deep 
Creek system in Utah (Steele 2008, p. 2), and are currently planning to 
increase Deep Creek basin rights to provide for community development 
projects (Steele 2008, p. 3). They estimate that up to 50,000 afy will 
be needed for beneficial uses including expanded crop and livestock 
irrigation, fishery management, surface water reservoir operation and 
maintenance, and water pipeline conveyance (Steele 2008, p. 3). The USE 
is currently reviewing their application to develop 50,000 afy of water 
from the Deep Creek Valley.
    To conclude, we assessed the threat of water withdrawal and 
diversion by analyzing available information on historic, current, and 
planned future groundwater development. It is clear that historic and 
current groundwater withdrawal has impacted least chub and caused 
population extirpations. Future water withdrawals are a significant 
threat to extant populations. Local agriculture pumping and drought 
have historically and are currently diminishing springs and least chub 
habitats in Snake Valley. Many historic springs are permanently dry, 
largely because of historic groundwater withdrawal. New wells are being 
drilled on a yearly basis, and the amount of groundwater withdrawal is 
generally increasing.
    In 2008, the NSE approved a major portion of the SNWA groundwater 
rights applications for the Spring Valley Hydrographic Basin. Current 
active applications for groundwater withdrawals in areas supporting 
least chub include SNWA applications in Snake Valley, and potential 
projects by Central Iron County Water Conservancy District, Beaver 
County, Utah, and the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation. 
Because of the complexities of determining groundwater budgets and the 
effects of future pumping, it is not possible at this time to determine 
the degree to which least chub habitats would be affected by 
groundwater pumping. However, information on current groundwater 
pumping indicates that groundwater levels are generally decreasing in 
basins or hydrographic areas with least chub, and that future large-
scale groundwater pumping in or near the Snake Valley populations of 
least chub is predicted to result in decreased subsurface outflow and 
spring discharge in Snake Valley.
    The Snake Valley contains the only remaining naturally occurring 
and relatively secure populations of least chub. Our analysis indicates 
that groundwater withdrawals will continue to increase in the future 
and lead to a decrease in suitable habitat for least chub; this is a 
significant threat to the species, now and in the foreseeable future.
(6) Drought
    Prolonged droughts have primary and secondary effects on 
groundwater resources. Decreased precipitation leads to decreased 
recharge of aquifers. Decreased surface-water resources generally lead 
to increased groundwater withdrawal and increased requests for water-
well construction permits (Hutson et al. 2004, p. 40; Burden 2009, p. 
2). Past and future climatic conditions (See Factor E. Climate Change) 
influence the water available to both water development and aquatic 
habitats, with water development usually taking priority.
    The impacts to least chub habitat from drought can include: 
reduction in habitat carrying capacity; lack of connectivity resulting 
in isolation of habitats and resources; alteration of physical and 
chemical properties of the habitat, such as temperature, oxygen, and 
pollutants; vegetation changes; niche overlap resulting in 
hybridization, competition, and predation; and reduced size and 
reproductive output (Alley et al. 1999, pp. 41, 43; Deacon 2007, pp. 1-
2). These impacts are similar to those associated with water withdrawal 
and diversions as described in Factor A.
    Recently, the Utah and Nevada portions of the Great Basin 
experienced drought conditions from 1999 until 2004 (Lambert 2009, 
pers. comm.; NDMC 2009, entire). The recent drought is not unusual for 
its length, but is for its severity; water year 2002 will be recorded 
as one of the driest years on record for many parts of the Great Basin 
(Lambert 2009, pers. comm; NDMC 2009, entire).
    Although it is not possible to separate the effects of drought from 
the effects of water withdrawal in order to analyze each separately as 
a threat to the least chub, the cumulative impacts of both threats have 
impacted least chub populations in the past. The cumulative impact of 
drought and water development for irrigation has led to the loss of 
springs in the Snake Valley, including those on the Bagley and Garland 
Ranches (Garland 2007, pers. comm.). More recently, a multiyear

[[Page 35409]]

drought from 1999 to 2004 (Lambert 2009, pers. comm.; NDMC 2009, 
entire) impacted least chub habitats, such as the Gandy Salt Marsh 
(Wilson 2006, p. 8). At this site, UDWR observed the reduction of least 
chub habitat from springs drying up throughout the complex (Wilson 
2006, p. 8).
    Although least chub have survived for thousands of years with 
intermittent natural drought conditions, recent human settlement has 
exacerbated drought conditions via human water use (Hutson et al. 2004, 
p. 2). On its own, drought is not considered a significant threat to 
the species as this is a natural condition with which least chub 
evolved. However, the documented extirpation and population reductions 
of least chub caused by drought and groundwater withdrawal, and plans 
for future large-scale groundwater withdrawal, lead us to conclude that 
drought is a significant threat to least chub.
Conservation Agreements
    The LCCAS is the guiding document for management of least chub 
(Bailey et al. 2005, entire) by the multiagency LCCT. Signatories to 
the LCCAS include UDWR, the Service, BLM, BOR, URMCC, the Confederated 
Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, CUWCD, and SNWA (Bailey et al. 2005, 
p. 2). The LCCAS and the LCCT provide expertise, recommendations, and 
coordination of funding for the conservation of the species, but do not 
provide regulatory protection. In 1999, we withdrew a proposed rule to 
list the least chub after analyzing the LCCAS and determining that the 
conservation actions contained within afforded greater protection to 
the least chub and rendered the existing regulatory mechanisms 
adequate. We revisit that determination here.
    Numerous conservation actions implemented through the LCCAS were 
most recently summarized by UDWR (Hines et al. 2008, entire). Annual 
surveys and monitoring of least chub have occurred since at least 1998 
across the species' historic range. These surveys resulted in the 
discovery of two new populations of least chub at Mills Valley and 
Clear Lake. In addition, the surveys resulted in identification of a 
few suitable reintroduction sites and the establishment of refuge 
populations (as discussed in the ``Translocations'' section above). 
Research efforts initiated and directed by the LCCAS have improved our 
knowledge of least chub life history and genetic structure (Mock and 
Miller 2005, p. 276; Mock and Bjerregaard 2007, p. 146). The LCCT was 
successful in securing land acquisitions, easements, and water rights 
to partially protect least chub populations and habitats at Mona 
Springs, Bishop Springs, and Gandy Salt Marsh. Habitat enhancement 
projects have focused on nonnative vegetation removal, grazing 
management, and springhead and pond restorations. Efforts are ongoing 
to control the impacts of nonnative aquatic species, such as 
mosquitofish, but to date these methods have been largely unsuccessful 
(for further discussion of nonnative species see Factor D below).
    The LCCAS has proved invaluable in providing better information 
concerning the least chub's status and distribution, and implementation 
of research under the LCCAS has increased our understanding of least 
chub life history, genetics, and interactions with invasive species 
(Hines et al. 2008, entire). The LCCT has addressed several of the 
factors previously thought to threaten the least chub and has made 
substantial progress on the threat of grazing and direct habitat loss, 
as well as the conservation of least chub genetics. However, the 
participants signatory to the Agreement have no ability to protect the 
least chub from the primary threat of loss of habitat due to 
groundwater development and only limited ability to protect the species 
from the threat of nonnative fish introduction (Hines et al. 2008, 
entire). Limitations of the LCCAS and its participants also include 
their ability to manage livestock grazing on private and SITLA lands.
Summary of Factor A
    At this time, based on best available information, we do not 
believe that mining, and oil and gas leasing and exploration, or urban 
and suburban development significantly threaten least chub now or in 
the foreseeable future. However, loss of habitat has extirpated least 
chub from all but a fraction of its historical range primarily as a 
result of development along the Wasatch Front and water diversions 
throughout the Bonneville Basin. Remaining least chub populations are 
threatened by livestock grazing (excluding the Clear Lake site) and 
development of water resources for agricultural practices and urban 
development. We find that listing the least chub as a threatened or 
endangered species is warranted due to livestock grazing; water 
withdrawal and diversion; and drought occurring now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    Habitat at four of the five extant populations of least chub is 
currently impacted by livestock grazing. Although fencing and limited 
livestock grazing management have reduced or eliminated many of the 
negative impacts associated with this practice, impacts to least chub 
habitat continue to result from livestock grazing on private lands or 
in areas where livestock grazing is uncontrolled for short periods of 
time. Grazing impacts continue to occur on an intermittent basis at 
Leland Harris Spring Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, Bishop Springs Complex, 
and Mills Valley.
    Three of the five extant populations of least chub persist in close 
proximity to one another in the Snake Valley and occur within the same 
groundwater basin, where they depend on springs and associated 
wetlands. Additional significant groundwater development is expected to 
occur by 2028 for Spring Valley and 2050 for Snake Valley with the 
possibility of subsequent landscape-level effects to Snake Valley and 
remnant least chub populations.
    It is difficult to predict the foreseeable future regarding large-
scale groundwater withdrawal and resultant effects to least chub. We 
expect that there may be a lag time after pumping commences before 
effects will be realized by the species or measured by scientists. 
Because the agreement that would manage groundwater allocations in 
Snake Valley is still in draft form, the groundwater hydrology of the 
Snake Valley is not well known, and the area is already experiencing 
changes in water regime due to the effects of water withdrawal, 
drought, and climate change, we cannot confidently predict when impacts 
from water withdrawals will occur.
    Therefore, we find the least chub is threatened by the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' 
habitat or range, now and in the foreseeable future.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes.

    Commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational utilizations 
are not common least chub related activities, and protections are in 
place to limit their effect on the species. Least chub are considered a 
``prohibited'' species under Utah's Collection Importation and 
Possession of Zoological Animals Rule (R-657-3-1), which makes it 
unlawful to collect or possess least chub without a permit. Over the 
past 8 years only two permits were issued by UDWR for survey of least 
chub in the wild. All fish collected for these studies were released 
unharmed (Wilson 2009b, p. 1). Use of least chub for scientific or 
educational purposes also is controlled by UDWR, and the agency 
typically provides least chub from fish hatchery stocks for these 
purposes (Wilson 2009b, pp. 1-4.). The UDWR has collected least chub 
from the

[[Page 35410]]

wild (an average of 334 per year combined for all extant populations 
for the last 10 years) to augment hatchery stocks or for transfer to 
new or existing translocation sites (Wilson 2009b, pp. 2-3). We are 
aware of no evidence that least chub are being illegally collected for 
commercial or recreational purposes.
Summary of Factor B
    Least chub are not being overutilized for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes. Fish that are needed for research 
purposes can be provided from fish hatchery stocks. A limited number of 
least chub have been collected from wild populations for hatchery 
augmentation or for translocation purposes, but we have no information 
to suggest that this causes a threat to extant populations now or in 
the foreseeable future. We find that overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes of the least chub is 
not a threat now or in the foreseeable future.

C. Disease or Predation.

Predation
    Least chub rarely persist where nonnative fishes have been 
introduced (Osmundson 1985, p. 2; Hickman 1989, pp. 2-3, 9). The 
species is tolerant of broad natural habitat conditions and is well 
adapted to persist in the extreme, yet natural, environments of springs 
and playa marshes of the Bonneville Basin, but they are not an 
effective competitor with nonnative species (Lamarra 1981, p. 1), and 
are constantly threatened by the introduction and presence of nonnative 
fish (Hickman 1989, p. 10).
    The mosquitofish is the most detrimental invasive fish to least 
chub (Perkins et al. 1998, p. 23; Mills et al. 2004b, entire). 
Mosquitofish predate on the eggs and the smaller size classes of least 
chub and compete with adults (Mills et al. 2004b, p. 713). The presence 
of mosquitofish changes least chub behavior and habitat use because 
young least chub retreat to heavily vegetated, cooler habitats in an 
effort to seek cover from predation. In these less optimal 
environments, they have to compete with small mosquitofish that also 
are seeking refuge from adult mosquitofish. This predatory refuge 
scenario, in turn, affects survivorship and growth of least chub young 
of year (Mills et al. 2004b, pp. 716-717).
    Mosquitofish tolerate an extensive range of environmental 
conditions and have high reproductive potential (Pyke 2008, pp. 171, 
173). The ecological impact of introduced mosquitofish is well 
documented. Mosquitofish profoundly alter ecosystem function, and 
several studies have demonstrated their effects on the decline of 
native amphibians and small fish (Alcaraz and Garcia-Berthou 2007, pp. 
83-84; Pyke 2008, pp. 180-181). The mosquitofish is native only to the 
southern United States and northern Mexico, but has been introduced 
into more than 50 countries (Garc[iacute]a-Berthou et al. 2005, p. 453) 
to control mosquito populations and malaria (Pyke 2008, p. 172).
    Mosquito abatement districts throughout Utah have released 
mosquitofish for mosquito control since 1931 (Radant 2002, p. 2). The 
mosquitofish have expanded into aquatic ecosystems throughout Utah 
(Sigler and Sigler 1996, pp. 227-229). Despite extensive efforts that 
include chemical poisoning and mechanical removal, the elimination of 
mosquitofish from least chub habitats has not been successful. 
Mosquitofish have contributed to the functional extirpation of least 
chub populations at the naturally occurring Mona Springs site (Hines et 
al. 2008 pp. 35-37), and contributed to the extirpation of least chub 
at three translocation sites including Walter and Deadman Springs at 
Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge (Wilson and Whiting 2002, p. 4), 
and at an Antelope Island pond (Thompson 2005, pp. 5-6).
    The UDWR implemented a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Mosquito 
Abatement Districts in an effort to reduce the continued spread of 
mosquitofish (Radant 2002, entire). The MOA established administrative 
processes and procedures for collecting, holding, propagating, 
transporting, distributing, and releasing mosquitofish for signatory 
mosquito abatement districts. Mosquito abatement districts that did not 
sign the MOA are prohibited from engaging in any mosquitofish-related 
activities (Radant 2002, p. 1). The MOA restricts the use of 
mosquitofish to locations approved by the UDWR (Radant 2002, p. 5). The 
MOA was established to function in perpetuity, but any party to the 
agreement can terminate their involvement by providing 60 days' written 
notice to the UDWR. Termination by one or more parties will not act to 
terminate the agreement to other parties. Once a signatory terminates 
their involvement in the MOA, they are prohibited from engaging in any 
mosquitofish activities (Radant 2002, p. 7). This policy is not 
expected to change in the foreseeable future.
    Other nonnative fishes predate upon and compete with least chub. 
Rainwater killifish (Lucania parva) and plains killifish (Fundulus 
zebrinis) have been illegally introduced into least chub habitats by 
unknown entities (Perkin et al. 1998, p. 23). These fish are potential 
competitors with the least chub because they are closely related to 
mosquitofish and have similar life histories and habitat requirements 
(Perkins et al. 1998, p. 23).
    Introduced game fishes, including largemouth bass (Micropterus 
salmoides), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), common carp (Cyprinus 
carpio), and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are predators of least 
chub, and these species are present in both native and introduced least 
chub habitats (Workman et al. 1979, pp. 1-2, 136; Osmundson 1985, p. 2; 
Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 183; Crist 1990, p. 5). Clear Lake and Mills 
Valley least chub populations are currently sympatric with nonnative 
predators other than mosquitofish. Rainbow trout and common carp are 
present in Clear Lake (Hines et al. 2008, p. 43). Clear Lake is an 
expansive habitat that allows least chub to temporarily coexist with 
nonnative fishes, but least chub will become increasingly vulnerable to 
extinction if habitat size diminishes (Deacon 2007, p. 2) or nonnative 
numbers increase. Nonnative sunfish (Lepomis sp.), which is a voracious 
predator, and fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) (Sigler and Sigler 
1987, p. 306), are established at the Mills Valley site and are 
increasing in number (Hines et al. 2008, p. 43).
    In summary, least chub are unlikely to persist indefinitely in the 
presence of nonnative species, particularly mosquitofish. Mosquitofish 
are a predator of least chub eggs and young, and they compete with 
least chub for food items. The presence of nonnative predacious fish 
results in the decline and eventual elimination of least chub 
populations. The stocking of mosquitofish into least chub habitat by 
Statewide mosquito abatement programs has been addressed by an MOA that 
regulates this practice. Removing mosquitofish from aquatic habitats 
has not been successful, and they continue to invade new sites. Four 
naturally occurring or introduced least chub populations have been 
extirpated by mosquitofish (Hines et al. 2008 pp. 35-37; Wilson and 
Whiting 2002, p. 4; Thompson 2005, pp. 5-6). These include the sites of 
Deadman and Walter springs, Antelope Island, and Mona Springs. Two of 
the five remaining least chub populations (Mills Valley and Clear Lake) 
are coexisting with nonnative species. Therefore, we determine that the 
continued existence of least chub is threatened by the presence of 
nonnative fish species and their potential spread into least chub

[[Page 35411]]

habitat. This threat will become exacerbated in the future by any 
reductions in water quantity that further fragment and degrade the 
habitat.
Disease and Parasitism
    Disease and parasitism have not affected least chub to a 
significant degree. Workman et al. (1979, pp. 2, 103-107) found the 
parasite blackspot (Neascus cuticola) present in the least chub 
population at the Leland Harris Spring Complex site during 1977-78 
sampling, and at the time determined that all least chub examined 
appeared robust and in good condition. More recently, the parasite was 
identified in least chub at the Bishop Springs site by Wheeler et al. 
(2004, p. 5). Although we have no information that allows us to 
determine the effect of blackspot on least chub at the Bishop Springs 
site, monitoring over the past 14 years indicates that the population 
has remained stable (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 37-39).
    The exotic snail Melanoides tuberculata is an intermediate host and 
vector for parasites known to be dangerous to humans, livestock, and 
wild animals, including threatened endemic fishes and amphibians (Rader 
et al. 2003, p. 647). M. tuberculata occurs at the Bishop Springs and 
Clear Lake sites, but we do not have any information that links this 
snail species to parasites that are harmful to least chub (Rader et al. 
2003, p. 649). M. tuberculata appears to be restricted by water 
temperature, but has the potential to be found in other least chub 
habitats in the future, because sampling for M. tuberculata has not 
occurred at all known least chub sites (Rader et al. 2003, pp. 650-
651).
    In 2006, least chub from the Leland Harris Spring Complex 
population were subjected to a disease-check regimen at the Fisheries 
Experiment Station in Logan, Utah. Eight different parasites were 
detected on the fish; however, it was the opinion of LCCT that the 
presence of these parasites is common on a seasonal basis for most wild 
populations of least chub (Wilson 2009b, p. 4). Considering that least 
chub are the dominant fish species at the Leland Harris Spring Complex 
site and that their population appears stable (Hines et al. 2008, p. 
42), these diseases are likely having a minimal effect on the species.
    Although parasites exist in least chub habitats, and some least 
chub have been found to harbor parasites, we do not have evidence that 
individual least chub or least chub populations are significantly 
compromised or threatened by the presence of parasites.
Summary of Factor C
    At this time, we know of no information that indicates that the 
presence of parasites or disease significantly affects least chub, now 
or in the foreseeable future.
    There is strong evidence that least chub are threatened by the 
presence of nonnative fish species in their habitats. Populations of 
least chub that are sympatric with nonnative fish have become 
extirpated or functionally extirpated, and extant populations generally 
decline when in the presence of nonnative fish, especially 
mosquitofish. The MOA with the mosquito abatement districts is a 
positive step toward prohibiting the spread of mosquitofish in least 
chub habitats. Although hatchery stocks provide a source for 
reintroductions, removal of nonnative fish has not been successful; 
sites previously used for translocation sites have had limited success; 
and very few new sites that are appropriate for least chub 
introductions are available. Based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available to us, we conclude that nonnative fish 
predation of least chub is a threat to the continued existence of the 
species, now and in the foreseeable future.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Act requires us to examine the adequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms with respect to extant threats that place least chub in 
danger of becoming either threatened or endangered. Regulatory 
mechanisms affecting the species fall into four general categories: (1) 
Land management, (2) State mechanisms, (3) Federal mechanisms, and (4) 
conservation agreements.
(1) Land Management
    Wild populations of least chub are distributed across private, BLM, 
SITLA, and State UDWR lands and incur varying regulatory mechanisms 
depending on land ownership.
    (1) Mona Springs: Habitat in the vicinity of Mona Springs was 
primarily private land (Wilson 2009c, pers. comm.). However, the URMCC 
acquired 34.6 ha (85.5 ac) in 1998 and 7.2 ha (17.7 ac) in 2006 for the 
protection of least chub and Utah State sensitive species the Columbia 
spotted frog (Rana lutreiventris) (Hines et al. 2008, p. 34). The URMCC 
has recently purchased and protected an additional 44.5 ha (18 ac) of 
land on the north end of the spring complex (Wilson 2009c, pers. 
comm.). The amount of habitat owned and managed by URMCC provides 
protection from direct habitat loss. However, land ownership by URMCC 
cannot protect the springs from loss of water caused by groundwater 
pumping or from the threat of nonnative fish that are now at this site.
    (2) Leland Harris Spring Complex: Land ownership for least chub 
occupied habitat is primarily private although there also has been 
occupied habitat on nearby SITLA and BLM land (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 
41-42; Jimenez 2009, pers. comm.; Wilson 2009c, pers. comm.). Miller 
Spring (located in this complex) and surrounding wetlands 
(approximately 20.2 ha (50 ac)) are protected through a conservation 
easement between UDWR and a private landowner. This level of land 
management provides some protection through cooperative grazing 
management under the conservation easement; however, impacts resulting 
from livestock grazing still occur (see Factor A. Livestock Grazing). 
There also is some protection provided through Federal land management 
under the BLM RMP and future energy lease notices (See Factor A. 
Mining, and Oil and Gas Leasing and Exploration). However, existing 
land management does not protect the site from loss of water due to 
groundwater pumping or the possibility of nonnative fish invasion. We 
are unaware of any land management protection mechanisms on SITLA 
lands.
    (3) Gandy Salt Marsh: Land ownership includes BLM, SITLA, and 
private lands (Wilson 2009c, pers. comm.). The BLM has designated 919 
ha (2,270 ac) as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) that 
is closed to oil and gas leasing to protect the least chub. The ACEC 
includes most of the lake bed and aquatic habitats and is fenced to 
exclude livestock (BLM 1992, pp. 11, 16, 18). This level of land 
management is adequate to protect the site from human-caused impacts 
associated with energy development and livestock grazing on Federal 
lands, but does not protect the habitat on SITLA or private lands. In 
addition, there is not protection from the loss of water due to 
groundwater pumping or the possibility of nonnative fish invasion.
    (4) Bishop Springs Complex: Land ownership is primarily private, 
but includes SITLA and BLM lands (Wilson 2009c, pers. comm.). In 2006, 
UDWR purchased water rights from the landowner for Foote Reservoir and 
Bishop Twin Springs (a.k.a. Bishop Small Springs) (Wilson 2009c, pers. 
comm.). These water bodies provide most of the perennial water to the

[[Page 35412]]

complex (Hines et al. 2008, p. 37). In 2008, UDWR obtained a permit for 
permanent change of use from the USE for instream flow according to a 
seasonal schedule. This instream flow helps to maintain water levels at 
Bishop Springs Complex, protecting the least chub and Columbia spotted 
frog populations (Hines et al. 2008, p. 37). The UDWR-owned instream 
flow water rights may protect least chub populations in this area from 
loss of water due to existing private landowner uses. However, this 
level of land management cannot protect for the possibility of 
nonnative fish invasion or impacts associated with livestock grazing on 
private lands, and it may not be adequate to protect the site from the 
indirect loss of water associated with future large-scale groundwater 
pumping. We are unaware of any land management protection mechanisms on 
SITLA lands.
    (5) Mills Valley: Most of the Mills Valley site is privately owned, 
and no management agreements are in place. The UDWR is working with 
landowners to improve the current grazing management plans (Hines et 
al. 2008, p. 43). Approximately 36.4 ha (90 ac) is owned by UDWR as the 
Mills Meadow WMA (Wilson 2009c, pers. comm.). Livestock grazing rights 
at this WMA are awarded to adjacent landowners in exchange for public 
and UDWR access to their property (Stahli and Crockett 2008, p. 5). The 
limited amount of habitat owned by UDWR provides some protection from 
direct habitat loss and other direct human-caused impacts, and UDWR's 
efforts to work with private landowners may provide protection on some 
private land. However, this level of land management cannot protect the 
area from all impacts associated with livestock grazing (see Factor A. 
Livestock Grazing), loss of water caused by groundwater pumping, or 
from the threat of nonnative fish that are now at this site.
    (6) Clear Lake: This population occurs on the Clear Lake WMA, which 
is managed by UDWR (Wilson 2009c, pers. comm.). The land owned and 
managed by UDWR provides protection from direct habitat loss associated 
with human land-uses, including livestock grazing. However, this level 
of land management cannot protect the area from loss of water caused by 
groundwater pumping or from the threat of nonnative fish that are now 
at this site.
(2) State Mechanisms
    Least chub are considered ``prohibited'' species under the Utah 
Collection Importation and Possession of Zoological Animals Rule (R-
657-3-1), making them unlawful to collect or possess. These species 
receive protection from unauthorized collection and take. While its 
classification is not a regulatory mechanism, the least chub is 
classified in the State of Utah Wildlife Action Plan as a Tier 1 
Sensitive Species, a status that includes federally listed species and 
species for which a conservation agreement has been completed and 
implemented (Bailey et al. 2005, p.3). This classification includes 
species for which there is credible scientific evidence to substantiate 
a threat to continued population viability.
    Introduced nonnative fishes for mosquito abatement and game-fishing 
purposes can be detrimental to the persistence of least chub (see 
Factor C. Predation). The UDWR follows their Policy for Fish Stocking 
and Transfer Procedures and no longer stocks nonnative fish into least 
chub habitat (Hines et al. 2008, p. 25). This Statewide policy 
specifies protocols for the introduction of nonnative species into Utah 
waters and states that all stocking actions must be consistent with 
ongoing recovery and conservation actions for State of Utah sensitive 
species, including least chub. This policy is not expected to change in 
the foreseeable future.
    Mosquito abatement districts are not prohibited from spraying least 
chub habitat to control for mosquitoes. This practice has the potential 
to reduce least chub prey items, and it may negatively affect potential 
reintroduction sites. The BLM has rejected a Juab County (location of 
Mills Valley and Leland Harris Springs Complex least chub populations) 
request to implement a mosquito-control spraying program in marsh and 
spring areas on BLM-administered lands; however, this does not prevent 
the county from spraying on privately owned lands (Perkins et al. 1998, 
p. 24).
    In summary, abatement districts may be having an effect on least 
chub populations by spraying to reduce mosquito larvae. On the basis of 
the information we have at this time, we do not believe that mosquito 
spraying is having a significant effect on least chub at an individual 
or population level. As a result, we do not find that it is a 
significant threat to the species.
    The State of Utah operates under guidelines to prevent the movement 
of aquatic invasive species, including quagga mussels (Dreissena sp.), 
zebra mussels (Dreissena sp.), and mud snails (Potamopyrgus sp.) during 
fish transfer operations (UDWR 2009, entire). Protocols include 
notification and evaluation of water sources being considered for fish 
transfers, fish health inspections, and completion of an updated Hazard 
Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan. These protocols should help 
reduce the probability of additional aquatic invasive species 
introductions to least chub habitats.
    Regulatory mechanisms that relate to historic groundwater 
withdrawal are implemented through the USE through the UDWRi, the 
Lincoln County Water Conservancy District, and the Central Iron County 
Water Conservancy District as described in Factor A. Water Withdrawal 
and Diversion section. Groundwater withdrawal in the Snake Valley for 
future municipal development is subject to both Federal and State 
regulatory processes. The LCCRDA directed a study of groundwater 
quantity, quality, and flow characteristics in Utah and Nevada 
counties, and the Utah State Legislature requested a study on 
groundwater recharge and discharge to better determine effects of 
planned groundwater withdrawal. The SNWA may begin pumping groundwater 
for a portion of their proposed projects prior to completion of the 
study that will help better disclose effects of the action. A lack of 
data on effects of groundwater withdrawal to least chub is a concern, 
and the ability of water districts to effectively manage groundwater to 
avoid impacts to least chub populations has not been demonstrated. (See 
Factor A. Water Withdrawal and Diversion for more detail.) Therefore, 
we find that the State regulatory mechanisms in existence do not 
adequately protect the least chub from the threat of reduction of 
habitat due to water development projects.
(3) Federal Mechanisms
    The major Federal mechanisms for protection of least chub and its 
habitat are through section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
et seq.) permitting process and the National Environmental Policy Act 
(42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) (NEPA). Various Executive Orders (11990 for 
wetlands, 11988 for floodplains, and 13112 for invasive species) 
provide guidance and incentives for Federal land management agencies to 
manage for habitat characteristics essential for least chub 
conservation.
    The primary Federal land management entity across the range of 
extant least chub populations is the BLM. The least chub is designated 
as a sensitive species by the BLM in Utah. The policy in BLM Manual 
6840-Special Status Species Management states: ``Consistent with the 
principles of

[[Page 35413]]

multiple use and in compliance with existing laws, the BLM shall 
designate sensitive species and implement species management plans to 
conserve these species and their habitats and shall ensure that 
discretionary actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM 
would not result in significant decreases in the overall range-wide 
species population and their habitats'' (BLM 2008, p. 10).
    The NEPA has a provision for the Service to assume a cooperating 
agency role for Federal projects undergoing evaluation for significant 
impacts to the human environment. This includes participating in 
updates to RMPs. As a cooperating agency, we have the opportunity to 
provide recommendations to the action agency to avoid impacts or 
enhance conservation for least chub and its habitat. For projects where 
we are not a cooperating agency, we often review proposed actions and 
provide recommendations to minimize and mitigate impacts to fish and 
wildlife resources.
    Acceptance of our NEPA recommendations is at the discretion of the 
action agency. The BLM land management practices are intended to ensure 
avoidance of negative effects to species whenever possible, while also 
providing for multiple-use mandates; therefore, maintaining or 
enhancing least chub habitat is considered in conjunction with other 
agency priorities.
    As described in Factor A, BLM designated the Gandy Salt Marsh as an 
ACEC, and it is closed to oil and gas leasing (Jimenez 2009, pers. 
comm.). In addition, the Fillmore Oil and Gas Environmental Assessment 
provides lease notices that can protect least chub and their habitats. 
We conclude in Factor A that oil and gas recovery on BLM lands near 
least chub habitats is anticipated to occur at a slow rate and is not 
considered a significant threat now or in the foreseeable future. The 
aforementioned lease notices and other potential RMP protection 
measures will thus be beneficial for site-specific management; however, 
we do not anticipate a significant threat from activities on BLM lands 
to the existence of the least chub. Therefore, we find that the current 
regulatory structure for oil and gas leasing is adequate to protect 
least chub and its habitat from this potential threat.
    Least chub population areas contain wetland habitats, and section 
404 of the Clean Water Act regulates fill in wetlands that meet certain 
jurisdictional requirements. Activities that result in fill of 
jurisdictional wetland habitat require a section 404 permit. We can 
review permit applications and provide recommendations to avoid and 
minimize impacts and implement conservation measures for fish and 
wildlife resources, including the least chub. However, incorporation of 
Service recommendations into section 404 permits is at the discretion 
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, not all activities in 
wetlands involve fill and not all wetlands are ``jurisdictional.'' 
Regardless, we have evaluated threats to the species' habitat where 
fill of wetlands may occur, including peat mining and oil and gas 
development. At this time we do not have information to indicate that 
this is at a level that threatens the species now or in the foreseeable 
future.
Summary of Factor D
    We find that regulatory mechanisms related specifically to land 
management are sufficient for mitigating potential threats from land 
development to the least chub at four of the population sites: Mona 
Springs (URMCC land acquisition), Gandy Salt Marsh (BLM ACEC), Bishop 
Springs (protection of water rights), and Clear Lake (UDWR WMA). The 
UDWR continues to work with landowners at Mills Valley and the Leland 
Harris Spring Complex to implement beneficial grazing practices and 
maintain fences; however, because livestock-grazing-related impacts are 
still observed at most extant least chub sites, we determined that 
grazing is considered a significant threat to the least chub (see 
Factor A. Livestock Grazing).
    The BLM has provided protective mechanisms in the form of lease 
notices for conservation agreement and sensitive species, including the 
least chub, which can minimize impacts from oil and gas drilling. We 
also retain the ability to comment on NEPA evaluations for other 
projects on BLM lands that may impact the least chub. We determined 
that oil and gas drilling is not a threat to the least chub given the 
low level of expected energy development in the area (see Factor A. 
Mining, and Oil and Gas Leasing and Development).
    Regulatory mechanisms are not in place to sufficiently protect the 
least chub from local or large-scale groundwater withdrawal. See Factor 
A for more information regarding water rights and proposed groundwater 
withdrawal.
    Although mosquito spraying is not prevented by regulatory 
mechanisms, we have no information indicating that mosquito spraying is 
a significant threat to the least chub.
    We find that the inadequacy of existing mechanisms to regulate 
groundwater withdrawal is a threat now and in the foreseeable future 
for the least chub.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence.

    Natural and manmade threats to the species include: (1) 
hybridization; (2) loss of genetic diversity; (3) stochastic 
disturbance and population isolation; (4) drought and climate change; 
and (5) cumulative effects.
(1) Hybridization
    Hybridization can be a concern for some fish populations. An 
introgressed population results when a genetically similar species is 
introduced into or invades least chub habitat, the two species 
interbreed (i.e., hybridize), and the resulting hybrids survive and 
reproduce. If the hybrids backcross with one or both of the parental 
species, genetic introgression occurs (Schwaner and Sullivan 2009, p. 
198). Continual introgression can eventually lead to the loss of 
genetic identity of one or both parent species, thus resulting in a 
``hybrid swarm'' consisting entirely of individual fish that often 
contain variable proportions of genetic material from both of the 
parental species (Miller and Behnke 1985, p. 514).
    Hybridization is commonly associated with disturbed environments 
(Hubbs 1955, p. 18). In complex habitats, reproductive isolator 
mechanisms can be eliminated as a result of habitat alteration and 
degradation, and resultantly, overlaps of reproductive niches and 
breakdowns of behavior occur due to overcrowding (Crawford 1979, p. 74; 
Lamarra 1981, p. 7). The Bonneville Basin has suffered major 
alterations to its aquatic environments, including loss of habitat 
through water diversions (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 39). Disturbances 
allow dispersal of species to habitats where they did not naturally 
occur. Water diversions may allow isolated springs that previously held 
distinctly separate populations (allopatric) to overlap habitats 
(sympatry) and present an opportunity for hybridization to occur. 
Habitats such as playa marshes of the Utah west desert may become 
restricted to spring heads as a result of water diversion, drought, and 
climate change. Inadequate habitat diversity forces sympatric species 
into close spawning proximity. Hybridization is even more likely since 
least chub are broadcast spawners for an extended period of time, and 
this timeframe can overlap with the spawning period of other species, 
including the native Utah chub and

[[Page 35414]]

speckled dace (Crawford 1979, p. 74; Miller and Behnke 1985, p. 509).
    A morphometric study of specimens collected in 1977 and 1978 
documented hybridization of least chub with Utah chub (Gila atraria) 
and speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) at five locations (Workman et 
al. 1979, pp. 156-158; Miller and Behnke 1985, p. 510). Least chub 
populations no longer occur at three of these locations, and the other 
two - Gandy Salt Marsh and Bishop Springs (documented as Foote 
Reservoir at the time) - are relatively healthy least chub populations 
that had no evidence of hybridization in genetic samples collected in 
1997. Although no hybridization-specific studies have been conducted on 
least chub, recent genetic investigations have not documented 
hybridization in extant least chub populations (Mock and Miller 2003, 
p. 10).
    In summary, most habitats where least chub hybrids were found in 
the late 1970s consisted of altered systems that lacked the complexity 
required for reproductive isolation. Least chub no longer occur at 
three of these sites, and no new evidence of hybridization has surfaced 
for the other two extant locations. Despite the recorded incidence of 
hybridization in the past, there are no known new occurrences. 
Therefore, hybridization is not considered a significant threat to the 
least chub now or in the foreseeable future.
(2) Loss of Genetic Diversity
    The level of genetic diversity in individual fish populations 
influences survival and adaptability to environmental change. 
Maintaining sufficient levels of genetic diversity within all least 
chub populations is important, primarily because they exist in small, 
isolated populations compared to the once-expansive historical 
populations of Lake Bonneville. Maintaining genetic diversity in 
refugia and source populations is important as well.
    The patterns of genetic divergence and diversity within and among 
populations were described for five of the six naturally occurring 
least chub populations (six including the population now functionally 
extirpated at Mona Springs), representing three of the known locations 
(Snake Valley and Mona Springs in the Great Salt Lake subbasin, and 
Mills Valley in the Sevier subbasin) (Mock and Miller 2005, pp. 273-
275). The analysis included amplified fragment-length polymorphism 
analysis and mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Pronounced, but temporally 
shallow, genetic structuring among these three locations was apparent 
and consistent with patterns of recent and historical hydrogeographic 
isolation. The most genetically divergent population in this analysis 
was in Mona Springs, at the extreme southeastern reach of the Great 
Salt Lake subbasin, followed by the Mills Valley population in the 
Sevier subbasin. The three Snake Valley populations (Leland Harris 
Spring Complex, Gandy Salt Marsh, and Bishop Springs) were genetically 
similar, which is expected due to their spatial proximity. The sixth 
and southernmost population at Clear Lake was not included in the 
initial analyses (Mock and Miller 2005, pp. 273-275), but later 
analysis indicated that the population is most similar to the Mills 
Valley population, which is consistent with their location in the 
Sevier subbasin. The Clear Lake population was distinct from, and 
possibly more diverse than, the Mills Valley population (Mock and 
Bjerregaard 2007, p. 146).
    Genetic diversity within naturally occurring least chub populations 
appears to be healthy with respect to molecular diversity (Mock and 
Miller 2005, pp. 273-275). Gandy Salt Marsh and Leland Harris Spring 
Complex contain the highest diversity. This suggests that: (1) These 
least chub populations are large enough to avoid significant historical 
genetic drift as their populations become more isolated from each 
other; or (2) these populations have been historically large, and their 
recent decline has been so rapid that the loss of population genetic 
diversity is not yet detectable. Genetic drift affects the genetic 
makeup of the population but, unlike natural selection, through an 
entirely random process. So although genetic drift is a mechanism of 
evolution, it does not work to produce adaptations. Thus, genetic drift 
may rapidly reduce population-level genetic diversity if populations 
stay small or are subject to continued bottlenecks (Mock and Miller 
2005, p. 276).
    Translocated populations in Lucin and Walter Springs maintained the 
genetic identity of their source populations (Gandy Salt Marsh and 
Leland Harris Spring Complex for Lucin Springs, and Leland Harris 
Spring Complex for Walter Springs) and showed no evidence of a genetic 
bottleneck (Mock and Miller 2005, pp. 273-275). However, this result is 
not unusual because these translocated populations were separated from 
their source populations for only a few generations. Bottlenecks in 
confined, strong-source, and refugial populations can lead to adaptive 
divergence that is not yet detectable with genetic techniques but may 
be reflected in behavioral changes and habitat adaptations as a result 
of the hatchery environment. These may cause a loss of fitness in 
naturally occurring populations if refugia and source individuals are 
used in a supplemental capacity (Mock and Miller 2005, pp. 273-275).
    In summary, we find that extant wild least chub natural populations 
show adequate genetic diversity to sustain healthy populations, and 
bottlenecks are not apparent in wild, transplanted, or hatchery 
populations. As described in part (3) of this section, refugia exist 
for four of the five persisting wild sites, and these can provide 
supplementation to the genetic pools of individual populations if 
necessary.
(3) Environmentally Stochastic Disturbance and Population Isolation
    Environmentally stochastic events can include several types of 
natural events, such as drought, wildfire and its resultant effects, or 
flood. Least chub populations could be affected by drought, especially 
when exacerbated by water withdrawal or, potentially, climate change. 
We address climate change in part (4) of this section.
    Least chub populations are isolated, both naturally and as the 
result of human impacts. Habitat connectivity is absent among the three 
east/southeast Bonneville Basin populations, and the west desert 
populations are similarly disconnected except in years of exceptionally 
high water (Perkins et al. 1998, p. 23). We have no evidence of least 
chub populations being affected by fire or its resultant effect such as 
siltation; however, one translocated population was eliminated by 
flooding of the Great Salt Lake (see Translocation section).
    Translocated least chub populations can successfully maintain 
genetic diversity of wild populations (Mock and Miller 2005, pp. 273-
277). Refuge or hatchery populations are established for three (Bishop 
Spring Complex, Mills Valley, and Clear Lake) of the five extant least 
chub populations as well as for the functionally extirpated Mona 
Springs population (Hines et al. 2008, pp. 34-50). Until management 
measures can be implemented to increase the quantity and quality of new 
sites and existing habitats, refuge populations provide a source of 
genetic material that stores adaptive differences not detectable with 
molecular markers that may vary within populations. These might include 
habitat quality parameters, seasonal temperature regimes, life-history 
traits, and morphology (Mock and Miller 2003,

[[Page 35415]]

pp. 18-19; Mock and Bjerregaard 2007, p. 146).
    In summary, loss of connectivity resulting in small, genetically 
isolated populations is a concern and requires ongoing monitoring; 
however, genetic stocks from four wild least chub populations are 
available from established refugia to augment the gene pools of extant 
populations and prevent genetic bottlenecks. Therefore, we have 
determined that environmentally stochastic disturbance and population 
isolation is not considered a threat to the least chub now or in the 
foreseeable future.
(4) Climate Change
    The groundwater flow system encompassing least chub habitat is 
affected by natural climatic conditions, primarily precipitation and 
temperature (Welch et al. 2007, p. 37). Least chub have evolved in the 
Great Basin desert ecosystem, demonstrating their ability to withstand 
historical climatic variability, including drought conditions (Hines et 
al. 2008, pp. 19, 26). However, under future climatic conditions and 
the added pressure of human water consumption, these evolutionary 
adaptations may not be adequate to guarantee long-term survival of 
least chub populations.
    Climate variability adds uncertainty to predictions of water 
recharge and availability of natural aquifers (Welch et al. 2007, p. 
48). Predictions of future climatic conditions can no longer rely on 
analysis of past climatic trends, but must instead take into account 
predicted global climate change. Therefore, it is important to consider 
how future climatic conditions may impact least chub. Both the IPCC and 
the U.S. Global Climate Change Program conclude that changes to 
climatic conditions, such as temperature and precipitation regimes, are 
occurring and are expected to continue in western North America over 
the next 100 years (Parson et al. 2000, p. 248; Smith et al. 2000, p. 
220; Solomon et al. 2007, p. 70 Table TS.6; Trenberth et al. 2007, pp. 
252-253, 262-263). In western North America, surface warming 
corresponds with reduced mountain snowpack (Mote et al. 2005 and 
Regonda et al. 2005, cited in Vicuna and Dracup 2007, p. 330; Trenberth 
et al. 2007, p. 310) and a trend toward earlier snowmelt (Stewart et 
al. 2004, pp. 217, 219, 223).
    Utah has experienced about 1.6 [deg]C (2.9 [deg]F) of warming over 
the last 100 years (1908-2007) (Saunders et al. 2008, p. 44). Modeling 
of future climate change for Utah projects the State to warm more than 
the average for the entire globe, with fewer frost days, longer growing 
seasons, and more heat waves (UBRAC 2007, p. 2). Although exact 
temperature increases are not known, projected temperature rise in the 
southwestern United States by 2050 ranges between 1.4 and 2.0 [deg]C 
(2.5 and 4.5 [deg]F) for a lower emissions scenario, and between 2.5 
and 3.1 [deg]C (3.5 and 5.5 [deg]F) for a higher emissions scenario 
(USGCRP 2009, p. 129).
    Precipitation models predict a reduction in mountain snowpack, a 
threat of severe and prolonged episodic drought (UBRAC 2007, p. 3), and 
a decline in summer precipitation across all of Utah (p. 18). However, 
Utah is in the transition zone for predicted changes in winter 
precipitation (between the northwest and southwest United States), 
resulting in low confidence in future winter precipitation trends 
(UBRAC 2007, p 18).
    More locally to least chub, the hydrology of the Great Salt Lake 
Basin will be impacted by changes in mountain runoff (UBRAC 2007, p. 
18). While predictions indicate that the Great Salt Lake Basin will be 
affected by declining mountain snowpack and the resulting runoff, the 
timing and extent of these changes are unclear (UBRAC 2007, p. 19). 
Drought conditions and higher evaporation rates result in lowered 
groundwater levels, reduced spring flows, and reductions in size and 
depth of pool habitat for least chub (Wilson 2006, p. 8). Although 
current data and climate predictions do not indicate the exact nature 
of future changes to extant least chub habitat sites, we can assume 
that similar effects will be likely.
    Because the least chub depends on small, ephemeral springfed 
wetlands for major portions of its life history (spawning, nursery 
niches, and feeding) and the amount of this habitat available will 
likely be reduced and restricted to spring heads, the severity of 
climate change is an important factor in the species' persistence. 
Under circumstances of restricted habitats, both hybridization and 
extirpation have occurred (Hubbs 1955, p. 18; Miller and Behnke 1985, 
p. 514). Additionally, the species is bound by dispersal barriers 
throughout its range and cannot retreat to additional habitats or 
easily recolonize areas after they have been extirpated.
    Despite the clear evidence that climate change has had an effect on 
temperature over the last 100 years, as well as its potential causal 
association with more intense drought conditions that were experienced 
in the southwestern United States over the last decade (see Factor A. 
Drought), the information available to us at this time does not suggest 
that climate change alone is a significant threat to least chub. While 
climate change is likely to have affected aquatic resources to some 
extent in the past, including habitat used by least chub, at this time 
our analysis indicates that groundwater withdrawal historically caused 
a more significant long-term impact and that separating the effects of 
climate change from those of groundwater withdrawal is not possible. 
Likewise, we determine that groundwater withdrawal will be the 
overriding impact to least chub in the foreseeable future.
(5) Cumulative Effects
    We cannot completely predict the cumulative effects of climate 
change, current and future groundwater withdrawal, and drought on least 
chub at this time, but we know that each will occur to some extent and 
be compounded by the others. At least five Snake Valley populations, 
and as many as 15 springs of occupied least chub sites, have been 
extirpated in the last 30 years as a result of drought or irrigation 
practices (see previous sections, Historical Occurrences and Current 
Distribution). Snake Valley harbors the last remaining native habitats 
and the last three naturally occurring least chub populations that are 
not severely impacted by nonnative fish and urbanization.
    The effects of proposed large-scale groundwater withdrawal as 
described in Factor A are likely to compound the effects that localized 
groundwater development has had on least chub. As described above, past 
water development in localized areas has resulted in drying of least 
chub habitat and the extirpation of the species from these habitats. 
Extant least chub habitats will likely be impacted by reduced water and 
consequently wetted area and wetland habitat reductions will result 
from these threats individually, and will be compounded cumulatively 
with drought and climate change. The cumulative effect of these three 
threats will likely intensify the probable effects described in Factor 
A: Water Withdrawal and Diversions, Drought, and Factor E: Climate 
Change.
    In summary, we find that the potential combinations of drought, 
current and future groundwater withdrawal, and climate change are 
likely to occur and be significant threats to least chub in the 
foreseeable future. Significant effects have already occurred as a 
result of drought and water diversions, and least chub populations in 
Snake Valley have been extirpated.

[[Page 35416]]

Summary of Factor E
    We assessed the potential risks of hybridization, loss of genetic 
diversity, and environmentally stochastic disturbance to least chub 
populations. Limited hybridization was documented in the late 1970s at 
five sites; however, least chub are no longer found at these sites or 
recent genetic analysis shows that hybridization is no longer an issue 
for extant populations. Levels of genetic diversity are appropriate to 
sustain least chub populations, and genetic refuges exist for three of 
five extant populations. The available information does not suggest 
that environmentally stochastic disturbance threatens extant least chub 
populations, and if necessary, refugia populations are available to 
augment existing populations. Based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available, we conclude that least chub is not, 
now or in the foreseeable future, threatened by hybridization, loss of 
genetic diversity, or environmentally stochastic disturbance.
    Least chub have persisted for thousands of years, and naturally 
occurring drought does not significantly threaten the species. Climate 
models predict that the State may warm more than average, with more 
heat waves, less mountain snowpack, and a decline in summer 
precipitation. It also is clear that historic and current water 
withdrawal, combined with the effects of drought, have had significant 
negative effects on least chub. It is anticipated that these phenomena 
will combine to reduce the quality and quantity of least chub habitat, 
and that when combined with the effects of climate change, these three 
factors will significantly threaten the least chub.
    Therefore, we find that the least chub is at risk of extinction now 
and in the foreseeable future because of the cumulative effects of 
climate change, current and future groundwater withdrawal, and drought.
    It is difficult to predict the foreseeable future regarding the 
cumulative effects of climate change, groundwater withdrawal, and 
drought and their resultant effects to least chub. Drought is a natural 
event that could happen at any time and is, therefore, a factor 
considered for the foreseeable future. Current estimates for climate 
change are most accurate for change in temperature, but not 
precipitation; and climatic models are generally accurate to about 2030 
for this parameter (Solomon et al. 2007, p. 74). Thus, for cumulative 
effects of climate change, groundwater withdrawal, and drought, it is 
anticipated that large-scale groundwater pumping will be the overriding 
factor now and in the foreseeable future.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether the least chub is threatened or endangered throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. We have carefully examined the best 
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, 
present, and future threats faced by the least chub. We reviewed the 
petition, information available in our files, other available published 
and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized least 
chub experts and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies. In 
considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond 
the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the 
species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to 
the species. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, 
the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how 
significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive 
or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the 
species warrants listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are 
defined by the Act.
    On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we find that listing of the least chub as threatened or 
endangered is warranted. We will make a determination on the status of 
the species as threatened or endangered when we do a proposed listing 
determination. However, as explained in more detail below, an immediate 
proposal of a regulation implementing this action is precluded by 
higher priority listing actions, and progress is being made to add or 
remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants.
    Review of least chub historic population trends shows that the 
current distribution of the least chub is highly reduced from its 
historic range. In the late nineteenth century, least chub were very 
common in tributaries to Sevier, Utah, and the Great Salt Lakes and for 
the next 50 years, surveys demonstrated that this species was found 
across the Bonneville Basin in Utah, including Snake Valley. By the 
1940s and 1950s, the numbers of least chub in range and abundance 
surveys were definitely decreasing with only 11 extant populations 
existing by 1979, and 3 extant wild populations known in 1995. UDWR 
surveys in the 1990s and 2000s discovered three new populations on the 
eastern extent of the historic range; however, one of these populations 
is functionally extirpated. The Service now considers five extant, 
wild, viable populations to exist, with only three (all in Snake 
Valley) being considered secure from the effects of nonnative fish.
    This status review found threats to the least chub related to 
Factors A, C, D, and E, as described in the following paragraphs and 
summarized in Table 4. We find that the best available information for 
Factor A indicates that listing the least chub as threatened or 
endangered under the Act is warranted due to the effects of livestock 
grazing and water withdrawal and diversions on the species and its 
habitat. Although the LCCAS and the UDWR have worked to protect least 
chub habitat with grazing enclosures where possible and grazing 
management plans in some areas, livestock-grazing-related impacts are 
still observed at most least chub sites. There is substantial evidence 
showing the negative effect of historical groundwater withdrawal on 
least chub. While uncertainty exists on the magnitude of effects to the 
least chub from proposed large-scale groundwater pumping, concern 
regarding the remaining five extant, wild populations is sufficient to 
indicate that the species is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable 
future, especially when combined with the threat of drought.
    We find that the best available information concerning Factor C 
(Predation) indicates that listing the least chub as threatened or 
endangered under the Act is warranted due to the continuing threat of 
nonnative species, particularly mosquitofish, for which there is no 
known means of control. Several significant efforts have been made to 
remove mosquitofish from least chub habitats, without success. The wild 
least chub population at Mona Springs is functionally extirpated due to 
mosquitofish, and nonnative fish are present at two of the five 
remaining viable populations.
    We find that the best available information concerning Factor D 
(Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms) indicates that the least 
chub is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future due to 
inadequacy of existing regulations to regulate groundwater withdrawals 
and ameliorate their effects on least chub habitat.
    We find that the best available information concerning Factor E 
(Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence) 
indicates that the least chub is at risk of extinction in the 
foreseeable future because of the cumulative effects of drought, 
current

[[Page 35417]]

and future groundwater withdrawal, and climate change on the remaining 
naturally occurring populations in Snake Valley.

 Table 4.--Summary of least chub status and threats by population in the
                             United States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Current & Future
           Population              Current  Status         Threats
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leland Harris Spring Complex     Extant              Factor A. Livestock
                                                      grazing,
                                                      groundwater
                                                      withdrawal,
                                                      drought.
 
Gandy Salt Marsh                 Extant              ...................
 
Bishop Springs Complex           Extant              Factor C. Nonnative
                                                      fishes.
 
Mills Valley                     Extant              Factor D.
                                                      Inadequacy of
                                                      existing
                                                      mechanisms to
                                                      regulate
                                                      groundwater
                                                      withdrawal.
                                                     Factor E.
                                                      Cumulative effects
                                                      of climate change,
                                                      groundwater
                                                      withdrawal, &
                                                      drought.
================================
Mona Springs                     Extirpated          Factor A.
                                                      Groundwater
                                                      withdrawal,
                                                      drought.
                                                     Factor C. Nonnative
                                                      fishes.
 
Clear Lake                       Extant              Factor D.
                                                      Inadequacy of
                                                      existing
                                                      mechanisms to
                                                      regulate
                                                      groundwater
                                                      withdrawal.
                                                     Factor E.
                                                      Cumulative effects
                                                      of climate change,
                                                      groundwater
                                                      withdrawal, &
                                                      drought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because our finding on the petition to list is warranted but 
precluded, we do not need to specifically determine whether it is 
appropriate to perform a ``significant portion of the range'' analysis 
for this species. Because of a small and restricted population 
distribution, and because of threats described above, the least chub 
should be listed as threatened or endangered throughout its entire 
range. We will review whether to list the species as threatened or 
endangered during the proposed listing rule process.
    We have reviewed the available information to determine if the 
existing and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of 
extinction now such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily 
listing the species as per section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. We 
have determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily 
listing the species is not warranted for this species at this time 
because five populations persist, three are currently free from 
nonnative species, and all are currently free from large-scale 
groundwater pumping. However, if at any time we determine that issuing 
an emergency regulation temporarily listing the least chub is 
warranted, we will initiate this action at that time.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in 
relation to the resources that are available and competing demands for 
those resources. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors 
dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed 
listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is 
warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing actions.
    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for 
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the 
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the 
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual 
determinations on prior ``warranted but precluded'' petition findings 
as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat 
petition findings; proposed and final rules designating critical 
habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management 
functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to 
Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach 
regarding listing and critical habitat).
    The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be 
extensive and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and 
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and 
conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and 
publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public 
comments and peer review comments on proposed rules and incorporating 
relevant information into final rules. The number of listing actions 
that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the 
complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions 
generally are more costly. For example, during the past several years, 
the cost (excluding publication costs) for preparing a 12-month 
finding, without a proposed rule, has ranged from approximately $11,000 
for one species with a restricted range and involving a relatively 
uncomplicated analysis to $305,000 for another species that is wide-
ranging and involving a complex analysis.
    We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program 
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since 
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended 
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for 
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent 
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example, 
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other 
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see 
House Report 105-163, 105\th\ Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
    Recognizing that designation of critical habitat for species 
already listed would consume most of the overall Listing Program 
appropriation, Congress also put a critical habitat subcap in place in 
FY 2002 and has retained it each subsequent year to ensure that some 
funds are available for other work in the Listing Program: ``The 
critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is 
available to address other listing activities'' (House Report No. 107 - 
103, 107\th\ Congress, 1st

[[Page 35418]]

Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the 
Service has had to use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to 
address court-mandated designations of critical habitat, and 
consequently none of the critical habitat subcap funds have been 
available for other listing activities. In FY 2007, we were able to use 
some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing 
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In FY 2009, while 
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund 
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so 
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat 
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more 
efficient in our work. In FY 2010, we are using some of the critical 
habitat subcap funds to fund actions with statutory deadlines.
    Thus, through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the 
amount of funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat 
designations, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the 
amount of money available for other listing activities. Therefore, the 
funds in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-
mandated critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on 
our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
    Congress also recognized that the availability of resources was the 
key element in deciding, when making a 12-month petition finding, 
whether we would prepare and issue a listing proposal or instead make a 
``warranted but precluded'' finding for a given species. The Conference 
Report accompanying Public Law 97-304, which established the current 
statutory deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states (in 
a discussion on 90-day petition findings that by its own terms also 
covers 12-month findings) that the deadlines were ``not intended to 
allow the Secretary to delay commencing the rulemaking process for any 
reason other than that the existence of pending or imminent proposals 
to list species subject to a greater degree of threat would make 
allocation of resources to such a petition [that is, for a lower-
ranking species] unwise.''
    In FY 2010, expeditious progress is that amount of work that can be 
achieved with $10,471,000, which is the amount of money that Congress 
appropriated for the Listing Program (that is, the portion of the 
Listing Program funding not related to critical habitat designations 
for species that are already listed). However these funds are not 
enough to fully fund all our court-ordered and statutory listing 
actions in FY 2010, so we are using $1,114,417 of our critical habitat 
subcap funds in order to work on all of our required petition findings 
and listing determinations. This brings the total amount of funds we 
have for listing actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our process is to 
make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure 
that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and 
also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. The 
$11,585,417 is being used to fund work in the following categories: 
compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements 
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed 
by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with 
absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related, 
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species.
    In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the 
Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority, 
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program. 
Starting in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is being used to work on 
the actions described above as they apply to listing actions for 
foreign species. This has the potential to further reduce funding 
available for domestic listing actions, although there are currently no 
foreign species issues included in our high-priority listing actions at 
this time. The allocations for each specific listing action are 
identified in the Service's FY 2010 Allocation Table (part of our 
administrative record).
    In FY 2007, we had more than 120 species with an LPN of 2, based on 
our September 21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for each 
candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each 
candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats 
(high vs. moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or 
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of 
priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a 
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, distinct population 
segment, or significant portion of the range)). The lower the listing 
priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species 
with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). Because of 
the large number of high-priority species, we further ranked the 
candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the following extinction-
risk type criteria: International Union for the Conservation of Nature 
and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, Heritage rank 
(provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank (provided by 
NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or 
4 or fewer populations.
    Those species with the highest IUCN rank (critically endangered), 
the highest Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage threat rank 
(substantial, imminent threats), and currently with fewer than 50 
individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, comprised a group of 
approximately 40 candidate species (``Top 40''). These 40 candidate 
species have had the highest priority to receive funding to work on a 
proposed listing determination. As we work on proposed and final 
listing rules for these 40 candidates, we are applying the ranking 
criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN of 2 and 3 to 
determine the next set of highest priority candidate species.
    To be more efficient in our listing process, as we work on proposed 
rules for these species in the next several years, we are preparing 
multispecies proposals when appropriate, and these may include species 
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same 
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, available staff 
resources are also a factor in determining high-priority species 
provided with funding. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of 
threatened species to endangered are lower priority, since as listed 
species, they are already afforded the protection of the Act and 
implementing regulations.
    We assign the least chub a Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 7 based 
on our finding that the species faces threats that are of moderate 
magnitude and high imminence. Under the Service's LPN Guidance 
(September 21, 1983; 48 FR 43098), the magnitude of threat is the first 
criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The guidance 
indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat are those 
species facing the greatest threats to their continued existence. These 
species receive the highest listing priority. At present, the threats 
facing the least chub do not meet the highest magnitude rank, because 
the threats are not of uniform intensity and the level of the threats 
is moderate. Although many of the factors we analyzed (e.g., grazing, 
groundwater withdrawal, nonnative species) are present throughout the 
range, they are

[[Page 35419]]

not to the level that they are causing high-magnitude threats to least 
chub in the majority of the five remaining populations. Grazing, 
groundwater withdrawal, and nonnative predation threats are of high 
magnitude in some populations but are of low magnitude or nonexistent 
in other populations, such that when considering the overall species' 
range, the threats average out to being of moderate magnitude.
    Under our LPN Guidance, the second criterion we consider in 
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This 
criterion is intended to ensure that the species facing actual, 
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats 
are only potential or that are intrinsically vulnerable but are not 
known to be presently facing such threats. We consider the threats 
imminent because we have factual information that the threats are 
identifiable and that the species is currently facing them in many 
portions of its range. These actual, identifiable threats are covered 
in greater detail in factors A and C of this finding and include 
livestock grazing, groundwater withdrawal, and nonnative species 
predation.
    The third criterion in our LPN guidance is intended to devote 
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated 
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. The least chub is a species within 
a monotypic genus, and therefore it receives a higher priority than a 
species, subspecies, or DPS.
    We will continue to monitor the threats to the least chub, and the 
species' status on an annual basis, and should the magnitude or the 
imminence of the threats change, we will revisit our assessment of LPN.
    Because we assigned the least chub an LPN of 7, work on a proposed 
listing determination for the least chub is precluded by work on higher 
priority listing actions with absolute statutory, court ordered, or 
court-approved deadlines and final listing determinations for those 
species that were proposed for listing with funds from FY 2009. This 
work includes all the actions listed in the tables below under 
expeditious progress (see tables 5 and 6).
    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but 
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add or remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. (Although we do not discuss it in 
detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing 
species from the Lists under the Recovery program, which is funded by a 
separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. As 
explained above in our description of the statutory cap on Listing 
Program funds, the Recovery Program funds and actions supported by them 
cannot be considered in determining expeditious progress made in the 
Listing Program.) As with our ``precluded'' finding, expeditious 
progress in adding qualified species to the Lists is a function of the 
resources available and the competing demands for those funds. Given 
that limitation, we find that we are making progress in FY 2010 in the 
Listing Program. This progress included preparing and publishing the 
following determinations:

                                  Table 5.--FY 2010 completed listing actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Publication Date                      Title                   Actions                  FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/08/2009                            Listing Lepidium          Final Listing            74 FR 52013-52064
                                       papilliferum (Slickspot   Threatened
                                       Peppergrass) as a
                                      Threatened Species
                                       Throughout Its Range.
=====================================
10/27/2009                            90-day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         74 FR 55177-55180
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding, Not
                                       American Dipper in the    substantial
                                       Black Hills of South
                                       Dakota as Threatened or
                                       Endangered
=====================================
10/28/2009                            Status Review of Arctic   Notice of Intent to      74 FR 55524-55525
                                       Grayling (Thymallus       Conduct
                                       arcticus) in the Upper   Status Review..........
                                       Missouri River System
=====================================
11/03/2009                            Listing the British       Proposed Listing         74 FR 56757-56770
                                       Columbia Distinct         Threatened
                                       Population Segment of
                                       the Queen Charlotte
                                       Goshawk Under the
                                       Endangered Species Act:
                                       Proposed rule.
=====================================
11/03/2009                            Listing the Salmon-       Proposed Listing         74 FR 56770-56791
                                       Crested Cockatoo as       Threatened
                                       Threatened Throughout
                                       Its Range with Special
                                       Rule
=====================================
11/23/2009                            Status Review of          Notice of Intent to      74 FR 61100-61102
                                       Gunnison sage-grouse      Conduct
                                       (Centrocercus minimus)   Status Review..........
=====================================
12/03/2009                            12-Month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       74 FR 63343-63366
                                       Petition to List the      petition
                                       Black-tailed Prairie     finding, Not warranted.
                                       Dog as Threatened or
                                       Endangered
=====================================
12/03/2009                            90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         74 FR 63337-63343
                                       Petition to List          Petition Finding,
                                       Sprague's Pipit as        Substantial
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered
=====================================
12/15/2009                            90-Day Finding on         Notice of 90-day         74 FR 66260-66271
                                       Petitions To List Nine    Petition Finding,
                                       Species of Mussels From   Substantial
                                       Texas as Threatened or
                                       Endangered With
                                       Critical Habitat
=====================================
12/16/2009                            Partial 90-Day Finding    Notice of 90-day         74 FR 66865-66905
                                       on a Petition to List     Petition Finding, Not
                                       475 Species in the        substantial and
                                       Southwestern United       Subtantial
                                       States as Threatened or
                                       Endangered With
                                       Critical Habitat
=====================================
12/17/2009                            12-month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       74 FR 66937-66950
                                       Petition To Change the    petition
                                       Final Listing of the     finding, Warranted but
                                       Distinct Population       precluded.
                                       Segment of the Canada
                                       Lynx To Include New
                                       Mexico
=====================================

[[Page 35420]]

 
1/05/2010                             Listing Foreign Bird      Proposed Listing         75 FR 605-649
                                       Species in Peru and       Endangered
                                       Bolivia as Endangered
                                       Throughout Their Range
=====================================
1/05/2010                             Listing Six Foreign       Proposed Listing         75 FR 286-310
                                       Birds as Endangered       Endangered
                                       Throughout Their Range
=====================================
1/05/2010                             Withdrawal of Proposed    Proposed rule,           75 FR 310-316
                                       Rule to List Cook's       withdrawal
                                       Petrel
=====================================
1/05/2010                             Final Rule to List the    Final Listing            75 FR 235-250
                                       Galapagos Petrel and      Threatened
                                       Heinroth's Shearwater
                                       as Threatened
                                       Throughout Their Ranges
=====================================
1/20/2010                             Initiation of Status      Notice of Intent to      75 FR 3190-3191
                                       Review for Agave          Conduct
                                       eggersiana and Solanum   Status Review..........
                                       conocarpum
=====================================
2/09/2010                             12-month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       75 FR 6437-6471
                                       Petition to List the      petition
                                       American Pika as         finding, Not warranted.
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered
=====================================
2/25/2010                             12-Month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       75 FR 8601-8621
                                       Petition To List the      petition finding, Not
                                       Sonoran Desert            warranted
                                       Population of the Bald
                                       Eagle as a Threatened
                                       or Endangered Distinct
                                       Population Segment
=====================================
2/25/2010                             Withdrawal of Proposed    Withdrawal of Proposed   75 FR 8621-8644
                                       Rule To List the          Rule to List
                                       Southwestern Washington/
                                       Columbia River Distinct
                                       Population Segment of
                                       Coastal Cutthroat Trout
                                       (Oncorhynchus clarki
                                       clarki) as Threatened
=====================================
3/18/2010                             90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         75 FR 13068-13071
                                       Petition to List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Berry Cave salamander     Substantial
                                       as Endangered
=====================================
3/23/2010                             90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         75 FR 13717-13720
                                       Petition to List the      Petition Finding, Not
                                       Southern Hickorynut       substantial
                                       Mussel (Obovaria
                                       jacksoniana) as
                                       Endangered or
                                       Threatened
=====================================
3/23/2010                             90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         75 FR 13720-13726
                                       Petition to List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Striped Newt as           Substantial
                                       Threatened
=====================================
3/23/2010                             12-Month Findings for     Notice of 12-month       75 FR 13910-14014
                                       Petitions to List the     petition finding,
                                       Greater Sage-Grouse       Warranted but
                                       (Centrocercus             precluded
                                       urophasianus)as
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered
=====================================
3/31/2010                             12-Month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       75 FR 16050-16065
                                       Petition to List the      petition finding,
                                       Tucson Shovel-Nosed       Warranted but
                                       Snake (Chionactis         precluded
                                       occipitalis klauberi)
                                       as Threatened or
                                       Endangered with
                                       Critical Habitat
=====================================
4/5/2010                              90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         75 FR 17062-17070
                                       Petition To List          Petition Finding,
                                       Thorne's Hairstreak       Substantial
                                       Butterfly as or
                                       Endangered
=====================================
4/6/2010                              12-month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       75 FR 17352-17363
                                       Petition To List the      petition finding, Not
                                       Mountain Whitefish in     warranted
                                       the Big Lost River,
                                       Idaho, as Endangered or
                                       Threatened
=====================================
4/6/2010                              90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         75 FR 17363-17367
                                       Petition to List a        Petition Finding, Not
                                       Stonefly (Isoperla        substantial
                                       jewetti) and a Mayfly
                                       (Fallceon eatoni) as
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered with
                                       Critical Habitat
=====================================
4/7/2010                              12-Month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       75 FR 17667-17680
                                       Petition to Reclassify    petition finding,
                                       the Delta Smelt From      Warranted but
                                       Threatened to             precluded
                                       Endangered Throughout
                                       Its Range
=====================================
4/13/2010                             Determination of          Final Listing            75 FR 18959-19165
                                       Endangered Status for     Endangered
                                       48 Species on Kauai and
                                       Designation of Critical
                                       Habitat
=====================================
4/15/2010                             Initiation of Status      Notice of Initiation of  75 FR 19591-19592
                                       Review of the North       Status Review
                                       American Wolverine in
                                       the Contiguous United
                                       States
=====================================
4/15/2010                             12-Month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       75 FR 19592-19607
                                       Petition to List the      petition finding, Not
                                       Wyoming Pocket Gopher     warranted
                                       as Endangered or
                                       Threatened with
                                       Critical Habitat
=====================================
4/16/2010                             90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         75 FR 19925-19935
                                       Petition to List a        Petition Finding,
                                       Distinct Population       Substantial
                                       Segment of the Fisher
                                       in Its United States
                                       Northern Rocky Mountain
                                       Range as Endangered or
                                       Threatened with
                                       Critical Habitat
=====================================
4/20/2010                             Initiation of Status      Notice of Initiation of  75 FR 20547-20548
                                       Review for Sacramento     Status Review
                                       splittail (Pogonichthys
                                       macrolepidotus)
=====================================
4/26/2010                             90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         75 FR 21568-21571
                                       Petition to List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Harlequin Butterfly as    Substantial
                                       Endangered
=====================================

[[Page 35421]]

 
4/27/2010                             12-Month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       75 FR 22012-22025
                                       Petition to List          petition finding, Not
                                       Susan's Purse-making      warranted
                                       Caddisfly (Ochrotrichia
                                       susanae) as Threatened
                                       or Endangered
=====================================
4/27/2010                             90-day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         75 FR 22063-22070
                                       Petition to List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Mohave Ground Squirrel    Substantial
                                       as Endangered with
                                       Critical Habitat
=====================================
5/4/2010                              90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         75 FR 23654-23663
                                       Petition to List Hermes   Petition Finding,
                                       Copper Butterfly as       Substantial
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that 
we funded in FY 2010 but have not yet been completed to date. These 
actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the table are 
being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in the middle 
section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory timelines, 
that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the bottom 
section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These actions 
include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and selection of 
these species is partially based on available staff resources, and when 
appropriate, include species with a lower priority if they overlap 
geographically or have the same threats as the species with the high 
priority. Including these species together in the same proposed rule 
results in considerable savings in time and funding, as compared to 
preparing separate proposed rules for each of them in the future.

       Table 6.--Actions funded in FY 2010 but not yet completed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Species                              Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Birds from Eurasia                        Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flat-tailed horned lizard                   Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain plover                             Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Birds from Peru                           Proposed listing
                                             determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento splittail                        Proposed listing
                                             determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White-tailed prairie dog                    12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnison sage-grouse                        12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine                                   12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic grayling                             12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agave eggergsiana                           12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solanum conocarpum                          12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain plover                             12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorne's Hairstreak Butterfly               12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermes copper butterfly                     12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's june beetle                         Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and  Final listing determination
 rough hornsnail
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Hawaiian damselflies                      Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
African penguin                             Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Foreign bird species (Andean flamingo,    Final listing determination
 Chilean woodstar, St. Lucia forest
 thrush)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Penguin species                           Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern rockhopper penguin - Campbell      Final listing determination
 Plateau population
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 35422]]

 
5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador    Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Bird species from Brazil                  Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Queen Charlotte goshawk                     Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Salmon crested cockatoo                    Proposed listing
                                             determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black-footed albatross                      12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mount Charleston blue butterfly             12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Least chub\1\                               12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mojave fringe-toed lizard\1\                12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy rabbit (rangewide)\1\                 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kokanee - Lake Sammamish population\1\      12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta smelt (uplisting)                     12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl\1\             12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern leopard frog                       12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehachapi slender salamander                12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coqui Llanero                               12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White-sided jackrabbit                      12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jemez Mountains salamander                  12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dusky tree vole                             12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Lake trout\1\                         12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 of 206 species                           12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desert tortoise - Sonoran population        12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gopher tortoise - eastern population        12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amargosa toad                               12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific walrus                              12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrights marsh thistle                       12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
67 of 475 southwest species                 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Southwest mussel species                  12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 parrots (foreign species)                12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Cave salamander\1\                    12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Striped Newt\1\                             12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher - Northern Rocky Mountain Range\1\   12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohave Ground Squirrel\1\                   12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly             12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering   90-day petition finding
 pop. of piping plover\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Lake trout\1\                         90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozark chinquapin\1\                         90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smooth-billed ani\1\                        90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 35423]]

 
Bay Springs salamander\1\                   90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 species of snails and slugs\1\           90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calopogon oklahomensis\1\                   90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White-bark pine                             90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah)            90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI yellow-faced bees                        90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red knot roselaari subspecies               90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honduran emerald                            90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peary caribou                               90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western gull-billed tern                    90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plain bison                                 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giant Palouse earthworm                     90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican gray wolf                           90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly      90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spring pygmy sunfish                        90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco manzanita                     90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay skipper                                 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsilvered fritillary                       90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas kangaroo rat                          90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot-tailed earless lizard                  90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern small-footed bat                    90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern long-eared bat                     90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prairie chub                                90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 species of Great Basin butterfly         90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles                90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gila monster - Utah population              90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden-winged warbler                       90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sand-verbena moth                           90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aztec (beautiful) gilia                     90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arapahoe snowfly                            90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    High Priority Listing Actions\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Oahu candidate species\3\ (16 plants, 3  Proposed listing
 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN
 = 3, 1 with LPN =9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Maui-Nui candidate species\3\ (14        Proposed listing
 plants, 3 tree snails) (12 with LPN = 2,
 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sand dune lizard\3\ (LPN = 2)               Proposed listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Arizona springsnails\3\ (Pyrgulopsis      Proposed listing
 bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
 trivialis (LPN = 2))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 New Mexico springsnails\3\ (Pyrgulopsis   Proposed listing
 chupaderae (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
 thermalis (LPN = 11))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 mussels\3\ (rayed bean (LPN = 2),         Proposed listing
 snuffbox No LPN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 35424]]

 
2 mussels\3\ (sheepnose (LPN = 2),          Proposed listing
 spectaclecase (LPN = 4),)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozark hellbender\2\ (LPN = 3)               Proposed listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altamaha spinymussel\3\ (LPN = 2)           Proposed listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 southeast fish\3\ (rush darter (LPN =     Proposed listing
 2), chucky madtom (LPN = 2), yellowcheek
 darter (LPN = 2), Cumberland darter (LPN
 = 5), laurel dace (LPN = 5))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell   Proposed listing
 (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2),
 Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
 sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN =
 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe
 (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Colorado plants\3\ (Pagosa skyrocket      Proposed listing
 (Ipomopsis polyantha) (LPN = 2), Parchute
 beardtongue (Penstemon debilis) (LPN =
 2), Debeque phacelia (Phacelia submutica)
 (LPN = 8))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
  previous FYs.
\2\ We funded a proposed rule for this subspecies with an LPN of 3 ahead
  of other species with LPN of 2, because the threats to the species
  were so imminent and of a high magnitude that we considered emergency
  listing if we were unable to fund work on a proposed listing rule in
  FY 2008.
\3\ Funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY
  2008 or 2009.

    We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and 
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and 
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are 
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve 
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given 
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions 
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
    The least chub will be added to the list of candidate species upon 
publication of this 12-month finding. We will continue to monitor the 
status of this species as new information becomes available. This 
review will determine if a change in status is warranted, including the 
need to make prompt use of emergency listing procedures.
    We intend that any proposed listing action for the least chub will 
be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to accept 
additional information and comments from all concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Utah Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Utah Field Office.

Authority

    The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: June 4, 2010
Jeffrey L. Underwood
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[FR Doc. 2010-15070 Filed 6-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S