FederalRegister / Vol. 54, No. 163 I Thursday,August 24, 1989 / Rulesand Regulations 35305

pinnatisecta.U.S.ForestService;Region3.Albuquerque,NM. 7 pp.

Hutchins,C.R. 1974.A Floraof theWhiteMountainArea,southernLincoln andnorthernOteroCounties.NewMexico.Albuquerque,NM. 583 pp.

Malaby,S. 1987.Argemonepleiacanthassp.pinnatisectaSurvey.U.S. ForestService,Region3. Albuquerque,NM. 13 pp.

Malaby,S. 1988.ReportonArgemoneplelacanthaasp.pinnatisecta.U.S.ForestService,Region3, Albuquerque,NM. 12 pp.

Meiiji ResourceConsultants.1979.ACollectionof rare,threatened,andendangeredplantspeciesdatain theSacramentoRangeEISarea,NewMexico.Bureauof LandManagement,LasCruces,NM. 63 pp.

Ownbey,G.B. 1958. Monographof theArgemonefor NorthAmericaandtheWestIndies.MemoirsorTorreyBotanicalClub.21:1—159.

Soreng,R.J. 1982.Statusreporton Aiyemonepleiacanthasap.pinnatisecta.U.S.FishandWildlife Service,Albuquerque,MM. 24pp.

Soreng,R.J. 1988.FresnalCanyonPreservefor Aryemoneplelacanthaasp.pinnatisecta.TheNatureConservancy,Albuquerque,NM. 18pp.

Spellenberg,R. 1977.Final reporton thesurveyfor threatenedandendangeredplant specieson theEastSideSocorroarea,centralNewMexico, 1976—1977.Bureauof Land Mangement,SocorroDistrict, NM, 221 pp

Spellenberg,R. 1978.Reviewof federally“threatened”or ‘~endangered”plantspeciesin theLasCrucesDistrict of theBureauof LandManagement,U.S.Departmentof theInterior. Bureauof LandMangement,LasCruces,NM. 160 pp.

Author

Theprimaryauthorsof this final ruleareSonjaE. JahrsdoerferandSueRutman,EndangeredSpeciesBiologists,U.S.FishandWildlife Service,P.O.Box1306,Albuquerque,NewMexico 87103(505/768—3972or Fl’S 474—3972).Statusinformationwasprovidedby Dr. RobertSoreng,NewMexicoStateUniversity,LasCruces,NewMexico.

RegulationPromulgation

Accordingly,part17, subchapterB ofchapterI, title 50 of theCodeof FederalRegulations,is amendedassetforthbelow:

PART 17—{AMENDED]

1.The authoritycitation for part 17continuestoreadasfollows:

Authority:Pub. L 93—205, 87 Stat.884;Pub.L. 94—359,90Stat.911; Pub.L 95—632,92Stat.3751; Pub.L 96—159. 93 Stat.1225; Pub. L 97—30.4, 96Stat.1411; Pub. L. 100—478,102 Stat.2306; Pub.L 100—653,102 Stat.3825 (16 U.S.C.1531 etseq.);Pub.L 99—625. 100Stat.3500,unlessotherwisenoted.

2. Amend § 17.12(h) by addingthefollowing, in alphabeticalorderunderthefamily Papaveraceae,to theList ofEndangeredandThreatenedplants:

§ 17.12 Endangeredandthreatenedplants.* * * * *

Dated:July18,1989.

SusanRecceLamson,ActingAssistantSecretaryfor FishandWildlifeandParks.

[FR Doc.89—19901Filed 8—23—89;8:45 am]BIWNO CODE 4310-65-U

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1O18-ABOZ

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Determination ofEndangered Status for the Virgin RiverChub

AGENCY: Fish andWildlife Service,Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: TheServicedeterminestheVirgin Riverchub (C/larobustaseminuda)to bean endangeredspeciesundertheprovisionsof theEndangeredSpeciesAct (Act) of 1973,asamended.This speciesoccursin theVirgin Riverin Arizona,Nevada,andUtah.Threatsto theVirgin Riverchubincludehabitatchanges,disease,floods, toxic spills,andcompetitionwith exotic fishes.The

speciesisparticularlyvulnerabletothesethreatsbecauseof its very limiteddistribution.In accordancewith4(b)(6)(C)of theAct, thefinaldesignationof criticalhabitatincludedin theproposedrule ispostponed.Thisrule implementsthe full protectionprovidedby theAct for the Virgin Riverchub.EFFECTIVE DATE: September25, 1989.ADDRESSES: Thecompletefile for thisrule isavailablefor inspection,byappointment,during normalbusinesshoursat the Service’sFish andWildlifeEnhancementOffice, 1745 West.1700South,SaltLakeCity, Utah84104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. DonaldL. Archer,SaltLakeCity.Utah(seeADDRESSESabove)(801/524—4430orFl’S 588—4430).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundCl/a robustaseminudawasfirst

collectedfrom theVirgin RivernearWashington,Utah,by membersof theWheelerSurveyanddescribedas aspeciesintermediatebetweenC/larobustaandCl/a elegans(CopeandYarrow 1875).Laterauthorshavetreatedthis chubasa subspeciesof

robustaalongwith otherchubsfromvariousstreamsystemsin theColoradoRiverbasin(Ellis 1914,Miller 1948,LaRiversandTrelease1952).HoldenandStalnaker(1970)showedthat thesubspecificnameseminudashouldreferonly to thechubin theVirgin River, andthatspecimensfromotherlocalitiesrepresentothersubspeciesof C/Iarobusta.HoldenandStalnaker(1970)andMinckley (1973)indicatedthat theVirgin Riverpopulationis a validsubspecies,andSmithet al. (1977)supportedthis conclusionwithextensivetaxonomicanalyses.

The Virgin Riverchub is a verysilverymedium-sizedminnowthat averagesabout20 centimeters(cm) or8 inches(in) in total lengthbut cangrow to alengthof 45 cm(18 in). C/la robustaseminudacanbedistinguishedfromothersubspeciesby thenumberof rays(9 to 10) in the dorsal,anal,andpelvicfins, andthenumberof gill rakers(24 to31). Theback,breast,andpartof thebelly havesmall, deeplyembeddedscalesthataredifficult to seeandmaybe absentin someindividuals.Thischaracteristicis thebasisfor thesubspecificnameseminuda.

A closelyrelatedform of Gb robusta,which appearsto be anundescribed

List of Subjectsin 50 CFR Part17

Endangeredandthreatenedwildlife.Fish,Marinemammals,Plants(agriculture). (h) * *

Sp~esHistoric range Status Critical habitat Specialrules

Is.Scientificname Common name

Papaveraceae—Poppy family:

Argemonepleiacanthaasp.pinnatisscta Sacramento p,iclcly poppy U.S.A. (NM) E 359 NA NA

35306 Federal_Register/ VoL 54, No. 163 / Thursday,August 24, 1969 / Rules and Regulations

subspecies,is foundin theMoapaRiverin Nevada.TheMoapaRiverwasoriginally atributaryof theVirgin River,but both arenow tributariesto LakeMead,areservoiron theColoradoRiver.Although theMoapaformof Gilarc’busta hasalso sufferedpopulationdeclinesin thepast,hasa reducedrange,andpresentlyexistsatlowpopulationlevels(Cross1976,DeaconandBradley1972),theMoapaformisnot affectedby thepresentlistingof theVirgin Riverchub.

C/la robustaseminudais endemicto134milesof the Virgin RiverinsouthwestUtah,northwestArizona,andsoutheastNevada.Historically, theVirgin Riverchubis believedto haveoccurredthroughoutmostof theVirginRiverfrom itsoriginal confluencewiththemain stemColoradoupstreamto LaVerkin Creek,nearthetownofH.:rricane.Utah. CopeandYarrow(18~5Jraferto thechub’sabundancenearWashington,Utah, as“this speciesis by no meansscarce,asseveralhundredwereobservedcapturedbyboys with hook andline.” However,recentstudies(Cross1975,WoundfinRecoveryTeam1977—1986)suggestthatalargedecreasein rangeandnumbersof this specieshasoccurredin thelastcentury,primarily from 1860 to 1900whenmanyof thepresentwaterdiversionswereconstructed.Thesediversionsdewateredapproximately35miles of thechub’snaturalhabitat.Withtheconstructionof HooverDamandtheimpoundmentof LakeMeadanadditional40milesof river wasinundated,for anearlytotal destructionof almost56 percentof thechub’soriginalhabitat.

This speciespresentlyoccursin only50miles of themainstreamVirgin RiverbetweenMesquite,Nevada,andLaVerkin CreeknearHurricane,Utah;only

• twicehasit beenrecordedin atributary(Cross1975,Hickman1985).It is mostcommonin deeperareaswherewatersareswift, but not tm’bulent, andis~oneraIly associatedwith bouldersorothercover(Minckley 1973).It occursoversandandgravelsubstratesinwaterlessthan90 F (30 C), andis verytolerantof high salinity andturbidity~L)eaconandHolden1977).TheVirginRiverchub is anomnivore,eatingalgae,aquaticandterrestrialinsects,orgca’.icdetritus,andcrustaceans(Cross1975).

i~a studyof thefishesof theVirginRivarfrom 1973 to 1975,Cross(1975)fcundveryfew young-of-the-yearVirginRiverchubsoradultsover17.5cm (7 in)in standardlength.During this study,Cro~tawasableto captureonly 154individual chubs,comprisingonly 1percentof the10,822nativefish

specimenshe collected.The WoundfinRecoveryTeamreportedgoodchubreproductionin 1978,1983and1986.Hickman(1988) foundgoodreproductionin 1983and1986butvery little in 1964,1985, 1987or 1988.

The sizeof manyriverinefishpopulations,suchas theVirgin Riverchubpopulation,oftenfluctuatesovertimedueto erraticenvironmentalconditions.It is not clearwhatthemajorinfluencingfactorsarebut fish producedduring successfulyearsmay dominatethepopulationand,for long-livedspecies,mayinfluenceits structureformanyyears.Thus,thesizeandfuturesurvivalof thepopulationis stronglyinfluencedby thefrequencyofsuccessfulreproductiveyearsandthesurvivalof theyoungof thoseyears.Man’salterationof naturalhydrologiccyclesandotherperturbationsin theVirgin Riverhascausedchangesin thissystemthatmayhaveresuLedin fewerperiodsofoptimal reproductionfor theVirgin Riverchub.

During 1988, aftersalvaging1200Virgin Riverchub,all fisheswereeradicatedfrom a21-milereachof theVirgin Riverin Utahfrom theWashingtonFieldsdiversiondownstreamto theheadof theVirginRiverGorge.Thepurposewastoeradicatetheexoticredshiner(Notropislutrenals).A fewmonthslaterthe fishpopulationbelowQuail CreekReservoirwasfurtherimpactedby a devastatingflood whichresultedfrom thecollapseof adike retainingabout25,000acrefeetof waterin the QuailCreekReservoir.Thiseventis believedto havehadadevastatingimpacton theentire fishpopulationin 85 miles of theVirginRiver.

Potentialthreatsto thespecies’survivalinclude furtherwaterremoval.additionalimpoundments,sedimentation,pollution,channelalteration,disease,andcompetitionand/orpredationby introducedspecies.Thethreatsaremagnifiedby the lownumbersandnaturallylimited rangeofthis fish andits consequentvulnerabilityto extensivelossesfrom a singlethreator evenasingleevent.

Landsalongthoseportionsof theVirgin River occupiedby theVir2inRiverchubareadministeredby theBureauof LandManagement(BLM), theStatesof UtahandArizona, andprivatelandowners.In Arizonaabout80 to 90percentof the landsalongtheriver areadministeredby BLM. with privatelandbeingconcentratedin the vicinity ofLittlefield. In Utah,about13milesof thelandsalongtheriveraremanagedbyBLM, the Stateowns4 parcelswithsmallamountsof river frontage,andthe

remainderis privately owned.InNevada,landsalongtheriver abovethetown of Mesquiteareprivatelyowned.

OnAugust23, 1978, theServicepublishedaproposalto list theVirginRiverchubasendangeredwith criticalhabitat(43FR 37868).OnSeptember30,1980, theServicewithdrewtheaboveproposal,becauseit wasnot finalizedwithin 2yearsof its initial publication intheFederalRegister(45FR 64853)asrequiredby the EndangeredSpeciesActAmendmentsof 1978.OnDecember30,1982,C/Ia robastoseminudawasincludedon theVertebrateNotice ofReview(47 FR58454)in category1.CategoryI includesthosetaxaforwhich theServicecurrentlyhassubstantialbiological informationtosupportproposingto list thespeciesasendangeredor threatened.In April 1983theWoundflnRecoveryTeamrecommendedthat this chub,whichisfoundin thesameriverastheendangeredwoundfin (P/a.gopteruswyentiss/mus),beaddedto theFederallist asendangered.UndercontractwiththeService,astatusreporton the VirginRiverchubwaspreparedby Mr. C.O.Minckley.This 1983 reportrecommendedthat thechubbelisted asendangeredwith criticalhabitat.OnJune24, 1988,the ServicepublishedintheFederalRegister(51FR 22949)aproposalto list theVirgin Riverchub asendangeredandto designateits criticalhabitat.

Summaryof CommentsandRecommendations

In theJune24, 1986,proposedrule(51FR 22949)andassociatednotifications,all interestedpartieswererequestedtosubmit factualreportsor informationthatmightcontributeto thedevelopmentof afinal rule. Theoriginal commentperiodclosedon August25, 1986,butwasreopenedon September18, 1986 (51FR33096),to accommodatethepublichearingandremainedopenuntilDecember15, 1986.AppropriateStateagencies,countyandcity governments.Federalagencies,scientificorganizations,andotherinterestedpartieswerecontactedandrequestedtocomment.Newspapernoticessummarizingtheproposedruleandinviting generalpublic commentwerepublishedin theDailySpeci”umon July28 1986, andin theDeserefNewsonJuly 31,1986. Commentswerereceivedfrom40 entitiesandarediscussedbelow. Commentsgivenat thepublichearingarealsosummarized.

Requestsfor a publichearingwerereceivedfrom JohnS. Williams,ExecutiveDirector,Five CountyAssociationof Governments,St.George,

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday,August 24, 1989 / Rulesand Regulations 35307

Utah;JerryB. Lewis,Chairman,WashingtonCountyCommission,St.George,Utah; Callister,DuncanandNebekes,Attorneys-at.Law,SaltLakeCity, Utah;TomHatch,Chairman,ColorCountryResourceConservationandDevelopment,CedarCity, Utah; NormanH. Bangerter,Governor,Stateof Utah,Salt Lake City; andRobertA. Stark,Mayor, WashingtonCity, Utah.A publichearingwasheldin St. George,Utah,onOctober15, 1986.Interestedpartieswerecontactedandnotifiedof thehearings,anda noticeof thehearingwaspublishedin theFederalRegisteronSeptember8, 1986 (51 FR 33096).Newspapernoticesannouncingthepublic hearingwerepublishedin theDailySpectrumon October5, 1986, andin theDeseretNewson September19,1986.A total of 30 peopleattendedthehearing.A transcriptof thishearingisavailablefor inspection(seeADDRESSES). The17 oralcommentsreceivedin thehearingsarealsosummarizedbelow.

Becauseof theneedfor apromptdeterminationof endangeredstatusfortheVirgin Riverchub,andbecauseofthe complexityof theeconomicanalysisthatmustaccompanythefinal ruledesignatingcritical habitat,the Servicehasdecidedfor thepresentto makefinal only the listing portion of theproposednile. Section4(b)(6)(C)of theAct allowstheServiceto postponethedesignationof criticalhabitat for up tooneadditional yearfrom thedateofpublicationoftheproposedrule. Thefinal decisionon thedesignationofcritical habitatfor the Virgin Riverchubwill bemadeatalaterdate.Therefore,commentsreceivedregardingtheproposedcritical habitatdesignationwill not bediscussedhere,but will beaddressedin the final noticeon criticalhabitat.

Commentsfrom 32 partieswerereceived:12 supportedtheproposal;sevenquestionedoropposedtheproposaland13 eithercommentedoninformationin theproposalbutexpressedneithersupportnoropposition,werenonbiologicalorirrelevantto theproposal,or containedonly economicorothercommentsrelatedto critical habitatdesignation.

Of the 30 peopleattendingthepublichearing,16 peoplerepresenting17partiespresentedoralstatements,Sevenpartiesopposedthe listing, sixsupportedthelisting, andfourpartieseither commentedon information in theproposalbut expressedneithersupportnoropposition,gavenonbiologicalcomments,orprovidedeconomicorother commentsrelatedto criticalhabitatdesignation.

All lettersandwritten or oralstatementsreceivedduringthecommentperiodandpublic hearingsarecombinedin thefollowing discussion.All commentsareavailablefor publicinspection(seeADDRESSES).

CommentssupportingtheproposalwerereceivedfromArizonaGameandFishDepartment,ArizonaDepartmentofCommerce,NevadaDepartmentofWildlife, DesertFishesCouncil,AmericanSocietyofIchthyologistsandHerpetologists,UtahWildlifeFederation,AmericanFisheriesSociety,SouthernUtahResidentsConcernedabouttheEnvironment,andsevenotherinterestedparties.

Commentsquestioningor inoppositionto theproposalwerereceivedfromGovernorNormanBangerter,WashingtonCountyCommission,WashingtonCountyWaterConservancyDistrict, WashingtonCountyFarmBureau,UtahFarmBureauFederation,Five CountyAssociationofGovernments,ColorCountryResourceConservationandDevelopment,WashingtonCity, Cities of HurricaneandSt.George,andtwo otherinterestedparties.

Requestsfor informationor commentsthatexpressedneithersupportnoropposition,werenonbiological,economic,orrelatedto criticalhabitatwerereceivedfromSenatorOrinHatch,SenatorJakeGarn,ArizonaDepartmentof WaterResources,ArizonaStateLandDepartment,UtahDepartmentofNaturalResources,Soil ConservationService(UtahOffice), BureauofReclamationUpperColoradoRegionalOffice andLower ColoradoRegionalOffice, FederalHighwaysAdministration,WashingtonOffice oftheBureauof LandManagement(respondingfor theArizonaStateOffice), ColoradoRiverBasinSalinityControlForum,andthreeinterestedparties.

Summariesof substantivecommentsaddressingthelistingof theVirgin Riverchubarecoveredin thefollowingdiscussion.Commentsof similar contentareplacedin anumberof generalgroups.ThesecommentsandtheService’sresponsesaregivenbelow:

Issue1: Listing the Virgin Riverchubwill adverselyaffectfutureeconomicdevelopmentof southernUtah,particularly by affectingwaterresourcedevelopment.In addition,listing is notnecessarybecauseexistingregulationsandcontrols,alongwith betterwaterplanning,aresufficientto protectthechub.

Response:TheAct requirestheServiceto list aspecies“solely on thebasisof thebestscientificand

commercialdataavailable”,regardlessof the economicimpacts.However, theServicedoesnot intendto curtail thefuture economicdevelopmentof theareaby listing this species.Rather,theService’sintent is to provide thelegalplatformwherebytheconservationofthis specieswill berecognizedin futureplanning.The Act only requiresFederalagenciesthatcarryout, fund,orpermitprojectsto provide for theconservationof only thosespeciesthatarelistedasendangeredorthreatened.Thelisting ofthe woundfinasendangered,in 1970,hasnot impactedongoingirrigationprojectsnorhasit preventedtheconstructionof QuailCreekReservoir.Listing the Virgin Riverchubmeansthatthe Servicewill continueto work withotherFederalagencieswhen theyplanaprojectthatmayaffect the continuedsurvivalof thespecies.Therecorddemonstratesthatendangeredspeciesrarelycausethe abandonmentof aproject, but rathercausetheprojecttoproceedin amannerthatprovidesfortheconservationof thespecies.Inadditionto workingwith otherFederalagencies,theServicehopesto developacooperativerelationshipwith Stateandlocalgovernmentsandprivatelocal usergroupsto work towardstheconservationandrecoveryof thespecies.

Issue2: The 1984 studiesby Hickman(Hickman1985)seemto showanincreasein chubabundancesinceCrosssampledthe populationin theearly1970’s(Cross1975).

Response:Hickman’s data(1985,1988)is not directly comparablewith Cross(1975)becauseHickmanusedmoreefficientsamplinggearandsampledatdifferentsamplingsites.While Hickmanhascollectedmanymorechubs,hissamplingeffortsgreatlyexceededthatofCross.Hickman’s observationsrelativeto reproductivesuccessconcurwith thatof theWoundfinRecoveryTeam,whichshowsthat the chubhasspawnedsuccessfullyonly 3 of thepast12 years(1978, 1983, and1986). This lackofbreedingsuccesshascontinuedthroughthe1988 spawningseason.The Servicedoesnot interpret3 yearsofreproductivesuccessout of thepast12yearsaseitherestablishinga trendor asacceptableevidencethatthespeciesisnot endangered.

Issue3: Listing the Virgin Riverchubis premature;theServiceshouldwaituntil additional biological dataaregatheredoruntil ongoingstudiesarecomplete.

Response:The availablebiologicaldataindicatethat the Virgin Riverchubis sufficientlyreducedin numbersandrange,andis facedwith threatsserious

35308 FederalRegister/ VoL 54, No. 163 1 Tluirsday, August 24,1989 / Rules and Regulations

enoughto warrantlisting this speciesasendangered.

Issue4: The endangeredwoundfininhabitssomeof thesamereachesof theVirgin Riveras theVirgin Riverchub.Why doesthe Serviceneedto list theVirgin Riverchubwhen theprotectionofthe Act givento thewoundfinwill begoodenoughto protectthe Virgin Riverchub too?

Response:TheVirgin Riverchub fullymeetstherequirementsfor listing asendangeredasdefinedby theAct,therefore,theServiceis requiredto listthe species.If theVirgin Riverchubisnot listed,its habitatneedswill not betakeninto accountwhenplanningforthehabitatneedsof thewoundfin.Hickman’s (1985)resultsindicatethatboth your~-of-the-yearandlargerchubsmayfrequentthe sameareasasthewoundfin,but accordingto currentecologicaltheory, theirhabitatrequirementscannotbe identicaLTherefore,thehabitatfor thechubcannotbeadequatelyconsideredandprotectedin theplanningandreco’~eryprocessfor thewoundlin.

Issue5: Severalcomrnentersdisagreedwith theService’sconclusionthathabitatalterationis athreatto thespecies.Theyquestionedwhetheranysignificantalterationhasoccurred,andarguethat in thepastthespecieshascoexistedwith developmentandcanbeexpectedto continueto coexist.

Response:The Servicebelievesthathabitatalterations,particularlyimpoundmentsandirrigation diversionsthathavealreadyoccurred,havesignificantly changedandreducedthehabitjt of theVirgin Riverchubandhavecontributedto the species’decline.TheVirgin Riverchubhaspersistedinthis greatlymodifiedriver, but furthera~teratienanddestructionof thespecies’habitatcanonly contributeto itsdecline.Ways in whichhabitatalterationanddestructionhaveaffectedthe Virgin Riverchubarediscussedunder‘FactorA” of the “SummaryofFactorsAffer~tingtheSpecies.”

Jssje8: Chubsaremoreabundantinheavily impairedhabitat(betweentheWa~hingtonFieldsDiversionto theArizonaStateline) thanthey areinwhatappearsto be betterhabitat.

Resnonse:The availabledatadoesnotsupportthis statement.Virgin Riverchubabundanceis generaUyhighestwherethebestfeedingandholdinghabitatsoccur.Thesehabitatsarenotspreadevenlythroughouttheriver, butareu~aiIyfoundwherethebetterflowsoccurin the river. Highly impactedareas,suchasimmediatelybelowWashingtonFieldsDiversion,havelower concentrationsof chubs.

Issue7: TheService’spopulationestimatesareartificially low becausefloodinghasdecreasedthenumberoffish.

Resporzse.~it is truethatrecentfloodeventsappearto havenegativelyaffectedthechubpopulationsin someareas.Thesefloodsarecatastrophiceventsthathavereducedthechubpopulations,thustheService’spopulationestimatesarenot “artificiallylow.” Becausetherehasbeenamajorreductionin thespeciesrange,substantialchangesin if 5 nativehabitat,andinfrequentspawningsuccess,it willbe muchharderfor thesepopulationstorecoverto prefloednumbers.

Issue8: The fish is not a vahdspeciesor subspecies.

Response:TaxonomicexpertsunanimouslyagreethatC/la robustaseminudais avalid subspecies.TheVirgin Riverchubhasseveralfeaturesthatdistinguishthis subspeciesfromothersubspeciesin thegenus.

Issue9: Insteadof listing, why can’tthe Serviceform acommittee,like thatformedfor theUpperColoradoRiverfishes, to overseerecoveryactionsandresolvewateruseconflicts?

Response:The availabledataindicatethattheVirgin Riverchubfully meetsallthe criterianecessaryfor listing asendangered.Therefore,theServiceisrequiredto list the species.Oncelisted,thechubwill receivethesameprotectionthewoundfin,Coloradosquawfish.humpbackchub,andbonytail chubreceive.Recoveryeffortsfor thelatterthreespeciesarecoordinatedby boththe UpperColoradoRiverCoordinatingCommitteeandtheColoradoRiverFishesRecoveryTeam.Virgin RiverChili) recoverywill becoerdinatedby theWoundfinRecoveryL’am, whichwill berenamedtheVirginRiverFishesRecoveryTeam.Withoutlisting, therewould belittle reasontoconsiderchubhabitatneedsiii anyplanningfor the Virgin River.

Is~suelot Severalcommentersprovidedorcommentedon new datathathavebeencollectedsincethepublicationof theproposedrule.

Response:The Serviceis awareofthesedataandhasincorporatedtheminto the final rule.

Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies

After athoroughreviewandconsiderationof all informationavailable,theServicehasdeterminedthatthe Virgin Riverchubshouldbeclassifiedasan endangeredspecies.Proceduresfoundat section4~a)(1)oftheEndangeredSpeciesAct (16U.S.C.1531 at seq.)andregulations(50CFRpart424)promulgatedto implementthe

listingprovisionsof the Actwerefollowed.A speciesmay be determinedto beendangeredorthreatenedduetooneormoreofthefive factorsdescribedin section4(a)(1).Thesefactorsandtheir applicationto the Virgin Riverchub(C/Iarobustaseminuda)areasfollows:

A. Thepresentor threateneddestruction,mod/f/cation,or curtailmentofits bob/tator range.As with mostdesertriver systems,the Virgin Riverhasbeenextensivelymodified toaccommodatehumanneeds,whichincludeirrigation,municipalandindustrial uses,recreation,andlimitedhydropowerproduction.Typesof rivermodificationsinclude:Conversionofflowing watersinto still waters by -

impoundmsntalterationof flow regimes(includingconversionofperennialwatersto intennittentor noflow, andthereduction,elimination,ormodificationof naturalfloodingpatterns);alterationof watertemperatures(eitherhigheror lower);alterationof silt andbedloads;increasein watersalinity; lossof marshesandbackwaters;andalterationof streamchannelcharacteristicsfrom awell-defined, surfacelevel, vegetatedchannelwith a diversity of substratesandhabitats,into ashallower,widerstreambedwith little riparianvegetation,uniformsubstrates,andlittle habitatdiversity.Causesof suchalterationsinclude:impoundments.waterdiversions,riparianvegetationdestructionandalteration,channeldowncutting,erosion,roadconstruction,channelization,floodcontrol,agriculturaluseof thestreambanks,waterpollution,andotherwatersheddisturbances.

Waterdiversionsandimpoundmentshavecausedthemostobviousnegativeeffectsto the Virgin Riverchubpopulation.Diversionshavedewateredor reducedto shallow, braidedstreamssome35 miles of theVirgin River. Theseearlychangesin the Virgin Riverundoubtedlycausedreductionsin theabundanceof nativefishes,includingtheVirgin Riverchub,butthechangesdidnot reducethechubsto thepoint ofextinction.

TheVirgin Riverchubpopulationhaspersistedin thericrer despitemajorrivermodificationsandlossof habitat.FurthermodificationsproposedalongtheVirgin Riverarid its tributariesarehkcly to reducehabitatto apoint thattheriver will no longersupportthechubandthespecieswill becomeextinct.Plannedmodificationsto Virgin Rivertributariesincludethefollowing actions.The WashingtonCountyConservancyDistrict hasidentifiedfourpotential

FederalRegister / VoL 54, No. 183 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 I Rules and Regulations 35309

reservoirsitesincluding: Ash CreekaboveToquerville, theEastForkof theVirgin River,North Creekabovethetownof Virgin, andBullockReservoirontheNorth Forkof theVirgin River(Thompson1986).In addition,the SoilConservationServicehasseveralprojectsproposedin theVirgin Riverbasinin Utah,includingflood controland irrigationprojects(Holt, in iitt.). Toavoidnegativeimpactsto thechub,theseprojectswill havetobe carefullyplannedto provide for theconservationof the chuband itshabitat.

B. Overutilizationfor commercial,recreational,scientific,or educationalpurposes.The Servicehasno evidenceto suggestoveruseof this fish for anyofthesepurposes.

C. Diseaseorpredation.TheAsianfish tapeworm(Bothriocephalusache/lognathi)posesa major threattotheVirgin Riverchub(Deacon1986,Heckmanneta!. 1986).This parasitewasfirst recordedin Virgin Riverchubsin theSt. Georgeareaby HeckmannetaL (1986),but probablyoccurredin chubpopulationsin the lowerriver since1979(Heckmannetci. 1986).Fishheavilyinfectedwith tapewormsmaybelessableto copewith environmentalstressescreatedby rivermodificationsandto competewith exoticfl8hesthanareuninfectedfish.Heckmannet a!.(1988) foundthatparasiteloadswerecorrelatedwith waterquality,flowrates.andhabitatdisturbance,with thehighestnumberandfrequencyoccurringin disturbedsites.Heckmannetci.(1986) hasspeculatedthat theAsiantapewormwasintroducedinto theVirgin Rivervia thenon-nativeredshiner(NotropislutrensLs).

Unlike otherportionsof theColoradoRiverbasin,theVirgin River hashadrelativelyfew exoticpredatoryfishspecies.In thepast70 years,only a fewexoticpredatoryfish. 8uch asgreensunfish(Lepomiscyanelius),blackbullhead(Ictalurusmelas),andlargemouthbass,havebeenabletoinvadetheVirgin River.andthenonlywith limited success.This lackofsuccessis dueprimarily to thenaturallyhighsalinity,temperature,andturbidityof the streamandits highly fluctuatingflows. Theextremephysicalconditionsappearto haveinhibitedthe Invasionofmanyexoticspecies.Actions thatalternaturalenvironmentalconditionsmaycreateconditionsmorefavorabletoexoticfishes.

Thered shiner(Notropislutrensis),anexoticspecies,is a relativelyrecentadditionto theichthyofaunaoftheupperVirgin Riversystem.RedshinershavebeenfoundbelowtheVirgin RiverGorgefor morethan25 years,wheretheir increasehascorrespondedto a

decreaseinnative fishes.Redshinershavebeenimplicatedin thedeclineofseveralothernativespecies,areconsideredto beathreatto thefederallyendangeredwoundfin,andmaypresentasignificantthreattoearlylife stagesofthe chub.In theSt. Georgearea,theredshiner(Notropis!utrens/s)becameestablishedin 1985anddominatedfishcollectionswithin oneyear.In 1988amajorrenovationeffort wasundertakento removethered shinerfrom21 milesof theupperriver andpreventitsreinvasionthroughtheconstructionofabarrierdamat the headof theVirginRiverGorge.Thesuccessof thisundertakingcontinuesto beevaluated.Theredshinefarecentinvasiondemonstratestheseriousnessof thethreatof exoticfish invasionsto allnativespeciesin theVirgin River.

D. Theinadequacyof existingregulatorymechanisms.TheStateofArizonacurrentlylists theVirgin RiverchubunderGroup2of theThreatenedNativeWildlife of Arizona(ArizonaGameandFishCommission1982).Group2 includesthoseanimalswhosecontinuedpresencein Arizonaisnow injeopardy.TheStateof Nevadaliststhespeciesassensitive(NevadaBoardofWildlife Commissioners1981),acategorywhichincludesthosespeciesthatmaybecandidatesfor classificationto amorerestrictivestatus.The StateofUtahlists theVirgin Riverchubasthreatened,meaningit is likely tobecomeendangeredin theforeseeablefuture.TheseStatelistings protectthechubfrom unregulatedtaking.However,noneoftheseStatelistings providehabitatprotectionfor thechub.

In 1986,Utahpassedalaw whichprovidestheUtahDivision of WildlifeResourceswith theopportunity toacquirewaterrightsfor in-streamflowpurposesto protectfish andwildlifehabitat.This provisionmayallow theStateto workwith cooperatingagenciesandindividuals to protectsensitive,endangeredor threatenedspeciesandtheirhabitats.TheNevadawaterlawhasnoprovisionsfor theacquisitionandprotectionof In-streamwaterrights forthe preservationof fish andwildlife Intheirhabitat.

E. Othernatural or manmadefactorsaffectingits continuedexistence.Thereducednumbersandrangeof theVirgin Riverchubmake it particularlyvulnerableto the threatsdiscussedabove.BecausetheVirgin Riverchubexistsundercontinuedandexpandinglevels of stress,anyactivity thataffectsthequantityor qualityof Its habitatwillalsoaffectthesubspecies.

TheServicehascarefullyassessedthebestscientificandcommercialInformationavailableregardingthepast.

present,andfuturethreatsfacedby thisspeciesin determiningto makethis rulefinal. Basedon this evaluation,theServicehasdecidedtolist theVirginRiverchub asendangered.A decisiontotakeno actionwould constitutefailuretoproperlyclassifytheVirgin Riverchubpursuantto the EndangeredSpeciesAct andwould excludethischubfrom theprotectionprovidedbytheAct. A decisiontoproposeonlythreatenedstatuswould notadequatelyreflectthesmallpopulationsize, thereducedrange,andthemultiple threatsfacedby this fish. Forthereasonsgivenbelow,critical habitatdesignationisbeingpostponed.Designationof criticalhabitatwill be addressedin asubsequentFederalRegisternotice.

Critical Habitat

Section4(a)(3)of theAct requiresthattothemaximumextentprudentanddeterminable,the Secretarydesignatecriticalhabitatat the timea speciesisdeterminedto beendangeredorthreatened.Section4(b)(6)(C) furtherindicatesthata concurrentcriticalhabitatdeterminationis notrequired.andthat thefinal decisionondesignationmay bepostponedforoneadditionalyearfrom thedateofpublicationof theproposedrule, if theServicefinds thata promptdeterminationof endangeredorthreatenedstatusis essentialtotheconservationof thespeciesinvolved.The Serviceconsidersthata promptdeterminationof endangeredstatusfortheVirgin River chubis essential.As aproposedspecies,theVirgin River chubis eligibleonly for thelimitedconsiderationgivenundertheconferencerequirementof section7(a)(4)of theAct. as amended.Thisdoesnotrequirea limitation on thecommitmentofresourceson thepartofconcernedFederalagenciesorapplicantsforFederalpermits.Therefore,to ensurethat the fullbenefitsof section7 andotherconservationmeasuresprovidedby theAct will apply to theVirgin Riverchub,promptdeterminationof endangeredstatusis essential.

Section4(b)(2)of theAct requirestheServiceto considereconomicImpactsofdesignatinga particularareaascriticalhabitat.TheServicereceivedconsiderableinformationduringthecommentperiodon thepossibleeconomicimpactsof designatingcriticalhabitat.Criticalhabitatdesignationisbeingdeferredto allow time toundertakea full economicanalysis.

35310 Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 I Rules and Regulations

Virgin River chubor its critical habitat.In addition,Federalagenciesthat fund,authorize,or constructfloodcontrol.agricultural,hydropowerfacilities,channelization,andhighwayandbridgeconstructionprojectswould alsohavetoconsultwith theServiceprior to theaction.

The Act and its implementingregulationsfoundat 50 CFR 17.21 setforth a seriesofgeneral prohibitionsandexceptionsthat apply to all endangeredwildlife. Theseprohibitions. in part,make it illegal for any person subject tothejurisdiction of the United Statestotake, import or export, ship in interstatecommercein the courseof commercialactivity, or sell or offer for saleininterstateorforeigncommerceanylisted species.It alsois illegal topossess,sell,deliver, carry,transport,orship any suchwildlife that has beentaken illegally. Certain exceptionsapplyto agentsof theServiceandStateconservationagencies.

PermitsmaybeIssuedto carryoutotherwiseprohibitedactivitiesinvolvingendangeredwildlife speciesundercertaincircumstances.Regulationsgoverningpermits areat 50 CFR 17.22and17.23. Suchpermitsareavailableforscientificpurposes,to enhancethepropagationor survivalof the species,and/orfor incidental takein connectionwith otherwiselawful activities. In someinstances,permitsmaybe issuedduringa specificperiodof time to relieveundueeconomichardshipthat would besufferedif suchreliefwerenotavailable.

NationalEnvironmentalPolicy ActTheFishandWildlife Servicehas

determinedthat anEnvironmentalAssessment,asdefinedundertheauthorityof theNational EnvironmentalPolicyAct of 1969, need not be preparedin connection with regulations adoptedpursuantto section4(a) of theEndangeredSpeciesActof 1973,asamended.A noticeoutlining theService’sreasonsfor this determinationwaspublished in theFederal RegisteronOctober 25, 1983 (48FR 49244).

theGc~graphicalandGeologicalExplorationandSurveyWestof the100thMer.than(WheelerSarvey)5:635—703.

Cross,j.N. 1975. Ecological distributionofthefishesof theVirgin River(Utah,Arizona,Nevada).M.S. thesis.Universityof NevadaatLasVegas.187pp.

Cross,J.N.1976. Statusof nativefish faunaof theMuapaRiver(ClarkCounty,Nevada)Transactionsof theAmericanFisheriesSociety105(4):503—508.

Deacon,J.E. 1986.The endangeredwoundflnminnowandwatermanagementr~theVirgin River,Utah,Arizonaand NevadaFisheries13(l):19.-24.

Deacon,J.E., andW.G. Bradley.1972Ecologicaldistributionof fishesof Moapa(Muddy)Riverin Clark County, Nevada.Transactionsof theAmericanFisheriesSociety101(3):408—419.

Deacon,J.E.,andP.B.Holden.1977.Technicalreportanalyzingtheimpactof theAllen-WarnerValley EnergySystemon thenativefishesof theVirgin River. BIO/WEST.Inc.,Logan,Utah.21 pp.

Ellis, M. M. 1914. Fishesof Colorado.Universityof ColoradoStudies11(1):1—136.

Heckmann,R. A.. J. E.Deacon,andP.D.Greger. 1986.Parasitesof thewoundfinminnow, Plagopterusalyentissimus.andotherendemicfishesfrom theVirgin River.Utah.GreatBasinNaturalist46(4):683—678.

Hickman,‘F. J. 1985.Studyof fishesin theVirgin River (Utah).Annual report.1984.WesternEcosystems,St. George,Utah.24 pp.

_____ 1988. Studyof fishesIn theVirginRiver (Utah).AnnualReportfor 1987.WesternEcosystems,St. George,Utah.78 pp.

Holden,P. B. andC. B. Stalnaker.1970.Systematicstudiesof thecyprinidgenusCl/aIn theupperColoradoRiverbasin.Copeia1970(3):409—420.

LaRivers,I., and1.J. Trelease.1952.AnAnnotatedchecklistof thefishesof NevadaCaliforniaFishandGame38(1):1~3—123.

Miller, R.R.1946.C/la cypha,a remarkablenew speciesof cyprinidfish fromtheColoradoRiverof GrandCanyon. ArizonaJournalof theWashingtonAcademyofSilence36(13J:409-415.

Minckley,W. L 1973.Fishesof Arizona.ArizonaGameandFish Department.Phoenix.293 pp.

NevadaBoardof Wildlife Comniissioners1981. Identificationof sensitivespeciesofwildlife. CommissionPolicyNumber19.

Smith,G.IL R. R.Miller. andI). W. Sable1977. Speciesrelationshipsamong fishesofthegenusCl/a in theupperColoradoRiverdrainage.Proceedingsof theFirstAnnualConferenceon ScientificResearchin theNationalParks.p. 613—623.

Thompson,R.W. 1986.WashIngtonCountyConservancyDistrict Virgin Rivermoundtailchubendangeredspecieslistingcomments.

WoundfinRecoveryTeam.1977—1986.AnnualSurveyReports.U.S.FishandWildlife Service,EndangeredSpeciesOffice.Albuquerque,NewMexico.

This rule wa~preparedby SonjaJahrsdoerfer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

AvailableConservationMeasures

Conservationmeasuresprovidedtospecieslisted asendangeredorthreatenedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct includerecognition,recoveryactions,requirementsforFederalprotection,andprohibitionsagainstcertainpractices.Recognitionthroughlistingencouragesandresultsinconservationactionsby Federal,State,andprivateagencies,groups,andindividuals.TheEndangeredSpeciesAct providesfor possiblelandacquisitionandcooperationwith theStatesandrequiresthatrecoveryactionsbe carriedoutfor all listedspecies.Suchactionsareinitiatedby theServicefollowing listing. Potentialrecoveryactionsfor the Virgin Riverchub include:(1) Conductingstudiesonlarval drift andtheimpactof parasitesandred shiners;(2) chemicaleliminationof all fish frombelowWashingtonFieldsDiversionandrestockingthereclaimedriver with nativespecies(Includingthechub);(3) constructionof afish passagebarrierbelowRiverside,Nevada;(4)recommendingwatermanagementpolicies; and(5) providing legallyprotectedin-streamflow. The protectionrequiredof Federalagenciesandprohibitionsagainsttakingandharmarediscussed,in part, below.

Section7(a)of theAct, asamended,requiresFederalagenciesto evaluatetheir actionswith respectto anyspeciesthat is proposedor listedas endangeredor threatenedandwith respectto itscritical habitat,if anyis beingdesignated.Regulationsimplementingthis interagencycooperationprovisionof theAct arecodifiedat 50 CFR part402.Section7(a)(2)requiresFederalagenciesto ensurethatactivities theyauthorize,fund,or carryout arenotlikely to jeopardizethe continuedexistenceof alistedspeciesor todestroyor adverselymodify its criticalhabitat.If aFederalactionmay affectalisted speciesor its critical habitat,theresponsibleFederalagencymustenterinto consultationwith the Service.

Portions of the Virgin River flowthroughBureauof LandManagementlands, the Soil ConservationServiceisinvolved in irrigation water ReferencesCitedconservationandwaterquality ArizonaGameandFishCommission.1982.improvement,potentialwaterprojects Threatenedwildlife in Arizona. Arizonaon the river would be under the GameandFishDepartmentPublication.12iurisdiction of theBureau of . pp.Reclamation,and mostconstruction and Bureau ofReclamation.1983. La Verkinalterationactivities in theriver require SpringsUnit. Utah.Planof study.Octoberan authorizing permit from the U~S~ Cope.E.D.,andlLC. Yarrow. 1875. ReportArmyCorps of Engineersunder section uposthecollectionsof fishesmadein Author404 of theCleanWaterAct. These portionsof Nevada,Utah;California,agencieswill have to consult with the Colorado.NewMexico, andArizona,duringServiceif their actionsmay affec) the theyears1871, 1872, 1873, and1874. Reportof

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 I Rules and Regulations 35311

Service,EndangeredSpeciesbiologist,Albuquerque,NewMexico 87103 (505/766—3972or FTS474—3972).DonaldArcher,U.S. FishandWildlife Service,Salt LakeCity, Utah(801/524—4430orFTS 588—4430)reviewedthe rule andprovidedinformation on the1988eradicationprojectand1989 flood.

List of SubjectsIn 50 CFR Part17

Endangered and threatenedwildlife,Fish,Marinemammals,Plants(agriculture).

RegulationPromulgation

Accordingly,part 17, subchapterB ofchapterI, title 50 of theCodeof FederalRegulation, is amendedasset forthbelow:

PART 17—[AMENDED]1. The authority citation for part 17

continuesto readas follows:Authority: Pub.L 93—205, 87 Stat.884; Pub.

L 94—359, 90 Stat.911; Pub. L 95—632, 92 Stat.3751; Pub.L. 96—159, 93 Stat.1225; Pub. L 97—

304. 96 Stat.1411; Pub.L 100—476,102Stat.2306; Pub.L. 100—653,102Stat.3825 (16 U.S.C.1531 et seq.);Pub.L. 99—625, 100Stat.3500,unlessotherwisenoted.

2. Amend § 17.11(h)by addingthefollowing, in alphabeticalorderunder“Fishes,” to theList of EndangeredandThreatenedWildlife.

§ 17.11 Endangeredand threatenedwildlife.

(h) * * *

SpeciesHistoric range

VertebrateP on where

thr~L~°~Status Critical habitat Specialrthes

Commonname Scientificname

Fishes.

Chub, Virg

* *

in River LW/a r busts semidnuda....

.

U.S.A. (AZ, NV.UT).

*

Entire

*

E 360

*

NA NA

* * * * *

Dated:August1, 1989.SusanRecceLamson,ActingAssistantSecretaryforFishandWildlife andParks[FR Doc. 89-19902Filed 8—23—89; 8:45am]BIWNO CODE4310-55-N