[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5369-5385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01303]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0101; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY25
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Endangered Status for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list the
Zuni bluehead sucker as an endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act and propose to designate critical habitat for the species.
If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's
protections to this subspecies and its critical habitat. The effect of
these regulations will be to conserve the Zuni bluehead sucker and
protect its habitat under the Act.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
March 26, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by March 11, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2012-0101,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading,
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0101; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally ``J'' Murphy, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field
Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113, by telephone 505-346-
2525 or by facsimile 505-346-2542. Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish
a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within 1 year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species
as an endangered or threatened species and designations and revisions
of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule. Elsewhere
in today's Federal Register, we propose to designate critical habitat
for the Zuni bluehead sucker under the Act.
This rule consists of: (1) A proposed rule to list the Zuni
bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi) as an endangered
species; and (2) a proposed rule for designation of critical habitat
for the Zuni bluehead sucker. The Zuni bluehead sucker is a candidate
species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal,
but for which development of a listing regulation has been precluded by
other higher priority listing activities. This rule reassesses all
available information regarding status of and threats to the Zuni
bluehead sucker.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
We have determined that the Zuni bluehead sucker is threatened by
Factors A, C, D, and E.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
analysis of the best available science and application of that science
and to provide any additional scientific information to improve this
proposed rule. Because we will consider all comments and information
received during the comment period, our final determinations may differ
from this proposal.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The Zuni bluehead sucker's biology, range, and population
trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
[[Page 5370]]
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its
habitat.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the Zuni bluehead sucker as a Category 2 species in
the September 18, 1985, Review of Vertebrate Wildlife; Notice of Review
(50 FR 37958). Category 2 Candidates were defined as species for which
we had information that proposed listing was possibly appropriate, but
conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not
available to support a proposed rule at the time. The species remained
so designated in subsequent annual Candidate Notices of Review (CNOR)
(54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991; and 59 FR
58982, November 15, 1994). In the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596),
we discontinued the designation of Category 2 species as candidates;
therefore, the Zuni bluehead sucker was no longer a candidate species.
Subsequently, in 2001, the Zuni bluehead sucker was added to the
candidate list (66 FR 54807, October 30, 2001). Candidates are those
fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support
preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a
listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing
activities. The Zuni bluehead sucker was included in all of our
subsequent annual CNORs (67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24875, May
4, 2004; 70 FR 24869, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72
FR 69033, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75175, December 10, 2008; 74 FR
57803, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69221, November 10, 2010; and 76 FR
66370, October 26, 2011). On May 11, 2004, we were petitioned to list
Zuni bluehead sucker, although no new information was provided in the
petition. Because we had already found the species warranted proposed
listing, no further action was taken on the petition. Zuni bluehead
sucker has a listing priority number of 3, which reflects a subspecies
with threats that are both imminent and high in magnitude.
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we propose to designate
critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker under the Act.
Status Assessment for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker
Background
Species Information
Species Information and Taxonomy
The Zuni bluehead sucker has a fusiform (torpedo-shaped), slender
body with a subterminal mouth (mouth posterior to the tip of the snout)
(Propst 1999, p. 49). Most individuals do not exceed 203 centimeters
(cm) (8 inches (in)) in total length, although the species has been
known to exceed 25 cm (9 in) in total length (Propst and Hobbes 1996,
pp. 22-34). The Zuni bluehead sucker has a bluish head, silvery-tan to
dark green back, and yellowish to silvery-white sides and abdomen.
Adults are mottled slate-gray to almost black dorsally (upper part of
the body) and cream-white ventrally (toward the abdomen). During the
spawning season, males may be differentiated by coarse tubercles (wart-
like projections) on the rear fins and the caudal peduncle (the narrow
part of the fish's body to which the tail fin is attached). Males also
have distinctive breeding coloration, becoming intensely black dorsally
with a bright red horizontal band and a white abdomen (Propst 1999, p.
49; Propst et al. 2001, p. 163).
There is some ambiguity regarding early specimen collections of
Zuni bluehead sucker; however, it is believed that the first specimen
of the Zuni bluehead sucker was collected from the Zuni River near Zuni
Pueblo in McKinley County, New Mexico in 1873 (Cope 1874, p. 138). The
next collection was made in 1926 from the Zuni River, near Zuni Pueblo
(Propst et al. 2001, p. 159). It was not subsequently collected in New
Mexico until W. J. Koster (University of New Mexico, Museum of
Southwestern Biology) collected the species in the Rio Pescado in 1948
and the Rio Nutria in 1960 (Propst 1999, p. 49; Propst et al. 2001, p.
159).
Smith (1966, pp. 87-90) and Smith et al. (1983, pp. 37-38)
postulated that the Zuni bluehead sucker subspecies is a result of an
event in which two species of sucker that were formerly geographically
separated came into contact with one another in the late Pleistocene
and exchanged genes. The Zuni bluehead sucker shares traits with the
Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius) and the Little Colorado River
bluehead sucker (bluehead sucker) (C. discobolus). Analysis of
morphological (pertaining to the form and structure of the fish) and
genetic information support the recognition of the Zuni bluehead sucker
as distinct from both the Rio Grande sucker and the bluehead sucker
(Smith 1966, pp. 87-90; Smith et al. 1983, pp. 37-38; Crabtree and Buth
1987, p. 843; Propst 1999, p. 49; Sublette et al. 1990, pp. 209, 211).
Based on our review of the best available scientific information, we
conclude that the Zuni bluehead sucker is a valid subspecies.
Habitat and Life History
Carman (2008, p. 2) described Zuni bluehead sucker habitat as
stream reaches with clean, perennial water flowing over hard substrate
(material on
[[Page 5371]]
the stream bottom), such as bedrock. Silt-laden habitat, such as beaver
ponds, is not suitable habitat for the species. Propst and Hobbes
(1996, pp. 13, 16) reported that Zuni bluehead suckers were collected
mainly in pool and pool-run habitats. These habitat areas were shaded
with water velocities of less than 0.1 meter per second (m/s) (0.3 feet
per second (ft/s)) (Propst and Hobbes 1996, p. 13). Most specimens were
found in water that was 30 to 50 cm (12 to 20 in) deep, cobble,
boulders, and bedrock substrate (Propst and Hobbes 1996, pp. 13, 16).
Pools were often edged by emergent aquatic vascular plants and riparian
vegetation (mainly willows (Salix spp.)) (Propst and Hobbes 1996, p.
16).
Zuni bluehead suckers feed primarily on algae scraped from rocks,
rubble, and gravel substrates (Winter 1979, p. 4; Sublette et al. 1990,
p. 211). Algae attached to rocks and plants are generally abundant in
reaches where Zuni bluehead suckers are common (New Mexico Department
of Game and Fish (NMDGF) 2004, p. 8). Bluehead suckers, including Zuni
bluehead sucker, require clean gravel substrate with minimal silt for
spawning (Maddux and Kepner 1988, p. 364) because silt covers eggs and
leads to suffocation.
Distribution
The Zuni bluehead sucker has been found in the Zuni River watershed
in New Mexico. Recent genetic testing of bluehead suckers in the Little
Colorado River watershed in eastern Arizona and from streams in or near
Canyon De Chelly in northeastern Arizona suggest that members of the
Zuni bluehead sucker subspecies are located there as well. Zuni
bluehead sucker were once common in the Little Colorado and Zuni River
drainages, but its distribution rangewide has been reduced by over 90
percent in the last 20 years (Propst 1999, p. 51; NMDGF 2004, p. 15).
The Zuni bluehead sucker is now found in low numbers in the Kinlichee
Creek and Canyon de Chelly areas in Arizona (Hobbes 2000, pp. 9-16;
Albert 2001, pp. 10-14; David 2006, p. 35) and is restricted to three
isolated populations in the upper Rio Nutria drainage in the Zuni River
watershed in west-central New Mexico (Carman 2008, pp. 2-3). The
Kinlichee Creek, Canyon de Chelly, and Rio Nutria areas are completely
isolated and separate from one another.
New Mexico Distribution
The Zuni bluehead sucker was first found in the Zuni River
watershed in west-central New Mexico (Smith 1966, p. 83; Smith et al.
1983, p. 37; Crabtree and Buth 1987, p. 843; Propst and Hobbes 1996, p.
7; Propst 1999, p. 49). The Zuni River watershed extends west from the
continental divide, and across the Pueblo of Zuni tribal lands. The
Zuni River then drains into the Little Colorado River in Arizona west
of the Zuni reservation. Within the Zuni River watershed, Zuni bluehead
sucker have been known to occur in the Zuni River, in the Rio Pescado
and Rio Nutria (from the mouth of Rio Nutria Box Canyon near the
eastern boundary of the Zuni Indian Reservation upstream), and in some
of their tributaries (the headwaters in the Zuni mountains) that
include Tampico Spring and Agua Remora (formerly known as Radosevich
Creek) (Hanson 1980, p. 1; Propst et al. 2001, p. 161). Elsewhere in
the Zuni River drainage, the Zuni bluehead sucker is rare or absent.
Flow is intermittent in the Zuni River, Rio Pescado, and Rio Nutria.
Zuni bluehead sucker numbers have been starkly reduced in the Zuni
River watershed in New Mexico, largely due to 27 chemical treatments
during the 1960s to remove green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) and
fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) from the Rio Nutria to aid in the
establishment of a rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) sport fishery in
reservoirs on Zuni Pueblo (Winter 1979, p. 4). These treatments
eliminated the Zuni bluehead sucker from most of the Zuni River
drainage (Winter 1979, p. 4). As a result, by the late 1970s, the Zuni
bluehead sucker's range in New Mexico had been reduced. While records
are largely incomplete, it is known that a population of Zuni bluehead
suckers near the mouth of the Rio Nutria Box Canyon was extirpated and
that substantial numbers were also eliminated in other reaches of the
Rio Nutria and Pescado drainages (NMDGF 2004, p. 16).
The Zuni bluehead sucker has not been collected from the mainstem
Zuni River since 1978 or from the Rio Pescado since 1993. Currently,
much of the lower portions of historical habitat in the Zuni River and
Rio Pescado are dry during certain times of the year. Continued
monitoring of these streams since 2004 has confirmed the extirpation of
the Zuni bluehead sucker from these rivers (NMDGF 2004, p. 4; Carman
2007, p. 1; 2008, p. 1; 2009, p. 1). Additionally, Cebolla Creek, a
Zuni River tributary, was surveyed in 1979, and no Zuni bluehead
suckers were found, although habitat appeared suitable (Hanson 1980,
pp. 29, 34).
The population of Zuni bluehead suckers in the Rio Nutria was
maintained by dispersal of individuals from upstream untreated reaches,
such as Agua Remora (Winter 1979, p. 4; Propst 1999, pp. 49-50), and so
the Zuni bluehead sucker currently persists in three semi-isolated
populations over 4.8 kilometers (km) (3 miles (mi)), mainly upstream of
the mouth of the Rio Nutria Box Canyon (Propst 1999, pp. 49-50; Propst
et al. 2001, p. 168; Carman 2008, pp. 2-3). Within this area, it is
most common near the Rio Nutria Box Canyon mouth, the confluence of the
Rio Nutria and Tampico Draw, and headwater springs such as Agua Remora
and Tampico Springs (Stroh and Propst 1993, p. 34; Propst and Hobbes
1996, p. 10; Propst 1999, p. 50; Propst et al. 2001, p. 162; Carman
2007, p. 1; 2008, p. 1; 2009, p. 2; 2010, p. 1; Gilbert and Carman
2011, p. 1). Within the 4.8-km (3-mi) occupied reach, the largest
extent of perennial stream with limited levels of siltation is
currently found in the Rio Nutria Box Canyon, from the confluence with
Tampico Draw downstream to the canyon mouth.
Recently, bluehead suckers were found in Bowl Canyon Creek (also
known as Asaayi Creek) in New Mexico (Sponholtz et al. 2003, p. 20;
David 2006, p. 2), which were initially reported as C. discobolus
(Sponholtz et al. 2003, pp. 18-22; Clarkson and Marsh 2006, pp. 1-3),
but their proximity to Crystal Creek, part of the Canyon de Chelly
National Monument complex, indicates they may also be members of the
Zuni bluehead sucker subspecies. However, there are no direct stream
connections and they have not yet been genetically analyzed (Service
2012a, pers. comm.). Therefore, at this time we are not currently
considering bluehead suckers in Bowl Canyon Creek to be Zuni bluehead
sucker.
Population Status of the Species in New Mexico
The results from numerous survey efforts confirm that Zuni bluehead
sucker populations in New Mexico are fragmented and low in numbers.
Fish surveys have been conducted within the Zuni River watershed from
1977 to 1979, 1984, 1990 to 1993, 2000 to 2001, and every year since
2004 (Winter 1977, p. 1; Hanson 1980, p. 29; Stefferud 1985, p. 1;
Propst and Hobbes 1996, p. 14, Carman 2010, pp. 13-15, Gilbert and
Carman 2011, p. 23). No information on catch and effort is available
prior to 1991; therefore, we may only make qualitative comparisons of
the number of Zuni bluehead sucker collected over time for data prior
to 1991. The number of fish over time is not a reliable method to
evaluate population trends due to variability in sampling effort.
Instead, catch per unit effort, or catch rates (i.e.,
[[Page 5372]]
number of fish per second of electrofishing) is a better metric for
evaluating population trends and is how we assess the species' status
after 1991 in this proposed rule. While catch per unit effort is
valuable for assessing trends over time, it does not allow us to
develop overall population estimates for the species.
In Tampico Draw, a tributary to Rio Nutria, Zuni bluehead sucker
numbers declined dramatically, presumably due to beaver (Castor
canadensis) dams (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 20), in 2006 from as high
as 0.12 suckers per second (Carman 2006, p. 8) to 0.004 suckers per
second (Carman 2007, p. 9) but appeared to rebound somewhat in 2009
(0.07 suckers per second) (Carman 2010, p. 15), after high spring flows
washed out the beaver dams, creating more suitable habitat for Zuni
bluehead sucker (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 5). Larval Zuni bluehead
suckers have been confirmed in the Rio Nutria and its headwater
springs, including Tampico Draw, each year between 2007 and 2010,
indicating successful spawning (Carman 2008, p. 1; Carman 2009, p. 18;
Carman 2010, p. 15; Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 1).
Although we cannot make statistical comparisons due to the lack of
quantitative data prior to 1991, the number of Zuni bluehead suckers
collected from Agua Remora in the Rio Nutria drainage on the Cibola
National Forest has declined since 1977. The number of Zuni bluehead
suckers captured declined from 150 in 1977 (Winter 1977, p. 1) to 16
individuals in 2010 (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 23). Although the
numbers are extremely low, Zuni bluehead suckers have persisted at Agua
Remora, with fish catch rates ranging from 0.02 Zuni bluehead suckers
per second to 0.12 fish per second (Carman 2010, p. 15). Young (less
than 5 cm (2 in) total length) Zuni bluehead suckers have not been
observed in the Agua Remora headwater spring habitat, and only mature
adults were present there in 2005, 2006, and 2008 (Carman 2006, p. 8;
Carman 2007, p. 13; Carman 2009, p. 14).
In 2007, permission to sample Tampico Springs, within the Rio
Nutria drainage, was granted for the first time since 1994 (Carman
2008, p. 11); it has been sampled annually since. The spring consists
of a series of semi-isolated pools occupied only by Zuni bluehead
sucker. Zuni bluehead suckers at the headwater spring are smaller than
at other sites, ranging 2.2-12.8 cm (0.9-5.0 in) total length (Carman
2009, p. 12). Tampico Springs catch rates have been declining
consistently in recent years; while this site once exhibited the
highest catch rates for the species, at 0.60 suckers per second in 2007
(Carman 2008, p. 10), numbers have since declined, with 0.22 fish
caught per second in 2008 (Carman 2009, p. 12), 0.15 fish per second in
2009 (Carman 2010, p. 15), and 0.16 fish per second in 2010 (Gilbert
and Carman 2011, p. 23). Despite the declines at Tampico Spring, this
site maintains the highest catch rates among sites within the Rio
Nutria and its headwaters (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 20).
In summary, the Zuni bluehead sucker currently persists in three
semi-isolated populations over 4.8 km (3 mi), and fish surveys from
1990 to 2009 show that Zuni bluehead sucker populations in headwater
springs like Aqua Remora and upper Rio Nutria have declined
significantly from numbers seen in the 1970s. In the 1990s, the
population at the Zuni River confluence with Rio Nutria and Rio Pescado
was declining, and the populations in the Rio Pescado and lower Zuni
River were almost depleted (Stroh and Propst 1993, p. 1). The Zuni
bluehead sucker has not been collected from the Zuni River or Rio
Pescado since 1993 (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 1). In occupied areas,
dispersal from upstream populations (i.e., Rio Nutria) may augment
downstream populations, but both downstream and upstream movement is
generally blocked by physical obstructions, such as natural waterfalls,
irrigation diversions, and impoundments (Propst et al. 2001, p. 168).
The irregular occurrence of the Zuni bluehead sucker in reaches
downstream from the mouth of Rio Nutria Canyon (Rio Nutria, Zuni, and
Pescado Rivers) indicates limited downstream dispersal from currently
occupied stream reaches. No Zuni bluehead suckers were found in the Rio
Nutria between the canyon mouth and the confluence of the Rio Pescado.
Arizona Distribution
In Arizona, Zuni bluehead suckers are found on the Navajo Indian
Reservation in two areas. First we will discuss the Kinlichee Creek
area, which includes an area of the Little Colorado watershed west of
Ft. Defiance, Arizona, in several locations over a 47-km (29-mi) area
(Smith et al. 1983, p. 39; Crabtree and Buth 1987, p. 843; Hobbes 2000,
pp. 9-16) and which includes Kinlichee Creek, Red Clay Wash, Black Soil
Wash, and Scattered Willow Wash. Next we will discuss the Canyon de
Chelly area, which includes Wheatfields, Whiskey, Tsaile, Sonsela, and
Crystal Creeks.
Results from genetic analyses of the bluehead sucker indicate that
samples from Kinlichee Creek (Black Soil Wash) share genetic markers
(markers identify the place of genes that are located at specific
positions on specific chromosomes that are used in genetic analyses)
with Zuni bluehead sucker from New Mexico (Service 2012a, pers. comm.).
The available genetic information indicates that bluehead suckers from
the Kinlichee Creek area (see further discussion below) are Zuni
bluehead sucker (Dowling 2011, p. 1). Therefore, based on our review of
the genetic information above, we consider the bluehead suckers in
Kinlichee Creek and its tributaries to be Zuni bluehead suckers. We are
aware that this information is being prepared for publication (Dowling
2012, p. 1). Because the genetic information has not yet been
published, the Navajo Nation still considers these fish to be bluehead
suckers (C. discobolus).
Zuni bluehead sucker survey efforts have been more irregular in
Arizona than in New Mexico. Populations of Zuni bluehead sucker are
currently found in several locations over approximately 47 km (29 mi)
of Kinlichee Creek (Smith et al. 1983, p. 39; Crabtree and Buth 1987,
p. 843; Hobbes 2000, pp. 9-16). It is unlikely that the whole length of
Kinlichee Creek is occupied, because the streams are susceptible to
drying during drought. In addition, no comprehensive surveys have been
done along this stream reach. Within the watershed, the species occurs
in Kinlichee Creek, Black Soil Wash, Red Clay Wash, and Scattered
Willow Wash based on collections made in 2000, 2001, 2004, and 2010
(Hobbes 2000, pp. 9-16; Hobbes 2001a, pp. 38, 43; Hobbes 2001b, entire;
Carman 2004, pp. 1-8; Johnson 2010a, p. 1).
Near Canyon de Chelly in northeast Arizona and northwest New
Mexico, Zuni bluehead sucker occur in the Chinle watershed, which flows
into the San Juan River; we will refer to fish from this area as Canyon
de Chelly fish. Zuni bluehead sucker occur in Coyote Wash, Sonsela (=
Canyon de Chelly Creek), Crystal, Whiskey, and Wheatfields creeks on
the Navajo Indian Reservation (Sponholtz et al. 2003, p. 4; David 2006,
pp. 2-3, 12, 34), and in Tsaile Creek downstream of Tsaile Dam within
Canyon de Chelly National Monument (Clarkson and Marsh 2006, p. 1;
David 2006, p. 2). Sonsela and Whiskey Creek flow into Canyon de
Chelly, and Wheatfields Creek flows into Wheatfields Lake (Sponholtz et
al. 2003, p. 4). These streams originate along the western slope of the
Chuska Mountains, New Mexico, and eventually drain into the San Juan
River.
The presence of bluehead suckers in Tsaile and Wheatfields creeks
in
[[Page 5373]]
Canyon de Chelly National Monument was known prior to 1966, when Smith
(1966, p. 77) included specimens from those creeks in his analysis of
suckers, determining these suckers were bluehead suckers. He called out
the Zuni River specimens of bluehead suckers as being different from
the standard C. discobolus that included the Canyon de Chelly specimens
(Smith 1966, p. 83). Subsequently, Smith et al. (1983, pp. 38-39)
looked more closely at the Zuni bluehead sucker and included specimens
from Whiskey Creek in Canyon de Chelly. After evaluation, those
specimens were not considered at the time to be Zuni bluehead suckers
(Smith et al. 1983, p. 39). Outside of Canyon de Chelly but within
close proximity, Wheatfields Creek is the only stream known to contain
fish with Zuni bluehead sucker genes (Service 2012a, pers. comm.);
however, because of habitat connectivity and potential for genetic
interchange, it is likely that bluehead suckers within Tsaile, Sonsela,
Crystal, and Whiskey creeks also contain Zuni bluehead sucker genes
based on collections between 2001 and 2010 (see genetic discussion
above) (Service 1982, pp. 2-3; Hobbes 2001a, pp. 24, 29, 31, 34;
Sponholtz et al. 2003, pp. 18-22; Carman 2004, pp. 9-18; Clarkson and
Marsh 2006, p. 3; David 2006, p. 3; Johnson 2010b, p. 1; Johnson 2010c,
p. 1). Therefore, we consider bluehead suckers in these creeks also to
be Zuni bluehead sucker because they are within reasonable distance of
each other and are likely exchanging genes (Service 2012a, pers.
comm.). We presume Zuni bluehead sucker once occurred in Palisades and
Little Whiskey Creeks, both tributaries to Whiskey Creek, but
impoundments and other barriers eliminated the entire fish community in
both streams prior to 1980 (Service 1982, p. 4). Palisades Creek has
been documented to be dry in recent years (Carman 2004, p. 9).
Population Status of the Species in Arizona
For several years (2000, 2001, and 2004), Zuni bluehead sucker
surveys were conducted in the Kinlichee Creek watershed in Arizona on
the Navajo Indian Reservation (Hobbes 2001a, entire; Carman 2004,
entire). These were historical collection sites that had not been
sampled since 1987 when the Zuni bluehead sucker was last documented by
Crabtree and Buth (1987, p. 851). The species was collected in low
numbers in Kinlichee Creek, Red Clay Wash, Black Soil Wash, and
Scattered Willow Wash. More recently, collections occurred in Black
Soil Wash and Kinlichee Creek, with 184 Zuni bluehead sucker collected
from Black Soil Wash and 21 from Kinlichee Creek (Kitcheyan and Mata
2012, p. 6), indicating the species' continued presence in these
streams. Additionally, in the Canyon de Chelly area, recent collections
have occurred in Wheatfields, Whiskey, Tsaile, Sonsela, and Crystal
Creeks. Because these were only presence/absence surveys, we have no
population information for the Arizona stream reaches.
Summary of Zuni Bluehead Sucker Distribution
Zuni bluehead sucker rangewide distribution has been reduced by
over 90 percent in the last 20 years (Propst 1999, p. 51, NMDGF 2004,
p. 15). The Zuni bluehead sucker is now found in low numbers in the
Kinlichee Creek and Canyon de Chelly areas in Arizona (Hobbes 2000, pp.
9-16; Albert 2001, pp. 10-14; David 2006, p. 35) and is restricted to
three isolated populations in the upper Rio Nutria drainage in west-
central New Mexico (Carman 2008, pp. 2-3).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The principal threats to Zuni bluehead sucker habitat include water
withdrawal, sedimentation, impoundments, housing development, wildfire,
and climate change. These threats are intensified by the species' small
range. Severe degradation to watersheds occupied by Zuni bluehead
sucker has occurred through excessive timber harvest, overgrazing, and
road construction. Although most of these activities occurred in the
late 1800s and early 1900s, the subsequent erosion, gullying,
headcutting, and loss of water have continued to degrade habitat for
the Zuni bluehead sucker (NMDGF 2004, p. 18).
Water Withdrawal
Surface and groundwater withdrawal result in the direct loss of
habitat as well as fragmentation of Zuni bluehead sucker habitat by
reducing stream flow and/or water depth. Reduced stream velocities
result in increased sedimentation, while overall loss of wetted habitat
strands Zuni bluehead suckers in isolated shallow pools that may not
provide suitable hard substrates for feeding and reproduction. Loss of
appropriate habitat may decrease the reproductive success of Zuni
bluehead sucker and result in mortality of individuals. Historically,
water withdrawals led to the conversion of large portions of flowing
streams to intermittent streams or dewatered channels, thus eliminating
suitable Zuni bluehead sucker habitat in affected areas (NMDGF 2004, p.
12). Water withdrawals that lead to dewatering or reduced river flows
or pool levels reduce the available habitat for the species.
Groundwater withdrawal can cause reduction or loss of spring flow
(Brune 2002, p. 356). Currently, the Zuni River, the Rio Pescado, and
the Rio Nutria flow intermittently, except for short reaches that flow
perennially in response to discharge from springs. These streams are
dependent on spring discharges, and the drainages contain various
springs across the Zuni tribal lands (Orr 1987, p. 37; Drakos and
Riesterer 2009, p. 96). Since spring ecosystems rely on water
discharged to the surface from underground aquifers, groundwater
depletion can result in the destruction of riverine habitat through
spring drying (Scudday 1977, pp. 515-516). Spring drying or flow
reduction resulting from groundwater pumping has also been documented
in the Roswell (August 9, 2005; 70 FR 46304) and Mimbres Basins
(Summers 1976, pp. 62, 65) of New Mexico. In addition, there has been a
general declining trend in spring flow found on Zuni Tribal lands
between 1972 and 2009 (Drakos and Riesterer 2009, p. 96). The lowermost
pool in Agua Remora had reduced water depths in 2005 and nearly dried
in 2007 and 2009; Zuni bluehead suckers were salvaged from this area
and moved upstream to the middle pool or taken to the Albuquerque
BioPark for a rearing program (Carman 2008, p. 17; Carman 2009, p. 24).
Groundwater use in the range of the Zuni bluehead sucker is
expected to increase due to human population expansion. In early 2007,
a development
[[Page 5374]]
company (Tampico Springs 3000, LLC), presented a preliminary plat to
McKinley County, New Mexico, for Tampico Springs Ranch Subdivision. The
subdivision is located just northeast of currently occupied Zuni
bluehead sucker habitat. The subdivision would have a total of 490
lots, varying from 1.2 to 4.8 hectares (ha) (3 to 11.9 acres (ac)),
each with an individual well and septic system. An increase in the
number of wells would affect aquifer drawdowns, and individual septic
tanks could potentially lead to water quality concerns. The
geohydrologic investigation report, prepared for Phase I of the
subdivision, states that water withdrawal is likely to affect flow at
Brennan and Tampico Springs (MJDarrconsult, Inc. 2007, p. 26). In
January 2008, the plat for Phase I of the subdivision was approved by
McKinley County with conditions, including metering of water wells to
enforce the 0.3 acre-ft per year per household restriction (Carman
2008, p. 17). Construction of Phase I has begun, with 17 of 45 lots
sold (First United Realty 2012, p. 1).
In Arizona, existing water withdrawals throughout the Navajo Indian
Reservation are generally for water haulers (people who collect water
in tanks and transport it to another location for use); domestic and
municipal use; water storage facilities; commercial, agricultural,
mining and industry uses;, recreation and wildlife; and wastewater
management. Water withdrawals have been documented on the Navajo Indian
Reservation for many years. Water levels in wells in the Black Mesa
area have declined as much as 70 ft (21.3 m) since 1963 (Littin 1992,
p. 1). As of 2003, there were 75 livestock wells on the Navajo Indian
Reservation, in both alluvial (connected to the river) and deep water
aquifers (Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources 2003, p. 40).
Currently, near Tsaile Creek, over 600 ac (242 ha) are developed for
irrigation, but only 100 ac (40 ha) are irrigated due to water
shortages; most of this water is diverted from Tsaile Creek (Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2000, p. 37). Additionally, water
in Kinlichee Creek has been noted as very low in recent years
(Kitcheyan and Mata 2012, p. 3), and Palisades Creek, Scattered Willow
Wash, Black Soil Wash, and Kinlichee Creek have been intermittent
several years in a row (Carman 2004, pp. 2, 8; Kitcheyan and Mata 2012,
p. 3). These low water events are exacerbated by continued water
withdrawal in the region. Given past groundwater use and the likelihood
of continued drought (see Climate Change, below), groundwater declines
will likely continue into the future.
In summary, water withdrawals have affected the Zuni bluehead
sucker rangewide in the past, resulting in dry streambeds or very low
water levels in the lower Rio Nutria, Rio Pescado, Zuni River, and Agua
Remora in New Mexico and in Palisades Creek, Scattered Willow Wash, and
Kinlichee Creek in Arizona. Based on our review of the available
information, we conclude that the effects of water withdrawal are a
continuing threat to the Zuni bluehead sucker habitat across its range
and as a result are negatively impacting the species.
Sedimentation
Sedimentation occurs when particles suspended in the water column
fall out of suspension and cover the streambed, filling in spaces
between substrate particles. Sedimentation results in the loss of
suitable habitat and available food resources for Zuni bluehead sucker.
Fine sediments, in particular, reduce or prevent production of algae,
the Zuni bluehead sucker's primary food. Research has shown that heavy
sediment loads have the potential to limit algae production by
restricting light penetration or smothering (Graham 1990, pp. 107-109,
113-114). If mobilized during the spawning season, fine sediments may
also smother and suffocate recently spawned eggs (Propst and Hobbes
1996, p. 39). The reproductive successes of fishes that require clean
gravel substrate have been reduced by increased sedimentation due to
smothering of eggs, which may be the case for Zuni bluehead sucker
(Berkman and Rabeni 1987, p. 285; Propst and Hobbes 1996, p. 38).
Increasing sedimentation in Agua Remora and Rio Nutria has led to the
loss of optimal Zuni bluehead sucker habitat (permanent, clear flowing
water over hard substrate). Sedimentation throughout the range of Zuni
bluehead sucker is primarily caused by logging, livestock grazing, and
road construction; these are discussed in detail below.
Logging
Logging activities in the early to mid-1800s likely caused major
changes in watershed characteristics and stream morphology (Chamberlin
et al. 1991, pp. 181-205; Ohmart 1996, p. 259). Early logging efforts
were often concentrated along canyon bottoms with perennial streams.
Tree removal along perennial streams within the historical range of
Zuni bluehead sucker likely altered water temperature regimes, sediment
loading, bank stability, and availability of large woody debris
(Chamberlin et al. 1991, pp. 181-205). Soil surface erosion from
logging or logging activities is directly related to the amount of bare
compacted areas exposed to rainfall and runoff, which then contributes
large quantities of fine sediments to stream channels (Chamberlin et
al. 1991, p. 193). For example, in the early 1890s, logging and
presence of logging railroads were widespread within the Zuni
Mountains, which supported several lumber towns (NRCS) 1998, p. 17).
Extensive clearcutting and overgrazing were the primary contributors to
the reduction of the original riparian vegetation by 70 to 90 percent
in the Zuni Mountains (Ohmart 1996, p. 259). Logging is actively
practiced on both private and public lands within the Zuni watershed
(NRCS 1998, p. 17). For example, in 2012, the Forest Service funded the
Zuni Mountain Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration project, which
will increase logging to reduce fire risk in the Rio Puerco and Rio
Nutria watersheds over the next 10 years (Forest Service 2012, pp. 1-
2). Ultimately, the reduction in fire risk in these watersheds is
likely to benefit the Zuni bluehead sucker; however, the short-term
increase in logging is likely to increase sedimentation in these
watersheds.
In Arizona, on the Navajo Indian Reservation, timber operations
began in the 1880s (Einbender-Velez 2010, p. 2). In the 1980s, cutting
increased significantly to about 36 million board-feet per year
(Atencio 1994, p. 2). In 1990, Tsaile Canyon, which encompasses a Zuni
bluehead sucker population, was heavily logged, with all of the old
growth forest and many of the saplings removed (Atencio 1994, p. 2).
However, the Navajo Forest Products Industry shut down in 1994, and
timber harvesting has been much reduced.
In summary, sedimentation from logging has historically affected
Zuni bluehead sucker habitat rangewide, resulting in unsuitable
habitat. Logging rates have reduced in recent years but will continue
into the future, particularly in the Rio Puerco and Rio Nutria
watersheds over the next decade, which will likely impact Zuni bluehead
sucker habitat.
Livestock Grazing
Livestock grazing has been one of the most widespread and long-term
causes of adverse impacts to native fishes and their habitat (Miller
1961, pp. 394-395, 399; Armour et al. 1991; pp. 7-10; Fleischner 1994,
pp. 629-635; Larsen et al. 1998, pp. 161, 164). Widespread livestock
grazing and logging likely contributed to habitat modifications,
[[Page 5375]]
resulting in severe degradation of the Zuni watershed (Hanson 1982, p.
14; NRCS 1998, p. 1; NMDGF 2004, p. 12). Livestock grazing has been
shown to increase soil compaction, decrease water infiltration rates,
increase runoff, change vegetative species composition, decrease
riparian vegetation, increase stream sedimentation, increase stream
water temperature, decrease fish populations, and change channel form
(Meehan and Platts 1978, pp. 275-276; Kauffman and Krueger 1984, pp.
430-435; Schulz and Leininger 1990, p. 295; Platts 1991, pp. 393-403;
Fleischner 1994, pp. 629-635; Ohmart 1996, pp. 246-274). Although
direct impacts to the riparian zone and stream can be the most obvious
sign of livestock grazing, upland watershed condition influences the
timing and amount of water delivered to stream channels (Ohmart 1996,
pp. 260, 268). Increased soil compaction and decreased vegetative cover
lead to faster delivery of water to stream channels, increased peak
flows, and lower summer base flow (Platts 1991, p. 390; Ohmart 1996, p.
255; Belsky and Blumenthal 1997, pp. 321, 324). As a consequence,
streams are more likely to experience flood events during monsoonlike
weather in summer (water runs off quickly instead of soaking into the
ground) that negatively affects the riparian and aquatic habitats.
Therefore, heavily grazed streams are more likely to become
intermittent or dry in September and October, when groundwater recharge
is reduced because water runs off quickly, rather than being absorbed
by the soil (Ohmart 1996, p. 268).
Improper livestock grazing increases sedimentation through
trampling of the stream banks and compacting soil, both of which can
result in a reduction or elimination of riparian vegetation, which can
be detrimental to stream habitat. Riparian vegetation insulates streams
from temperature extremes in both summer and winter. Further, it
filters sediment so that it does not enter the stream; sediment can
lead to reduction or prevention of algal growth and smothering of newly
spawned eggs (Propst and Hobbes 1996, p. 38). Riparian vegetation also
provides a source of nutrients to the stream from leaf litter, which
increases stream productivity, and it contributes root wads and large
and small woody debris to the stream, which provide cover for the fish
(Kauffman and Krueger 1984, pp. 430-431; Platts 1991, pp. 395-400;
Ohmart 1996, pp. 247-249).
The Cibola National Forest (Forest) commissioned the Zuni Mountain
Sucker Habitat Management Plan ``to protect, and to enhance, where
possible, habitat of threatened and endangered species within the
confines of the Forest'' (Winter 1979, p. 3). In 1978 and 1979, the
Forest fenced off Agua Remora from grazing, which resulted in marked
regrowth of the riparian area (Merkel 1979, p. 15; Stefferud 1985, p.
1). In 1988, the NMDGF Share with Wildlife program partnered with the
Forest to increase the fenced area, doubling the amount of protected
habitat. However, the fence is occasionally in disrepair leading to
unauthorized grazing in Agua Remora, and the fence is only checked if
there is evidence of grazing within Agua Remora. A recent field trip to
Agua Remora identified that the fence was in disrepair, and five cows
were on the site; the riparian area had lost vegetative cover (Gilbert
2012, p. 1). Additionally, there are several active grazing allotments
north of Agua Remora, with the closest being 2.4 km (1.5 mi) away;
livestock grazing also occurs on nearby private land.
During the 1930s, in Arizona, on the Navajo Indian Reservation,
nearly one million livestock (sheep, goats, horses, or cattle) ranged
across the landscape, exposing soil and increasing erosion (Weisiger
2007, p. 440). Grazing continues today throughout the entire Navajo
Indian Reservation, although herd numbers are much lower than in the
early 1900s. Although grazing has been reduced, the continuing drought
has exacerbated effects of depleted forage, and the livestock numbers
are considered to be overpopulated, (Davis 2012, p. 1). Additionally,
cultural resistance to fencing on the Navajo Indian Reservation (Beatty
Davis 1997, p. 49) creates a challenge for range management and stream
protection. Direct access to streams and overgrazing by livestock on
the Navajo Indian Reservation has been documented repeatedly (Sanchez
1975, p. 1, Service 1982, pp. 3-4; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995,
p. 3; Hobbes 2000, p. 14; NMDGF 2003, pp. 6, 13; Sponholtz et al. 2003,
pp. 25-26; David 2006, pp. 4, 20; Kitcheyan and Mata 2012, p. 3).
Overall, both historic and current livestock grazing within the
riparian zone and upland slopes has reduced vegetative cover and
accelerated storm runoff and sediment into reservoirs and increased
erosion in areas such as Tsaile Creek (Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
2011, p. 22).
In summary, Zuni bluehead sucker habitat near or adjacent to areas
where livestock grazing occurs is significantly impacted. The resulting
habitat degradation is a threat to the remaining Zuni bluehead sucker
populations in New Mexico and Arizona. The available information
indicates that these activities likely contributed to the reduction in
riparian habitat, channel incision, and increased soil compaction,
which resulted in unfavorable habitat conditions for Zuni bluehead
sucker foraging or reproduction. Such unfavorable habitat conditions
affect populations by reducing their viability. Based on our review of
the available information we conclude that the effects of livestock
grazing are a threat to Zuni bluehead sucker habitat, and the species,
throughout its entire range.
Road Construction
Roads have adversely affected Zuni bluehead sucker habitat by
increasing surface runoff and sedimentation, which can increase
turbidity, reduce primary production, and reduce numbers of aquatic
insects (Burns 1972, p. 1; Eaglin and Hubert 1993, pp. 844-845). Roads
require instream structures, such as culverts and bridges that remove
aquatic habitat and can act as barriers to fish movement (Warren and
Pardew 1998, p. 637). All of these activities negatively impact Zuni
bluehead suckers and their habitat by lowering water quality, reducing
the quality and quantity of pools by filling them with sediments,
reducing the quantity of large woody debris necessary to form pools,
and by imposing barriers to movement. The end result is deterioration
of habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker (Burns 1972, p. 1; Eaglin and
Hubert 1993, pp. 844-845).
Vehicular use of roads in creek bottoms can degrade Zuni bluehead
sucker habitat. Such use inhibits riparian plant growth, breaks down
banks, causes erosion, causes sedimentation, and increases turbidity in
the stream, particularly where vehicles drive through the stream
(especially immediately downstream of the vehicular activity). These
effects are likely to result in wider and shallower stream channels
(Furniss et al. 1991, pp. 297-301). This change causes progressive
adjustments in other variables of hydraulic geometry and results in
changes to the configuration of pools, runs, riffles, and backwaters;
levels of fine sediments and substrate embeddedness (the degree to
which rocks and cobble are stuck in the streambed); availability of
instream cover; and other fish habitat requirements in the vicinity of
vehicle crossings (Sullivan et al. 1987, pp. 67, 69-70; Rosgen 1994, p.
185). It also changes the way in which flood flows interact with the
stream channel and may exacerbate flood damage to banks, channel
bottoms, and riparian vegetation.
Road construction activities may have direct adverse effects on the
watershed
[[Page 5376]]
from soil erosion and sedimentation to the streams. Aerial photographs
from 1935 and 1991 showed road density in the Cebolla and Rio Nutria
watersheds rose 138 and 47 percent, respectively (NMDGF 2004, p. 12).
Forest Road 50, which is in the upper watershed of Zuni bluehead sucker
habitat (approximately 5 km (3 mi) away from the closest occupied
habitat), was upgraded in 1999, and several roads were developed in
2007 for the Tampico Springs Subdivision. Currently, the US Forest
Service proposes to allow McKinley County to upgrade Forest Road 191D
with gravel surface material (Forest Service 2011, p. i), which may
increase vehicle traffic and surface runoff. This road is approximately
3 km (2 mi) from Agua Remora and 1.6 km (1 mi) from Tampico Springs
(Forest Service 2011, p. 44).
On the Navajo Indian Reservation, past road construction continues
to affect stream habitat. On Kinlichee Creek, for example, Bridge BR
280 constricts the channel considerably, which increases flow rates,
channel scouring, and downstream deposition of sediment (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers 1995, p. 3). Sedimentation from road construction
has occurred throughout the range of Zuni bluehead sucker in the past
and is likely to continue in the future.
In summary, historical logging, overgrazing by livestock, and road
construction have destroyed much of the groundcover across the Zuni
bluehead sucker's range (Sanchez 1975, pp. 1, 4; Beatty Davis 1997, pp.
3, 7; NMDGF 2004, p. 12; BOR 2011, p. 22), resulting in increased
erosion, increased stream flow fluctuation, and the accumulation of
large quantities of sediment throughout Zuni bluehead sucker habitat
(Merkel 1979, p. 4). Livestock grazing and road construction are likely
to continue at present rates throughout the species' range, and logging
is likely to continue at reduced rates. Sedimentation results in
depressed reproductive rates and inhibition of algal growth for food.
Therefore, based on our review of the available information, we
conclude that the effects of sedimentation are a threat to the Zuni
bluehead sucker and its habitat rangewide.
Dams/Impoundments
Much of the primary water use from the Zuni River watershed is for
irrigation of agriculture, livestock grazing, and human consumption.
Many small impoundments, built primarily for watering livestock,
partially prevent flows from reaching the mainstem rivers. According to
Merkel (1979, p. 1), the lower Rio Nutria, Rio Pescado, and Zuni River
drainages have been drastically altered by human activities, such as
the construction of many small impoundments for livestock watering.
Reservoirs and diversion dams for irrigation have depleted stream flows
below the dams and inundated stream reaches above the dams (Merkel
1979, p. 1; Hanson 1982, p. 4). Degradation of the upper watershed has
led to increased sedimentation and many of the reservoirs are now only
shallow, eutrophic (nutrient rich) ponds or wetlands with little or no
storage capacity (NMDGF 2004, p. 20). Sediment trapping by these
impoundments has also changed the character of the streams by altering
channel morphology and substrate composition. The lower Rio Nutria was
once a perennial stream with wide meanders bordered by willow and
cottonwood (Populus spp.). After construction of impoundments in the
Rio Nutria below the box canyon meanders, the channel became deeply
incised with predominantly silt or silt-sand substrate, which is
unsuitable for Zuni bluehead sucker. Flow is intermittent between the
ephemeral pools and impoundments. Current habitat conditions are not
favorable for Zuni bluehead sucker in much of the watershed downstream
from the mouth of Rio Nutria Box Canyon, primarily due to impoundments,
dams, and sedimentation from logging and grazing.
On the Navajo Indian Reservation, many small impoundments exist
throughout Zuni bluehead sucker historic habitat, primarily for
irrigation (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995, p. 3). Additionally,
large impoundments have been built on Tsaile and Wheatfields Creeks
(NRCS 2000, pp. 20, 23; BOR 2002, p. 12), which have largely fragmented
Zuni bluehead sucker habitat for miles up and downstream of the
impoundments. Zuni bluehead suckers currently occur downstream of
Tsaile Dam and upstream of Wheatfields Dam (Sponholtz et al. 2003, p.
4).
Additionally, beaver dams affect Zuni bluehead sucker habitat,
particularly in New Mexico. In 2006, beaver activity in Tampico Draw
and Rio Nutria increased greatly, fragmenting much Zuni bluehead sucker
habitat (Carman 2007, p. 1). A marked decrease in captured Zuni
bluehead sucker in Tampico Draw was attributed to increased siltation
and water ponding due to beaver activity (Carman 2007, p. 1). In 2010,
spring flows washed out the beaver dams in Tampico Draw, creating more
suitable habitat for Zuni bluehead sucker (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p.
6). The best available information does not indicate beaver activity is
affecting Zuni bluehead sucker populations in Arizona.
In summary, Zuni bluehead sucker habitat has been reduced rangewide
due to impoundment construction. Impoundments have lasting effects on
stream habitat both up and downstream, subsequently fragmenting fish
populations and decreasing their resiliency and long-term persistence.
Based on our review of the available information, we conclude that the
effects of impoundments are a current threat to Zuni bluehead sucker
and are having rangewide impacts on their habitat.
Housing Developments
Subdivision developments within the range of Zuni bluehead sucker
would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in this watershed.
Impervious surfaces include buildings, roads, and parking lots (Brabec
et al. 2002, p. 499). An increase in the amount of impervious surfaces
could increase the amount of runoff and decrease infiltration rates.
Impacts of urbanization on stormwater runoff can cause changes in land
or stream corridor use, land formations, hydrology, stream hydraulics,
habitat, and sediment transport and storage. Urbanization can cause
changes in fish population composition and distribution due to habitat
changes and lower water table elevations due to groundwater use.
In 2007, the Forest granted an easement to McKinley County for
access across Forest Service land via Forest Road 191D (Forest Service
2010 pp. 1-2). The granting of the right-of-way allows McKinley County
to upgrade and assume maintenance of this road, which provides access
to the upper Rio Nutria watershed. This road may facilitate the
development of the Tampico Springs Ranch subdivision, resulting in
additional sedimentation and potential groundwater loss in the
watershed (Forest Service 2010, p. 17).
In summary, the increases in sedimentation and water withdrawals
that could result from the development of additional phases of the
subdivision are a threat to the Zuni bluehead sucker habitat in Rio
Nutria and Tampico Springs, which constitutes the bulk of the species'
distribution and habitat in New Mexico. As a result, these effects to
habitat are negatively impacting the species.
Wildfires
Wildfires can destroy vegetation along slopes and stream channels
altering the physical properties of the soil. The lack
[[Page 5377]]
of ground cover increases the amount of potential runoff, thereby
increasing the amount of woody debris, sedimentation, and ash entering
the stream (Swanston 1991, pp. 141, 175-177). Indirect effects, such as
ash flow events that follow wildfire during monsoonal seasons can
inundate Zuni bluehead sucker habitat and smother and destroy eggs.
Severe wildfires that extirpate fish populations are a relatively
recent phenomenon and result from the cumulative effects of historical
or ongoing overgrazing by domestic livestock, fire suppression, and
climate change (Madany and West 1983, p. 666; Swetnam 1990, pp. 6-17;
Touchan et al. 1995, p. 272 Swetnam and Baisan 1996, p. 28; Belsky and
Blumenthal 1997, p. 318; Gresswell 1999, p. 212; Brown et al. 2004, p.
366; McKenzie et al. 2004, p. 898; Westerling et al. 2006, p. 943).
Historically, wildfires in the region were primarily cool-burning
understory fires with fire return intervals of 4 to 8 years (Swetnam
and Dieterich 1985, p. 395). Cooper (1960, p. 137) found that, prior to
the 1950s, crown fires (intense fires that completely consume trees and
move forward through tree canopies) were extremely rare or nonexistent
in the region. Since the mid-1980s, wildfire frequency in western
forests is nearly four times the average of 1970 to 1986, and the total
area burned is more than 6.5 times the previous level (Westerling et
al. 2006, p. 941). The average length of fire season increased by 78
days from the 1970 to 1986 period to the 1987 to 2003 period, and the
average time between discovery and control increased from 7.5 days to
37.1 days for the same timeframes (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 941).
McKenzie et al. (2004, p. 893) suggested, based on models, that the
length of the fire season will likely increase further and that fires
in the western United States will be more frequent and more severe. In
particular, they found that fire in New Mexico appears to be acutely
sensitive to summer climate and temperature changes and may respond
dramatically to climate warming.
Changes in relative humidity, especially drying over the western
United States, are also projected to increase the number of days of
high fire danger (Brown et al. 2004, p. 365). Because Zuni bluehead
sucker are found primarily in isolated, small headwater streams, they
are unable to swim away from ash flows, and opportunities for natural
recolonization are unlikely, due to the highly fragmented nature of
Zuni bluehead sucker populations. Persistence of Zuni bluehead sucker
in streams affected by fire and subsequent ash flows is unlikely in the
Zuni watershed. The recently funded Zuni Mountain Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration project is expected to reduce wildfire risk over
22,662 ha (56,000 ac) in the Rio Puerco and Rio Nutria watersheds
(Forest Service 2012, p. 1). Currently, wildfire risk in this area is
considered high (class III), but over the next decade this risk is
expected to be reduced. The available information does not indicate
that wildfire is a threat to populations in Arizona. Therefore, based
on the likelihood that fire risk will be reduced in New Mexico, we do
not consider wildfire to be a threat to Zuni bluehead sucker habitat
rangewide.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30
years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or
longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007a, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been
faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate
system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of
the world and decreases in other regions. (For these and other
examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; and Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54,
82-85). Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that
most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the
mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate,
and is ``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher
probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC
2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; Solomon et al. 2007, pp.
21-35). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by
Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely
that approximately 75 percent of global warming since 1950 has been
caused by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007,
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp.
527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield
very similar projections of increases in the most common measure of
climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as
global warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the
magnitude and rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall
trajectory of all the projections is one of increased global warming
through the end of this century, even for the projections based on
scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline.
Thus, there is strong scientific support for projections that warming
will continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate
of change will be influenced substantially by the extent of GHG
emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44-45; Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764 and
797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp.
527, 529). (See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other global
projections of climate-related changes, such as frequency of heat waves
and changes in precipitation. Also see IPCC 2011(entire) for a summary
of observations and projections of extreme climate events.)
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables
(e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007b, pp. 8-14, 18-19).
Identifying likely effects often involves aspects of climate change
vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a
species (or system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse
effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability is a function of the type, magnitude, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity,
and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al.
2011, pp. 19-22).
[[Page 5378]]
There is no single method for conducting such analyses that applies to
all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment
and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh relevant information,
including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of
climate change.
As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we
conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be
affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it
does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a
species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from,
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information available for us to use.
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections
when they are available and have been developed through appropriate
scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher
resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for
analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a
discussion of downscaling). With regard to our analysis for the Zuni
bluehead sucker, downscaled projections are available.
Climate simulations of Palmer Drought Severity Index (PSDI) (a
calculation of the cumulative effects of precipitation and temperature
on surface moisture balance) for the Southwest for the periods of 2006-
2030 and 2035-2060 predict an increase in drought severity with surface
warming. Additionally, drought still increases during wetter
simulations because of the effect of heat-related moisture loss
(Hoerling and Eischeid 2007, p. 19). Annual mean precipitation is
likely to decrease in the Southwest as well as the length of snow
season and snow depth (IPCC 2007b, p. 887). Most models project a
widespread decrease in snow depth in the Rocky Mountains and earlier
snowmelt (IPCC 2007b, p. 891). Exactly how climate change will affect
precipitation is less certain, because precipitation predictions are
based on continental-scale general circulation models that do not yet
account for land use and land cover change effects on climate or
regional phenomena. Consistent with recent observations in changes from
climate, the outlook presented for the Southwest predicts warmer,
drier, drought-like conditions (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181; Hoerling
and Eischeid 2007, p. 19). A decline in water resources will be a
significant factor in the compromised watersheds of the desert
southwest.
Climate change could affect the Zuni bluehead sucker through
increased temperatures, evaporation, and probability of long-term
drought. However, we are not able to predict with certainty how the
indirect effects of climate change will affect Zuni bluehead sucker
habitats due to a lack of information on the groundwater system that
provides water to the species' spring-fed habitat and large-scale
projections of precipitation that contribute to stream flow. We
conclude that climate change may be a significant stressor that
indirectly exacerbates existing threats by increasing the likelihood of
prolonged drought that would reduce water availability for streamflow
or spring flow and incur future habitat loss. The National Integrated
Drought Information System (2012) classifies drought in increasing
severity categories from abnormally dry, to moderate, severe, extreme,
and, most severe, exceptional. The southwestern United States is
currently experiencing drought conditions classified as moderate to
exceptional. Drought conditions are reported as severe to extreme for
areas occupied by Zuni bluehead sucker in Arizona and New Mexico
(National Integrated Drought Information System 2012).
While Zuni bluehead sucker have survived many droughts in its
evolutionary history, the present status of this species and its
habitat is so degraded that the effects of the drought may be more
difficult for the species to withstand. In some areas of Zuni bluehead
sucker habitat, drought results in lower streamflow or pool habitat,
with consequently warmer water temperatures and more crowded habitats
with potentially higher levels of predation and competition. In other
areas drought reduces flooding, which would normally rejuvenate habitat
and tend to reduce populations of some nonnative species, which are
less adapted to the large floods of Southwest streams (Minckley and
Meffe 1987, pp. 93-104; Stefferud and Rinne 1996, p. 93). As such,
long-term and recurrent drought, as a result of climate change, may
affect Zuni bluehead sucker habitat, but the severity of the threat and
impacts remains uncertain. Therefore, we conclude that long-term
drought, as a result of climate change, is currently a threat to the
Zuni bluehead sucker, and will likely be a threat in the future. In
addition, the impacts from climate change will likely exacerbate the
current and ongoing threat of habitat loss caused by other factors, as
discussed above.
Summary of Factor A
The Zuni bluehead sucker faces a variety of threats throughout its
range in Arizona and New Mexico, including water withdrawals, logging,
livestock grazing, water impoundments, road construction, subdivision
development, and long-term drought. In New Mexico, water withdrawals,
subdivision development, livestock grazing, road construction, logging,
and drought threaten Zuni bluehead suckers and their habitat. In
Arizona, water withdrawals, livestock grazing, road construction, and
drought have affected the Zuni bluehead sucker. These activities, alone
and in combination, contribute to the substantial loss and degradation
of habitat in Arizona and New Mexico.
The changes in the flow regimes and loss of habitat from water
withdrawals, sedimentation, and impoundments have reduced and
eliminated populations of Zuni bluehead sucker in both New Mexico and
Arizona. These conditions, in combination with the predicted worsening
drought conditions due to climate change, will continue to degrade and
eliminate Zuni bluehead sucker habitat.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The Zuni bluehead sucker is not a game fish and does not have
recreational or commercial value. Both the Arizona Game and Fish
Department (AGFD) and NMDGF prohibit collection of the species (NMDGF
1998, p. 11; AGFD 2011, p. 6), although collection of Zuni bluehead
sucker may be authorized by either State by special permit. A limited
amount of scientific collection occurs but does not pose a threat to
Zuni bluehead sucker because it is regulated appropriately by the
States. Recreational angling may occur within occupied Zuni bluehead
sucker habitats, as nonnative crayfish are commonly fished for and used
for bait. Zuni bluehead sucker may be incidentally caught by anglers
targeting other fish, whereby Zuni bluehead suckers can be injured or
killed. However, we do not have any evidence suggesting that the
occasional removal of Zuni bluehead sucker in this manner is a threat
to the species.
[[Page 5379]]
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
In general, fish species are susceptible to a spectrum of diseases,
and the Zuni bluehead sucker is no exception. Diseases could
potentially impact the reproduction, growth, and survival of the Zuni
bluehead sucker. In addition, drought conditions (discussed above) may
cause physiological stress on Zuni bluehead sucker making them more
susceptible to disease.
Black grub, also called black spot (Neascus spp.) is a parasitic
larval fluke that appears as black spots on the body of a fish. Adult
black grub trematodes live in a bird's mouth and produce eggs, which
are swallowed unharmed and released into the water in the bird's feces.
Eggs mature in the water, hatch, and infest mollusks as an intermediate
host. They then migrate into the tissues of a second intermediate host,
which is typically a fish. When the larvae penetrate and migrate into
the tissues of a fish, they cause damage and possibly hemorrhaging. The
larvae then become encapsulated by host tissue and appear as black
spots. The damage caused by one individual black grub is negligible,
but in great numbers they may kill a fish (Lane and Morris 2000, pp. 2-
3; Quist et al. 2007, p. 130). Black grub was found on several Zuni
bluehead suckers in 2005 in the Rio Nutria Box Canyon area (Carman
2006, p. 8). None were seen on fish caught in 2006 or 2007, but black
grub was observed again in the Rio Nutria Box Canyon in 2008 and Agua
Remora in 2008 through 2010 (Carman 2009, p. 9; Gilbert and Carman
2011, p. 17). Because surveys have been intermittent in recent years,
there is no information on whether black grub is present within
occupied habitats of Zuni bluehead sucker in Arizona on the Navajo
Indian Reservation, but black grub does occur within the Little
Colorado River and San Juan River drainages (Hobbes 2001a, pp. 38-39).
Results from investigations on the effects of black grub on other
species of fish have varied; effects have ranged from none, to slowing
growth, to mortality (Hunter and Hunter 1938, pp. 480-481; Vinikour
1977, pp. 83, 88; Lemly and Esch 1984, pp. 475, 488-490; Quist et al.
2007, p. 130). Vinikour (1977, pp. 83, 88) found no effect on longnose
dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) between populations that were infested
with black grub and noninfested population. However, Hunter and Hunter
(1938, pp. 480-481) showed that young black bass (Micropterus dolomieu)
with heavy infestation of black grub lost weight. Young bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus) died due to black grub infestation (Lemly and
Esch 1984, pp. 475, 488-490). The effects of black grub on the Zuni
bluehead sucker are unknown.
There is no published information on other diseases of the Zuni
bluehead sucker, although information is available from the Little
Colorado River and San Juan River watershed for similar species. Asian
tapeworm (Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) and anchor worm (Lernaea) have
been found in the San Juan River system, but neither was found to
infest bluehead suckers (Landye et al. 1999, p. 6). In addition, Landye
et al. (1999, p. 7) also detected the protozoan Ichthyophthirius, but
it was not found to affect bluehead suckers.
The available information does not indicate disease is a threat to
the Zuni bluehead sucker rangewide. However, black grub may be a threat
to the species; this parasite has profound effects on many other
species of fish and it has been detected in Zuni bluehead sucker.
Currently, the best available information indicates that it could be a
threat and additional sampling and studies are needed. We request
information on any potential threat posed by black grub or other
disease to the Zuni bluehead sucker.
Predation
The introduction and spread of nonnative species has been
identified as one of the primary factors in the continuing decline of
native fishes throughout North America and particularly in the
southwestern United States (Miller 1961, pp. 365, 397-398; Lachner et
al. 1970, p. 21; Ono et al. 1983, pp. 90-91; Carlson and Muth 1989, pp.
222, 234; Fuller et al. 1999, p. 1; Propst et al. 2008, pp. 1246-1251;
Pilger et al. 2010, pp. 300, 311-312). Nonnative fish and crayfish are
found throughout the range of the Zuni bluehead sucker.
Nonnative fishes known to occur within the historical range of the
Zuni bluehead sucker include channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus),
fathead minnow, green sunfish, plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), rainbow trout, cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii), northern pike (Esox lucius) brown trout (Salmo
trutta), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), and goldfish (Carassius
auratus) (NMDGF 2003, pp. 2-14; NMDGF 2005, p. 10; David 2006, pp. 7-
15). In particular, nonnative predatory fishes (primarily green
sunfish) have contributed to the displacement or elimination of the
species from portions of its historical range (NMDGF 2004, p. 24).
Predation by green sunfish upon native fishes with the Colorado River
drainage has been well documented (Marsh and Langhorst 1988, p. 65;
Lohr and Fausch 1996, p. 155; Dudley and Matter 2000, pp. 24, 27-28;
Tyus and Saunders 2000, p. 19). Propst et al. (2001, p. 162) documented
few or no Zuni bluehead suckers in areas occupied by green sunfish. The
rarity of small Zuni bluehead suckers in Agua Remora may be due to
green sunfish predation on young Zuni bluehead sucker, limiting
recruitment (Marsh and Langhorst 1988, p. 65; Carman 2008, p. 17). In
2006, green sunfish dominated the catch in Agua Remora (Carman 2007, p.
7), but since that time, dedicated eradication efforts have led to a
significant decline in green sunfish numbers, and larval Zuni bluehead
suckers were observed in 2009 (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 17),
indicating the population was responding positively to the reduced
numbers of green sunfish. The Zuni bluehead sucker occurs only in
stream habitats that are comparatively free of nonnative fishes (Propst
and Hobbes 1996, p. 37; Carman 2009, p. 20). In Arizona, many of these
nonnative predatory fishes occur on the Navajo Indian Reservation
within occupied sites, including Whiskey Creek (Hobbes 2001a, p. 27;
Carman 2004, p. 9), Wheatfields Creek (Hobbes 2001a, p. 32; Carman
2004, p. 15), and Tsaile Creek (Hobbes 2001a, pp. 35-37; Carman 2004,
p. 17), and it is likely that predation of Zuni bluehead sucker is
occurring at these sites.
Other nonnative predatory fish are found within the range of Zuni
bluehead sucker, including fathead minnow, brown trout, rainbow trout,
northern pike, and channel catfish. Predation by these species on
native suckers has been documented in the San Juan River, New Mexico,
and Yampa and Green Rivers, Colorado (Marsh and Brooks 1989, pp. 188,
191; Johnson et al. 1993, p. 1139; Brooks et al. 2000, pp. 75-76, 80;
Ward and Bonar 2003, p. 43).
Two species of nonnative crayfish have been documented in the lower
Colorado River drainage: The northern crayfish (Orconectes virilis) and
red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) (Childs 1999, p. 5). Crayfish
can impact aquatic systems because they are opportunistic omnivores
(eating both animals and plants) (Carpenter 2005, p. 335). Many studies
have demonstrated that introduced crayfish prey upon native fishes and
compete with them for shelter (Rahel and Stein 1988, p. 94; Rahel 1989,
p. 301; Bryan et al. 2002, pp. 49, 55-56; Carpenter 2005, pp. 5, 339).
Crayfish are known to eat fish eggs, especially those bound to the
substrate (Dorn and Mittelbach 2004, p.
[[Page 5380]]
2135), like those of the Zuni bluehead sucker.
The northern crayfish was detected in the Zuni River confluence
with the Rio Pescado, in the Rio Pescado itself, and in the lower end
of Rio Nutria in 2000, 2001, and 2004, respectively (NMDGF 2004, p. 5;
Carman 2009, p. 20). The northern crayfish is also present at occupied
sites of Zuni bluehead sucker on the Navajo Indian Reservation in
Arizona, including Whiskey Creek (Carman 2004, p. 9), Wheatfields Creek
(Hobbes 2001a, p. 30; Carman 2004, p. 12), Black Soil Wash (Carman
2004, p. 4; Kitcheyan and Mata 2012, p. 2), Kinlichee Creek (Kitcheyan
and Mata 2012, p. 2), and Tsaile Creek (Hobbes 2001a, p. 36; Carman
2004, p. 17). The northern crayfish is tolerant of a wide range of
habitats and may be a threat to Zuni bluehead sucker through
competition or predation.
Nonnative fish and crayfish occur throughout the range of the Zuni
bluehead sucker, and in Agua Remora the dominance of green sunfish
appears to be the cause of limited recruitment and population decline.
Given the widespread occurrence of green sunfish and other nonnative
predators across the range of the Zuni bluehead sucker and the low Zuni
bluehead sucker population numbers rangewide, we conclude that
predation is a threat to the Zuni bluehead sucker.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease or Predation
As stated above, NMDGF has begun a green sunfish eradication effort
at Agua Remora, which has significantly lowered the green sunfish
population there, such that larval Zuni bluehead sucker were observed
after implementation of this program, after several years of absence.
Summary of Factor C
In summary, black grub has been documented throughout the range of
the species and is known to adversely affect or kill fish. In addition,
nonnative predatory fish, particularly green sunfish, have contributed
to the displacement or elimination of the species throughout its range,
and nonnative crayfish are likely preying upon Zuni bluehead sucker
eggs. Therefore, we conclude that disease may be a threat to the Zuni
bluehead sucker and predation is a documented threat to the species.
These threats are already occurring, they affect the species throughout
its range, and they result in the reduced viability of the species
because of the reduced range and low population numbers rangewide.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the Zuni bluehead
sucker discussed under other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any,
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * *.'' In
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of
the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four
factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give
strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to
management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An
example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State
statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist,
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified
threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or
remove threats to the Zuni bluehead sucker.
Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection
for the Zuni bluehead sucker include: (1) New Mexico Wildlife
Conservation Act; (2) Wildlife of Special Concern Act in Arizona; (3)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); (4) National Forest
Management Act; and (5) Zuni Pueblo Law and Order Code.
State Regulations
New Mexico State law provides limited protection to the Zuni
bluehead sucker. The species is listed in New Mexico as endangered,
Group 2, which are those species ``whose prospects of survival or
recruitment within the state are likely to become jeopardized in the
near future'' (NMDGF 1988, p. 1; Bison-M 2012). This designation
provides protection under the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act of
1974 (the State's endangered species act) (19 NMAC 33.6.8), but it only
prohibits direct take of this species, except under issuance of a
scientific collecting permit. A limited amount of scientific collection
occurs but does not pose a threat to Zuni bluehead sucker because it is
regulated appropriately by the State. The New Mexico Wildlife
Conservation Act defines ``take'' or ``taking'' as ``harass, hunt,
capture, or kill any wildlife or attempt to do so'' (17 NMAC 17.2.38).
In other words, New Mexico State status as an endangered species
conveys protection from collection or intentional harm to the animals
themselves but does not provide habitat protection. Penalties for
violations may result in fines up to $1,000 and imprisonment up to 1
year.
The Wildlife of Special Concern Act in Arizona lists the Zuni
bluehead sucker as a candidate species (AGFD 1996, p. 8). Candidate
species are those species or subspecies for which threats are known or
suspected but for which substantial population declines from historical
levels have not been documented (though they appear likely to have
occurred) (AGFD 1996, p. 8). The listing under the State of Arizona law
does not provide protection to the species or their habitats. However,
in 2007, AGFD identified the Zuni bluehead sucker in fishing
regulations as a State-protected native fish that may not be possessed;
however this status still lacks habitat protection (AGFD 2007, p. 1).
Penalties for violations result in a fine.
In Arizona and New Mexico the Zuni bluehead sucker is classified as
a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SCGN) (AGFD 2006, p. 154;
NMDGF 2006, p. 54). New Mexico's SGCN are associated with key habitats
and include low and declining populations and species of high
recreational, economic, or charismatic value (NMDGF 2006, p. 8). No
regulatory protections are afforded based on this designation. Because
there are no provisions for habitat conservation in either State's law,
the existing New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act and the Arizona
Wildlife of Special Concern Act do not address the threat of nonnative
species in the habitat of the Zuni bluehead sucker.
As discussed above (see Factor C. Disease or Predation), the
introduction and spread of nonnative aquatic species is a threat to
Zuni bluehead sucker. The existing regulatory mechanisms in Arizona and
New Mexico do not protect the Zuni bluehead sucker from nonnative
aquatic predators. Regulation of programs to introduce, augment,
spread, or permit such actions do not address the spread of nonnative
species, as many nonnative species
[[Page 5381]]
introductions are conducted through incidental or unregulated actions.
We also searched for State laws or local ordinances that would
include provisions for instream water rights to protect fish and
wildlife and their habitat. New Mexico water rights are regulated by
the Interstate Stream Commission and the Office of State Engineer for
surface and groundwater; New Mexico State law does not allow for
instream flows for fish and wildlife. Instream flows for fish and
wildlife (i.e., water is not diverted for irrigation but remains in the
river to ensure permanent flows) are allowed under Arizona water law;
however, this is a relatively recent provision, and instream water
rights have low priority and are often overcome by more senior
diversion rights. Arizona State law also allows groundwater pumping via
a permit process administered by the Arizona Department of Water
Resources. As discussed above (see the above discussion on water
withdrawals under Factor A), despite this regulation, groundwater
withdrawals have resulted in reduced surface flow in Zuni bluehead
sucker habitat. Therefore, it seems that the Arizona State law does not
adequately protect Zuni bluehead sucker habitat.
Federal Regulations
Many Federal statutes potentially afford protection to Zuni
bluehead sucker. A few of these are the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701-1782) the National Forest Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.). However, in practice, the provisions of these statutes that
require consideration of rare species have not been able to address the
threats to the Zuni bluehead sucker.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act and National Forest
Management Act provide mechanisms for protection and enhancement of
Zuni bluehead sucker and its habitat on Federal lands. The only Zuni
bluehead sucker population on Federal land is in Agua Remora, on the
Cibola National Forest. The National Forest Management Act requires the
Forest Service to prepare management plans for each National Forest; a
plan has been completed for the Cibola National Forest (Forest Service
1985, pp. 17-18). Forest plans must meet the requirements of the
Natural Resources Multiple-Use Act to address such issues as
recreation, range, timber, biological diversity, and economic and
social factors in agency decision making. The 1985 Cibola National
Forest Plan includes a discussion of protection of the Zuni bluehead
sucker. The plan indicated that fencing would protect Zuni bluehead
sucker riparian habitat, but improved range management was needed to
restore the entire watershed. The Forest Service has made minor
progress in protecting the habitat at Agua Remora by fencing the area
to prevent grazing, but as discussed above, fencing has not been
completely effective due to inadequate maintenance of the fences.
Continued monitoring and maintenance of this fence is necessary to
provide sufficient protection to the Zuni bluehead sucker population in
Agua Remora from the effects of livestock grazing.
In addition, the Zuni bluehead sucker is listed as a sensitive
species for the Forest Service's Southwestern Region, which includes
Arizona and New Mexico (USFS 2007, p. 22). The Forest Service intends
to develop and implement management practices to ensure that designated
sensitive species do not become threatened or endangered because of
Forest Service actions. Essentially, sensitive species must receive
special management considerations or protection by the Forest Service
to ensure their viability to preclude trends toward endangerment that
would result in the need for Federal listing. While the Forest Service
has attempted fencing at Agua Remora to eliminate the threat of
livestock grazing, there are a number of other threats to the
population at Agua Remora that are beyond the Forest Service's control;
namely, water levels have been extremely low in recent years, and in
the absence of removals by NMDGF, green sunfish affect Zuni bluehead
sucker recruitment.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates placement of fill into
waters of the United States, including most of Zuni bluehead sucker
habitat. However, many actions highly detrimental to Zuni bluehead
sucker and its habitat, such as irrigation diversion, structure
construction and maintenance, and livestock grazing are often exempted
from the Clean Water Act or do not apply for protection under the Clean
Water Act. Other detrimental actions, such as bank stabilization and
road crossings, are covered under nationwide permits that receive
little or no Service review. A lack of thorough, site-specific analyses
for projects can allow substantial adverse effects to Zuni bluehead
sucker and its habitat.
Tribal Regulations
Zuni Pueblo--The Zuni bluehead sucker, speckled dace, and grass
carp are protected from fishing in Zuni Pueblo lakes (Zuni Pueblo Law
and Order Code S7-5-3 paragraph 36). In addition, stream fishing is
prohibited on the Pueblo. These regulations protect the species from
take by fishing but do not protect Zuni bluehead sucker habitat or
prevent take from sources other than fishing, such as water withdrawals
and livestock grazing.
Navajo Nation--The Zuni bluehead sucker is currently not protected
within the Navajo Indian Reservation. The Navajo Nation Endangered
Species List classifies the bluehead sucker as a whole as a G4 species.
G4 species are candidates and include those species or subspecies that
may be endangered but for which they lack sufficient information to
support listing (Navajo Nation Heritage Program 2008, pp. i, iv, vi,
84).
Summary of Factor D
In summary, the States' endangered species and water withdrawal
regulations, as well as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and
the National Forest Management Act are not adequate to protect the Zuni
bluehead sucker or its habitat. State regulations prohibiting take of
the species have been in place for decades; however, these regulations
are not adequate to address the threats to habitat, particularly water
withdrawals, impoundments, and the distribution and abundance of
nonnative fishes. Because most of the threats to the Zuni bluehead
sucker are from effects to its habitat and the introduction of
nonnative, invasive species, in order to protect individuals and ensure
the species' long-term conservation and survival, its habitat must be
protected. Therefore, we conclude these existing regulations are
inadequate to mitigate the impacts of identified threats to the
species.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence
of the Zuni bluehead sucker include habitat fragmentation, which is
intensified by the small sizes of the remaining populations.
Habitat Fragmentation
Zuni bluehead sucker populations appear to have always been
relatively isolated from one another, as evidenced by the genetic
lineages that have been observed (Service 2012a, pers. comm.). The
further fragmentation of habitat and resulting increased isolation of
Zuni bluehead sucker populations affects the species rangewide, by
increasing the risk of population loss and subsequent
[[Page 5382]]
loss of genetic lineages. Dewatering and drought conditions have
resulted in fragmentation of Zuni bluehead sucker populations, and
continued water demands are expected to further reduce habitat
available to the Zuni bluehead sucker and will likely further fragment
and isolate populations. Fragmentation of Zuni bluehead sucker habitat
increases the species' vulnerability from threats of further habitat
loss and competition from nonnative fish because immigration and
recolonization from adjacent populations is less likely. In-depth
analyses of southwestern fish occurrence patterns (including Zuni
bluehead sucker) led Fagan et al. (2002, p. 3254) to conclude that the
number of occurrences or populations of a species is far less
significant in determining extinction risk than is fragmentation of the
species. Another source of habitat fragmentation is the construction of
dams. Dams are known to change the hydraulics of the streams in the
system, converting many formerly perennial streams into semiperennial
or ephemeral streams that prevent movement of fish between populations
and dramatically alter the flow regime of streams through the
impoundment of water (Ligon et al. 1995, pp. 184-189).
Small, isolated populations are subject to genetic threats, such as
inbreeding depression (reduced health due to elevated levels of
inbreeding) and to genetic drift (a reduction in gene flow within the
species that can increase the probability of unhealthy traits; Meffe
and Carroll 1994). Facial deformities have been seen in approximately 5
percent of the populations at Agua Remora and Tampico Springs; these
deformities have been attributed to the genetic effects of small
populations (Carman 2009, p. 13), although the rate of deformity
declined over time, such that no captured fish exhibited deformities in
2010 (Gilbert and Carman 2011, p. 17). External deformities such as
these have been linked to a low survival rate in other small, isolated
fish populations (Sato 2006, p. 598); a lowered survival rate could
reduce the Zuni bluehead sucker population sizes at Aqua Remora and
Tampico Springs over time.
Due to the small reaches of remaining habitat where Zuni bluehead
suckers occur in relatively low numbers, single populations of Zuni
bluehead sucker are at high risk of extirpation due to stochastic
events from other known threats, such as wildfire or episodic drought
(see Factor A discussion). Zuni bluehead sucker have experienced and
withstood a number of droughts over time, but given the anticipated
increased frequency and duration of drought, combined with the reduced
population size and occupied habitat, the species is at a higher risk
of extirpation and the species has a reduced resiliency to stochastic
events.
Summary of Factor E
Currently, Zuni bluehead sucker populations are highly fragmented
within small, isolated springs and stream segments, causing them to be
vulnerable to stochastic events, such as wildfire and episodic drought.
In addition, detrimental genetic effects have already been observed
within two populations. All known Zuni bluehead sucker populations are
small and isolated, increasing their vulnerability. Due to the
reduction in their range, and small population size, the remaining
populations of Zuni bluehead experience reduced viability; therefore,
we conclude that habitat fragmentation is a threat to Zuni bluehead
sucker.
Cumulative Effects: Factors A Through E
Many of the threats discussed above act in concert, and the
resulting effects to Zuni bluehead sucker are amplified. For example,
the reduction of water quantity restricts the geographic size of the
population, which causes the species to be more vulnerable to other
threats, such as beaver dams modifying habitat, an increase in
nonnative predators, or ash flows from wildfire that may further reduce
or eliminate the population. The ability of a population to be
resilient to threats depends on the robustness of the population. For
Zuni bluehead sucker, the remaining populations are likely not robust.
They are reduced in size and their habitat has been reduced to a
fraction of their historic range. Given these circumstances, the
combined effects of current threats to the populations puts the species
at risk rangewide. The combined effects of drought and nonnative
predatory fish may reduce habitat, fragment the remaining habitat, and
reduce reproductive potential, resulting in fewer fish. The remaining
populations become less resilient and are not capable of recovering
from the threats. Reproductive efforts from the Zuni bluehead sucker
populations will be affected by the threats to their habitat, resulting
in populations with reduced viabilities.
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Zuni bluehead suckers. Habitat loss from water withdrawals,
sedimentation, and impoundments is occurring rangewide, has resulted in
extirpation of the species from all but headwater habitats, and is not
likely to be reduced in the future (Factor A). The species' range has
been reduced by 90 percent in New Mexico, and current distribution is
limited to three populations in 4.8 km (3 mi) of streams. Drought
frequency and water withdrawals are likely to increase, further
restricting habitat and fragmenting or eliminating populations.
Predation from nonnative fish is occurring rangewide and has been shown
to reduce recruitment and population size at one location; this
situation is likely impacting other populations, as well (Factor C).
State wildlife laws and Federal regulations such as the National Forest
Management Act are not adequate to address the threats to the species
(Factor D). Additionally, the Zuni bluehead sucker is not able to
naturally recolonize unoccupied areas (Factor E). There is virtually no
redundancy of populations within each occupied watershed, further
increasing the risk of loss of representation of existing genetic
lineages and, ultimately, extinction. These threats have already
resulted in the extirpation of Zuni bluehead sucker throughout an
estimated 90 percent of its range and are only likely to increase in
severity. Although there is less information available on threats
occurring on the Navajo Indian Reservation, the information we do have
is similar in kind and intensity to that for New Mexico. These threats
are ongoing, are rangewide, are expected to increase in the future, and
are significant because they further restrict limited available habitat
and decrease the resiliency of the Zuni bluehead sucker within those
habitats.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the Zuni bluehead sucker
is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based
on the severity and immediacy of threats currently impacting the
species. The overall range has been significantly reduced, the
remaining habitat and populations are threatened by a variety of
factors acting in combination to reduce the overall viability of the
species. The risk of extinction is high because the remaining
populations are small, isolated, and have limited potential for
recolonization. Therefore,
[[Page 5383]]
on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we propose listing the Zuni bluehead sucker as endangered
in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a
threatened species status is not appropriate for the Zuni bluehead
sucker because of the contracted range (loss of 90 percent of its
historic range), because the threats are occurring rangewide and are
not localized, and because the threats are ongoing and expected to
continue into the future.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is threatened or endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Zuni bluehead sucker proposed for
listing in this rule is highly restricted in its range and the threats
occur throughout its range. Therefore, we assessed the status of the
species throughout its entire range. The threats to the survival of the
species occur throughout the species' range and are not restricted to
any particular significant portion of that range. Accordingly, our
assessment and proposed determination applies to the species throughout
its entire range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Arizona and New Mexico
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions
that promote the protection or recovery of the Zuni bluehead sucker.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Zuni bluehead sucker is only proposed for listing
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service (Canyon De
Chelly National Monument); issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act
permits by the Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for
[[Page 5384]]
sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. Under the
Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife
that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of
the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon the Zuni bluehead sucker, such as the introduction of nonnative
green sunfish to the States of Arizona and New Mexico;
(3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that
attack any life stage of this species;
(4) Unauthorized modification of the channel or water flow of any
stream or removal or destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation in any
body of water in which the Zuni bluehead sucker is known to occur; and
(5) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill material into any
waters in which the Zuni bluehead sucker is known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination and critical habitat designation are
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have
invited these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment
period.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times,
and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), add an entry for ``Sucker, Zuni bluehead'' to the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under
Fishes to read as set forth below:
[[Page 5385]]
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Sucker, Zuni bluehead............ Catostomus U.S.A. (AZ, NM)..... Entire.............. E ........... NA NA
discobolus yarrowi.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: January 14, 2013.
Daniel M Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-01303 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P