[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5369-5385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01303]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0101; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY25


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Endangered Status for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list the 
Zuni bluehead sucker as an endangered species under the Endangered 
Species Act and propose to designate critical habitat for the species. 
If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's 
protections to this subspecies and its critical habitat. The effect of 
these regulations will be to conserve the Zuni bluehead sucker and 
protect its habitat under the Act.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
March 26, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests 
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by March 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2012-0101, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, 
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may 
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0101; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally ``J'' Murphy, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field 
Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113, by telephone 505-346-
2525 or by facsimile 505-346-2542. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish 
a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our 
proposal within 1 year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to 
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species 
as an endangered or threatened species and designations and revisions 
of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule. Elsewhere 
in today's Federal Register, we propose to designate critical habitat 
for the Zuni bluehead sucker under the Act.
    This rule consists of: (1) A proposed rule to list the Zuni 
bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi) as an endangered 
species; and (2) a proposed rule for designation of critical habitat 
for the Zuni bluehead sucker. The Zuni bluehead sucker is a candidate 
species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological 
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal, 
but for which development of a listing regulation has been precluded by 
other higher priority listing activities. This rule reassesses all 
available information regarding status of and threats to the Zuni 
bluehead sucker.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of 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.
    We have determined that the Zuni bluehead sucker is threatened by 
Factors A, C, D, and E.
    We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our 
analysis of the best available science and application of that science 
and to provide any additional scientific information to improve this 
proposed rule. Because we will consider all comments and information 
received during the comment period, our final determinations may differ 
from this proposal.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, 
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We 
particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The Zuni bluehead sucker's biology, range, and population 
trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), which are:
    (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.

[[Page 5370]]

    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations 
that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
    (5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of 
the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its 
habitat.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request 
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES 
section.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. 
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    We identified the Zuni bluehead sucker as a Category 2 species in 
the September 18, 1985, Review of Vertebrate Wildlife; Notice of Review 
(50 FR 37958). Category 2 Candidates were defined as species for which 
we had information that proposed listing was possibly appropriate, but 
conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not 
available to support a proposed rule at the time. The species remained 
so designated in subsequent annual Candidate Notices of Review (CNOR) 
(54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991; and 59 FR 
58982, November 15, 1994). In the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), 
we discontinued the designation of Category 2 species as candidates; 
therefore, the Zuni bluehead sucker was no longer a candidate species.
    Subsequently, in 2001, the Zuni bluehead sucker was added to the 
candidate list (66 FR 54807, October 30, 2001). Candidates are those 
fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file sufficient 
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support 
preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a 
listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing 
activities. The Zuni bluehead sucker was included in all of our 
subsequent annual CNORs (67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24875, May 
4, 2004; 70 FR 24869, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 
FR 69033, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75175, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 
57803, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69221, November 10, 2010; and 76 FR 
66370, October 26, 2011). On May 11, 2004, we were petitioned to list 
Zuni bluehead sucker, although no new information was provided in the 
petition. Because we had already found the species warranted proposed 
listing, no further action was taken on the petition. Zuni bluehead 
sucker has a listing priority number of 3, which reflects a subspecies 
with threats that are both imminent and high in magnitude.
    Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we propose to designate 
critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker under the Act.

Status Assessment for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker

Background

Species Information
Species Information and Taxonomy
    The Zuni bluehead sucker has a fusiform (torpedo-shaped), slender 
body with a subterminal mouth (mouth posterior to the tip of the snout) 
(Propst 1999, p. 49). Most individuals do not exceed 203 centimeters 
(cm) (8 inches (in)) in total length, although the species has been 
known to exceed 25 cm (9 in) in total length (Propst and Hobbes 1996, 
pp. 22-34). The Zuni bluehead sucker has a bluish head, silvery-tan to 
dark green back, and yellowish to silvery-white sides and abdomen. 
Adults are mottled slate-gray to almost black dorsally (upper part of 
the body) and cream-white ventrally (toward the abdomen). During the 
spawning season, males may be differentiated by coarse tubercles (wart-
like projections) on the rear fins and the caudal peduncle (the narrow 
part of the fish's body to which the tail fin is attached). Males also 
have distinctive breeding coloration, becoming intensely black dorsally 
with a bright red horizontal band and a white abdomen (Propst 1999, p. 
49; Propst et al. 2001, p. 163).
    There is some ambiguity regarding early specimen collections of 
Zuni bluehead sucker; however, it is believed that the first specimen 
of the Zuni bluehead sucker was collected from the Zuni River near Zuni 
Pueblo in McKinley County, New Mexico in 1873 (Cope 1874, p. 138). The 
next collection was made in 1926 from the Zuni River, near Zuni Pueblo 
(Propst et al. 2001, p. 159). It was not subsequently collected in New 
Mexico until W. J. Koster (University of New Mexico, Museum of 
Southwestern Biology) collected the species in the Rio Pescado in 1948 
and the Rio Nutria in 1960 (Propst 1999, p. 49; Propst et al. 2001, p. 
159).
    Smith (1966, pp. 87-90) and Smith et al. (1983, pp. 37-38) 
postulated that the Zuni bluehead sucker subspecies is a result of an 
event in which two species of sucker that were formerly geographically 
separated came into contact with one another in the late Pleistocene 
and exchanged genes. The Zuni bluehead sucker shares traits with the 
Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius) and the Little Colorado River 
bluehead sucker (bluehead sucker) (C. discobolus). Analysis of 
morphological (pertaining to the form and structure of the fish) and 
genetic information support the recognition of the Zuni bluehead sucker 
as distinct from both the Rio Grande sucker and the bluehead sucker 
(Smith 1966, pp. 87-90; Smith et al. 1983, pp. 37-38; Crabtree and Buth 
1987, p. 843; Propst 1999, p. 49; Sublette et al. 1990, pp. 209, 211). 
Based on our review of the best available scientific information, we 
conclude that the Zuni bluehead sucker is a valid subspecies.
Habitat and Life History
    Carman (2008, p. 2) described Zuni bluehead sucker habitat as 
stream reaches with clean, perennial water flowing over hard substrate 
(material on

[[Page 5371]]

the stream bottom), such as bedrock. Silt-laden habitat, such as beaver 
ponds, is not suitable habitat for the species. Propst and Hobbes 
(1996, pp. 13, 16) reported that Zuni bluehead suckers were collected 
mainly in pool and pool-run habitats. These habitat areas were shaded 
with water velocities of less than 0.1 meter per second (m/s) (0.3 feet 
per second (ft/s)) (Propst and Hobbes 1996, p. 13). Most specimens were 
found in water that was 30 to 50 cm (12 to 20 in) deep, cobble, 
boulders, and bedrock substrate (Propst and Hobbes 1996, pp. 13, 16). 
Pools were often edged by emergent aquatic vascular plants and riparian 
vegetation (mainly willows (Salix spp.)) (Propst and Hobbes 1996, p. 
16).
    Zuni bluehead suckers feed primarily on algae scraped from rocks, 
rubble, and gravel substrates (Winter 1979, p. 4; Sublette et al. 1990, 
p. 211). Algae attached to rocks and plants are generally abundant in 
reaches where Zuni bluehead suckers are common (New Mexico Department 
of Game and Fish (NMDGF) 2004, p. 8). Bluehead suckers, including Zuni 
bluehead sucker, require clean gravel substrate with minimal silt for 
spawning (Maddux and Kepner 1988, p. 364) because silt covers eggs and 
leads to suffocation.
Distribution
    The Zuni bluehead sucker has been found in the Zuni River watershed 
in New Mexico. Recent genetic testing of bluehead suckers in the Little 
Colorado River watershed in eastern Arizona and from streams in or near 
Canyon De Chelly in northeastern Arizona suggest that members of the 
Zuni bluehead sucker subspecies are located there as well. Zuni 
bluehead sucker were once common in the Little Colorado and Zuni River 
drainages, but its distribution rangewide has been reduced by over 90 
percent in the last 20 years (Propst 1999, p. 51; NMDGF 2004, p. 15). 
The Zuni bluehead sucker is now found in low numbers in the Kinlichee 
Creek and Canyon de Chelly areas in Arizona (Hobbes 2000, pp. 9-16; 
Albert 2001, pp. 10-14; David 2006, p. 35) and is restricted to three 
isolated populations in the upper Rio Nutria drainage in the Zuni River 
watershed in west-central New Mexico (Carman 2008, pp. 2-3). The 
Kinlichee Creek, Canyon de Chelly, and Rio Nutria areas are completely 
isolated and separate from one another.
New Mexico Distribution
    The Zuni bluehead sucker was first found in the Zuni River 
watershed in west-central New Mexico (Smith 1966, p. 83; Smith et al. 
1983, p. 37; Crabtree and Buth 1987, p. 843; Propst and Hobbes 1996, p. 
7; Propst 1999, p. 49). The Zuni River watershed extends west from the 
continental divide, and across the Pueblo of Zuni tribal lands. The 
Zuni River then drains into the Little Colorado River in Arizona west 
of the Zuni reservation. Within the Zuni River watershed, Zuni bluehead 
sucker have been known to occur in the Zuni River, in the Rio Pescado 
and Rio Nutria (from the mouth of Rio Nutria Box Canyon near the 
eastern boundary of the Zuni Indian Reservation upstream), and in some 
of their tributaries (the headwaters in the Zuni mountains) that 
include Tampico Spring and Agua Remora (formerly known as Radosevich 
Creek) (Hanson 1980, p. 1; Propst et al. 2001, p. 161). Elsewhere in 
the Zuni River drainage, the Zuni bluehead sucker is rare or absent. 
Flow is intermittent in the Zuni River, Rio Pescado, and Rio Nutria.
    Zuni bluehead sucker numbers have been starkly reduced in the Zuni 
River watershed in New Mexico, largely due to 27 chemical treatments 
during the 1960s to remove green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) and 
fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) from the Rio Nutria to aid in the 
establishment of a rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) sport fishery in 
reservoirs on Zuni Pueblo (Winter 1979, p. 4). These treatments 
eliminated the Zuni bluehead sucker from most of the Zuni River 
drainage (Winter 1979, p. 4). As a result, by the late 1970s, the Zuni 
bluehead sucker's range in New Mexico had been reduced. While records 
are largely incomplete, it is known that a population of Zuni bluehead 
suckers near the mouth of the Rio Nutria Box Canyon was extirpated and 
that substantial numbers were also eliminated in other reaches of the 
Rio Nutria and Pescado drainages (NMDGF 2004, p. 16).
    The Zuni bluehead sucker has not been collected from the mainstem 
Zuni River since 1978 or from the Rio Pescado since 1993. Currently, 
much of the lower portions of historical habitat in the Zuni River and 
Rio Pescado are dry during certain times of the year. Continued 
monitoring of these streams since 2004 has confirmed the extirpation of 
the Zuni bluehead sucker from these rivers (NMDGF 2004, p. 4; Carman 
2007, p. 1; 2008, p. 1; 2009, p. 1). Additionally, Cebolla Creek, a 
Zuni River tributary, was surveyed in 1979, and no Zuni bluehead 
suckers were found, although habitat appeared suitable (Hanson 1980, 
pp. 29, 34).
    The population of Zuni bluehead suckers in the Rio Nutria was 
maintained by dispersal of individuals from upstream untreated reaches, 
such as Agua Remora (Winter 1979, p. 4; Propst 1999, pp. 49-50), and so 
the Zuni bluehead sucker currently persists in three semi-isolated 
populations over 4.8 kilometers (km) (3 miles (mi)), mainly upstream of 
the mouth of the Rio Nutria Box Canyon (Propst 1999, pp. 49-50; Propst 
et al. 2001, p. 168; Carman 2008, pp. 2-3). Within this area, it is 
most common near the Rio Nutria Box Canyon mouth, the confluence of the 
Rio Nutria and Tampico Draw, and headwater springs such as Agua Remora 
and Tampico Springs (Stroh and Propst 1993, p. 34; Propst and Hobbes 
1996, p. 10; Propst 1999, p. 50; Propst et al. 2001, p. 162; Carman 
2007, p. 1; 2008, p. 1; 2009, p. 2; 2010, p. 1; Gilbert and Carman 
2011, p. 1). Within the 4.8-km (3-mi) occupied reach, the largest 
extent of perennial stream with limited levels of siltation is 
currently found in the Rio Nutria Box Canyon, from the confluence with 
Tampico Draw downstream to the canyon mouth.
    Recently, bluehead suckers were found in Bowl Canyon Creek (also 
known as Asaayi Creek) in New Mexico (Sponholtz et al. 2003, p. 20; 
David 2006, p. 2), which were initially reported as C. discobolus 
(Sponholtz et al. 2003, pp. 18-22; Clarkson and Marsh 2006, pp. 1-3), 
but their proximity to Crystal Creek, part of the Canyon de Chelly 
National Monument complex, indicates they may also be members of the 
Zuni bluehead sucker subspecies. However, there are no direct stream 
connections and they have not yet been genetically analyzed (Service 
2012a, pers. comm.). Therefore, at this time we are not currently 
considering bluehead suckers in Bowl Canyon Creek to be Zuni bluehead 
sucker.
Population Status of the Species in New Mexico
    The results from numerous survey efforts confirm that Zuni bluehead 
sucker populations in New Mexico are fragmented and low in numbers. 
Fish surveys have been conducted within the Zuni River watershed from 
1977 to 1979, 1984, 1990 to 1993, 2000 to 2001, and every year since 
2004 (Winter 1977, p. 1; Hanson 1980, p. 29; Stefferud 1985, p. 1; 
Propst and Hobbes 1996, p. 14, Carman 2010, pp. 13-15, Gilbert and 
Carman 2011, p. 23). No information on catch and effort is available 
prior to 1991; therefore, we may only make qualitative comparisons of 
the number of Zuni bluehead sucker collected over time for data prior 
to 1991. The number of fish over time is not a reliable method to 
evaluate population trends due to variability in sampling effort. 
Instead, catch per unit effort, or catch rates (i.e.,

[[Page 5372]]

number of fish per second of electrofishing) is a better metric for 
evaluating population trends and is how we assess the species' status 
after 1991 in this proposed rule. While catch per unit effort is 
valuable for assessing trends over time, it does not allow us to 
develop overall population estimates for the species.
    In Tampico Draw, a tributary to Rio Nutria, Zuni bluehead sucker 
numbers declined dramatically, presumably due to beaver (Castor 
canadensis) dams (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 20), in 2006 from as high 
as 0.12 suckers per second (Carman 2006, p. 8) to 0.004 suckers per 
second (Carman 2007, p. 9) but appeared to rebound somewhat in 2009 
(0.07 suckers per second) (Carman 2010, p. 15), after high spring flows 
washed out the beaver dams, creating more suitable habitat for Zuni 
bluehead sucker (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 5). Larval Zuni bluehead 
suckers have been confirmed in the Rio Nutria and its headwater 
springs, including Tampico Draw, each year between 2007 and 2010, 
indicating successful spawning (Carman 2008, p. 1; Carman 2009, p. 18; 
Carman 2010, p. 15; Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 1).
    Although we cannot make statistical comparisons due to the lack of 
quantitative data prior to 1991, the number of Zuni bluehead suckers 
collected from Agua Remora in the Rio Nutria drainage on the Cibola 
National Forest has declined since 1977. The number of Zuni bluehead 
suckers captured declined from 150 in 1977 (Winter 1977, p. 1) to 16 
individuals in 2010 (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 23). Although the 
numbers are extremely low, Zuni bluehead suckers have persisted at Agua 
Remora, with fish catch rates ranging from 0.02 Zuni bluehead suckers 
per second to 0.12 fish per second (Carman 2010, p. 15). Young (less 
than 5 cm (2 in) total length) Zuni bluehead suckers have not been 
observed in the Agua Remora headwater spring habitat, and only mature 
adults were present there in 2005, 2006, and 2008 (Carman 2006, p. 8; 
Carman 2007, p. 13; Carman 2009, p. 14).
    In 2007, permission to sample Tampico Springs, within the Rio 
Nutria drainage, was granted for the first time since 1994 (Carman 
2008, p. 11); it has been sampled annually since. The spring consists 
of a series of semi-isolated pools occupied only by Zuni bluehead 
sucker. Zuni bluehead suckers at the headwater spring are smaller than 
at other sites, ranging 2.2-12.8 cm (0.9-5.0 in) total length (Carman 
2009, p. 12). Tampico Springs catch rates have been declining 
consistently in recent years; while this site once exhibited the 
highest catch rates for the species, at 0.60 suckers per second in 2007 
(Carman 2008, p. 10), numbers have since declined, with 0.22 fish 
caught per second in 2008 (Carman 2009, p. 12), 0.15 fish per second in 
2009 (Carman 2010, p. 15), and 0.16 fish per second in 2010 (Gilbert 
and Carman 2011, p. 23). Despite the declines at Tampico Spring, this 
site maintains the highest catch rates among sites within the Rio 
Nutria and its headwaters (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 20).
    In summary, the Zuni bluehead sucker currently persists in three 
semi-isolated populations over 4.8 km (3 mi), and fish surveys from 
1990 to 2009 show that Zuni bluehead sucker populations in headwater 
springs like Aqua Remora and upper Rio Nutria have declined 
significantly from numbers seen in the 1970s. In the 1990s, the 
population at the Zuni River confluence with Rio Nutria and Rio Pescado 
was declining, and the populations in the Rio Pescado and lower Zuni 
River were almost depleted (Stroh and Propst 1993, p. 1). The Zuni 
bluehead sucker has not been collected from the Zuni River or Rio 
Pescado since 1993 (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 1). In occupied areas, 
dispersal from upstream populations (i.e., Rio Nutria) may augment 
downstream populations, but both downstream and upstream movement is 
generally blocked by physical obstructions, such as natural waterfalls, 
irrigation diversions, and impoundments (Propst et al. 2001, p. 168). 
The irregular occurrence of the Zuni bluehead sucker in reaches 
downstream from the mouth of Rio Nutria Canyon (Rio Nutria, Zuni, and 
Pescado Rivers) indicates limited downstream dispersal from currently 
occupied stream reaches. No Zuni bluehead suckers were found in the Rio 
Nutria between the canyon mouth and the confluence of the Rio Pescado.
Arizona Distribution
    In Arizona, Zuni bluehead suckers are found on the Navajo Indian 
Reservation in two areas. First we will discuss the Kinlichee Creek 
area, which includes an area of the Little Colorado watershed west of 
Ft. Defiance, Arizona, in several locations over a 47-km (29-mi) area 
(Smith et al. 1983, p. 39; Crabtree and Buth 1987, p. 843; Hobbes 2000, 
pp. 9-16) and which includes Kinlichee Creek, Red Clay Wash, Black Soil 
Wash, and Scattered Willow Wash. Next we will discuss the Canyon de 
Chelly area, which includes Wheatfields, Whiskey, Tsaile, Sonsela, and 
Crystal Creeks.
    Results from genetic analyses of the bluehead sucker indicate that 
samples from Kinlichee Creek (Black Soil Wash) share genetic markers 
(markers identify the place of genes that are located at specific 
positions on specific chromosomes that are used in genetic analyses) 
with Zuni bluehead sucker from New Mexico (Service 2012a, pers. comm.). 
The available genetic information indicates that bluehead suckers from 
the Kinlichee Creek area (see further discussion below) are Zuni 
bluehead sucker (Dowling 2011, p. 1). Therefore, based on our review of 
the genetic information above, we consider the bluehead suckers in 
Kinlichee Creek and its tributaries to be Zuni bluehead suckers. We are 
aware that this information is being prepared for publication (Dowling 
2012, p. 1). Because the genetic information has not yet been 
published, the Navajo Nation still considers these fish to be bluehead 
suckers (C. discobolus).
    Zuni bluehead sucker survey efforts have been more irregular in 
Arizona than in New Mexico. Populations of Zuni bluehead sucker are 
currently found in several locations over approximately 47 km (29 mi) 
of Kinlichee Creek (Smith et al. 1983, p. 39; Crabtree and Buth 1987, 
p. 843; Hobbes 2000, pp. 9-16). It is unlikely that the whole length of 
Kinlichee Creek is occupied, because the streams are susceptible to 
drying during drought. In addition, no comprehensive surveys have been 
done along this stream reach. Within the watershed, the species occurs 
in Kinlichee Creek, Black Soil Wash, Red Clay Wash, and Scattered 
Willow Wash based on collections made in 2000, 2001, 2004, and 2010 
(Hobbes 2000, pp. 9-16; Hobbes 2001a, pp. 38, 43; Hobbes 2001b, entire; 
Carman 2004, pp. 1-8; Johnson 2010a, p. 1).
    Near Canyon de Chelly in northeast Arizona and northwest New 
Mexico, Zuni bluehead sucker occur in the Chinle watershed, which flows 
into the San Juan River; we will refer to fish from this area as Canyon 
de Chelly fish. Zuni bluehead sucker occur in Coyote Wash, Sonsela (= 
Canyon de Chelly Creek), Crystal, Whiskey, and Wheatfields creeks on 
the Navajo Indian Reservation (Sponholtz et al. 2003, p. 4; David 2006, 
pp. 2-3, 12, 34), and in Tsaile Creek downstream of Tsaile Dam within 
Canyon de Chelly National Monument (Clarkson and Marsh 2006, p. 1; 
David 2006, p. 2). Sonsela and Whiskey Creek flow into Canyon de 
Chelly, and Wheatfields Creek flows into Wheatfields Lake (Sponholtz et 
al. 2003, p. 4). These streams originate along the western slope of the 
Chuska Mountains, New Mexico, and eventually drain into the San Juan 
River.
    The presence of bluehead suckers in Tsaile and Wheatfields creeks 
in

[[Page 5373]]

Canyon de Chelly National Monument was known prior to 1966, when Smith 
(1966, p. 77) included specimens from those creeks in his analysis of 
suckers, determining these suckers were bluehead suckers. He called out 
the Zuni River specimens of bluehead suckers as being different from 
the standard C. discobolus that included the Canyon de Chelly specimens 
(Smith 1966, p. 83). Subsequently, Smith et al. (1983, pp. 38-39) 
looked more closely at the Zuni bluehead sucker and included specimens 
from Whiskey Creek in Canyon de Chelly. After evaluation, those 
specimens were not considered at the time to be Zuni bluehead suckers 
(Smith et al. 1983, p. 39). Outside of Canyon de Chelly but within 
close proximity, Wheatfields Creek is the only stream known to contain 
fish with Zuni bluehead sucker genes (Service 2012a, pers. comm.); 
however, because of habitat connectivity and potential for genetic 
interchange, it is likely that bluehead suckers within Tsaile, Sonsela, 
Crystal, and Whiskey creeks also contain Zuni bluehead sucker genes 
based on collections between 2001 and 2010 (see genetic discussion 
above) (Service 1982, pp. 2-3; Hobbes 2001a, pp. 24, 29, 31, 34; 
Sponholtz et al. 2003, pp. 18-22; Carman 2004, pp. 9-18; Clarkson and 
Marsh 2006, p. 3; David 2006, p. 3; Johnson 2010b, p. 1; Johnson 2010c, 
p. 1). Therefore, we consider bluehead suckers in these creeks also to 
be Zuni bluehead sucker because they are within reasonable distance of 
each other and are likely exchanging genes (Service 2012a, pers. 
comm.). We presume Zuni bluehead sucker once occurred in Palisades and 
Little Whiskey Creeks, both tributaries to Whiskey Creek, but 
impoundments and other barriers eliminated the entire fish community in 
both streams prior to 1980 (Service 1982, p. 4). Palisades Creek has 
been documented to be dry in recent years (Carman 2004, p. 9).
Population Status of the Species in Arizona
    For several years (2000, 2001, and 2004), Zuni bluehead sucker 
surveys were conducted in the Kinlichee Creek watershed in Arizona on 
the Navajo Indian Reservation (Hobbes 2001a, entire; Carman 2004, 
entire). These were historical collection sites that had not been 
sampled since 1987 when the Zuni bluehead sucker was last documented by 
Crabtree and Buth (1987, p. 851). The species was collected in low 
numbers in Kinlichee Creek, Red Clay Wash, Black Soil Wash, and 
Scattered Willow Wash. More recently, collections occurred in Black 
Soil Wash and Kinlichee Creek, with 184 Zuni bluehead sucker collected 
from Black Soil Wash and 21 from Kinlichee Creek (Kitcheyan and Mata 
2012, p. 6), indicating the species' continued presence in these 
streams. Additionally, in the Canyon de Chelly area, recent collections 
have occurred in Wheatfields, Whiskey, Tsaile, Sonsela, and Crystal 
Creeks. Because these were only presence/absence surveys, we have no 
population information for the Arizona stream reaches.
Summary of Zuni Bluehead Sucker Distribution
    Zuni bluehead sucker rangewide distribution has been reduced by 
over 90 percent in the last 20 years (Propst 1999, p. 51, NMDGF 2004, 
p. 15). The Zuni bluehead sucker is now found in low numbers in the 
Kinlichee Creek and Canyon de Chelly areas in Arizona (Hobbes 2000, pp. 
9-16; Albert 2001, pp. 10-14; David 2006, p. 35) and is restricted to 
three isolated populations in the upper Rio Nutria drainage in west-
central New Mexico (Carman 2008, pp. 2-3).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species 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; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
    The principal threats to Zuni bluehead sucker habitat include water 
withdrawal, sedimentation, impoundments, housing development, wildfire, 
and climate change. These threats are intensified by the species' small 
range. Severe degradation to watersheds occupied by Zuni bluehead 
sucker has occurred through excessive timber harvest, overgrazing, and 
road construction. Although most of these activities occurred in the 
late 1800s and early 1900s, the subsequent erosion, gullying, 
headcutting, and loss of water have continued to degrade habitat for 
the Zuni bluehead sucker (NMDGF 2004, p. 18).
Water Withdrawal
    Surface and groundwater withdrawal result in the direct loss of 
habitat as well as fragmentation of Zuni bluehead sucker habitat by 
reducing stream flow and/or water depth. Reduced stream velocities 
result in increased sedimentation, while overall loss of wetted habitat 
strands Zuni bluehead suckers in isolated shallow pools that may not 
provide suitable hard substrates for feeding and reproduction. Loss of 
appropriate habitat may decrease the reproductive success of Zuni 
bluehead sucker and result in mortality of individuals. Historically, 
water withdrawals led to the conversion of large portions of flowing 
streams to intermittent streams or dewatered channels, thus eliminating 
suitable Zuni bluehead sucker habitat in affected areas (NMDGF 2004, p. 
12). Water withdrawals that lead to dewatering or reduced river flows 
or pool levels reduce the available habitat for the species.
    Groundwater withdrawal can cause reduction or loss of spring flow 
(Brune 2002, p. 356). Currently, the Zuni River, the Rio Pescado, and 
the Rio Nutria flow intermittently, except for short reaches that flow 
perennially in response to discharge from springs. These streams are 
dependent on spring discharges, and the drainages contain various 
springs across the Zuni tribal lands (Orr 1987, p. 37; Drakos and 
Riesterer 2009, p. 96). Since spring ecosystems rely on water 
discharged to the surface from underground aquifers, groundwater 
depletion can result in the destruction of riverine habitat through 
spring drying (Scudday 1977, pp. 515-516). Spring drying or flow 
reduction resulting from groundwater pumping has also been documented 
in the Roswell (August 9, 2005; 70 FR 46304) and Mimbres Basins 
(Summers 1976, pp. 62, 65) of New Mexico. In addition, there has been a 
general declining trend in spring flow found on Zuni Tribal lands 
between 1972 and 2009 (Drakos and Riesterer 2009, p. 96). The lowermost 
pool in Agua Remora had reduced water depths in 2005 and nearly dried 
in 2007 and 2009; Zuni bluehead suckers were salvaged from this area 
and moved upstream to the middle pool or taken to the Albuquerque 
BioPark for a rearing program (Carman 2008, p. 17; Carman 2009, p. 24).
    Groundwater use in the range of the Zuni bluehead sucker is 
expected to increase due to human population expansion. In early 2007, 
a development

[[Page 5374]]

company (Tampico Springs 3000, LLC), presented a preliminary plat to 
McKinley County, New Mexico, for Tampico Springs Ranch Subdivision. The 
subdivision is located just northeast of currently occupied Zuni 
bluehead sucker habitat. The subdivision would have a total of 490 
lots, varying from 1.2 to 4.8 hectares (ha) (3 to 11.9 acres (ac)), 
each with an individual well and septic system. An increase in the 
number of wells would affect aquifer drawdowns, and individual septic 
tanks could potentially lead to water quality concerns. The 
geohydrologic investigation report, prepared for Phase I of the 
subdivision, states that water withdrawal is likely to affect flow at 
Brennan and Tampico Springs (MJDarrconsult, Inc. 2007, p. 26). In 
January 2008, the plat for Phase I of the subdivision was approved by 
McKinley County with conditions, including metering of water wells to 
enforce the 0.3 acre-ft per year per household restriction (Carman 
2008, p. 17). Construction of Phase I has begun, with 17 of 45 lots 
sold (First United Realty 2012, p. 1).
    In Arizona, existing water withdrawals throughout the Navajo Indian 
Reservation are generally for water haulers (people who collect water 
in tanks and transport it to another location for use); domestic and 
municipal use; water storage facilities; commercial, agricultural, 
mining and industry uses;, recreation and wildlife; and wastewater 
management. Water withdrawals have been documented on the Navajo Indian 
Reservation for many years. Water levels in wells in the Black Mesa 
area have declined as much as 70 ft (21.3 m) since 1963 (Littin 1992, 
p. 1). As of 2003, there were 75 livestock wells on the Navajo Indian 
Reservation, in both alluvial (connected to the river) and deep water 
aquifers (Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources 2003, p. 40). 
Currently, near Tsaile Creek, over 600 ac (242 ha) are developed for 
irrigation, but only 100 ac (40 ha) are irrigated due to water 
shortages; most of this water is diverted from Tsaile Creek (Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2000, p. 37). Additionally, water 
in Kinlichee Creek has been noted as very low in recent years 
(Kitcheyan and Mata 2012, p. 3), and Palisades Creek, Scattered Willow 
Wash, Black Soil Wash, and Kinlichee Creek have been intermittent 
several years in a row (Carman 2004, pp. 2, 8; Kitcheyan and Mata 2012, 
p. 3). These low water events are exacerbated by continued water 
withdrawal in the region. Given past groundwater use and the likelihood 
of continued drought (see Climate Change, below), groundwater declines 
will likely continue into the future.
    In summary, water withdrawals have affected the Zuni bluehead 
sucker rangewide in the past, resulting in dry streambeds or very low 
water levels in the lower Rio Nutria, Rio Pescado, Zuni River, and Agua 
Remora in New Mexico and in Palisades Creek, Scattered Willow Wash, and 
Kinlichee Creek in Arizona. Based on our review of the available 
information, we conclude that the effects of water withdrawal are a 
continuing threat to the Zuni bluehead sucker habitat across its range 
and as a result are negatively impacting the species.
Sedimentation
    Sedimentation occurs when particles suspended in the water column 
fall out of suspension and cover the streambed, filling in spaces 
between substrate particles. Sedimentation results in the loss of 
suitable habitat and available food resources for Zuni bluehead sucker. 
Fine sediments, in particular, reduce or prevent production of algae, 
the Zuni bluehead sucker's primary food. Research has shown that heavy 
sediment loads have the potential to limit algae production by 
restricting light penetration or smothering (Graham 1990, pp. 107-109, 
113-114). If mobilized during the spawning season, fine sediments may 
also smother and suffocate recently spawned eggs (Propst and Hobbes 
1996, p. 39). The reproductive successes of fishes that require clean 
gravel substrate have been reduced by increased sedimentation due to 
smothering of eggs, which may be the case for Zuni bluehead sucker 
(Berkman and Rabeni 1987, p. 285; Propst and Hobbes 1996, p. 38). 
Increasing sedimentation in Agua Remora and Rio Nutria has led to the 
loss of optimal Zuni bluehead sucker habitat (permanent, clear flowing 
water over hard substrate). Sedimentation throughout the range of Zuni 
bluehead sucker is primarily caused by logging, livestock grazing, and 
road construction; these are discussed in detail below.
Logging
    Logging activities in the early to mid-1800s likely caused major 
changes in watershed characteristics and stream morphology (Chamberlin 
et al. 1991, pp. 181-205; Ohmart 1996, p. 259). Early logging efforts 
were often concentrated along canyon bottoms with perennial streams. 
Tree removal along perennial streams within the historical range of 
Zuni bluehead sucker likely altered water temperature regimes, sediment 
loading, bank stability, and availability of large woody debris 
(Chamberlin et al. 1991, pp. 181-205). Soil surface erosion from 
logging or logging activities is directly related to the amount of bare 
compacted areas exposed to rainfall and runoff, which then contributes 
large quantities of fine sediments to stream channels (Chamberlin et 
al. 1991, p. 193). For example, in the early 1890s, logging and 
presence of logging railroads were widespread within the Zuni 
Mountains, which supported several lumber towns (NRCS) 1998, p. 17). 
Extensive clearcutting and overgrazing were the primary contributors to 
the reduction of the original riparian vegetation by 70 to 90 percent 
in the Zuni Mountains (Ohmart 1996, p. 259). Logging is actively 
practiced on both private and public lands within the Zuni watershed 
(NRCS 1998, p. 17). For example, in 2012, the Forest Service funded the 
Zuni Mountain Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration project, which 
will increase logging to reduce fire risk in the Rio Puerco and Rio 
Nutria watersheds over the next 10 years (Forest Service 2012, pp. 1-
2). Ultimately, the reduction in fire risk in these watersheds is 
likely to benefit the Zuni bluehead sucker; however, the short-term 
increase in logging is likely to increase sedimentation in these 
watersheds.
    In Arizona, on the Navajo Indian Reservation, timber operations 
began in the 1880s (Einbender-Velez 2010, p. 2). In the 1980s, cutting 
increased significantly to about 36 million board-feet per year 
(Atencio 1994, p. 2). In 1990, Tsaile Canyon, which encompasses a Zuni 
bluehead sucker population, was heavily logged, with all of the old 
growth forest and many of the saplings removed (Atencio 1994, p. 2). 
However, the Navajo Forest Products Industry shut down in 1994, and 
timber harvesting has been much reduced.
    In summary, sedimentation from logging has historically affected 
Zuni bluehead sucker habitat rangewide, resulting in unsuitable 
habitat. Logging rates have reduced in recent years but will continue 
into the future, particularly in the Rio Puerco and Rio Nutria 
watersheds over the next decade, which will likely impact Zuni bluehead 
sucker habitat.
Livestock Grazing
    Livestock grazing has been one of the most widespread and long-term 
causes of adverse impacts to native fishes and their habitat (Miller 
1961, pp. 394-395, 399; Armour et al. 1991; pp. 7-10; Fleischner 1994, 
pp. 629-635; Larsen et al. 1998, pp. 161, 164). Widespread livestock 
grazing and logging likely contributed to habitat modifications,

[[Page 5375]]

resulting in severe degradation of the Zuni watershed (Hanson 1982, p. 
14; NRCS 1998, p. 1; NMDGF 2004, p. 12). Livestock grazing has been 
shown to increase soil compaction, decrease water infiltration rates, 
increase runoff, change vegetative species composition, decrease 
riparian vegetation, increase stream sedimentation, increase stream 
water temperature, decrease fish populations, and change channel form 
(Meehan and Platts 1978, pp. 275-276; Kauffman and Krueger 1984, pp. 
430-435; Schulz and Leininger 1990, p. 295; Platts 1991, pp. 393-403; 
Fleischner 1994, pp. 629-635; Ohmart 1996, pp. 246-274). Although 
direct impacts to the riparian zone and stream can be the most obvious 
sign of livestock grazing, upland watershed condition influences the 
timing and amount of water delivered to stream channels (Ohmart 1996, 
pp. 260, 268). Increased soil compaction and decreased vegetative cover 
lead to faster delivery of water to stream channels, increased peak 
flows, and lower summer base flow (Platts 1991, p. 390; Ohmart 1996, p. 
255; Belsky and Blumenthal 1997, pp. 321, 324). As a consequence, 
streams are more likely to experience flood events during monsoonlike 
weather in summer (water runs off quickly instead of soaking into the 
ground) that negatively affects the riparian and aquatic habitats. 
Therefore, heavily grazed streams are more likely to become 
intermittent or dry in September and October, when groundwater recharge 
is reduced because water runs off quickly, rather than being absorbed 
by the soil (Ohmart 1996, p. 268).
    Improper livestock grazing increases sedimentation through 
trampling of the stream banks and compacting soil, both of which can 
result in a reduction or elimination of riparian vegetation, which can 
be detrimental to stream habitat. Riparian vegetation insulates streams 
from temperature extremes in both summer and winter. Further, it 
filters sediment so that it does not enter the stream; sediment can 
lead to reduction or prevention of algal growth and smothering of newly 
spawned eggs (Propst and Hobbes 1996, p. 38). Riparian vegetation also 
provides a source of nutrients to the stream from leaf litter, which 
increases stream productivity, and it contributes root wads and large 
and small woody debris to the stream, which provide cover for the fish 
(Kauffman and Krueger 1984, pp. 430-431; Platts 1991, pp. 395-400; 
Ohmart 1996, pp. 247-249).
    The Cibola National Forest (Forest) commissioned the Zuni Mountain 
Sucker Habitat Management Plan ``to protect, and to enhance, where 
possible, habitat of threatened and endangered species within the 
confines of the Forest'' (Winter 1979, p. 3). In 1978 and 1979, the 
Forest fenced off Agua Remora from grazing, which resulted in marked 
regrowth of the riparian area (Merkel 1979, p. 15; Stefferud 1985, p. 
1). In 1988, the NMDGF Share with Wildlife program partnered with the 
Forest to increase the fenced area, doubling the amount of protected 
habitat. However, the fence is occasionally in disrepair leading to 
unauthorized grazing in Agua Remora, and the fence is only checked if 
there is evidence of grazing within Agua Remora. A recent field trip to 
Agua Remora identified that the fence was in disrepair, and five cows 
were on the site; the riparian area had lost vegetative cover (Gilbert 
2012, p. 1). Additionally, there are several active grazing allotments 
north of Agua Remora, with the closest being 2.4 km (1.5 mi) away; 
livestock grazing also occurs on nearby private land.
    During the 1930s, in Arizona, on the Navajo Indian Reservation, 
nearly one million livestock (sheep, goats, horses, or cattle) ranged 
across the landscape, exposing soil and increasing erosion (Weisiger 
2007, p. 440). Grazing continues today throughout the entire Navajo 
Indian Reservation, although herd numbers are much lower than in the 
early 1900s. Although grazing has been reduced, the continuing drought 
has exacerbated effects of depleted forage, and the livestock numbers 
are considered to be overpopulated, (Davis 2012, p. 1). Additionally, 
cultural resistance to fencing on the Navajo Indian Reservation (Beatty 
Davis 1997, p. 49) creates a challenge for range management and stream 
protection. Direct access to streams and overgrazing by livestock on 
the Navajo Indian Reservation has been documented repeatedly (Sanchez 
1975, p. 1, Service 1982, pp. 3-4; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995, 
p. 3; Hobbes 2000, p. 14; NMDGF 2003, pp. 6, 13; Sponholtz et al. 2003, 
pp. 25-26; David 2006, pp. 4, 20; Kitcheyan and Mata 2012, p. 3). 
Overall, both historic and current livestock grazing within the 
riparian zone and upland slopes has reduced vegetative cover and 
accelerated storm runoff and sediment into reservoirs and increased 
erosion in areas such as Tsaile Creek (Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 
2011, p. 22).
    In summary, Zuni bluehead sucker habitat near or adjacent to areas 
where livestock grazing occurs is significantly impacted. The resulting 
habitat degradation is a threat to the remaining Zuni bluehead sucker 
populations in New Mexico and Arizona. The available information 
indicates that these activities likely contributed to the reduction in 
riparian habitat, channel incision, and increased soil compaction, 
which resulted in unfavorable habitat conditions for Zuni bluehead 
sucker foraging or reproduction. Such unfavorable habitat conditions 
affect populations by reducing their viability. Based on our review of 
the available information we conclude that the effects of livestock 
grazing are a threat to Zuni bluehead sucker habitat, and the species, 
throughout its entire range.
Road Construction
    Roads have adversely affected Zuni bluehead sucker habitat by 
increasing surface runoff and sedimentation, which can increase 
turbidity, reduce primary production, and reduce numbers of aquatic 
insects (Burns 1972, p. 1; Eaglin and Hubert 1993, pp. 844-845). Roads 
require instream structures, such as culverts and bridges that remove 
aquatic habitat and can act as barriers to fish movement (Warren and 
Pardew 1998, p. 637). All of these activities negatively impact Zuni 
bluehead suckers and their habitat by lowering water quality, reducing 
the quality and quantity of pools by filling them with sediments, 
reducing the quantity of large woody debris necessary to form pools, 
and by imposing barriers to movement. The end result is deterioration 
of habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker (Burns 1972, p. 1; Eaglin and 
Hubert 1993, pp. 844-845).
    Vehicular use of roads in creek bottoms can degrade Zuni bluehead 
sucker habitat. Such use inhibits riparian plant growth, breaks down 
banks, causes erosion, causes sedimentation, and increases turbidity in 
the stream, particularly where vehicles drive through the stream 
(especially immediately downstream of the vehicular activity). These 
effects are likely to result in wider and shallower stream channels 
(Furniss et al. 1991, pp. 297-301). This change causes progressive 
adjustments in other variables of hydraulic geometry and results in 
changes to the configuration of pools, runs, riffles, and backwaters; 
levels of fine sediments and substrate embeddedness (the degree to 
which rocks and cobble are stuck in the streambed); availability of 
instream cover; and other fish habitat requirements in the vicinity of 
vehicle crossings (Sullivan et al. 1987, pp. 67, 69-70; Rosgen 1994, p. 
185). It also changes the way in which flood flows interact with the 
stream channel and may exacerbate flood damage to banks, channel 
bottoms, and riparian vegetation.
    Road construction activities may have direct adverse effects on the 
watershed

[[Page 5376]]

from soil erosion and sedimentation to the streams. Aerial photographs 
from 1935 and 1991 showed road density in the Cebolla and Rio Nutria 
watersheds rose 138 and 47 percent, respectively (NMDGF 2004, p. 12). 
Forest Road 50, which is in the upper watershed of Zuni bluehead sucker 
habitat (approximately 5 km (3 mi) away from the closest occupied 
habitat), was upgraded in 1999, and several roads were developed in 
2007 for the Tampico Springs Subdivision. Currently, the US Forest 
Service proposes to allow McKinley County to upgrade Forest Road 191D 
with gravel surface material (Forest Service 2011, p. i), which may 
increase vehicle traffic and surface runoff. This road is approximately 
3 km (2 mi) from Agua Remora and 1.6 km (1 mi) from Tampico Springs 
(Forest Service 2011, p. 44).
    On the Navajo Indian Reservation, past road construction continues 
to affect stream habitat. On Kinlichee Creek, for example, Bridge BR 
280 constricts the channel considerably, which increases flow rates, 
channel scouring, and downstream deposition of sediment (U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers 1995, p. 3). Sedimentation from road construction 
has occurred throughout the range of Zuni bluehead sucker in the past 
and is likely to continue in the future.
    In summary, historical logging, overgrazing by livestock, and road 
construction have destroyed much of the groundcover across the Zuni 
bluehead sucker's range (Sanchez 1975, pp. 1, 4; Beatty Davis 1997, pp. 
3, 7; NMDGF 2004, p. 12; BOR 2011, p. 22), resulting in increased 
erosion, increased stream flow fluctuation, and the accumulation of 
large quantities of sediment throughout Zuni bluehead sucker habitat 
(Merkel 1979, p. 4). Livestock grazing and road construction are likely 
to continue at present rates throughout the species' range, and logging 
is likely to continue at reduced rates. Sedimentation results in 
depressed reproductive rates and inhibition of algal growth for food. 
Therefore, based on our review of the available information, we 
conclude that the effects of sedimentation are a threat to the Zuni 
bluehead sucker and its habitat rangewide.
Dams/Impoundments
    Much of the primary water use from the Zuni River watershed is for 
irrigation of agriculture, livestock grazing, and human consumption. 
Many small impoundments, built primarily for watering livestock, 
partially prevent flows from reaching the mainstem rivers. According to 
Merkel (1979, p. 1), the lower Rio Nutria, Rio Pescado, and Zuni River 
drainages have been drastically altered by human activities, such as 
the construction of many small impoundments for livestock watering. 
Reservoirs and diversion dams for irrigation have depleted stream flows 
below the dams and inundated stream reaches above the dams (Merkel 
1979, p. 1; Hanson 1982, p. 4). Degradation of the upper watershed has 
led to increased sedimentation and many of the reservoirs are now only 
shallow, eutrophic (nutrient rich) ponds or wetlands with little or no 
storage capacity (NMDGF 2004, p. 20). Sediment trapping by these 
impoundments has also changed the character of the streams by altering 
channel morphology and substrate composition. The lower Rio Nutria was 
once a perennial stream with wide meanders bordered by willow and 
cottonwood (Populus spp.). After construction of impoundments in the 
Rio Nutria below the box canyon meanders, the channel became deeply 
incised with predominantly silt or silt-sand substrate, which is 
unsuitable for Zuni bluehead sucker. Flow is intermittent between the 
ephemeral pools and impoundments. Current habitat conditions are not 
favorable for Zuni bluehead sucker in much of the watershed downstream 
from the mouth of Rio Nutria Box Canyon, primarily due to impoundments, 
dams, and sedimentation from logging and grazing.
    On the Navajo Indian Reservation, many small impoundments exist 
throughout Zuni bluehead sucker historic habitat, primarily for 
irrigation (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995, p. 3). Additionally, 
large impoundments have been built on Tsaile and Wheatfields Creeks 
(NRCS 2000, pp. 20, 23; BOR 2002, p. 12), which have largely fragmented 
Zuni bluehead sucker habitat for miles up and downstream of the 
impoundments. Zuni bluehead suckers currently occur downstream of 
Tsaile Dam and upstream of Wheatfields Dam (Sponholtz et al. 2003, p. 
4).
    Additionally, beaver dams affect Zuni bluehead sucker habitat, 
particularly in New Mexico. In 2006, beaver activity in Tampico Draw 
and Rio Nutria increased greatly, fragmenting much Zuni bluehead sucker 
habitat (Carman 2007, p. 1). A marked decrease in captured Zuni 
bluehead sucker in Tampico Draw was attributed to increased siltation 
and water ponding due to beaver activity (Carman 2007, p. 1). In 2010, 
spring flows washed out the beaver dams in Tampico Draw, creating more 
suitable habitat for Zuni bluehead sucker (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 
6). The best available information does not indicate beaver activity is 
affecting Zuni bluehead sucker populations in Arizona.
    In summary, Zuni bluehead sucker habitat has been reduced rangewide 
due to impoundment construction. Impoundments have lasting effects on 
stream habitat both up and downstream, subsequently fragmenting fish 
populations and decreasing their resiliency and long-term persistence. 
Based on our review of the available information, we conclude that the 
effects of impoundments are a current threat to Zuni bluehead sucker 
and are having rangewide impacts on their habitat.
Housing Developments
    Subdivision developments within the range of Zuni bluehead sucker 
would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in this watershed. 
Impervious surfaces include buildings, roads, and parking lots (Brabec 
et al. 2002, p. 499). An increase in the amount of impervious surfaces 
could increase the amount of runoff and decrease infiltration rates. 
Impacts of urbanization on stormwater runoff can cause changes in land 
or stream corridor use, land formations, hydrology, stream hydraulics, 
habitat, and sediment transport and storage. Urbanization can cause 
changes in fish population composition and distribution due to habitat 
changes and lower water table elevations due to groundwater use.
    In 2007, the Forest granted an easement to McKinley County for 
access across Forest Service land via Forest Road 191D (Forest Service 
2010 pp. 1-2). The granting of the right-of-way allows McKinley County 
to upgrade and assume maintenance of this road, which provides access 
to the upper Rio Nutria watershed. This road may facilitate the 
development of the Tampico Springs Ranch subdivision, resulting in 
additional sedimentation and potential groundwater loss in the 
watershed (Forest Service 2010, p. 17).
    In summary, the increases in sedimentation and water withdrawals 
that could result from the development of additional phases of the 
subdivision are a threat to the Zuni bluehead sucker habitat in Rio 
Nutria and Tampico Springs, which constitutes the bulk of the species' 
distribution and habitat in New Mexico. As a result, these effects to 
habitat are negatively impacting the species.
Wildfires
    Wildfires can destroy vegetation along slopes and stream channels 
altering the physical properties of the soil. The lack

[[Page 5377]]

of ground cover increases the amount of potential runoff, thereby 
increasing the amount of woody debris, sedimentation, and ash entering 
the stream (Swanston 1991, pp. 141, 175-177). Indirect effects, such as 
ash flow events that follow wildfire during monsoonal seasons can 
inundate Zuni bluehead sucker habitat and smother and destroy eggs. 
Severe wildfires that extirpate fish populations are a relatively 
recent phenomenon and result from the cumulative effects of historical 
or ongoing overgrazing by domestic livestock, fire suppression, and 
climate change (Madany and West 1983, p. 666; Swetnam 1990, pp. 6-17; 
Touchan et al. 1995, p. 272 Swetnam and Baisan 1996, p. 28; Belsky and 
Blumenthal 1997, p. 318; Gresswell 1999, p. 212; Brown et al. 2004, p. 
366; McKenzie et al. 2004, p. 898; Westerling et al. 2006, p. 943).
    Historically, wildfires in the region were primarily cool-burning 
understory fires with fire return intervals of 4 to 8 years (Swetnam 
and Dieterich 1985, p. 395). Cooper (1960, p. 137) found that, prior to 
the 1950s, crown fires (intense fires that completely consume trees and 
move forward through tree canopies) were extremely rare or nonexistent 
in the region. Since the mid-1980s, wildfire frequency in western 
forests is nearly four times the average of 1970 to 1986, and the total 
area burned is more than 6.5 times the previous level (Westerling et 
al. 2006, p. 941). The average length of fire season increased by 78 
days from the 1970 to 1986 period to the 1987 to 2003 period, and the 
average time between discovery and control increased from 7.5 days to 
37.1 days for the same timeframes (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 941). 
McKenzie et al. (2004, p. 893) suggested, based on models, that the 
length of the fire season will likely increase further and that fires 
in the western United States will be more frequent and more severe. In 
particular, they found that fire in New Mexico appears to be acutely 
sensitive to summer climate and temperature changes and may respond 
dramatically to climate warming.
    Changes in relative humidity, especially drying over the western 
United States, are also projected to increase the number of days of 
high fire danger (Brown et al. 2004, p. 365). Because Zuni bluehead 
sucker are found primarily in isolated, small headwater streams, they 
are unable to swim away from ash flows, and opportunities for natural 
recolonization are unlikely, due to the highly fragmented nature of 
Zuni bluehead sucker populations. Persistence of Zuni bluehead sucker 
in streams affected by fire and subsequent ash flows is unlikely in the 
Zuni watershed. The recently funded Zuni Mountain Collaborative Forest 
Landscape Restoration project is expected to reduce wildfire risk over 
22,662 ha (56,000 ac) in the Rio Puerco and Rio Nutria watersheds 
(Forest Service 2012, p. 1). Currently, wildfire risk in this area is 
considered high (class III), but over the next decade this risk is 
expected to be reduced. The available information does not indicate 
that wildfire is a threat to populations in Arizona. Therefore, based 
on the likelihood that fire risk will be reduced in New Mexico, we do 
not consider wildfire to be a threat to Zuni bluehead sucker habitat 
rangewide.
Climate Change
    Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration 
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and 
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and 
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 
years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or 
longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term ``climate 
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or 
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that 
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether 
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 
2007a, p. 78).
    Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that 
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been 
faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate 
system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of 
the world and decreases in other regions. (For these and other 
examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; and Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 
82-85). Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that 
most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the 
mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate, 
and is ``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher 
probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) 
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, 
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 
2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 
21-35). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by 
Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely 
that approximately 75 percent of global warming since 1950 has been 
caused by human activities.
    Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include 
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various 
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate 
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in 
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007, 
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 
527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield 
very similar projections of increases in the most common measure of 
climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as 
global warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the 
magnitude and rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall 
trajectory of all the projections is one of increased global warming 
through the end of this century, even for the projections based on 
scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. 
Thus, there is strong scientific support for projections that warming 
will continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate 
of change will be influenced substantially by the extent of GHG 
emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44-45; Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764 and 
797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 
527, 529). (See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other global 
projections of climate-related changes, such as frequency of heat waves 
and changes in precipitation. Also see IPCC 2011(entire) for a summary 
of observations and projections of extreme climate events.)
    Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on 
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they 
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant 
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables 
(e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007b, pp. 8-14, 18-19). 
Identifying likely effects often involves aspects of climate change 
vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a 
species (or system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse 
effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. 
Vulnerability is a function of the type, magnitude, and rate of climate 
change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity, 
and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. 
2011, pp. 19-22).

[[Page 5378]]

There is no single method for conducting such analyses that applies to 
all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment 
and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh relevant information, 
including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of 
climate change.
    As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we 
conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be 
affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it 
does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a 
species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the 
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from, 
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to 
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
    Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the 
only or the best scientific information available for us to use. 
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary 
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g., 
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections 
when they are available and have been developed through appropriate 
scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher 
resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for 
analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a 
discussion of downscaling). With regard to our analysis for the Zuni 
bluehead sucker, downscaled projections are available.
    Climate simulations of Palmer Drought Severity Index (PSDI) (a 
calculation of the cumulative effects of precipitation and temperature 
on surface moisture balance) for the Southwest for the periods of 2006-
2030 and 2035-2060 predict an increase in drought severity with surface 
warming. Additionally, drought still increases during wetter 
simulations because of the effect of heat-related moisture loss 
(Hoerling and Eischeid 2007, p. 19). Annual mean precipitation is 
likely to decrease in the Southwest as well as the length of snow 
season and snow depth (IPCC 2007b, p. 887). Most models project a 
widespread decrease in snow depth in the Rocky Mountains and earlier 
snowmelt (IPCC 2007b, p. 891). Exactly how climate change will affect 
precipitation is less certain, because precipitation predictions are 
based on continental-scale general circulation models that do not yet 
account for land use and land cover change effects on climate or 
regional phenomena. Consistent with recent observations in changes from 
climate, the outlook presented for the Southwest predicts warmer, 
drier, drought-like conditions (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181; Hoerling 
and Eischeid 2007, p. 19). A decline in water resources will be a 
significant factor in the compromised watersheds of the desert 
southwest.
    Climate change could affect the Zuni bluehead sucker through 
increased temperatures, evaporation, and probability of long-term 
drought. However, we are not able to predict with certainty how the 
indirect effects of climate change will affect Zuni bluehead sucker 
habitats due to a lack of information on the groundwater system that 
provides water to the species' spring-fed habitat and large-scale 
projections of precipitation that contribute to stream flow. We 
conclude that climate change may be a significant stressor that 
indirectly exacerbates existing threats by increasing the likelihood of 
prolonged drought that would reduce water availability for streamflow 
or spring flow and incur future habitat loss. The National Integrated 
Drought Information System (2012) classifies drought in increasing 
severity categories from abnormally dry, to moderate, severe, extreme, 
and, most severe, exceptional. The southwestern United States is 
currently experiencing drought conditions classified as moderate to 
exceptional. Drought conditions are reported as severe to extreme for 
areas occupied by Zuni bluehead sucker in Arizona and New Mexico 
(National Integrated Drought Information System 2012).
    While Zuni bluehead sucker have survived many droughts in its 
evolutionary history, the present status of this species and its 
habitat is so degraded that the effects of the drought may be more 
difficult for the species to withstand. In some areas of Zuni bluehead 
sucker habitat, drought results in lower streamflow or pool habitat, 
with consequently warmer water temperatures and more crowded habitats 
with potentially higher levels of predation and competition. In other 
areas drought reduces flooding, which would normally rejuvenate habitat 
and tend to reduce populations of some nonnative species, which are 
less adapted to the large floods of Southwest streams (Minckley and 
Meffe 1987, pp. 93-104; Stefferud and Rinne 1996, p. 93). As such, 
long-term and recurrent drought, as a result of climate change, may 
affect Zuni bluehead sucker habitat, but the severity of the threat and 
impacts remains uncertain. Therefore, we conclude that long-term 
drought, as a result of climate change, is currently a threat to the 
Zuni bluehead sucker, and will likely be a threat in the future. In 
addition, the impacts from climate change will likely exacerbate the 
current and ongoing threat of habitat loss caused by other factors, as 
discussed above.
Summary of Factor A
    The Zuni bluehead sucker faces a variety of threats throughout its 
range in Arizona and New Mexico, including water withdrawals, logging, 
livestock grazing, water impoundments, road construction, subdivision 
development, and long-term drought. In New Mexico, water withdrawals, 
subdivision development, livestock grazing, road construction, logging, 
and drought threaten Zuni bluehead suckers and their habitat. In 
Arizona, water withdrawals, livestock grazing, road construction, and 
drought have affected the Zuni bluehead sucker. These activities, alone 
and in combination, contribute to the substantial loss and degradation 
of habitat in Arizona and New Mexico.
    The changes in the flow regimes and loss of habitat from water 
withdrawals, sedimentation, and impoundments have reduced and 
eliminated populations of Zuni bluehead sucker in both New Mexico and 
Arizona. These conditions, in combination with the predicted worsening 
drought conditions due to climate change, will continue to degrade and 
eliminate Zuni bluehead sucker habitat.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    The Zuni bluehead sucker is not a game fish and does not have 
recreational or commercial value. Both the Arizona Game and Fish 
Department (AGFD) and NMDGF prohibit collection of the species (NMDGF 
1998, p. 11; AGFD 2011, p. 6), although collection of Zuni bluehead 
sucker may be authorized by either State by special permit. A limited 
amount of scientific collection occurs but does not pose a threat to 
Zuni bluehead sucker because it is regulated appropriately by the 
States. Recreational angling may occur within occupied Zuni bluehead 
sucker habitats, as nonnative crayfish are commonly fished for and used 
for bait. Zuni bluehead sucker may be incidentally caught by anglers 
targeting other fish, whereby Zuni bluehead suckers can be injured or 
killed. However, we do not have any evidence suggesting that the 
occasional removal of Zuni bluehead sucker in this manner is a threat 
to the species.

[[Page 5379]]

Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
    In general, fish species are susceptible to a spectrum of diseases, 
and the Zuni bluehead sucker is no exception. Diseases could 
potentially impact the reproduction, growth, and survival of the Zuni 
bluehead sucker. In addition, drought conditions (discussed above) may 
cause physiological stress on Zuni bluehead sucker making them more 
susceptible to disease.
    Black grub, also called black spot (Neascus spp.) is a parasitic 
larval fluke that appears as black spots on the body of a fish. Adult 
black grub trematodes live in a bird's mouth and produce eggs, which 
are swallowed unharmed and released into the water in the bird's feces. 
Eggs mature in the water, hatch, and infest mollusks as an intermediate 
host. They then migrate into the tissues of a second intermediate host, 
which is typically a fish. When the larvae penetrate and migrate into 
the tissues of a fish, they cause damage and possibly hemorrhaging. The 
larvae then become encapsulated by host tissue and appear as black 
spots. The damage caused by one individual black grub is negligible, 
but in great numbers they may kill a fish (Lane and Morris 2000, pp. 2-
3; Quist et al. 2007, p. 130). Black grub was found on several Zuni 
bluehead suckers in 2005 in the Rio Nutria Box Canyon area (Carman 
2006, p. 8). None were seen on fish caught in 2006 or 2007, but black 
grub was observed again in the Rio Nutria Box Canyon in 2008 and Agua 
Remora in 2008 through 2010 (Carman 2009, p. 9; Gilbert and Carman 
2011, p. 17). Because surveys have been intermittent in recent years, 
there is no information on whether black grub is present within 
occupied habitats of Zuni bluehead sucker in Arizona on the Navajo 
Indian Reservation, but black grub does occur within the Little 
Colorado River and San Juan River drainages (Hobbes 2001a, pp. 38-39). 
Results from investigations on the effects of black grub on other 
species of fish have varied; effects have ranged from none, to slowing 
growth, to mortality (Hunter and Hunter 1938, pp. 480-481; Vinikour 
1977, pp. 83, 88; Lemly and Esch 1984, pp. 475, 488-490; Quist et al. 
2007, p. 130). Vinikour (1977, pp. 83, 88) found no effect on longnose 
dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) between populations that were infested 
with black grub and noninfested population. However, Hunter and Hunter 
(1938, pp. 480-481) showed that young black bass (Micropterus dolomieu) 
with heavy infestation of black grub lost weight. Young bluegill 
(Lepomis macrochirus) died due to black grub infestation (Lemly and 
Esch 1984, pp. 475, 488-490). The effects of black grub on the Zuni 
bluehead sucker are unknown.
    There is no published information on other diseases of the Zuni 
bluehead sucker, although information is available from the Little 
Colorado River and San Juan River watershed for similar species. Asian 
tapeworm (Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) and anchor worm (Lernaea) have 
been found in the San Juan River system, but neither was found to 
infest bluehead suckers (Landye et al. 1999, p. 6). In addition, Landye 
et al. (1999, p. 7) also detected the protozoan Ichthyophthirius, but 
it was not found to affect bluehead suckers.
    The available information does not indicate disease is a threat to 
the Zuni bluehead sucker rangewide. However, black grub may be a threat 
to the species; this parasite has profound effects on many other 
species of fish and it has been detected in Zuni bluehead sucker. 
Currently, the best available information indicates that it could be a 
threat and additional sampling and studies are needed. We request 
information on any potential threat posed by black grub or other 
disease to the Zuni bluehead sucker.
Predation
    The introduction and spread of nonnative species has been 
identified as one of the primary factors in the continuing decline of 
native fishes throughout North America and particularly in the 
southwestern United States (Miller 1961, pp. 365, 397-398; Lachner et 
al. 1970, p. 21; Ono et al. 1983, pp. 90-91; Carlson and Muth 1989, pp. 
222, 234; Fuller et al. 1999, p. 1; Propst et al. 2008, pp. 1246-1251; 
Pilger et al. 2010, pp. 300, 311-312). Nonnative fish and crayfish are 
found throughout the range of the Zuni bluehead sucker.
    Nonnative fishes known to occur within the historical range of the 
Zuni bluehead sucker include channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), 
fathead minnow, green sunfish, plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus), 
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), rainbow trout, cutthroat trout 
(Oncorhynchus clarkii), northern pike (Esox lucius) brown trout (Salmo 
trutta), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), and goldfish (Carassius 
auratus) (NMDGF 2003, pp. 2-14; NMDGF 2005, p. 10; David 2006, pp. 7-
15). In particular, nonnative predatory fishes (primarily green 
sunfish) have contributed to the displacement or elimination of the 
species from portions of its historical range (NMDGF 2004, p. 24). 
Predation by green sunfish upon native fishes with the Colorado River 
drainage has been well documented (Marsh and Langhorst 1988, p. 65; 
Lohr and Fausch 1996, p. 155; Dudley and Matter 2000, pp. 24, 27-28; 
Tyus and Saunders 2000, p. 19). Propst et al. (2001, p. 162) documented 
few or no Zuni bluehead suckers in areas occupied by green sunfish. The 
rarity of small Zuni bluehead suckers in Agua Remora may be due to 
green sunfish predation on young Zuni bluehead sucker, limiting 
recruitment (Marsh and Langhorst 1988, p. 65; Carman 2008, p. 17). In 
2006, green sunfish dominated the catch in Agua Remora (Carman 2007, p. 
7), but since that time, dedicated eradication efforts have led to a 
significant decline in green sunfish numbers, and larval Zuni bluehead 
suckers were observed in 2009 (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 17), 
indicating the population was responding positively to the reduced 
numbers of green sunfish. The Zuni bluehead sucker occurs only in 
stream habitats that are comparatively free of nonnative fishes (Propst 
and Hobbes 1996, p. 37; Carman 2009, p. 20). In Arizona, many of these 
nonnative predatory fishes occur on the Navajo Indian Reservation 
within occupied sites, including Whiskey Creek (Hobbes 2001a, p. 27; 
Carman 2004, p. 9), Wheatfields Creek (Hobbes 2001a, p. 32; Carman 
2004, p. 15), and Tsaile Creek (Hobbes 2001a, pp. 35-37; Carman 2004, 
p. 17), and it is likely that predation of Zuni bluehead sucker is 
occurring at these sites.
    Other nonnative predatory fish are found within the range of Zuni 
bluehead sucker, including fathead minnow, brown trout, rainbow trout, 
northern pike, and channel catfish. Predation by these species on 
native suckers has been documented in the San Juan River, New Mexico, 
and Yampa and Green Rivers, Colorado (Marsh and Brooks 1989, pp. 188, 
191; Johnson et al. 1993, p. 1139; Brooks et al. 2000, pp. 75-76, 80; 
Ward and Bonar 2003, p. 43).
    Two species of nonnative crayfish have been documented in the lower 
Colorado River drainage: The northern crayfish (Orconectes virilis) and 
red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) (Childs 1999, p. 5). Crayfish 
can impact aquatic systems because they are opportunistic omnivores 
(eating both animals and plants) (Carpenter 2005, p. 335). Many studies 
have demonstrated that introduced crayfish prey upon native fishes and 
compete with them for shelter (Rahel and Stein 1988, p. 94; Rahel 1989, 
p. 301; Bryan et al. 2002, pp. 49, 55-56; Carpenter 2005, pp. 5, 339). 
Crayfish are known to eat fish eggs, especially those bound to the 
substrate (Dorn and Mittelbach 2004, p.

[[Page 5380]]

2135), like those of the Zuni bluehead sucker.
    The northern crayfish was detected in the Zuni River confluence 
with the Rio Pescado, in the Rio Pescado itself, and in the lower end 
of Rio Nutria in 2000, 2001, and 2004, respectively (NMDGF 2004, p. 5; 
Carman 2009, p. 20). The northern crayfish is also present at occupied 
sites of Zuni bluehead sucker on the Navajo Indian Reservation in 
Arizona, including Whiskey Creek (Carman 2004, p. 9), Wheatfields Creek 
(Hobbes 2001a, p. 30; Carman 2004, p. 12), Black Soil Wash (Carman 
2004, p. 4; Kitcheyan and Mata 2012, p. 2), Kinlichee Creek (Kitcheyan 
and Mata 2012, p. 2), and Tsaile Creek (Hobbes 2001a, p. 36; Carman 
2004, p. 17). The northern crayfish is tolerant of a wide range of 
habitats and may be a threat to Zuni bluehead sucker through 
competition or predation.
    Nonnative fish and crayfish occur throughout the range of the Zuni 
bluehead sucker, and in Agua Remora the dominance of green sunfish 
appears to be the cause of limited recruitment and population decline. 
Given the widespread occurrence of green sunfish and other nonnative 
predators across the range of the Zuni bluehead sucker and the low Zuni 
bluehead sucker population numbers rangewide, we conclude that 
predation is a threat to the Zuni bluehead sucker.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease or Predation
    As stated above, NMDGF has begun a green sunfish eradication effort 
at Agua Remora, which has significantly lowered the green sunfish 
population there, such that larval Zuni bluehead sucker were observed 
after implementation of this program, after several years of absence.
Summary of Factor C
    In summary, black grub has been documented throughout the range of 
the species and is known to adversely affect or kill fish. In addition, 
nonnative predatory fish, particularly green sunfish, have contributed 
to the displacement or elimination of the species throughout its range, 
and nonnative crayfish are likely preying upon Zuni bluehead sucker 
eggs. Therefore, we conclude that disease may be a threat to the Zuni 
bluehead sucker and predation is a documented threat to the species. 
These threats are already occurring, they affect the species throughout 
its range, and they result in the reduced viability of the species 
because of the reduced range and low population numbers rangewide.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the Zuni bluehead 
sucker discussed under other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any, 
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision 
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * *.'' In 
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to 
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal 
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of 
the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four 
factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give 
strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to 
management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An 
example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State 
statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
    Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any 
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to 
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the 
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, 
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified 
threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal 
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or 
remove threats to the Zuni bluehead sucker.
    Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection 
for the Zuni bluehead sucker include: (1) New Mexico Wildlife 
Conservation Act; (2) Wildlife of Special Concern Act in Arizona; (3) 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); (4) National Forest 
Management Act; and (5) Zuni Pueblo Law and Order Code.
State Regulations
    New Mexico State law provides limited protection to the Zuni 
bluehead sucker. The species is listed in New Mexico as endangered, 
Group 2, which are those species ``whose prospects of survival or 
recruitment within the state are likely to become jeopardized in the 
near future'' (NMDGF 1988, p. 1; Bison-M 2012). This designation 
provides protection under the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act of 
1974 (the State's endangered species act) (19 NMAC 33.6.8), but it only 
prohibits direct take of this species, except under issuance of a 
scientific collecting permit. A limited amount of scientific collection 
occurs but does not pose a threat to Zuni bluehead sucker because it is 
regulated appropriately by the State. The New Mexico Wildlife 
Conservation Act defines ``take'' or ``taking'' as ``harass, hunt, 
capture, or kill any wildlife or attempt to do so'' (17 NMAC 17.2.38). 
In other words, New Mexico State status as an endangered species 
conveys protection from collection or intentional harm to the animals 
themselves but does not provide habitat protection. Penalties for 
violations may result in fines up to $1,000 and imprisonment up to 1 
year.
    The Wildlife of Special Concern Act in Arizona lists the Zuni 
bluehead sucker as a candidate species (AGFD 1996, p. 8). Candidate 
species are those species or subspecies for which threats are known or 
suspected but for which substantial population declines from historical 
levels have not been documented (though they appear likely to have 
occurred) (AGFD 1996, p. 8). The listing under the State of Arizona law 
does not provide protection to the species or their habitats. However, 
in 2007, AGFD identified the Zuni bluehead sucker in fishing 
regulations as a State-protected native fish that may not be possessed; 
however this status still lacks habitat protection (AGFD 2007, p. 1). 
Penalties for violations result in a fine.
    In Arizona and New Mexico the Zuni bluehead sucker is classified as 
a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SCGN) (AGFD 2006, p. 154; 
NMDGF 2006, p. 54). New Mexico's SGCN are associated with key habitats 
and include low and declining populations and species of high 
recreational, economic, or charismatic value (NMDGF 2006, p. 8). No 
regulatory protections are afforded based on this designation. Because 
there are no provisions for habitat conservation in either State's law, 
the existing New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act and the Arizona 
Wildlife of Special Concern Act do not address the threat of nonnative 
species in the habitat of the Zuni bluehead sucker.
    As discussed above (see Factor C. Disease or Predation), the 
introduction and spread of nonnative aquatic species is a threat to 
Zuni bluehead sucker. The existing regulatory mechanisms in Arizona and 
New Mexico do not protect the Zuni bluehead sucker from nonnative 
aquatic predators. Regulation of programs to introduce, augment, 
spread, or permit such actions do not address the spread of nonnative 
species, as many nonnative species

[[Page 5381]]

introductions are conducted through incidental or unregulated actions.
    We also searched for State laws or local ordinances that would 
include provisions for instream water rights to protect fish and 
wildlife and their habitat. New Mexico water rights are regulated by 
the Interstate Stream Commission and the Office of State Engineer for 
surface and groundwater; New Mexico State law does not allow for 
instream flows for fish and wildlife. Instream flows for fish and 
wildlife (i.e., water is not diverted for irrigation but remains in the 
river to ensure permanent flows) are allowed under Arizona water law; 
however, this is a relatively recent provision, and instream water 
rights have low priority and are often overcome by more senior 
diversion rights. Arizona State law also allows groundwater pumping via 
a permit process administered by the Arizona Department of Water 
Resources. As discussed above (see the above discussion on water 
withdrawals under Factor A), despite this regulation, groundwater 
withdrawals have resulted in reduced surface flow in Zuni bluehead 
sucker habitat. Therefore, it seems that the Arizona State law does not 
adequately protect Zuni bluehead sucker habitat.
Federal Regulations
    Many Federal statutes potentially afford protection to Zuni 
bluehead sucker. A few of these are the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701-1782) the National Forest Management Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq.). However, in practice, the provisions of these statutes that 
require consideration of rare species have not been able to address the 
threats to the Zuni bluehead sucker.
    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act and National Forest 
Management Act provide mechanisms for protection and enhancement of 
Zuni bluehead sucker and its habitat on Federal lands. The only Zuni 
bluehead sucker population on Federal land is in Agua Remora, on the 
Cibola National Forest. The National Forest Management Act requires the 
Forest Service to prepare management plans for each National Forest; a 
plan has been completed for the Cibola National Forest (Forest Service 
1985, pp. 17-18). Forest plans must meet the requirements of the 
Natural Resources Multiple-Use Act to address such issues as 
recreation, range, timber, biological diversity, and economic and 
social factors in agency decision making. The 1985 Cibola National 
Forest Plan includes a discussion of protection of the Zuni bluehead 
sucker. The plan indicated that fencing would protect Zuni bluehead 
sucker riparian habitat, but improved range management was needed to 
restore the entire watershed. The Forest Service has made minor 
progress in protecting the habitat at Agua Remora by fencing the area 
to prevent grazing, but as discussed above, fencing has not been 
completely effective due to inadequate maintenance of the fences. 
Continued monitoring and maintenance of this fence is necessary to 
provide sufficient protection to the Zuni bluehead sucker population in 
Agua Remora from the effects of livestock grazing.
    In addition, the Zuni bluehead sucker is listed as a sensitive 
species for the Forest Service's Southwestern Region, which includes 
Arizona and New Mexico (USFS 2007, p. 22). The Forest Service intends 
to develop and implement management practices to ensure that designated 
sensitive species do not become threatened or endangered because of 
Forest Service actions. Essentially, sensitive species must receive 
special management considerations or protection by the Forest Service 
to ensure their viability to preclude trends toward endangerment that 
would result in the need for Federal listing. While the Forest Service 
has attempted fencing at Agua Remora to eliminate the threat of 
livestock grazing, there are a number of other threats to the 
population at Agua Remora that are beyond the Forest Service's control; 
namely, water levels have been extremely low in recent years, and in 
the absence of removals by NMDGF, green sunfish affect Zuni bluehead 
sucker recruitment.
    Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates placement of fill into 
waters of the United States, including most of Zuni bluehead sucker 
habitat. However, many actions highly detrimental to Zuni bluehead 
sucker and its habitat, such as irrigation diversion, structure 
construction and maintenance, and livestock grazing are often exempted 
from the Clean Water Act or do not apply for protection under the Clean 
Water Act. Other detrimental actions, such as bank stabilization and 
road crossings, are covered under nationwide permits that receive 
little or no Service review. A lack of thorough, site-specific analyses 
for projects can allow substantial adverse effects to Zuni bluehead 
sucker and its habitat.
Tribal Regulations
    Zuni Pueblo--The Zuni bluehead sucker, speckled dace, and grass 
carp are protected from fishing in Zuni Pueblo lakes (Zuni Pueblo Law 
and Order Code S7-5-3 paragraph 36). In addition, stream fishing is 
prohibited on the Pueblo. These regulations protect the species from 
take by fishing but do not protect Zuni bluehead sucker habitat or 
prevent take from sources other than fishing, such as water withdrawals 
and livestock grazing.
    Navajo Nation--The Zuni bluehead sucker is currently not protected 
within the Navajo Indian Reservation. The Navajo Nation Endangered 
Species List classifies the bluehead sucker as a whole as a G4 species. 
G4 species are candidates and include those species or subspecies that 
may be endangered but for which they lack sufficient information to 
support listing (Navajo Nation Heritage Program 2008, pp. i, iv, vi, 
84).
Summary of Factor D
    In summary, the States' endangered species and water withdrawal 
regulations, as well as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and 
the National Forest Management Act are not adequate to protect the Zuni 
bluehead sucker or its habitat. State regulations prohibiting take of 
the species have been in place for decades; however, these regulations 
are not adequate to address the threats to habitat, particularly water 
withdrawals, impoundments, and the distribution and abundance of 
nonnative fishes. Because most of the threats to the Zuni bluehead 
sucker are from effects to its habitat and the introduction of 
nonnative, invasive species, in order to protect individuals and ensure 
the species' long-term conservation and survival, its habitat must be 
protected. Therefore, we conclude these existing regulations are 
inadequate to mitigate the impacts of identified threats to the 
species.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence
    Other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence 
of the Zuni bluehead sucker include habitat fragmentation, which is 
intensified by the small sizes of the remaining populations.
Habitat Fragmentation
    Zuni bluehead sucker populations appear to have always been 
relatively isolated from one another, as evidenced by the genetic 
lineages that have been observed (Service 2012a, pers. comm.). The 
further fragmentation of habitat and resulting increased isolation of 
Zuni bluehead sucker populations affects the species rangewide, by 
increasing the risk of population loss and subsequent

[[Page 5382]]

loss of genetic lineages. Dewatering and drought conditions have 
resulted in fragmentation of Zuni bluehead sucker populations, and 
continued water demands are expected to further reduce habitat 
available to the Zuni bluehead sucker and will likely further fragment 
and isolate populations. Fragmentation of Zuni bluehead sucker habitat 
increases the species' vulnerability from threats of further habitat 
loss and competition from nonnative fish because immigration and 
recolonization from adjacent populations is less likely. In-depth 
analyses of southwestern fish occurrence patterns (including Zuni 
bluehead sucker) led Fagan et al. (2002, p. 3254) to conclude that the 
number of occurrences or populations of a species is far less 
significant in determining extinction risk than is fragmentation of the 
species. Another source of habitat fragmentation is the construction of 
dams. Dams are known to change the hydraulics of the streams in the 
system, converting many formerly perennial streams into semiperennial 
or ephemeral streams that prevent movement of fish between populations 
and dramatically alter the flow regime of streams through the 
impoundment of water (Ligon et al. 1995, pp. 184-189).
    Small, isolated populations are subject to genetic threats, such as 
inbreeding depression (reduced health due to elevated levels of 
inbreeding) and to genetic drift (a reduction in gene flow within the 
species that can increase the probability of unhealthy traits; Meffe 
and Carroll 1994). Facial deformities have been seen in approximately 5 
percent of the populations at Agua Remora and Tampico Springs; these 
deformities have been attributed to the genetic effects of small 
populations (Carman 2009, p. 13), although the rate of deformity 
declined over time, such that no captured fish exhibited deformities in 
2010 (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 17). External deformities such as 
these have been linked to a low survival rate in other small, isolated 
fish populations (Sato 2006, p. 598); a lowered survival rate could 
reduce the Zuni bluehead sucker population sizes at Aqua Remora and 
Tampico Springs over time.
    Due to the small reaches of remaining habitat where Zuni bluehead 
suckers occur in relatively low numbers, single populations of Zuni 
bluehead sucker are at high risk of extirpation due to stochastic 
events from other known threats, such as wildfire or episodic drought 
(see Factor A discussion). Zuni bluehead sucker have experienced and 
withstood a number of droughts over time, but given the anticipated 
increased frequency and duration of drought, combined with the reduced 
population size and occupied habitat, the species is at a higher risk 
of extirpation and the species has a reduced resiliency to stochastic 
events.
Summary of Factor E
    Currently, Zuni bluehead sucker populations are highly fragmented 
within small, isolated springs and stream segments, causing them to be 
vulnerable to stochastic events, such as wildfire and episodic drought. 
In addition, detrimental genetic effects have already been observed 
within two populations. All known Zuni bluehead sucker populations are 
small and isolated, increasing their vulnerability. Due to the 
reduction in their range, and small population size, the remaining 
populations of Zuni bluehead experience reduced viability; therefore, 
we conclude that habitat fragmentation is a threat to Zuni bluehead 
sucker.
Cumulative Effects: Factors A Through E
    Many of the threats discussed above act in concert, and the 
resulting effects to Zuni bluehead sucker are amplified. For example, 
the reduction of water quantity restricts the geographic size of the 
population, which causes the species to be more vulnerable to other 
threats, such as beaver dams modifying habitat, an increase in 
nonnative predators, or ash flows from wildfire that may further reduce 
or eliminate the population. The ability of a population to be 
resilient to threats depends on the robustness of the population. For 
Zuni bluehead sucker, the remaining populations are likely not robust. 
They are reduced in size and their habitat has been reduced to a 
fraction of their historic range. Given these circumstances, the 
combined effects of current threats to the populations puts the species 
at risk rangewide. The combined effects of drought and nonnative 
predatory fish may reduce habitat, fragment the remaining habitat, and 
reduce reproductive potential, resulting in fewer fish. The remaining 
populations become less resilient and are not capable of recovering 
from the threats. Reproductive efforts from the Zuni bluehead sucker 
populations will be affected by the threats to their habitat, resulting 
in populations with reduced viabilities.

Determination

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to Zuni bluehead suckers. Habitat loss from water withdrawals, 
sedimentation, and impoundments is occurring rangewide, has resulted in 
extirpation of the species from all but headwater habitats, and is not 
likely to be reduced in the future (Factor A). The species' range has 
been reduced by 90 percent in New Mexico, and current distribution is 
limited to three populations in 4.8 km (3 mi) of streams. Drought 
frequency and water withdrawals are likely to increase, further 
restricting habitat and fragmenting or eliminating populations. 
Predation from nonnative fish is occurring rangewide and has been shown 
to reduce recruitment and population size at one location; this 
situation is likely impacting other populations, as well (Factor C). 
State wildlife laws and Federal regulations such as the National Forest 
Management Act are not adequate to address the threats to the species 
(Factor D). Additionally, the Zuni bluehead sucker is not able to 
naturally recolonize unoccupied areas (Factor E). There is virtually no 
redundancy of populations within each occupied watershed, further 
increasing the risk of loss of representation of existing genetic 
lineages and, ultimately, extinction. These threats have already 
resulted in the extirpation of Zuni bluehead sucker throughout an 
estimated 90 percent of its range and are only likely to increase in 
severity. Although there is less information available on threats 
occurring on the Navajo Indian Reservation, the information we do have 
is similar in kind and intensity to that for New Mexico. These threats 
are ongoing, are rangewide, are expected to increase in the future, and 
are significant because they further restrict limited available habitat 
and decrease the resiliency of the Zuni bluehead sucker within those 
habitats.
    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the Zuni bluehead sucker 
is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based 
on the severity and immediacy of threats currently impacting the 
species. The overall range has been significantly reduced, the 
remaining habitat and populations are threatened by a variety of 
factors acting in combination to reduce the overall viability of the 
species. The risk of extinction is high because the remaining 
populations are small, isolated, and have limited potential for 
recolonization. Therefore,

[[Page 5383]]

on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we propose listing the Zuni bluehead sucker as endangered 
in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a 
threatened species status is not appropriate for the Zuni bluehead 
sucker because of the contracted range (loss of 90 percent of its 
historic range), because the threats are occurring rangewide and are 
not localized, and because the threats are ongoing and expected to 
continue into the future.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is threatened or endangered throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Zuni bluehead sucker proposed for 
listing in this rule is highly restricted in its range and the threats 
occur throughout its range. Therefore, we assessed the status of the 
species throughout its entire range. The threats to the survival of the 
species occur throughout the species' range and are not restricted to 
any particular significant portion of that range. Accordingly, our 
assessment and proposed determination applies to the species throughout 
its entire range.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five 
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be 
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. 
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate 
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of 
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species 
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and 
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When 
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final 
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Arizona and New Mexico 
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions 
that promote the protection or recovery of the Zuni bluehead sucker. 
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species 
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the Zuni bluehead sucker is only proposed for listing 
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in 
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we 
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the 
Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service (Canyon De 
Chelly National Monument); issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act 
permits by the Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and 
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any 
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship 
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for

[[Page 5384]]

sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. Under the 
Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also illegal to 
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife 
that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of 
the Service and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With 
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the 
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation 
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species 
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result 
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import 
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for 
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years 
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
    (2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey 
upon the Zuni bluehead sucker, such as the introduction of nonnative 
green sunfish to the States of Arizona and New Mexico;
    (3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that 
attack any life stage of this species;
    (4) Unauthorized modification of the channel or water flow of any 
stream or removal or destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation in any 
body of water in which the Zuni bluehead sucker is known to occur; and
    (5) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill material into any 
waters in which the Zuni bluehead sucker is known to occur.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the New Mexico 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our listing determination and critical habitat designation are 
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have 
invited these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment 
period.
    We will consider all comments and information received during this 
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final 
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings 
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, 
and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 
15 days before the hearing.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), add an entry for ``Sucker, Zuni bluehead'' to the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under 
Fishes to read as set forth below:

[[Page 5385]]

Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                     Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                         population where                                 Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range         endangered or        Status     When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                               threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Fishes
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Sucker, Zuni bluehead............  Catostomus            U.S.A. (AZ, NM).....  Entire..............  E             ...........           NA           NA
                                    discobolus yarrowi.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: January 14, 2013.
Daniel M Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-01303 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P