[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 21, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21720-21735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office []
[FR Doc No: 2025-09127]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0207; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BI16
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Fish Lake Valley tui chub (Siphateles obesus ssp.), a fish
found in Esmeralda County in southwestern Nevada, as an endangered
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
This determination also serves as our 12-month finding on a petition to
list the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. After a review of the best
scientific and commercial data available, we find that listing the Fish
Lake Valley tui chub is warranted. If adopted as proposed, this rule
would extend the Act's protections to the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July
21, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by July 7, 2025.
ADDRESSES:
Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: . In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2024-0207,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2024-0207, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on . This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available at at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0207.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Barrett, Acting Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish and Wildlife
Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone 775-
861-6338. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind,
hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0207 on for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
defines a species as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. Under the
Act, a species warrants listing if it
[[Page 21721]]
meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or a threatened
species (likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). If we
determine that a species warrants listing, we must list the species
promptly. We have determined that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub meets
the Act's definition of an endangered species; therefore, we are
proposing to list it as such. Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. We propose to list the Fish Lake Valley
tui chub as an endangered species under the Act.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of 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 Fish Lake Valley tui
chub meets the Act's definition of an endangered species due to the
following threats: the destruction and modification of its aquatic
habitat caused by agricultural production or other land management
practices (Factor A), effects of climate change on aquatic habitat
availability (Factor A), and predation by and competition with invasive
species (Factors C and E).
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 other 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 Fish Lake Valley tui chub's biology, range, and population
trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the Fish Lake Valley
tui chub, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and
sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns
and the locations of any additional populations of this fish;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the Fish Lake Valley
tui chub, its habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the Fish Lake Valley
tui chub, including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the
Fish Lake Valley tui chub, which may include habitat modification or
destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to the Fish Lake Valley tui chub; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
Please include any supplemental 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, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened 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 ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via , your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. 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 .
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on .
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the Fish Lake Valley tui
chub is threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the
Fish Lake Valley tui chub does not warrant listing as either an
endangered species or a threatened species. In our final rule, we will
clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final decision,
including why we made changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On March 23, 2021, we received a petition, dated March 9, 2021,
from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) requesting that the Fish
Lake Valley tui chub (Siphateles bicolor ssp. 4) be listed as an
endangered or threatened species and critical habitat be designated
under the Act. On August 23, 2022, we published a 90-day finding that
the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating the petitioned action may be warranted (87 FR 51635). While
the 2021 petition requested that the Service list the Fish Lake Valley
tui chub as the taxonomic entity known as S. bicolor ssp. 4, our review
of recent genetic analyses led to placing the Fish Lake Valley tui chub
[[Page 21722]]
within S. obesus ssp. instead (Campbell et al. 2024, p. 8).
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. The SSA team was composed of Service
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub,
including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both
negative and beneficial) affecting the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing and recovery actions under the Act (/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf), we solicited independent scientific review of the information
contained in the Fish Lake Valley tui chub SSA report. We sent the SSA
report to four independent peer reviewers and received two responses.
The peer reviews can be found at at Docket
No. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0207. In preparing this proposed rule, we
incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this proposed rule.
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed above in Peer Review, we received comments from two
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer
reviewers generally provided additional references, clarifications, and
wording suggestions. We revised the updated SSA report based on the
peer reviewers' comments, including adjusting our projections for the
future scenarios, clarifying specific points where appropriate, and
adding details and suggested references where needed. Peer reviewer
comments are addressed in the following summary and were incorporated
into the current SSA report (Service 2024, entire) as appropriate.
Comment 1: One peer reviewer recommended that we add specific
quantitative data to describe the Fish Lake Valley tui chub's needs
instead of using qualitative terms such as ``adequate water quality''
and ``adequate population size.'' The reviewer suggested using values
obtained from the literature on similar subspecies or using the
measurements taken at one of the extant sites as a baseline.
Our response: We revised the description of the Fish Lake Valley
tui chub's needs to include more quantitative values where data were
available for similar subspecies such as the Lahontan tui chub, Mohave
tui chub, and Owens tui chub. To describe the ecological resources that
each Fish Lake Valley tui chub life stage (egg, larva, juvenile, and
adult) needs to breed, feed, and shelter, quantitative ranges were
provided for suitable water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and
alkalinity.
Comment 2: One peer reviewer suggested that we change the
temperature range for spawning preferences in the applicable table
because the current conditions at the McNett spring system fall outside
of that range.
Our response: We widened the range in the table to include the
conditions at the McNett spring system based on similar natural history
information found for other southwestern Great Basin tui chub
subspecies.
Comment 3: One peer reviewer recommended that we add biological
information from springsnails found in the McNett spring system.
Because springsnails are highly sensitive to changes in environmental
conditions, their presence is an indication that the natural conditions
at the site have been constant.
Our response: We did not apply this change because the consistency
of the natural, thermal conditions at the McNett spring system is
explicitly described in the discussion of the Fish Lake Valley tui
chub's current condition. The vulnerability of the tui chub's habitat
is evident through the historical drying of habitat and the Fish Lake
Valley tui chub's extirpation from five sites in Fish Lake Valley.
Comment 4: One peer reviewer suggested we revise the future
conditions analysis to show that extirpation of both extant populations
(i.e., extinction of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub) is possible given
that both populations are imminently at risk of catastrophic collapse.
Our response: We added clarifying language, such as ``high risk of
extirpation,'' to the overall assessment to clarify the Fish Lake
Valley tui chub's future condition. We modified the lower plausible
future scenario to include the risk of extinction. For decisions
related to species classification under the Act, we use scenarios that
include only plausible future influences, not everything that is
theoretically possible.
Plausible events are those that seem reasonable, have an appearance
of truth or reason, and are credible or believable from the perspective
of a rational impartial observer (O'Hagan 2019, entire). In an SSA,
plausibility would be supported by literature regarding past trends or
projections of influences, expert judgment, or other citable evidence
and would be relevant, informative, and appropriate within the
decision's context. Alternatively, possible refers to a proposition or
event that is conceivable and is beyond what a rational impartial
observer would consider credible, believable, or reasonable. Therefore,
the possible includes lower probability events than the plausible.
Future influences that are possible, but not plausible, are not
included in the SSA status scenario analysis.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Fish Lake Valley tui chub (Siphateles obesus ssp.) is presented in the
SSA report (version 1.0; Service 2024, pp. 14-18).
The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is a small minnow native to the Fish
Lake Valley basin, which spans the Nevada/California border. The tui
chubs in Fish Lake Valley have all been found in Esmeralda County,
Nevada, and are geographically isolated from other forms of tui chub.
The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is considered a valid subspecies (Hubbs &
Miller 1948, p. 44; 87 FR 51635, August 23, 2022; Campbell et al. 2024,
p. 8). While the 2021 petition requested that the Service list the Fish
Lake Valley tui chub as the taxonomic entity known as S. bicolor ssp.
4, recent genetic analyses have placed the Fish Lake Valley tui chub
within S. obesus instead (Campbell et al. 2024, p. 8). Therefore, we
refer to the Fish Lake Valley tui chub as S. obesus ssp. in this
document and the SSA report (Service 2024, entire). This taxonomic
change does not change our understanding of the subspecies'
distribution or status.
Tui chubs are small minnows with 41 to 64 scales along the decurved
lateral line (Moyle 2002, p. 122). Tui chubs have 8 to 24 gill rakers
and rounded, short fins (Moyle 2002, p. 122). Coloration varies from
silvery to dusky olive, brown, or brassy (Moyle 2002, p. 122). Length
of tui chubs is variable, although adults in springs may only reach 4
to 5 inches (10 to 12 centimeters) (Moyle 2002, p. 122). Fish Lake
Valley tui chubs from the
[[Page 21723]]
historical population at Fish Lake were measured at up to 8 inches (20
centimeters) (Hubbs 1934, unpaginated).
The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is a narrow endemic subspecies known
from six historical sites within Fish Lake Valley (see figure 1 under
Current Condition, below). Historical records of this tui chub are from
lakes and small springs, including Fish Lake, Sand Spring, McNett
spring system, Pothole Springs, an unnamed spring, and several valley
channels flowing into Fish Lake (Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW)
1991, entire; Sada n.d., unpaginated). The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is
currently extant in the McNett spring system, the only currently
occupied site within the historical range. A second population has been
introduced into Lida Pond outside of the subspecies' historical range.
The primary life stages for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub are egg,
larva, juvenile, and adult. Few specifics are known about the life
history of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, and much of what we know
regarding the subspecies' life history comes from studies of other tui
chub subspecies. Females lay 6,100-68,900 eggs in gravel substrate or
aquatic vegetation, and males fertilize them when water temperatures
reach 55-72 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (13-22 degrees Celsius
([deg]C)). In warmer springs and ponds, this can be late February
through August, but it primarily happens between April and July (Sigler
and Sigler 1987, p. 169; Moyle 2002, p. 125; Vicker 1973, p. 11). Eggs
hatch in 3 to 6 days (Moyle 2002, p. 125). After the eggs hatch, the
fish are considered to be in the larval stage; this stage generally
occurs between February and August, depending on the environmental
conditions and timing of spawning. Occasionally male tui chubs sexually
mature after 1 year, but most mature at 2 years, with females maturing
between 2 and 3 years of age (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 169). In the
spring when water temperatures warm, spawning occurs again, restarting
the life cycle for the next generation of tui chubs. Tui chubs can live
up to 35 years in large lakes, but in smaller ponds and springs, their
observed maximum lifespan is 7 years (Moyle 2002, p. 125; Crain and
Corcoran 2000, p. 149).
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following 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.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at ).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best scientific and commercial data available and
taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history
characteristics, threat projection timeframes, and environmental
variability. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of
time over which we can make reasonably reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light of the
conservation purposes of the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data available
regarding the status of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, including an
assessment of the potential threats to this subspecies. The SSA report
does not represent our decision on whether the subspecies should be
proposed for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the
Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our
regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of
standards
[[Page 21724]]
within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess the Fish Lake Valley tui chub's viability, we used the
three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events);
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we
identified the Fish Lake Valley tui chub's ecological requirements for
survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and subspecies
levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the
subspecies' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual subspecies' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the subspecies' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the subspecies arrived
at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the subspecies' future condition, including responses
to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences.
Throughout all of these stages, we used the best scientific and
commercial data available to characterize viability as the ability of
the Fish Lake Valley tui chub to sustain populations in the wild over
time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2024-0207 on .
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
subspecies and its resources, and the threats that influence the
subspecies' current and future condition, in order to assess the
subspecies' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
Subspecies Needs
To begin this assessment, we focus on the first conservation
biology principle of resiliency. For Fish Lake Valley tui chub
populations to have sufficient resiliency, the needs of individuals
must be met at a large enough scale to address population-level and
subspecies-level needs. The Fish Lake Valley tui chub needs sufficient
(1) habitat quantity, (2) habitat quality, (3) population growth, and
(4) population size to support sustainable populations in a highly
variable and unpredictable environment. The individual needs of Fish
Lake Valley tui chub are primarily a function of habitat condition and
are summarized below in table 1. All Fish Lake Valley tui chub life
stages require permanent water bodies with adequate water quality, and
they feed on invertebrates and algae. Successful reproduction is
dependent on suitable substrates of gravel or aquatic vegetation. Much
of the data presented in table 1 is derived from studies of tui chub in
general because there are few specific ecological resource needs data
available specifically for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Therefore,
where we do provide a range of values, the values were determined by
studies conducted on similar subspecies; otherwise, the term
``adequate'' was used for resource needs that are uncertain.
Table 1--Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub's Individual Needs
[Service 2024, p. 19]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Function and description of the resource
Need need
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water temperatures suitable Eggs are laid when water temperatures
for reproduction. reach 55-72 [deg]F (13-22 [deg]C),
primarily between April and July. In
warmer springs and ponds, it can be late
February through August. Eggs hatch in 3
to 6 days, usually at temperatures
between 66-68 [deg]F (19-20 [deg]C).
Adequate year-round water Adequate year-round water quality (pH of
quality and flow. 7.6-9.6 and dissolved solids <900
milligrams per liter (mg/L)) and flow
are critical for survival of all life
stages. Eggs require adequate dissolved
oxygen (>4.5 mg/L). Water must be low
velocity and must have sufficient
quantity (at least about 1 meter deep
year-round) and limited sedimentation.
Gravel or aquatic vegetation Eggs are laid in gravel substrate or
substrates. aquatic vegetation. Aquatic vegetation
and/or gravel substrate is required for
successful spawning.
Aquatic vegetation for Aquatic vegetation also forms the base of
shelter. the food chain, supporting invertebrate
survival. Larvae, juveniles, and adults
require aquatic vegetation for shelter
from predators. Aquatic vegetation also
provides a cooler microenvironment when
open water temperatures get too high.
Zooplankton, invertebrate Larvae require zooplankton for food.
larvae, detritus, and algae. Juveniles and adults require
invertebrates, detritus, and algae for
food.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Populations need an abundance of individuals within habitat patches
of adequate area and quality to survive and reproduce despite
disturbance. For the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, the abundance of
individuals depends upon adequate surface water habitat. Having
multiple populations increases the subspecies' redundancy and helps
mitigate impacts from localized threats. The Fish Lake Valley tui chub
needs a sufficient quantity and quality of habitat to sustain
populations. The subspecies has historically inhabited a small area,
making the amount of suitable habitat important for the resiliency of
the subspecies. Quality of habitat depends upon the presence of
suitable water temperature and chemical parameters (e.g., dissolved
oxygen, pH), adequate food resources, and suitable spawning habitat, as
well as the absence of nonnative and invasive species.
For the Fish Lake Valley tui chub to have high viability, the
subspecies needs to maintain its representation (adaptive capacity) by
having multiple, highly resilient populations (redundancy) to withstand
catastrophic events. As a narrow endemic, the Fish Lake Valley tui chub
inherently has low redundancy. However, it is still important to have
multiple, highly resilient populations to help mitigate impacts from
threats and stochastic
[[Page 21725]]
events. Having multiple populations also helps maintain genetic
diversity and adaptive capacity.
Threats
We identified agricultural production, lithium mining, geothermal
development, changes in habitat management, climate change, and
invasive species as the primary threats currently affecting the Fish
Lake Valley tui chub. The following discussion provides a summary of
the threats and stressors that are affecting or may be affecting the
current and future condition of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub
throughout some or all of its range. A more detailed description may be
found in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 25-36).
Agricultural Production
Agriculture has been a historically important component of the
economy of Fish Lake Valley and continues to this day (Suverly 2001,
unpaginated). The principal crop is alfalfa, comprising 58 percent of
the total agricultural sales in Esmeralda County, with other hay
products constituting another 2 percent (Suverly 2001, unpaginated).
Alfalfa is a water-intensive crop, requiring 4.2 feet (1.3 meters) of
water per year to be grown in the Fish Lake Valley (Huntington and
Allen 2010, p. 252). Between 2008 and 2023, alfalfa crop cover in the
Fish Lake Valley hydrologic basin increased nearly 250 percent from
4,509 acres (1,825 hectares) to 11,142 acres (4,509 hectares) (U.S.
Department of Agriculture n.d., unpaginated).
Primarily due to groundwater pumping for agricultural use,
groundwater levels in Fish Lake Valley have declined up to 2.0 feet
(0.6 meter) per year resulting in over 75 feet (23 meters) of drawdown
(Esmeralda County 2022, pp. 45, 51) from the late 1960s to about 2010
(Esmeralda County 2022, p. 51), which has significantly reduced Fish
Lake Valley tui chub habitat throughout the subspecies' range (NDOW
1991, p. 1; Nevada Division of Natural Heritage (NDNH) 2020,
unpaginated; Pedretti et al. 1985b, p. 7; Sada n.d., unpaginated).
Groundwater has been pumped for decades for agricultural purposes on
both sides of the Nevada/California border within the Fish Lake Valley
hydrographic basin. Permitted allocations exceed available water
resources, and actual groundwater withdrawals must be reduced within
Nevada and California until groundwater withdrawals are sustainable
(Esmeralda County 2022, p. 49). In 2023, the Nevada State Engineer's
Office assessed the Fish Lake Valley groundwater basin to be
overappropriated by 150 to 250 percent of the perennial yield (Nevada
Division of Water Resources 2023, p. 7). Ninety-nine percent of the
groundwater resources pumped in Fish Lake Valley are devoted to
irrigation of agricultural crops (Nevada Division of Water Resources
2019, p. 8). As agricultural production has increased in both the
Nevada and California portions of Fish Lake Valley in recent decades,
the groundwater level in the Fish Lake Valley basin has continued to
decline from groundwater pumping that exceeds annual recharge
(Department of Agriculture n.d. unpaginated; Nevada Division of Water
Resources 2023, pp. 7-8; Esmeralda County 2022, pp. 49-50). This
overdraft is causing the collapse of the aquifer and damaging the
ability of the aquifer to store water in the future (Esmeralda County
2022, p. 49).
The drawdown of groundwater has direct negative effects on the
habitat of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Surveyors routinely reported
(1985, 1989, 1991, 1995, 2001, 2023) desiccation of known tui chub
habitats in the central Fish Lake Valley in the late 20th century (NDOW
1991, p. 1; NDNH 2020, unpaginated; Pedretti 1985b, p. 7; Sada n.d.,
unpaginated; NDOW 2023, pp. 3-6). Fish Lake, the body of water for
which the valley is named and that was historically occupied by the
Fish Lake Valley tui chub, was affected by human modification of the
springhead and reduced flows (NDOW 1991, p. 1). By 1995, a site visit
revealed no fish were present as the lake had become too dry (NDNH
2020, unpaginated). Although the lakebed still holds ephemeral water
following heavy rains or periods of snowmelt, groundwater levels
dropped too low to provide consistent surface water coverage, and, as a
result, the tui chubs at Fish Lake were extirpated. Other nearby
springs formerly supporting tui chubs have also been affected by
groundwater drawdown, with the Pothole Springs and the unnamed springs
drying up between the mid-1980s and early 2000s (Pedretti et al. 1985b,
p. 7; NDOW 1991, p.1; Sada n.d. unpaginated).
Lithium Mining
The only currently active large-scale lithium mine in the United
States is operating at Silver Peak in Clayton Valley, Nevada,
approximately 30 miles (50 kilometers) east of Fish Lake Valley. The
Clayton Valley groundwater basin has been permanently losing storage
due to groundwater withdrawals for evaporative mineral concentration,
the process that has commonly been used for lithium extraction in this
area (Esmeralda County 2012, p. 43; Pennington 2021, p. 2). Lithium
mining operations have caused water levels in Clayton Valley to
decline, with some wells drying completely (Pennington 2021, p. 2).
Additional lithium claims have been proposed in Fish Lake Valley,
Clayton Valley, and Columbus Salt Marsh (approximately 20 miles (30
kilometers) north of Fish Lake Valley), indicating that lithium mining
operations are likely to expand in this area in the future.
Lithium claystone mining was recently permitted to proceed at
Rhyolite Ridge, approximately 8 miles (13 kilometers) east of the Fish
Lake Valley tui chub site at the McNett spring system (Ioneer 2024, pp.
1-72; Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2024, entire). Claystone mining
is an alternative method of extracting lithium through the excavation
of ore and processing the ore with acid to leach out the lithium
(Ioneer 2024, pp. 1-72). Lithium claystone mining is considered to be
less water intensive than the traditional evaporative lithium brine
extraction methods (Ioneer 2024, p. i). However, water is still
necessary for production of the acid used in the processing facility,
for construction of infrastructure, and for dust suppression (Ioneer
2024 pp. 1-72). The Rhyolite Ridge mine proposes to use approximately
4,032 acre-feet (over 4 million cubic meters) of water annually (Ioneer
2024, p. 33). Water necessary for mining operations could include
pumping groundwater from Fish Lake Valley to the Rhyolite Ridge mine
site (Ioneer 2024, p. 33). In 2023, mining companies began exploratory
drilling for lithium resources at the Fish Lake Valley playa, 7 miles
(11 kilometers) northeast of the McNett spring system, and seismic
surveys have been conducted for lithium resources 2 miles (3
kilometers) east of the McNett spring system (Morella Corporation 2024,
p. 8).
Lithium mining in the Fish Lake Valley area is likely to impact
groundwater resources in Fish Lake Valley regardless of the type of
mines developed in the area, as both lithium brine and claystone mining
require substantial groundwater use (Pennington 2021, p. 2; Ioneer
2024, p. 33). In conjunction with continuing agricultural uses and
potential geothermal development discussed below, water use for lithium
mining will likely exacerbate the already overallocated Fish Lake
Valley groundwater basin that supplies water for tui chub habitat in
the McNett spring system.
[[Page 21726]]
Geothermal Development
Geothermal energy production has not yet occurred in Fish Lake
Valley. However, there has been interest in geothermal development,
with multiple active geothermal leases with exploratory wells being
drilled in the valley near the tui chub population in the McNett spring
system (BLM 2022a, p. 9). The Fish Lake Geothermal Project area is
located 0.3 miles (0.5 kilometer) northwest of the McNett spring
system, and the project is currently in the early permitting phase,
with energy production possible within the next several years (BLM
2023, p. 9). The Lone Mountain Geothermal project area is located 4.1
miles (6.6 kilometers) northeast of the McNett spring system and is
also in the early exploration and permitting phase (BLM 2022a, p. 9).
Prior to geothermal development of a particular area, the flow path
of water beneath the land surface is usually not known with sufficient
detail to understand and prevent surface impacts that may be caused by
such development (Sorey 2000, p. 705). However, changes associated with
surface expression of thermal waters from geothermal production have
been commonly observed, including, but not limited to, changes in water
temperature, flow, and water quality (Bonte et al. 2011, pp. 4-8; Chen
et al. 2020, pp. 2-6; Kaya et al. 2011, pp. 55-64; Sorey 2000, entire),
which could all be direct changes to the necessary parameters of the
habitat needs of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Conversely, there have
also been geothermal production plants that did not result in any
measurable effects to surface water characteristics (Kaya et al. 2011,
pp. 55-64; Sorey 2000, p. 706).
In an effort to minimize these changes in water temperature,
quantity, and quality, and to maintain pressure of the geothermal
reservoir, geothermal fluids may be reinjected into the ground to
reheat the used fluids and maintain local geothermal reservoir pressure
(U.S. Department of Energy n.d., entire). This practice entails much
trial and error in an attempt to equilibrate subsurface reservoir
pressure, and it can take several years to understand how a new
geothermal field will react to production and reinjection wells (Kaya
et al. 2011, pp. 55-64).
The aforementioned type of changes in surface-expressed water
temperature and flow from geothermal production areas have been
documented in several places in California and Nevada, including the
Long Valley Caldera roughly 40 miles (64 kilometers) southwest of Fish
Lake Valley (Sorey 2000, entire). For example, the geothermal water
component in springs at Hot Creek Fish Hatchery has been reduced by 30
to 40 percent since 1990 (Sorey 2000, p. 706). Geothermal pumping
between 1985 and 1998 at Casa Diablo Geothermal Plant, part of Ormat
Technologies, Inc., Mammoth Geothermal Complex, resulted in flow
ceasing at Colton Spring (1.2 miles (1.9 kilometers) east of Casa
Diablo) and declines in water level at Hot Bubbling Pool (3.1 miles (5
kilometers) east of Casa Diablo) (Sorey 2000, p. 706). Similarly, a
large geothermal power plant in Jersey Valley, Nevada, located
approximately 170 miles (274 kilometers) north of Fish Lake Valley,
caused the cessation of a thermal spring flow just 3 years after
production began (BLM 2022b, p. 1).
It is also possible that geothermal energy production may have no
discernible effect to the local spring systems as has been observed for
some projects. For example, at the Casa Diablo Geothermal plant, the
project-related decline in thermal component did not result in the
lowering of temperature of the thermally influenced Hatchery Springs
(2.5 miles (4 kilometers) east of Casa Diablo), probably due to the
moderating influence of rock conductivity (Sorey 2000, p. 706).
Additionally, the Casa Diablo plant did not produce any change in
thermal water discharge of the Hot Creek Gorge, located 3 miles (4.8
kilometers) from the well field, from the period 1988-1998 (Sorey 2000,
p. 706).
Preliminary geothermal well pumping tests for the Fish Lake
Geothermal Project failed to detect a measurable response in water
levels or spring flows within the McNett spring system (UES Consulting
Services, Inc. 2024a, p. 16), although a numerical groundwater model
predicted minimal project-related drawdown (UES Consulting Services,
Inc. 2024b, p. 65). This may be due to the limitation of short-term
(approximately 2 months) monitoring or the confounding effects of
precipitation events during the testing period (UES Consulting
Services, Inc. 2024a, p. 16). It may also be that the geothermal
connection at McNett spring system is so diffuse that spring flows are
not sensitive to pumping from the geothermal resource (UES Consulting
Services, Inc. 2024b, p. 15).
The highly varied effects of geothermal energy production on
thermal waters are likely going to depend on many factors including the
unique hydrogeology of the project site and methodology used. Springs
within the same proximate geographic area or wetland system may respond
differently to the geothermal plant, for example, depending on the
relative contribution of geothermal fluids to the spring discharge. The
hydraulic connection between geothermal reservoirs and shallow
groundwater basins cannot be inferred based on distance alone but is
rather determined by multiple and synergistic factors such as the
presence of faults or fractures, the transmissivity of the underlying
material, and other local surface water and/or groundwater extraction.
Despite the variation in potential impacts from geothermal projects
on nearby spring systems, for the McNett spring system, the best
available information suggests that nearby geothermal development will
utilize the source of discharge at the spring. We infer this based on
the recorded temperatures and geochemical analyses of the McNett spring
system, which indicate that there is some level of geothermal input.
During the winter months, water temperatures at the McNett spring
system routinely register above the ambient air temperature. For
example, in late March of 2021, the water temperature at the main pool
was measured as 67 [deg]F (19.3 [deg]C) and the water temperature at an
outflow well was 71 [deg]F (21.68 [deg]C) (NDOW 2021, p. 4). The
ambient air temperature that day registered 56 [deg]F (13.6 [deg]C)
(NDOW 2021, p. 7). Additionally, recent geochemical analysis of fluids
from the McNett spring system suggests that the waters are between 7 to
11 percent geothermal in source (UES Consulting Services, Inc. 2024b,
p. 144). This is an indication that the habitat within the McNett
spring system is partially sustained by the geothermal reservoir.
Even if the springs are only partially supplied by the geothermal
reservoir, changes in the pressure or flow paths of groundwater due to
nearby geothermal production and injection wells may alter discharge,
water temperature, and water quality of surface springs at the McNett
spring system, as has been seen elsewhere in Nevada. While short-term
flow tests did not detect a response to the spring flows at McNett for
the Fish Lake Geothermal Project, longer term pumping associated with
the future plant may produce an effect on water quality or spring
flows. The combined geothermal pumping associated with two nearby
geothermal plants (Fish Lake Geothermal and Lone Mountain) may increase
the risk of habitat desiccation or deterioration over time such that
the McNett Spring system may no longer support the Fish Lake Valley tui
chub; however, there is significant uncertainty that geothermal
development will
[[Page 21727]]
become a threat to the viability of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
Changes in Habitat Management
Historical and recent oversight and management practices at the
McNett spring system have resulted in suitable conditions for the Fish
Lake Valley tui chub at this one remaining historical site, evidenced
by the persistence of a population maintaining around 2,000 individuals
for approximately 20 years (NDOW 2002, p. 1; NDOW 2005, p. 1; NDOW
2021, p. 6). Most of the McNett spring system is privately owned and
used for cattle grazing (Red Spring Allotment, under grazing permit
NV00091). Cooperation between the landowner and NDOW has ensured
accurate estimates of the tui chub's current population and the
gathering of additional information about the life history of the fish.
Current levels of grazing may have contributed to the current
availability of open water at the McNett spring system by preventing
encroachment of aquatic vegetation (NDOW 2022, pp. 2-3). In contrast,
Lida Pond, which is located on BLM land and falls within the Magruder
Mountain Allotment (permit number NV00099), had recently been
overutilized by trespass cattle, causing bank erosion and reduction of
open water habitat, before the BLM became aware of and excluded the
trespass cattle (Strother 2024, pers. comm.). An increase in grazing
pressure may result in sedimentation and reduced water quality due to
heavy livestock use, while a complete absence of grazing may cause an
overgrowth of marshy vegetation at the expense of open water habitat
used by the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
Since the early 1990s, the springhead at McNett has been modified
with dams and water control structures (NDOW 1991, p. 1). To date,
these structures have likely improved Fish Lake Valley tui chub habitat
at the site by deepening the main pool where the majority of the tui
chubs live, although future property management may not have the same
beneficial effects. In the past, and as recently as 1993, surveys by
NDOW noted goldfish (Carassius auratus) in the McNett spring system
(NDOW 1993, p. 1). In the early 20th century, other nonnative fish,
including black bass (Micropterus spp.) and common carp (Cyprinus
carpio), were also documented from the site (Hubbs 1934, unpaginated).
The most recent NDOW survey data from 2021 did not indicate the
presence of nonnative fish in the spring system (NDOW 2021, entire). A
deeper pool may encourage property managers or trespassers to introduce
sportfish or aquarium fish for recreational or aesthetic purposes. The
risk of the public introducing nonnative fish may also increase if
public access to the McNett spring system is allowed in the future (see
``Invasive Species,'' below).
Because there are currently no formal agreements in place
protecting the McNett spring system, uncertainty exists regarding the
maintenance of habitat conditions conducive for the future persistence
of Fish Lake Valley tui chub at this site.
Climate Change
Climate change has already impacted Fish Lake Valley and will
continue to do so at an increasing rate in the future. In general,
warmer temperatures and greater extremes in precipitation amounts are
modeled for this region of the western United States (Marvel et al.
2023, pp. 11-20). Current climate change forecasts for the southwestern
United States, including Nevada and California, predict warmer air
temperatures, more intense precipitation events (both drought and
flooding), and increased summer continental drying by the year 2100
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014, entire;
Gonzalez et al. 2018, pp. 1109-1110; McAfee et al. 2021, entire;
Frankson et al. 2022, entire; Runkle et al. 2022, entire; Marvel et al.
2023, pp. 11-20).
Average annual temperatures have increased almost 1.9 [deg]F (1.1
[deg]C) over the past decade compared to the preindustrial period of
1850-1899, and an increase of 3.6 to 6.7 [deg]F (2.0 [deg]C to 3.7
[deg]C) is predicted to occur by the year 2100 (Garfin et al. 2014, p.
464; Arias et al. 2021, p. 60; Marvel et al. 2023, pp. 10, 29). Mean
annual temperature within Fish Lake Valley is projected to increase
between 5.7 and 10.3 [deg]F (3.2 and 5.7 [deg]C) by 2100 compared to
the historical average, reflecting a pattern where the contiguous
United States is warming faster than the global average (Marvel et al.
2023, p. 11). The models are projected under two different emission
scenarios: a high emissions scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions
continue to increase into the next century (representative
concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5) and a low emission scenario in which
greenhouse gas emissions stabilize by mid-century and then decline to
levels seen in the 1990s by the end of the century (RCP4.5).
Increased temperature and more variable precipitation within the
range of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub will place additional stress on
groundwater resources and aquatic habitat availability. The Fish Lake
Valley tui chub now only occurs in sites that are completely dependent
on spring outflows. Desert springs support relatively small aquatic
systems, as surface flows are sustained by groundwater. The springs
range widely in size, temperature, water chemistry, morphology,
landscape setting, and persistence. Springs occur where subterranean
water under pressure reaches the Earth's surface through fault zones,
rock cracks, or orifices that occur when water creates a passage toward
the surface. In general, springs are uniquely influenced by aquifer
geology, morphology, discharge rates, and regional precipitation. Most
valley aquifers in the Great Basin are recharged by springtime runoff
during snowmelt from adjacent mountain ranges. Specifically, the White
Mountains, which form the north and west boundary of Fish Lake Valley,
provide the springtime runoff and recharge to the groundwater basin.
A spring's size is generally a function of discharge, which can be
affected by precipitation and evapotranspiration. Also, springs can be
characterized as an endpoint in a continuous spectrum of groundwater
discharge processes (van der Kamp 1995, pp. 5-6), or points of focused
groundwater discharge from groundwater flow systems. These flow systems
transport groundwater from recharge areas to discharge areas under the
influence of gravity. The rate of spring flow averaged over several
years equals the average rate of recharge to the flow systems that feed
the spring. The annual rate of groundwater recharge is always less than
the annual precipitation and can be estimated on the basis of
precipitation and evapotranspiration. Overall, any evapotranspiration
loss results in reduced flow from springs, which is the principal
reason many small springs dry up entirely during hot, dry weather.
Evapotranspiration is higher for alfalfa in warmer growing regions,
meaning that climate change may result in increased groundwater use for
continued alfalfa production in Fish Lake Valley in the future
(Huntington and Allen 2010, p. 70). In recent decades, reductions in
winter precipitation and snowpack have been observed, and this pattern
is expected to continue (Garfin et al. 2014, p. 465; Marvel et al.
2023, pp. 11, 22). The frequency and intensity of these reductions have
increased on a global scale, and climate change is projected to reduce
surface and groundwater resources in most deserts, such as the Great
Basin (Marvel et al. 2023, p. 25; IPCC 2014, pp. 14, 77).
[[Page 21728]]
Invasive Species
Aquatic invasive species have long been demonstrated to have a high
impact on range-restricted desert fishes. Invasive species have been
noted in the Fish Lake Valley for an extended period of time. Early
settlers introduced common carp, bullhead catfish (Ameiurus spp.),
black bass, and Sacramento perch (Archoplites interruptus) to Fish Lake
and the McNett spring system in the late 19th century (Hubbs 1934,
unpaginated). Goldfish and sunfish (Lepomis spp.) were introduced to
Fish Lake Valley shortly thereafter (Sada 2024, pers. comm.). By the
early 20th century, the populations of tui chubs at both Fish Lake and
the McNett spring system were observed to be in decline due to
predation by introduced fishes (Hubbs 1934, unpaginated). Common carp
were observed in Fish Lake and in the ditches draining into the lake
into the 1980s and 1990s, and populations of tui chub continued to
diminish at both sites (Pedretti et al. 1985b, p. 6; NDOW 1993, p. 1).
As the habitat of the tui chub dried, competition with invasive carp
may have resulted in larger proportional impacts to the tui chub.
Invasive bullfrogs became abundant by the early 1990s at Fish Lake,
simultaneous with the crash of the tui chub population at that site
(NDOW 1991, p. 1). At the same time, populations of predatory fish,
including bass and sunfish, contributed additional pressures on the tui
chub population at Fish Lake (Sada 2024, pers. comm.).
As discussed above, goldfish, black bass, and common carp have been
introduced in the McNett spring system, although only the goldfish
persist there today. Currently, invasive species including bullfrogs
and goldfish are located less than 2 miles (3 kilometers) from the
McNett spring system at an artificial well and wetland complex known as
the Fish Lake Valley Hot Well or ``Hot Box,'' constructed in the early
1990s for recreational bathing and fishing opportunities (NDOW 1991, p.
2). The 2-mile (3-kilometer) proximity of these invasive species
enhances the risk that flash flooding events will allow them to
disperse or be intentionally introduced to the McNett spring system.
Alternatively, if the Hot Well dried up as a result of water production
in the valley, the invasive bullfrogs may disperse to the nearest
aquatic habitat, which may include the McNett spring system.
Additionally, goldfish and mosquitofish have already been introduced to
Lida Pond, where Fish Lake Valley tui chubs were translocated outside
of the subspecies' historical range. Lida Pond is especially vulnerable
to the introduction of additional invasive species because it may be
easily accessed by public roads and it is very close to Indian Spring,
6.6 miles (10.7 kilometers) away, where introduced populations of
predatory American bullfrogs, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),
and bullhead catfish exist.
Overall, the direct impact of invasive species on the Fish Lake
Valley tui chub is difficult to quantify, but in combination with the
decline in habitat size and quality due to dewatering, the increased
competition with and predation by invasive species are highly likely to
affect the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, which evolved without other
native fish in Fish Lake Valley (Hubbs 1934, unpaginated).
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is designated as a protected fish
species by the State of Nevada (Nevada Administrative Code at section
503.065.1). Protected wildlife species are prohibited from being taken
or hunted without authorization from NDOW. However, there are no
protections for the habitat of protected species or for indirect
killing of protected species incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
No known conservation actions have been undertaken for Fish Lake Valley
tui chub (NDOW 2012a, p. 19; West 2024, pers. comm.).
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. To assess the current and
future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the
relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats
and conservation efforts. The best available science indicates that
there are synergistic and cumulative interactions among the factors
influencing the Fish Lake Valley tui chub's viability. The Fish Lake
Valley tui chub is limited to two extremely small populations, one
within the historical range and one introduced outside of the
historical range. Groundwater decline and reduction in spring flow due
to dewatering associated with current and ongoing projects could cause
further decline in habitat availability in this already limited
habitat. Additionally, increased competition with and predation by
invasive species would likely further negatively affect the Fish Lake
tui chub by decreasing the quality of the available habitat.
Cumulatively, these factors diminish the amount of suitable habitat for
the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, thus impacting the subspecies'
viability. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors influencing this subspecies, but to what degree they
collectively influence risk to the entire subspecies, our assessment
integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a
standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
Current Condition
The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is a narrow endemic subspecies known
from six historical sites (see table 2, below) within Fish Lake Valley
in Esmeralda County, Nevada, and a seventh more recently introduced
site outside of the historical range. All but one (McNett spring
system) of the six historical sites are now extirpated. A second
population was introduced at Lida Pond outside of Fish Lake Valley
roughly 39 miles (63 kilometers) southeast of McNett spring system (see
figure 1, below). Both sites are spring-fed systems. The year-round
flow and relative stability in temperature and water quality provided
by the springs (e.g., not freezing over in winter) have likely played a
large role in maintaining these populations. Because of the small
spatial scale (i.e., one extant population within the historical range
and one introduced population outside the historical range) and limited
survey data, we assessed the current condition qualitatively by
discussing rangewide factors affecting viability (e.g., the number of
extant sites) and by summarizing the available demographic and habitat
information for each site. We use the terms sites and populations
interchangeably given the lack of hydrologic connectivity between
extant sites; however, the historical population structure is unknown.
We supplemented the limited demographic and habitat quality data with a
threats analysis for each population. Below, we provide qualitative
descriptions of the factors influencing viability and highlight the
major threats and their expected impacts on each of the two extant
sites. Please refer to the SSA for a full discussion of the extirpated
Fish Lake Valley tui chub sites (Service 2024, pp. 53-61).
[[Page 21729]]
Table 2--Summary of Current Condition of the Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub at Each Known Site. Most of the Available
Data on the Subspecies' Condition Is Qualitative. The Last Year Surveyed Refers to a Range of Methods, Including
Quantitative Surveys, Visual Surveys, and Site Visits To Confirm the Subspecies' Presence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Confidence in Last year Last year
Site name condition condition observed surveyed Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McNett spring system......... Extant......... Confident...... 2023 2023 Private, BLM.
Lida Pond *.................. Extant......... Confident...... 2024 2024 BLM.
Fish Lake.................... Extirpated..... Confident...... 1992 2023 Private.
Valley Channels.............. Extirpated..... Confident...... 1985 1991 Private, BLM.
Pothole Springs.............. Extirpated..... Confident...... 1986 1991 Private.
Unnamed spring............... Extirpated..... Confident...... 1993 2001 Private.
Sand Spring.................. Extirpated..... Uncertain...... Pre-1991 1995 Private.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates population was introduced and outside of species' historical range.
[[Page 21730]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY25.007
Figure 1. Map of Known Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub Occupied and
Extirpated Sites
McNett Spring System
The McNett spring system is the only extant population of the Fish
Lake Valley tui chub within the subspecies' historical range, and
available survey data suggest that this population is currently stable.
NDOW conducted surveys or visited the McNett spring system in 1998,
2002, 2005, 2007, 2021, and 2023. Survey methods varied among years,
ranging from visual surveys and dip netting to mark-recapture
population estimates. Population estimates for the main spring pool
have ranged between 2,143 and 3,278 tui chubs, although the total
population size throughout the spring complex is likely larger. The
first mark-recapture survey was conducted in 2002, and it estimated a
population of 3,278 chubs at this site, with a 95 percent confidence
interval of 1,900-6,145 fish (NDOW 2002, p. 1). In 2005, the population
was estimated at 2,210 chubs with a 95 percent confidence interval of
1,652-3,032 fish (NDOW 2005, p. 1). In 2007, 554 tui chubs were marked
and released, but a population estimate was not conducted due to
logistical constraints (NDOW 2007, p. 1). In 2021, mark-recapture
survey efforts resulted in an estimated population of 2,143 fish with a
95 percent confidence interval of 1,847-2,485 fish (NDOW 2021, p. 6).
However,
[[Page 21731]]
although the population appears to be stable, the limited size of the
habitat (210 acres (ac); 85 hectares (ha)) in this one remaining
historical site makes it vulnerable to even small changes in influences
to viability, especially groundwater availability.
Most of the McNett spring system is privately owned and used for
grazing cattle. Fencing excludes feral horses from entering the
property from adjacent BLM lands. The main spring pool historically
measured 23 by 17 feet (7 by 5 meters) with a maximum depth of 3 feet
(1 meter); however, the spring was later impounded, which increased the
diameter of the pool to 39.0 feet (11.9 meters) (Pedretti et al. 1985a,
p. 3; NDOW 1991, p. 1; NDOW 2021, p. 4). On March 23, 2021, the depth
of the main pool was measured at 6.2 feet (1.9 meters), and it had a
mean temperature of 66.7 [deg]F (19.3 [deg]C) (NDOW 2021, p. 4).
Dissolved oxygen ranged from 4.5 to 5.6 mg/L at three sites sampled
across the spring complex, with total dissolved solids ranging from 287
to 730 mg/L and conductivity from 404 to 1,081 microsiemens per
centimeter ([micro]s/cm) (NDOW 2021, p. 4). Although the main spring
pool contains the highest quality habitat, Fish Lake Valley tui chubs
are known to disperse throughout the wetland complex.
The primary threat to Fish Lake Valley tui chubs at the McNett
spring system is continued groundwater extraction driven by
agricultural operations in Fish Lake Valley, which has led to the
drying of habitat and extirpation of other tui chub populations
(Pothole Springs and unnamed spring) within the valley. In 1950, the
well had a flow rate of 195 gallons per minute (gpm) (738 liters per
minute) (Eakin 1950, p. 25), and in 2023 to 2024, the flow rate had
decreased to 89 to 91 gpm (337 to 344 liters per minute) (UES
Consulting Services, Inc. 2024a, p. 9). A numerical groundwater model
predicted that the McNett spring system will experience a drawdown of
approximately 5 feet (2 meters) within the next 50 years due primarily
to existing agricultural pumping within Fish Lake Valley (UES
Consulting Services, Inc. 2024b, p. 65). This same model predicts a
total reduction in flow of approximately 56 gpm (212 liters per minute)
within 50 years, representing an approximate 22 percent reduction in
flow (UES Consulting Services, Inc. 2024b, p. 66). There is potential
for additional stress on groundwater from the development of nearby
geothermal power facilities or lithium mines.
Another major threat to this population is the potential
introduction of invasive species. American bullfrogs and goldfish are
within 2 miles (3 kilometers) of the McNett spring system, located at a
constructed well outflow complex known as the Fish Lake Valley Hot Well
(NDOW 2020, p. 4). This outflow complex was constructed in the early
1990s for recreational bathing and fishing opportunities (NDOW 1991, p.
2). NDOW has previously recommended the eradication of nonnative
species from the Fish Lake Valley Hot Well for the protection of
endemic aquatic species including the Fish Lake Valley tui chub (NDOW
1991, p. 2; NDOW 2020, p. 8). Proximate populations of invasive species
can spread to nearby tui chub habitat in large flash flooding events,
which may become increasingly common due to anthropogenic climate
change. Invasive species may also be deliberately moved by humans to
sensitive natural habitats for enhanced recreational opportunities. The
current land management and grazing levels at the McNett spring system
appear to pose a low risk to the Fish Lake Valley tui chub population,
as evidenced by the stable tui chub abundance estimates in the main
spring pool.
Lida Pond
Fish Lake Valley tui chubs were first reported and collected at
Lida Pond in 1993 (NDOW 1993, p. 1). Genetic results indicate that the
tui chubs at Lida Pond are Fish Lake Valley tui chubs (Campbell et al.
2024, entire). The site is located at the townsite of Lida on BLM land
adjacent to Timbisha Shoshone Tribal lands. Lida Pond is located
roughly 4 miles outside of the Fish Lake Valley basin. The best
available information suggests that the entire historical range of the
Fish Lake Valley tui chub was restricted to the Fish Lake Valley basin.
Therefore, the population of Fish Lake Valley tui chub at Lida Pond is
outside the subspecies' historical range, likely introduced by humans
although details about the introduction are unknown.
No estimates of population size are available for Lida Pond, but 22
Fish Lake Valley tui chubs were collected in 30 minutes of trapping in
2022 (NDOW 2022, p. 1). Presence of tui chubs in Lida Pond was
confirmed in 2023 and 2024, based on visual surveys by NDOW, BLM, NDNH,
and Service biologists, suggesting that the population has been extant
at this site since 1993. It is unknown if the tui chub population at
Lida Pond has persisted since the original introduction or if
additional introductions of tui chub were made in subsequent years.
Lida Pond is a natural spring that has been modified with an earthen
berm to create a larger pond. No information is available on habitat
quality within Lida Pond (NDOW 2023, p. 10).
Current threats to the tui chub population at Lida Pond include
competition from goldfish present in the pond and the spread of
emergent vegetation, mainly cattails (Typha sp.), which can limit
available open water habitat at the pond. Mosquitofish (Gambusia spp.)
were first observed in the pond by Service and NDOW biologists in 2012
(NDOW 2012b, p. 3) and were observed to be the most abundant fish in
the pond in 2022 (NDOW 2022, p. 1). Competition with these two species
(goldfish and mosquitofish) is likely having a small effect on the Fish
Lake Valley tui chub; however, as described in ``Invasive Species,''
above, competition can exacerbate other threats. In addition, Lida Pond
is especially vulnerable to the introduction of additional invasive
species because it may be easily accessed by public roads, and invasive
species, especially those valued for recreational fishing (e.g.,
largemouth bass), have potential to be intentionally introduced.
The risk of groundwater depletion leading to desiccation of the
spring at Lida Pond is lower relative to sites within Fish Lake Valley.
In addition to being in a different groundwater basin, Lida Pond is
more than 6,100 feet (1,860 meters) above sea level while the McNett
spring system, which is on the Fish Lake Valley floor, is approximately
4,700 feet (1,433 meters) above sea level. Thus, Lida Pond is a farther
distance from agricultural operations and has a cooler climate with
reduced evapotranspiration (Nevada Division of Water Resources 2023, p.
15).
Summary of Current Condition
The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is a narrow endemic subspecies known
from six historical sites within Fish Lake Valley in Esmeralda County,
Nevada. All but one of the six historical sites are now extirpated due
to drying of the aquatic habitat. A second population has been
introduced at Lida Pond outside of the subspecies' historical range.
The one extant population within Fish Lake Valley (McNett spring
system) has remained stable at roughly 2,000 individuals (95 percent
confidence interval of 1,652-6,145 individuals) for two decades.
Although this observed stability suggests that this population has
historically had some resilience to threats such as invasive species
and local land management practices, the primary concern is risk of a
catastrophic loss of aquatic habitat similar to the loss of Fish Lake
and surrounding springs
[[Page 21732]]
(this loss is discussed under ``Agricultural Production,'' above).
Although the historical population structure is not known, there
has been a large decrease in redundancy and representation due to the
drying of Fish Lake and the surrounding water bodies. Resiliency of the
Fish Lake Valley tui chub has been reduced such that the subspecies
occurs in only a single population within its historical range (McNett
spring system) and an introduced location outside its historical range
(Lida Pond). The loss of redundancy has left each remaining population
vulnerable to catastrophic threats. For example, the extirpation of the
historical populations has reduced the connectivity among the two
populations such that they cannot disperse from either drying of the
spring or the introduction of an invasive competitor or predator, nor
can they recolonize after a catastrophic event has taken place.
Representation has been reduced through the loss of connectivity
and loss of habitat types, which have reduced the evolutionary
potential. These losses compromise the ability of the subspecies to
adapt to novel changes in the environment, which increases the risk of
extinction. Because the threats that have impacted populations in the
past have not been abated, continued groundwater declines and the
introduction of invasive species both present a high risk to the
current viability of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
Future Condition
As part of the SSA, we also developed two future-condition
scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future
threats and the projected responses by the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
Our scenarios assumed continued or enhanced groundwater declines,
occurrence of mining operations extracting groundwater, occurrence of
geothermal operations decreasing surface water expression, presence of
invasive species leading to extirpation of Fish Lake Valley tui chub, a
higher emission scenario (shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP)5-8.5 or
RCP8.5) or a lower emission scenario (SSP2-4.5 or RCP4.5), and status
quo and alternative property management changes. Because we determined
that the current condition of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is
consistent with an endangered species (see Determination of Fish Lake
Valley Tui Chub's Status, below), we are not presenting the results of
the future scenarios in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA
report (Service 2024, pp. 56-60) for the full analysis of future
scenarios.
Determination of Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub's Status
The Act defines a species as including any subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species
of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. Section 4
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR
part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species
meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a
``threatened species'' as a species likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether a
species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following 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.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we find that the viability of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is
currently at risk. Our analysis revealed several threats that have
caused the Fish Lake Valley tui chub's range to become greatly reduced,
resulting in the majority of its historical habitat becoming
uninhabitable. The most important factors affecting the subspecies'
current status and trend are the destruction and modification of its
aquatic habitat caused by agricultural production or other land
management practices (Factor A), effects of climate change (i.e.,
warmer temperatures and greater extremes in precipitation amounts) on
aquatic habitat availability (Factor A), and predation by and
competition with invasive species (Factors C and E).
The primary threat affecting the Fish Lake Valley tui chub
currently is the loss of aquatic habitat driven by both diversion of
surface water and declines in groundwater levels. This reduction in
available water within Fish Lake Valley has historically been driven by
agricultural use, which has led to the drying of Fish Lake and the
small streams that historically fed the lake. Pressure on limited
groundwater resources from changes in habitat management is expected to
increase in the near-term future. Springs in Fish Lake Valley are fed
by aquifers dependent on snowmelt for recharge. In recent decades,
climate change has reduced precipitation and winter snowpack, and
thereby has affected groundwater levels in the valley. In combination,
these threats are expected to increase the risk that the limited
remaining tui chub habitat within Fish Lake Valley (McNett spring
system) will become dry.
Although a complete loss of aquatic habitat is the primary concern,
decreases in available habitat exacerbate the other threats affecting
the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Predation by and competition with
invasive species have likely contributed to extirpations of historical
tui chub populations, especially in Fish Lake, and invasive species
remain a risk for the two extant populations of the Fish Lake Valley
tui chub. Fish Lake Valley tui chubs currently compete with goldfish
and mosquitofish in Lida Pond. The proximity of invasive predators,
such as American bullfrogs and largemouth bass, means there is a high
risk of these predator species becoming introduced and having
catastrophic impacts on one or both of the extant Fish Lake Valley tui
chub populations. Although the direct impact of invasive species on the
Fish Lake Valley tui chub is difficult to quantify, the increased
competition with and predation by nonnative, invasive species are
considerable current threats to the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
Resiliency of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub has been reduced such
that the subspecies occurs in only a single population within its
historical range (McNett spring system). The five other historical
populations have been extirpated due to the threats outlined above. The
subspecies also occurs in an introduced location outside its historical
range (Lida Pond). Both extant sites currently face significant
imminent threats, including groundwater decline (McNett spring system)
and invasive species (McNett spring system and Lida Pond). The
reduction in the subspecies' range (from six sites to one within the
historical range) has also reduced redundancy and representation. Both
the McNett spring system and Lida Pond are at risk of catastrophic
events associated with the current threats to the subspecies. The loss
of habitat and
[[Page 21733]]
connectivity across the subspecies' historical range due to the drying
of Fish Lake has resulted in loss of evolutionary potential and
adaptive capacity for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Due to reduced
resiliency, representation, and redundancy, the Fish Lake Valley tui
chub is at risk of extinction in the near-term future.
Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data
available, we determine that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range. We do not find that the Fish
Lake Valley tui chub meets the Act's definition of a threatened species
because the Fish Lake Valley tui chub has already shown low levels in
current resiliency, redundancy, and representation due to the threats
discussed above.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. We have determined that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range.
Because the Fish Lake Valley tui chub warrants listing as endangered
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F.
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.
Determination of Status
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub meets the Act's definition
of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the Fish Lake
Valley tui chub as an endangered species in accordance with sections
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of 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, foreign
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required
by Federal agencies, including the Service, 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. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. 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.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), 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. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (/program/endangered-species) or from our Reno Fish and Wildlife 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, Tribes, 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 the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is listed, funding for recovery
actions may 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 State of Nevada
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions
that promote the protection or recovery of the Fish Lake Valley tui
chub. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: /service/financial-assistance.
Although the Fish Lake Valley tui chub 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 subspecies. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this subspecies whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat,
formal consultation is required (50 CFR
[[Page 21734]]
402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in writing that the action is
not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. At
the end of a formal consultation, the Service issues a biological
opinion, containing its determination of whether the Federal action is
likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modification.
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
Examples of discretionary actions for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub
that may be subject to conference and consultation procedures under
section 7 are management of Federal lands administered by the BLM, as
well as actions that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)) or actions funded by Federal agencies
such as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate with the
Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT)
with any specific questions on section 7 consultation and conference
requirements.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. The
prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the Service's
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct)
within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United
States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has
been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship
in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the
course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these
prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22,
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for:
scientific purposes, enhancing the propagation or survival of the
species, or take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The statute
also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found
in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
II. Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in
section 3(5)(A) of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat
is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or (ii)
the biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to
identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical habitat.'' We
reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs
of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub and the habitat characteristics where
this subspecies is located. A careful assessment of the economic
impacts that may occur due to a critical habitat designation is still
ongoing. Therefore, due to the current lack of data sufficient to
perform required analyses, we conclude that the designation of critical
habitat for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is not determinable at this
time. The Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a
critical habitat designation that is not determinable at the time of
listing (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by E.O.s 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 ADDRESSES. 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.
Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal
Governments
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal
Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we
[[Page 21735]]
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with
federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a
government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order
3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available
to Tribes. The Fish Lake Valley tui chub does not occur on any land
owned by Tribal entities. However, the Lida Pond site is adjacent to
land owned by the Timbisha Shoshone. As part of the development of the
SSA, a letter requesting information regarding the status of the
subspecies and any existing management or conservation efforts was sent
to the Timbisha Shoshone, the Yomba Shoshone, and the Bishop Paiute
Tribes. We will continue to work with relevant Tribal entities during
the development of any final rules for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the internet at and upon
request from the Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Signing Authority
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated
Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on May 6, 2025, for publication. On May 16, 2025,
Paul Souza authorized the undersigned to sign the document
electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
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--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Chub, Fish Lake Valley
tui'' in alphabetical order under FISHES to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Chub, Fish Lake Valley tui..... Siphateles obesus Wherever found........ E [Federal Register
ssp. citation when
published as a final
rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics of the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-09127 Filed 5-20-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P