[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19756-19797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7198]
[[Page 19755]]
Vol. 77
Monday,
No. 63
April 2, 2012
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition to List the San Francisco Bay-Delta Population of the Longfin
Smelt as Endangered or Threatened; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 19756]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2008-0045: 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition to List the San Francisco Bay-Delta Population of the
Longfin Smelt as Endangered or Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the San Francisco Bay-Delta
distinct population segment (Bay Delta DPS) of longfin smelt as
endangered or threatened and to designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we find that
listing the longfin smelt rangewide is not warranted at this time, but
that listing the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt is warranted.
Currently, however, listing the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt is
precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month
finding, we will add the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt to our
candidate species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the
Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt as our priorities allow. We will make
any determinations on critical habitat during the development of the
proposed listing rule. During any interim period, we will address the
status of the candidate taxon through our annual Candidate Notice of
Review (CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on April 2,
2012.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number [FWS-R8-ES-2008-0045]. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife
Office, 650 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Chotkowski, Field Supervisor, San
Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); by
telephone at 916-930-5603; or by facsimile at 916-930-5654 mailto:. 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 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (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
that listing the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of receipt of the petition. In this finding, we will
determine that the petitioned action 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,
and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a
petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is,
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must
publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 5, 1992, we received a petition from Mr. Gregory A.
Thomas of the Natural Heritage Institute and eight co-petitioners to
add the longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and designate critical habitat in
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and estuary. On July 6, 1993, we
published a 90-day finding (58 FR 36184) in the Federal Register that
the petition contained substantial information indicating the requested
action may be warranted, and that we would proceed with a status review
of the longfin smelt. On January 6, 1994, we published a notice of a
12-month finding (59 FR 869) on the petition to list the longfin smelt.
We determined that the petitioned action was not warranted, based on
the lack of population trend data for estuaries in Oregon and
Washington, although the southernmost populations were found to be
declining. Furthermore, we found the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
estuary population of longfin smelt was not a distinct population
segment (DPS) because we determined that the population was not
biologically significant to the species as a whole, and did not appear
to be sufficiently reproductively isolated.
On August 8, 2007, we received a petition from the Bay Institute,
the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Natural Resources Defense
Council to list the San Francisco Bay-Delta (hereafter referred to as
the Bay-Delta) population of the longfin smelt as a DPS and designate
critical habitat for the DPS concurrent with the listing. On May 6,
2008, we published a 90-day finding (73 FR 24911) in which we concluded
that the petition provided substantial information indicating that
listing the Bay-Delta population of the longfin smelt as a DPS may be
warranted, and we initiated a status review. On April 9, 2009, we
published a notice of a 12-month finding (74 FR 16169) on the August 8,
2007, petition. We determined that the Bay-Delta population of the
longfin smelt did not meet the discreteness element of our DPS policy
and, therefore, was not a valid DPS. We therefore determined that the
Bay-Delta population of the longfin smelt was not a listable entity
under the Act.
On November 13, 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a
complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, challenging the Service on the merits of the 2009
determination. On February 2, 2011, the Service entered into a
settlement agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity and
agreed to conduct a rangewide status review and prepare a 12-month
finding to be published by September 30, 2011. In the event that the
Service determined in the course of the status review that the longfin
smelt does not warrant listing as endangered or threatened over its
entire range, the Service agreed to consider whether any population of
longfin smelt qualifies as a DPS. In considering whether any population
of longfin smelt qualifies as a DPS, the Service agreed to reconsider
whether the Bay-Delta population of the longfin smelt constitutes a
DPS. At the request of the Service, Department of Justice requested an
extension from the Court to allow for a more comprehensive review of
new information pertaining to the longfin smelt and to seek the
assistance of two expert panels to assist us with that review. The
plaintiffs filed a motion of non-opposition, and on October 3, 2011,
the court granted an extension to March
[[Page 19757]]
23, 2012 for the publication of a new 12-month finding.
Species Information
Species Description and Taxonomy
Longfin smelt measure 9-11 centimeters (cm) (3.5-4.3 inches (in))
standard length, although third-year females may grow up to 15 cm (5.9
in). The sides and lining of the gut cavity appear translucent silver,
the back has an olive to iridescent pinkish hue, and mature males are
usually darker in color than females. Longfin smelt can be
distinguished from other smelts by their long pectoral fins, weak or
absent striations on their opercular (covering the gills) bones,
incomplete lateral line, low numbers of scales in the lateral series
(54 to 65), long maxillary bones (in adults, these bones extend past
mid-eye, just short of the posterior margin of the eye), and lower jaw
extending anterior of the upper jaw (Mcallister 1963, p. 10; Miller and
Lea 1972, pp. 158-160; Moyle 2002, pp. 234-236).
The longfin smelt belongs to the true smelt family Osmeridae and is
one of three species in the Spirinchus genus; the night smelt
(Spirinchus starksi) also occurs in California, and the shishamo
(Spirinchus lanceolatus) occurs in northern Japan (McAllister 1963, pp.
10, 15). Because of its distinctive physical characteristics, the Bay-
Delta population of longfin smelt was once described as a species
separate from more northern populations (Moyle 2002, p. 235).
McAllister (1963, p. 12) merged the two species S. thaleichthys and S.
dilatus because the difference in morphological characters represented
a gradual change along the north-south distribution rather than a
discrete set. Stanley et al. (1995, p. 395) found that individuals from
the Bay-Delta population and Lake Washington population differed
significantly in allele (proteins used as genetic markers) frequencies
at several loci (gene locations), although the authors also stated that
the overall genetic dissimilarity was within the range of other
conspecific fish species. They concluded that longfin smelt from Lake
Washington and the Bay-Delta are conspecific (of the same species)
despite the large geographic separation.
Delta smelt and longfin smelt hybrids have been observed in the
Bay-Delta estuary, although these offspring are not thought to be
fertile because delta smelt and longfin smelt are not closely related
taxonomically or genetically (California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) 2001, p. 473).
Biology
Nearly all information available on longfin smelt biology comes
from either the Bay-Delta population or the Lake Washington population.
Longfin smelt generally spawn in freshwater and then move downstream to
brackish water to rear. The life cycle of most longfin smelt generally
requires estuarine conditions (CDFG 2009, p. 1).
Bay-Delta Population
Longfin smelt are considered pelagic and anadromous (Moyle 2002, p.
236), although anadromy in longfin smelt is poorly understood, and
certain populations are not anadromous and complete their entire life
cycle in freshwater lakes and streams (see Lake Washington Population
section below). Within the Bay-Delta, the term pelagic refers to
organisms that occur in open water away from the bottom of the water
column and away from the shore. Juvenile and adult longfin smelt have
been found throughout the year in salinities ranging from pure
freshwater to pure seawater, although once past the juvenile stage,
they are typically collected in waters with salinities ranging from 14
to 28 parts per thousand (ppt) (Baxter 1999, pp. 189-192). Longfin
smelt are thought to be restricted by high water temperatures,
generally greater than 22 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (71 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (Baxter et. al. 2010, p. 68), and will move down
the estuary (seaward) and into deeper water during the summer months,
when water temperatures in the Bay-Delta are higher. Within the Bay-
Delta, adult longfin smelt occupy water at temperatures from 16 to 20
[deg]C (61 to 68 [deg]F), with spawning occurring in water with
temperatures from 5.6 to 14.5 [deg]C (41 to 58 [deg]F) (Wang 1986, pp.
6-9).
Longfin smelt usually live for 2 years, spawn, and then die,
although some individuals may spawn as 1- or 3-year-old fish before
dying (Moyle 2002, p. 36). In the Bay-Delta, longfin smelt are believed
to spawn primarily in freshwater in the lower reaches of the Sacramento
River and San Joaquin River. Longfin smelt congregate in deep waters in
the vicinity of the low salinity zone (LSZ) near X2 (see definition
below) during the spawning period, and it is thought that they make
short runs upstream, possibly at night, to spawn from these locations
(CDFG 2009, p. 12; Rosenfield 2010, p. 8). The LSZ is the area where
salinities range from 0.5 to 6 practical salinity units (psu) within
the Bay-Delta (Kimmerer 1998, p. 1). Salinity in psu is determined by
electrical conductivity of a solution, whereas salinity in parts per
thousand (ppt) is determined as the weight of salts in a solution. For
use in this document, the two measurements are essentially equivalent.
X2 is defined as the distance in kilometers up the axis of the estuary
(to the east) from the Golden Gate Bridge to the location where the
daily average near-bottom salinity is 2 psu (Jassby et al. 1995, p.
274; Dege and Brown 2004, p. 51).
Longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta may spawn as early as November and
as late as June, although spawning typically occurs from January to
April (CDFG 2009, p. 10; Moyle 2002, p. 36). Longfin smelt have been
observed in their winter and spring spawning period as far upstream as
Isleton in the Sacramento River, Santa Clara shoal in the San Joaquin
system, Hog Slough off the South-Fork Mokelumne River, and in Old River
south of Indian Slough (CDFG 2009a, p. 7; Radtke 1966, pp. 115-119).
Exact spawning locations in the Delta are unknown and may vary from
year to year in location, depending on environmental conditions.
However, it seems likely that spawning locations consist of the overlap
of appropriate conditions of flow, temperature, and salinity with
appropriate substrate (Rosenfield 2010, p. 8). Longfin smelt are known
to spawn over sandy substrates in Lake Washington and likely prefer
similar substrates for spawning in the Delta (Baxter et. al. 2010, p.
62; Sibley and Brocksmith 1995, pp. 32-74). Baxter found that female
longfin smelt produced between 1,900 and 18,000 eggs, with fecundity
greater in fish with greater lengths (CDFG 2009, p. 11). At 7 [deg]C
(44.6 [deg]F), embryos hatch in 40 days (Dryfoos 1965, p. 42); however,
incubation time decreases with increased water temperature. At 8-9.5
[deg]C (46.4-49.1 [deg]F), embryos hatch at 29 days (Sibley and
Brocksmith 1995, pp. 32-74).
Larval longfin smelt less than 12 millimeters (mm) (0.5 in) in
length are buoyant because they have not yet developed an air bladder;
as a result, they occupy the upper one-third of the water column. After
hatching, they quickly make their way to the LSZ via river currents
(CDFG 2009, p. 8; Baxter 2011a, pers comm.). Longfin smelt develop an
air bladder at approximately 12-15 mm (0.5-0.6 in.) in length and are
able to migrate vertically in the water column. At this time, they
shift habitat and begin living in the bottom two-thirds of the water
column (CDFG 2009, p. 8; Baxter 2008, p. 1).
Longfin smelt larvae can tolerate salinities of 2-6 psu within days
of hatching, and can tolerate salinities up to 8 psu within weeks of
hatching
[[Page 19758]]
(Baxter 2011a, pers. comm.). However, very few larvae (individuals less
than 20 mm in length) are found in salinities greater than 8 psu, and
it takes almost 3 months for longfin smelt to reach juvenile stage. A
fraction of juvenile longfin smelt individuals are believed to tolerate
full marine salinities (greater than 8 psu) (Baxter 2011a, pers.
comm.).
Longfin smelt are dispersed broadly in the Bay-Delta by high flows
and currents, which facilitate transport of larvae and juveniles long
distances. Longfin smelt larvae are dispersed farther downstream during
high freshwater flows (Dege and Brown 2004, p. 59). They spend
approximately 21 months of their 24-month life cycle in brackish or
marine waters (Baxter 1999, pp. 2-14; Dege and Brown 2004, pp. 58-60).
In the Bay-Delta, most longfin smelt spend their first year in
Suisun Bay and Marsh, although surveys conducted by the City of San
Francisco collected some first-year longfin in coastal waters (Baxter
2011c, pers. comm.; City of San Francisco 1995, no pagination). The
remainder of their life is spent in the San Francisco Bay or the Gulf
of Farallones (Moyle 2008, p. 366; City of San Francisco 1995, no
pagination). Rosenfield and Baxter (2007, pp. 1587, 1590) inferred
based on monthly survey results that the majority of longfin smelt from
the Bay-Delta were migrating out of the estuary after the first winter
of their life cycle and returning during late fall to winter of their
second year. They noted that migration out of the estuary into nearby
coastal waters is consistent with captures of longfin smelt in the
coastal waters of the Gulf of Farallones. It is possible that some
longfin smelt may stay in the ocean and not re-enter freshwater to
spawn until the end of their third year of life (Baxter 2011d, pers.
comm.). Moyle (2010, p. 8) states that longfin smelt that migrate out
of and back into the Bay-Delta estuary may primarily be feeding on the
rich planktonic food supply in the Gulf of Farallones. Rosenfield and
Baxter (2007, p. 1290) hypothesize that the movement of longfin smelt
into the ocean or deeper water habitat in summer months is at least
partly a behavioral response to warm water temperatures found during
summer and early fall in the shallows of south San Francisco Bay and
San Pablo Bay (Rosenfield and Baxter 2007, p. 1590).
In the Bay-Delta, calanoid copepods such as Pseudodiatomus forbesi
and Eurytemora sp., as well as the cyclopoid copepod Acanthocyclops
vernali (no common names), are the primary prey of longfin smelt during
the first few months of their lives (approximately January through May)
(Slater 2009b, slide 45). Copepods are a type of zooplankton (organisms
drifting in the water column of oceans, seas, and bodies of fresh
water). The longfin smelt's diet shifts to include mysids such as
opossum shrimp (Neomysis mercedis) and other small crustaceans
(Acanthomysis sp.) as soon as they are large enough (20-30 mm (0.78-
1.18 in)) to consume these larger prey items, sometime during the
summer months of the first year of their lives (CDFG 2009, p. 12).
Upstream of San Pablo Bay, mysids and amphipods form 80-95 percent or
more of the juvenile longfin smelt diet by weight from July through
September (Slater 2009, unpublished data). Longfin smelt occurrence is
likely associated with the occurrence of their prey, and both of these
invertebrate groups occur near the bottom of the water column during
the day under clear water marine conditions.
Lake Washington Population
The Lake Washington population near Seattle, Washington is
considered a landlocked population of longfin smelt, as are the
populations of longfin smelt in Harrison and Pitt Lakes in British
Columbia east of Vancouver (Chigbu and Sibley 1994, p. 1). These
populations are not anadromous and complete their entire life cycle in
freshwater. Young longfin smelt feed primarily on the copepods
Diaptomus, Diaphanosoma, and Epischura, with older fish switching over
to mysids (Wydoski and Whitney 2003, p. 105). Chigbu and Sibley (1994,
pp. 11-14) found that mysids dominate the diets of longfin smelt in
their second year of life (age-1), while amphipods, copepods, and
daphnia also contributed substantially to the longfin smelt's diet. A
strong spawning run of longfin smelt occurs on even years in Lake
Washington, with weak runs on odd years. They spawn at night in the
lower reaches of at least five streams that flow into Lake Washington.
Water temperatures during spawning were 4.4 [deg]C (40 [deg]F) to 7.2
[deg]C (45 [deg]F) (Wydoski and Whitney 2003, p. 105). Chigbu and
Sibley (1994, p. 9) found that female longfin smelt produced between
6,000 and 24,000 eggs, while Wydoski and Whitney (2003, p. 105) found
that longfin smelt produced between 1,455 and 1,655 eggs. The reason
for the large difference between the observations of these two studies
is not known.
Habitat
Longfin smelt have been collected in estuaries from the Bay-Delta
(33[deg] N latitude) to Prince William Sound (62[deg] N latitude), a
distance of approximately 1,745 nautical miles (Figure 1). Mean annual
water temperatures range from 2.4 [deg]C (36.3 [deg]F) in Anchorage to
14.1 [deg]C (57.3 [deg]F) in San Francisco (NOAA 2011a). The different
estuary types that the longfin smelt is found in and the range of
variability of environments where the species has been observed will be
discussed below.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 19759]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP12.000
The origin and geomorphology of West Coast estuaries result from
geologic forces driven by plate tectonics and have been modified by
glaciations and sea level rise (Emmett et al. 2000, pp. 766-767). Major
classifications of estuaries include fjord, drowned-river valley,
lagoon, and bar-built. Fjords typically are long, narrow, steep-sided
valleys created by glaciation, with moderately high freshwater inflow
but little mixing with seawater due to the formation of a sill at the
mouth (NOAA 2011b). Fjords generally have one large tributary river and
numerous small streams (Emmett et al. 2000, p. 768). Drowned-river
valleys, also termed coastal plain estuaries, are found primarily in
British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, and are the dominant type
along the west coast, occurring as a result of rising sea levels
following the last ice age. Lagoons, primarily found in California,
occur where coastal river systems that are closed to the sea by sand
spits for much of the year are breached during the winter (Emmett et
al. 2000, p. 768). The rarest type of estuary is the bar-built, which
is formed by a bar and semi-enclosed body of water (Emmett et al. 2000,
p. 768). Estuaries have also been classified by physical or
environmental
[[Page 19760]]
variables into Northern Riverine, Southern California, Northern
Estuarine, Central Marine, Fjord, and Coastal Northwest Groups (Monaco
et al. 1992, p. 253). Longfin smelt have been collected from estuaries
of all types and classifications.
The Bay-Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast of the
United States (Sommer et al. 2007, p. 271). The modern Bay-Delta bears
only a superficial resemblance to the historical Bay-Delta. The Bay-
Delta supports an estuary covering approximately 1,235 square
kilometers (km\2\) (477 square miles (mi\2\)) (Rosenfield and Baxter
2007, p. 1577), which receives almost half of California's runoff
(Lehman 2004, p. 313). The historical island marshes surrounded by low
natural levees are now intensively farmed and protected by large,
manmade structures (Moyle 2002, p. 32). The watershed, which drains
approximately 40 percent of the land area of California, has been
heavily altered by dams and diversions, and nonnative species now
dominate, both in terms of numbers of species and numbers of
individuals (Kimmerer 2004, pp. 7-9). The Bay Institute has estimated
that intertidal wetlands in the Delta have been diked and leveed so
extensively that approximately 95 percent of the 141,640 hectares (ha)
(350,000 acres (ac)) of tidal wetlands that existed in 1850 are gone
(The Bay Institute 1998, p. 17).
The physical and biological characteristics of the estuary define
longfin smelt habitat. The Bay-Delta is unique in that it contains
significant amounts of tidal freshwater (34 km\2\ (13 mi\2\)) and
mixing zone (194 km\2\ (75 mi\2\)) habitat (Monaco et al. 1992, pp.
254-255, 258). San Francisco Bay is relatively shallow and consists of
a northern bay that receives freshwater inflow from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin system and a southern bay that receives little freshwater input
(Largier 1996, p. 69). Dominant fish species are highly salt-tolerant
and include the commercially important Pacific sardine (Sardinops
sagax) and rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Major habitat types include
riverine and tidal wetlands, mud flat, and salt marsh, with substantial
areas of diked wetland managed for hunting. The sandy substrates that
longfin smelt are presumed to use for spawning are abundant in the
Delta.
The Russian River collects water from a drainage area of
approximately 3,846 km\2\ (1,485 mi\2\), has an average annual
discharge of 1.6 million acre-feet, and is approximately 129 km (80 mi)
in length (Langridge et al. 2006, p. 4). Little information is
available on potential spawning and rearing habitat for longfin smelt,
but it is likely to be both small and ephemeral because spawning and
rearing habitat is highly dependent upon freshwater inflow, and there
may be insufficient freshwater flows for spawning and rearing in some
years (Moyle 2010, p. 5). A berm encloses the mouth of the Russian
River during certain times of the year, essentially cutting it off from
the coastal ocean. This results in a lack of connectivity with the
ocean that could be important during dry years. However, in most years
the berm is breached by freshwater flows, which allows longfin smelt to
enter the Russian River and spawn.
The Eel River drains an area of 3,684 mi\2\ (9,542 km\2\) and is
the third largest river in California. Wetlands and tidal areas have
been reduced 60 to 90 percent since the 1800s (Cannata and Hassler
1995, p. 1), resulting in changes in tidal influence and a reduction in
channel connectivity (Downie 2010, p. 15). The estuary is characterized
by a small area where freshwater and saltwater mix (Monaco et al. 1992,
p. 258) and thus provides only limited potential longfin rearing
habitat.
Humboldt Bay is located only 26 km (16 mi) north of the Eel River
and is approximately 260 mi (418 km) north of the Bay-Delta. Humboldt
Bay is the second largest coastal estuary in California after the Bay-
Delta. However, true estuarine conditions rarely occur in Humboldt Bay
because it receives limited freshwater input and experiences little
mixing of freshwater and saltwater (Pequegnat and Butler 1982, p. 39).
The Klamath Basin has been extensively modified by levees, dikes,
dams, and the draining of natural water bodies since the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's Klamath Project, designed to improve the region's ability
to support agriculture, began in 1905. These changes to the system have
altered the biota of the basin (NRC 2008, p. 16). Over the years, loss
of thousands of acres of connected wetlands and open water in the
Klamath River Basin has greatly reduced habitat value, likely depleting
the ability of this area to cycle nutrients and affecting water quality
(USFWS 2008, p. 55). The river drains a vast area of 10 million ac (4
million ha). Although a large river, the Klamath River estuary is
characterized by small tidal freshwater and mixing zones (Monaco et al.
1992, p. 258) and thus provides limited potential longfin smelt rearing
habitat.
Yaquina Bay is located on the mid-coastal region of Oregon, 201 km
(125 mi) south of the Columbia River and 348 km (216 mi) north of the
California border. Wetlands encompass 548 ha (1,353 ac), including 216
ha (534 ac) of mud flats and 331 ha (819 ac) of tidal marshes (Yaquina
Bay Geographic Response Plan 2005, p. 2.1). Forty-eight percent of the
estuary is intertidal (Brown et al. 2007, p. 6). The estuary has been
modified greatly, being alternately dredged and filled at different
locations as a result of development. Dredging, industrial, and
residential uses have reduced fish habitat and water quality in the
bay. Dredging disturbs sediment, resulting in increased turbidity and
reduced sunlight penetration, which can impact native eelgrasses and
the benthic species dependent eelgrass beds for breeding, spawning, and
shelter (Oberrecht 2011, pp. 1-8).
On the Columbia River, dams, dikes, maintenance dredging, and
urbanization have all contributed to habitat loss and alterations that
have negatively affected fish and wildlife populations (Lower Columbia
River Estuary Partnership 2011, p. 1). It is estimated that as much as
43 percent of estuarine tidal marshes and 77 percent of tidal swamps in
the river estuary available for fish species have been lost since 1870
(Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce 2006, pp. 1-30). Sixty square
miles of peripheral tidal habitat have been lost to diking, filling,
and conversion to upland habitat for industrial and agricultural use
since 1870 (Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce 2006, p. 1). Prior
to construction of dams, estuary islands and much of the floodplain
were inundated throughout the year, beginning in December and again in
May or June. Dam operations on the Columbia River's main stem and major
tributaries have substantially reduced peak river flows. Dikes and
levees have all but eliminated flooding in many low-lying areas.
Dredging of shipping channels has caused loss of wetlands and altered
shoreline configuration. Dredging has resulted in large sediment
reductions upstream, and the dredged sediments have created islands
downstream. This has likely reduced spawning habitat and sheltering
sites for fish (OWJP 1991, pp. 1-24; Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board
2004a, pp. 1-192).
Puget Sound is a large saltwater estuary of interconnected flooded
glacial valleys located at the northwest corner of the State of
Washington. Puget Sound is about 161 km (100 mi) long, covers about
264,179 ha (652,800 ac), and has over 2,092 km (1,300 mi) of shoreline.
Fed by streams and rivers from the Olympic and Cascade Mountains,
waters flow out to the
[[Page 19761]]
Pacific Ocean through the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Lincoln 2000, p. 1).
The basin consists of eight major habitat types, the largest of which
is kelp and eelgrass, but also includes wetlands, mudflats, and
sandflats. Puget Sound consists of five regions, each with its own
physical and biological characteristics. Urban and industrial
development borders the main basin, which is bounded by Port Townsend
on the north and the Narrows (Tacoma) on the south. Approximately 30
percent of freshwater inflow to the main basin is from the Skagit
River, which drains an area of approximately 8,011 km\2\ (3,093 mi\2\).
Sills at Admiralty Inlet and the Narrows influence circulation. Puget
Sound is highly productive. The fish community includes many
commercially important species, such as Pacific herring, Pacific
salmon, and several species of rockfish (NOAA 2011c, p. 11). There are
10 major dams and thousands of small water diversions in the Puget
Sound system (Puget Sound Partnership 2008b, p. 21). Human activities
in the region have resulted in the loss of 75 percent of the saltwater
marsh habitat and 90 percent of the estuarine and riverine wetlands
(Puget Sound Partnership 2008b, p. 21).
The coastline of British Columbia has been shaped by plate
tectonics and extensive glaciations. Particularly in summer, prevailing
winds drive coastal upwelling, which results in a highly productive
food chain. The tidal amplitude is 3-5 meters (m) (9.8-16.4 ft) in most
areas, and numerous large and small rivers provide freshwater inflow.
Biological communities are diverse and highly variable, including
coastal wetlands, kelp beds, and seaweed beds that support a diverse
marine fauna (Dale 1997, pp. 13-15). Nearshore areas of British
Columbia are characterized by steep to moderately sloping fjords, 20-50
m (65-164 ft) in depth, with salinities ranging from 18 to 28 ppt (AXYS
Environmental Consulting 2001, pp. 5, 11, 20). Bar-built estuaries that
are semi-enclosed by an ocean-built bar occur on the west coast of
Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands (Emmett et al. 2000,
pp. 769-770). Oxygen depletion is common in fjords (Emmett et al. 2000,
p. 776), but because they are anadromous, longfin smelt would
presumably be able to avoid those conditions. However, if depletion
were to occur during spawning or rearing, recruitment could be
affected.
The Fraser River, at approximately 1,375 miles (2,213 km), is the
longest river in British Columbia and the tenth longest river in
Canada. The Fraser River drains an area of 220,000 km\2\ and flows to
the Strait of Georgia at the City of Vancouver before it drains into
the Pacific Ocean. Diking and drainage in the lower basin area have
reduced the extent of estuarine wetlands that are important to the
longfin smelt and other fishes that utilize these areas (Blomquist
2005, p. 8).
Habitat types common in Alaskan estuaries include eel grass beds,
understory kelp, sand and gravel beds, and bedrock outcrops (NOAA
2011d). Shallow nearshore areas provide a mosaic of habitat types that
support a variety of fishes (NOAA 2005, p. 59). In southwestern Alaska,
the related osmerid species capelin (Mallotus villosus) was found to
occur in sand-and-gravel habitats, and the surf smelt (Hypomesus
pretiosus) was found to occur in bedrock habitats (NOAA 2005, pp. 27,
29). As in British Columbia, if oxygen depletion occurs in fjord
habitats during spawning or rearing, longfin smelt recruitment could be
affected.
Cook Inlet is a large mainland Alaskan estuary located in the
northern Gulf of Alaska. Cook Inlet is approximately 290 km (180 miles)
long. The watershed covers about 100,000 km\2\ of southern Alaska
(USACE 2011, p. 1).
Distribution
Longfin smelt are widely distributed along 3,541 km (2,200 mi) of
Pacific coastline from the Bay-Delta to Cook Inlet, Alaska (Table 1).
We found no evidence of range contraction; the current distribution of
longfin smelt appears to be similar to its historical distribution.
Table 1--Known Occurrences of Longfin Smelt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Location Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.................. Monterey Bay........ Eschmeyer 1983, p.
82; Wang 1986, pp.
6-10).
Bay-Delta........... Eschmeyer 1983, p.
82; Wang 1986, pp.
6-10.
Offshore Bay-Delta.. City of San
Francisco 1993, p.
5-8.
Russian River Cook 2010, pers.
Estuary. comm.
Van Duzen River..... Moyle 2002, p. 235.
McNulty Slough of CDFG 2010,
Eel River. unpublished data.
Offshore Humboldt Quirollo 1994, pers.
Bay. comm.
Humboldt Bay and CDFG 2010,
tributaries. unpublished data.
Mad River........... Moyle 2002, p. 235.
Klamath River....... Kisanuki et al.
1991, p. 72, CDFG
2009, p. 5.
Lake Earl........... D. McLeod field note
1989
(Cannata and Downie
2009).
Oregon...................... Coos Bay............ Veroujean 1994, p.
1.
Yaquina Bay......... ODFW 2011, pp. 1-3,
ANHP 2006, p. 3.
Tillamook Bay....... Ellis 2002, p. 17.
Columbia River ODFW 2011, pp. 1-3.
Estuary.
Washington.................. Willapa Bay......... WDFW 2011, pp. 1-3.
Grays Harbor........ U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 2000, p.
2.
Puget Sound Basin... Miller and Borton
1980, p. 17.4.
Lake Washington..... Chigbu and Sibley
1994, p. 1.
British Columbia............ Fraser River........ Fishbase 2011a, p.
1; Fishbase 2011b,
p. 1.
Pitt Lake........... Taylor 2011, pers.
comm.
Harrison Lake....... Page and Burr 1991,
p. 57.
Vancouver........... Hart 1973, p. 147.
Prince Rupert....... Hart 1973, p. 147.
Skeena Estuary...... Kelson 2011, pers.
comm.
Alaska...................... Dixon Entrance...... Alaska Natural
Heritage Program
2006, p. 3.
Sitka National NPS 2011, p. 1.
Historical Park.
Glacier Bay......... Arimitsu 2003, pp.
35, 41.
Klondike Gold Rush NPS 2011, p. 1.
National Historical
Park.
[[Page 19762]]
Yakutat Bay......... Alaska Natural
Heritage Program
2006, p. 3.
Wrangell-St. Elias Arimitsu 2003, pp.
National Park. 35, 41, NPS 2011,
p. 1.
Cook Inlet.......... NOAA 2010b, p. 4,
NOAA 2010a, p. 8.
Kachemak Bay........ Abookire et al.
2000, NPS 2011, p.
1.
Hinchinbrook Island. Alaska Natural
Heritage Program
2006, p. 3.
Lake Clark National NPS 2011, p. 1.
Park and Preserve.
Prince William Sound Alaska Natural
Heritage Program
2006, p. 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California
The southernmost known population of longfin smelt is the Bay-Delta
estuary, and longfin smelt occupy different habitats of the estuary at
various stages in their life cycle (See Habitat section above).
Eschmeyer (1983, p. 82) reported the southern extent of the range as
Monterey Bay, and Wang (1986, pp. 6-10) reported that an individual
longfin smelt had been captured at Moss Landing in Monterey Bay in
1980. Most sources, however, identify the Bay-Delta as the southern
extent of the species' range (Moyle 2002, p. 235).
Small numbers of longfin were collected within the Russian River
estuary each year between 1997 and 2000 (SCWA 2001, p. 18). No surveys
were conducted in 2001 or 2002 (Cook 2011, pers. comm.). Recent surveys
(since 2003) in the Russian River estuary conducted by Sonoma County
Water Agency have not collected longfin smelt; however, in 2003,
trawling surveys were replaced by beach seining, a type of survey less
likely to capture a pelagic fish species such as the longfin smelt.
Longfin smelt breeding has not been documented at the Russian River
(Baxter 2011b, pers. comm.), and because of its limited size, the
Russian River estuary is not believed to be capable of supporting a
self-sustaining longfin smelt population (The Bay Institute et al.
2007, p. ii; Moyle 2010, p. 5).
Longfin smelt were observed spawning in the Eel River estuary in
1974 (Puckett 1977, p. 19). Although longfin were observed in the Eel
River in 2008 and 2009 (Cannata and Downie 2009), it is unknown whether
or not they currently spawn there. Humboldt Bay is located 420 km (260
mi) north of the Bay-Delta. Longfin smelt were collected in Humboldt
Bay or its tributaries every year from 2003 to 2009, with the exception
of 2004 (CDFG 2010, unpublished data). Longfin smelt also have been
observed in coastal waters adjacent to Humboldt Bay (Quirollo 1994,
pers. comm.). The Humboldt Bay population is thought to be the nearest
known breeding population to the Bay-Delta (Baxter 2011b, pers. comm.).
Longfin smelt were collected consistently in the Klamath River estuary
between 1979 and 1989 (Kisanuki et al. 1991, p. 72), and one longfin
smelt was collected in the Klamath River in 2001 (CDFG 2009, p. 5).
Oregon
In Oregon, there are historical records of longfin smelt in
Tillamook Bay, Columbia River, Coos Bay, and Yaquina Bay (ANHP 2006, p.
3). One individual was detected in Tillamook Bay in 2000 (Ellis 2002,
p. 17). Williams et al. (2004, p. 30) collected 308 longfin in the
Columbia River estuary in 2004. Longfin smelt were reported in the
Columbia River estuary, the coastal waters adjacent to the Columbia
River, and in Yaquina Bay in 2009 (Nesbit 2011, pers. comm.). In Coos
Bay, longfin smelt were detected in low numbers in the early 1980s.
However, longfin smelt do not appear to be common in Coos Bay and were
not detected during sampling that occurred in the 1970s and the late
1980s (Veroujean 1994, no pagination).
Washington
In Washington, within the Puget Sound Basin, longfin smelt are
known to occur in the Nooksack River, Bellingham Bay, Snohomish River,
Duwamish River, Skagit Bay, Strait of San Juan de Fuca, Twin River, and
Pysht River (Table 1). Longfin smelt are known to occur in nearby
Bellingham Bay (Penttila 2007, p. 4). Longfin smelt were collected in
the Snohomish River estuary during extensive beach seine and fyke
trapping in 2009 (Rice 2010, pers. comm.). Longfin smelt were captured
(reported as non-target) in high-rise otter trawls in the lower
Duwamish River (Anchor and King County 2007, p. 11). Longfin smelt are
common in the Strait of San Juan de Fuca (Penttila 2007, p. 4). Miller
et al. (1980, p. 28) found longfin smelt to be the second most common
species in tow-net surveys conducted in the Strait of San Juan de Fuca.
Most fish caught in these surveys were young of the year and were found
near the Twin and Pysht Rivers, both of which may have suitable
spawning grounds (Miller et al. 1980, p. 28). Occurrences of longfin
smelt within northern Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia may reflect
the abundance and distribution of the anadromous populations from the
Fraser River in British Columbia (Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife 2011, pp. 1-3). Currently, the National Park Service states
that longfin smelt are probably present within Olympic National Park
(NPS 2011, p. 1). Longfin smelt appear to be common in Grays Harbor
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2000, p. 2). Longfin smelt have been
infrequently documented in the upper Chehalis estuary at Cosmopolis;
however, when they do occur, they have been reported as abundant
(Anderson 2011). Ocean trawls off Willapa Bay have collected longfin
smelt, although no spawning population has been identified in the basin
(Anderson 2011).
A resident, freshwater population of longfin smelt occurs in Lake
Washington (Chigbu and Sibley 1994, p. 1). First caught in 1959, it is
believed that the longfin smelt either were introduced to the lake or
became trapped during canal construction (Chigbu et al. 1998, p. 180).
In the 1960s, the abundance of longfin smelt in Lake Washington was low
but increased to higher levels in the 1980s (Chigbu and Sibley 1994, p.
4).
British Columbia
Longfin smelt populations occur in Pitt Lake and Harrison Lake in
British Columbia (Page and Burr 1991, p. 57; Taylor 2011, pers. comm.);
these populations are believed to be resident fish that are not
anadromous (that is, they are thought to complete their entire life
cycle in freshwater). Pitt Lake is located approximately 64 river km
(40 mi) up the Fraser and Pitt Rivers, and Harrison Lake is located
approximately 121 river km (75 mi) up the Fraser and Harrison Rivers.
Longfin smelt are known to occur within the Fraser River near Vancouver
(Hart 1973, p. 147; Fishbase 2011a, p. 1; Fishbase 2011b, p. 1).
Longfin smelt are also known to occur in the Skeena River estuary near
[[Page 19763]]
Prince Rupert (Hart 1973, p. 147; Kelson 2011, pers. comm.; Gottesfeld
2002, p. 54).
Alaska
In Alaska, longfin smelt are known from Hinchinbrook Island, Prince
William Sound, Dixon Entrance, Yakutat Bay, and Cook Inlet (Alaska
Natural Heritage Program 2006, p. 3). In nearly 1,000 recent beach
seine surveys in Alaska, longfin smelt have only been caught off Fire
Island in upper Cook Inlet in 2009 and 2010 (NOAA 2010b, p. 4; Johnson
2010, pers. comm.; Wing 2010, pers. comm.). However, as stated earlier,
longfin smelt are unlikely to be caught in beach seine surveys because
they are a pelagic species and do not typically occur near shore where
beach seine surveys take place. Surveys in Prince William Sound did not
collect longfin smelt in 2006 or 2007 (NOAA 2011, p. 1). Longfin smelt
were collected in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Glacier Bay in
2001 and 2002 (Arimitsu 2003, pp. 35, 41). Longfin were collected in
Kachemak Bay in 1996-1998 seine and trawling surveys (Abookire et al.
2000). The NPS was not able to confirm presence or absence in Lake
Clark National Park and Preserve. The NPS concludes that presence is
probable in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Klondike Gold Rush
National Historical Park, Sitka National Historical Park, and Wrangell-
St. Elias National Park and Preserve (NPS 2011, p. 1).
Abundance
In most locations throughout their range, longfin smelt populations
have not been monitored. Within the Bay-Delta, longfin smelt are
consistently collected in the monitoring surveys that have been
conducted by CDFG as far back as the late 1960s. We know of no similar
monitoring data for other longfin smelt populations. CDFG did report
catches of longfin smelt in Humboldt Bay from surveys conducted between
2003 and 2009; small numbers of longfin were collected each of the
years except 2004 (CDFG 2010, unpublished data). Moyle (2002, p. 237;
2010, p. 4) noted that the longfin smelt population in Humboldt Bay
appeared to have declined between the 1970s and 2002, but survey data
are not available from that time.
Longfin smelt numbers in the Bay-Delta have declined significantly
since the 1980s (Moyle 2002, p. 237; Rosenfield and Baxter 2007, p.
1590; Baxter et. al. 2010, pp. 61-64). Rosenfield and Baxter (2007, pp.
1577-1592) examined abundance trends in longfin smelt using three long-
term data sets (1980-2004) and detected a significant decline in the
Bay-Delta longfin smelt population. They confirmed the positive
correlation between longfin smelt abundance and freshwater flow that
had been previously documented by others (Stevens and Miller 1983, p.
432; Baxter et al. 1999, p. 185; Kimmerer 2002b, p. 47), noting that
abundances of both adults and juveniles were significantly lower during
the 1987-1994 drought than during either the pre- or post-drought
periods (Rosenfield and Baxter 2007, pp. 1583-1584).
Despite the correlation between drought and low population in the
1980s and 90s, the declines in the first decade of this century appear
to be caused in part by additional factors. Abundance of longfin smelt
has remained very low since 2000, even though freshwater flows
increased during several of these years (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 62).
Abundance indices derived from the Fall Midwater Trawl (FMWT), Bay
Study Midwater Trawl (BSMT), and Bay Study Otter Trawl (BSOT) all show
marked declines in Bay-Delta longfin smelt populations from 2002 to
2009 (Messineo et al. 2010, p. 57). Longfin smelt abundance over the
last decade is the lowest recorded in the 40-year history of CDFG's
FMWT monitoring surveys. Scientists became concerned over the
simultaneous population declines since the early 2000s of longfin smelt
and three other Bay-Delta pelagic fish species--delta smelt (Hypomesus
transpacificus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and threadfin shad
(Dorosoma petenense) (Sommer et al. 2007, p. 273). The declines of
longfin smelt and these other pelagic fish species in the Bay-Delta
since the early 2000s has come to be known as the Pelagic Organism
Decline, and considerable research efforts have been initiated since
2005, to better understand causal mechanisms underlying the declines
(Sommer et al. 2007, pp. 270-277; MacNally et al. 2010, pp. 1417-1430;
Thomson et al. 2010, pp. 1431-1448). The population did increase in the
2011 FMWT index to 477 (Contreras 2011, p. 2), probably a response to
an exceptionally wet year.
The FMWT index of abundance in the Bay-Delta shows great annual
variation in abundance but a severe decline over the past 40 years
(Figure 2). The establishment of the overbite clam (Corbula amurensis)
in the Bay-Delta in 1987 is believed to have contributed to the
population decline of longfin smelt (See Factor E: Introduced Species,
below), as well as to the declining abundance of other pelagic fish
species in the Bay-Delta (Sommer et al. 2007, p. 274). Figure 2 shows
low values of the abundance index for longfin smelt during drought
years (1976-1977 and 1986-1992) and low values overall since the time
that the overbite clam became established in the estuary.
[[Page 19764]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP12.001
Using data from 1975-2004 from the FMWT survey, Rosenfield and
Baxter 2007 (p. 1589) found that longfin smelt exhibit a significant
stock-recruitment relationship--abundance of juvenile (age-0) fish is
directly related to the abundance of adult (age-1) fish from the
previous year. They found that the abundance of juvenile fish declined
by 90 percent during the time period analyzed. Rosenfield and Baxter
(2007, p. 1589) also found a decline in age-1 individuals that was
significant even after accounting for the decline in the age-0
population. If unfavorable environmental conditions persist for one or
more years, recruitment into the population could be suppressed,
affecting the species' ability to recover to their previous abundance.
The current low abundance of adult longfin smelt within the Bay-Delta
could reduce the ability of the species to persist in the presence of
various threats.
Conservation Actions
Bay-Delta
The CALFED program existed as a multi-purpose (water supply, flood
protection, and conservation) program with significant ecosystem
restoration and enhancement elements. Implemented by the California
Bay-Delta Authority, the program brought together more than 20 State
and Federal agencies to develop a long-term comprehensive plan to
restore ecological health and improve water management for all
beneficial uses in the Bay-Delta system. The program specifically
addressed ecosystem quality, water quality, water supply, and levee
system integrity. The California Bay-Delta Authority was replaced in
2009 by the Delta Stewardship Council, but many of its programs
continue to be implemented and are now housed within the CALFED
program's former member agencies.
The CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) developed a
strategic plan for implementing an ecosystem-based approach for
achieving conservation targets (CALFED 2000a, pp. 1-3). The CDFG is the
primary implementing agency for the ERP. The goal of ERP in improving
conditions for longfin smelt will carry forward, irrespective of the
species Federal listing status. CALFED had an explicit goal to balance
the water supply program elements with the restoration of the Bay-Delta
and tributary ecosystems and recovery of the longfin smelt and other
species. Because achieving the diverse goals of the program is
iterative and subject to annual funding by diverse agencies, the CALFED
agencies have committed to maintaining balanced implementation of the
program within an adaptive management framework. The intention of this
framework is that the storage,
[[Page 19765]]
conveyance, and levee program elements would be implemented in such a
way that the longfin smelt's status would be maintained and eventually
improved.
CALFED identified 54 species enhancement conservation measures for
longfin smelt, more than half of which have been completed (CALFED
Ecosystem Restoration Project 2011, entire). One such restoration
action at Liberty Island at the southern end of the Yolo Bypass (a
flood control project) has likely benefitted longfin smelt. After years
of active agricultural production on Liberty Island, the levees were
breached in 1997, and the island was allowed to return to a more
natural state (Wilder 2010, slide 4). Wildlands Corporation has
recently completed a restoration project removing several levees
surrounding Liberty Island and creating 186 acres of various habitats
for fish (Wildlands 2011, p. 1). Longfin smelt are utilizing the
flooded island, and were collected in a number of surveys between 2003
and 2005 (Liberty Island Monitoring Program 2005, pp. 42-44; Marshall
et al. 2006, p. 1).
The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), an effort to help provide
restoration of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and reliable water supplies, is
currently in preparation by a collaborative of water agencies, resource
agencies, and environmental groups. The BDCP is intended to provide a
basis for permitting take of listed species under sections 7 and 10 of
the Act and the California Natural Communities Conservation Planning
Act, and would provide a comprehensive habitat conservation and
restoration plan for the Bay-Delta, as well as a new funding source.
The BDCP shares many of the same goals outlined in the 2000 CALFED
Record of Decision (CALFED 2000) but would not specifically address all
listed-species issues. The BDCP would, however, target many of the
threats to current and future listed species and could contribute to
species recovery. However, the BDCP, if completed, would not be
initiated until at least 2013 or later. The plan's implementation is
anticipated to extend through 2060.
Humboldt Bay
The Humboldt Bay Watershed Advisory Committee has completed the
Humboldt Bay Salmon and Steelhead Conservation Plan with funding from
CDFG, National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the
California State Coastal Conservancy with the purpose of protecting and
restoring salmon habitat in Humboldt Bay through cooperative planning
(Humboldt Bay Watershed Advisory Committee 2005, pp. 1-2). Many of the
habitat restoration activities proposed may benefit longfin smelt,
including restoration in freshwater streams and brackish sloughs. The
Natural Resource Services has designed an enhancement program that is
based on the Humboldt Bay Salmon and Steelhead Conservation Plan.
Natural Resource Services has completed a tidal marsh enhancement
project on Freshwater Creek and has other projects in the design stage
(Don Allen 2011, pers. comm.). The Natural Resource Services is a
division of the Redwood Community Action Agency dedicated to improving
the health of northern California communities and the watersheds that
they depend on (NRS 2011, p. 1). These types of restoration efforts are
current and ongoing and may benefit longfin smelt by increasing access
to intertidal areas within Humboldt Bay.
Puget Sound
The Puget Sound Partnership is a Washington State Agency created in
2007, to oversee the restoration and protection of Puget Sound. The
Puget Sound Partnership created an Action Agenda that identifies and
prioritizes work needed to protect and restore Puget Sound (Puget Sound
Partnership 2008b, p. 2). Protection actions including local watershed
planning, shoreline management planning, and citizen involvement
through groups such as beach watchers and shore stewards are among the
current restoration efforts in Puget Sound watershed (Puget Sound
Partnership 2008a, pp. 1-2). These measures are expected to benefit
longfin smelt by protecting and restoring habitat through legislative
approval and funding for land acquisition for protection and
restoration of ecologically important lands and habitats and by adding
lands to State Aquatic Reserves program (Puget Sound Partnership 2008a,
pp. 1-2).
Alaska
State and Federal land ownership affords protection for vast
distances of shoreline within Glacier Bay and Wrangell-St. Elias
National Parks, Tongass National Forest, and State landholdings.
Kachemak Bay, located near the mouth of lower Cook Inlet, is a National
Estuarine Research Reserve regarded as extremely important for marine
biodiversity conservation (ADFG 2006, pp. 133-134). Alaska's only State
wilderness park, Kachemak Bay State Park, is also located in Kachemak
Bay (ADNR 2011, p. 1). Yakutat Bay lies between peninsular and mainland
Alaska and is bordered by Wrangell-St. Elias National Park to the
northwest and Tongass National Forest. The Federal lands surrounding
Yakutat Bay protect it from the effects of development. The Tongass
National Forest management plan requires that logging activities be
distanced from estuarine and riparian edges (ADFG 2006, p. 107). As a
species group, the osmerids are identified in Alaska's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy as Species of Greatest Conservation Need
(ADFG 2006, pp. 140-143). The Conservation Action Plan for anadromous
smelts identifies objectives, issues, and conservation actions to
address information gaps. Determining life history, trophic ecology,
instream flow and habitat needs, and monitoring protocols are included
as measures that need to be undertaken as part of Alaska's Conservation
Strategy to identify conservation status and needs of anadromous smelt
including longfin.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing 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. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making these findings, information pertaining to each species in
relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is
discussed below. In considering what factors might constitute threats
to a species, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a
particular factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the
factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor
may be a threat, and during the status review, we attempt to determine
how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives
or contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as
[[Page 19766]]
endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act.
However, the identification of factors that could impact a species
negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the species
warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to
suggest that the potential threat has the capacity (i.e., it should be
of sufficient magnitude and extent) to affect the species' status such
that it meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we considered and
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information.
Much of the scientific and commercial information available on
potential threats to longfin smelt comes from information on the Bay-
Delta, and therefore the threats analysis is largely focused on the
Bay-Delta longfin smelt population.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Potential threats to longfin smelt habitat include the effects of
reduced freshwater flow, climate change, and channel disturbance.
Nearly all information available on Factor A threats to longfin smelt
come from the Bay-Delta estuary. Therefore, our analysis below focuses
on habitat impacts to the Bay-Delta population.
Reduced Freshwater Flow
Most longfin smelt populations, other than those in a few
freshwater lakes in Washington and British Columbia, are known from
estuaries. Estuaries are complex ecosystems with boundaries between
freshwater, brackish water, and saltwater that vary in time and space.
Drought and water diversions affect these boundaries by altering the
amounts and timing of freshwater flow into and within the estuary.
These altered freshwater flows affect the physical and biological
characteristics of the estuary, and the physical and biological
characteristics of the estuary define longfin smelt habitat.
Many environmental attributes respond to variance in freshwater
flow into the estuary, including patterns of flooding and drought,
nutrient loading, sediment loading (turbidity), concentration of
organic matter and planktonic biota, physical changes in the movement
and compression of the salt field, and changes in the hydrodynamic
environment (Kimmerer 2002a, p. 40). The San Francisco Estuary exhibits
one of the strongest and most consistent responses of biota to flow
among large estuaries (Kimmerer 2004, p. 14).
Reduced freshwater flows into estuaries may affect fish and other
estuarine biota in multiple ways. Effects may include: (1) Decreased
nutrient loading, resulting in decreased primary productivity; (2)
decreased stratification of the salinity field, resulting in decreased
primary productivity; (3) decreased organic matter loading and
deposition into the estuary; (4) reduced migration cues; (5) decreased
sediment loading and turbidity, which may affect both feeding
efficiency and predation rates; (6) reduced dilution of contaminants;
(7) impaired transport to rearing areas (e.g., low-salinity zones); and
(8) reduction in physical area of, or access to, suitable spawning or
rearing habitat (Kimmerer 2002b, p. 1280).
Bay-Delta Population
Freshwater flow is strongly related to the natural hydrologic
cycles of drought and flood. In the Bay-Delta estuary, increased Delta
outflow during the winter and spring is the largest factor positively
affecting longfin smelt abundance (Stevens and Miller 1983, pp. 431-
432; Jassby et al. 1995; Sommer et al. 2007, p. 274; Thomson et al.
2010, pp. 1439-1440). During high outflow periods, larvae presumably
benefit from increased transport and dispersal downstream, increased
food production, reduced predation through increased turbidity, and
reduced loss to entrainment due to a westward shift in the boundary of
spawning habitat and strong downstream transport of larvae (CFDG 1992;
Hieb and Baxter 1993; CDFG 2009a). Conversely, during low outflow
periods, negative effects of reduced transport and dispersal, reduced
turbidity, and potentially increased loss of larvae to predation and
increased loss at the export facilities result in lower young-of-the-
year recruitment. Despite numerous studies of longfin smelt abundance
and flow in the Bay-Delta, the underlying causal mechanisms are still
not fully understood (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 69; Rosenfield 2010, p.
9).
As California's population has grown, demands for reliable water
supplies and flood protection have grown. In response, State and
Federal agencies built dams and canals, and captured water in
reservoirs, to increase capacity for water storage and conveyance
resulting in one of the largest manmade water systems in the world
(Nichols et al. 1986, p. 569). Operation of this system has altered the
seasonal pattern of freshwater flows in the watershed. Storage in the
upper watershed of peak runoff and release of the captured water for
irrigation and urban needs during subsequent low flow periods result in
a broader, flatter hydrograph with less seasonal variability in
freshwater flows into the estuary (Kimmerer 2004, p. 15).
In addition to the system of dams and canals built throughout the
Sacramento River-San Joaquin River basin, the Bay-Delta is unique in
having a large water diversion system located within the estuary
(Kimmerer 2002b, p. 1279). The State Water Project (SWP) and Central
Valley Project (CVP) operate two water export facilities in the Delta
(Sommer et al. 2007, p. 272). Project operation and management is
dependent upon upstream water supply and export area demands. Despite
the size of the water storage and diversion projects, much of the
interannual variability in Delta hydrology is due to variability in
precipitation from year to year. Annual inflow from the watershed to
the Delta is strongly correlated to unimpaired flow (runoff that would
hypothetically occur if upstream dams and diversions were not in
existence), mainly due to the effects of high-flow events (Kimmerer
2004, p. 15). Water operations are regulated in part by the California
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) according to the Water
Quality Control Plan (WQCP) (SWRCB 2000, entire). The WQCP limits Delta
water exports in relation to Delta inflow (the Export/Inflow, or E/I
ratio).
It is important to note that in the case of the Bay-Delta,
freshwater flow is expressed as both Delta inflow (from the rivers into
the Delta) and as Delta outflow (from the Delta into the lower
estuary), which are closely correlated, but not equivalent. Freshwater
flow into the Delta affects the location of the low salinity zone and
X2 within the estuary. Because longfin smelt spawn in freshwater, they
must migrate farther upstream to spawn as flow reductions alter the
position of X2 and the low-salinity zone moves upstream (CDFG 2009, p.
17). Longer migration distances into the Bay-Delta make longfin smelt
more susceptible to entrainment in the State and Federal water pumps
(see Factor E: Entrainment Losses). In periods with greater freshwater
flow into the Delta, X2 is pushed farther downstream (seaward); in
periods with low flows, X2 is positioned farther landward (upstream) in
the estuary and into the Delta. Not only is longfin smelt abundance in
the Bay-Delta strongly correlated with Delta inflow and X2, but the
spatial distribution of longfin smelt larvae is also strongly
associated with X2 (Dege and Brown 2004, pp. 58-60; Baxter et al. 2010,
p. 61). As longfin hatch into larvae, they move from the areas where
they are spawned and
[[Page 19767]]
orient themselves just downstream of X2 (Dege and Brown 2004, pp. 58-
60). Larval (winter-spring) habitat varies with outflow and with the
location of X2 (CDFG 2009, p. 12), and has been reduced since the 1990s
due to a general upstream shift in the location of X2 (Hilts 2012,
unpublished data). The amount of rearing habitat (salinity between 0.1
and 18 ppt) is also presumed to vary with the location of X2 (Baxter et
al. 2010, p. 64). However, as previously stated, the location of X2 is
of particular importance to the distribution of newly-hatched larvae
and spawning adults. The influence of water project operations from
November through April, when spawning adults and newly-hatched larvae
are oriented to X2, is greater in drier years than in wetter years
(Knowles 2002, p. 7).
Research on declines of longfin smelt and other pelagic fish
species in the Bay-Delta since 2002 (referred to as Pelagic Organism
Decline--see Abundance section, above) have most recently been
summarized in the Interagency Ecological Program's 2010 Pelagic
Organism Decline Work Plan and Synthesis of Results (Baxter et al.
2010, pp. 61-69). While Baxter et al. (2010, pp. 17-19) acknowledge
significant uncertainties about the causal mechanisms underlying the
Pelagic Organism Decline, they have identified reduced Delta freshwater
flows as one of several key factors that they believe contribute to
recent declines in the abundance of longfin smelt (Baxter et al. 2010,
pp. 61-69, Figure 5).
Other Populations
Information on effects of reduced freshwater flows on longfin smelt
populations other than the Bay-Delta population are lacking. Dams and
reservoirs are located in the inland water basins of most of the
estuaries where longfin smelt occur. Some of these systems are large
and consist of multiple dams and diversions (e.g., Klamath River basin,
Columbia River basin). Water diversion systems with dams, canals, and
water pipelines located upstream of the estuary may affect longfin
smelt aquatic habitat by reducing freshwater flows into the estuary--
especially if water is diverted out of the drainage basin--and altering
the timing of freshwater flows into the estuary.
Climate Change
``Climate'' refers to an area's long-term average weather
statistics (typically for at least 20- or 30-year periods), including
the mean and variation of surface variables such as temperature,
precipitation, and wind, whereas ``climate change'' refers to a change
in the mean and/or variability of climate properties that persists for
an extended period (typically decades or longer), whether due to
natural processes or human activity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2007a, p. 78). Although changes in climate occur
continuously over geological time, changes are now occurring at an
accelerated rate. For example, at continental, regional, and ocean
basin scales, recent observed changes in long-term trends include: a
substantial increase in precipitation in eastern parts of North
American and South America, northern Europe, and northern and central
Asia, and an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North
Atlantic since about 1970 (IPCC 2007a, p. 30); and an increase in
annual average temperature of more than 2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C) across
the United States since 1960 (Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States (GCCIUS) 2009, p. 27). Examples of observed changes in
the physical environment include: an increase in global average sea
level, and declines in mountain glaciers and average snow cover in both
the northern and southern hemispheres (IPCC 2007a, p. 30); substantial
and accelerating reductions in arctic sea-ice (e.g., Comiso et al.
2008, p. 1); and a variety of changes in ecosystem processes, the
distribution of species, and the timing of seasonal events (e.g.,
GCCIUS 2009, pp. 79-88).
The IPCC used Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models and
various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios to make projections of
climate change globally and for broad regions through the 21st century
(Meehl et al. 2007, p. 753; Randall et al. 2007, pp. 596-599), and
reported these projections using a framework for characterizing
certainty (Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 22-23). Examples include: (1) It is
virtually certain there will be warmer and more frequent hot days and
nights over most of the earth's land areas; (2) it is very likely there
will be increased frequency of warm spells and heat waves over most
land areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation events will
increase over most areas; and (3) it is likely that increases will
occur in the incidence of extreme high sea level (excludes tsunamis),
intense tropical cyclone activity, and the area affected by droughts
(IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). More recent analyses using a different
global model and comparing other emissions scenarios resulted in
similar projections of global temperature change across the different
approaches (Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
All models (not just those involving climate change) have some
uncertainty associated with projections due to assumptions used, data
available, and features of the models; with regard to climate change
this includes factors such as assumptions related to emissions
scenarios, internal climate variability, and differences among models.
Despite this, however, under all global models and emissions scenarios,
the overall projected trajectory of surface air temperature is one of
increased warming compared to current conditions (Meehl et al. 2007, p.
762; Prinn et al. 2011, p. 527). Climate models, emissions scenarios,
and associated assumptions, data, and analytical techniques will
continue to be refined, as will interpretations of projections, as more
information becomes available. For instance, some changes in conditions
are occurring more rapidly than initially projected, such as melting of
arctic sea ice (Comiso et al. 2008, p. 1; Polyak et al. 2010, p. 1797),
and since 2000 the observed emissions of greenhouse gases, which are a
key influence on climate change, have been occurring at the mid- to
higher levels of the various emissions scenarios developed in the late
1990s and used by the IPPC for making projections (e.g., Raupach et al.
2007, Figure 1, p. 10289; Manning et al. 2010, Figure 1, p. 377; Pielke
et al. 2008, entire). Also, the best scientific and commercial data
available indicate that average global surface air temperature is
increasing and that several climate-related changes are occurring and
will continue for many decades even if emissions are stabilized soon
(e.g. Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 822-829; Church et al. 2010, pp. 411-412;
Gillett et al. 2011, entire).
Changes in climate can have a variety of direct and indirect
impacts on species, and can exacerbate the effects of other threats.
Rather than assessing ``climate change'' as a single threat in and of
itself, we examine the potential consequences to species and their
habitats that arise from changes in environmental conditions associated
with various aspects of climate change. For example, climate-related
changes to habitats, predator-prey relationships, disease and disease
vectors, or conditions that exceed the physiological tolerances of a
species, occurring individually or in combination, may affect the
status of a species. Vulnerability to climate change impacts is a
function of sensitivity to those changes, exposure to those changes,
and adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007, p. 89;
[[Page 19768]]
Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22). As described above, in evaluating the
status of a species, the Service uses the best scientific and
commercial data available, and this includes consideration of direct
and indirect effects of climate change. As is the case with all
potential threats, if a species is currently affected or is expected to
be affected by one or more climate-related impacts, this does not
necessarily mean the species is an endangered or threatened species as
defined under the Act. If a species is listed as endangered or
threatened, this knowledge regarding its vulnerability to, and impacts
from, climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be
used to help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
The effects of climate change do not act in isolation, but act in
combination with existing threats to species and systems. We considered
the potential effects of climate change on the longfin smelt based on
projections derived from various modeling scenarios. Temperature
increases are likely to lead to a continued rise in sea level, further
increasing salinity within longfin smelt estuarine rearing habitat and
likely shifting spawning and early rearing upstream as the boundary of
fresh and brackish water moves upstream (Baxter 2011, pers. comm.).
Reduced snowpack, earlier melting of the snowpack, and increased water
temperatures will likely alter freshwater flows, possibly shifting and
condensing the timing of longfin smelt spawning (Baxter 2011, pers.
comm.).
Effects of climate change could be particularly profound for
aquatic ecosystems and include increased water temperatures and altered
hydrology, along with changes in the extent, frequency, and magnitude
of extreme events such as droughts, floods, and wildfires (Reiman and
Isaak 2010, p. 1). Numerous climate models predict changes in
precipitation frequency and pattern in the western United States (IPCC
2007b, p. 8). Projections indicate that temperature and precipitation
changes will diminish snowpack, changing the availability of natural
water supplies (USBR 2011, p. 143). Warming may result in more
precipitation falling as rain and less storage as snow. This would
result in increased rain-on-snow events and increase winter runoff as
spring runoff decreases (USBR 2011, p. 147). Earlier seasonal warming
increases the likelihood of rain-on-snow events, which are associated
with mid-winter floods. Smaller snowpacks that melt earlier in the year
result in increased drought frequency and severity (Rieman and Isaak
2010, p. 6). These changes may lead to increased flood and drought risk
during the 21st century (USBR 2011, p. 149).
It is uncertain how a change in the timing and duration of
freshwater flows will affect longfin smelt. The melting of the snowpack
earlier in the year could result in higher flows in January and
February, which are peak spawning and hatching months for longfin
smelt. This would reduce adult migration distance and increase areas of
freshwater spawning habitat during these months, potentially creating
better spawning and larval rearing conditions. Associated higher
turbidity may reduce predation on longfin smelt adults and larvae
(Baxter 2011, pers. comm.). However, if high flows last only a short
period, benefits may be negated by poorer conditions before and after
the high flows. As the freshwater boundary moves farther inland into
the Delta with increasing sea level (see below) and reduced flows,
adults will need to migrate farther into the Delta to spawn, increasing
the risk of predation and the potential for entrainment into water
export facilities and diversions for both themselves and their progeny.
Global sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm (0.07 in) per
year from 1961 to 2003, and at an average rate of 3.1 mm (0.12 in) per
year from 1993 to 2003 (IPCC 2007a, p. 49). The IPCC (2007b, p. 13)
report estimates that sea levels could rise by 0.18 to 0.58 m (0.6 to
1.9 ft) by 2100; however, Rahmstorf (2007, p. 369) indicated that
global sea level rise could increase by over 1.2 m (4 ft) in that time
period (CEC 2009, p. 49). Even if emissions could be halted today, the
oceans would continue to rise and expand for centuries due to their
capacity to store heat (CEC 2009, pp. 49-50). In the Bay-Delta, higher
tides combined with more severe drought and flooding events are likely
to increase the likelihood of levee failure, possibly resulting in
major alterations of the environmental conditions (Moyle 2008, pp. 362-
363). It is reasonable to conclude that more severe drought and
flooding events will also occur in other estuaries where the longfin
smelt occurs. Sea level rise is likely to increase the frequency and
range of saltwater intrusion. Salinity within the northern San
Francisco Bay is projected to rise 4.5 psu by the end of the century
(Cloern et al. 2011, p. 7). Elevated salinity levels could push the
position of X2 farther up the estuary and could result in increased
distances that longfin smelt must migrate to reach spawning habitats.
Elevated sea levels could result in greater sedimentation, erosion,
coastal flooding, and permanent inundation of low-lying natural
ecosystems (CDFG 2009, p. 30).
Typically, longfin smelt spawning in the Bay-Delta occurs at water
temperatures between 7.0 and 14.5 [deg]C (44.6-58.2 [deg]F), although
spawning has been observed at lower temperatures in other areas, such
as Lake Washington (Moyle 2002, p. 236). Mean annual water temperatures
within the upper Sacramento River portion of the Bay-Delta estuary are
expected to approach or exceed 14 [deg]C during the second half of this
century (Cloern et al. 2011, p. 7). Increased water temperatures could
compress the late-fall to early-spring spawning period and could result
in shorter egg incubation time. Longfin smelt are adapted to hatching
in cold, relatively unproductive waters where they grow slowly until
ample food resources are available in spring. Warmer water during
winter would likely result in increased metabolism of larvae, which may
result in increased food needs for maintenance and growth and create a
mismatch between food needs and availability (Baxter 2011, pers.
comm.). If increased water temperatures compress the spawning period
and lead to more synchronized hatching during winter, then prevailing
low sunlight and low food resources could result in greater intra-
specific (within species) competition (Baxter 2011, pers. comm.).
Moreover, increasing water temperatures might also lead to earlier
spawning and hatching of other fishes, and to greater inter-specific
(between species) competition.
Although climate change and sea level rise are projected to result
in continued increases in water temperature and salinity, longfin smelt
is considered euryhaline (tolerant of a wide range of salinities)
(Moyle 2002, p. 236; Rosenfield and Baxter 2007 p. 1578) and is known
to move between different parts of the estuary that vary greatly in
temperature and salinity. Being able to move between aquatic habitats
that vary greatly in water temperature and salinity may reduce the
potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise to some degree.
Channel Disturbances
Dredging and other channel disturbances potentially degrade
spawning habitat and cause entrainment loss of individual fish and
eggs; disposal of dredge spoils also can create large sediment plumes
that expose fish to gill-clogging sediments and possibly to decreased
oxygen availability (Levine-Fricke 2004, p. 56). Longfin smelt is a
pelagic species (living away from the bottom of the water column and
[[Page 19769]]
shoreline), and thus less likely to be directly affected by dredging,
sand and gravel mining, and other disturbances to the channel bed
compared to bottom-dwelling fish species. Longfin smelt are likely most
vulnerable to entrainment by dredging during spawning and egg
incubation because eggs are deposited and develop on channel bottom
substrates (CDFG 2009, p. 27). Egg development takes approximately 40
days (Moyle 2002, p. 236).
We have found no information documenting population impacts of
dredging or sand and gravel mining on longfin smelt. Channel
maintenance dredging occurs regularly within the Bay-Delta and other
estuaries that serve as shipping channels (e.g., Humboldt Bay, Coos
Bay, Yaquina Bay, Columbia River). In their 2009 status review on
longfin smelt, CDFG concluded that effects of regular maintenance
dredging and sand mining within the Bay-Delta estuary on longfin smelt
were expected to be small and localized (CDFG 2009, p. 26). They
reviewed two studies on entrainment effects of channel dredging, and
each study found that no longfin smelt were entrained during dredging
(fish that were entrained were primarily bottom-dwelling species).
There is currently a proposal to deepen and selectively widen the
Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel and the lower portion of the
Sacramento River in the Bay-Delta. This dredging project would remove
between 6.1-7.6 million cubic meters (8 and 10 million cubic yards) of
material from the channel and Sacramento River and extend for 74 km
(45.8 mi) (USACE 2011a, entire). Potential effects of this new project
to longfin smelt include mortality through loss of spawning substrate,
habitat modification, and a shift in spawning and rearing habitat. The
project also has potential to alter breeding and foraging behavior of
the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population. However, this project is only a
proposal at this time and is not certain to occur. Potential effects of
the proposed project are currently under evaluation.
Summary of Factor A
Although we find that reduced freshwater flows are currently a
threat to the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population, it is difficult to
make inferences on the effects of reduced freshwater flows to longfin
smelt populations throughout the species range. Because the Bay-Delta
system includes one of the largest man made water system in the world,
it would be impractical to compare diversions and alterations in other
estuaries to diversions and alterations in the Bay-Delta. The effects
of water development in the Bay-Delta are unique to the physical,
geologic, and hydrologic environment of the estuary. Reduced flow from
diversions and dams in other estuaries is not expected to be as
significant as the reduced flows that have been shown in the Bay-Delta
because less water is exported from other estuaries. We have no
information to show that reduced freshwater flow is a threat to longfin
smelt in other estuaries. Therefore, we conclude that while reduced
flow is a threat to the Bay-Delta population of longfin smelt, the best
available science does not indicate that the lack of freshwater flow is
a threat to the species in other parts of its range.
Climate change will likely affect longfin smelt in multiple ways,
but longfin smelt are able to move between a wide range of aquatic
environments that vary greatly in water temperature and salinity. These
behavioral and physiological characteristics of the species may help it
adapt to effects of climate change. We conclude at this time that the
best available information does not indicate that climate change
threatens the continued existence of longfin smelt across its range.
Channel disturbances may have localized impacts to longfin smelt
habitat suitability, but the best available information does not
indicate that they pose significant threats to the species throughout
its range.
Based on the best available scientific information, we conclude
that reduced freshwater flows, climate change, and channel disturbances
are not significant current or future threats to longfin smelt across
its range except in the Bay-Delta, where reduced freshwater flow is a
threat.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Recreational and Commercial Fishing
In California, longfin smelt was listed as a threatened species
under the State's Endangered Species Act in 2009. This status makes
take of longfin smelt illegal, unless authorized by an incidental take
permit or other take authorization. However, longfin smelt are caught
as bycatch in small bay shrimp trawl fishery and bait fishing
(anchovies and sardines) operations in South San Francisco Bay, San
Pablo Bay, and Carquinez Strait (CDFG 2009a, p. 1). CDFG (2009d, pp. 6,
9) estimated the total longfin smelt bycatch from shrimping in 1989 and
1990 at 15,539 fish, and in 2004 at 18,815-30,574 fish. CDFG noted in
2009 that the bay shrimp trawl fishery industry had declined since 2004
(CDFG 2009d, p. 3). No shrimp fishery currently takes place in Humboldt
Bay (Mello 2011, pers. comm.).
In Oregon, smelt species may not be targeted in commercial
fisheries, and if taken incidentally, smelt catch cannot exceed 1
percent of the total weight landed (ODFW 2011, p. 17). Rules limit in
which estuaries bait fishing for herring, sardines, anchovies, and shad
may occur. In Oregon, there is currently no known shrimping taking
place within the estuaries where the longfin smelt might be found.
Although a limited entry roe herring fishery is allowed in Yaquina Bay,
no landings have occurred there since 2003, because biomass estimates
have generally been too low to make the fishery economically viable
(Krutzikowsky 2011, pers. comm.). Anchovy fishing is allowed in
Tillamook Bay, Yaquina Bay, and Coos Bay, but because there is
currently no anchovy fishing occurring in these areas (Krutzikowsky
2011, pers. comm.), longfin smelt are not taken as bycatch. Records for
commercial landings in Oregon show a total of 9.1 kilograms (kg) (20
pounds (lb)) landed from 2005 to 2010 for smelt species other than
eulachon. Recreational fishing for smelt species is allowed only in
marine waters (Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations, p. 11).
The State of Washington includes longfin smelt in a class of fish
referred to as forage fish (small schooling fish that are major food
items for many species of fish, birds, and marine mammals) (Bargmann
1998, p. 1). Both recreational and commercial fisheries exist for
forage fish in Washington, but the recreational fishery is much smaller
than the commercial fishery. A sport fishing license is not needed to
catch smelt. Smelt can be harvested recreationally using a dip net or
jig. Dip net fishing for longfin smelt is allowed in the Nooksack River
and there are approximately two hundred trips a year made to fish for
longfin smelt in this area (O'Toole 2011, pers. comm.). It is unlawful
to use a herring or smelt rake. Sport and tribal commercial fisheries
have been reported to occur on the Nooksack River longfin smelt stock
(Bargmann 1998, p. 37). Longfin smelt may be caught incidentally in a
medium-sized shore or pier-based recreational fishery for surf smelt in
Puget Sound.
There is currently no commercial fishing regulation specific to
longfin smelt in Washington (Paulson 2011, pers. comm.). The daily
limit for smelt is 4.5 kg (10 lb) and, like Oregon, is counted as an
aggregate, which can include herring, sardines, sandlance,
[[Page 19770]]
and anchovies (WDFW 2011, p. 27). There is a robust commercial herring
fishery in Washington that takes approximately 450 metric tons (500
tons) of fish per year (for sport bait) and a commercial surf smelt
fishery that takes approximately 450,000 kg (100,000 lb) of fish per
year (for human consumption). Longfin smelt bycatch in both of these
fisheries is low. Anchovy fishing in Washington primarily takes place
in Grays Harbor and the mouth of the Columbia River (O'Toole 2011,
pers. comm.).
In British Columbia, take of smelt from recreational fishing is
limited to 20 kilograms (kg) (44 lb) per day and 40 kg (88 lb) of total
catch in possession. The fishing season takes place from April 1 to
June 14 (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2011a, p. 47). A
commercial fishing industry targeting surf smelt may incidentally take
longfin smelt (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2011b, p. 1).
British Columbia supports a year-round shrimp fishery in Prince Rupert
and Chatham Sound. Sardine and shrimp fishing occurs near Vancouver.
In Alaska, a commercial fishery for smelt, which includes eulachon,
was reopened in 2005. This fishery is restricted to the brackish waters
of Cook Inlet, from May 1 to June 30. The total annual harvest of
eulachon and longfin smelt may not exceed 90 metric tons (100 tons) of
smelt. However, longfin smelt are unlikely to be specifically targeted
in this fishery due to their small numbers in relation to eulachon in
the region (Shields 2005, p. 4). Sport fishing is limited to salt
water, where herring and smelt may be taken (Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (ADFG) 2010, p. 1). In Prince William Sound, the herring
fishery has closed due to low abundance of herring.
Monitoring Surveys
Fisheries monitoring surveys are conducted by NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Service and by State and local agencies
in water bodies inhabited by longfin smelt throughout their range. Most
of these surveys target other species, primarily salmonids, and rarely
collect longfin smelt outside of the Bay-Delta area.
Within the Bay-Delta, longfin smelt are regularly captured in
monitoring surveys. The Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) implements
scientific research in the Bay-Delta. Although the focus of its studies
and the level of effort have changed over time, in general, their
surveys have been directed at researching the Pelagic Organism Decline
in the Bay-Delta. Between the years of 1987 to 2011, combined take of
longfin smelt less than 20 mm (0.8 in) in length ranged from 2,405 to
158,588 annually. All of these fish were preserved for research or
assumed to die in processing. During the same time period, combined
take for juveniles and adults (fish greater than or equal to 20 mm (0.8
in)) ranged from 461 to 68,974 annually (IEP 2011, no pagination).
Although mortality is unknown, the majority of these fish likely do not
survive. The Chipps Island survey, which is conducted by the Service,
has captured an average of 2,697 longfin smelt per year during the past
10 years. Biologists attempt to release these fish unharmed, but at
least 5,154 longfin smelt were known to have died during the Chipps
Island survey between 2001 and 2008 (Service 2010, entire).
Survey methods have been modified recently to minimize potential
impacts to delta smelt, a related species that also occurs in the Bay-
Delta (75 FR 17669; April 7, 2010). These modifications are likely to
result in reduced impacts to longfin smelt also. The Service conducts
other surveys in the Bay-Delta to monitor salmon populations (Mossdale
trawl, Sacramento trawl, beach seine surveys), but few longfin smelt
are captured during these surveys. Mortality due to monitoring surveys
was not identified by the Interagency Ecological Program in its most
recent synthesis of results as a factor in the decline of longfin smelt
and other pelagic fish species in the Bay-Delta since the early 2000s
(Baxter et al. 2010, pp. 19-53, 61-69).
Summary of Factor B
The species is incidentally caught in commercial shrimp and bait
fishing operations throughout much of its range, but the bycatch
numbers are usually low. In California, take of longfin smelt is
illegal without authorization because the species is listed as
threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. Because of its
small size, it is not targeted by recreational angling, although it is
certainly caught and used as bait for other larger recreational fish
species. Monitoring surveys have resulted in high numbers of longfin
smelt mortality in the Bay-Delta in the past, but efforts being made to
reduce survey mortality for delta smelt, such as reductions in tow
times, likely have also benefitted longfin smelt. The scientific
collection surveys being conducted in the Bay-Delta are limited to
research designed to benefit the species, and mortality from monitoring
surveys has not been identified as a factor in the longfin smelt's
recent population decline. We have no information indicating that
mortality from monitoring surveys threatens any populations within the
species' range. We conclude that overutilization due to commercial,
recreational, or scientific take is not a significant current or future
threat to the longfin smelt throughout its range.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
All the information we found on disease in longfin populations
originated from studies in the Bay-Delta. Two investigations published
in 2006 and 2008 by the California-Nevada Fish Health Center detected
no significant health problems in juvenile longfin smelt in the Bay-
Delta (Foott and Stone 2008, pp. 15-16). The low observed rate of
parasitic infection did not appear to affect the health of the fish, as
indicated by the lack of associated tissue damage or inflammation
(Foott and Stone 2008, p. 15). The only additional documentation of
relevant wild fish disease in the Bay-Delta was a severe intestinal
infection by a new species of myxozoan observed in nonnative juvenile
yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius flavimanus) from Suisun Marsh (Baxa et
al. in prep cited in Baxter et al. 2008, p. 16). The nonnative gobies
could act as potential vectors of the parasite to other susceptible
species in the Bay-Delta. It is unknown whether this or similar
infections are affecting the health of longfin smelt.
The south Delta is fed by water from the San Joaquin River, where
pesticides (e.g., chlorpyrifos, carbofuran, and diazinon), salts (e.g.,
sodium sulfates), trace elements (boron and selenium), and high levels
of total dissolved solids are prevalent due to agricultural runoff (64
FR 5963; February 8, 1999). Pesticides and other toxic chemicals may
adversely affect the immune system of longfin smelt and other fish in
the Bay-Delta and other estuaries, but we found no information
documenting such effects (see Factor E: Contaminants, below).
Predation
As a forage species, longfin smelt are preyed upon by a variety of
fishes, birds, and mammals (Barnhart et al. 1992, p. 44). However, we
found little information on predation of longfin smelt other than
information for the Bay-Delta population and Lake Washington
population. The striped bass (Morone saxatilis) is a potential predator
of longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta. Striped bass were introduced into
the Bay-Delta in 1879 and quickly became abundant throughout the
estuary. However, their numbers have
[[Page 19771]]
declined substantially over the last 40 years (Thomson et al. 2010, p.
1440), and they are one of the four species studied under Pelagic
Organism Decline investigations (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 16). Numbers of
largemouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), another introduced species in
the Bay-Delta, have increased in the Delta over the past few decades
(Brown and Michniuk 2007, p. 196). Largemouth bass, however, occur in
shallow freshwater habitats, closer to shore than the pelagic longfin
smelt, and do not typically co-occur with longfin smelt. Baxter et al.
(2010, p. 40) reported that no longfin smelt have been found in
largemouth bass stomachs sampled in a recent study of largemouth bass
diet. Moyle (2002, p. 238) believed that inland silverside (Menidia
beryllina), another nonnative predatory fish, may be an important
predator on longfin smelt eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults.
Rosenfield (2010, p. 18) acknowledged that they are likely major
predators of longfin smelt eggs and larvae but thought it unlikely that
they were an important predator on juveniles and subadults because
inland silversides prefer shallow water habitats whereas juvenile and
subadult longfin smelt do not.
In the Bay-Delta, predation of longfin smelt may be high in the
Clifton Court Forebay, where the SWP water export pumping plant is
located (Moyle 2002, p. 238; Baxter et al. 2010, p. 42). However, once
they are entrained in the Clifton Court Forebay, longfin smelt
mortality would be high anyway due to high water temperatures in the
forebay (CDFG 2009b, p. 4) and entrainment into the SWP water export
pumping plant. In addition to elevated predation levels in the Clifton
Court Forebay, predation also is concentrated at sites where fish
salvaged from the SWP and CVP export facilities are released (Moyle
2002, p. 238). However, few longfin smelt survive the salvage and
transport process (see Factor E: Entrainment Losses, below) and
therefore predation is not expected to be an important factor at drop-
off sites. Reduced freshwater flows may result in lower turbidity and
increased water clarity (see Factor A, above), which may contribute to
increased risk of predation (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 64).
In Lake Washington, longfin are preyed upon by prickly sculpin
(Cottus asper) (Tabor et al. 2007, p. 1085) and cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki) (Norwak et al. 2004, p. 632; Beauchamp et al.
1992, p. 156). Cutthroat trout have displaced the northern pikeminnow
as the most important predator in Lake Washington and may be having an
effect on other components of the ecosystem, including longfin smelt
populations (Norwak et al. 2004, pp. 633-634).
Summary of Factor C
Similar to other threats, very little information is available
about disease or predation threats to longfin smelt populations outside
of the Bay-Delta. We found no information that disease is a threat to
the longfin smelt throughout its range. Longfin smelt is a small fish
that is preyed upon by a wide variety of fish, birds, and mammals, but
we found no information documenting predation as a threat to the
species rangewide. Predation, along with mortality from entrainment
(see Factor E: Entrainment Losses, below), has been identified as a
top-down effect that may be contributing to recent declines of longfin
smelt and other pelagic fish species in the Bay-Delta estuary (Pelagic
Organism Decline) (Sommer et al. 2007, p. 275). However, factors
contributing to the Pelagic Organism Decline are numerous and complex,
and the combination of underlying causal mechanisms remains uncertain
(Baxter et al. 2010, pp. 61-69). Therefore, based on our review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that
disease or predation are not significant current or future threats to
the longfin smelt throughout its range.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Federal Laws
A number of federal environmental laws and regulations exist that
may provide some protection for longfin smelt: the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act,
and the Clean Water Act.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) requires all Federal agencies to formally document, consider, and
publicly disclose the environmental impacts of major Federal actions
and management decisions significantly affecting the human environment.
NEPA documentation is provided in an environmental impact statement, an
environmental assessment, or a categorical exclusion, and may be
subject to administrative or judicial appeal. However, the Federal
agency is not required to select an alternative having the least
significant environmental impacts, and may select an action that will
adversely affect sensitive species provided that these effects are
known and identified in a NEPA document. Therefore, we do not consider
the NEPA process in itself is to be a regulatory mechanism that is
certain to provide significant protection for the longfin smelt.
Central Valley Project Improvement Act
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Pub. L. 102-575)
(CVPIA) amends the previous Central Valley Project authorizations to
include fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation as
project purposes having equal priority with irrigation and domestic
uses, and fish and wildlife enhancement as having an equal priority
with power generation (Pub. L. 102-575, October 30, 1992; Bureau of
Reclamation 2009). Included in CVPIA section 3406 (b)(2) was a
provision to dedicate 800,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project yield
annually (referred to as ``(b)(2) water'') for fish, wildlife, and
habitat restoration. Since 1993, (b)(2) water has been used and
supplemented with acquired environmental water (Environmental Water
Account and CVPIA section 3406 (b)(3) water) to increase stream flows
and reduce Central Valley Project export pumping in the Delta. These
management actions were taken to contribute to the CVPIA salmonid
population doubling goals and to protect Delta smelt and their habitat
(Guinee 2011, pers. comm.). As discussed above, (see Biology and Factor
A discussions), increased freshwater flows have been shown to be
positively correlated with longfin smelt abundance; therefore, these
management actions, although targeted towards other species, should
also benefit longfin smelt.
Clean Water Act
Established in 1977, the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
is the primary Federal law in the United States regulating water
pollution. It employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory means
to reduce direct water quality impacts and manage polluted runoff. The
Clean Water Act provides the basis for the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and gives the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) the authority to set effluent limits and require any
entity discharging pollutants to obtain a NPDES permit. The EPA is
authorized through the Clean Water Act to delegate the authority to
issue NPDES permits to State governments and has done so in California.
In States that have been authorized to implement Clean Water Act
programs, EPA retains oversight responsibilities. Water bodies that do
not meet applicable water quality
[[Page 19772]]
standards are placed on the section 303(d) list of impaired water
bodies, and the State is required to develop appropriate total maximum
daily loads (TMDL) for the water body. A TMDL is a calculation of the
maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still
meet water quality standards. At present, TMDLs are not in place in all
impaired watersheds in which longfin smelt are known to occur. The
Clean Water Act has not effectively limited ammonia input into the
system, and ammonia has been shown to negatively affect the longfin
smelt's food supply.
State Laws
The State of California has a number of environmental laws and
regulations which may provide some protection for longfin smelt:
California Endangered Species Act, California Environmental Quality
Act, California Marine Invasive Species Act, Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, and regulatory prohibitions on streambed
alterations.
California Endangered Species Act
Longfin smelt was listed as threatened under the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code 2050 et
seq.) in 2009. The CESA prohibits unpermitted possession, purchase,
sale, or take of listed species. However, the CESA definition of take
does not include harm, which under the Act's implementing regulations
includes significant modification or degradation of habitat that
actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns (50 CFR 17.3). CESA allows take of species for
otherwise lawful projects through use of an incidental take permit. An
incidental take permit requires that impacts be minimized and fully
mitigated (CESA sections 2081 (b) and (c)). Furthermore, CESA requires
that the issuance of the permit will not jeopardize the continued
existence of a State-listed species. The CESA does require consultation
between CDFG and other State agencies to ensure that activities of
State agencies will not jeopardize the continued existence of State-
listed species (CERES 2009, p. 1). Longfin Smelt Incidental Take Permit
No. 2081-2009-001-03 specifies that the Smelt Working Group, which was
created under the Service's 2008 delta smelt biological opinion
(Service 2008, p. 30), provide recommendations for export pumping
reduction to CDFG if any of several criteria is reached. One of the
criteria is that total salvage of adult longfin smelt (fish greater
than or equal to 80 mm in length) at the State Water Project and
Central Valley Project export pumps between December and February may
not exceed five times the Fall Midwater Trawl longfin smelt annual
abundance index. Also, if longfin abundance is low and surveys indicate
that adults are distributed close to the export pumps, the Smelt
Working Group may consider making recommendations for Old and Middle
River Flows that would reduce pumping (CDFG 2009c, pp. 1-34; Smelt
Working Group 2011, p. 4).
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act ((CEQA) (Public Resources
Code section 21000 et seq.)) requires review of any project that is
undertaken, funded, or permitted by the State of California or a local
government agency. If significant effects are identified, the lead
agency has the option of requiring mitigation through changes in the
project or to decide that overriding considerations make mitigation
infeasible (CEQA sec. 21002). In the latter case, projects may be
approved that cause significant environmental damage, such as
destruction of listed endangered species or their habitat. Protection
of listed species through CEQA is, therefore, dependent on the
discretion of the lead agency. The CEQA review process ensures that a
full environmental review is undertaken prior to the permitting of any
project within longfin smelt habitat.
California Marine Invasive Species Act
The California Marine Invasive Species Act (AB 433) was passed in
2003. This 2003 act requires ballast water management for all vessels
that intend to discharge ballast water in California waters. All
qualifying vessels coming from ports within the Pacific Coast region
must conduct an exchange in waters at least 50 nautical mi offshore and
200 m (656 ft) deep or retain all ballast water and associated
sediments. To determine the effectiveness of the management provisions
of this 2003 act, the legislation also requires State agencies to
conduct a series of biological surveys to monitor new introductions to
coastal and estuarine waters. These measures should further minimize
the introduction of new invasive species into California's coastal
waters that could be a threat to the longfin smelt. The Coastal
Ecosystems Protection Act of 2006 deleted a sunset provision of the
Marine Invasive Species Act, making the program permanent.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code
13000 et seq.) is a California State law that establishes the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality
Control Boards that are responsible for the regulation of activities
and factors that could degrade California water quality and for the
allocation of surface water rights (California Water Code Division 7).
In 1995, the SWRCB developed the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan
that established water quality objectives for the Delta. This plan is
currently implemented by Water Rights Decision 1641, which imposes flow
and water quality standards on State and Federal water export
facilities to assure protection of beneficial uses in the Delta (USFWS
2008, pp. 21-27). The various flow objectives and export restraints
were designed, in part, to protect fisheries. These objectives include
specific freshwater flow requirements throughout the year, specific
water export restraints in the spring, and water export limits based on
a percentage of estuary inflow throughout the year. The water quality
objectives were designed to protect agricultural, municipal,
industrial, and fishery uses; they vary throughout the year and by the
wetness of the year.
In December 2010, the California Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Regional Board) adopted a new National Pollutant
Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Sacramento
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to address ammonia loading to the
Sacramento River and the Delta. In January 2011, the Sacramento
Regional County Sanitation District petitioned the Regional Board for a
review of the permit, which may require a year or more. There is
currently no TMDL in place for ammonia discharge into the Sacramento
watershed. The EPA is currently updating freshwater ammonia criteria
that will include new discharge limits on ammonia (EPA 2009, pp. 1-46).
Ammonia has been shown to have negative effects on prey items that
longfin smelt rely upon (see Factor E: Contaminants, below). This
regulation does not adequately mitigate potential negative effects to
longfin smelt from ammonia in the Bay-Delta.
Streambed Alteration
In California, section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game
Code authorizes CDFG to regulate streambed alteration. The CDFG must be
notified of and approve any work that substantially diverts, alters, or
obstructs the natural flow or that substantially changes the bed,
channel, or banks of any river, stream, or lake. If an existing fish or
wildlife resource, including longfin smelt, may be substantially
adversely
[[Page 19773]]
affected by a project, the project proponent must submit proposals to
protect the species to the CDFG at least 90 days before the start of
the project. However, these proposals are subject to agreement by the
project proponent. If CDFG deems proposed measures to be inadequate, a
third party arbitration may be initiated. However, projects that cause
significant environmental damage such as destruction of species and
their habitat including longfin smelt may be approved because the CDFG
has no authority to deny requests for streambed alteration.
Oregon Environmental Regulations
Oregon classifies longfin smelt as a native migratory fish under
Oregon Administrative Rule (Division 412, 635-412-0005). Operators of
artificial obstructions located in waters in which any native migratory
fish are currently or were historically present must provide for fish
passage requirements during installation, replacement, or abandonment
of artificial obstructions (ODFW 2011, p. 1). This State law helps
ensure passage of migratory longfin smelt between rearing and spawning
habitat.
Washington Environmental Regulations
Washington's State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C) provides a
process similar to CEQA and is applicable to every State and local
agency in Washington State. This law requires State and local
governments to consider impacts to the environment and include public
participation in project planning and decision making (Washington
Division of Wildlife 2011, p. 1). Project proponents must submit a
proposal for their project to the appropriate city, county, or State
lead agency where the project is taking place. The lead agency then
makes a determination of whether or not the project will have
significantly adverse environmental impacts. The lead agency then may
require the applicant to change the proposal to minimize environmental
impacts or in rare cases may deny the application (Washington State
Department of Ecology (WSDE) 2002, pp. 1-2).
Alaska Environmental Regulations
The Anadromous Fish Act (AS 16.05.871-.901) requires that anyone
desiring to alter a streambed or waterbody first obtain a permit from
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). Regulated activities
include construction, road crossings, gravel mining, water withdrawal,
stream realignment, and bank stabilization. Although there are no
minimization or mitigation components to this law, the ADFG
commissioner has the ability to deny a permit if he or she finds the
plans and specifications are insufficient for the proper protection of
anadromous fish. The Fishway or Fish Passage Act (AS 15.05.841)
requires that activities within or crossing a stream obtain permission
from ADFG if they will impede the passage of resident or anadromous
fish. This provides some degree of protection for longfin smelt, which
is categorized as an anadromous fish in the State of Alaska.
Canadian Environmental Regulations
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (S.C. 1992, c. 37) was
passed by the Canadian Parliament in 1992. The Act requires Federal
departments to conduct environmental assessments for proposals where
the government is the proposer or the project involves Federal funding
or permitting. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999 is
intended to prevent pollution, protect the environment and human
health, and contribute to promoting sustainable development. Canada has
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), which is equivalent
to the United States' NEPA. It was enacted to protect Canada's natural
resources through pollution prevention and sustainable development.
This provides some level of protection for longfin smelt from pollution
and habitat degradation. The longfin smelt is not currently a protected
species under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) of 2002 (S.C. 2002 c. 29;
SARA). SARA is similar to the United States' Endangered Species Act. If
the longfin smelt were determined by the Canadian government to need
protection in the future, it could be listed under SARA.
Summary of Factor D
We evaluate existing regulatory mechanisms that have an effect on
threats that we have identified elsewhere in the threats analysis. We
do not evaluate the lack of a regulatory mechanism that may address a
particular threat if that regulatory mechanism does not exist. We find
that the threats to the longfin smelt and its habitat on Federal,
State, and private lands on a range-wide basis are minimal (Factors A,
B, C and E). Existing federal regulatory mechanisms provide a degree of
protection for longfin smelt from these threats. Therefore, we find
that regulatory mechanisms provide adequate protections to longfin
smelt and its habitat throughout its range.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Other natural or manmade factors potentially affecting the
continued existence of longfin smelt include entrainment losses from
water diversions, introduced species, and contaminants.
Entrainment Losses
The only information we found on entrainment losses of longfin
smelt comes from the Bay-Delta population. Entrainment occurs when fish
are drawn toward water diversions, where they are typically trapped or
killed. In the Bay-Delta, water is diverted and fish potentially
entrained at four major water export facilities within the Delta, two
power plants, and numerous small water diversions throughout the Delta
for agriculture and in Suisun Marsh for waterfowl habitat. In their
2009 status review of longfin smelt, CDFG (2009, pp. 19-26) summarized
entrainment losses at these water diversions.
Water Export Facilities
The four State and Federal water export facilities (pumping
stations) in the Delta are the State Water Project (SWP) facility in
the south Delta, the Central Valley Project (CVP) in the south Delta,
the Contra Costa facility in the south Delta, and the North Bay
Aqueduct facility in the north Delta. The SWP and CVP facilities pump
the majority of the water exported from the Delta. Average annual
volumes of water exported from these facilities between 1995 and 2005
were 3.60 km\3\ at the SWP facility, 3.10 km\3\ at the CVP facility,
0.15 km\3\ at the Contra Costa facility, and 0.05 km\3\ at the North
Bay Aqueduct facility (Sommer et al. 2007, p. 272). Depending on
upstream flow through the Delta, operation of the SWP and CVP
facilities often causes reverse flows in the river channels leading to
them; longfin smelt that occupy these channels during certain times of
the year may be entrained by these reverse flows. The SWP and CVP water
export facilities are equipped with their own fish collection
facilities that divert entrained fish into holding pens using louver-
bypass systems to protect them from being killed in the pumps. The fish
collected at the facilities are referred to as ``salvaged,'' and are
loaded onto tanker trucks and returned to the western Delta downstream
(Aasen 2009, p. 36). The movement of fish can result in mortality due
to overcrowding in the tanks, stress, moving procedures, or predation
at locations where the fish are released. Salvage is an index of
[[Page 19774]]
entrainment, not an estimate, and is much smaller than total
entrainment (Castillo et al. in review). Of spawning age fish (age-1
and age-2), which contribute most to longfin smelt population dynamics
in the Bay-Delta, the total number of longfin smelt salvaged at both
pumps between 1993 and 2007 was 1,133 (CDFG 2009, Attachment 3, p. 2).
Fish entering the intake channel of the CVP or the radial gates of
the 31,000-acre Clifton Court Forebay reservoir (SWP) are considered
entrained (Fujimura 2009, p. 5; CDFG 2009b, p. 2). Most longfin smelt
that become entrained in Clifton Court Forebay are unable to escape
(CDFG 2009b, p. 4). The number of fish entrained at the SWP and CVP
facilities has never been determined directly, but entrainment losses
have been estimated indirectly using data from research and monitoring
efforts. The magnitude of entrainment of larval longfin smelt is
unknown because only fish greater than 20 mm in length are salvaged at
the two facilities (Baxter et al. 2008, p. 21). In years with low
freshwater flows, approximately half of the longfin smelt larvae and
early juveniles may remain for weeks within the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta (Dege and Brown 2004), where model simulations indicate they are
vulnerable to entrainment into State Water Project, Central Valley
Project, and other diversions (Kimmerer and Nobriga 2008, CDFG 2009a,
p. 8).
Entrainment is no longer considered a major threat to longfin smelt
in the Bay-Delta because of current regulations. Efforts to reduce
delta smelt entrainment loss through the implementation of the 2008
delta smelt biological opinion and the listing of longfin smelt under
the CESA have likely reduced longfin smelt entrainment losses. The high
rate of entrainment that occurred in 2002 that threatened the Bay Delta
longfin smelt population is unlikely to recur, and would no longer be
allowed under today's regulations because limits on longfin smelt take
due to CESA regulations (see Factor D discussion, below) would trigger
reductions in the magnitude of reverse flows.
Power Plants
Two power plants located near the confluence of the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Rivers, the Contra Costa Generating Station and the
Pittsburg Generating Station, pose an entrainment risk to longfin
smelt. Past entrainment losses of delta smelt at these two facilities
were significant and considered a threat to delta smelt (75 FR 17671;
April 7, 2010). Power plant operations have been substantially reduced
since the late 1970s, when high entrainment and impingement were
documented (CDFG 2009, p. 24); the power plants are now either kept
offline or operating at very low levels, except as necessary to meet
peak power needs. From 2007-2010, capacity utilization of these units
averaged only 2.3 percent of maximum capacity. No longfin smelt were
detected during impingement sampling conducted between May of 2010 and
April of 2011 to monitor entrainment losses at the two power plants
(Tenera Environmental 2011, entire). The company that owns the two
power plants has committed to retiring one of the two power stations in
2013 (Contra Costa Generating Station) and has made this commitment
enforceable through amendments to its Clean Air Act Title V permit
(Raifsnider 2011, pers. comm.).
Agricultural Diversions
Water is diverted at numerous sites throughout the Bay-Delta for
agricultural irrigation. Herren and Kawasaki (2001) reported over 2,200
such water diversions within the Delta, but CDFG (2009, p. 25) notes
that number may be high because Herren and Kawasaki (2001) did not
accurately distinguish intake siphons and pumps from discharge pipes.
CALFED's Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) includes a program to
screen remaining unscreened small agricultural diversions in the Delta
and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. The purpose of screening
fish diversions is to prevent entrainment losses; however, very little
information is available on the efficacy of screening these diversions
(Moyle and Israel 2005, p. 20). Agricultural operations begin to divert
water in March and April, and many longfin smelt have begun leaving the
Delta by this time. Water diversions are primarily located on the edge
of channels and along river banks. Longfin smelt are a pelagic fish
species and tend to occupy the middle of the channel and the middle of
the water column, where they are unlikely to be vulnerable to
entrainment into these diversions.
Suisun Marsh Diversions
There are 366 diversions in Suisun Marsh used to enhance waterfowl
habitat (USFWS 2008, p. 172). Water is pumped at these diversions
between October and May. Longfin larvae are abundant in the Marsh from
February through April, while adults are abundant from October to
February (Meng and Mattern 2001, p. 756; Rosenfield and Baxter 2007, p.
1588). During a 2-year study sampling 2.3 million m\3\ (81.2 million
ft\3\) of water entering intakes, entrainment was found to be low,
capturing only 124 adult longfin and 160 larvae (Enos et al. 2007, p.
16). Restrictions on pumping have been put in place to protect delta
smelt and salmon. These restrictions likely also benefit longfin smelt.
Introduced Species
Nonnative introduced species (both plants and animals) are common
in many of the estuaries within the range of the longfin smelt.
Introduced species can significantly alter food webs in aquatic
ecosystems. Introduced animal species can adversely affect longfin
smelt through predation (see Factor C discussion, above) or
competition. Although introduced species are common within many of the
estuaries occupied by longfin smelt, most of the information we found
on effects of introduced species on longfin smelt was for the Bay-Delta
population.
Bay-Delta Population
The Bay-Delta is considered one of the most highly invaded
estuaries in the world (Sommer et al. 2007, p. 272). Longfin smelt
abundance in the Bay-Delta has remained low since the mid-1980s (see
Abundance section, above). This long-term decline has been at least
partially attributed to effects of the introduced overbite clam
(Kimmerer 2002a, p. 47; Sommer et al. 2007, p. 274; Rosenfield and
Baxter 2007, p. 1589; Baxter et al. 2010, pp. 61-62). The overbite clam
has impacted zooplankton abundance and species composition by grazing
on the phytoplankton that comprise part of the zooplankton's food base
(Orsi and Mecum 1996, pp. 384-386) and by grazing on larval stages of
certain zooplankton like Eurytemora affinis (no common name) (Kimmerer
2002, p. 51; Sommer et al. 2007, pp. 274-276). Longfin smelt
recruitment (replacement of individuals by the next generation) has
steadily declined since 1987, even after adjusting for Delta freshwater
flows (Nobriga 2010, slide 5). These data suggest that changes in the
estuary's food web following introduction of the overbite clam may have
had substantial and long-term impacts on longfin smelt population
dynamics in the Bay-Delta.
Numerous other invasive plant and animal species have been
introduced into the Bay-Delta, and ecosystem disruptions will
undoubtedly continue as new species are introduced. Sommer et al.
(2007, p. 272) note that the quagga mussel (Dreissna bugensis) was
discovered in southern California in late 2006, and that it could
become
[[Page 19775]]
established in the Bay-Delta and cause substantial ecosystem
disruption.
Other Populations
The Eel River is undergoing a shift from native anadromous to
resident introduced fish species. Of particular importance are the
California roach (Hesperoleucus symmetricus) and the Sacramento
pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis) (Brown and Moyle 1997, p. 274). The
Sacramento pikeminnow is known to cause shifts in spatial distribution
of native species (Brown & Moyle 1991, p. 856). The Sacramento
pikeminnow preys on native fishes, particularly emigrating juvenile
salmonids (Moyle 2002, p. 156) and likely preys upon the longfin smelt
when present.
In Humboldt Bay, one study recorded 73 nonnative species, with
another 13 species of uncertain status (Boyd 2002, pp. 89-91). Many of
the nonnative species, most of which are invertebrates, have been
present in the Bay for over 100 years, although some introductions have
also occurred more recently (Boyd 2002, pp. 89-91). It is possible that
the presence of some of these introduced species have resulted in
changes to the food web resulting in changes to longfin smelt food
availability in Humboldt Bay, as has occurred in the Bay-Delta.
However, there are no data with which to evaluate this hypothesis.
Commercial oyster culturing in Humboldt Bay began in 1955 (Barrett
1963, p. 38). Oyster culture beds within the bay are located in areas
that are favorable to eelgrass (Zostera marina), and the harvesting of
oysters in these beds has resulted in a reduction of and damage to
native eelgrass in Humboldt Bay (Trianni 1996, p. 4; Rummrill and
Poulton 2004, p. 2). Longfin smelt are known to feed on fauna found on
native eelgrass, and therefore loss of eelgrass communities could
result in lower levels of longfin smelt prey, possibly resulting in
decreased longfin smelt survival.
Over 100 species of nonnative, invasive aquatic plants and animals
have been documented in the Yaquina Bay estuary in Oregon (Oregon State
University 2011, p. 1). One of the plants that has become established
is Zostera japonica, a seagrass that was introduced to Yaquina Bay as
live packing material for Japanese oysters. It poses a competitive
threat to the native eelgrass (Brown et al. 2007, p. 9), and longfin
smelt are known to feed on fauna found on native eelgrass (Phillips
1984, pp. 1-85). Invasive fish species in Yaquina Bay include American
shad (Alosa sapidissima), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), bass
(Micropterus spp.), and walleye (Sander vitreum).
Numerous nonnative, invasive plant and animal species have
established populations within the Columbia River estuary. Nonnative,
invasive plants and fish are the largest taxa to inhabit the estuary,
followed by mollusks and crustaceans (Sanderson et al. 2009, pp. 245-
256). American shad was introduced in the Columbia River soon after
1871 (Petersen et al. 2011, pp. 1-42). The spawning adult shad
population in the Columbia River is more than 5,000,000 individuals,
the largest anywhere (Petersen et al. 2011, pp. 1-42). Shad may have
large, negative effects on Columbia River ecosystems, as adult and
juvenile shad prey on zooplankton, thereby reducing the availability of
prey for other fish species (Sanderson et al. 2009, pp. 245-256). Also
present in the lower Columbia River are channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus), striped bass, smallmouth bass (Microperterus dolomieui),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and walleye (Sander vitreus).
These nonnative fishes are aggressive predators and have likely
substantially altered food webs in the Columbia River estuary
(Sanderson et al. 2009, pp. 245-256). The Eurasian water milfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum) may have been introduced into the lower
Columbia River by ballast water from European ships in the 1800s (Aiken
et al. 1979, pp. 201-215). It forms dense mats of vegetation and
results in reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations as the plants
decompose, altering aquatic ecosystem chemistry and function (Cronin et
al. 2006, pp. 37-43; Unmuth et al. 2000, pp. 497-503), which could
potentially restrict longfin smelt distribution in the region.
Hundreds of invasive plants and animals have found their way into
Puget Sound through importation of soils, plants, fruits, and seeds;
through boat hulls and ship ballast water discharge; and through
intentional human releases. Invasive tunicate species that reproduce
quickly and cover docks and boat hulls are also present in the sound
(Puget Sound Partnership 2008b, p. 26).
Contaminants
Bay-Delta
Similar to other potential threats to longfin smelt, most of the
information available is for the Bay-Delta. In 2009, over 15 million
pounds of pesticides were applied within the five-county Bay-Delta area
(California Department of Pesticide Regulation 2011, p. 1). Toxicity to
invertebrates has been noted in water and sediments from the Delta and
associated watersheds (e.g., Werner et al. 2000, pp. 218, 223). Fish
exposed to agricultural drainage water from the San Joaquin River
watershed can exhibit body burdens of selenium exceeding the level at
which reproductive failure and increased juvenile mortality occur
(Saiki et al. 2001, p. 629). Toxicity studies specific to longfin smelt
are not available, but data do exist for other fish species such as the
delta smelt, a related species. Longfin smelt could be similarly
affected by contaminants as some life stages utilize similar habitat
and prey resources, and longfin smelt have a physiology similar to
delta smelt. Kuivila and Moon (2004, p. 239) found that peak densities
of larval and juvenile delta smelt sometimes coincided in time and
space with elevated concentrations of dissolved pesticides in the
spring. These periods of co-occurrence lasted for up to 2 to 3 weeks.
Concentrations of individual pesticides were low and much less than
would be expected to cause acute mortality; however, the effects of
exposure to the complex mixtures of pesticides are unknown.
Bay-Delta waters are listed as impaired for several legacy and
currently used pesticides under the Clean Water Act section 303(d)
(California Department of Pesticide Regulation 2011, p. 1).
Concentrations of dissolved pesticides vary in the Delta both
temporally and spatially (Kuivila 2000, p. 1). Several areas of the
Delta, particularly the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, are
impaired due to elevated levels of diazinon and chlorpyrifos, which are
toxic at low concentrations to some aquatic organisms (MacCoy et al.
1995, pp. 21-30). Several studies have demonstrated the acute and
chronic toxicity of two common dormant-spray insecticides, diazinon and
esfenvalerate, in fish species (Barry et al. 1995, p. 273; Goodman et
al. 1979, p. 479; Holdway et al.; 1994, p. 169; Scholz et al. 2000, p.
1911; Tanner and Knuth 1996, p. 244).
Pyrethroid pesticides are of particular concern because of their
widespread use, and their tendency to be genotoxic (DNA damaging) to
fishes at low doses (in the range of micrograms per liter) (Campana et
al. 1999, p. 159). The pyrethroid esfenvalerate is associated with
delayed spawning and reduced larval survival of bluegill sunfish
(Lepomis macrochirus) (Tanner and Knuth 1996, pp. 246-250) and
increased susceptibility of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) to disease (Clifford et al. 2005, pp. 1770-1771). In
addition, synthetic pyrethroids may interfere with nerve cell function,
which could eventually result in paralysis (Bradbury and Coats 1989,
pp.
[[Page 19776]]
377-378; Shafer and Meyer 2004, pp. 304-305).
Weston and Lydy (2010, p. 1835) found the largest source of
pyrethroids flowing into the Delta to be coming from the Sacramento
Regional Water Treatment Plant (SRWTP), where only secondary treatment
occurs. Their data not only indicate the presence of these
contaminants, but the concentrations found exceeded acute toxicity
thresholds for the amphipod Hyalella azteca. This is of substantial
concern because the use of insecticides in the urban environment had
not before been considered the primary source of insecticides flowing
into the Delta. Furthermore, this was not the case for the Stockton
Waste Water Treatment facility, where tertiary treatment occurs,
suggesting that the tertiary treatment that occurs at the Stockton
facility could minimize or eliminate toxic effluent being dispersed
from wastewater facilities (Baxter et.al. 2010, p. 33).
Several studies were initiated in 2005 to address the possible role
of contaminants and disease in the declines of Bay-Delta fish and other
aquatic species. The primary study consists of twice-monthly monitoring
of ambient water toxicity at 15 sites in the Bay-Delta and Suisun Bay
(Baxter et al. 2010, pp. 16, 17, 30). Significant mortality of
amphipods was observed in 5.6 percent of samples collected in 2006-2007
and 0.5 percent of samples collected in 2008-2009. Werner et al.
(2010b, p. 3) found that larval delta smelt were between 1.8 and 11
times more sensitive than fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) to
copper, ammonia, and all insecticides except permethrin. Aquatic
insects in which the longfin smelt relies upon for food have been shown
to be sensitive to ammonia. H. azteca was the most sensitive to all
pyrethroids tested, while E. affinis and C. Dubia were the most
sensitive to ammonia (Werner et al. 2010b, pp. 18, 23). Pyrethroids are
of particular interest because use of these insecticides has increased
within the Bay-Delta watershed as use of organophosphate insecticides
has declined. Longfin smelt are probably most vulnerable to the effects
of toxic substances during the winter and spring, when their early life
stages occur in the Delta and Suisun and San Pablo Bays, where they are
closer to point and non-point inputs of contaminants from runoff.
The largest source of ammonia entering the Delta ecosystem is the
Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP), which accounts
for 90 percent of the total ammonia load released into the Delta.
Ammonia is un-ionized and has the chemical formula NH3.
Ammonium is ionized and has the formula NH4\+\. The major
factors determining the proportion of ammonia or ammonium in water are
water pH and temperature. This is important, as NH3 ammonia
is the form that can be directly toxic to aquatic organisms, and
NH4\+\ ammonium is the form documented to interfere with
uptake of nitrates by phytoplankton (Dugdale et al. 2007, p. 17; Jassby
2008, p. 3).
Effects of elevated ammonia levels on fish range from irritation of
skin, gills, and eyes to reduced swimming ability and mortality (Wicks
et al. 2002, p. 67). Delta smelt have been shown to be directly
sensitive to ammonia at the larval and juvenile stages (Werner et al.
2008, pp. 85-88). Longfin smelt could similarly be affected by ammonia
as they utilize similar habitat and prey resources and have a
physiology similar to delta smelt. Ammonia also can be toxic to several
species of copepods important to larval and juvenile fishes (Werner et
al. 2010, pp. 78-79; Teh et al. 2011, pp. 25-27).
In addition to direct effects on fish, ammonia in the form of
ammonium has been shown to alter the food web by adversely impacting
phytoplankton and zooplankton dynamics in the estuary ecosystem.
Historical data show that decreases in Suisun Bay phytoplankton biomass
coincide with increased ammonia discharge by the SRWTP (Parker et al.
2004, p. 7; Dugdale et al. 2011, p. 1). Phytoplankton preferentially
take up ammonium over nitrate when it is present in the water. Ammonium
is insufficient to provide for growth in phytoplankton, and uptake of
ammonium to the exclusion of nitrate results in decreases in
phytoplankton biomass (Dugdale et al. 2007, p. 23). Therefore, ammonium
impairs primary productivity by reducing nitrate uptake in
phytoplankton. Ammonium's negative effect on the food web has been
documented in the longfin smelt rearing areas of San Francisco Bay and
Suisun Bay (Dugdale et al. 2007, pp. 26-28). Decreased primary
productivity results in less food available to longfin smelt and other
fish in these bays.
Several streams that flow into the Bay-Delta are listed as impaired
because of high concentrations of metals such as cadmium, copper, lead,
and zinc. Metal concentrations have been found to be toxic to fish in
the upper Sacramento River near and downstream from Redding (Alpers et
al. 2000a, p. 4; 2000b, p. 5). Elevated levels of metals such as copper
in streambed sediment continue to occur in the upper Sacramento River
Basin downstream from Redding (MacCoy and Domagalski 1999, p. 35).
Copper and other metals may affect aquatic organisms in upper portions
of contributing watersheds of the Delta. Mercury and its bioavailable
form (methylmercury) are distributed throughout the estuary, although
unevenly. Mercury has been known to bioaccumulate and cause
neurological effects in some fish species, but it has not been
associated with the Pelagic Organism Decline (Baxter et al. 2010, p.
28). No specific information is available on the effects of mercury
exposures to longfin smelt. Selenium, introduced into the estuary
primarily from agricultural irrigation runoff via the San Joaquin River
drainage and oil refineries, has been implicated in toxic and
reproductive effects in fish and wildlife (Baxter 2010 et al., p. 28;
Linville et al. 2002, p. 52). Selenium exposure has been shown to have
effects on some benthic foraging species; however there is no evidence
that selenium exposure is contributing to the decline of longfin smelt
or other pelagic species in the Bay-Delta (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 28).
Large blooms of toxic Microcystis aeruginosa (blue-green algae)
were first documented in the Bay-Delta during the summer of 1999
(Lehman et al. 2005, p. 87). M. aeruginosa forms large colonies
throughout most of the Delta and increasingly down into eastern Suisun
Bay (Lehman et al. 2005, p. 92). Blooms typically occur when water
temperatures are above 20 [deg]C (68[emsp14][deg]F) (Lehman et al.
2005, p. 87). Preliminary evidence indicates that the toxins produced
by local blooms are not directly toxic to fishes at current
concentrations (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 10). However, the copepods that
the related delta smelt eat are particularly susceptible to those
toxins (Ger 2008, pp. 12, 13). Microcystis blooms may also decrease
dissolved oxygen to lethal levels for fish (Lehman et al. 2005, p. 97).
Blooms typically occur between late spring and early fall when the
majority of longfin smelt occur farther downstream, so effects are
expected to be minimal.
Other Populations
As in the Bay-Delta, pesticide and metals contamination occurs in
Yaquina Bay, the Columbia River, and the Fraser River (Johnson et al.
2007, p. 1; Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP) 2011, p.
1; Blomquist, 2005, p. 8). Ammonia contamination occurs in the Klamath
River (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 2011, p. 1)
and Cook Inlet (ADEC 2011a, p. 1), and toxic algal blooms occur in the
Klamath River (California State Water
[[Page 19777]]
Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) 2010, p. 1) and Yaquina Bay (ODEQ
Water Quality Assessment Online Database 2011).
Industrial contaminants such as dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) occur in Humboldt Bay
(NCRWQCB 2010 pp. 3-4), Yaquina Bay (Johnson et al. 2007, p. 1), the
Columbia River (LCREP 2011, p. 1), Puget Sound (Puget Sound Partnership
2008b, p. 21), and the Fraser River (British Columbia Ministry of
Environment 2001, pp. 5-6; Blomquist, 2005, p. 8). Suspended sediment
is a contaminant in the Eel River (Downie 2010, p. 10), Humboldt Bay
(NCRWQCB 2010 pp. 3-4), Yaquina Bay (ODEQ Water Quality Assessment
Online Database 2011), and Puget Sound (WA Department Ecology 2008, p.
1). Nutrient enrichment and low levels of dissolved oxygen occur in the
Klamath River (CSWRCB 2010, p.1), Yaquina Bay (Bricker et al. 1999, pp.
1-71), and Fraser River (British Columbia Ministry of Environment 2001,
pp. 5-6). Fecal coliform and other forms of bacteria contaminate
Yaquina Bay, Puget Sound, the Fraser River, and Cook Inlet (Brown et al
2007, pp. 16-17, WA Department Ecology 2008, p. 1, Blomquist, 2005, p.
8, ADEC 2011a, p. 1).
Oregon and Washington States have listed multiple reaches of the
Lower Columbia River on their Federal Clean Water Act 303(d) lists, due
to total dissolved gas levels exceeding State water quality standards.
This occurs at several dams on these rivers where water flowing over
the spillway of a dam creates air bubbles. When these are carried to
depth in the dam's stilling basin, the higher hydrostatic pressure
forces air from the bubbles into solution. The result is water
supersaturated with dissolved nitrogen, oxygen, and the other
constituents of air (ODEQ 2002, p. ix). High total dissolved gas levels
can cause gas bubble trauma in fish, which can result in injury or
mortality to fish species (ODEQ 2002, pp. 1-150).
Summary of Contaminants
Most fish including longfin smelt can be sensitive to adverse
effects from contaminants in their larval or juvenile stages. Adverse
effects to longfin smelt would be more likely to occur where sources of
contaminants occur in close proximity to spawning and rearing habitats
(brackish or fresh waters). Laboratory studies have shown certain
contaminants to potentially have adverse effects on individual delta
smelt, a related species. Field studies have shown that the
contaminants of concern are elevated in some of the estuaries
throughout the species' range, including the Bay-Delta.
Summary of Factor E
We evaluated whether entrainment losses, introduced species, and
contaminants threaten the longfin smelt throughout its range. Longfin
smelt is broadly distributed across a wide variety of estuaries from
central California to Alaska, and there is no monitoring data
documenting a population decline other than the population decline in
the Bay-Delta.
Because the Bay-Delta system is one of the largest man made water
systems in the world, it would be impractical to compare diversions and
alterations in other estuaries to diversions and alterations in the
Bay-Delta. The effects of entrainment in the Bay-Delta are unique to
the estuary because of the large water diversions. Because diversions
in other estuaries are much smaller, we expect that the effects from
these diversions would be minimal in relation to the effects in the
Bay-Delta. We have no information to show that entrainment is a threat
to longfin smelt throughout its range.
Introduced species and contaminants are threats to the Bay-Delta
long smelt population, but there is no information indicating that they
are threats to the species in other parts of its range. Although
invasive species are present in other estuaries, none have been
documented to be having an effect on the longfin smelt food supply like
the overbite clam has had. Similarly, although contaminants are present
in other estuaries where the longfin smelt resides, none have been
shown to have effects on the longfin smelt food supply like ammonia in
the Bay-Delta has been shown to have.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the longfin smelt is endangered or threatened throughout all of
its range. We have carefully examined the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by the longfin smelt. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, other available published and
unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized longfin
experts and other Federal and State agencies.
Little information is available on longfin smelt populations other
than the Bay-Delta and Lake Washington populations. Smelt caught along
the Pacific Coast are rarely identified to species. Therefore,
information on longfin smelt distribution and abundance outside the
Bay-Delta is limited. Although monitoring data indicate a significant
decline in the abundance of longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta, population
monitoring for other populations is not available. Estuaries are
complex ecosystems, and different estuaries within the longfin smelt's
range vary greatly in their environmental characteristics and in how
they are managed. For example, in no estuary within the range of the
longfin smelt, other than the Bay-Delta, are large volumes (up to 35
percent of freshwater inflow between February and June, and up to 65
percent of inflow between July and January) of freshwater pumped
directly out of the estuary.
Under Factor A, channel disturbances may have localized impacts to
longfin smelt habitat suitability. However, we conclude that these
activities are not significant threats to longfin smelt throughout its
range. Climate change will likely affect longfin smelt in multiple
ways, but longfin smelt are able to move between a wide range of
aquatic environments that vary greatly in water temperature and
salinity, and these behavioral and physiological characteristics of the
species may help it adapt to the effects of climate change. We conclude
that the best available information does not indicate that climate
change threatens the continued existence of longfin smelt across its
range. We conclude that reduced freshwater flows are a threat to the
Bay-Delta longfin smelt population, but not to the species in the rest
of its range. The Bay-Delta is unique among estuaries occupied by
longfin smelt because large volumes of freshwater are exported away
from the estuary on an annual basis. In addition, it is difficult to
extrapolate from the Bay-Delta to other estuaries because the effects
of water management in the Bay-Delta are likely unique to the physical,
geologic, and hydrologic environment of that estuary. We conclude that
the best scientific information available indicates that continued
existence of the longfin smelt is not threatened in any part of its
range outside of the Bay-Delta by the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range now
or in the foreseeable future
Under Factor B, we evaluated potential threats from recreational
and commercial fishing and from monitoring surveys on longfin smelt.
Longfin smelt are protected from intentional take in California because
the species is listed as threatened under CESA. Efforts have been made
to reduce mortality of longfin smelt as bycatch in a bay shrimp trawl
commercial fishery and in
[[Page 19778]]
monitoring surveys in the Bay-Delta. Longfin smelt is caught as part of
recreational or commercial fisheries in Oregon, Washington, British
Columbia, and Alaska, but numbers of fish caught are considered low,
and we found no evidence that fisheries harvest was causing population
declines of longfin smelt. We conclude that overutilization is not a
significant current or future threat to longfin smelt across its range.
Under Factor C, we evaluated potential threats from disease and
predation. We found no evidence of rangewide threats to the continued
existence of the species due to disease or predation, now or in the
foreseeable future.
Under Factor D, we conclude that several Federal and State laws and
regulations provide varying levels of protection for the longfin smelt
throughout its range. Several of these regulatory mechanisms promote
protection of longfin smelt habitat and provide tools to implement
these habitat protections. We conclude that longfin smelt is not
threatened throughout its range by inadequate regulatory mechanisms,
now or in the foreseeable future.
Under Factor E, we evaluated potential threats due to entrainment
losses from water diversions, introduced species, and contaminants.
Information indicates that introduced species are a threat to the Bay-
Delta longfin smelt population and that ammonium may constitute a
threat to the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population, but information does
not indicate that entrainment losses, introduced species, or
contaminants are threatening longfin smelt populations in other parts
of its range, now or in the foreseeable future.
Based upon our review of the best available scientific and
commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the
threats are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to
indicate that the longfin smelt is in danger of extinction
(endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all of its range. Therefore, we find
that listing the longfin smelt as an endangered or threatened species
throughout all of its range is not warranted at this time.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Having found that the best available information does not indicate
that the longfin smelt warrants listing rangewide, we now assess
whether any distinct population segments of longfin smelt meet the
definition of endangered or are likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future (threatened). Under the Services' (joint policy of
the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service)
DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), three elements are
considered in the decision concerning the establishment and
classification of a possible DPS. These are applied similarly for
additions to or removal from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. These elements include: (1) The discreteness of a
population in relation to the remainder of the species to which it
belongs; (2) the significance of the population segment to the species
to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation
status in relation to the Act's standards for listing, delisting, or
reclassification (i.e., is the population segment endangered or
threatened). We have identified one population that potentially meets
all three elements of the 1996 DPS policy--the population that occurs
in the Bay-Delta estuary. During the rangewide five-factor analysis,
significant threats were identified only for the Bay-Delta population.
Therefore, we determined that only the Bay-Delta population potentially
meets the third element of the DPS.
Discreteness
Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Marked Separation From Other Populations as a Consequence of Physical,
Physiological, Ecological, or Behavioral Factors
The limited swimming capabilities of the longfin smelt, existing
ocean current patterns, and the great distances between the Bay-Delta
and other known breeding populations make it unlikely that regular
interchange occurs between the Bay-Delta and other longfin smelt
breeding populations. Longfin smelt is a relatively short-lived species
that completes its 2- to 3-year life cycle moving between freshwater
spawning habitat in the Delta and brackish water rearing habitat
downstream (seaward) in the estuary within Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay,
and central San Francisco Bay. At least a portion of the population
also migrates into the near-coastal waters of the Gulf of Farallones
(Rosenfield and Baxter 2007, p. 1590). Although its swimming
capabilities have not been studied, it is a small fish believed to have
a limited swimming capacity (Moyle 2010, pp. 5-6). How longfin smelt
return to the Bay-Delta from the Gulf of Farallones is not known
(Rosenfield and Baxter 2007, p.1590).
The Bay-Delta population is the southernmost population of longfin
smelt and is separated from other longfin smelt breeding populations by
56 km (35 mi). The nearest location to the Bay-Delta where longfin
smelt have been caught is the Russian River, located north of the Bay-
Delta; however, little information is available for this population
(see Distribution section, above). Due to limited freshwater flow into
the estuary and interannual variation in freshwater flow, it is
unlikely that the estuary provides sufficient potential spawning and
rearing habitat to support a regularly breeding longfin smelt
population (Moyle 2010, p. 4).
The Eel River and Humboldt Bay are the next nearest locations where
longfin smelt are known to occur, and they are located much farther to
the north--Eel River is located 394 km (245 mi) north of the Bay-Delta,
and Humboldt Bay is located 420 km (260 mi) north of the Bay-Delta.
Moyle (2010, p. 4) considered Humboldt Bay to be the only other estuary
in California potentially capable of supporting longfin smelt in most
years.
In our April 9, 2009, longfin smelt 12-month finding (74 FR 16169),
we concluded that the Bay-Delta population was not markedly separated
from other populations and, therefore, did not meet the discreteness
element of the 1996 DPS policy. This conclusion was based in part on
the assumption that ocean currents likely facilitated dispersal of
anadromous longfin smelt to and from the Bay-Delta to other estuaries
in numbers that could readily sustain the Bay-Delta population group if
it was to be extirpated. Since 2009, we have obtained information
relevant to assumptions that we made in the 2009 12-month finding.
Additional clarifying information comes in part from a declaration
submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on June 29, 2010, by Dr. Peter Moyle, Professor of Fisheries
Biology at the University of California at Davis (Moyle 2010, pp. 1-8).
Moyle (2010, pp. 5-6) notes that he believes that we overestimated the
swimming
[[Page 19779]]
capacity of longfin smelt in our 2009 12-month finding. Moyle (2010, p.
8) states that longfin smelt that migrate out of and back into the Bay-
Delta estuary may primarily be feeding on the rich planktonic food
supply in the Gulf of Farallones, and that this migration between the
Bay-Delta and near coastal waters of the Gulf of Farallones does not
indicate that longfin smelt are necessarily dispersing long distances
to other estuaries to the north.
At the time of our last finding, we did not have information
available assessing the ability of longfin smelt to disperse northward
from the Bay-Delta or southward to the Bay-Delta using currents in the
Pacific Ocean. Since the time of our previous finding (74 FR 16169;
April 9, 2009), we have reviewed additional information on ocean
currents in nearshore waters and over the continental shelf from
approximately the Gulf of Farallones north to Coos Bay. We have
evaluated the potential for longfin smelt to disperse northward from
the Bay-Delta or southward to the Bay-Delta. On October 28, 2011, we
convened a panel of experts to evaluate the potential of longfin smelt
dispersal via ocean currents. Oceanographers on the panel were tasked
with answering a series of questions on how ocean currents would affect
longfin smelt potentially dispersing into or out of the Bay-Delta. Much
of the following analysis was derived from that panel discussion. Our
analysis relies upon ocean current information as it relates to what is
known of longfin smelt biology and life history from the Bay-Delta
population.
Table 2 overlays longfin smelt life history with general ocean
current patterns in central and northern California. However, the
California Current System exhibits a high degree of seasonality as well
as weekly variability. Currents are highly variable in fall and winter
but tend to be predominately northward. Surface currents are northward
during the storm season from December to March and transition to
southward in March or April. Offshore of central California the surface
currents remain generally southward during summer. However, despite the
predominant southward surface current, northward currents are common at
depths around 60 to 200 m along the continental slope at all times of
the year. This deeper current is known as the California Undercurrent
(Paduan 2011, pers. comm.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP12.002
Eddies (clockwise water circulation areas) exist at various points
between the Bay-Delta and Humboldt Bay at landmarks such as Point Arena
and Cape Mendocino. These eddies vary in their distance from shore
between 10 to 100 km (6 to 62 mi) (Padaun 2011, pers. comm.). During
the summer upwelling season, northerly winds drive a southward offshore
flow of near-surface waters (Dever et al. 2006, p. 2109) and also set
up a strong current over the continental shelf that is deflected
offshore at capes such as Cape Mendocino, Point Arena, and Point Reyes
(Magnell et al. 1990, p. 7; Largier 2004, p. 107; Halle and Largier
2011, pp. 1-24). Several studies have used drifters (flotation devices
tracked by satellites) and pseudo-drifters (computer-simulated
satellite-tracked flotation devices) to evaluate currents in the
California region of the Pacific Ocean. These studies indicate that the
[[Page 19780]]
circulation patterns located off Point Arena and Cape Mendocino limit
dispersal (particularly southward) of flotation devices in the region
(Sotka et al. 2004, p. 2150; Drake et al. 2011, pp. 1-51; Halle and
Largier 2011, posters). This limitation is important because Cape
Mendocino and Point Arena are between the Bay-Delta and the nearest
likely self-sustaining population of longfin smelt in Humboldt Bay.
Longfin smelt are an euryhaline species, of which an unknown
fraction of the population exhibits anadromy (Moyle 2002, p. 236;
Rosenfield and Baxter 2007 p. 1578). Based on their small size and
limited swimming ability, we expect that longfin smelt would be largely
dependent on ocean currents to travel the large distance between the
Bay-Delta and the Humboldt Bay. During wet years, newly spawned longfin
smelt larvae may be flushed out to the ocean between December and
March. It is unlikely that longfin smelt larvae can survive ocean
transport because larvae are not known to tolerate salinities greater
than 8 ppt (Baxter 2011b, pers. comm.), and surface salinities less
than 8 ppt do not exist consistently in the ocean (Bograd and Paduan
2011, pers. comm.).
A portion of the longfin smelt that spawn in the Bay-Delta make
their way to the ocean once they are able to tolerate full marine
salinities, sometime during the late spring or summer of their first
year of life (age-0) (City of San Francisco and CH2MHill 1984 and 1985,
entire), and may remain there for 18 months or longer before returning
to the Bay-Delta to spawn (Baxter 2011c, pers. comm.). A larger portion
of longfin smelt enter the coastal ocean during their second year of
life (age-1) (City of San Francisco and CH2MHill 1984 and 1985, entire)
and remain there for 3 to 7 months until they re-enter the Bay-Delta to
spawn in early winter (Rosenfield and Baxter 2007, p 1590; Baxter
2011c, pers. comm.). Most of these age-1 longfin smelt move to coastal
waters in July and August, possibly to escape warm water temperatures
or to obtain food (Moyle 2010, p. 8; Rosenfield and Baxter 2007, p.
1290). Some longfin smelt may live to 3 years of age and may remain in
the coastal ocean until they are 3 years old. However, no 3-year old
longfin smelt have been observed in the coastal ocean (Baxter 2011d,
pers. comm.; Service 2011, unpublished data).
It is possible that some of these juvenile or adult longfin smelt
could make their way into the Russian River, Eel River, or Humboldt Bay
and supplement or sustain those populations by utilizing northward
ocean currents (Padaun 2011, pers. comm.; Service 2011b, pp. 1-4), but
there is no documentation of such long-distance coastal movements. The
northward ocean currents are strongest and most reliable in winter,
when satellite-tracked particles move between the Bay-Delta and
Humboldt Bay in as little as 2 months (Service 2011, p. 3).
Opportunities for longfin smelt dispersal utilizing ocean currents
from northern estuaries to the Bay-Delta are more limited. Studies have
revealed that currents near Cape Mendocino and Point arena would carry
small objects to the west away from the coast (Padaun 2011b, pers.
comm.; Bograd 2011, pers. comm.). It is possible that longfin smelt in
nearshore waters could travel south past these eddies if they stay
close enough to shore. It is even possible that some longfin smelt may
be moved closer to shore by the eddies (Bograd 2011, pers. comm.;
Paduan 2011, pers. comm.). However, any longfin smelt that do travel
south past the Cape Mendocino and Point Arena escarpments would be
unlikely to re-enter the Bay-Delta. These offshore ocean currents could
displace any longfin smelt potentially moving south more than 100 km
(62 mi) offshore of the Bay-Delta (Paduan 2011a, pers. comm.). Pathways
that transport objects close to shore would be expected to be rare, if
they exist at all (Padaun 2011b, pers. comm.; Bograd 2011, pers.
comm.). So while we considered whether ocean currents may transport or
facilitate movement of longfin smelt from northern estuaries to the
Bay-Delta estuary, there is no information showing that such dispersal
movement occurs.
Using the best scientific data available, we compared longfin smelt
biology and life history with the latest available ocean current data
provided by oceanographers. We conclude that longfin smelt in the Bay-
Delta population do not regularly breed or interact with longfin smelt
in other breeding populations to the north and are therefore markedly
separated from other longfin smelt populations.
Under the 1996 DPS policy, the discreteness standard does not
require absolute separation of a DPS from other members of its species,
nor does the standard require absolute reproductive isolation (61 FR
4722). Because of the great distances between the Bay-Delta and known
breeding populations to the north, the small size of the longfin smelt,
and the low likelihood that ocean currents could facilitate longfin
smelt movements between widely separated populations, we conclude that
the Bay-Delta population is markedly separated from other longfin smelt
populations and therefore discreet.
Quantitative Measures of Genetic or Morphological Discontinuity
The 1996 DPS policy states that quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of marked separation
and discreteness. Stanley et al. (1995, p. 395) compared allozyme
variation between longfin smelt from the Bay-Delta population and the
Lake Washington population using electrophoresis. They found that
individuals from the populations differed significantly in allele
(portions of a chromosome that code for the same trait) frequencies at
several loci (gene locations). However, the authors also stated that
the overall genetic dissimilarity was within the range of other
conspecific (of the same species) fish species, and concluded that
longfin smelt from Lake Washington and the Bay-Delta are conspecific,
despite the large geographic separation (Stanley et al. 1995, p. 395).
This study provided evidence that the Bay-Delta population of longfin
smelt differed in genetic characteristics from the Lake Washington
population, but did not compare other populations rangewide to the Bay-
Delta population. More recently, Israel et al. (2011, pp. 1-10)
presented preliminary results from an ongoing study, but these results
were inconclusive in providing evidence of whether the Bay-Delta
population is markedly separated from other longfin smelt populations
(Cope 2011, pers. comm.; Service 2011a, pp. 1-3).
We conclude that the limited quantitative genetic and morphological
information available does not provide additional evidence of marked
separation of the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population beyond the
evidence presented above under Marked Separation from Other Populations
as a Consequence of Physical, Physiological, Ecological, or Behavioral
Factors.
Delimited by International Governmental Boundaries Within Which
Differences in Control of Exploitation, Management of Habitat,
Conservation Status, or Regulatory Mechanisms Exist That Are
Significant in Light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act
The Bay-Delta population of longfin smelt is not delimited by an
international boundary. Therefore, we conclude that it does not meet
the international governmental boundaries criterion for discreteness.
[[Page 19781]]
Conclusion for Discreteness
Because of its limited swimming capabilities and because of the
great distances between the Bay-Delta and known breeding populations to
the north, we conclude that the Bay-Delta population is markedly
separated from other longfin smelt populations, and thus meets the
discreteness element of the 1996 DPS policy. The best available
information indicates that longfin smelt from the Bay-Delta population
complete their life cycle moving between freshwater, brackish water,
and saltwater portions of the estuary and nearby coastal ocean waters
in the Gulf of Farallones. The nearest known breeding population of
longfin smelt is Humboldt Bay, 420 km (260 mi) north of the Bay-Delta.
As a result, potential interchange between the Bay-Delta population and
other longfin smelt breeding populations is limited. Although the best
scientific information suggests that potential movement of longfin
smelt northward from the Bay-Delta would be facilitated by ocean
currents, potential movement from more northern estuaries south to the
Bay-Delta would be more difficult and unlikely because of ocean
currents. Based on our review of the best available scientific and
commercial information available, we conclude that the Bay-Delta
population of longfin smelt is markedly separated from other longfin
smelt populations as a consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors.
Significance
Since we have found that the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population
meets the discreteness element of the 1996 DPS policy, we now consider
its biological and ecological significance in light of Congressional
guidance that the authority to list DPSes be used ``sparingly'' while
encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In making this
determination, we consider available scientific evidence of the
discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it
belongs. As precise circumstances are likely to vary considerably from
case to case, the DPS policy does not describe all the classes of
information that might be used in determining the biological and
ecological importance of a discrete population. However, the DPS policy
describes four possible classes of information that provide evidence of
a population segment's biological and ecological importance to the
taxon to which it belongs. As specified in the DPS policy, this
consideration of the population segment's significance may include, but
is not limited to, the following:
(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the
only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or
(4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
A population segment needs to satisfy only one of these conditions
to be considered significant. Furthermore, other information may be
used as appropriate to provide evidence for significance.
(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique to the taxon.
The Bay-Delta population is the southernmost breeding population in
the range of the species. Populations at the edge of a species' range
may be important in species conservation because environmental
conditions at the periphery of a species' range can be different from
environmental conditions nearer the center of a species' range. Thus,
populations at the edge of the taxon's range may experience different
natural selection pressures that promote divergent evolutionary
adaptations (Scudder 1989, entire; Fraser 2000, entire). Lomolino and
Channell (1998, p. 482) hypothesized that because peripheral
populations should be adapted to a greater variety of environmental
conditions, they may be better suited to deal with anthropogenic
(human-caused) disturbances than populations in the central part of a
species' range; however, this hypothesis remains unproven. This could
be especially important because of changing natural selection pressures
associated with climate change.
For example, increasing ocean temperatures is an environmental
change to which the Bay-Delta population of longfin smelt may be
uniquely adapted. Because it is the southern-most estuary within the
species' range, the Bay-Delta has warmer average water temperatures
than estuaries in central and northern parts of the species' range. As
a result, the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population may have behavioral or
physiological adaptations for coping with higher water temperatures
that may come as a result of climate change (see discussion under
Factor A: Climate Change). Baxter et al. (2010, p. 68) conclude that
high water temperatures in the Bay-Delta influence spatial distribution
of longfin smelt in the estuary. Rosenfield and Baxter (2007, p. 1290)
hypothesize that the partial anadromy exhibited by the population (part
of the population is believed to migrate out into the cooler, nearby
coastal ocean waters in the Gulf of Farallones) and concentrations of
longfin smelt in deeper water habitat in summer months is at least
partly a behavioral response to warm water temperatures found during
summer and early fall in the shallows of south San Francisco Bay and
San Pablo Bay (Rosenfield and Baxter 2007, p. 1590).
The Bay-Delta estuary, although greatly degraded, is the largest
estuary on the Pacific Coast of the United States (Sommer et al. 2007,
p. 271). Because of its large size and diverse habitat, it is capable
of supporting a large longfin smelt population. Large populations are
valuable in the conservation of species because of their lower
extinction risks compared to small populations. Historically, longfin
smelt is believed to have been one of the more abundant pelagic fishes
in the Bay-Delta. The areal extent of tidal freshwater habitat in the
Bay-Delta estuary exceeds that of other California estuaries by an
order of magnitude (NOAA 2007, p. 1), providing not only more available
spawning habitat but also important habitat diversity should conditions
at any one location become unsuitable. The Bay-Delta contains
significant amounts of tidal freshwater and mixing zone habitat (Monaco
et al. 1992, p. 255), which is crucial for spawning and rearing of
juvenile longfin smelt. Other Pacific Coast estuaries where longfin
smelt occur are predominately river-dominated estuaries (e.g., Russian
River, Eel River, Klamath River, Columbia River), which have much
smaller areas of low-salinity brackish water for longfin smelt rearing
habitat.
(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon.
Loss of the Bay-Delta population of longfin smelt would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon because the nearest
persistent longfin smelt breeding population to the Bay-Delta
population is in Humboldt Bay, which is located approximately 420 km
(260 mi) away. Loss of the Bay-Delta population would truncate the
range of the species by hundreds of miles.
(3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the
only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as
[[Page 19782]]
an introduced population outside its historic range.
This factor does not apply to the Bay-Delta longfin smelt
population because other naturally occurring populations are found
within the species' range.
(4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
As discussed above under Quantitative Measures of Genetic or
Morphological Discontinuity, two studies have evaluated genetic
characteristics of the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population. One study
concluded that genetic characteristics of the Bay-Delta population
differed from the Lake Washington population but did not compare any
other populations (Stanley et al. 1995, pp. 390-396). Israel et al.
(2011, pp. 1-10) presented preliminary results from an ongoing study,
but these results are inconclusive in determining whether the Bay-Delta
population differs markedly from other longfin smelt populations in its
genetic characteristics. Therefore, although information indicates that
the genetic characteristics of the Bay-Delta population differs from at
least one other longfin smelt population (Lake Washington), there is no
other information currently available indicating that the genetic
characteristics of the Bay-Delta population differ markedly from other
longfin smelt populations.
Conclusion for Significance
We conclude that the Bay-Delta population is biologically
significant to the longfin smelt species because the population occurs
in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the species and its loss
would result in a significant truncation of the range of the species.
The Bay-Delta longfin smelt population occurs at the southern edge of
the species' range and has likely experienced different natural
selection pressures than those experienced by populations in middle
portions of the species' range. The population may therefore possess
unique evolutionary adaptations important to the conservation of the
species. The Bay-Delta also is unique because it is the largest estuary
on the Pacific Coast of the United States. Because of its large size
and diverse aquatic habitats, the Bay-Delta has the potential to
support a large longfin smelt population and is thus potentially
important in the conservation of the species. The Bay-Delta population
also is significant to the taxon because the nearest known breeding
population of longfin smelt is hundreds of miles away, so loss of the
Bay-Delta population would significantly truncate the range of the
species and result in a significant gap in the species' range. Based on
our review of the best available scientific and commercial information,
we conclude that the Bay-Delta population meets the significance
element of the 1996 DPS policy.
Determination of Distinct Population Segment
Because we have determined that the Bay-Delta population meets both
the discreteness and significance elements of the 1996 DPS policy, we
find that the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population is a valid DPS and
thus is a listable entity under the Act. Therefore, we next evaluate
its conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing
(i.e., is the population segment, when treated as if it were a species,
endangered or threatened?).
Distinct Population Segment Five-Factor Analysis
Because the Bay-Delta population of longfin smelt meets the
criteria for a DPS, we will now evaluate its status with regard to its
potential for listing as endangered or threatened under the five
factors enumerated in section 4(a) of the Act. Our evaluation of the
Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt follows.
Under Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors, we
evaluated threats to longfin smelt throughout its range. Much of this
rangewide analysis focused on threats to the Bay-Delta population
because so little information exists for other parts of the species'
range. Although the threats of lack of freshwater flow, contaminants,
and invasive species do not rise to the level of being significant
threats rangewide, the best available scientific and commercial data
indicates that these threats are significant to the species within the
Bay-Delta. We utilized the vast amounts of research that have been
conducted within the Bay-Delta by the Interagency Ecological Program
and University of California at Davis to make our determinations of
threats in the Bay-Delta.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Reduced Freshwater Flow
As we discussed above in the rangewide analysis, a primary threat
to the Bay-Delta longfin smelt is reduced freshwater flows. In the Bay-
Delta, freshwater flow is strongly related to the natural hydrologic
cycles of drought and flood. Studies of Bay-Delta longfin smelt have
found that increased Delta outflow during the winter and spring is the
largest factor positively affecting longfin smelt abundance (Stevens
and Miller 1983, pp. 431-432; Jassby et al. 1995, p. 285; Sommer et al.
2007, p. 274; Thomson et al. 2010, pp. 1439-1440). During high outflow
periods larvae are believed to benefit from increased transport and
dispersal downstream, increased food production, reduced predation
through increased turbidity, and reduced loss to entrainment due to a
westward shift in the boundary of spawning habitat and strong
downstream transport of larvae (CFDG 1992, pp. 45-61; Hieb and Baxter
1993, pp. 106-107; CDFG 2009a, p. 18). Conversely, during low outflow
periods, the negative effects of reduced transport and dispersal,
reduced turbidity, and potentially increased loss of larvae to
predation and increased loss at the export facilities result in lower
young-of-the-year recruitment. Despite numerous studies of longfin
smelt abundance and flow in the Bay-Delta, the underlying causal
mechanisms are still not fully understood (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 69;
Rosenfield 2010, p. 9).
As California's population has grown, demands for reliable water
supplies and flood protection have grown. In response, State and
Federal agencies built dams and canals, and captured water in
reservoirs, to increase capacity for water storage and conveyance
resulting in one of the largest manmade water systems in the world
(Nichols et al. 1986, p. 569). Operation of this system has altered the
seasonal pattern of freshwater flows in the watershed. Storage in the
upper watershed of peak runoff and release of the captured water for
irrigation and urban needs during subsequent low flow periods result in
a broader, flatter hydrograph with less seasonal variability in
freshwater flows into the estuary (Kimmerer 2004, p. 15).
In addition to the system of dams and canals built throughout the
Sacramento River-San Joaquin River basin, the Bay-Delta is unique in
having a large water diversion system located within the estuary
(Kimmerer 2002b, p. 1279). The State Water Project (SWP) and Central
Valley Project (CVP) operate two water export facilities in the Delta
(Sommer et al. 2007, p. 272). Project operation and management is
dependent upon upstream water supply and export area demands. Despite
the size of the water storage and diversion projects, much of the
interannual variability in Delta hydrology is due to variability in
precipitation from year to year. Annual inflow from the watershed to
the Delta is strongly correlated to unimpaired flow (runoff that would
hypothetically
[[Page 19783]]
occur if upstream dams and diversions were not in existence), mainly
due to the effects of high-flow events (Kimmerer 2004, p. 15). Water
operations are regulated in part by the California State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) according to the Water Quality Control
Plan (WQCP) (SWRCB 2000, entire). The WQCP limits Delta water exports
in relation to Delta inflow (the Export/Inflow, or E/I ratio).
It is important to note that in the case of the Bay-Delta,
freshwater flow is expressed as both Delta inflow (from the rivers into
the Delta) and as Delta outflow (from the Delta into the lower
estuary), which are closely correlated, but not equivalent. Freshwater
flow into the Delta affects the location of the low salinity zone and
X2 within the estuary. As longfin smelt spawn in freshwater, they must
migrate farther upstream to spawn as flow reductions alter the position
of X2 and the low-salinity zone moves upstream (CDFG 2009, p. 17).
Longer migration distances into the Bay-Delta make longfin smelt more
susceptible to entrainment in the State and Federal water pumps (see
Factor E: Entrainment Losses, below). In periods with greater
freshwater flow into the Delta, X2 is pushed farther downstream
(seaward); in periods with low flows, X2 is positioned farther landward
(upstream) in the estuary and into the Delta. Not only is longfin smelt
abundance in the Bay-Delta strongly correlated with Delta inflow and
X2, but the spatial distribution of longfin smelt larvae is also
strongly associated with X2 (Dege and Brown 2004, pp. 58-60; Baxter et
al. 2010, p. 61). As longfin hatch into larvae, they move from the
areas where they are spawned and orient themselves just downstream of
X2 (Dege and Brown 2004, pp. 58-60). Larval (winter-spring) habitat
varies with outflow and with the location of X2 (CDFG 2009, p. 12), and
has been reduced since the 1990s due to a general upstream shift in the
location of X2 (Hilts 2012, unpublished data). The amount of rearing
habitat (salinity between 0.1 and 18 ppt) is also presumed to vary with
the location of X2 (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 64). However, as previously
stated, the location of X2 is of particular importance to the
distribution of newly-hatched larvae and spawning adults. The influence
of water project operations from November through April, when spawning
adults and newly-hatched larvae are oriented to X2, is greater in drier
years than in wetter years (Knowles 2002, p. 7).
In addition to the effects of reduced freshwater flow on habitat
suitability for longfin smelt and other organisms in the Bay-Delta, one
of the principal concerns over the biological impacts of these water
export facilities has been entrainment of fish and other aquatic
organisms. For a detailed discussion, see Factor E: Entrainment Losses,
below.
Given the observed negative association between the reduction of
freshwater outflow and longfin smelt abundance, we consider the current
reductions in freshwater outflow to pose a significant threat to the
Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt. Based on the observed associations in
the Bay-Delta between freshwater outflow and longfin abundance, the
lack of effective control mechanisms, and projections of freshwater
outflow fluctuations, we expect the degree of this threat to continue
and likely increase within the foreseeable future. We conclude that
lack of freshwater flow is a significant current and future threat to
the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt.
Climate Change
Climate change may affect the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt
habitat as a result of (1) Changes in the timing and availability of
freshwater flow into the estuary due to reduced snowpack and earlier
melting of the snowpack; (2) sea level rise and saltwater intrusion
into the estuary; (3) effects associated with increased water
temperatures; and (4) effects related to changes in frequency and
intensity of storms, floods, and droughts. It is difficult to evaluate
effects related to changes in the timing and availability of freshwater
flow into the estuary due to reduced snowpack and earlier melting of
the snowpack because these potential effects will likely be impacted to
some extent through decisions on water management in the intensively
managed Sacramento River-San Joaquin River water basin. Continued sea
level rise will result in saltwater intrusion and landward displacement
of the low-salinity zone, which would likely negatively affect longfin
smelt habitat suitability. Increasing water temperatures would likely
affect distribution and movement patterns of longfin smelt in the
estuary; longfin smelt may be displaced to locations with deeper and
cooler water temperatures. This displacement may result in decreased
survival and productivity. Increased frequency and severity of storms,
floods, and droughts could result in reduced longfin smelt habitat
suitability, but it is difficult to estimate these effects because of
uncertainty about the frequency and severity of these events. However,
warming may result in more precipitation falling as rain and less
storage as snow, increasing winter runoff as spring runoff decreases
(USBR 2011, p. 147).
It is uncertain how a change in the timing and duration of
freshwater flows will affect longfin smelt. Higher flows in January and
February (peak spawning and hatching months) resulting from snow packs
that melt sooner and rain-on-snow events could potentially create
better spawning and larval rearing conditions. This would reduce adult
migration distance and increase areas of freshwater spawning habitat
during these months. In addition, the higher turbidity associated with
these flows may reduce predation on longfin smelt adults and larvae
(Baxter 2011, pers. comm.). However, if high flows last only a short
period, benefits may be negated by poorer conditions before and after
the high flows. As the freshwater boundary moves farther inland into
the Delta with increasing sea level (see below) and reduced flows,
adults will need to migrate farther into the Delta to spawn, increasing
the risk of predation and the potential for entrainment into water
export facilities and diversions for both themselves and their progeny.
Because of the uncertainties surrounding climate change and the
potential for increased winter runoff that could benefit longfin smelt,
we determined that there is not sufficient information to conclude that
climate change threatens the continued existence of the Bay-Delta DPS
of longfin smelt.
Channel Disturbances
Channel dredging in the Bay-Delta is an ongoing periodic
disturbance of longfin smelt habitat, but most activity occurs in areas
where longfin smelt are not likely to be present. We conclude that the
effects of ongoing channel maintenance dredging are small and localized
and do not rise to a level that would significantly affect the
population as a whole.
There is currently a proposal to deepen and selectively widen the
Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel and the lower portion of the
Sacramento River in the Bay-Delta. This dredging project would remove
between 6.1-7.6 million cubic meters (8 and 10 million cubic yards) of
material from the channel and Sacramento River and extend for 74 km
(45.8 mi) (USACE 2011a, entire). Potential effects of this new project
to longfin smelt include mortality through loss of spawning substrate,
habitat modification, and a shift in spawning and rearing habitat. The
project also has potential to alter breeding and foraging behavior of
the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population. However, this project is only a
proposal
[[Page 19784]]
at this time and is not certain to occur. Potential effects of the
proposed project are currently under evaluation.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, we conclude that the best available scientific and
commercial information available indicates that the effects of reduced
freshwater flows constitute a current and future threat to the Bay-
Delta DPS of longfin smelt. We find that the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin
smelt is currently threatened in part due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range due
to reduced freshwater flow.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Commercial and Recreational Take
Because of its status as a threatened species under the California
Endangered Species Act, take of longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta is
illegal, unless authorized by an incidental take permit or other take
authorization. However, longfin smelt are caught as bycatch in a small
bay shrimp trawl commercial fishery that operates in South San
Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Carquinez Strait (Hieb 2009, p. 1).
CDFG (Hieb 2009, pp. 6, 9) estimated the total longfin smelt bycatch
from this fishery from 1989-1990 at 15,539 fish, and in 2004 at 18,815-
30,574 fish. CDFG noted in 2009 that they thought the bay shrimp trawl
fishery had declined since 2004 (Hieb, p. 3) and just recently reported
the number of active shrimp permits at less than 10 (Hieb 2011, pers.
comm.).
Scientific Take
Within the Bay-Delta, longfin smelt are regularly captured in
monitoring surveys. The Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) implements
scientific research in the Bay-Delta. Although the focus of its studies
and the level of effort have changed over time, in general, their
surveys have been directed at researching the Pelagic Organism Decline
in the Bay-Delta. Between the years of 1987 to 2011, combined take of
longfin smelt less than 20 mm (0.8 in) in length ranged from 2,405 to
158,588 annually. All of these fish were preserved for research or
assumed to die in processing. During the same time period, combined
take for juveniles and adults (fish greater than or equal to 20 mm (0.8
in)) ranged from 461 to 68,974 annually (IEP 2011). Although mortality
is unknown, the majority of these fish likely do not survive. The
Chipps Island survey, which is conducted by the Service, has captured
an average of 2,697 longfin smelt per year during the past 10 years.
Biologists attempt to release these fish unharmed, but at least 5,154
longfin smelt were known to have died during the Chipps Island survey
between 2001 and 2008 (Service 2010, entire).
Incidental take from bycatch and monitoring surveys has not been
identified as a possible factor related to recent longfin smelt
population declines in the Bay-Delta (Baxter et al. 2010, pp. 61-69).
CDFG (2009, p. 32) recommended adaptively managing scientific
collection of longfin smelt to avoid adverse population effects, and
survey methods have been modified recently to minimize potential
impacts to delta smelt (75 FR 17669; April 7, 2010). These
modifications likely have resulted in reduced impacts to longfin smelt.
Based on the best scientific and commercial information, we conclude
that the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt is not currently threatened by
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes, nor do we anticipate overutilization posing a
significant threat in the future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
Little information is available on incidence of disease in the Bay-
Delta longfin smelt DPS. Larval and juvenile longfin smelt were
collected from the Bay-Delta in 2006 and 2007 and analyzed for signs of
disease and parasites (Foott and Stone 2006, entire; Foott and Stone
2007, entire). No significant health problem was detected in either
year (Foott and Stone 2007, p. 15). The south Delta is fed by water
from the San Joaquin River, where pesticides (e.g., chlorpyrifos,
carbofuran, and diazinon), salts (e.g., sodium sulfates), trace
elements (boron and selenium), and high levels of total dissolved
solids are prevalent due to agricultural runoff (64 FR 5963; February
8, 1999). Pesticides and other toxic chemicals may adversely affect the
immune system of longfin smelt and other fish in the Bay-Delta and
other estuaries, but we found no information documenting such effects.
Predation
Striped bass were introduced into the Bay-Delta in 1879 and quickly
became abundant throughout the estuary. However, their numbers have
declined substantially over the last 40 years (Thomson et al. 2010, p.
1440), and they are themselves one of the four species studied under
Pelagic Organism Decline investigations (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 16).
Numbers of largemouth bass, another introduced species in the Bay-
Delta, have increased in the Delta over the past few decades (Brown and
Michniuk 2007, p. 195). Largemouth bass, however, occur in shallow
freshwater habitats, closer to shore than the pelagic longfin smelt,
and so do not tend to co-occur with longfin for much of their life
history. Baxter et al. (2010, p. 40) reported that no longfin smelt
have been found in largemouth bass stomachs sampled in a recent study
of largemouth bass diet. Moyle (2002, p. 238) believed that inland
silverside, another nonnative predatory fish, may be an important
predator on longfin eggs and larvae, but Rosenfield et al. (2010, p.
18) believed that to be unlikely because inland silversides prefer
shallow water habitats where juvenile and subadult longfin smelt are
rare.
In the Bay-Delta, predation of longfin smelt may be high in the
Clifton Court Forebay, where the SWP water export pumping plant is
located (Moyle 2002, p. 238; Baxter et al. 2010, p. 42). However, once
they are entrained in the Clifton Court Forebay, longfin smelt
mortality would be high anyway due to high water temperatures in the
Forebay (CDFG 2009b, p. 4) and entrainment into the SWP water export
pumping plant. In addition to elevated predation levels in the Clifton
Court Forebay, predation also is concentrated at sites where fish
salvaged from the SWP and CVP export facilities are released (Moyle
2002, p. 238). However, few longfin smelt survive the salvage and
transport process (see Factor E: Entrainment Losses, below), and
therefore predation is not expected to be an important factor at drop
off sites. As discussed above, reduced freshwater flows may result in
lower turbidity and increased water clarity (see discussion under DPS'
Factor A), which may contribute to increased risk of predation (Baxter
et al. 2010, p. 64).
Based on a review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that disease does not constitute a threat to
the Bay-Delta longfin smelt DPS. Available information indicates that
Bay-Delta longfin smelt experience elevated levels of predation near
the water diversions at the SWP and CVP water export facilities in the
south Delta and at the salvage release sites. Reduced freshwater flows
resulting from water diversions result in increased water clarity, and
increased water clarity may result in increased predation risks to
longfin smelt.
In summary, striped bass predation is in decline and largemouth
bass predation is unlikely a threat because of
[[Page 19785]]
the minimal overlap in time and space of largemouth bass and longfin
smelt. Therefore, the current rates of predation on longfin smelt are
not expected to be having a substantial effect on the overall
population level. Based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that neither disease nor predation are
significant current or future threats to the Bay-Delta longfin smelt
DPS.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Existing Federal and State regulatory mechanisms discussed under
Factor D of the rangewide analysis that provide protections or reduce
threats to the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt include: California
Endangered Species Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
California Marine Invasive Species Act, Central Valley Project
Improvement Act, and Clean Water Act (including the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System). Several of these regulatory mechanisms
provide important protections for the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt
and act to reduce threats, such as reduction of freshwater outflow, the
invasion of the overbite clam and ammonia discharges (See Factors A,
above, and E, below).
The longfin smelt was listed under the California Endangered
Species Act as threatened throughout its range in California on March
5, 2009 (CDFG 2009, p. V). CESA does allow take of species for
otherwise lawful projects through use of an incidental take permit. A
take permit requires that impacts be minimized and fully mitigated
(CESA sections 2081 (b) and (c)). Furthermore, the CESA ensures through
the issuance of a permit for a project that may affect longfin smelt or
its habitat, that the project will not jeopardize the continued
existence of a State-listed species.
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is the California
State law that establishes the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards that are
responsible for the regulation of activities and factors that could
degrade California water quality and for the allocation of surface
water rights. The State Water Resources Control Board Water Rights
Decision 1641 (D-1641) imposes flow and water quality standards on the
State and Federal water export facilities to assure protection of
beneficial uses in the Delta (FWS 2008, pp. 21-27). The various flow
objectives and export restraints are designed, in part, to protect
fisheries. These objectives include specific outflow requirements
throughout the year, specific water export restraints in the spring,
and water export limits based on a percentage of estuary inflow
throughout the year. The water quality objectives are designed to
protect agricultural, municipal, industrial, and fishery uses; they
vary throughout the year and by the wetness of the year. These
protections have had limited effectiveness in providing adequate
freshwater flows within the Delta. Lack of freshwater outflow continues
to be the primary contributing factor to the decline of the longfin
smelt in the Bay-Delta (see Factor A, above, for further discussion).
The California Marine Invasive Species Act requires ballast water
management for all vessels that intend to discharge ballast water in
California waters. All qualifying vessels coming from ports within the
Pacific Coast region must conduct an exchange in waters at least 50
nautical mi offshore and 200 m (656 ft) deep or retain all ballast
water and associated sediments. To determine the effectiveness of the
management provisions of the this State act, the legislation also
requires State agencies to conduct a series of biological surveys to
monitor new introductions to coastal and estuarine waters. These
measures should further minimize the introduction of new invasive
species into California's coastal waters that could be a threat to the
longfin smelt.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act amends the previous
Central Valley Project authorizations to include fish and wildlife
protection, restoration, and mitigation as project purposes having
equal priority with irrigation and domestic uses, and fish and wildlife
enhancement as having an equal priority with power generation. Included
in CVPIA section 3406 (b)(2) was a provision to dedicate 800,000 acre-
feet of Central Valley Project yield annually (referred to as ``(b)(2)
water'') for fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration. Since 1993,
(b)(2) water has been used and supplemented with acquired environmental
water (Environmental Water Account and CVPIA section 3406 (b)(3) water)
to increase stream flows and reduce Central Valley Project export
pumping in the Delta. These management actions were taken to contribute
to the CVPIA salmonid population doubling goals and to protect Delta
smelt and their habitat (Guinee 2011, pers. comm.). As discussed above
(under Biology and Factor A), increased freshwater flows have been
shown to be positively correlated with longfin smelt abundance;
therefore, these management actions, although targeted towards other
species, should also benefit longfin smelt.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides the basis for the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The CWA gives the EPA
the authority to set effluent limits and requires any entity
discharging pollutants to obtain a NPDES permit. The EPA is authorized
through the CWA to delegate the authority to issue NPDES Permits to
State governments. In States that have been authorized to implement CWA
programs, the EPA still retains oversight responsibilities (EPA 2011,
p. 1). California is one of these States to which the EPA has delegated
CWA authority. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established
the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine
Regional Water Quality Control Boards that are now responsible for
issuing these NPDES permits, including permits for the discharge of
effluents such as ammonia. The SWRCB is responsible for regulating
activities and factors that could degrade California water quality
(California Water Code Division 7, section 13370-13389).
The release of ammonia into the estuary is having detrimental
effects on the Delta ecosystem and food chain (see Factor E, below).
The release of ammonia is controlled primarily by the CWA (Federal law)
and secondarily through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(State law). EPA is currently updating freshwater discharge criteria
that will include new limits on ammonia (EPA 2009, pp. 1-46). An NPDES
permit for the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, a major
discharger, was prepared by the California Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board in the fall of 2010, with new ammonia
limitations intended to reduce loadings to the Delta. The permit is
currently undergoing appeal, but it is likely that the new ammonia
limits will take effect in 2020. Until that time, CWA protections for
longfin smelt are limited, and do not reduce the current threat to
longfin smelt.
Summary of Factor D
A number of Federal and State regulatory mechanisms exist that can
provide some protections for the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt.
However, the continued decline in longfin smelt trend indicators
suggests that existing regulatory mechanisms, as currently implemented,
are not adequate to reduce threats to the species. Therefore, based on
a review of the best scientific information available, we conclude that
[[Page 19786]]
existing regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to protect the
species.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Other factors affecting the continued existence of the Bay-Delta
DPS of longfin smelt are entrainment losses due to water diversions,
introduced species, and contaminants (see Factor E of the Summary of
Information Pertaining to the Five Factors section, above).
Entrainment Losses Due to Water Diversions
Entrainment losses at the SWP and CVP water export facilities are a
known source of mortality of longfin smelt and other pelagic fish
species in the Bay Delta, although the full magnitude of entrainment
losses and population-level implications of these losses is still not
fully understood. High entrainment losses of longfin smelt and other
Bay-Delta pelagic fish between 2000 and 2005 correspond with high
volumes of water exports during winter (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 63).
Baxter et al. (2010, p. 62) hypothesize that entrainment is having an
important effect on the longfin smelt population during winter,
particularly during years with low freshwater flows when a higher
proportion of the population may spawn farther upstream in the Delta.
However, Baxter et al. (2010, p. 63) conclude that these losses have
yet to be placed in a population context, and no conclusions can be
drawn regarding their effects on recent longfin smelt abundance. CDFG
(2009, p. 22) believes that efforts to reduce past delta smelt
entrainment loss through the implementation of the 2008 delta smelt
biological opinion for SWP and CVP operations may have reduced longfin
smelt entrainment losses, incidentally providing a benefit to the
longfin smelt. These efforts to manage entrainment losses in drier
years, when entrainment risk is greater, substantially reduce the
threat of entrainment for longfin smelt.
Estimates of entrainment have shown that it may have been a threat
to the Bay-Delta longfin smelt DPS in the past. Fujimura (2009)
estimated cumulative longfin smelt entrainment at the SWP facility
between 1993 and 2008 at 1,376,432 juveniles and 11,054 adults, and
estimated that 97.6 percent of juveniles and 95 percent of adults
entrained were lost. Fujimura (2009) estimated cumulative longfin
entrainment at the CVP facility between 1993 and 2008 at 224,606
juveniles and 1,325 adults, and estimated that 85.2 percent of the
juveniles and 82.1 percent of the adults entrained were lost. These
estimated losses are 4 times higher than observed salvage at the CVP
and 21 times higher than the actual salvage numbers at the SWP
(Fujimura 2009, p. 2). The estimated entrainment numbers were much
higher than the actual salvage numbers at the SWP, due in large part to
the high pre-screen losses in the Clifton Court Forebay (CDFG 2009a, p.
21). It should be noted that these estimates were calculated using
equations and parameters devised for other species and may not
accurately estimate longfin smelt losses. Further, estimates may be
misleading because the majority of estimated losses occurred during the
dry year of 2002 (1.1 million juveniles estimated at the SWP) while
during all other years estimated entrainment was below 70,000
individuals.
Entrainment is no longer considered a threat to longfin in the Bay-
Delta because of current regulations. Efforts to reduce delta smelt
entrainment loss through the implementation of the 2008 delta smelt
biological opinion and the listing of longfin smelt under the CESA have
likely reduced longfin smelt entrainment losses. The high rate of
entrainment that occurred in 2002 that threatened the Bay Delta longfin
smelt DPS is very unlikely to recur, and would no longer be allowed
under today's regulations because limits on longfin smelt take due to
CESA regulations (see DPS' Factor D discussion, above) would trigger
reductions in the magnitude of reverse flows.
Although larval and adult longfin smelt are lost as a result of
entrainment in the water export facilities in the Delta, we conclude
that the risk of entrainment is generally greatest when X2 is upstream
and export volumes from the CVP and SWP pumps are high. Therefore, we
have determined that longfin smelt are not currently threatened by
entrainment, nor do we anticipate longfin smelt will be threatened by
entrainment in the future.
Introduced Species
In Suisun Bay, a key longfin smelt rearing area, phytoplankton
biomass is influenced by the overbite or Amur River clam. A sharp
decline in phytoplankton biomass occurred following the invasion of the
estuary by this species, even though nutrients were not found to be
limiting (Alpine and Cloern 1992, pp. 950-951). Abundance of
zooplankton decreased across several taxa, and peaks that formerly
occurred in time and space were absent, reduced or relocated after 1987
(Kimmerer and Orsi 1996, p. 412). The general decline in phytoplankton
and zooplankton is likely affecting longfin smelt by decreasing food
supply for their prey species, such as N. mercedis (Kimmerer and Orsi
1996, pp. 418-419). Models indicate that the longfin smelt abundance
index has been on a steady linear decline since about the time of the
invasion of the non-native overbite (or Amur) clam in 1987 (Rosenfield
and Swanson 2010, p. 14).
Given the observed negative association between the introduction of
the overbite clam and longfin smelt abundance in the Bay-Delta and the
documented decline of key longfin smelt prey items, we consider the
current overbite clam population to pose a significant threat to the
Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt. Based on the observed associations in
the Bay-Delta between overbite clam invasion and longfin abundance and
the lack of effective control mechanisms, we expect the degree of this
threat will continue into the foreseeable future. The Bay-Delta has
numerous other invasive species that have disrupted ecosystem dynamics;
however, only the overbite clam has been shown to have an impact on the
longfin smelt population. We consider the overbite clam to be a
significant ongoing threat to the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population.
Contaminants
Extensive research on the role of contaminants in the Pelagic
Organism Decline is currently being conducted (Baxter et al. 2010, pp.
28-36). Of potential concern are effects of high levels of mercury and
other metals; high ammonium concentrations from municipal wastewater;
potentially harmful cyanobacteria algal blooms; and pesticides,
especially pyrethroid pesticides, which are heavily used in San Joaquin
Valley agriculture. Contaminants may have direct toxic effects to
longfin smelt and other pelagic fish and indirect effects as a result
of impacts to prey abundance and composition. Ammonium has been shown
to impact longfin smelt habitat by affecting primary production and
prey abundance within the Bay-Delta (Dugdale et al. 2007, p. 26). While
contaminants are suspected of playing a role in declines of pelagic
fish species in the Bay-Delta (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 28), contaminant
effects remain unresolved.
The largest source of ammonia entering the Delta ecosystem is the
Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP), which accounts
for 90 percent of the total ammonia load released into the Delta.
Ammonia is un-ionized and has the chemical formula NH3.
Ammonium is
[[Page 19787]]
ionized and has the formula NH4\+\. The major factors
determining the proportion of ammonia or ammonium in water are water pH
and temperature. This is important, as NH3 ammonia is the
form that can be directly toxic to aquatic organisms, and
NH4+ ammonium is the form documented to interfere with
uptake of nitrates by phytoplankton (Dugdale et al. 2007, p. 17; Jassby
2008, p. 3).
In addition to potential direct effects on fish, ammonia in the
form of ammonium has been shown to alter the food web by adversely
impacting phytoplankton and zooplankton dynamics in the estuary
ecosystem. Historical data suggest that decreases in Suisun Bay
phytoplankton biomass coincide with increased ammonia discharge by the
SRWTP (Parker et al. 2004, p. 7; Dugdale et al. 2011, p. 1).
Phytoplankton preferentially take up ammonium over nitrate when it is
present in the water. Ammonium is insufficient to provide for growth in
phytoplankton, and uptake of ammonium to the exclusion of nitrate
results in decreases in phytoplankton biomass (Dugdale et al. 2007, p.
23). Therefore, ammonium impairs primary productivity by reducing
nitrate uptake in phytoplankton. Ammonium's negative effect on the food
web has been documented in the longfin smelt rearing areas of San
Francisco Bay and Suisun Bay (Dugdale et al. 2007, pp. 27-28).
Decreased primary productivity results in less food available to
longfin smelt and other fish in these bays.
In summary, although no direct link has been made between
contaminants and longfin smelt (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 68), ammonium
has been shown to have a direct effect on the food supply that the Bay-
Delta longfin smelt DPS relies upon. Therefore, we conclude that high
ammonium concentrations may be a significant current and future threat
to the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt.
Summary of Factor E
The best available information indicates that introduced species
constitute a threat to the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt and that and
contaminants (high ammonium concentrations) may constitute a threat to
the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt. Entrainment is a potential threat
to the DPS, but information currently available does not indicate that
entrainment threatens the continued existence of the Bay-Delta longfin
smelt population. Although entrainment results in mortality of longfin
smelt, Baxter et al. (2010, p. 63) concluded that these losses have yet
to be placed in a population context, and no conclusions can be drawn
regarding their effects on recent longfin smelt abundance. Therefore,
based on the best scientific evidence available, we conclude that the
Bay-Delta longfin smelt DPS is threatened in part due to other natural
or manmade factors including the nonnative overbite clam and high
ammonium concentrations.
Finding
This status review identified threats to the Bay-Delta DPS of
longfin smelt attributable to Factors A, D, and E, as well as
interactions between these threats. The primary threat to the DPS is
from reduced freshwater flows. Upstream dams and water storage
exacerbated by water diversions, especially from the SWP and CVP water
export facilities, result in reduced freshwater flows within the
estuary, and these reductions in freshwater flows result in reduced
habitat suitability for longfin smelt (Factor A). Freshwater flows,
especially winter-spring flows, are significantly correlated with
longfin smelt abundance--longfin smelt abundance is lower when winter-
spring flows are lower. While freshwater flows have been shown to be
significantly correlated with longfin smelt abundance, causal
mechanisms underlying this correlation are still not fully understood
and are the subject of ongoing research on the Pelagic Organism
Decline.
In addition to the threat caused by reduced freshwater flow into
the Bay-Delta, and alteration of natural flow regimes resulting from
water storage and diversion, there appear to be other factors
contributing to the Pelagic Organism Decline (Baxter 2010 et al., p.
69). Models indicate a steady linear decline in abundance of longfin
smelt since about the time of the invasion of the nonnative overbite
clam in 1987 (Rosenfield and Swanson 2010, pp. 13-14; see Factor E:
Introduced Species) in the Bay-Delta. However, not all aspects of the
longfin smelt decline can be attributed to the overbite clam invasion,
as a decline in abundance of pre-spawning adults in Suisun Marsh
occurred before the invasion of the clam, and a partial rebound in
longfin smelt abundance occurred in the early 2000s (Rosenfield and
Baxter 2007, p. 1589).
The long-term decline in abundance of longfin smelt in the Bay-
Delta has been partially attributed to reductions in food availability
and disruptions of the Bay-Delta food web caused by establishment of
the nonnative overbite clam in 1987 (Factor E) and ammonium
concentrations (Factor E). Impacts of the overbite clam and ammonium on
the Bay-Delta food web have been long-lasting and are ongoing. We
conclude that ongoing disruptions of the food web caused by the
overbite clam are a threat to the continued existence of the Bay-Delta
DPS of longfin smelt. We also conclude that high ammonium
concentrations in the Bay-Delta may constitute a threat to the
continued existence of the overbite clam.
Multiple existing Federal and State regulatory mechanisms provide
important protections for the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt and act to
reduce threats to the DPS. However, the continued decline in the
abundance of the Bay-Delta longfin smelt DPS indicates that existing
regulatory mechanisms, as currently implemented, are not adequate to
sufficiently reduce threats identified in this finding. Therefore, we
find that inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms contribute to
threats faced by the Bay-Delta longfin smelt DPS.
The threats identified are likely acting together to contribute to
the decline of the population (Baxter et al. 2010, p. 69). Reduced
freshwater flows result in effects to longfin smelt habitat
suitability, at the same time that the food web has been altered by
introduced species and ammonium concentrations. It is possible that
climate change could exacerbate these threats; however, due to
uncertainties of how longfin smelt will respond to climate change
effects, we cannot conclude that climate change will threaten the
continued existence of the Bay-Delta longfin smelt DPS. The combined
effects of reduced freshwater flows, the invasive overbite clam
(reduced levels of phytoplankton and zooplankton that are important to
the Bay-Delta food web), and high ammonium concentrations act to
significantly reduce habitat suitability for longfin smelt.
The best scientific and commercial information available indicates
that the threats facing the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt are of
sufficient imminence, intensity and magnitude to threaten the continued
existence of the species now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore,
we find that listing the Bay-Delta longfin smelt DPS is warranted. We
will make a determination on the status of the DPS as endangered or
threatened when we prepare a proposed listing determination. However,
as explained in more detail below, an immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing this action is precluded by higher priority
listing actions, and progress is being made to add or remove qualified
species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants.
[[Page 19788]]
We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of extinction now
such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the
species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. We determined
that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the DPS is not
warranted at this time because the threats are not of sufficient
magnitude and imminence to pose an immediate threat to the continued
existence of the DPS. However, if at any time we determine that issuing
an emergency regulation temporarily listing the Bay-Delta DPS of
longfin smelt is warranted, we will initiate this action at that time.
Significant Portion of Its Range
The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The definition of
``species'' is also relevant to this discussion. The Act defines
``species'' as ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The
phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) is not defined by the
statute, and we have never addressed in our regulations: (1) The
consequences of a determination that a species is either endangered or
likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range, but
not throughout all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of a
range as ``significant.''
Two recent district court decisions have addressed whether the SPR
language allows the Service to list or protect less than all members of
a defined ``species'': Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp.
2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the
Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009); and
WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz.
September 30, 2010), concerning the Service's 2008 finding on a
petition to list the Gunnison's prairie dog (73 FR 6660, February 5,
2008). The Service had asserted in both of these determinations that it
had authority, in effect, to protect only some members of a
``species,'' as defined by the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or DPS),
under the Act. Both courts ruled that the determinations were arbitrary
and capricious on the grounds that this approach violated the plain and
unambiguous language of the Act. The courts concluded that reading the
SPR language to allow protecting only a portion of a species' range is
inconsistent with the Act's definition of ``species.'' The courts
concluded that once a determination is made that a species (i.e.,
species, subspecies, or DPS) meets the definition of ``endangered
species'' or ``threatened species,'' it must be placed on the list in
its entirety and the Act's protections applied consistently to all
members of that species (subject to modification of protections through
special rules under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
Consistent with that interpretation, and for the purposes of this
finding, we interpret the phrase ``significant portion of its range''
in the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened
species'' to provide an independent basis for listing; thus there are
two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify
for listing: a species may be endangered or threatened throughout all
of its range; or a species may be endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range. If a species is in danger of
extinction throughout an SPR, it, the species, is an ``endangered
species.'' The same analysis applies to ``threatened species.'' Based
on this interpretation and supported by existing case law, the
consequence of finding that a species is endangered or threatened in
only a significant portion of its range is that the entire species will
be listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the Act's
protections will be applied across the species' entire range.
We conclude, for the purposes of this finding, that interpreting
the SPR phrase as providing an independent basis for listing is the
best interpretation of the Act because it is consistent with the
purposes and the plain meaning of the key definitions of the Act; it
does not conflict with established past agency practice (i.e., prior to
the 2007 Solicitor's Opinion), as no consistent, long-term agency
practice has been established; and it is consistent with the judicial
opinions that have most closely examined this issue. Having concluded
that the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' provides an
independent basis for listing and protecting the entire species, we
next turn to the meaning of ``significant'' to determine the threshold
for when such an independent basis for listing exists.
Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the
purposes of this finding, that the significance of the portion of the
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation.
Thus, for the purposes of this finding, and as explained further below,
a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if its
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that
without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.
We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species
and its habitat that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance.
Redundancy (having multiple populations distributed across the
landscape) may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species
to withstand catastrophic events. Representation (the range of
variation found in a species) ensures that the species' adaptive
capabilities are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and representation
are not independent of each other, and some characteristic of a species
or area may contribute to all three. For example, distribution across a
wide variety of habitat types is an indicator of representation, but it
may also indicate a broad geographic distribution contributing to
redundancy (decreasing the chance that any one event affects the entire
species), and the likelihood that some habitat types are less
susceptible to certain threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability
of the species to recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is
intended to be mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range
may be determined to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under
any one or more of these concepts.
For the purposes of this finding, we determine if a portion's
biological contribution is so important that the portion qualifies as
``significant'' by asking whether without that portion, the
representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be so
impaired that the species would have an increased vulnerability to
threats to the point that the overall species would be in danger of
extinction (i.e., would be ``endangered''). Conversely, we would
[[Page 19789]]
not consider the portion of the range at issue to be ``significant'' if
there is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation
elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger
of extinction throughout its range if the population in that portion of
the range in question became extirpated (extinct locally).
We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' (a portion of
the range of a species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the
viability of the species is so important that without that portion, the
species would be in danger of extinction) establishes a threshold that
is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the consequences of
finding a species to be endangered or threatened in an SPR would be
listing the species throughout its entire range, it is important to use
a threshold for ``significant'' that is robust. It would not be
meaningful or appropriate to establish a very low threshold whereby a
portion of the range can be considered ``significant'' even if only a
negligible increase in extinction risk would result from its loss.
Because nearly any portion of a species' range can be said to
contribute some increment to a species' viability, use of such a low
threshold would require us to impose restrictions and expend
conservation resources disproportionately to conservation benefit:
listing would be rangewide, even if only a portion of the range of
minor conservation importance to the species is imperiled. On the other
hand, it would be inappropriate to establish a threshold for
``significant'' that is too high. This would be the case if the
standard were, for example, that a portion of the range can be
considered ``significant'' only if threats in that portion result in
the entire species' being currently endangered or threatened. Such a
high bar would not give the SPR phrase independent meaning, as the
Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136
(9th Cir. 2001).
The definition of ``significant'' used in this finding carefully
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we
minimize the degree to which restrictions will be imposed or resources
expended that do not contribute substantially to species conservation.
But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase ``in a
significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning.
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation.
Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would have to be so
important that current imperilment there would mean that the species
would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the definition of
``significant'' used in this finding, the portion of the range need not
rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological significance.
(We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a portion that rises
to that level of biological significance, then we should conclude that
the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of its range, and that
we would not need to rely on the SPR language for such a listing.)
Rather, under this interpretation we ask whether the species would be
endangered everywhere without that portion, i.e., if that portion were
completely extirpated. In other words, the portion of the range need
not be so important that even the species being in danger of extinction
in that portion would be sufficient to cause the species in the
remainder of the range to be endangered; rather, the complete
extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of the species in that portion
would be required to cause the species in the remainder of the range to
be endangered.
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be
significant or to analyzing portions of the range in which there is no
reasonable potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To
identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we
determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1)
The portions may be ``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in
danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. Depending on the biology of the species, its range,
and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address
the significance question first or the status question first. Thus, if
we determine that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do
not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened
there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened
in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion
is ``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout
its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of threats to the species occurs only in
portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the
biologically based definition of ``significant,'' such portions will
not warrant further consideration.
We have determined that the longfin smelt does not face elevated
threats in most portions of its range, and we have determined that the
portion of the range that has concentrated threats (the Bay-Delta
portion of the range) is a DPS. The rangewide five factor analysis for
longfin smelt does not identify any portions of the species' range
outside of Bay-Delta where threats are concentrated. Potential threats
to the species are by and large uniform throughout its range with the
exception of the Bay-Delta. Therefore, we will not further consider the
Bay-Delta DPS as an SPR.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098)
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species
listed as threatened to endangered status. The system places greatest
importance on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, but also factors
in the level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in
descending order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full
species, and subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments
of vertebrates (DPS)). As a result of our analysis of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we assign the Bay-
Delta DPS of longfin smelt a listing priority number of 3, based on the
high magnitude and immediacy of threats. A number three listing
priority is the highest listing allowed for a DPS under the current
listing priority guidance. One or more of the threats discussed above
are occurring (or we anticipate they will occur in the near future)
within the range of the Bay-Delta DPS of the longfin smelt. These
threats are ongoing and, in some cases (such as nonnative species), are
considered irreversible. While we conclude that listing the Bay-Delta
DPS of longfin smelt is warranted, an immediate proposal to list this
species is precluded by other higher priority listings, which we
address below.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and the cost
[[Page 19790]]
and relative priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus,
in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will
be possible to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or
whether promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher priority
listing actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act;
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative,
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive
and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses
used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents;
and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer
review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant
information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more
costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding
is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with
critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical
habitat, $305,000.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example,
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see
House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure
that some funding is available to address other listing activities''
(House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19,
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more
efficient in our work. At this time, for FY 2012, we plan to use some
of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations.
We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis.
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations,
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The
Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304 (Endangered Species
Act Amendments of 1982), which established the current statutory
deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the
amendments were ``not intended to allow the Secretary to delay
commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than that the
existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a
greater degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a
petition [that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.'' Although that
statement appeared to refer specifically to the ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline for making a
``substantial information'' finding, that finding is made at the point
when the Service is deciding whether or not to commence a status review
that will determine the degree of threats facing the species, and
therefore the analysis underlying the statement is more relevant to the
use of the warranted-but-precluded finding, which is made when the
Service has already determined the degree of threats facing the species
and is deciding whether or not to commence a rulemaking.
In FY 2011, on April 15, 2011, Congress passed the Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 112-10), which provided funding
through September 30, 2011. The Service had $20,902,000 for the listing
program. Of that, $9,472,000 was used for determinations of critical
habitat for already listed species. Also $500,000 was appropriated for
foreign species listings under the Act. The Service thus had
$10,930,000 available to fund work in the following categories:
Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed
by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with
absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In FY 2010,
the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list
404 species. The receipt of petitions for a large number of species is
consuming the Service's listing funding that is not dedicated to
meeting court-ordered commitments. Absent some ability to balance
effort among listing duties under existing funding levels, the Service
was only able to initiate a few new listing determinations for
candidate species in FY 2011. For FY 2012, on December 17, 2011,
Congress passed a continuing resolution which provides funding at the
FY 2011 enacted level with a 1.5 percent rescission through December
23, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-68). Until Congress appropriates funds for FY
2012, we will fund listing work
[[Page 19791]]
based on the FY 2011 amount minus the 1.5 percent.
In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the
Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority,
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program.
Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we used a portion of our funding to
work on the actions described above for listing actions related to
foreign species. In FY 2011, we anticipated using $1,500,000 for work
on listing actions for foreign species, which reduces funding available
for domestic listing actions; however, only $500,000 was allocated for
this function. Although there are no foreign species issues included in
our high-priority listing actions at this time, many actions have
statutory or court-approved settlement deadlines, thus increasing their
priority. The budget allocations for each specific listing action are
identified in the Service's FY 2011 and FY 2012 Allocation Tables (part
of our record).
For the above reasons, funding a proposed listing determination for
the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt is precluded by court-ordered and
court-approved settlement agreements, listing actions with absolute
statutory deadlines, and work on proposed listing determinations for
those candidate species with a higher listing priority (i.e., candidate
species with LPNs of 1 or 2).
Based on our September 21, 1983, guidelines for assigning an LPN
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number
of species with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines, we assign each
candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of
priority: Monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, or distinct
population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher
the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have
the highest listing priority).
Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank
(provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest
IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations,
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we
apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with LPNs of
2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate
species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened
species to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed
species, they are already afforded the protections of the Act and
implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may
choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered
if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court-determined
deadline.
With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount
of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding,
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. During FY
2011, we completed delisting rules for three species.) Given the
limited resources available for listing, we find that we made
expeditious progress in FY 2011 and are making expeditious progress in
FY 2012 in the Listing Program. This progress included preparing and
publishing the following determinations:
FY 2011 and FY 2012 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/6/2010........................ Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 75 FR 61664-61690
the Altamaha Endangered.
Spinymussel and
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
10/7/2010........................ 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 62070-62095
Petition to list the petition finding,
Sacramento Splittail as Not warranted.
Endangered or
Threatened.
10/28/2010....................... Endangered Status and Proposed Listing 75 FR 66481-66552
Designation of Critical Endangered
Habitat for Spikedace (uplisting).
and Loach Minnow.
11/2/2010........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 67341-67343
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Bay Springs Salamander Not substantial.
as Endangered.
11/2/2010........................ Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 67511-67550
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the Georgia Pigtoe
Mussel, Interrupted
Rocksnail, and Rough
Hornsnail and
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
11/2/2010........................ Listing the Rayed Bean Proposed Listing 75 FR 67551-67583
and Snuffbox as Endangered.
Endangered.
11/4/2010........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 67925-67944
Petition to List petition finding,
Cirsium wrightii Warranted but
(Wright's Marsh precluded.
Thistle) as Endangered
or Threatened.
[[Page 19792]]
12/14/2010....................... Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 75 FR 77801-77817
Dunes Sagebrush Lizard. Endangered.
12/14/2010....................... 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78029-78061
Petition to List the petition finding,
North American Warranted but
Wolverine as Endangered precluded.
or Threatened.
12/14/2010....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78093-78146
Petition to List the petition finding,
Sonoran Population of Warranted but
the Desert Tortoise as precluded.
Endangered or
Threatened.
12/15/2010....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78513-78556
Petition to List petition finding,
Astragalus microcymbus Warranted but
and Astragalus precluded.
schmolliae as
Endangered or
Threatened.
12/28/2010....................... Listing Seven Brazilian Final Listing 75 FR 81793-81815
Bird Species as Endangered.
Endangered Throughout
Their Range.
1/4/2011......................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 304-311
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Red Knot subspecies Not substantial.
Calidris canutus
roselaari as Endangered.
1/19/2011........................ Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 76 FR 3392-3420
the Sheepnose and Endangered.
Spectaclecase Mussels.
2/10/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 7634-7679
Petition to List the petition finding,
Pacific Walrus as Warranted but
Endangered or precluded.
Threatened.
2/17/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 9309-9318
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Sand Verbena Moth as Substantial.
Endangered or
Threatened.
2/22/2011........................ Determination of Final Listing 76 FR 9681-9692
Threatened Status for Threatened.
the New Zealand-
Australia Distinct
Population Segment of
the Southern Rockhopper
Penguin.
2/22/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 9722-9733
Petition to List petition finding,
Solanum conocarpum Warranted but
(marron bacora) as precluded.
Endangered.
2/23/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 9991-10003
Petition to List petition finding,
Thorne's Hairstreak Not warranted.
Butterfly as Endangered.
2/23/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 10166-10203
Petition to List petition finding,
Astragalus hamiltonii, Warranted but
Penstemon flowersii, precluded & Not
Eriogonum soredium, Warranted.
Lepidium ostleri, and
Trifolium friscanum as
Endangered or
Threatened.
2/24/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 10299-10310
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Wild Plains Bison or Not substantial.
Each of Four Distinct
Population Segments as
Threatened.
2/24/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 10310-10319
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Unsilvered Fritillary Not substantial.
Butterfly as Threatened
or Endangered.
3/8/2011......................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 12667-12683
Petition to List the petition finding,
Mt. Charleston Blue Warranted but
Butterfly as Endangered precluded.
or Threatened.
3/8/2011......................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 12683-12690
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Texas Kangaroo Rat as Substantial.
Endangered or
Threatened.
3/10/2011........................ Initiation of Status Notice of Status 76 FR 13121-13122
Review for Longfin Review.
Smelt.
3/15/2011........................ Withdrawal of Proposed Proposed rule 76 FR 14210-14268
Rule to List the Flat- withdrawal.
tailed Horned Lizard as
Threatened.
3/15/2011........................ Proposed Threatened Proposed Listing 76 FR 14126-14207
Status for the Threatened;
Chiricahua Leopard Frog Proposed
and Proposed Designation of
Designation of Critical Critical Habitat.
Habitat.
3/22/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 15919-15932
Petition to List the petition finding,
Berry Cave Salamander Warranted but
as Endangered. precluded.
4/1/2011......................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 18138-18143
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Spring Pygmy Sunfish as Substantial.
Endangered.
4/5/2011......................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 18684-18701
Petition to List the petition finding,
Bearmouth Not Warranted and
Mountainsnail, Byrne Warranted but
Resort Mountainsnail, precluded.
and Meltwater Lednian
Stonefly as Endangered
or Threatened.
4/5/2011......................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 18701-18706
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Peary Caribou and Substantial.
Dolphin and Union
population of the
Barren-ground Caribou
as Endangered or
Threatened.
4/12/2011........................ Proposed Endangered Proposed Listing 76 FR 20464-20488
Status for the Three Endangered;
Forks Springsnail and Proposed
San Bernardino Designation of
Springsnail, and Critical Habitat.
Proposed Designation of
Critical Habitat.
4/13/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 20613-20622
Petition To List Spring Petition Finding,
Mountains Acastus Substantial.
Checkerspot Butterfly
as Endangered.
4/14/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 20911-20918
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Prairie Chub as Substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered.
4/14/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 20918-20939
Petition to List Hermes petition finding,
Copper Butterfly as Warranted but
Endangered or precluded.
Threatened.
4/26/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 23256-23265
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Arapahoe Snowfly as Substantial.
Endangered or
Threatened.
[[Page 19793]]
4/26/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 23265-23271
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Smooth-Billed Ani as Not substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered.
5/12/2011........................ Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule, 76 FR 27756-27799
Proposed Rule to List Withdrawal.
the Mountain Plover as
Threatened.
5/25/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 30082-30087
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Spot-tailed Earless Substantial.
Lizard as Endangered or
Threatened.
5/26/2011........................ Listing the Salmon- Final Listing 76 FR 30758-30780
Crested Cockatoo as Threatened.
Threatened Throughout
its Range with Special
Rule.
5/31/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 31282-31294
Petition to List Puerto petition finding,
Rican Harlequin Warranted but
Butterfly as Endangered. precluded.
6/2/2011......................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 31903-31906
Petition to Reclassify Petition Finding,
the Straight-Horned Substantial.
Markhor (Capra
falconeri jerdoni) of
Torghar Hills as
Threatened.
6/2/2011......................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 31920-31926
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Golden-winged Warbler Substantial.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
6/7/2011......................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 32911-32929
Petition to List the petition finding,
Striped Newt as Warranted but
Threatened. precluded.
6/9/2011......................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 33924-33965
Petition to List petition finding,
Abronia ammophila, Not Warranted and
Agrostis rossiae, Warranted but
Astragalus proimanthus, precluded.
Boechera (Arabis)
pusilla, and Penstemon
gibbensii as Threatened
or Endangered.
6/21/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 36049-36053
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Utah Population of the Not substantial.
Gila Monster as an
Endangered or a
Threatened Distinct
Population Segment.
6/21/2011........................ Revised 90-Day Finding Notice of 90-day 76 FR 36053-36068
on a Petition To Petition Finding,
Reclassify the Utah Not substantial.
Prairie Dog From
Threatened to
Endangered.
6/28/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 37706-37716
Petition to List petition finding,
Castanea pumila var. Not warranted.
ozarkensis as
Threatened or
Endangered.
6/29/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 38095-38106
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Eastern Small-Footed Substantial.
Bat and the Northern
Long-Eared Bat as
Threatened or
Endangered.
6/30/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 38504-38532
Petition to List a petition finding,
Distinct Population Not warranted.
Segment of the Fisher
in Its United States
Northern Rocky Mountain
Range as Endangered or
Threatened with
Critical Habitat.
7/12/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 40868-40871
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Bay Skipper as Substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered.
7/19/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 42631-42654
Petition to List Pinus petition finding,
albicaulis as Warranted but
Endangered or precluded.
Threatened with
Critical Habitat.
7/19/2011........................ Petition To List Grand Notice of 12-month 76 FR 42654-42658
Canyon Cave petition finding,
Pseudoscorpion. Not warranted.
7/26/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 44547-44564
Petition to List the petition finding,
Giant Palouse Earthworm Not warranted.
(Drilolerius
americanus) as
Threatened or
Endangered.
7/26/2011........................ 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 44566-44569
Petition to List the petition finding,
Frigid Ambersnail as Not warranted.
Endangered.
7/27/2011........................ Determination of Final Listing 76 FR 45054-45075
Endangered Status for Endangered,
Ipomopsis polyantha Threatened.
(Pagosa Skyrocket) and
Threatened Status for
Penstemon debilis
(Parachute Beardtongue)
and Phacelia submutica
(DeBeque Phacelia).
7/27/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 45130-45162
Petition to List the petition finding,
Gopher Tortoise as Warranted but
Threatened in the precluded.
Eastern Portion of its
Range.
8/2/2011......................... Proposed Endangered Proposed Listing 76 FR 46218-46234
Status for the Endangered.
Chupadera Springsnail
(Pyrgulopsis
chupaderae) and
Proposed Designation of
Critical Habitat.
8/2/2011......................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 46238-46251
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Straight Snowfly and Not substantial.
Idaho Snowfly as
Endangered.
8/2/2011......................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 46251-46266
Petition to List the petition finding,
Redrock Stonefly as Not warranted.
Endangered or
Threatened.
8/2/2011......................... Listing 23 Species on Proposed Listing 76 FR 46362-46594
Oahu as Endangered and Endangered.
Designating Critical
Habitat for 124 Species.
8/4/2011......................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 47123-47133
Petition To List Six Petition Finding,
Sand Dune Beetles as Not substantial
Endangered or and substantial.
Threatened.
8/9/2011......................... Endangered Status for Final Listing 76 FR 48722-48741
the Cumberland Darter, Endangered.
Rush Darter,
Yellowcheek Darter,
Chucky Madtom, and
Laurel Dace.
[[Page 19794]]
8/9/2011......................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 48777-48788
Petition to List the petition finding,
Nueces River and Not warranted.
Plateau Shiners as
Threatened or
Endangered.
8/9/2011......................... Four Foreign Parrot Proposed Listing 76 FR 49202-49236
Species [crimson Endangered and
shining parrot, white Threatened; Notice
cockatoo, Philippine of 12-month
cockatoo, yellow- petition finding,
crested cockatoo]. Not warranted.
8/10/2011........................ Proposed Listing of the Proposed Listing 76 FR 49408-49412
Miami Blue Butterfly as Endangered
Endangered, and Similarity of
Proposed Listing of the Appearance.
Cassius Blue, Ceraunus
Blue, and Nickerbean
Blue Butterflies as
Threatened Due to
Similarity of
Appearance to the Miami
Blue Butterfly.
8/10/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 49412-49417
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Saltmarsh Topminnow as Substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act.
8/10/2011........................ Emergency Listing of the Emergency Listing 76 FR 49542-49567
Miami Blue Butterfly as Endangered and
Endangered, and Similarity of
Emergency Listing of Appearance.
the Cassius Blue,
Ceraunus Blue, and
Nickerbean Blue
Butterflies as
Threatened Due to
Similarity of
Appearance to the Miami
Blue Butterfly.
8/11/2011........................ Listing Six Foreign Final Listing 76 FR 50052-50080
Birds as Endangered Endangered.
Throughout Their Range.
8/17/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 50971-50979
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Leona's Little Blue Substantial.
Butterfly as Endangered
or Threatened.
9/01/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 54423-54425
Petition to List All Petition Finding,
Chimpanzees (Pan Substantial.
troglodytes) as
Endangered.
9/6/2011......................... 12-Month Finding on Five Notice of 12-month 76 FR 55170-55203
Petitions to List Seven petition finding,
Species of Hawaiian Warranted but
Yellow-faced Bees as precluded.
Endangered.
9/8/2011......................... 12-Month Petition Notice of 12-month 76 FR 55623-55638
Finding and Proposed petition finding,
Listing of Warranted;
Arctostaphylos Proposed Listing
franciscana as Endangered.
Endangered.
9/8/2011......................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 55638-55641
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Snowy Plover and Not substantial.
Reclassify the
Wintering Population of
Piping Plover.
9/13/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 56381-56391
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Franklin's Bumble Bee Substantial.
as Endangered.
9/13/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 56608-56630
Petition to List 42 Petition Finding,
Great Basin and Mojave Substantial and
Desert Springsnails as Not substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
9/21/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 58650-58680
Petition to List Van petition finding,
Rossem's Gull-billed Not warranted.
Tern as Endangered or
Threatened.
9/22/2011........................ Determination of Final Listing 76 FR 58954-58998
Endangered Status for Endangered.
Casey's June Beetle and
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
9/27/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 59623-59634
Petition to List the petition finding,
Tamaulipan Agapema, Not warranted.
Sphingicampa blanchardi
(no common name), and
Ursia furtiva (no
common name) as
Endangered or
Threatened.
9/27/2011........................ Partial 90-Day Finding Notice of 90-day 76 FR 59836-59862
on a Petition to List Petition Finding,
404 Species in the Substantial.
Southeastern United
States as Endangered or
Threatened With
Critical Habitat.
9/29/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 60431-60444
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
American Eel as Substantial.
Threatened.
10/4/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 61298-61307
Petition to List the petition finding,
Lake Sammamish Kokanee Not warranted.
Population of
Oncorhynchus nerka as
an Endangered or
Threatened Distinct
Population Segment.
10/4/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 61307-61321
Petition to List petition finding,
Calopogon oklahomensis Not warranted.
as Threatened or
Endangered.
10/4/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 61321-61330
Petition To List the petition finding,
Amargosa River Not warranted.
Population of the
Mojave Fringe-toed
Lizard as an Endangered
or Threatened Distinct
Population Segment.
10/4/2011........................ Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 76 FR 61482-61529
the Alabama Pearlshell, Endangered.
Round Ebonyshell,
Southern Sandshell,
Southern Kidneyshell,
and Choctaw Bean, and
Threatened Status for
the Tapered Pigtoe,
Narrow Pigtoe, and
Fuzzy Pigtoe; with
Critical Habitat.
10/4/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 61532-61554
Petition To List 10 Petition Finding,
Subspecies of Great Substantial and
Basin Butterflies as Not substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
[[Page 19795]]
10/5/2011........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 61826-61853
Petition to List 29 Petition Finding,
Mollusk Species as Substantial and
Threatened or Not substantial.
Endangered With
Critical Habitat.
10/5/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 61856-61894
Petition to List the petition finding,
Cactus Ferruginous Not warranted.
Pygmy-Owl as Threatened
or Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
10/5/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 61896-61931
Petition to List the petition finding,
Northern Leopard Frog Not warranted.
in the Western United
States as Threatened.
10/6/2011........................ Endangered Status for Final Listing 76 FR 61956-61978
the Ozark Hellbender Endangered.
Salamander.
10/6/2011........................ Red-Crowned Parrot...... Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62016-62034
petition finding,
Warranted but
precluded.
10/6/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76FR 62166-62212
Petition to List Texas petition finding,
Fatmucket, Golden Orb, Warranted but
Smooth Pimpleback, precluded.
Texas Pimpleback, and
Texas Fawnsfoot as
Threatened or
Endangered.
10/6/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62214-62258
Petition to List the petition finding,
Mohave Ground Squirrel Not warranted.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
10/6/2011........................ Partial 90-Day Finding Notice of 90-day 76 FR 62260-62280
on a Petition to List Petition Finding,
404 Species in the Not substantial.
Southeastern United
States as Threatened or
Endangered With
Critical Habitat.
10/7/2011........................ 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62504-62565
Petition to List the petition finding,
Black-footed Albatross Not warranted.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
10/11/2011....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62722-62740
Petition to List petition finding,
Amoreuxia gonzalezii, Not warranted.
Astragalus hypoxylus,
and Erigeron piscaticus
as Endangered or
Threatened.
10/11/2011....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62740-62754
Petition and Proposed petition finding,
Rule to List the Yellow- Warranted Propose
Billed Parrot. Listing,
threatened.
10/11/2011....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62900-62926
Petition to List the petition finding,
Tehachapi Slender Not warranted.
Salamander as
Endangered or
Threatened.
10/11/2011....................... Endangered Status for Final Listing 76 FR 62928-62960
the Altamaha Endangered.
Spinymussel and
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
10/11/2011....................... 12-Month Finding for a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 63094-63115
Petition to List the petition finding,
California Golden Trout Not warranted.
as Endangered.
10/12/2011....................... 12-Month Petition Notice of 12-month 76 FR 63420-63442
Finding, Proposed petition finding,
Listing of Coqu[iacute] Warranted;
Llanero as Endangered, Proposed Listing
and Designation of Endangered.
Critical Habitat for
Coqu[iacute] Llanero.
10/12/2011....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 63444-63478
Petition to List petition finding,
Northern Leatherside Not warranted.
Chub as Endangered or
Threatened.
10/12/2011....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 63480-63508
Petition to List Two petition finding,
South American Parrot Not warranted.
Species.
10/13/2011....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 63720-63762
Petition to List a petition finding,
Distinct Population Warranted but
Segment of the Red Tree precluded.
Vole as Endangered or
Threatened.
12/19/2011....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 78601-78609
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Western Glacier Substantial.
Stonefly as Endangered
With Critical Habitat.
1/3/2012......................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 77 FR 45-52
Petition to List Sierra Petition Finding,
Nevada Red Fox as Substantial.
Endangered or
Threatened.
1/5/2012......................... Listing Two Distinct Proposed 77 FR 666-697
Population Segments of Reclassification.
Broad-Snouted Caiman as
Endangered or
Threatened and a
Special Rule.
1/12/2012........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 77 FR 1900-1908
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Humboldt Marten as Substantial.
Endangered or
Threatened.
1/24/2012........................ 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 77 FR 3423-3432
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
`I'iwi as Endangered or Substantial.
Threatened.
2/1/2012......................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 77 FR 4973-4980
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
San Bernardino Flying Substantial.
Squirrel as Endangered
or Threatened With
Critical Habitat.
2/14/2012........................ Determination of Final Listing 77 FR 8632-8665
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the Rayed Bean and
Snuffbox Mussels
Throughout Their Ranges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that
we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2012 but have not yet been
completed to date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top
section of the table are being conducted under a deadline set by a
court. We are implementing a work plan that
[[Page 19796]]
establishes a framework and schedule for resolving by September 30,
2016, the status of all of the species that the Service had determined
to be qualified as of the 2010 Candidate Notice of Review. The Service
submitted such a work plan to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia in In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline
Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D. D.C. May 10,
2011), and obtained the court's approval. The Service had already begun
to implement that work plan last FY and many of these initial actions
in our work plan include work on proposed rules for candidate species
with an LPN of 2 or 3. As discussed above, selection of these species
is partially based on available staff resources, and when appropriate,
include species with a lower priority if they overlap geographically or
have the same threats as the species with the high priority. Including
these species together in the same proposed rule results in
considerable savings in time and funding, when compared to preparing
separate proposed rules for each of them in the future. Actions in the
lower section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act.
Actions Funded in Previous FYs and in FY 2012 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 parrot species (military macaw, 12-month petition finding.
yellow-billed parrot, scarlet
macaw).\5\
Longfin smelt.................... 12-month petition finding.
20 Maui-Nui candidate species \2\ Proposed listing.
(17 plants, 3 tree snails) (14
with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3
with LPN = 8).
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and Proposed listing.
white bluffs bladderpod (LPN =
9).\4\
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\..... Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket Proposed listing.
(LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN =
9)).\4\
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\..... Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) Proposed listing.
\4\.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Proposed listing.
Beetle (LPN = 2) \5\.
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2). Proposed listing.
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind Proposed listing.
salamander (LPN = 2), Salado
salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown
salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville
Plateau (LPN = 8)).\3\
West Texas aquatics (Gonzales Proposed listing.
Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond
Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive
amphipod (LPN = 2)).\3\
2 Texas plants (Texas golden Proposed listing.
gladecress (Leavenworthia
texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River
rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx)
(LPN = 2)).\3\
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus Proposed listing.
(Echinomastus erectocentrus var.
acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen
plains cactus (Pediocactus
peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN
= 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron
lemmonii) (LPN = 8), Gierisch
mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii)
(LPN = 2)).\5\
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2).\3\ Proposed listing.
3 Southern FL plants (Florida Proposed listing.
semaphore cactus (Consolea
corallicola) (LPN = 2),
shellmound applecactus (Harrisia
(= Cereus) aboriginum
(=gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape
Sable thoroughwort (Chromolaena
frustrata) (LPN = 2)).\5\
21 Big Island (HI) species \5\ Proposed listing.
(includes 8 candidate species--6
plants & 2 animals; 4 with LPN =
2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =
4, 2 with LPN = 8)
12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 Proposed listing.
subspecies of pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN =
3), streaked horned lark (LPN =
3), Taylor's checkerspot (LPN =
3), Mardon skipper (LPN =
8)).\3\
2 TN River mussels (fluted Proposed listing.
kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside
pearlymussel (LPN = 2)).\5\
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = Proposed listing.
2) \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Bird species from Colombia and Final listing determination.
Ecuador.
Queen Charlotte goshawk.......... Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia...... Final listing determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist Final listing determination.
National Marine Fisheries
Service) \5\.
Platte River caddisfly (from 206 12-month petition finding.
species petition) \5\.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\............ 12-month petition finding.
Honduran emerald................. 12-month petition finding.
Eagle Lake trout \1\............. 90-day petition finding.
Spring Mountains checkerspot 90-day petition finding.
butterfly.
Aztec gilia \5\.................. 90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\....... 90-day petition finding.
Bicknell's thrush \5\............ 90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\........... 90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants 90-day petition finding.
(Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis
imberbis) \5\.
Desert massasauga................ 90-day petition finding.
Boreal toad (eastern or southern 90-day petition finding.
Rocky Mtn population) \5\.
Alexander Archipelago wolf \5\... 90-day petition finding.
Eastern diamondback rattlesnake.. 90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.
[[Page 19797]]
We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
The Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt will be added to the list of
candidate species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will
continue to evaluate this DPS as new information becomes available.
Continuing review will determine if a change in status is warranted,
including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing procedures.
We intend that any proposed listing determination for the Bay-Delta
DPS of longfin smelt will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we
will continue to accept additional information and comments from all
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or
any other interested party concerning this finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the San Francisco Bay-
Delta Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the San
Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office.
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: March 13, 2012.
Gary D. Frazer,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-7198 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P