[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43972-43979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15935]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[4500030113]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings 
on Petitions To List the Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout and the Ichetucknee 
Siltsnail as Endangered or Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition findings.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12-
month findings on petitions to list the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and 
the Ichetucknee siltsnail as endangered species or threatened species 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a 
review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we 
find that listing the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and the Ichetucknee 
siltsnail is not warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to 
submit to us at any time any new information that becomes available 
concerning the stressors to the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and the 
Ichetucknee siltsnail or their habitats.

DATES: The findings announced in this document were made on July 6, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: These findings are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at the following docket numbers:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Species                            Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Lake rainbow trout............  FWS-R8-ES-2012-0072
Ichetucknee siltsnail...............  FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supporting information used in preparing these findings is available 
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by 
contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials, 
comments, or questions concerning these findings to the appropriate 
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Species                        Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Lake rainbow trout...........  Jen Norris, Field Supervisor,
                                      Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
                                      Office, (916) 414-6600.
Ichetucknee siltsnail..............  Jay B. Herrington, Field
                                      Supervisor, North Florida
                                      Ecological Services Office, (904)
                                      731-3191.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call 
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing an animal or plant 
species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the 
date of receipt of the petition (``12-month finding''). In this 
finding, we determine whether listing the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and 
the Ichetucknee siltsnail is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) 
warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the 
petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine 
whether species are endangered or threatened species, and expeditious 
progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the 
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants 
(warranted but precluded). Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that 
we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines 
``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, section 3(6), and 
``threatened species'' as any species that is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, section 3(20). Under section 4(a)(1) 
of the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered species or 
a threatened 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; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    We summarize below the information on which we based our evaluation 
of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act in 
determining whether the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and the Ichetucknee 
siltsnail meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened 
species. More detailed information about these species is presented in 
the species-specific assessment forms found on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see 
ADDRESSES). In considering what stressors under the five factors might 
constitute threats, we must look beyond

[[Page 43973]]

the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the 
species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to 
the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only 
a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure 
and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat. In 
that case, we determine if that stressor rises to the level of a 
threat, meaning that it may drive or contribute to the risk of 
extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an 
endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. 
This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The 
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the 
species is likely affected could suffice. The mere identification of 
stressors that could affect a species negatively is not sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that 
these stressors are operative threats that act on the species to the 
point that the species meets the definition of an endangered species or 
a threatened species under the Act.
    In making our 12-month findings, we considered and evaluated the 
best available scientific and commercial information.

Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum)

Previous Federal Actions

    The Service has been petitioned three times to add the Eagle Lake 
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum) (ELRT) to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the authority of the Act. On 
April 28, 1994, we received a petition from John F. Bosta, of 
Susanville, California, requesting that we list the ELRT as an 
endangered or threatened species, designate critical habitat, and 
develop a recovery plan for the species. On August 7, 1995, we 
published our 90-day finding in the Federal Register (60 FR 40149) 
stating that the petition did not present substantial information to 
indicate that listing the ELRT as an endangered or threatened species 
under the Act may be warranted.
    On August 15, 2003, we received a second petition from Mr. John 
Bosta, requesting that we list the ELRT as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Act. On October 6, 2003, we received a similar 
petition from Mr. Chuck Sanford, of Loomis, California, dated September 
28, 2003. Mr. Sanford's petition repeated the same information provided 
earlier in the Bosta 2003 petition and was therefore treated as a 
comment on the first petition received. In our February 24, 2004, 
response letter to Mr. Bosta, we explained that we had reviewed the 
petition and determined that an emergency listing was not warranted, 
and that because of other court-ordered listing and critical habitat 
actions and settlements, we would not be able to otherwise address the 
petition to list the ELRT at that time, but would complete the action 
when workload and funding allowed.
    In a settlement agreement with WildEarth Guardians dated May 10, 
2011 [WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 10-377 (EGS) MDL Docket No. 
2165], we agreed to complete our 90-day finding on the 2003 petition to 
list the ELRT on or before September 30, 2012. On September 5, 2012, we 
published our 90-day finding in the Federal Register (77 FR 54548), in 
which we determined that the petition presented substantial information 
indicating that the ELRT may be warranted for listing as an endangered 
or threatened species, and initiated a status review and solicited 
information on the stressors potentially affecting the ELRT. 
Specifically, we found that the petition and information in our files 
indicated that the habitat in Pine Creek, a tributary to Eagle Lake and 
the major stream spawning habitat for ELRT, was degraded and that 
access to the stream was blocked by a weir used for collecting fish for 
hatchery purposes. We also found that the ELRT population in Pine Creek 
was subject to predation pressure from introduced nonnative brook trout 
(Salvelinus fontinalis).
    On May 13, 2014, Western Watersheds Project (WWP) submitted a 
notice of intent to sue the Service for failure to complete a 12-month 
finding on the 2003 petition and determine the listing status of the 
ELRT under the Act. On September 23, 2014, WWP filed a complaint 
(Western Watersheds Project v. Jewell et al.; Case 2:14-CV-02205-MCE-
KJN) to compel the Service to issue the 12-month finding.
    On March 17, 2015, the Service entered into a stipulated settlement 
agreement with WWP agreeing that no later than June 30, 2016, the 
Service would submit to the Federal Register a 12-month finding as to 
whether listing the ELRT under the Act is warranted, not warranted, or 
warranted but precluded.

Background

    The ELRT is a subspecies of rainbow trout endemic to the highly 
alkaline Eagle Lake and its main tributary, Pine Creek. Its range is 
restricted to Eagle Lake, Pine and Bogard Spring Creeks within the Pine 
Creek watershed, and, on occasion, other small tributaries to Eagle 
Lake, such as Merrill and Papoose Creeks. Past cumulative impacts from 
improper land management, introduction of nonnative fishes, 
overharvesting, and lowering lake levels during the late 1800s and the 
early 1900s resulted in the degradation of habitat within the Pine 
Creek watershed and a sharply declining ELRT population. To ensure the 
persistence of the subspecies and to sustain a trophy fishery in Eagle 
Lake, a hatchery program for the ELRT was created by the California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in 1950. In 1959, the Pine Creek 
Fish Trap and barrier weir (Trap) was constructed at the mouth of Pine 
Creek to assist in the collection of adult spawners for the hatchery 
program. The barrier weir blocked all fish passage except during high 
flow events; then, in 1995, the weir was modified further to block all 
fish passage, even in high flow events. In addition to the barrier 
weir, past land use practices had degraded stream conditions in the 
Pine Creek watershed. While the hatchery program substantially 
increased the ELRT population from historic lows observed in the 1930s-
1940s, the blockage of natural stream spawning opportunities, in 
combination with the degraded watershed conditions, prevented natural 
lake-to-stream spawning and resulted in an increased dependence on 
hatchery propagation.
    Stream-resident ELRT have been observed spawning in the 
intermittent and perennial sections of Pine Creek, which may be 
contributing to the natural reproductive population. There was an 
observation of spawning within the intermittent portions of Pine Creek 
and the subsequent downstream migration of fry in 2011. There were also 
observations of spawning within the perennial portions of Pine Creek in 
2009, and fry were observed the following spring in Pine Creek. Some 
spawning activity has also been observed along the gravelly shores of 
Eagle Lake, but it is unknown if spawning was successful or if it 
contributed to recruitment of the population. There has been recent 
successful spawning of ELRT in an aquarium at the Turtle Bay Museum in 
Redding, California, which suggests that spawning outside of the stream 
habitat is possible.

Summary of Status Review

    At the time of our 90-day finding in 2012, we found that the 
petition presented substantial information that the ELRT may warrant 
listing due to the present or threatened destruction,

[[Page 43974]]

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range based on the 
presence of a hatchery weir on Pine Creek impeding fish passage, 
predation from introduced nonnative brook trout on the remnant ELRT 
population in the headwaters of Pine Creek, and because of the ongoing 
hatchery program and hatchery practices potentially causing genotypic 
and phenotypic genetic shift in ELRT populations. Since our 90-day 
finding was issued on September 5, 2012, numerous conservation efforts 
have been implemented or are ongoing, and these conservation efforts 
have reduced the level of impact on the ELRT from identified stressors.
    Stressors Impacting ELRT: In completing our status review for the 
ELRT, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available and 
compiled this information in the 2016 Species Report for the Eagle Lake 
Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum) (Service, 2016). For our 
finding, we evaluated potential stressors related to the ELRT and its 
habitat. The different levels of impact of each stressor or combination 
of stressors are defined as follows: (1) Low-level impacts are those 
that result in a minor loss of individuals and/or habitat currently or 
expected in the future; (2) moderate-level impacts are those that 
result in more than a minor loss, but not a widespread loss, of 
individuals and/or habitat currently or expected in the future; and (3) 
high-level impacts are those that result in a widespread loss of 
individuals and/or habitat currently or expected in the future.
    The stressors we analyzed were grazing, roads and railroads, water 
impoundments, fish passage barriers, recreational fishing, predation 
from and competition with brook trout, disease, effects from artificial 
propagation, and effects from climate change. The full analysis for all 
of these stressors can be found in the ELRT 12-Month Petition Finding's 
Supporting Document at http://www.regulations.gov (see ADDRESSES, 
above). As discussed in greater detail in that document, we have 
concluded, based on the best information available at this time, that 
the effects from grazing, roads and railroads, water impoundments, fish 
passage barriers, recreational fishing, disease, and effects from 
artificial propagation (all of the stressors analyzed, other than 
predation from and competition with brook trout and climate change, 
which, as discussed further below, have moderate-level impacts) are 
currently low-level impacts to ELRT and will continue at a low level 
into the future. With respect to fish passage barriers, the fact that 
this stressor--which historically had severe, high-level impacts--
currently has only low-level impacts on the ELRT reflects a significant 
change in conditions that has reduced the stressors on the ELRT and 
improved its status.
    As noted above, beginning in 1959 the Pine Creek Fish Trap and 
barrier weir prevented any migrations between Eagle Lake and suitable 
spawning habitat in the upper Pine Creek watershed. However, a fishway 
was installed in the Trap in 2012, which now fully allows upstream 
spawning migration runs. A few other fish passage barriers still 
currently exist, higher up in the watershed upstream of the Trap, but 
these are only barriers under extreme low flow conditions and only have 
the potential to be minor impediments to habitat access by stream-
resident fish in some locations. Currently, the only significant 
barrier to spawning migration is the lack of consistent annual flow 
within the lower, intermittent portions of the Pine Creek watershed. 
Past land use management practices, which have now been discontinued, 
likely exacerbated the effects of inconsistent flows by degrading 
habitat conditions, which in turn would have reduced the amount of 
suitable migration opportunities. However, this inconsistent flow 
barrier appears to be a natural condition of the system in which the 
ELRT has evolved. With the removal of the Trap as a barrier and 
discontinuation of harmful land use management practices that occurred 
in the past, the ELRT are now returned to the natural condition, 
including the inconsistency of adequate annual flows. As a result of 
this natural condition of inconsistent annual flows, there remains a 
potential that ELRT individuals during the spring attempting to migrate 
into the Pine Creek watershed to spawn may be either completely 
precluded from making spawning runs in any given year, or get stranded 
before reaching spawning habitat. There is no information to indicate 
these conditions will change (e.g., more frequent adequate annual 
flows) in the future, and therefore we believe this condition will 
continue to result in a minor loss of both individuals and habitat. 
However, while remaining barriers may result in reduced habitat 
opportunities in some locations, and inconsistent annual flows may 
result in reduced spawning opportunities or stranded individuals, 
conservation efforts (including installation of the fishway in the Pine 
Creek fish trap) have significantly improved the overall condition 
relative to passage barriers and have greatly improved the outlook for 
the ELRT, since it went from no ability at all for natural spawning 
from Eagle Lake to significantly increased opportunities throughout the 
watershed.
    Two of the stressors--predation from and competition with brook 
trout, and the potential effects from climate change--may result in 
moderate-level effects. The populations of nonnative brook trout that 
occur within the Pine Creek watershed have impeded the ability of the 
ELRT to establish a large stream population within the perennial 
portions of Pine and Bogard Spring Creeks. The large brook trout 
population not only competes with the ELRT for resources, but also 
preys on ELRT eggs and juveniles. The presence of brook trout likely 
precludes a robust population of stream-dwelling ELRT, both those 
resident now and those expected to migrate there now that passage 
barriers have been removed. However, there have been observations of 
individual ELRT and ELRT-spawning in the perennial sections of the 
watershed with brook trout present, demonstrating an ability to 
withstand some level of co-occurrence. During a 3-year electrofishing 
study in Bogard Spring Creek from 2007-2009, ELRT made up 3 percent of 
the fish caught, and brook trout made up 92 percent (Carmona-Catot et 
al. 2011, p. 331). Competition with and predation from nonnative brook 
trout will continue to be a source of loss of individuals within the 
Pine Creek watershed into the future, for as long as brook trout are 
present. However, this stressor does not rise to the level of a threat 
for the subspecies for several reasons: (1) Brook trout only affect a 
small portion of the overall ELRT population, since brook trout only 
occur in the perennial portions of the Pine Creek Watershed and not in 
the lake, where the main population of ELRT are found; (2) there is 
some evidence that ELRT may successfully spawn apart from the upper 
watershed streams; (3) ELRT are able to co-occur at low levels in 
streams where brook trout are present; and (4) the sustainable hatchery 
operations are continuing to provide robust, healthy populations of 
ELRT throughout the entire watershed.
    The effects of climate change will result in low- to moderate-level 
impacts into the foreseeable future, depending on various projected 
climate conditions. Future climate trends and projected climate models 
show a range of conditions that may occur in the future. Therefore, the 
degree to which climate change acts on the subspecies may vary (within 
the low to moderate range) under each projected modeled scenario.

[[Page 43975]]

    Climate change may change the flow regime of the Pine Creek 
watershed, which may in turn influence the ELRT's ability to reach 
spawning habitat during the typical spawning migration timeframe. 
Climate change models predict that winter temperatures would increase, 
and that winter precipitation would shift from snow to rain. Under the 
lower emission scenario, April snowpack would be reduced 65 to 87 
percent in the 5,740-foot (1,750-meter) elevation range of Pine Creek, 
and under the higher emission scenario, the reduction would be from 95 
to 97 percent. In either scenario, Pine Creek would be likely to flow 
more during the winter, due to winter rain events, but flows from 
snowmelt during the spring season would be lower. This has the 
potential to ``shift'' the flow regime that is suitable for migration 
backwards in the year toward the winter months. Such a change would be 
likely to affect ELRT's spawning timing into upper Pine Creek. However, 
historically (before climate change was a factor) runoff timing and 
stream flow duration have always been a limiting environmental factor 
in successful spawning migrations of ELRT, and observations have shown 
that ELRT has a large variability in spawning timing. ELRT have been 
observed entering streams during spawning migrations from early 
February through late May. The earliest spawning migration is recorded 
as February 9 through 12, 2015, when adult ELRT were seen entering 
Papoose Creek. The latest recorded spawning migration is within Pine 
Creek, where adults were observed spawning on May 23, 1975, and on May 
22, 1995. Because of ELRT's ability historically to withstand 
stressful, varying conditions, and their plasticity in spawning timing, 
the potential change in Pine Creek's flow regime is not likely to 
impede their spawning migrations significantly. However, one possible 
consequence of an earlier spawning migration may be a reduction in the 
duration of the spawning season. Since spawning migrations are 
triggered by increasing water temperatures, earlier runoff will narrow 
the amount of time when there is adequate runoff at the appropriate 
temperature for the spawning migration. This may result in fewer 
individuals migrating and, ultimately, fewer individuals contributing 
to the reproductive population. It is important to note that this 
discussion about potential effects to spawning timing is in the context 
of a newly re-established migratory connection between Eagle Lake and 
Pine Creek. For many years prior, ELRT has been unable to migrate from 
Eagle Lake to Pine Creek at all. This effectively means that, even if 
there is some slight impact from a shift in the flow regime resulting 
from climate change, there will be a net increase in natural stream 
spawning, now and into the future. For a more in-depth discussion of 
the potential effects from climate change relative to ELRT spawning, 
please see the ELRT 12-Month Petition Finding's Supporting Document 
(see ADDRESSES). In addition, while we have determined that the 
potential effects from various climate change scenarios are not likely 
to rise to the level of impact on the ELRT such that it is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, based 
solely on projected conditions and conservation efforts that have 
already been implemented and/or are already ongoing and likely to 
continue into the future. Planned conservation (see below), including 
restoration of stream habitat, channel function, and hydrology, will 
further improve the watershed's hydrologic function and help make the 
watershed more resilient to the effects of drought, potentially 
improving flow duration and volume. Increasing the robustness of the 
stream population will ensure natural production will take place at 
times when successful spawning migration is not possible, as the stream 
resident population will be capable of spawning and rearing within Pine 
Creek, and then migrate to Eagle Lake in subsequent years when 
conditions allow. Finally, any improvements to the artificial spawning 
program as a result of genetic studies will potentially improve the 
genetic variability of the subspecies, making it more likely the ELRT 
will be able to withstand environmental changes into the future.
    In addition to evaluating the effect of individual stressors, we 
also looked to see whether multiple stressors may act concurrently on 
the species, and whether any synergistic effects were likely. Multiple 
stressors may act on the same individuals of a species or their habitat 
at the same time, which can result in impacts that are not accounted 
for when stressors are analyzed separately. Stressors that appear minor 
when considered alone may have greater impacts on individuals or 
habitat when analyzed cumulatively with other stressors. Furthermore, 
some stressors may act synergistically to cause impacts that are 
greater than the cumulative sum of the individual stressors. Cumulative 
effects can be described as additive, with the effects from each 
individual stressor being added to the effect from each subsequent 
stressor, and all effects are combined in an overall impact on the 
species. Synergistic effects go beyond a straightforward additive 
approach; instead a synergistic approach describes when multiple 
stressors, interacting on a species or its habitat at the same time, 
actually increase the intensity of one or more of those stressors.
    Past cumulative effects to habitat within the Pine Creek watershed 
reduced the quality and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat within 
the Pine Creek watershed, and in conjunction with overharvesting, 
introduction of nonnative fish, and lowering of the lake level, the 
population of ELRT declined. The population decline prompted the 
construction of the Trap and barrier weir to prevent the loss of adult 
individuals trying to migrate upstream and to collect adult spawners 
for hatchery purposes. As a result of that construction, the past 
cumulative impacts have been greatly reduced.
    Under the current conditions, we found that it would be reasonable 
to anticipate cumulative effects on the ELRT from climate change 
altering the flow regime and the presence of brook trout. These 
stressors combined may result in additional individuals being lost; 
however, this loss would still be considered a moderate-level impact: 
More than a minor, but not widespread loss of individuals, particularly 
when the installation of the fishway is likely to significantly improve 
the ability of ELRT to spawn. We found no information indicating a 
potential for synergistic effects between any of the stressors. 
Moreover, any such moderate-level impacts--even when combined with low-
level impacts from other stressors--would not cause the ELRT to be in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
    Conservation Efforts: In addition to evaluating the stressors, we 
also considered and evaluated conservation efforts that have been 
implemented and shown to be effective in ameliorating the effects of 
stressors on the ELRT. We describe below the sources of these completed 
conservation efforts (including some future conservation efforts yet to 
be implemented, although we did not rely on those future conservation 
efforts for the determination in this finding). To view the complete 
suite of all conservation efforts, please see Tables 2 and 3 of the 
ELRT Species Report (Service, 2016, pp. 50-54, 57-60).
    CRMP Group: In 1987, the Coordinated Resource Management Planning 
(CRMP) group was formed to

[[Page 43976]]

identify goals and implement a course of action for habitat and 
ecosystem restoration for Pine Creek. The CRMP group includes 
membership by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the University of 
California Cooperative Extension for Lassen County, the California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and local landowners and 
interested parties. The initial goals for restoring Pine Creek 
included: (1) Improve streambank stability; (2) improve vegetation 
cover in the watershed; (3) raise the streambed and water table in the 
drainage, and spread out peak flows of Pine Creek; (4) restore the 
natural ELRT fishery in Pine Creek; (5) improve wildlife habitat along 
Pine Creek; (6) reduce nutrient and sediment loading into Eagle Lake 
from Pine Creek; (7) maintain grazing and timber management; and (8) 
meet goals in a coordinated effort with all affected parties. The 
Service has been occasionally involved in the planning efforts of the 
CRMP group since 1995.
    The CRMP group has completed numerous successful restoration 
actions since 1989 to improve habitat conditions and re-establish 
natural populations and spawning runs of ELRT within the Pine Creek 
watershed. Restoration actions have included, among other things, 
replacing culverts to increase fish passage and improving grazing 
practices. A summary of the restoration actions, both completed and 
planned, is shown in Table 2 of the Service's ELRT Species Report 
(Service 2016, pp. 49-54). As stated above, our determination in this 
finding only relied on those conservation efforts that have been 
implemented and shown effective at reducing or removing stressor 
impacts. 2015 ELRT Conservation Agreement and Conservation Strategy: A 
2015 conservation agreement for ELRT and the associated conservation 
strategy were developed to expedite the implementation of conservation 
measures for the ELRT as a collaborative and cooperative effort among 
the CDFW, the USFS, and the Service. The conservation strategy was 
created to serve as a framework for the conservation and protection of 
the ELRT and to contribute to the species' persistence into the future. 
Conservation actions described in the conservation strategy are 
currently being implemented by CDFW and USFS, or are being planned for 
future implementation. As stated above, our determination in this 
finding only relied on those conservation efforts that have been 
implemented and shown effective at reducing or removing stressor 
impacts. These conservation efforts included:

--Removal of natural passage barriers;
--Modified spawning practices to increase genetic diversity; and
--Marking hatchery-raised fish to monitor the ``natural'' population.

    Role of CDFW Fish Hatcheries: Since the 1950s, CDFW has been 
raising ELRT for fish stocking in Eagle Lake and Pine Creek. In 
addition to other hatcheries that raise ELRT for fish stocking 
throughout the nation, there are currently two CDFW fish hatcheries 
(Darrah Springs and Crystal Lake State Fish Hatcheries) that raise ELRT 
for stocking into Eagle Lake and Pine Creek. Both of these hatcheries 
have completed conservation efforts recommended by the CRMP group and 
are currently participating in conservation efforts in support of the 
2015 conservation agreement and conservation strategy. The CDFW has 
been an active member in planning and implementing ELRT restoration 
actions since 1989 as part of the CRMP group. CDFW assisted in the 
development of the conservation strategy and is a signatory agency on 
the conservation agreement.
    The two CDFW fish hatcheries are being operated in a manner to 
provide conservation benefits to the subspecies by: (1) Producing a 
large number of stocked ELRT annually, with no indication or reason to 
stop doing so in the future; (2) monitoring naturally produced fish; 
(3) managing for genetic diversity and disease outbreak control; (4) 
providing access to upstream creek reaches for spawning by installation 
of the fishway at the Trap; and (5) planning to remove predatory 
nonnative brook trout. In evaluating the conservation benefits from 
hatchery operations, we did not rely on the potential for brook trout 
removal. Instead, we focused on those actions already undertaken 
(removal of the Trap as a passage barrier) and operations that are 
already in place (propagation, genetic practices, disease control), 
have already provided conservation benefits, and will continue to do so 
into the future.
    The CRMP group has completed numerous successful restoration 
actions to improve habitat conditions and reestablish natural 
populations and spawning runs of ELRT within the Pine Creek watershed 
since 1989. Restoration actions include, but are not limited to: 
Improving grazing practices, replacing culverts to increase fish 
passage, and attempting to remove nonnative brook trout from Bogard 
Spring Creek. A summary of the restoration actions is shown in Table 2 
of the Services ELRT Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 45-54). Through 
the conservation strategy, CDFW has successfully implemented ELRT 
health monitoring for disease control at the hatcheries, and adjusted 
hatchery operations, propagation efforts, fish stocking practices, and 
fish passage strategies to benefit natural populations and spawning 
runs of ELRT in Pine Creek. Based on the successful track record of 
numerous parties implementing these conservation actions together, we 
conclude that ongoing implementation of those actions is removing or 
reducing identified stressors to the subspecies or its habitat.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors 
acting on the subspecies and its habitat, either singly or in 
combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude 
to indicate that ELRT (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum) is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range (an endangered species), or 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened 
species). Populations of ELRT are improving due to past conservation 
actions and ongoing efforts to re-establish and increase naturally 
occurring populations. Current and ongoing habitat management and 
restoration activities for ELRT have made substantial progress since 
their inception and are continuing into the future.
    We also considered whether the ELRT is threatened or endangered 
throughout a significant portion of its range. We evaluated the current 
range of the ELRT to determine if there is any apparent geographic 
concentration of potential threats for the ELRT. The ranges for 
naturally occurring populations of ELRT are relatively small and 
limited to the watershed for where they are found, unless they are 
stocked by CDFW in Eagle Lake and other areas due to artificial 
propagation. We also examined potential stressors throughout the range 
of the ELRT. Because the distribution of the subspecies is generally 
limited to Eagle Lake and the Pine Creek watershed, and the stressors 
are similar and essentially uniform throughout the range, we found no 
portion of the range that could qualify as a significant portion of the 
ELRT's range and no concentration of stressors that suggests that the 
ELRT may be in danger of extinction, or likely to become in danger of 
extinction, in any portion of its range. Therefore, we find that 
listing the ELRT

[[Page 43977]]

as an endangered or a threatened species throughout all of or a 
significant portion of its range is not warranted at this time.
    This document constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the 
petition to list the ELRT as an endangered or threatened species and 
fulfills our settlement obligation. A detailed discussion of the basis 
for this finding can be found in the ELRT Petition Finding's Supporting 
Document (see ADDRESSES, above).

Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia mica)

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, 
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, 
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Tierra Curry, and Noah Greenwald 
(referred to as the ``CBD petition'') requesting that the Service 
consider for listing as either endangered or threatened 404 species in 
the southeastern United States, including the Ichetucknee siltsnail, 
that were ranked as G1 or G2 by the organization NatureServe; as near 
threatened or worse by the International Union for Conservation of 
Nature; or as a species of concern, threatened, or endangered by the 
American Fisheries Society. The Service issued 90-day findings on 
September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59836), in response to the petition and 
concluded that the petition presented substantial information 
indicating that the listing of 374 species (including the Ichetucknee 
siltsnail) under the Act ``may be warranted.'' On June 17, 2014, CBD 
filed a complaint against the Service to compel the Service to issue a 
12-month finding as to whether the listing of the Ichetucknee siltsnail 
is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded. The complaint 
was resolved on September 22, 2014, when the U.S. District Court 
approved a settlement agreement between the Service and CBD, including 
a commitment for the Service to submit a 12-month finding for the 
Ichetucknee siltsnail to the Federal Register by June 30, 2016.

Background

    The Ichetucknee siltsnail (Floridobia mica) is a freshwater snail 
in the phylum Mollusca, order Littorinimorpha, and family Hydrobiidae 
and is a distinct species. This snail is small with a shell that is 
between 2.0 and 2.3 millimeters (0.08 to 0.09 inches) in length. The 
Ichetucknee siltsnail is known in only one locality; it is endemic to 
Coffee Springs, a small spring located within Ichetucknee Springs State 
Park along the west bank of the Ichetucknee River about 1.6 kilometers 
(1.0 mile) northeast of U.S. Highway 27 in Suwannee County, Florida. 
Coffee Springs is a third magnitude spring with a flow of 2.83 cubic 
feet per second (cfs) and a pool area between 364 square meters (m\2\; 
3,918 square feet (ft\2\)) and 19 m\2\ (205 ft\2\). The spring is open 
and continuous with the Ichetucknee River. The siltsnail exists 
throughout the entire spring in varying densities, and they are found 
in nearly all habitat types within the spring. Little is known about 
the Ichetucknee siltsnail's biology and behavior, as there has not been 
a comprehensive study of the species. However, some of the life history 
of the genus Floridobia has been described. Most Floridobia snails have 
a lifespan of 1 to 2 years, and the sexes are dioecious (separate). 
Reproduction is sexual and occurs throughout the year, and females may 
be either oviparous (egg-laying) or ovoviviparous (live birth after 
eggs hatch inside the body). The females are larger than the males, and 
the ratio of females to males tends to be greater. Floridobia are found 
in greater abundance closer to spring heads, where the water 
temperature and flow are steady and where dissolved oxygen levels are 
low. Abundance decreases farther from the spring head, and population 
size seems to be influenced by the substrates available in the springs 
as well as by spring velocity, presence of macrophytes and algae mats, 
and flood frequency. Abundance is positively associated with the amount 
of available shading. Floridobia are prey to some small fishes; 
however, the role of predators on the population size is unknown. 
Floridobia graze on detritus and periphyton/biofilm. While a toxicity 
test has not been performed on the Ichetucknee siltsnail, it is likely 
it would be sensitive to contaminants, as studies on other Hydrobiidae 
snails have shown low tolerance to contaminants.

Summary of Status Review

    The CBD petition identified recreation as the primary threat to the 
Ichetucknee siltsnail and also identified aquifer withdrawal 
(groundwater depletion), saltwater intrusion within karst habitats, 
groundwater contamination and water pollution, small population size 
effects, and lack of regulatory mechanisms in place to protect this 
snail as potential stressors to the species. The Service examined these 
potential stressors indicated by CBD, as well as the potential for 
contaminant spills, development and land use, nonnative species, and 
the effects of climate change as potential stressors to this species. 
After examining these potential stressors under a five-factor analysis, 
we found that they are not actual stressors to the Ichetucknee 
siltsnail at this time.
    CBD indicated that recreation was the biggest threat, as 
recreational activities on the adjacent Ichetucknee River will cause 
habitat degradation and destruction. However, the Ichetucknee State 
Park (Park) has fenced off Coffee Springs from the Ichetucknee River to 
prevent any such disturbance to snail habitat. The Park also is 
implementing a management plan that includes monitoring and protecting 
this species. Under this plan, Coffee Springs is periodically monitored 
and inspected to ensure that no damage to the habitat occurs and that 
there have been no changes to the habitat of the siltsnail or the 
surrounding areas. Protective fencing and signage in the area of Coffee 
Springs is also being maintained.
    Groundwater depletion was identified by CBD as a threat; however, 
it is not expected to affect the population of siltsnails despite a 
flow deficit on the Ichetucknee River. In addition, minimum flows and 
levels (MFLs) for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and 
priority springs areas, including Coffee Springs, have been established 
by the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) and an MFL 
recovery or prevention strategy has been put into place that is 
expected to raise the flows and levels so that they will not fall below 
the established minimums and, therefore, we do not anticipate future 
negative effects on the species that would rise to the population 
level. Although identified by CBD, there is no evidence of saltwater 
intrusion occurring in Coffee Springs or on the Ichetucknee River that 
would affect the Ichetucknee siltsnail. There is a concern for 
groundwater contamination and water pollution through increasing 
nitrate levels in the Ichetucknee spring system based on samples taken 
within the springs since the 1940s. However, these changes have been 
very gradual, and any future changes are also expected to occur very 
slowly. Currently, exposure to increased nitrate levels does not appear 
to be having a negative effect on the Ichetucknee siltsnail. 
Additionally, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has 
been implementing a basin management action plan (BMAP) since February 
of 2012, for the management of total maximum daily load (TMDL) for 
nitrates in the water systems of the Ichetucknee River and Santa Fe 
River

[[Page 43978]]

basins, which includes the Ichetucknee River and spring system, and 
water quality is expected to improve over time. There is a buffer of 
State park land ranging from 500 to 1,700 m (5,381.96 to 18,298.65 ft) 
wide surrounding both sides of the river at and upstream of Coffee 
Springs. Therefore, contaminant spills are unlikely to occur on the 
protected State park property and are therefore not considered a likely 
stressor to the Ichetucknee siltsnail or its habitat. Development and 
land use are also not stressors, because Coffee Springs is located 
entirely within a protected zone in the State park land where 
development and other uses are excluded.
    While nonnative species can sometimes result in the loss and 
decline of a native species, and two nonnative species were identified 
in the Ichetucknee River, neither of the nonnative species was 
identified within Coffee Springs, nor were they shown to be colonizing 
the adjacent Ichetucknee River in high numbers. The best available 
information indicates that nonnative species are not affecting the 
Ichetucknee siltsnail at the species level now, nor do we have 
indication that they will in the future. While climate change has the 
potential to affect habitat used by this species, much uncertainty 
remains regarding which habitat attributes may be affected, and the 
timing, magnitude, and rate of change. Based on this variability and 
uncertainty of the effects of climate change on the Ichetucknee 
siltsnail within its range, we cannot reasonably determine that the 
effects of climate change are likely to be a threat to the species now 
or in the foreseeable future. Small population size effects are one of 
the reasons the Ichetucknee siltsnail was identified under the CBD 
petition as a species at risk for extinction. However, the known 
distribution of the species has always been limited and small, and the 
population within the spring appears to be healthy and abundant, has 
persisted in this location, and does not appear to be negatively 
affected at the population level by the potential stressors identified 
in the CBD petition or by the potential stressors we identified. In 
addition, measures are in place to protect or monitor both the habitat 
and the population. The CBD petition did not identify overutilization, 
disease, or predation as threats to the species, and the best available 
scientific and commercial information does not indicate that these 
stressors are negatively affecting the Ichetucknee siltsnail, or that 
they are likely to do so in the foreseeable future.
    The existing regulatory mechanisms we examined are reducing, and 
likely to continue reducing, the stressors. There are a number of laws 
that set standards for clean water generally such as the Clean Water 
Act of 1972 (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the Safe Drinking Water 
Act of 1974 (SDWA; 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.). The CWA and SDWA are in 
place to protect water quality such that it will be supportive of 
aquatic wildlife. State regulatory mechanisms in place include 
protections of the Ichetucknee River and springs under designation as 
class III waters and as Outstanding Florida Waters. Both of these 
designations ensure protection of water quality in the groundwater, 
springs, and surface waters of the Ichetucknee River and spring system 
and are therefore also protective of the habitat used by the 
Ichetucknee siltsnail. The SRWMD has included consideration of the 
Ichetucknee siltsnail within its established MFLs, and the Park has 
included the management and protection of snail habitat within its park 
management plan. FDEP has enacted a BMAP for the management of TMDLs 
for nitrates in the water systems of the Ichetucknee River and Santa Fe 
River basins. While this is not specifically designed to alleviate 
stressors on the Ichetucknee siltsnail, its purpose is to ensure that 
TMDLs within the Ichetucknee River and spring system are monitored and 
managed.
    In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we consider and 
evaluate the best available scientific and commercial information. This 
evaluation includes information from all sources, including State, 
Federal, tribal, academic, and private entities and the public. After 
evaluating the best available scientific and commercial information on 
all potential stressors acting individually or in combination, we found 
no information to indicate that the combined effects are causing a 
population-level decline or currently degrading habitat of the species 
or that they are likely to do so in the foreseeable future.

Finding

    We examined potential threats to the Ichetucknee siltsnail from 
development, recreation, groundwater withdrawal, nonnative species, 
environmental contaminants, overutilization, disease or predation, the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, small population size, 
and the effects of climate change. The population is now the largest it 
has ever been and appears to have been stable since 1968. After 
evaluating the best available scientific and commercial information, we 
found no evidence that these potential stressors are acting on, or 
having a negative impact on, the Ichetucknee siltsnail. In addition, 
the State continues to manage the site to protect both the habitat and 
the species.
    Because the Ichetucknee siltsnail is only known from one location 
(Coffee Springs), there is no portion of the species' range where 
potential threats are significantly concentrated or substantially 
greater than in other portions of its range. Therefore, we find that 
factors affecting the Ichetucknee siltsnail are essentially uniform 
throughout its range, indicating no portion of the range is likely to 
be in danger of extinction or likely to become so. Therefore, no 
portion warrants further consideration to determine whether the species 
may be endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range.
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors, 
even when considered cumulatively, are not of sufficient imminence, 
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Ichetucknee siltsnail is 
in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all of its range 
or any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that 
listing the Ichetucknee siltsnail as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Act is not warranted at this time.
    This document constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the 
April 20, 2010, petition to list the Ichetucknee siltsnail as an 
endangered or threatened species and fulfills our settlement 
obligation. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be 
found in the Ichetucknee Siltsnail Petition Finding's Supporting 
Document (see ADDRESSES, above).

New Information

    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
status of, or stressors to, the Eagle Lake rainbow trout or the 
Ichetucknee siltsnail to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New 
information will help us monitor these species and encourage their 
conservation. If an emergency situation develops for either of these 
species, we will act to provide immediate protection.

[[Page 43979]]

References Cited

    Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon 
request from the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Unified Listing Team, Ecological Services Program.

Authority

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

    Dated: June 24, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-15935 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P