[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43972-43979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15935]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings
on Petitions To List the Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout and the Ichetucknee
Siltsnail as Endangered or Threatened Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12-
month findings on petitions to list the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and
the Ichetucknee siltsnail as endangered species or threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a
review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we
find that listing the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and the Ichetucknee
siltsnail is not warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to
submit to us at any time any new information that becomes available
concerning the stressors to the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and the
Ichetucknee siltsnail or their habitats.
DATES: The findings announced in this document were made on July 6,
2016.
ADDRESSES: These findings are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at the following docket numbers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Lake rainbow trout............ FWS-R8-ES-2012-0072
Ichetucknee siltsnail............... FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting information used in preparing these findings is available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by
contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning these findings to the appropriate
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Lake rainbow trout........... Jen Norris, Field Supervisor,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office, (916) 414-6600.
Ichetucknee siltsnail.............. Jay B. Herrington, Field
Supervisor, North Florida
Ecological Services Office, (904)
731-3191.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing an animal or plant
species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the
date of receipt of the petition (``12-month finding''). In this
finding, we determine whether listing the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and
the Ichetucknee siltsnail is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3)
warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine
whether species are endangered or threatened species, and expeditious
progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
(warranted but precluded). Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that
we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines
``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, section 3(6), and
``threatened species'' as any species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, section 3(20). Under section 4(a)(1)
of the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered species or
a threatened species based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
We summarize below the information on which we based our evaluation
of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act in
determining whether the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and the Ichetucknee
siltsnail meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened
species. More detailed information about these species is presented in
the species-specific assessment forms found on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see
ADDRESSES). In considering what stressors under the five factors might
constitute threats, we must look beyond
[[Page 43973]]
the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the
species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to
the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only
a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure
and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat. In
that case, we determine if that stressor rises to the level of a
threat, meaning that it may drive or contribute to the risk of
extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an
endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act.
This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely affected could suffice. The mere identification of
stressors that could affect a species negatively is not sufficient to
compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that
these stressors are operative threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the definition of an endangered species or
a threatened species under the Act.
In making our 12-month findings, we considered and evaluated the
best available scientific and commercial information.
Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum)
Previous Federal Actions
The Service has been petitioned three times to add the Eagle Lake
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum) (ELRT) to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the authority of the Act. On
April 28, 1994, we received a petition from John F. Bosta, of
Susanville, California, requesting that we list the ELRT as an
endangered or threatened species, designate critical habitat, and
develop a recovery plan for the species. On August 7, 1995, we
published our 90-day finding in the Federal Register (60 FR 40149)
stating that the petition did not present substantial information to
indicate that listing the ELRT as an endangered or threatened species
under the Act may be warranted.
On August 15, 2003, we received a second petition from Mr. John
Bosta, requesting that we list the ELRT as an endangered or threatened
species under the Act. On October 6, 2003, we received a similar
petition from Mr. Chuck Sanford, of Loomis, California, dated September
28, 2003. Mr. Sanford's petition repeated the same information provided
earlier in the Bosta 2003 petition and was therefore treated as a
comment on the first petition received. In our February 24, 2004,
response letter to Mr. Bosta, we explained that we had reviewed the
petition and determined that an emergency listing was not warranted,
and that because of other court-ordered listing and critical habitat
actions and settlements, we would not be able to otherwise address the
petition to list the ELRT at that time, but would complete the action
when workload and funding allowed.
In a settlement agreement with WildEarth Guardians dated May 10,
2011 [WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 10-377 (EGS) MDL Docket No.
2165], we agreed to complete our 90-day finding on the 2003 petition to
list the ELRT on or before September 30, 2012. On September 5, 2012, we
published our 90-day finding in the Federal Register (77 FR 54548), in
which we determined that the petition presented substantial information
indicating that the ELRT may be warranted for listing as an endangered
or threatened species, and initiated a status review and solicited
information on the stressors potentially affecting the ELRT.
Specifically, we found that the petition and information in our files
indicated that the habitat in Pine Creek, a tributary to Eagle Lake and
the major stream spawning habitat for ELRT, was degraded and that
access to the stream was blocked by a weir used for collecting fish for
hatchery purposes. We also found that the ELRT population in Pine Creek
was subject to predation pressure from introduced nonnative brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis).
On May 13, 2014, Western Watersheds Project (WWP) submitted a
notice of intent to sue the Service for failure to complete a 12-month
finding on the 2003 petition and determine the listing status of the
ELRT under the Act. On September 23, 2014, WWP filed a complaint
(Western Watersheds Project v. Jewell et al.; Case 2:14-CV-02205-MCE-
KJN) to compel the Service to issue the 12-month finding.
On March 17, 2015, the Service entered into a stipulated settlement
agreement with WWP agreeing that no later than June 30, 2016, the
Service would submit to the Federal Register a 12-month finding as to
whether listing the ELRT under the Act is warranted, not warranted, or
warranted but precluded.
Background
The ELRT is a subspecies of rainbow trout endemic to the highly
alkaline Eagle Lake and its main tributary, Pine Creek. Its range is
restricted to Eagle Lake, Pine and Bogard Spring Creeks within the Pine
Creek watershed, and, on occasion, other small tributaries to Eagle
Lake, such as Merrill and Papoose Creeks. Past cumulative impacts from
improper land management, introduction of nonnative fishes,
overharvesting, and lowering lake levels during the late 1800s and the
early 1900s resulted in the degradation of habitat within the Pine
Creek watershed and a sharply declining ELRT population. To ensure the
persistence of the subspecies and to sustain a trophy fishery in Eagle
Lake, a hatchery program for the ELRT was created by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in 1950. In 1959, the Pine Creek
Fish Trap and barrier weir (Trap) was constructed at the mouth of Pine
Creek to assist in the collection of adult spawners for the hatchery
program. The barrier weir blocked all fish passage except during high
flow events; then, in 1995, the weir was modified further to block all
fish passage, even in high flow events. In addition to the barrier
weir, past land use practices had degraded stream conditions in the
Pine Creek watershed. While the hatchery program substantially
increased the ELRT population from historic lows observed in the 1930s-
1940s, the blockage of natural stream spawning opportunities, in
combination with the degraded watershed conditions, prevented natural
lake-to-stream spawning and resulted in an increased dependence on
hatchery propagation.
Stream-resident ELRT have been observed spawning in the
intermittent and perennial sections of Pine Creek, which may be
contributing to the natural reproductive population. There was an
observation of spawning within the intermittent portions of Pine Creek
and the subsequent downstream migration of fry in 2011. There were also
observations of spawning within the perennial portions of Pine Creek in
2009, and fry were observed the following spring in Pine Creek. Some
spawning activity has also been observed along the gravelly shores of
Eagle Lake, but it is unknown if spawning was successful or if it
contributed to recruitment of the population. There has been recent
successful spawning of ELRT in an aquarium at the Turtle Bay Museum in
Redding, California, which suggests that spawning outside of the stream
habitat is possible.
Summary of Status Review
At the time of our 90-day finding in 2012, we found that the
petition presented substantial information that the ELRT may warrant
listing due to the present or threatened destruction,
[[Page 43974]]
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range based on the
presence of a hatchery weir on Pine Creek impeding fish passage,
predation from introduced nonnative brook trout on the remnant ELRT
population in the headwaters of Pine Creek, and because of the ongoing
hatchery program and hatchery practices potentially causing genotypic
and phenotypic genetic shift in ELRT populations. Since our 90-day
finding was issued on September 5, 2012, numerous conservation efforts
have been implemented or are ongoing, and these conservation efforts
have reduced the level of impact on the ELRT from identified stressors.
Stressors Impacting ELRT: In completing our status review for the
ELRT, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available and
compiled this information in the 2016 Species Report for the Eagle Lake
Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum) (Service, 2016). For our
finding, we evaluated potential stressors related to the ELRT and its
habitat. The different levels of impact of each stressor or combination
of stressors are defined as follows: (1) Low-level impacts are those
that result in a minor loss of individuals and/or habitat currently or
expected in the future; (2) moderate-level impacts are those that
result in more than a minor loss, but not a widespread loss, of
individuals and/or habitat currently or expected in the future; and (3)
high-level impacts are those that result in a widespread loss of
individuals and/or habitat currently or expected in the future.
The stressors we analyzed were grazing, roads and railroads, water
impoundments, fish passage barriers, recreational fishing, predation
from and competition with brook trout, disease, effects from artificial
propagation, and effects from climate change. The full analysis for all
of these stressors can be found in the ELRT 12-Month Petition Finding's
Supporting Document at http://www.regulations.gov (see ADDRESSES,
above). As discussed in greater detail in that document, we have
concluded, based on the best information available at this time, that
the effects from grazing, roads and railroads, water impoundments, fish
passage barriers, recreational fishing, disease, and effects from
artificial propagation (all of the stressors analyzed, other than
predation from and competition with brook trout and climate change,
which, as discussed further below, have moderate-level impacts) are
currently low-level impacts to ELRT and will continue at a low level
into the future. With respect to fish passage barriers, the fact that
this stressor--which historically had severe, high-level impacts--
currently has only low-level impacts on the ELRT reflects a significant
change in conditions that has reduced the stressors on the ELRT and
improved its status.
As noted above, beginning in 1959 the Pine Creek Fish Trap and
barrier weir prevented any migrations between Eagle Lake and suitable
spawning habitat in the upper Pine Creek watershed. However, a fishway
was installed in the Trap in 2012, which now fully allows upstream
spawning migration runs. A few other fish passage barriers still
currently exist, higher up in the watershed upstream of the Trap, but
these are only barriers under extreme low flow conditions and only have
the potential to be minor impediments to habitat access by stream-
resident fish in some locations. Currently, the only significant
barrier to spawning migration is the lack of consistent annual flow
within the lower, intermittent portions of the Pine Creek watershed.
Past land use management practices, which have now been discontinued,
likely exacerbated the effects of inconsistent flows by degrading
habitat conditions, which in turn would have reduced the amount of
suitable migration opportunities. However, this inconsistent flow
barrier appears to be a natural condition of the system in which the
ELRT has evolved. With the removal of the Trap as a barrier and
discontinuation of harmful land use management practices that occurred
in the past, the ELRT are now returned to the natural condition,
including the inconsistency of adequate annual flows. As a result of
this natural condition of inconsistent annual flows, there remains a
potential that ELRT individuals during the spring attempting to migrate
into the Pine Creek watershed to spawn may be either completely
precluded from making spawning runs in any given year, or get stranded
before reaching spawning habitat. There is no information to indicate
these conditions will change (e.g., more frequent adequate annual
flows) in the future, and therefore we believe this condition will
continue to result in a minor loss of both individuals and habitat.
However, while remaining barriers may result in reduced habitat
opportunities in some locations, and inconsistent annual flows may
result in reduced spawning opportunities or stranded individuals,
conservation efforts (including installation of the fishway in the Pine
Creek fish trap) have significantly improved the overall condition
relative to passage barriers and have greatly improved the outlook for
the ELRT, since it went from no ability at all for natural spawning
from Eagle Lake to significantly increased opportunities throughout the
watershed.
Two of the stressors--predation from and competition with brook
trout, and the potential effects from climate change--may result in
moderate-level effects. The populations of nonnative brook trout that
occur within the Pine Creek watershed have impeded the ability of the
ELRT to establish a large stream population within the perennial
portions of Pine and Bogard Spring Creeks. The large brook trout
population not only competes with the ELRT for resources, but also
preys on ELRT eggs and juveniles. The presence of brook trout likely
precludes a robust population of stream-dwelling ELRT, both those
resident now and those expected to migrate there now that passage
barriers have been removed. However, there have been observations of
individual ELRT and ELRT-spawning in the perennial sections of the
watershed with brook trout present, demonstrating an ability to
withstand some level of co-occurrence. During a 3-year electrofishing
study in Bogard Spring Creek from 2007-2009, ELRT made up 3 percent of
the fish caught, and brook trout made up 92 percent (Carmona-Catot et
al. 2011, p. 331). Competition with and predation from nonnative brook
trout will continue to be a source of loss of individuals within the
Pine Creek watershed into the future, for as long as brook trout are
present. However, this stressor does not rise to the level of a threat
for the subspecies for several reasons: (1) Brook trout only affect a
small portion of the overall ELRT population, since brook trout only
occur in the perennial portions of the Pine Creek Watershed and not in
the lake, where the main population of ELRT are found; (2) there is
some evidence that ELRT may successfully spawn apart from the upper
watershed streams; (3) ELRT are able to co-occur at low levels in
streams where brook trout are present; and (4) the sustainable hatchery
operations are continuing to provide robust, healthy populations of
ELRT throughout the entire watershed.
The effects of climate change will result in low- to moderate-level
impacts into the foreseeable future, depending on various projected
climate conditions. Future climate trends and projected climate models
show a range of conditions that may occur in the future. Therefore, the
degree to which climate change acts on the subspecies may vary (within
the low to moderate range) under each projected modeled scenario.
[[Page 43975]]
Climate change may change the flow regime of the Pine Creek
watershed, which may in turn influence the ELRT's ability to reach
spawning habitat during the typical spawning migration timeframe.
Climate change models predict that winter temperatures would increase,
and that winter precipitation would shift from snow to rain. Under the
lower emission scenario, April snowpack would be reduced 65 to 87
percent in the 5,740-foot (1,750-meter) elevation range of Pine Creek,
and under the higher emission scenario, the reduction would be from 95
to 97 percent. In either scenario, Pine Creek would be likely to flow
more during the winter, due to winter rain events, but flows from
snowmelt during the spring season would be lower. This has the
potential to ``shift'' the flow regime that is suitable for migration
backwards in the year toward the winter months. Such a change would be
likely to affect ELRT's spawning timing into upper Pine Creek. However,
historically (before climate change was a factor) runoff timing and
stream flow duration have always been a limiting environmental factor
in successful spawning migrations of ELRT, and observations have shown
that ELRT has a large variability in spawning timing. ELRT have been
observed entering streams during spawning migrations from early
February through late May. The earliest spawning migration is recorded
as February 9 through 12, 2015, when adult ELRT were seen entering
Papoose Creek. The latest recorded spawning migration is within Pine
Creek, where adults were observed spawning on May 23, 1975, and on May
22, 1995. Because of ELRT's ability historically to withstand
stressful, varying conditions, and their plasticity in spawning timing,
the potential change in Pine Creek's flow regime is not likely to
impede their spawning migrations significantly. However, one possible
consequence of an earlier spawning migration may be a reduction in the
duration of the spawning season. Since spawning migrations are
triggered by increasing water temperatures, earlier runoff will narrow
the amount of time when there is adequate runoff at the appropriate
temperature for the spawning migration. This may result in fewer
individuals migrating and, ultimately, fewer individuals contributing
to the reproductive population. It is important to note that this
discussion about potential effects to spawning timing is in the context
of a newly re-established migratory connection between Eagle Lake and
Pine Creek. For many years prior, ELRT has been unable to migrate from
Eagle Lake to Pine Creek at all. This effectively means that, even if
there is some slight impact from a shift in the flow regime resulting
from climate change, there will be a net increase in natural stream
spawning, now and into the future. For a more in-depth discussion of
the potential effects from climate change relative to ELRT spawning,
please see the ELRT 12-Month Petition Finding's Supporting Document
(see ADDRESSES). In addition, while we have determined that the
potential effects from various climate change scenarios are not likely
to rise to the level of impact on the ELRT such that it is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, based
solely on projected conditions and conservation efforts that have
already been implemented and/or are already ongoing and likely to
continue into the future. Planned conservation (see below), including
restoration of stream habitat, channel function, and hydrology, will
further improve the watershed's hydrologic function and help make the
watershed more resilient to the effects of drought, potentially
improving flow duration and volume. Increasing the robustness of the
stream population will ensure natural production will take place at
times when successful spawning migration is not possible, as the stream
resident population will be capable of spawning and rearing within Pine
Creek, and then migrate to Eagle Lake in subsequent years when
conditions allow. Finally, any improvements to the artificial spawning
program as a result of genetic studies will potentially improve the
genetic variability of the subspecies, making it more likely the ELRT
will be able to withstand environmental changes into the future.
In addition to evaluating the effect of individual stressors, we
also looked to see whether multiple stressors may act concurrently on
the species, and whether any synergistic effects were likely. Multiple
stressors may act on the same individuals of a species or their habitat
at the same time, which can result in impacts that are not accounted
for when stressors are analyzed separately. Stressors that appear minor
when considered alone may have greater impacts on individuals or
habitat when analyzed cumulatively with other stressors. Furthermore,
some stressors may act synergistically to cause impacts that are
greater than the cumulative sum of the individual stressors. Cumulative
effects can be described as additive, with the effects from each
individual stressor being added to the effect from each subsequent
stressor, and all effects are combined in an overall impact on the
species. Synergistic effects go beyond a straightforward additive
approach; instead a synergistic approach describes when multiple
stressors, interacting on a species or its habitat at the same time,
actually increase the intensity of one or more of those stressors.
Past cumulative effects to habitat within the Pine Creek watershed
reduced the quality and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat within
the Pine Creek watershed, and in conjunction with overharvesting,
introduction of nonnative fish, and lowering of the lake level, the
population of ELRT declined. The population decline prompted the
construction of the Trap and barrier weir to prevent the loss of adult
individuals trying to migrate upstream and to collect adult spawners
for hatchery purposes. As a result of that construction, the past
cumulative impacts have been greatly reduced.
Under the current conditions, we found that it would be reasonable
to anticipate cumulative effects on the ELRT from climate change
altering the flow regime and the presence of brook trout. These
stressors combined may result in additional individuals being lost;
however, this loss would still be considered a moderate-level impact:
More than a minor, but not widespread loss of individuals, particularly
when the installation of the fishway is likely to significantly improve
the ability of ELRT to spawn. We found no information indicating a
potential for synergistic effects between any of the stressors.
Moreover, any such moderate-level impacts--even when combined with low-
level impacts from other stressors--would not cause the ELRT to be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Conservation Efforts: In addition to evaluating the stressors, we
also considered and evaluated conservation efforts that have been
implemented and shown to be effective in ameliorating the effects of
stressors on the ELRT. We describe below the sources of these completed
conservation efforts (including some future conservation efforts yet to
be implemented, although we did not rely on those future conservation
efforts for the determination in this finding). To view the complete
suite of all conservation efforts, please see Tables 2 and 3 of the
ELRT Species Report (Service, 2016, pp. 50-54, 57-60).
CRMP Group: In 1987, the Coordinated Resource Management Planning
(CRMP) group was formed to
[[Page 43976]]
identify goals and implement a course of action for habitat and
ecosystem restoration for Pine Creek. The CRMP group includes
membership by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the University of
California Cooperative Extension for Lassen County, the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and local landowners and
interested parties. The initial goals for restoring Pine Creek
included: (1) Improve streambank stability; (2) improve vegetation
cover in the watershed; (3) raise the streambed and water table in the
drainage, and spread out peak flows of Pine Creek; (4) restore the
natural ELRT fishery in Pine Creek; (5) improve wildlife habitat along
Pine Creek; (6) reduce nutrient and sediment loading into Eagle Lake
from Pine Creek; (7) maintain grazing and timber management; and (8)
meet goals in a coordinated effort with all affected parties. The
Service has been occasionally involved in the planning efforts of the
CRMP group since 1995.
The CRMP group has completed numerous successful restoration
actions since 1989 to improve habitat conditions and re-establish
natural populations and spawning runs of ELRT within the Pine Creek
watershed. Restoration actions have included, among other things,
replacing culverts to increase fish passage and improving grazing
practices. A summary of the restoration actions, both completed and
planned, is shown in Table 2 of the Service's ELRT Species Report
(Service 2016, pp. 49-54). As stated above, our determination in this
finding only relied on those conservation efforts that have been
implemented and shown effective at reducing or removing stressor
impacts. 2015 ELRT Conservation Agreement and Conservation Strategy: A
2015 conservation agreement for ELRT and the associated conservation
strategy were developed to expedite the implementation of conservation
measures for the ELRT as a collaborative and cooperative effort among
the CDFW, the USFS, and the Service. The conservation strategy was
created to serve as a framework for the conservation and protection of
the ELRT and to contribute to the species' persistence into the future.
Conservation actions described in the conservation strategy are
currently being implemented by CDFW and USFS, or are being planned for
future implementation. As stated above, our determination in this
finding only relied on those conservation efforts that have been
implemented and shown effective at reducing or removing stressor
impacts. These conservation efforts included:
--Removal of natural passage barriers;
--Modified spawning practices to increase genetic diversity; and
--Marking hatchery-raised fish to monitor the ``natural'' population.
Role of CDFW Fish Hatcheries: Since the 1950s, CDFW has been
raising ELRT for fish stocking in Eagle Lake and Pine Creek. In
addition to other hatcheries that raise ELRT for fish stocking
throughout the nation, there are currently two CDFW fish hatcheries
(Darrah Springs and Crystal Lake State Fish Hatcheries) that raise ELRT
for stocking into Eagle Lake and Pine Creek. Both of these hatcheries
have completed conservation efforts recommended by the CRMP group and
are currently participating in conservation efforts in support of the
2015 conservation agreement and conservation strategy. The CDFW has
been an active member in planning and implementing ELRT restoration
actions since 1989 as part of the CRMP group. CDFW assisted in the
development of the conservation strategy and is a signatory agency on
the conservation agreement.
The two CDFW fish hatcheries are being operated in a manner to
provide conservation benefits to the subspecies by: (1) Producing a
large number of stocked ELRT annually, with no indication or reason to
stop doing so in the future; (2) monitoring naturally produced fish;
(3) managing for genetic diversity and disease outbreak control; (4)
providing access to upstream creek reaches for spawning by installation
of the fishway at the Trap; and (5) planning to remove predatory
nonnative brook trout. In evaluating the conservation benefits from
hatchery operations, we did not rely on the potential for brook trout
removal. Instead, we focused on those actions already undertaken
(removal of the Trap as a passage barrier) and operations that are
already in place (propagation, genetic practices, disease control),
have already provided conservation benefits, and will continue to do so
into the future.
The CRMP group has completed numerous successful restoration
actions to improve habitat conditions and reestablish natural
populations and spawning runs of ELRT within the Pine Creek watershed
since 1989. Restoration actions include, but are not limited to:
Improving grazing practices, replacing culverts to increase fish
passage, and attempting to remove nonnative brook trout from Bogard
Spring Creek. A summary of the restoration actions is shown in Table 2
of the Services ELRT Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 45-54). Through
the conservation strategy, CDFW has successfully implemented ELRT
health monitoring for disease control at the hatcheries, and adjusted
hatchery operations, propagation efforts, fish stocking practices, and
fish passage strategies to benefit natural populations and spawning
runs of ELRT in Pine Creek. Based on the successful track record of
numerous parties implementing these conservation actions together, we
conclude that ongoing implementation of those actions is removing or
reducing identified stressors to the subspecies or its habitat.
Finding
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting on the subspecies and its habitat, either singly or in
combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude
to indicate that ELRT (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum) is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range (an endangered species), or
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened
species). Populations of ELRT are improving due to past conservation
actions and ongoing efforts to re-establish and increase naturally
occurring populations. Current and ongoing habitat management and
restoration activities for ELRT have made substantial progress since
their inception and are continuing into the future.
We also considered whether the ELRT is threatened or endangered
throughout a significant portion of its range. We evaluated the current
range of the ELRT to determine if there is any apparent geographic
concentration of potential threats for the ELRT. The ranges for
naturally occurring populations of ELRT are relatively small and
limited to the watershed for where they are found, unless they are
stocked by CDFW in Eagle Lake and other areas due to artificial
propagation. We also examined potential stressors throughout the range
of the ELRT. Because the distribution of the subspecies is generally
limited to Eagle Lake and the Pine Creek watershed, and the stressors
are similar and essentially uniform throughout the range, we found no
portion of the range that could qualify as a significant portion of the
ELRT's range and no concentration of stressors that suggests that the
ELRT may be in danger of extinction, or likely to become in danger of
extinction, in any portion of its range. Therefore, we find that
listing the ELRT
[[Page 43977]]
as an endangered or a threatened species throughout all of or a
significant portion of its range is not warranted at this time.
This document constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the
petition to list the ELRT as an endangered or threatened species and
fulfills our settlement obligation. A detailed discussion of the basis
for this finding can be found in the ELRT Petition Finding's Supporting
Document (see ADDRESSES, above).
Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia mica)
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Tierra Curry, and Noah Greenwald
(referred to as the ``CBD petition'') requesting that the Service
consider for listing as either endangered or threatened 404 species in
the southeastern United States, including the Ichetucknee siltsnail,
that were ranked as G1 or G2 by the organization NatureServe; as near
threatened or worse by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature; or as a species of concern, threatened, or endangered by the
American Fisheries Society. The Service issued 90-day findings on
September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59836), in response to the petition and
concluded that the petition presented substantial information
indicating that the listing of 374 species (including the Ichetucknee
siltsnail) under the Act ``may be warranted.'' On June 17, 2014, CBD
filed a complaint against the Service to compel the Service to issue a
12-month finding as to whether the listing of the Ichetucknee siltsnail
is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded. The complaint
was resolved on September 22, 2014, when the U.S. District Court
approved a settlement agreement between the Service and CBD, including
a commitment for the Service to submit a 12-month finding for the
Ichetucknee siltsnail to the Federal Register by June 30, 2016.
Background
The Ichetucknee siltsnail (Floridobia mica) is a freshwater snail
in the phylum Mollusca, order Littorinimorpha, and family Hydrobiidae
and is a distinct species. This snail is small with a shell that is
between 2.0 and 2.3 millimeters (0.08 to 0.09 inches) in length. The
Ichetucknee siltsnail is known in only one locality; it is endemic to
Coffee Springs, a small spring located within Ichetucknee Springs State
Park along the west bank of the Ichetucknee River about 1.6 kilometers
(1.0 mile) northeast of U.S. Highway 27 in Suwannee County, Florida.
Coffee Springs is a third magnitude spring with a flow of 2.83 cubic
feet per second (cfs) and a pool area between 364 square meters (m\2\;
3,918 square feet (ft\2\)) and 19 m\2\ (205 ft\2\). The spring is open
and continuous with the Ichetucknee River. The siltsnail exists
throughout the entire spring in varying densities, and they are found
in nearly all habitat types within the spring. Little is known about
the Ichetucknee siltsnail's biology and behavior, as there has not been
a comprehensive study of the species. However, some of the life history
of the genus Floridobia has been described. Most Floridobia snails have
a lifespan of 1 to 2 years, and the sexes are dioecious (separate).
Reproduction is sexual and occurs throughout the year, and females may
be either oviparous (egg-laying) or ovoviviparous (live birth after
eggs hatch inside the body). The females are larger than the males, and
the ratio of females to males tends to be greater. Floridobia are found
in greater abundance closer to spring heads, where the water
temperature and flow are steady and where dissolved oxygen levels are
low. Abundance decreases farther from the spring head, and population
size seems to be influenced by the substrates available in the springs
as well as by spring velocity, presence of macrophytes and algae mats,
and flood frequency. Abundance is positively associated with the amount
of available shading. Floridobia are prey to some small fishes;
however, the role of predators on the population size is unknown.
Floridobia graze on detritus and periphyton/biofilm. While a toxicity
test has not been performed on the Ichetucknee siltsnail, it is likely
it would be sensitive to contaminants, as studies on other Hydrobiidae
snails have shown low tolerance to contaminants.
Summary of Status Review
The CBD petition identified recreation as the primary threat to the
Ichetucknee siltsnail and also identified aquifer withdrawal
(groundwater depletion), saltwater intrusion within karst habitats,
groundwater contamination and water pollution, small population size
effects, and lack of regulatory mechanisms in place to protect this
snail as potential stressors to the species. The Service examined these
potential stressors indicated by CBD, as well as the potential for
contaminant spills, development and land use, nonnative species, and
the effects of climate change as potential stressors to this species.
After examining these potential stressors under a five-factor analysis,
we found that they are not actual stressors to the Ichetucknee
siltsnail at this time.
CBD indicated that recreation was the biggest threat, as
recreational activities on the adjacent Ichetucknee River will cause
habitat degradation and destruction. However, the Ichetucknee State
Park (Park) has fenced off Coffee Springs from the Ichetucknee River to
prevent any such disturbance to snail habitat. The Park also is
implementing a management plan that includes monitoring and protecting
this species. Under this plan, Coffee Springs is periodically monitored
and inspected to ensure that no damage to the habitat occurs and that
there have been no changes to the habitat of the siltsnail or the
surrounding areas. Protective fencing and signage in the area of Coffee
Springs is also being maintained.
Groundwater depletion was identified by CBD as a threat; however,
it is not expected to affect the population of siltsnails despite a
flow deficit on the Ichetucknee River. In addition, minimum flows and
levels (MFLs) for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and
priority springs areas, including Coffee Springs, have been established
by the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) and an MFL
recovery or prevention strategy has been put into place that is
expected to raise the flows and levels so that they will not fall below
the established minimums and, therefore, we do not anticipate future
negative effects on the species that would rise to the population
level. Although identified by CBD, there is no evidence of saltwater
intrusion occurring in Coffee Springs or on the Ichetucknee River that
would affect the Ichetucknee siltsnail. There is a concern for
groundwater contamination and water pollution through increasing
nitrate levels in the Ichetucknee spring system based on samples taken
within the springs since the 1940s. However, these changes have been
very gradual, and any future changes are also expected to occur very
slowly. Currently, exposure to increased nitrate levels does not appear
to be having a negative effect on the Ichetucknee siltsnail.
Additionally, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has
been implementing a basin management action plan (BMAP) since February
of 2012, for the management of total maximum daily load (TMDL) for
nitrates in the water systems of the Ichetucknee River and Santa Fe
River
[[Page 43978]]
basins, which includes the Ichetucknee River and spring system, and
water quality is expected to improve over time. There is a buffer of
State park land ranging from 500 to 1,700 m (5,381.96 to 18,298.65 ft)
wide surrounding both sides of the river at and upstream of Coffee
Springs. Therefore, contaminant spills are unlikely to occur on the
protected State park property and are therefore not considered a likely
stressor to the Ichetucknee siltsnail or its habitat. Development and
land use are also not stressors, because Coffee Springs is located
entirely within a protected zone in the State park land where
development and other uses are excluded.
While nonnative species can sometimes result in the loss and
decline of a native species, and two nonnative species were identified
in the Ichetucknee River, neither of the nonnative species was
identified within Coffee Springs, nor were they shown to be colonizing
the adjacent Ichetucknee River in high numbers. The best available
information indicates that nonnative species are not affecting the
Ichetucknee siltsnail at the species level now, nor do we have
indication that they will in the future. While climate change has the
potential to affect habitat used by this species, much uncertainty
remains regarding which habitat attributes may be affected, and the
timing, magnitude, and rate of change. Based on this variability and
uncertainty of the effects of climate change on the Ichetucknee
siltsnail within its range, we cannot reasonably determine that the
effects of climate change are likely to be a threat to the species now
or in the foreseeable future. Small population size effects are one of
the reasons the Ichetucknee siltsnail was identified under the CBD
petition as a species at risk for extinction. However, the known
distribution of the species has always been limited and small, and the
population within the spring appears to be healthy and abundant, has
persisted in this location, and does not appear to be negatively
affected at the population level by the potential stressors identified
in the CBD petition or by the potential stressors we identified. In
addition, measures are in place to protect or monitor both the habitat
and the population. The CBD petition did not identify overutilization,
disease, or predation as threats to the species, and the best available
scientific and commercial information does not indicate that these
stressors are negatively affecting the Ichetucknee siltsnail, or that
they are likely to do so in the foreseeable future.
The existing regulatory mechanisms we examined are reducing, and
likely to continue reducing, the stressors. There are a number of laws
that set standards for clean water generally such as the Clean Water
Act of 1972 (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1974 (SDWA; 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.). The CWA and SDWA are in
place to protect water quality such that it will be supportive of
aquatic wildlife. State regulatory mechanisms in place include
protections of the Ichetucknee River and springs under designation as
class III waters and as Outstanding Florida Waters. Both of these
designations ensure protection of water quality in the groundwater,
springs, and surface waters of the Ichetucknee River and spring system
and are therefore also protective of the habitat used by the
Ichetucknee siltsnail. The SRWMD has included consideration of the
Ichetucknee siltsnail within its established MFLs, and the Park has
included the management and protection of snail habitat within its park
management plan. FDEP has enacted a BMAP for the management of TMDLs
for nitrates in the water systems of the Ichetucknee River and Santa Fe
River basins. While this is not specifically designed to alleviate
stressors on the Ichetucknee siltsnail, its purpose is to ensure that
TMDLs within the Ichetucknee River and spring system are monitored and
managed.
In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we consider and
evaluate the best available scientific and commercial information. This
evaluation includes information from all sources, including State,
Federal, tribal, academic, and private entities and the public. After
evaluating the best available scientific and commercial information on
all potential stressors acting individually or in combination, we found
no information to indicate that the combined effects are causing a
population-level decline or currently degrading habitat of the species
or that they are likely to do so in the foreseeable future.
Finding
We examined potential threats to the Ichetucknee siltsnail from
development, recreation, groundwater withdrawal, nonnative species,
environmental contaminants, overutilization, disease or predation, the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, small population size,
and the effects of climate change. The population is now the largest it
has ever been and appears to have been stable since 1968. After
evaluating the best available scientific and commercial information, we
found no evidence that these potential stressors are acting on, or
having a negative impact on, the Ichetucknee siltsnail. In addition,
the State continues to manage the site to protect both the habitat and
the species.
Because the Ichetucknee siltsnail is only known from one location
(Coffee Springs), there is no portion of the species' range where
potential threats are significantly concentrated or substantially
greater than in other portions of its range. Therefore, we find that
factors affecting the Ichetucknee siltsnail are essentially uniform
throughout its range, indicating no portion of the range is likely to
be in danger of extinction or likely to become so. Therefore, no
portion warrants further consideration to determine whether the species
may be endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors,
even when considered cumulatively, are not of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Ichetucknee siltsnail is
in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all of its range
or any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that
listing the Ichetucknee siltsnail as an endangered or threatened
species under the Act is not warranted at this time.
This document constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the
April 20, 2010, petition to list the Ichetucknee siltsnail as an
endangered or threatened species and fulfills our settlement
obligation. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the Ichetucknee Siltsnail Petition Finding's Supporting
Document (see ADDRESSES, above).
New Information
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or stressors to, the Eagle Lake rainbow trout or the
Ichetucknee siltsnail to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New
information will help us monitor these species and encourage their
conservation. If an emergency situation develops for either of these
species, we will act to provide immediate protection.
[[Page 43979]]
References Cited
Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Unified Listing Team, Ecological Services Program.
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: June 24, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-15935 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P