Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the Tidewater Goby From Endangered to Threatened, 14339-14362 [2014-05335]
Download as PDF
Vol. 79
Thursday,
No. 49
March 13, 2014
Part II
Department of the Interior
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the
Tidewater Goby From Endangered to Threatened; Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
14340
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0001;
FXES11130900000C6–123–FF09E30000]
RIN 1018–AY03
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Reclassifying the
Tidewater Goby From Endangered to
Threatened
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to
reclassify the tidewater goby
(Eucyclogobius newberryi) as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). The species is
currently listed as endangered. After
review of all available scientific and
commercial information, we find that
reclassifying the tidewater goby as
threatened is warranted, and, therefore,
we propose to reclassify tidewater goby
as threatened under the Act. We are
seeking information and comments from
the public regarding this proposed rule.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
May 12, 2014. Please note that if you are
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(see ADDRESSES), the deadline for
submitting an electronic comment is
11:59 p.m. Eastern time on this date. We
must receive requests for public
hearings, in writing, at the address
shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section by April 28, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may
submit comments by one of the
following methods:
• Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014–
0001, which is the docket number for
this rulemaking. Then, in the Search
panel on the left side of the screen,
under the Document Type heading,
click on the Proposed Rules link to
locate this document. You may submit
a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment
Now!’’
• By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2014–
0001; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Information Requested section below for
more information).
Copies of documents: This proposed
rule is available on https://
www.regulations.gov. In addition, the
supporting file for this proposed rule
will be available for public inspection,
by appointment, during normal business
hours, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,
Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805–644–
1766. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Services (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen P. Henry, Deputy Field
Supervisor, telephone: 805–644–1766.
Direct all questions or requests for
additional information to: TIDEWATER
GOBY QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road,
Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. Individuals
who are hearing-impaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY
assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of Regulatory Action
On May 18, 2010, we received a
petition dated May 13, 2010, from The
Pacific Legal Foundation, requesting
that the tidewater goby be reclassified as
threatened under the Act. We published
a 90-day finding on January 19, 2011 (76
FR 3069), that stated our conclusion that
the petition presented substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted. This document
serves as the 12-month finding for the
petition, as well as a proposed rule to
reclassify the tidewater goby as
threatened.
Description of Proposed Action
On February 4, 1994, we listed the
tidewater goby as endangered based on
the threats described below in the
Previous Determinations Regarding the
Tidewater Goby section of this proposed
rule.
According to the Act and our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(c), a
species may be reclassified if the best
scientific and commercial data available
substantiate that the species is no longer
endangered because of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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. After review of all available
scientific and commercial information,
we find that reclassifying the tidewater
goby as threatened is warranted for the
following reasons:
(1) The number of localities known to
be occupied has nearly tripled since
listing (from 43 to 114; see 78 FR 8746).
(2) The increase in occupied localities
indicates that the tidewater goby is more
resilient in the face of severe drought
events than believed at the time of
listing.
(3) Threats identified at the time of
listing have been reduced or are not as
serious as previously thought. Threats
appeared more pervasive due to the
severe drought from 1987 to 1992.
(4) Sea level rise poses a substantial
threat to the species that, while not an
imminent threat, is likely to lead to the
species becoming endangered in the
foreseeable future.
We conclude that the endangered
designation no longer correctly reflects
the current status of the species and the
tidewater goby is more appropriately
classified as a threatened species.
Information Requested
We want any final rule resulting from
this proposal to be as effective as
possible. Therefore, we invite tribal and
governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, and other
interested parties to submit information,
comments or recommendations
concerning any aspect of this proposed
rule. Comments should be as specific as
possible. We are specifically requesting
information regarding:
(1) The potential effects of climate
change on the tidewater goby’s status,
especially in regard to sea level rise;
(2) Progress toward completion of
metapopulation viability analyses for
the species;
(3) Any previously unknown threats
not discussed in this proposed rule or
threats that may be having an effect of
the tidewater goby’s status not fully
analyzed in this proposed rule;
(4) The development of management
plans within the tidewater goby’s range
since its listing in 1994 that may have
positive effects on the species’
conservation; and
(5) The appropriate taxonomic
classification of the tidewater goby
(particularly regarding the southern
California populations), along with any
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
additional supporting genetic,
morphological, or other information.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or
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 the proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We request that you
send comments only by the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments must be submitted to https://
www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m.
(Eastern Time) on the date specified in
the DATES section.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. We must receive
your request within 45 days after the
date of this Federal Register
publication. Send your request to the
address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule
public hearings on this proposal, if any
are requested, and announce the dates,
times, and places of those hearings, as
well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy,
‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered
Species Act Activities,’’ which was
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will seek the expert opinion
of at least three appropriate
independent specialists regarding
scientific data and interpretations
contained in this proposed rule. We will
send copies of this proposed rule to the
peer reviewers immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. The
purpose of such review is to ensure that
our decisions are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analysis.
Peer reviewers will conduct an
assessment of the proposed rule, and the
specific assumptions and conclusions
regarding the proposed downlisting.
This assessment will be completed
during the public comment period.
We will consider all comments and
information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule
as we prepare the final determination.
Accordingly, the final decision may
differ from this proposal.
Previous Federal Action
On October 24, 1990, we received a
petition to add the tidewater goby to the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. We published a
finding on March 22, 1991, that listing
the tidewater goby as endangered may
be warranted (56 FR 12146). A proposal
to list the species as endangered was
published on December 11, 1992 (57 FR
58770), and following a public comment
period, we listed the tidewater goby as
endangered throughout its entire range
on February 4, 1994 (59 FR 5494).
On June 24, 1999, the Service
published a proposed rule to remove the
northern populations of tidewater goby
from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (delist), concurrent
with a proposal to keep listed as
endangered a distinct population
segment (DPS) of tidewater goby in
Orange and San Diego Counties (64 FR
33816). On November 7, 2002, we
withdrew the proposed delisting and
DPS designation rule because we
determined, based upon comments
received, that our specific conclusions
in the proposal were not corroborated
by the information we received during
three comment periods (67 FR 67803).
Withdrawing the delisting proposal for
the northern populations of the
tidewater goby made the establishment
of an endangered southern California
DPS unnecessary.
On February 6, 2013, we published a
final rule designating critical habitat in
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14341
65 units covering 12,156 acres in
California (78 FR 8746). Details on the
history of legal actions related to the
critical habitat designation can be found
in that final rule.
We finalized the recovery plan for the
tidewater goby on December 7, 2005. A
detailed discussion of the recovery plan
and the downlisting and delisting
criteria are provided below in the
‘‘Recovery Plan’’ section, following the
analysis of the statutory factors.
We published a notice announcing
the initiation of a 5-year status review
for the tidewater goby under section
4(c)(2) of the Act on March 22, 2006 (71
FR 14538), and requested information
from the public concerning the status of
the tidewater goby (71 FR 14538). We
notified the public of completion of the
5-year review on March 5, 2008 (73 FR
11945). In the 5-year review, completed
on September 28, 2007, we
recommended that the tidewater goby
be reclassified as threatened because we
concluded that the species was not in
imminent danger of extinction. A copy
of the 2007 5-year review for the
tidewater goby is available on the
Service’s Environmental Conservation
Online System (https://ecos.fws.gov/
speciesProfile/profile/
speciesProfile.action?spcode=E071) and
at https://www.regulations.gov.
On May 18, 2010, we received a
petition dated May 13, 2010, from The
Pacific Legal Foundation, requesting
that the tidewater goby be reclassified as
threatened under the Act. The petitioner
cited the 5-year review of the tidewater
goby’s status completed by the Service
in 2007 to support the petition. We
published a 90-day finding on January
19, 2011 (76 FR 3069), concluding that
the petition presented substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
(reclassification of the tidewater goby)
may be warranted. This proposed rule
constitutes the 12-month finding on the
May 13, 2010, petition to reclassify the
tidewater goby as threatened.
Background
Species Information
Species Description and Taxonomy
The tidewater goby is a small,
elongate, gray-brown fish that rarely
exceeds 5 centimeters (cm) (2 inches
(in)) in length (Service 2005, p. 2). This
species possesses large pectoral fins,
and the pelvic or ventral fins are joined
to each other below the chest and belly
from below the gill cover back to just
anterior of the anus. Male tidewater
gobies are nearly transparent with a
mottled brownish upper surface. Female
tidewater gobies develop darker colors,
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
14342
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
often black, on the body and dorsal and
anal fins. Tidewater gobies have two
dorsal fins set very close together or
with a slightly confluent membrane.
The first dorsal fin has five to seven
slender spines, the second 11 to 13 soft,
branched rays. The anal fin has 11 to 13
rays as well. The median fins are
usually dusky, and the pectoral fins are
transparent.
The tidewater goby is the only
member of the genus Eucyclogobius in
the Family Gobiidae. It was first
described by Girard (1856), and Gill
(1863) proposed it as a new species
Eucyclogobius newberryi to distinguish
the tidewater goby from other members
of the family. Eucyclogobius newberryi
is the currently published scientific
name for the tidewater goby.
Distribution
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The geographic range of the tidewater
goby is limited to the coast of California
(Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262; Swift et
al. 1989, p. 12). The species historically
occurred from 5 kilometers (km) (3
miles (mi)) south of the CaliforniaOregon border (Tillas Slough in Del
Norte County) to 71 km (44 mi) north of
the United States-Mexico border (Agua
Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County).
The available documentation suggests
the northernmost locality that forms one
end of the historical and current
geographic range of the tidewater goby
has not changed over time (see for
example, Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262;
Swift et al. 1989, p. 12). Tidewater
gobies do not currently occur in Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, and the species’
southernmost known extant occurrence
is the San Luis Rey River 8 km (5 mi)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Although the northernmost and
southernmost extent of the tidewater
goby’s range has not changed much over
time, the species’ distribution within
the historical range has become patchy
and fragmented.
Tidewater gobies are naturally absent
from several large (80 to 217 km (50 to
135 mi)) stretches of coastline lacking
lagoons or estuaries, and with steep
topography or swift currents that may
prevent the species from dispersing
between adjacent localities (Earl et al.
2010, p. 104; Swift et al. 1989, p. 13).
One such gap of approximately 160 km
(100 mi) occurs from the Eel River in
Humboldt County to Ten Mile River in
Mendocino County. A second gap of
approximately 97 km (60 mi) occurs
between Lagoon Creek in Mendocino
County to Salmon Creek in Sonoma
County. Another large, natural gap of
approximately 160 km (100 mi) occurs
between the Salinas River in Monterey
County and Arroyo del Oso in San Luis
Obispo County. The southernmost gap,
which is most likely the result of habitat
loss and alteration, occurs between the
Los Angeles Basin (city of Santa
Monica, western Los Angeles County)
and San Mateo Creek (Marine Corps
Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton, San Diego
County), a distance of approximately
130 km (80 mi).
Habitat loss and other anthropogenic
(human—caused) factors have resulted
in the tidewater goby now being absent
from several localities where it
historically occurred. These
disappearances from specific localities
have created smaller, artificial gaps in
the species’ geographic distribution
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Capelli 1997, p. 7). Such localities
include San Francisco Bay in San
Francisco and Alameda Counties, and
Redwood Creek and Freshwater Lagoon
in Humboldt County. In central and
northern California, Swift (in litt. 2007)
believes it very unlikely that genetic
interchange is possible between several
groups of populations naturally
separated by 32 km (20 mi) or more of
rugged coastline. As anthropogenic gaps
are created of equal or greater distance,
recolonization and genetic exchange
becomes less likely.
Swift et al. (1989, p. 13) reported that,
as of 1984, tidewater gobies occurred, or
had been known to occur, at 87
localities. This included localities at the
extreme northern and southern end of
the species’ historical geographic range.
An assessment of the species’
distribution in 1993, using records that
were limited to the area between the
Monterey Peninsula in Monterey
County and the United States-Mexico
border, found tidewater gobies
occurring at four additional sites since
1984 (Swift et al. 1993, p. 129). Other
tidewater goby localities have been
identified since 1993. Considering all of
the known historical and currently
occupied sites, tidewater gobies have
been documented at 135 localities. Of
these localities, gobies have been
extirpated from 21 (16 percent), for a
total of 114 localities that are known to
be currently occupied (78 FR 8746) (see
Figure 1); however, these localities are
not regularly monitored, so the status of
tidewater goby in many of these places
may have changed since they were last
surveyed.
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
14343
Figure 1
Distribution of Tidewater Gobies In California
OREGON
•
Streams Occupied by
Tidewater Gobies
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
Habitat
The tidewater goby inhabits lagoons,
estuaries, backwater marshes, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
freshwater tributaries to estuarine
environments that closely correspond to
major stream drainages. Sediments
provided by major drainages produce
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sandy beaches with low-lying coastal
areas conducive to formation of coastal
lagoons (Habel and Armstrong 1977, p.
6; Swift et al. 1989, p. 13). Tidewater
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
EP13MR14.011
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Counties with Populations
of Tidewater Gobies
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
14344
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
gobies generally select habitat in the
upper estuary, usually within the
freshwater-saltwater interface. Although
they may range upstream a short
distance into freshwater, and
downstream into water of up to about 75
percent saltwater (28 parts per
thousand), the species is typically found
in salinities of less than 12 parts per
thousand (Swift et al. 1989, p. 7). These
conditions occur in two relatively
distinct situations: (1) The upper edge of
large tidal bays, such as Tomales and
Bolinas Bays near the entrance of
freshwater tributaries; and (2) the
coastal lagoons formed at the mouths of
coastal rivers, streams, or seasonally wet
canyons.
The areas that tidewater gobies
occupy are dynamic environments that
are subject to considerable fluctuation
on a seasonal and annual basis. For
example, the formation of a sandbar at
the mouth of a lagoon occurs in the late
spring as freshwater flows into the
lagoon decline enough to allow the
ocean to build up the sandbar through
wave action on the beach. Winter rains
and subsequently increased stream
flows may bring in considerable
sediment and dramatically affect the
bottom profile and substrate
composition of a lagoon or estuary. Fine
mud and clay either move through the
lagoon or estuary or settle out in the
backwater marshes, while heavier sand
is left in the lagoon or estuary. High
flows associated with winter rains can
scour out the lagoon bottom, with sand
building up again after flows decline.
These dynamic processes result in
wetland habitats that, over time, change
in location relative to stationary features
that exist outside the flood zone (such
as roads or buildings).
Tidewater gobies appear to be adapted
to this broad range of environmental
conditions (Worcester and Lea 1996, no
pagination). Individuals held at the
Granite Canyon Fish Culture Facility
were subjected to a salinity tolerance
test in hypersaline water (45 to 54 parts
per thousand) for 6 months, with no
mortality (Worcester and Lea 1996, no
pagination). (The natural salinity of
seawater ranges from 33 to 37 parts per
thousand.) Holding temperatures
(freshwater) varied from 4.0 to 21.5
degrees Celsius (C°) (39.2 to 70.7
degrees Fahrenheit (F°)). During the late
1980s and early 1990s, Karen Worcester
(Morro Bay Estuary Program) conducted
an investigation of habitat use in Pico
Creek lagoon, and observed large
numbers of tidewater gobies using the
lower portion of the lagoon where
highest salinities (up to 27 parts per
thousand) were observed. In general,
abundance did not appear to be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
associated with oxygen levels, which at
times were quite low (Service 2007, p.
11).
While tidewater gobies tolerate a wide
range of salinity and water quality
conditions, Smith (in litt. 2007) reports
that sandbar formation is important to
produce the calm conditions that bring
about the very abundant late summer
populations. Periodic natural or
artificial breaching of sandbars in
summer reverses the freshening process,
and sandbar re-formation produces
stratified salinity conditions, with
resultant warm and hypoxic (lacking
oxygen) bottom conditions unsuitable
for benthic invertebrates and for lagoon
fish. As a result, artificial breaching or
lack of sandbar formation may result in
smaller populations that are restricted to
areas upstream of tidal action (where
salinity is lower and dissolved oxygen
is higher). Open lagoons can sometimes
provide some marginal habitat for fish
near the tidally mixed mouth, but the
substantially reduced remainder of the
lagoon tends to be stratified, warm, and
relatively unproductive. Partially closed
lagoons tend to have warm, stratified
conditions except every 2 weeks when
very high tides cool and mix the lagoon.
Tidewater gobies also depend on calm
backwaters as refuges against storm
flows and/or draining of small lagoons
when the sandbar is opened in winter.
Populations are apparently periodically
lost and then recolonize lagoon systems
that provide poor winter refuges in
flood years (such as Aptos, Soquel, and
Moran lagoons in Santa Cruz County).
At several localities, tidewater gobies
have been apparently extirpated from
lagoons that lack winter refugia
(Waddell Lagoon in northern Santa Cruz
County, for example).
Another feature of lagoons important
to the tidewater goby is the availability
of sediments for burrow construction
and spawning. The sediments are
usually spread quite evenly by declining
flows; lagoons often end up only 1 to 2
meters (m) (3.3 to 6.6 feet (ft)) deep
despite a width of 30 to 150 m (100 to
500 ft) or more (Habel and Armstrong
1977, pp. 4–7). This pattern holds true
even in larger systems, such as the Santa
Ynez River (Santa Barbara County) and
Santa Margarita River (San Diego
County). Half or more of the substrate of
the lagoon will be soft sand, with mud
in backwaters. Some rocks or gravel may
be present, mostly at the upper (inlet)
and lower (outlet) ends where
constricted flow directly scours the
channel. These rocks are exposed by
high water flow. Declining flows
continue to bring in sand that often
covers the rocks by early spring.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Life History
Tidewater gobies generally live for
only 1 year, with few individuals living
longer than a year (Moyle 2002, p. 432).
They may reproduce only once during
their lifetime. Reproduction can occur at
any time of the year, but it tends to peak
from late April or May to July, and can
continue into November, depending on
seasonal temperatures and rainfall
(Swenson 1999, p. 107). Fluctuations in
rates of reproduction are probably due
to death of breeding adults in early
summer and colder temperatures or
hydrological disruptions in winter
(Swift et al. 1989, p. 107). Reproduction
takes place in water between 9 to 25 C°
(48 to 77 F°) at salinities of 2 to 27 parts
per thousand (Swenson 1999, p. 103).
Male tidewater gobies begin digging
vertical breeding burrows
approximately 10 to 20 cm (4 to 8 in)
deep in relatively unconsolidated,
clean, coarse sand (averaging 0.5
millimeter (mm) (0.02 in) in diameter),
after lagoons are closed off to the ocean
by natural berms (Swift et al. 1989, p.
3; Swenson 1995). After the female lays
eggs in the burrow, the male guards the
eggs until they hatch. The larval gobies
move to midwater vegetation until they
mature enough to become benthic (freeswimming) and breed the next season.
Metapopulation Dynamics
Local populations of tidewater gobies
are best characterized as
metapopulations (Lafferty et al. 1999a,
p. 1448). A metapopulation is a
collection of populations separated by
geographic distance, but connected by
dispersing individuals. Local tidewater
goby populations that occupy coastal
lagoons and estuaries are usually
separated from each other by the open
ocean. Very few tidewater gobies have
ever been captured in the marine
environment (Swift et al. 1989, p. 7),
which suggests this species rarely
occurs in the open ocean. Studies
suggest that some tidewater goby
populations are persistent (Lafferty et al.
1999a, p. 1452), while other tidewater
goby populations appear to experience
intermittent extirpations. These
extirpations may result from one or a
series of factors, such as the drying up
of some small streams during prolonged
droughts (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1451).
Some of the areas where tidewater
gobies have been extirpated apparently
have been recolonized when extant
populations were present within a
relatively short distance of the
extirpated population. For example,
Lafferty et al. (1999b, p. 621) concluded
that tidewater gobies had recolonized
˜
Canada Honda Creek in Santa Barbara
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
County from the Santa Ynez River
approximately 9 km (5.5 mi) to the
north. Recolonization may be occurring
when high freshwater flows into lagoons
and estuaries cause the entrance to the
system to be breached and connect
directly to the ocean. The high flows
may flush tidewater gobies into the
ocean and allow them to move up or
down the coast with longshore currents
and into adjacent lagoons where the
species had been extirpated (Lafferty et
al. 1999b, p. 621). These recolonization
events suggest that tidewater goby
populations exhibit a metapopulation
dynamic where some populations
survive or remain viable by continually
exchanging individuals and
recolonizations after occasional
extirpations (Doak and Mills 1994, p.
619). They also suggest that flooding
may sometimes have a positive effect by
contributing to recolonization of
localities where a tidewater goby
population has become extirpated.
The largest wetland habitats where
tidewater gobies have been known to
occur are not necessarily the most
secure, as evidenced by the fact that the
Santa Margarita River in San Diego
County and the San Francisco Bay have
lost their populations of the tidewater
goby. Water quality, habitat
modification, and the introduction of
numerous nonnative fish species (both
competitors and predators) may have
caused the tidewater goby to disappear
from both areas (Service 2005, pp. 18–
21, Appendix E). Today, the majority of
the most stable and largest tidewater
goby populations consist of lagoons and
estuaries of intermediate sizes (2 to 50
hectares (ha) or 5 to 125 acres (ac)) that
have remained relatively unaffected by
human activities (Service 2005, p. 12).
Many of the localities where tidewater
gobies are persistent are likely to be
‘‘source’’ populations, and such
localities probably provide the colonists
for localities that intermittently lose
their tidewater goby populations.
Historical records and survey results
for several localities occupied by the
tidewater goby are available (see Swift
et al. 1989, pp. 18–19; Swift et al. 1994,
pp. 8–16). These documents suggest the
persistence of tidewater goby
populations is related to habitat size,
configuration, location, and proximity
to human development. In general, the
most stable and persistent tidewater
goby populations occur in the lagoons
and estuaries that are more than 1 ha
(2.47 ac) in size and that have remained
relatively unaffected by human
activities (Lafferty et al. 1999a, pp.
1450–1453). We note, however, that
some systems that are affected or altered
by human activities also have relatively
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
large and stable populations (for
example, Humboldt Bay in Humboldt
County, Pismo Creek in San Luis Obispo
County, Santa Ynez River in Santa
Barbara County, and the Santa Clara
River in Ventura County). Also, some
habitats less than 1 ha (2.47 ac) in size
have tidewater goby populations that
persist (Swift et al. 1997, p. 3). The best
available information suggests that the
lagoons and estuaries that have
persistent populations are likely the
source populations that provide
individuals that colonize adjacent,
smaller localities that have ephemeral
tidewater goby populations (Lafferty et
al. 1999a, p. 1452).
Genetics
Various genetic markers demonstrate
that pronounced differences in the
genetic structure of tidewater goby
metapopulations exist, and that
tidewater gobies in many localities are
genetically distinct. Genetic variability
across a species’ distribution may be
important to long-term species
persistence because it represents the
raw material for adaptation to differing
local conditions and environmental
change (Frankham 2005, p. 754). A
study of mitochondrial control region
and cytochrome b DNA sequences
(molecular material used in genetic
studies) from tidewater gobies that were
collected at 31 localities throughout the
species’ geographic range has identified
six major phylogeographic units
(Dawson et al. 2001, p. 1171). These six
regional units include the following
areas: (1) North Coast (NC) Unit: Tillas
Slough (Smith River) in Del Norte
County to Lagoon Creek in Mendocino
County; (2) Greater Bay (GB) Unit:
Salmon Creek in Sonoma County to
Bennett’s Slough in Monterey County;
(3) Central Coast (CC) Unit: Arroyo del
Oso to Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo
County; (4) Conception (CO) Unit: San
Luis Obispo Creek in San Luis Obispo
County to Rincon Creek in Santa
Barbara County; (5) Los AngelesVentura (LV) Unit: Ventura River in
Ventura County to Topanga Creek in Los
Angeles County; and (6) South Coast
(SC) Unit: San Pedro Harbor in Los
˜
Angeles County to Los Penasquitos
Lagoon in San Diego County. These
units correspond to the recovery units
identified in the recovery plan for the
tidewater goby (Service 2005).
A more recent study to gather genetic
distribution data for tidewater goby
(Earl et al. 2010) used microsatellite
DNA (versus the mitochondrial control
region and cytochrome b DNA used by
Dawson et al. 2001). Earl et al.
concluded the following: (1)
Populations of tidewater goby in
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14345
northern San Diego County form a clade
(a group of organisms that are more
closely related to each other than any
other group, implying a shared common
ancestor) that has been reproductively
isolated from all others for more than 2
million years (Earl et al. 2010, p. 112),
and which appears to merit formal
description as a species-level taxon; (2)
populations along the mid-coast of
California are sub-divided into regional
groups, which are more similar to each
other than different as believed from
previous studies based on
mitochondrial DNA (such as Dawson et
al. 2001); and (3) the tidewater goby
dispersed widely during a sea-level rise
event approximately 7,000 years ago
that connected separate watersheds,
followed by increased isolation as the
oceans receded again, resulting in
geographic separation in the
northernmost populations descended
from a common ancestor (Earl et al.
2010, p. 111).
The conclusion that the North Coast
populations of tidewater goby formed as
a result of a single, evolutionarily recent
episode of colonization of newly formed
habitats is supported by McCraney and
Kinziger (2009). They compared genetic
variation of 13 naturally and artificially
fragmented populations of tidewater
goby in Northern California, including
eight Humboldt Bay populations and
five coastal lagoon populations, and
made conclusions similar to Earl et al.
(2010). McCraney and Kinziger (2009)
also concluded that natural and
artificial habitat fragmentation caused
marked divergence among tidewater
gobies in the North Coast populations.
Their study showed that Humboldt Bay
populations, due to isolation by
manmade barriers, exhibited very high
levels of genetic differentiation between
populations, extremely low levels of
genetic diversity within populations,
and no migration among populations.
They concluded that this pattern makes
the Humboldt Bay populations of
tidewater goby vulnerable to
extirpation. In contrast, the study found
that while coastal lagoon populations
also exhibited very high levels of
genetic differentiation between
populations, the coastal lagoon
populations displayed substantial levels
of genetic diversity within populations,
indicating occasional migration among
lagoons (McCraney and Kinziger 2009,
p. 32).
All coastal lagoons, with exception of
Lake Earl in Del Norte County, appear
to be stable and genetically healthy
(McCraney and Kinziger 2009, p. 34).
The Lake Earl population exhibited
reduced levels of genetic diversity in
comparison to similar coastal lagoon
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
14346
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
populations (McCraney and Kinziger
2009. p. 34). They further concluded
that reduced genetic diversity detected
within Lake Earl is likely due to
repeated population bottlenecking
(previous reduction in population size
that results in the population being
descended from a small number of
individuals, resulting in reduced genetic
diversity within the population) that is
a result of regular artificial breaching of
the lagoon mouth.
Earl et al. (2010, p. 112) have
suggested that the southern population
of the tidewater goby to the south of the
gap between Los Angeles and Orange
Counties may merit formal description
as a distinct species based on their
different genetic makeup. However, a
formal description has not yet been
published. The Service is evaluating the
genetic and taxonomic information to
determine if it would be appropriate to
consider listing the tidewater goby as
separate species or other taxonomic
units. For example, this could include
considering listing a goby species or
taxonomic unit to the south of Los
Angeles County and another to the
north. We are requesting information
and comments on this distinction.
The conclusions from these genetic
studies are: (1) Tidewater gobies exhibit
considerable genetic diversity across
their range; (2) the species can be
divided into six phylogeographic units
based on genetic similarities and
differences; (3) the tidewater gobies to
the south of the gap between Los
Angeles and Orange Counties may be a
distinct species based on their divergent
genetic makeup compared to
populations to the north; (4) the
northernmost populations are also
genetically distinct from other tidewater
goby populations; (5) the populations at
the north end of the species’
distribution probably arose from a
common ancestor at the end of sea level
rises 7,000 years ago; and (6) natural
and anthropogenic barriers have
contributed to genetic differentiation
among populations.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Previous Determinations Regarding the
Tidewater Goby
Listing Rule
The 1990 petition to list the tidewater
goby was submitted at the end of an
extended drought in California that
resulted in loss of habitat for the
tidewater goby and severe declines in
the number of occupied localities. In the
1994 listing rule (59 FR 5494), we made
our determination that the tidewater
goby was endangered based on the
following: (1) The tidewater goby had
been extirpated from nearly 50 percent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
of the lagoons and estuaries it had
inhabited due to habitat alteration
(channelization, water diversions, etc.)
and drought; (2) only 43 populations
remained, of which only 8 were
considered large enough to be stable; (3)
the tidewater goby was threatened by
development, water quality issues, and
other habitat alterations; and (4) the
tidewater goby’s downward trend was
likely to continue regardless of the end
of the drought due to the other threats
acting on the species.
Proposed Delisting Rule
In the 1999 proposed rule to delist the
northern populations of the tidewater
goby (64 FR 33816), we identified three
major reasons for our proposed action:
(1) There were more populations in the
north than were known at the time of
listing (85 extant populations); (2)
threats to those populations were less
severe than previously believed; and (3)
the tidewater goby has a greater ability
than was known at the time of listing to
recolonize sites from which it is
temporarily absent. On November 7,
2002, we withdrew the proposed
delisting and DPS designation rule
because we determined, based upon
comments received, that our specific
conclusions in the proposal were not
corroborated by the information we
received during three comment periods
(67 FR 67803). We determined that the
information provided by the scientific
community indicated that our 1999
assessment of the importance of new
tidewater goby populations and the
recolonization ability of the tidewater
goby in the proposed delisting rule were
premature, and agreed that it was
prudent to wait and assess the
persistence of these populations for a
longer period of time. Withdrawing the
delisting proposal for the northern
populations of the tidewater goby made
the establishment of an endangered
southern California DPS unnecessary.
We stated that we would focus on
proceeding with the recovery planning
process that would both guide
conservation activities for the species
and make explicit under what criteria
the tidewater goby should be considered
for delisting. Importantly, at the time of
the withdrawal of the proposed
delisting rule, we did not evaluate the
appropriateness of downlisting the
species instead of delisting, and we did
not attempt to provide a more in-depth
analysis of the magnitude and
imminence of the various threats to the
species.
5-Year Review
In conducting the 5-year status review
(Service 2007), we performed an in-
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
depth analysis of the magnitude and
imminence of the various threats to the
tidewater goby in light of the
distribution of the species, and
concluded that the tidewater goby
should be reclassified as threatened
because the species was not in
imminent danger of extinction. The
main reasons for this conclusion were:
(1) The number of localities known to be
occupied had increased since listing
from 43 to 106; (2) the increase in
occupied localities indicated the
tidewater goby was more resilient in the
face of severe drought events than
believed at the time of listing; and (3)
threats identified at the time of listing
had been reduced or were not as serious
as previously thought. We also
concluded that there was a high
likelihood that the results of ongoing
genetic studies would indicate potential
changes to the tidewater goby
taxonomic classification, and that we
should review those results prior to
publication of a proposed downlisting
rule.
Summary of Previous Determinations
At the time of its listing as
endangered in 1994: (1) The tidewater
goby had been extirpated from nearly 50
percent of the lagoons and estuaries it
had inhabited due to an extended
drought combined with habitat
alteration (channelization, water
diversions, etc.); (2) only 43 populations
remained, of which only eight were
considered large enough to be stable;
and (3) the tidewater goby was
threatened by development, water
quality issues, and other habitat
alterations. We concluded that these
factors were severe enough that the
tidewater goby was in a downward
trend that would continue regardless of
the end of the 1987–1992 drought.
When we prepared a review of the
species’ status in 2007, the number of
known occupied localities had
increased to 106 at that time, and it was
apparent that the predicted downward
trend was in error. Although the other
threats identified at the time of listing
continued to impact the goby, we
concluded that the main reason for the
species’ decline at the time of listing
was the drought, and that the tidewater
goby was more resilient than expected.
In the following sections, we analyze
the current threats to the species to
determine if their severity and
magnitude have increased, decreased, or
remain unchanged from the time of
listing. We also evaluate whether any
changes in these threats are sufficient to
warrant reclassification of the tidewater
goby.
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing
species, reclassifying species, or
removing species from listed status.
‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as
including any species or subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct vertebrate population segment
of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species
may be determined to be an endangered
or threatened species because of one or
more of the five factors described in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (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 human made factors
affecting its continued existence. A
species may be reclassified on the same
basis.
Determining whether the status of a
species has improved to the point that
it can be downlisted requires
consideration of whether the species is
endangered or threatened because of the
same five categories of threats specified
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species
that are already listed as endangered or
threatened, this analysis of threats is an
evaluation of both the threats currently
facing the species and the threats that
are reasonably likely to affect the
species in the foreseeable future
following the delisting or downlisting
and the removal or reduction of the
Act’s protections.
A species is an ‘‘endangered species’’
for purposes of the Act if it is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range and is a
‘‘threatened species’’ if it is likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. The
word ‘‘range’’ in the significant portion
of its range phrase refers to the range in
which the species currently exists at the
time of this status review. For the
purposes of this analysis, we first
evaluate the status of the species
throughout all its range, then consider
whether the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in any
significant portion of its range.
The following analysis examines all
five factors currently affecting, or that
are likely to affect, the tidewater goby
within the foreseeable future.
The tidewater goby was listed as
endangered on February 4, 1994 (59 FR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
5494). We made our determination
based on the following: (1) The
tidewater goby had been extirpated from
nearly 50 percent of the lagoons and
estuaries it had inhabited; (2) only 43
populations remained, and only eight of
those were considered large enough to
be stable; (3) the tidewater goby would
continue to be at risk due to
development, water quality issues, and
other habitat alterations; and (4) the
tidewater goby’s downward trend was
likely to continue regardless of the end
of the drought due to the other threats
acting on the species.
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Capelli (1997, p. 7) estimated that 75
to 90 percent of the original estuarine
acreage of California had been lost since
1850. Many of these wetlands were
probably entirely lost to development
(including development of harbors,
channels, agriculture, industrial and
business uses, residential development,
and road construction) before surveys
for tidewater gobies were being
conducted. For example, over 95
percent of the wetlands that existed
prior to 1850 in the San Francisco Bay
have been lost (U.S. Geological Survey
2003), most of which were filled in
entirely and are now covered by
development.
By 1994, when the tidewater goby was
listed, researchers believed that the
species had been extirpated from nearly
50 percent of the lagoons within its
historical range and that only 43
occupied localities remained (59 FR
5497). The final rule stated that the
tidewater goby had experienced a
substantial decline throughout its
historical range and faced threats
indicating the downward trend would
continue because the species lives
within specific habitat zones that have
been, and would continue to be,
targeted for development and degraded
by human activities. In our 5-year
review of the species (Service 2007), we
recommended downlisting the tidewater
goby to threatened because we
concluded, in part, that threats such as
habitat loss were not as severe as
originally believed, as shown by the
species’ rebound from the drought (the
number of occupied localities had
increased from 43 to 106 at that time)
despite continued effects of
development and altered wetlands.
According to the recovery plan,
approximately 55 to 70 of the localities
recolonized since the listing in 1994 are
naturally so small or have been so
degraded over time that long-term
persistence is uncertain (Service 2005,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14347
p. 6). By our calculation, approximately
60 percent of the recolonized localities
are classified ‘‘small habitat size’’
(Service 2005, Appendix E). These small
habitat areas are more likely to support
ephemeral tidewater goby populations
that may disappear when adverse
conditions, such as drought or a rise in
sea level (discussed below), affect the
region (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1452).
Larger core or source populations may
persist through conditions that would
extirpate small populations. According
to the recovery plan (Service 2005,
Appendix E), 10 of these large core or
source populations (described as large
habitat size, abundant population
density, regular presence) are known to
exist.
Habitat Loss, Hydrology, and Sandbar
Breaching
As described above, an estimated 75
to 90 percent of estuarine wetlands that
possibly could have supported
tidewater gobies have been lost in
California (Capelli 1997, p. 7).
Consequently, tidewater gobies likely
occurred historically in more localities
than at present. In many cases, these
losses resulted in artificial gaps between
localities or the widening of existing
gaps. The habitat at many of these
historical localities was lost to
development (for example, harbors,
channels, agriculture, industrial and
business uses, residential development,
road construction) before surveys for
tidewater gobies were being conducted
(see San Francisco Bay example, above).
Most of these wetlands were filled in
entirely and are now covered by
development. Given that tidewater
gobies may be able to disperse along
sandy shores to some degree, it is likely
that tidewater gobies in the southern
portion of their range occupied estuaries
and lagoons along the shores from Palos
Verdes to the headlands at La Jolla
when and where appropriate
intermittently closed habitat occurred
(Jacobs, in litt. 2007). Nearly all of this
habitat has been opened for marinas and
harbors (or closed to create freshwater
impoundments). This has produced an
anthropogenic (human-caused) gap
between those occupied localities in Los
Angeles and San Diego Counties of at
least 130 km (80 mi).
Large areas of estuarine and coastal
wetland habitat and many smaller
estuaries and lagoons had been lost
prior to the enactment of certain
regulations that protect wetlands. Those
losses that occurred in the past have
largely been eliminated as a result of
current laws and regulations protecting
coastal habitats (see section below on
Factor D). Although major habitat loss is
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
14348
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
now unlikely, minor habitat
disturbances (mostly less than one acre)
will continue to occur throughout the
tidewater goby’s range, which in turn
will result in impacts to the species. The
amount of habitat disturbed varies
widely from year-to-year, and we have
no way of predicting how much will
occur in any given year. However,
Toline et al. (2006, no pagination)
reported that since the tidewater goby
was listed in 1994, over 100 biological
opinions had been written by the
Service to address adverse effects to the
species (averaging approximately 8
projects per year, none of which posed
jeopardy to the species). Projects
covered by these biological opinions
included: Flood control projects,
removal of pipelines, bridge or crossing
replacement and installations, water
diversions, channel maintenance, sand
and gravel extraction, and others. Many
of these projects had a temporary effect
on tidewater goby habitat, but some
resulted in permanent changes, such as
creation of permanent connections to
seawater and channelization to
encourage flushing of estuaries, that
continue to have adverse effects on the
tidewater goby throughout its range.
Some type of habitat degradation has
occurred or is currently occurring
throughout the current range of the
species (Service 2005, Appendix E).
Examples of ongoing activities that are
occurring within tidewater goby habitat
include annual dredging (such as that at
Goleta Slough, Santa Barbara County),
habitat restoration projects that are not
compatible with tidewater goby needs
(examples include Malibu Lagoon, Los
Angeles County; Mission Creek, Santa
Barbara County), and bridge widening
projects (like Mission Creek). These
projects are small in scale compared to
large-scale habitat losses that occurred
in the past; however, even small
projects can have substantial effects on
the species. One example of a small
project that had a substantial effect on
a tidewater goby population was repair
work that began on February 24, 1998,
on railroad trestles crossing San Mateo
Creek Lagoon, San Diego County. This
work included dredging portions of the
creek and lagoon, and filling freshwater
marshes that functioned as tidewater
goby refugia. Previous surveys had
found tidewater gobies to be abundant,
but no tidewater gobies were found after
the construction was completed (Swift
and Holland 1998, pp. 5–7). The locality
has since been recolonized or the
numbers have rebounded after being
driven to undetectable levels by the
project (Toline et al. 2006, no
pagination).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
Based on the best available
information, we conclude that these
small projects generally have isolated,
temporary effects and are not, by
themselves, likely to significantly
reduce the number of localities
occupied by the tidewater goby in the
future, compared to the extensive
habitat losses that occurred prior to the
species’ listing in 1994. Our conclusion
is based on the fact that the species
continues to occupy those localities
where these minor projects have
occurred. Also, the current information
indicates the tidewater goby has the
capacity to recover from a severe
drought that reduced its numbers
dramatically, despite the ongoing effect
of these smaller habitat disturbances.
Prior to the listing of the tidewater
goby, modifications to the hydrology
upstream of the lagoons and estuaries
were common. These changes ranged
from the installation and operation of
tide gates (such as those at Humboldt
Bay) to channelization for flood control.
The functioning of these structures is
intended to control water entering the
lagoons from the watershed, and they
are typically operated to minimize
flooding of adjacent low-lying features
like roads and buildings. McCraney et
al. (2010, p. 3325) showed that artificial
fragmentation of tidewater goby
populations, such as those in Humboldt
Bay caused by floodgates and levees,
can lead to genetic isolation and
possibly interfere with the long-term
persistence of the tidewater goby in
some localities. These current
operations and potential future
modifications for flood control do not
mimic the natural conditions that
tidewater gobies require for
reproduction and may adversely
influence salinities and the distribution
of tidewater gobies in localities where
they occur.
One method of controlling water
levels in lagoons and estuaries is the
breaching of sandbars. Such breaching
occurs throughout the range of the
tidewater goby. The main purpose of
authorized breaching (pursuant to
existing regulations) is to prevent
inundation of nearby roads and private
property (such as that at Lake Earl, Del
Norte County and Goleta Slough, Santa
Barbara County). Unauthorized
breaching occurs periodically at the
mouth of the Santa Clara River; the
purpose is unknown but may be
intended to expose mudflats for
shorebirds, to enhance local surfing
conditions, or to prevent inundation of
the adjacent campgrounds at McGrath
State Beach. In some instances,
breaching is intended to move the
stagnant water behind the sandbar out
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to the ocean due to the offensive odor
or poor water conditions (Malibu
Lagoon, Los Angeles County, for
example). At the Bolsa Chica Reserve in
Orange County, the lagoon has been
permanently breached to encourage
saltwater flow into the lagoon for the
benefit of nesting birds such as plovers,
terns, and gulls, and is no longer viable
as tidewater goby habitat. Whatever the
reason, breaching of sandbars drains
lagoons and estuaries and results in
habitat alterations that strand tidewater
gobies and their eggs, leaving them
vulnerable to predation by seabirds or
desiccation, and may disrupt the normal
breeding cycle (depending on when
breaching occurs) (Capelli 1997, pp.
8–10). Where it happens, sandbar
breaching has a substantial effect on the
population at that locality.
Breaching is ongoing and likely to
continue into the future to reduce
upstream flooding when lagoons and
estuaries are closed to the ocean. Other
than permanent breaching, such as that
at Bolsa Chica, these specific breaching
activities and others do not happen
every year, and the frequency at which
they occur is dependent upon weather,
tides, and other factors that we cannot
predict very far into the future.
Breaching occurs throughout the range
of the species but is usually random,
irregular, and sporadic. However, in
response to climate change and sea level
rise, we anticipate that sandbar
breaching may occur more frequently in
the future.
In terms of habitat loss and
modification, our information indicates
that despite advances in halting largescale loss of wetland habitat that could
support tidewater gobies, losses and
alterations still occur and are expected
to continue, but we cannot predict the
number and locations of such projects
in the future. Large projects have been
replaced by multiple smaller projects, as
demonstrated by the numerous
biological opinions we have prepared
for adverse effects to the tidewater goby
since it was listed in 1994. Many of
these projects are currently affecting
tidewater goby habitat, and we expect
more to occur in the future. We also
know that hydrological changes to
tidewater goby habitat have occurred
and continue to occur, and that these
changes are detrimental to tidewater
goby persistence in some localities, and
that sandbar breaching is a fairly
widespread activity in the range of the
tidewater goby. Some localities have
experienced or are experiencing
multiple threats; according to the
recovery plan (Service 2005, Appendix
E), more than 75 localities are likely
subject to 2 or more kinds of habitat
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
degradation. Cumulatively, these
activities are having a negative effect on
tidewater goby habitat throughout its
range, and other less common impacts,
such as those resulting from agriculture,
cattle grazing, and sewage treatment
plant discharge, are also contributing to
habitat loss and alteration.
While many sources of habitat loss or
alteration are evident, compared to the
large-scale habitat losses that occurred
prior to the tidewater goby’s listing,
these are generally temporary and
isolated or small in scale, so we do not
anticipate severe impacts to the
tidewater goby throughout its range in
the short term. Where small and usually
temporary effects occur, the tidewater
goby has been able to persist (we do not
have data on the size of populations
following small projects, but the species
reproduces profusely under proper
conditions, and we expect it to rebound
effectively). Over time, as these habitat
alterations continue and other factors
develop (such as climate change), we
expect there may be a cumulative
habitat loss that will result in loss of
populations at some localities and that
will reduce the range of the species.
However, we conclude that the types of
habitat alteration described above are
not sufficient to currently cause
rangewide declines in the tidewater
goby’s abundance or distribution.
Climate Change
In addition to the threats to tidewater
goby habitat due to development, water
quality, upstream flood control, and
other alterations, the localities where
tidewater gobies occur are threatened by
global climate change. Sea level rise and
hydrological changes associated with
climate change are anticipated to have
significant effects on tidewater goby
habitat over the next several decades.
Sea level rise is a result of two
phenomena: Thermal expansion
(increased sea water temperatures) and
global ice melt (Cayan et al. 2006, p. 5).
Between 1897 and 2006, the observed
sea level rise has been approximately 2
mm (0.08 in) per year, or a total of 20
cm (8 in) over that period (Heberger et
al. 2009, p. 6). Older estimates projected
that sea level rise along the California
coast would follow a similar rate and
reach 0.2–0.6 m (0.7–2 ft) by 2100 (IPCC
2007). More recent observations and
models indicate that those projections
were conservative and ignored some
critical factors, such as melting of the
Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets
(Heberger et al. 2009, p. 6). Heberger et
al. (2009, p. 8) have updated the sea
level rise projections for California to
1.0–1.4 m (3.3–4.6 ft) by 2100, while
Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009, p. 21530)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
calculate the sea level rise globally at
0.57–1.9 m (2.4–6.2 ft); in both cases,
recent estimates are more than twice
earlier projections.
The effects of sea level rise could be
compounded by and work
synergistically with normal hydrological
and meteorological phenomena along
the California coast. The normal, but
dramatic, tidal fluctuations that occur in
California could be further increased
with sea level rise. Storm severity is
projected to increase with more frequent
˜
El Nino Southern Oscillations due to
increasing surface water temperature
(Cayan et al. 2006, p. 17). Storm severity
is projected to increase to the north and
decrease to the south, likely a
consequence of the winter storm track
shifting to the north (Cayan et al. 2009,
p. 38). The combined effect of these
phenomena could result in sea level rise
reaching farther inland than previously
anticipated in some models (Cayan et al.
2006, pp. 48–49; Cayan et al. 2009, p.
40).
Park et al. (1989, pp. 1–52) projected
that of the saltmarshes along the coast
of the contiguous United States, 30
percent would be lost with a 0.5-m (1.6ft) sea level rise, 46 percent with a 1-m
(3.3-ft) sea level rise, 52 percent with a
2-m (6.6-ft) sea level rise, and 65 percent
with a 3-m (9.8-ft) sea level rise. While
we cannot project directly to California
from the estimates of Park et al. (1989,
pp. 1–52), who focused on the east coast
and Gulf coast of the United States, we
can use it to make some estimates of
what could happen along the West
Coast. Assuming their estimates are
accurate, we can anticipate that with a
projected global sea level rise of up to
almost 2 m (6.6 ft), approximately 52
percent of the remaining coastal
saltmarshes in California could be
inundated by 2100. Applying Heberger
et al.’s (2009, p. 8) more conservative
estimates for California to Park et al.’s
calculations, with a projected sea level
rise of 1.0–1.4 m (3.3–4.6 ft) by 2100,
somewhere between 46 and 52 percent
of the coastal saltmarshes in California
would be inundated.
For the tidewater goby, these
projections indicate that seal level rise
has the potential to inundate coastal
lagoons and transform them into
primarily saltwater bodies (Cayan et al.
2006, pp. 34, 48–49). More severe
storms that are likely to result from
climate change (Cayan et al. 2006, p.
17), especially along the northern coast
of California (Cayan et al. 2009, p. 38),
combined with the higher than normal
sea levels, will breach lagoon mouths
more frequently from the ocean side.
These breaches would increase the
salinity within the tidewater goby’s
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14349
habitat. This would likely disrupt the
tidewater goby’s normal reproduction
process, which requires closed lagoons
and a specific range of salinities. The
conversion of coastal lagoons and
estuaries from brackish to primarily
saltwater bodies, in addition to the
inundation and breaching of sandbars,
would eliminate habitat for tidewater
gobies in many areas.
In addition to sea level rise,
projections are that climate change will
result in reduced freshwater flows into
coastal lagoons and estuaries due to the
following: (1) Decreased Sierra
snowpack and more frequent droughts;
(2) the need to extract more freshwater
for human use (agriculture, growing
populations) before it enters estuarine
ecosystems; and (3) the likely intrusion
of saltwater into California’s single
largest source of freshwater (the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta)
(Anderson et al. 2008, p. 4). Reduced
freshwater supplies to coastal lagoons
and estuaries, besides simulating the
effects of drought on the tidewater goby,
will exacerbate the intrusion of
saltwater into coastal lagoons and
estuaries that may result from sea level
rise, thus converting lagoons and
estuaries into primarily saltwater bodies
that are not conducive to supporting
tidewater gobies.
Although currently occupied
localities may be inundated with
saltwater due to sea level rise and
declining freshwater input, currently
freshwater habitats upstream of existing
tidewater goby locations may become
brackish as a result of sea level rise and
develop habitat conditions suitable for
the tidewater goby. In areas where this
occurs, tidewater gobies may be able to
move farther upstream as seawater
moves farther inland. The ability of new
habitat to develop and tidewater gobies
to move upstream in response to
saltwater intrusion is limited in many
places by upstream modifications for
flood control or other purposes (Service
2005, p. 17). In these locations, hard
structures or development limit the
extent of upstream habitat available that
could potentially be converted to
suitable brackish water areas suitable for
gobies. These barriers are found
throughout the range of the tidewater
goby, and among regularly occupied
tidewater goby localities, a few
examples where upstream modifications
may prevent migration include:
Lagunitas Creek which has been
subjected to channelization; the Santa
Ynez River, which is channelized in
portions and is diverted in some areas;
Bennett Slough, which is channelized
upstream, has been diverted, and for
which flood control structures have
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
14350
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
been installed; and the J Street Drain,
which is concrete-lined and flows are
controlled with a tide gate (Service
2005, Appendices C and E). As the sea
level rises, the ability of tidewater
gobies to move upstream to seek the
habitat conditions they need may be
impeded by these and other
modifications. In addition, the lack of a
natural interface between seawater and
freshwater inflows may result in an
abrupt change between saltwater and
freshwater (instead of the mixing zone
that exists under current conditions)
and create unsuitable habitat for the
tidewater goby.
The recovery plan (Service 2005,
Appendix E) lists the localities currently
and historically occupied by the
tidewater goby and the threats to those
localities. We assume that a shift
upstream by tidewater gobies would be
precluded at ‘‘regularly’’ and
‘‘intermittently’’ occupied localities
where ‘‘stream channelization’’ is listed
as a threat because the interface between
saltwater and freshwater would not
inundate areas where lagoons could
form, but would be an abrupt interface
where mixing of saltwater and
freshwater occurs and does not allow
tidewater goby habitat to establish.
Similarly, those occupied localities for
which ‘‘salinity regime: dikes, levees,
dams, etc.’’ was listed as a threat could
also form an abrupt fresh/saltwater
interface where tidewater goby habitat
could not form. Based on this
assumption, we can calculate the
number of localities where suitable
tidewater goby habitat is not likely to
form in response to sea level rise. Of the
124 localities considered ‘‘regularly’’ or
‘‘intermittently’’ occupied at the time
the recovery plan was published (2005),
52 have ‘‘stream channelization’’ listed
as a threat, 50 have ‘‘salinity regime’’
listed as a threat, and 26 localities have
both listed as a threat. In total, 73
localities occupied by tidewater goby
have either ‘‘stream channelization’’ or
‘‘salinity regime’’ or both listed as a
threat. That would indicate that at least
59 percent (73 of 124) of the occupied
localities that would be inundated by
sea level rise may have little or no
opportunity for suitable tidewater goby
habitat to form upstream.
Another consideration is the human
response to sea level rise. Existing
development and infrastructure are at
increasing risk, and those planning
responses to sea level rise in California
are exploring several options, including
hard engineering, soft engineering,
accommodation/adaptation, or retreat
(California Coastal Commission 2001,
pp. 18–25). While none of the responses
have been ruled out, hard engineering
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
(like sea walls or levees) and soft
engineering (beach replenishment, sand
bar protection) may be the most viable
options (accommodation/adaptation
could require costly structural fixes, and
retreat requires the use of land that may
not be available). Both of these
engineering solutions are designed to
work against sea level rise and will
create an abrupt interface between
saltwater and freshwater as opposed to
allowing flooding of low-lying coastal
areas. Consequently, areas where sea
level rise is met by engineering
solutions are less likely to accommodate
a shift in tidewater goby habitat.
To summarize our analysis of the
potential for upstream shifts in
tidewater goby habitat in response to sea
level rise, we estimate that up to 59
percent of the 124 localities considered
regularly or intermittently occupied in
the 2005 recovery plan (Service 2005,
Appendix E) are not likely to
accommodate higher sea levels such
that ‘‘new’’ habitat for tidewater gobies
would be created. Thus, we anticipate
that by 2100, as much as 59 percent, and
perhaps more, of the occupied localities
could be extirpated by the combination
of sea level rise with existing and future
barriers to tidal inflow.
A less well-known aspect of climate
change is ocean acidification. The
increased amount of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere means rainfall captures
more carbon dioxide and delivers it to
the oceans. When carbon dioxide
dissolves in seawater, the concentration
of hydrogen ions increases, thereby
increasing the acidity (Orr et al. 2005, p.
1). The lowering pH makes calcium
carbonate less available for organisms
that use it to form shells and
exoskeletons. Projections are that ocean
acidification, which began shortly after
the Industrial Revolution and is
accelerating in the 21st century, could
disrupt the life cycles of many marine
organisms that form the basis of
complex ecosystems (Orr et al. 2005, p.
685). The tidewater goby forages on a
variety of small organisms that may rely
on the availability of calcium carbonate
to form exoskeletons and shells. If ocean
acidification decreases the availability
of such prey, tidewater goby
populations could be affected. While the
effects of carbon dioxide dissolving in
the oceans are apparent in some cases
(coral reefs), the impacts to tidewater
goby habitat and prey are speculative.
Although acidification may have some
effect on the species, at this time we
cannot make meaningful projections on
either the degree of acidification that is
likely to occur within the range of the
tidewater goby, or how the species may
react to acidification.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Considering the number of historical
localities listed as extirpated (24) in the
recovery plan (Service 2005, p. 27), and
those considered so small or degraded
that long-term persistence is
questionable (55 to 70; Service 2005, p.
6), the additional threat due to climate
change and sea level rise increases the
likelihood that the number of tidewater
goby populations will decline and those
that remain will be further fragmented.
Summary of Factor A
On the basis of this analysis, we find
that the destruction, modification, or
curtailment of tidewater goby habitat is
currently a threat to the tidewater goby
rangewide, and we expect the threat to
continue in the future. While the largescale impacts to tidewater goby habitat
have slowed due to regulations that
protect wetland areas, multiple small
losses and alterations still occur and are
expected to continue to degrade
tidewater goby habitat throughout the
species’ range. Hydrological changes to
tidewater goby habitat, such as flood
control and bridge replacement,
continue to occur, and these changes are
detrimental to tidewater goby
persistence in some localities. Sandbar
breaching is a fairly pervasive activity
throughout the range of the tidewater
goby and has a significant negative
impact on the populations where it
occurs. Cumulatively, while these
activities are having a negative effect on
tidewater goby habitat throughout its
range, and we predict that activities that
remove or degrade tidewater goby
habitat will continue, we conclude that
impacts to the tidewater goby from these
activities are not currently having a
substantial effect on the species
throughout its range, but may in the
future as these effects accumulate.
A primary reason for the above
conclusion is the tidewater goby’s
ability to rebound after prolonged
periods of unsuitable habitat conditions
(e.g., prolonged drought). At the time of
listing in 1994, when the tidewater goby
was known to occupy only 43 localities,
we concluded that the species’
‘‘downward trend was likely to
continue’’ due to threats posed by,
among others, habitat loss. When the
drought that had reduced the number of
localities to 43 ended, the tidewater
goby numbers rebounded to a now
estimated 114 occupied localities (78 FR
8746). This indicates that the species is
able to recover from a serious drought
and that the threats we believed would
cause a continuing downward trend are
not as serious as previously determined.
In addition to the direct humancaused losses of tidewater goby habitat
described above, climate change
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(including ocean acidification), and sea
level rise in particular, will have a
significant negative impact on the
species. Sea levels have been rising
since the last century, and we can
project how sea level rise will affect the
tidewater goby; however, sea level rise
is happening gradually and
demonstrable effects to the tidewater
goby will only be manifested after
decades of global temperature increases.
Thus, we conclude that sea level rise is
a threat to the species in the foreseeable
future, but is not an imminent threat.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Based on our review of the available
information, we found no evidence of
risks from overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes affecting the
tidewater goby or potential risks in the
future. While some scientific collecting
has been done for genetic analysis, the
number of individual gobies removed
has been kept to levels that would not
have a noticeable impact on discrete
populations. We therefore conclude that
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes is not a threat to the tidewater
goby now, and we do not anticipate
overutilization becoming a threat in the
future.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. Disease or Predation
Disease/Parasites
Disease was not considered a threat to
the tidewater goby in the final listing
rule for the species; however, concern
exists over the effects of certain
parasites on the tidewater goby.
Cryptocotyle lingua is one parasite that
has been documented in the tidewater
goby (Swift et al. 1989, p. 7; Swenson
1999). It is an introduced fluke
(flatworm) native to the eastern Atlantic
Ocean that infects marine fish as an
intermediate host (Sindermann and
Farrin 1962, pp. 69–75). The source of
this parasite is not known, but it may
have been introduced in ballast water
from vessels from eastern Atlantic ports.
As a trigenetic parasite, Cryptocotyle
lingua has two intermediate hosts; the
first is a snail, the second a fish like the
tidewater goby. The second
intermediate host passes along the
parasite to the final host, such as a bird
or mammal, when the fish is consumed.
The intermediate host is weakened by
the parasite but not killed. Although all
localities may potentially support this
parasite, it has only been documented to
infect tidewater gobies at Gannon
Slough, Humboldt County, Pescadero
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
Creek, San Mateo County, and possibly
Corcoran Lagoon, Santa Cruz County
(Swenson 1999). While a typical
trigenetic parasite has effects on its
intermediate hosts described above, we
have no information indicating that
Cryptocotyle lingua infestations of the
tidewater goby are substantial enough to
cause the loss of populations or have
caused a decline in the species’
distribution or numbers. In the future, if
Cryptocotyle lingua spreads, it may have
a greater effect on the tidewater goby
than currently observed.
McGourty et al. (2007, pp. 655–660)
report that a newly recognized species
of protozoan parasite, Kabatana
newberryi, may be specific to the
tidewater goby. Their data suggest that
Kabatana newberryi occurs
sympatrically (overlaps geographically)
with the tidewater goby throughout
northern California. During presenceabsence surveys of tidewater gobies in
2003 and 2004, McGourty et al. (2007,
p. 655) found individuals throughout
the northern range of the species
infected with Kabatana newberryi, as
shown by the presence of opaque white
muscle tissue. Voucher specimens of
tidewater gobies taken from Rodeo
Lagoon, Marin County, California in
2005 exhibited similar infections (D.
Fong, pers. comm. as cited in McGourty
et al. 2007, p. 659). No specific
identification of the parasites could be
made because the voucher specimens
were preserved in formalin; however,
the parasite from the Rodeo Lagoon
specimens appears very similar to
Kabatana newberryi in that it infects
muscle cells. Kabatana newberryi has
not been reported in the southern
portion of the tidewater goby’s range,
and the dispersal mechanism of
Kabatana newberryi is not well
understood (McGourty et al. 2007, pp.
659–670). Surveys evaluating the
presence and potential effects of
Kabatana newberryi on tidewater gobies
are needed to assess whether this
parasite represents a significant threat to
its host and could contribute to its
decline. Because this parasite was
discovered in tidewater goby specimens
captured in Big Lagoon, Humboldt
County, an otherwise large and
reasonably secure population, this
suggests that even populations at
otherwise low risk from habitat loss or
destruction may be at risk from disease
or parasites (Service 2007, p. 24).
Although parasites have been found
in tidewater gobies, diseases and
parasites and how they affect tidewater
goby populations are not well
understood at this time. Only recently
has research begun to analyze the
relationship between tidewater gobies
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14351
and parasites, and how the tidewater
goby populations are affected. Native
parasites, such as Kabatana newberryi,
that target a specific host (in this case,
the tidewater goby) are probably not a
threat because a successful
monospecific parasite does not decimate
its host populations, although it can
affect individual animals. Nonnative
parasites, such as Cryptocotyle lingua,
may be more of a threat because they
did not evolve a host-parasite
relationship with the tidewater goby,
they can occupy more than one host
species, and an infestation could
possibly reduce tidewater goby
numbers.
Although parasites can have effects on
individual tidewater gobies, we have no
information attributing any population
declines or loss of localities to parasitic
infestations. The best available
information does not indicate that these
parasites pose a significant threat to the
tidewater goby now. We have no data
with which to predict the future impacts
of parasites on the tidewater goby, but
the potential exists for parasites to
reduce tidewater goby numbers if the
parasites spread or increase in number.
Predation
Native fish species, such as some
salmonids, may prey on tidewater
gobies (Moyle 2002, p. 432). This is a
natural phenomenon, and we expect
gobies to be adapted to some level of
predation by native species with which
they have evolved, but when tidewater
goby numbers and habitat are reduced
through human-induced threats, these
native predators may have a greater
effect on a tidewater goby population.
Introduced aquatic species that may
have arrived in ballast water from
foreign vessels or been deliberately
released may be more damaging because
they did not evolve in conjunction with
native species, and they can be prolific
in the absence of their own natural
controls (that is, disease or predators).
We know that introduced predatory fish
have a negative impact on most of
California’s native coastal species and
some prey on tidewater gobies (Service
2007, p. 21). According to the recovery
plan, approximately 65 localities are
known to have native and nonnative
predators that feed on tidewater gobies
(Service 2005, Appendix E). Introduced
species may affect tidewater goby
populations by preying on adults,
larvae, or eggs. Predation by introduced
or native species can be particularly
damaging to species, such as tidewater
goby, that are generally distributed
across small, isolated populations and
are prone to fluctuations in population
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
14352
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
size (Pimm et al. 1988, p. 777; Lafferty
et al. 1999a, p. 1448).
Specific examples of situations where
predation by nonnative species may
have negatively affected tidewater goby
populations can be found in M. Capelli,
in litt. 1999, p. 13; D. Holland, in litt.
1999, pp. 5–6; and C. Swift, in litt. 1999,
no pagination. In the Santa Ynez River
system, tidewater gobies accounted for
61 percent of the prey volume of 55
percent (10 of 18) of the juvenile
largemouth bass sampled (Swift et al.
1997; M. Capelli, in litt. 1999, p. 13).
The decline and subsequent recovery of
the tidewater goby population in Las
Pulgas Creek closely tracked the
presence and absence of green sunfish
in the lagoon of this system (Swift and
Holland 1998, p. 10). The elimination of
tidewater gobies from the Santa
Margarita River, San Diego County, may
have been due to the combined
influence of nonnative species and
decreasing habitat available for the
tidewater goby (Swift and Holland 1998,
pp. 14–17). Largemouth bass in Old
Creek of San Luis Obispo County are
likely responsible for the elimination
and prevention of re-establishment of
tidewater gobies there (D. Holland, in
litt. 1999, p. 6). This evidence, though
indirect, suggests that some nonnative
predators can have significant negative
impacts on tidewater gobies, up to and
including extirpation from individual
localities (K. Lafferty, in litt. 1999). In
addition, predation by nonnatives may
have negative effects short of
extirpation, reducing tidewater goby
population sizes and thereby rendering
populations more vulnerable over the
long term to extirpation as a result of
natural perturbations of habitat
conditions at the site (M. Capelli, in litt.
1999, p. 11).
Fish surveys along the California
coast conducted by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s
(CDFW) Office of Spill Prevention and
Response identified the presence of
numerous introduced predatory species,
including striped bass (Morone
saxatilis), white catfish (Amerius catus),
largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), common carp (Cyprinus
carpio), threadfin shad (Dorosoma
petenense), redear sunfish (Lepomis
microlophus), black crappie (Pomoxis
nigromaculatus), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), and inland silverside
(Menidia beryllina). These fish have
been introduced historically in
California waters as sport fish or forage.
Currently, the impact of nonnative
fish appears to be isolated and
infrequent (see examples above);
however, if introductions of nonnative
fish continue in the future and more
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
waters that support tidewater gobies are
affected, we can expect nonnative
predators to have a more widespread
negative impact on tidewater goby
populations.
Amphibians are also known predators
of native fish species (Swift and Holland
1998, p. 26). Bullfrogs (Rana
catesbeiana) have been introduced to
California either accidentally through
the aquarium trade and during trout
stocking, or deliberately for pest control
or sport. Bullfrogs are known predators
on a wide variety of species, including
many fish, and are suspected to have
significant negative impacts on
tidewater goby populations (Swift and
Holland 1998, p. 26; Holland et al. 2001,
pp. 35–36). Furthermore, bullfrogs have
been implicated in the demise of the
Old Creek, San Luis Obispo County,
tidewater goby population (Rathbun
1991, p. 4).
In summary, numerous native and
nonnative predators have been
documented in tidewater goby habitat.
While there is evidence that predators
can affect individual tidewater goby
localities, the impacts do not appear to
be widespread and are more acute
where predation is occurring in the
presence of other factors that have
depressed the species’ numbers, such as
drought. We conclude predation alone
is not a severe threat to the species as
a whole. As discussed under Factor D
below, subsequent to the listing of the
species, the State of California has
enacted regulations to help control
aquatic invasive species, including
those that may arrive in ballast water,
and this may reduce the threat from
nonnative predators.
Summary of Factor C
The best available information
indicates that at current population
levels, parasitic infections and
nonnative predators are not a major
threat to the tidewater goby rangewide;
however, under certain conditions (for
example, poor water quality, drought),
parasites and nonnative predators could
have substantial negative impacts to
populations of tidewater goby at specific
localities in the future. At the time of
listing in 1994, when the tidewater goby
occupied only 43 localities and a severe
drought was ending, parasites and
predators posed a relatively greater
threat to species. After the drought
ended, the number of localities known
to be occupied by tidewater gobies has
increased to an estimated 114 (78 FR
8746), and currently available
information does not indicate that
parasites and predators are having a
substantial effect on the tidewater
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
goby’s numbers or distribution at
current levels.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Reclassifying the tidewater goby from
endangered to threatened would not
change the protections afforded to this
species under the Act or other
regulations. The listing rule for the
tidewater goby described several
Federal and State regulations that
provide protection for the tidewater
goby and its habitat including the Rivers
and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.),
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.), and the California Coastal Act (see
the final listing rule for details on these
and other regulations (59 FR 5494)).
These regulations all remain in effect
and continue to provide substantial
protections for the tidewater goby and
its habitat. However, while regulations
have largely eliminated the large-scale
destruction of habitat, these same
regulations contain permitting processes
that allow certain actions to continue,
and small-scale habitat loss or
degradation (meaning roughly a few
acres per project) continues to occur
(California Coastal Commission 1994,
no pagination).
Subsequent to the listing of the
tidewater goby as endangered, three
new regulations have been enacted that
provide additional protection for the
species, the Federal Sikes Act
Improvement Act, the California Ballast
Management for Control of
Nonindigenous Species Act, and the
California Marine Invasive Species Act.
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) authorizes
the Secretary of Defense to develop
cooperative plans with the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior for natural
resources on public lands. The Sikes
Act Improvement Act requires
Department of Defense installations to
prepare integrated natural resources
management plans (INRMPs) that
manage natural resources on military
lands consistent with the use of military
installations to ensure the readiness of
the Armed Forces. INRMPs incorporate,
to the maximum extent practicable,
ecosystem management principles and
provide the landscape necessary to
sustain military land uses. INRMPs are
developed in coordination with the
State and the Service, and are generally
updated every 5 years although they
remain in effect during that process.
Although implementation is subject to
funding availability, INRMPs are
important guiding documents that help
to integrate natural resource
conservation with military readiness
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
and training. Each INRMP includes the
following:
(1) An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) is
located on the central California coast,
approximately 225 km (140 mi)
northwest of Los Angeles and is
approximately 67 km (42 mi) in length.
VAFB completed an INRMP in 2011 that
protects in several ways the five
localities on the base occupied by the
tidewater goby. These measures include:
(1) Avoiding the tidewater goby and its
habitat, whenever possible, in project
planning; (2) scheduling activities that
may affect tidewater goby outside of the
peak breeding period (March to July); (3)
coordinating with VAFB water quality
staff to prevent degradation and
contamination of aquatic habitats; and
(4) prohibiting the introduction of
nonnative fishes into streams on-base
(VAFB 2011, Tab D, p. 15). Furthermore,
VAFB’s environmental staff reviews
projects and enforces existing
regulations and orders that, through
their implementation, avoid and
minimize impacts to natural resources,
including the tidewater goby and its
habitat. In addition, VAFB’s INRMP
protects aquatic habitats for the
tidewater goby by excluding cattle from
wetlands and riparian areas through the
installation and maintenance of fencing.
Seven of the eight occupied localities
remaining in southern California are on
MCB Camp Pendleton, which is located
on the southern coast of California
approximately 132 km (82 mi) south of
Los Angeles and is approximately 21 km
(13 mi) in length. MCB Camp Pendleton
completed its INRMP in 2001, followed
by a revised and updated version in
2007, which includes several measures
that protect the tidewater goby and its
habitat.
Management and protection measures
that benefit the tidewater goby
identified in Appendix B of the INRMP
(MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
B, pp. B5–B7) include, but are not
limited to, the following: (1)
Maintaining connectivity of beach and
estuarine ecosystems with riparian and
upland ecosystems; (2) promoting
natural hydrological processes to
maintain estuarine water quality and
quantity; and (3) maximizing the
probability of tidewater goby
metapopulation existence within the
lagoon complex. Management and
protection measures that benefit
tidewater goby identified in Appendix C
of the INRMP (MCB Camp Pendleton
2007, Appendix C, pp. C5–C8) include,
but are not limited to, the following: (1)
Eliminating nonnative, invasive species
(such as Arundo donax (giant reed)) on
the installation and off the installation
in partnership with upstream
landowners to enhance ecosystem
value; (2) providing viable riparian
corridors and promoting connectivity of
native riparian habitats; (3) providing
for unimpeded hydrologic and
sedimentary floodplain dynamics to
support the maintenance and
enhancement of biota; (4) maintaining
natural floodplain processes and extent
of these areas by avoiding and
minimizing further permanent loss of
floodplain habitats; (5) maintaining to
the maximum extent possible natural
flood regimes; (6) maintaining to the
extent practicable stream and river
flows needed to support riparian
habitat; (7) monitoring and maintaining
groundwater levels and basin
withdrawals to avoid loss and
degradation of habitat quality; (8)
restoring areas to their original
condition after disturbance, such as
following project construction or fire
damage; and (9) promoting increased
tidewater goby populations in
watersheds through perpetuation of
natural ecosystem processes and
programmatic instruction application
for avoidance and minimization of
impacts.
MCB Camp Pendleton’s INRMP also
benefits tidewater goby through ongoing
monitoring and research efforts. The
installation conducts monitoring of
tidewater goby populations at least once
every 3 years (MCB Camp Pendleton
2007, Appendix B, p. B8). Additionally,
MCB Camp Pendleton collaborated with
the U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological
Resources Division to develop and
implement a rigorous, science-based
monitoring protocol for tidewater goby
populations throughout the installation,
including monitoring water quality
variables at all historically occupied
sites regardless of current occupation
status.
The completion of the MCB Camp
Pendleton INRMP and the protections it
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14353
affords to the tidewater goby and its
habitat on the base is of particular
significance to the status of the species
as seven of the eight occupied localities
remaining in southern California (south
of Los Angeles County) are on MCB
Camp Pendleton. As recently as 1999,
the Service considered southern
California to be the most seriously
threatened portion of the tidewater
goby’s range (64 FR 33816). However,
the MCB Camp Pendleton INRMP has
substantially reduced threats in the
region.
The California Ballast Management
for Control of Nonindigenous Species
Act of 1999 was adopted by the State of
California to establish a multi-agency
program to prevent the introduction and
spread of nonnative aquatic species
from the ballast of ships into the State
waters of California. The program was
designed to determine the current level
of species invasions while researching
alternative control strategies. Under this
program, the CDFW is required to study
the extent of nonnative species
introductions into the coastal waters of
the State. To fulfill this requirement, the
CDFW’s Office of Spill Prevention and
Response initiated several baseline field
surveys of ports and bays along the
California coast and a literature survey
of records of nonindigenous species.
The California Marine Invasive
Species Act was passed in 2003,
widening the scope of the original
ballast water program (CDFG 2008, p.
47). The 2003 act requires ballast water
management for all vessels that intend
to discharge ballast water in California
waters. All qualifying vessels coming
from ports within the Pacific Coast
region must conduct an exchange [in
waters at least 50 nautical mi offshore
and 200 m (656 ft) deep], or retain all
ballast water and associated sediments.
To determine the effectiveness of the
management provisions of this act, the
legislation also requires State agencies
to conduct a series of biological surveys
to monitor new introductions to coastal
and estuarine waters. Implementation of
these measures should further reduce
the frequency of new introductions of
invasive species into California’s coastal
waters that could be a threat to the
tidewater goby. The Coastal Ecosystems
Protection Act of 2006 deleted a sunset
provision of the Marine Invasive
Species Act, making the program
permanent.
Upon its listing as endangered, the
tidewater goby benefited from the
protections of Act, which include the
prohibition against take and the
requirement for interagency
consultation for Federal actions that
may affect the species. Section 9 of the
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
14354
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Act and Federal regulations prohibit the
take of endangered and threatened
species without special exemption. The
Act defines ‘‘take’’ as to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C.
1532(19)). Our regulations define
‘‘harm’’ to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results
in death or injury to listed species by
significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Our
regulations also define ‘‘harass’’ as
intentional or negligent actions that
create the likelihood of injury to a listed
species by annoying it to such an extent
as to significantly disrupt normal
behavior patterns, which include, but
are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Section 7(a)(1)
of the Act requires all Federal agencies
to utilize their authorities in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act by carrying
out programs for the conservation of
endangered species and threatened
species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to ensure that
any action they authorize, fund, or carry
out is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of listed species or
destroy or adversely modify their
critical habitat. Section 6 of the Act,
which authorizes us to enter into
cooperative conservation agreements
with States, and to allocate funds for
conservation programs to benefit
threatened or endangered species,
provides another potential benefit.
Neither section 6 of the Act nor Service
policy gives higher priority to
endangered species over threatened
species for conservation funding.
Thus, listing the tidewater goby
provided a variety of protections,
including the prohibition against take
and the conservation mandates of
section 7 for all Federal agencies.
Because the Service has regulations that
prohibit take of all threatened wildlife
species (50 CFR 17.31(a)), unless
modified by a special rule issued under
section 4(d) of the Act (50 CFR 17.31(c)),
the regulatory protections of the Act are
largely the same for wildlife species
listed as endangered and as threatened;
thus, the protections provided by the
Act will remain in place if the tidewater
goby is reclassified as a threatened
species.
Summary of Factor D
In summary, the tidewater goby is
currently protected by a variety of
regulatory mechanisms throughout its
range, and we anticipate those
protections will continue for the
foreseeable future. Regulations in place
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
when the tidewater goby was listed
continue to provide substantial
protection for the species and its
habitat. The passing of the Sikes Act
Improvement Act subsequent to the
listing has been particularly beneficial
to the tidewater goby in southern
California where seven of the eight
occupied locations in that region receive
a substantial level of protection through
the INRMP developed by MCB Camp
Pendleton. Although the INRMP
developed by VAFB provides
substantial protections to the tidewater
goby and its habitat, the VAFB INRMP
only covers the five localities on the
base. The other two regulations passed
since the species was listed, the
California Ballast Management for
Control of Nonindigenous Species Act
and the California Marine Invasive
Species Act, help reduce the threat of
the introduction of new invasive species
from ballast water throughout the entire
range of the species. Overall, regulations
in effect at the time of listing and new
regulations passed subsequent to listing
have substantially reduced, but have not
eliminated any of, the threats to the
tidewater goby and its habitat.
Therefore, we conclude that existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to protect the tidewater goby without
the additional protections afforded
under the Act.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Competition
One of the potential threats to the
tidewater goby is competition from
nonnative species. This competition is
mainly for prey, but can also be
competition for other resources. For
example, Big Lagoon and Freshwater
Lagoon in Humboldt County support
populations of the nonnative New
Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus
antipodarum) that was likely
introduced by fisherman or boats, either
on the outside of the vessels or in ballast
water (Service 2008, no pagination). The
New Zealand mudsnail blankets the
bottom of these lagoons and may
outcompete other native species,
including the tidewater goby, for space
and resources. The New Zealand
mudsnail may have the overall effect of
altering the ecosystem to the point it
cannot support other native species.
Several small, potentially
competitive, estuarine fishes have also
been introduced into tidewater goby
habitat. These include the rainwater
killifish (Lucania parva), chameleon
goby (Tridentiger trigonocephalus),
yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius
flavimanus), and shimofuri goby
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Tridentiger bifasciatus). The first three
species appeared in the 1960s in San
Francisco Bay, coincident with the last
collections of tidewater gobies there
(Haaker 1979; Swift et al. 1989).
Rainwater killifish have become
widespread in San Francisco Bay, and
have recently become established in
Upper Newport Bay, Orange County, but
have not become established elsewhere
(Moyle 2002, p. 315). Yellowfin gobies
have seldom been collected in the
smaller, brackish, non-tidal systems
where tidewater gobies are found (Swift
et al. 1994, p. 21); however, in 1992 and
1993, yellowfin gobies were collected in
the Santa Clara River (Ventura County)
and Santa Margarita River (San Diego
County) lagoons (Swift et al. 1994, p.
15). The recent appearance of yellowfin
gobies in southern California and the
coincident disappearance of the
tidewater goby in the Santa Margarita
River in late 1993 suggest that the
species is slowly spreading to brackish
habitats and may be eliminating
tidewater gobies.
Chameleon gobies have been locally
abundant on hard substrates in San
Francisco and Los Angeles harbors since
the 1960s and 1970s, respectively
(Haaker 1979, p. 59). Initial experiments
by Swenson and Matern (1995, p. 3)
indicated that shimofuri gobies
aggressively intimidate, outcompete,
and prey on tidewater gobies in the
laboratory. However, like the chameleon
goby, the shimofuri goby prefers hard
substrates. Thus, it might be expected to
remain in such habitats in coastal
lagoons, and perhaps not interact
extensively with tidewater gobies. To
date, the possible effects of interactions
in the wild between these nonnative
estuarine fish and tidewater gobies are
largely conjectural.
These nonnative competitors may be
having a negative effect on tidewater
goby numbers, but the relationship is
not demonstrated by the best available
information. We can infer from the
overall impact of introducing nonnative
competitors in other situations that
nonnative species like the New Zealand
mussel will deplete resources used by
the tidewater goby, but based on the
best available information, we conclude
that competition is not a substantial,
uniform threat to the species throughout
its range. As discussed under Factor D
above, the State of California has
enacted regulations to help control
aquatic invasive species (CDFG 2008),
including those introduced in ballast
water, and while these regulations may
not eliminate competition from
nonnative species, they should help
reduce the future threat.
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Water Quality
Impaired water quality was cited as a
potential threat to the tidewater goby in
the recovery plan (Service 2005, p. 21,
28, Appendix C). Water quality issues
still affect some of the localities
occupied by tidewater gobies. For
example, the Tillas Slough in Del Norte
County is subject to runoff from
pastures that carry nitrogenous waste,
which in turn increases algae
production and depletes oxygen levels
in the water. In the Santa Clara River
estuary, the natural flows are augmented
by discharges from a wastewater
treatment plant that have degraded
water quality. These impacts on the
tidewater goby habitat are not
uncommon and appear ongoing and are
likely to continue into the future in
many parts of its range.
At the time the recovery plan was
published (Service 2005), we
determined that 54 localities that
currently or historically supported, or
could potentially support, tidewater
gobies were ‘‘Water Quality Limited’’ as
defined by the State Water Resources
Control Board’s 2002 Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) List of Water Quality
Limited Segments. The designation
indicates that the listed water bodies do
not meet current water quality standards
set by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Contaminants may
include everything from sediment to
coliform bacteria to polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Although the 2010 303(d) list
includes an additional 30 localities
listed in the recovery plan (Service
2005, Appendix C) that currently or
historically supported, or could
potentially support, tidewater gobies
and are now considered ‘‘Water Quality
Limited’’ (for a total of 84 localities), no
link has been established between
impaired water quality and negative
impacts on tidewater goby populations
(Service 2005, pp. 47, 50, 52). Therefore,
based on the best available information,
we conclude that impaired water quality
is not a substantial threat to the
tidewater goby. The recovery plan cites
the need to explore water quality issues
to ascertain the level of threat posed in
these ‘‘Water Quality Limited’’
segments. This need may become more
critical as more localities that support
the species are added to the 303(d) list.
(Note: Some additions to the list may be
due to changes in the criteria for
meeting the ‘‘Water Quality Limited’’
standards and not solely to declining
water quality.)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
Habitat Fragmentation
Metapopulation dynamics are an
important aspect of tidewater goby
biology and, in turn, the species’
conservation. Maintaining
metapopulation relationships ensures
that processes of extirpation and
recolonization, genetic exchange leading
to enhanced fitness, and connectivity
between populations are preserved.
Studies such as Lafferty et al. (1999a,
1999b) and recovery planning efforts
(Service 2005) emphasize the need to
understand metapopulation dynamics
for conserving the tidewater goby.
Tidewater goby metapopulation
structures that may have existed in the
past have been altered by the creation of
additional gaps and increases in the
number and size of gaps in the species’
distribution (Smith, in litt. 2007) as a
result of habitat alteration and other
factors that have rendered some
localities unsuitable for tidewater
gobies. Connectivity of many
populations has been reduced or
eliminated by loss of localities,
increased distance between localities,
and lack of suitable, intermediate
habitats (‘‘stepping stones’’). For
example: (1) Waddell Creek in Santa
Cruz County has been lost as a possible
24-km (15-mi) stepping stone between
those localities to the north in San
Mateo County and those to the south
(for example, Scott Creek); (2) Schwans
and Woods Lagoons have been lost as
suitable stepping stones between the
Baldwin/Wilder metapopulation north
of the Santa Cruz and Corcoran/Moran
metapopulation south of Santa Cruz;
and (3) San Vicente and Liddell Creeks
have been lost between Scott and
Laguna Creeks (Santa Cruz County)
(Smith, in litt. 2007).
In central and northern California,
Swift (in litt. 2007) believes it very
unlikely that genetic interchange
(sharing of genes among populations
that may allow for exchange of
beneficial mutations that enhance
survival under changing conditions,
usually through dispersal of breeding
individuals) is possible between several
groups of populations naturally
separated by 32 km (20 mi) or more of
rugged coastline. For example, isolated
populations in Mendocino County in
the Ten Mile River-Virgin CreekPudding Creek group are unlikely to
receive dispersing tidewater gobies and
their genetic material from either the
north or the south. These populations
are too far away from other populations
to be recolonized if lost and are unlikely
to contribute genetic material in either
direction as well. Farther south, a wide
gap exists between Gaviota Creek and
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14355
Winchester/Bell Canyon in Santa
Barbara County (Swift, in litt. 2007).
Similar long distances exist between
Winchester/Bell Canyon and Arroyo
Burro and Mission Creek-Laguna
Channel (in Santa Barbara County) and
between these latter two and the
Ventura River and Santa Clara River
pair (Ventura County). These large gaps
seem to disrupt the metapopulations
along most of the coast from Point
Conception to Rincon Point (Swift, in
litt. 2007), leaving individual
populations vulnerable to loss of both
the recolonization potential and the
benefits of genetic interchange.
The substantial destruction of coastal
wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries in the
past has also contributed to many
tidewater goby localities becoming more
isolated, thus threatening the stability of
some metapopulations through the
potential loss of recolonization
opportunities and the benefits of genetic
interchange. An example of where this
has occurred is the San Francisco Bay
area. We have no means to determine
how many tidewater goby localities
existed in this area prior to
development, but we do know that
approximately 95 percent of the
wetlands in this area have been filled
(Josselyn 1983). Available records
indicate at least seven tidewater goby
localities have been extirpated, and
there are now no occupied localities
within the San Francisco Bay (see
Figure 1, above). Lagunitas Creek is the
only remaining occupied locality within
Tomales Bay in Marin County, and is
now separated from its nearest neighbor
to the north, Estero de San Antonio, by
a distance of about 25 km (15.5 mi), and
from its nearest neighbor to the south,
Rodeo Lagoon, by a distance of 38 km
(23.6 mi). If tidewater gobies at
Lagunitas Creek were extirpated during
a drought, it is unlikely that the location
would be recolonized naturally. The
Rodeo Lagoon locality is also isolated.
The closest known existing localities of
tidewater goby to Rodeo Lagoon are
Lagunitas Creek in Tomales Bay, 38 km
(23.6 mi) to the north, and San Gregorio
Creek, 58 km (36 mi) to the south. If the
population at Rodeo Lagoon were
extirpated, the tidewater goby would
disappear from about a 70-km (60-mi)
portion of the coast.
Another complicating factor that may
be important to recolonization is the
direction of long-shore currents. These
currents flow predominantly from north
to south. Because tidewater gobies are
considered to be weak swimmers,
recolonization may be limited to
extirpated localities to the south of
occupied ones.
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
14356
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
While the metapopulation structure of
tidewater gobies has been disrupted to
some extent by an increase in the
number and size of gaps between
localities, we are aware that some areas
where tidewater gobies have been
extirpated apparently have been
recolonized when extant populations
were present within a relatively short
distance of the extirpated population.
For example, Lafferty et al. (1999b, p.
621) concluded that tidewater gobies
˜
had recolonized Canada Honda Creek in
Santa Barbara County from the Santa
Ynez River approximately 9 km (5.5 mi)
to the north. Recolonization may be
occurring when high freshwater flows
into lagoons and estuaries cause the
entrance to the system to be breached
and connect directly to the ocean.
Additionally, as discussed above, the
number of tidewater goby localities has
increased from 43 at the time of listing
to an estimated 114 localities occupied
currently (78 FR 8746), indicating that
the species has been able to recolonize
many localities that had become
extirpated during the extended drought
that occurred immediately prior to the
species’ listing. Local extirpations and
recolonizations are a natural part of
tidewater goby metapopulation
dynamics. We expect some local
extirpations as part of this natural
dynamic. However, because of
increasing fragmentation, we expect that
some populations will be extirpated
over the long term and will not be
recolonized. We cannot predict with
certainty which populations may
become permanently extirpated and
which will eventually be recolonized,
but we expect any permanent loss of
populations to be gradual.
When metapopulations are
fragmented and isolated from each
other, genetic exchange within and
between them is correspondingly
limited, which may result in increased
genetic drift (random changes in gene
frequencies within populations
resulting because each generation
contains only a subset, or sample, of all
the genes present in the previous
generation) and inbreeding (mating
between close relatives). Genetic drift
can result in loss of alleles (gene
variants), particularly those that occur
in low frequencies within populations,
and can contribute to loss of genetic
diversity within and among
populations. Loss of genetic diversity in
small populations may decrease the
potential for persistence in the face of
long-term environmental change
(Shaffer 1981, p. 133). Loss of genetic
diversity can also result in decline in
fitness from expression of deleterious
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
recessive alleles (Meffe and Carroll
1994, pp. 150–152). Change in the
distribution of diversity can destroy
local adaptations or break up coadapted
gene complexes (outbreeding
depression). These problems can lead to
a poorer ‘‘match’’ of the organism to its
environment, reducing individual
fitness and increasing the probability of
population or species extinction (Meffe
and Carroll 1994, p. 131). Genetic drift
and inbreeding are reduced when there
is genetic exchange among populations,
which can restore genes lost through
drift or bring in new genes, while also
increasing the likelihood of matings
between unrelated individuals.
As discussed above in the ‘‘Genetics’’
section, tidewater goby populations
currently exhibit population genetic
structuring (groups of populations are
genetically more similar to each other
than to other populations). This
indicates that some degree of isolation/
genetic differentiation is probably
normal for tidewater gobies and is the
result of the evolutionary history of the
species. Under this situation, we expect
greater gene flow within major
phylogeographic groups (groups of
closely related populations) than
between the groups. However, habitat
loss and anthropogenic factors have
resulted in the creation of additional
gaps in the species’ distribution. This
fragmentation may be resulting in
isolation not only among major groups
of related populations, but also between
populations within groups, and thus
reducing the levels of normally
expected gene flow. For the tidewater
goby, where metapopulation dynamics
dictate gene flow and genetic diversity,
the observed fragmentation of some
parts of the species’ distribution
indicate that some subpopulations are
likely genetically isolated from others.
The effects of this genetic isolation are
exhibited by the results of genetics
studies cited earlier that conclude that
natural and anthropogenic barriers have
contributed to genetic differentiation
among populations. The implications
for the survival of the tidewater goby are
not clear, but the loss of genetic
interchange between populations may
cause increased inbreeding and the loss
of fitness afforded a species by having
a diverse genetic makeup. While we
expect that increased fragmentation and
isolation may adversely affect gene flow
and eventually lead to reduced fitness of
populations, these processes generally
occur over many generations.
Stochastic Events
Stochastic events in ecology are
random, usually natural occurrences,
which can affect a species or its
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ecosystem. Such events may include
wildfire, earthquakes, landslides, and
climatic phenomena such as floods or
drought. These events can have a
substantial impact on a species at any
level, from individuals to rangewide. Of
particular concern for the tidewater
goby are the stochastic events related to
climate, including drought and flood.
The most significant natural factor
adversely affecting the tidewater goby is
drought and the resultant alteration of
coastal and riparian habitats. Periodic
droughts are a historical feature of
California, which has been repeatedly
subject to prolonged droughts (U.S.
Geological Survey 2004). When the
tidewater goby was proposed for listing
as endangered in 1992 (57 FR 58770;
December 11, 1992), California had just
experienced what is considered the
most severe drought in the history of the
State; the drought lasted for 5 years from
1987 to 1992 (Priest et al. 1993, p. 1).
Although some localities may have
actually been occupied but at such low
numbers as to be undetectable, at the
time of listing in 1994, we concluded
that all but 43 tidewater goby localities
had been extirpated. During such
periods, when the number of localities
is severely reduced or the size of
populations declines drastically, the
risk of extinction increases.
Drought conditions, when combined
with human-induced water reductions
(diversions of water from streams,
excessive groundwater withdrawals),
have degraded coastal and riparian
ecosystems and have created extremely
stressful conditions for most aquatic
species, including the tidewater goby.
Drought can have dramatic negative
effects on tidewater gobies, at times
decreasing their populations to very low
levels (perhaps to the point where they
are undetectable) and at the extreme,
extirpating populations. For example,
we state in the final listing rule for the
tidewater goby (59 FR 5494; February 4,
1994) that formerly large populations of
tidewater gobies had declined in
numbers because of the reduced
availability of suitable lagoon habitats
(San Simeon Creek and Pico Creek in
San Luis Obispo County), while others
disappeared when the lagoons dried (as
seen at Santa Rosa Creek, San Luis
Obispo County).
Despite the tidewater goby’s negative
response to the extreme drought of
1987–1992, when normal rainfall
patterns returned, the species either
recolonized localities that had been dry
or numbers increased in localities where
drought conditions had reduced
numbers to an undetectable level. When
the species was listed in 1994, this level
of resiliency was not well-documented.
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
By the time we conducted our 5-year
review of the species’ status (Service
2007), the overall tidewater goby
population numbers had continued to
rise, and we concluded that the
tidewater goby was much more resilient
than previously believed, thus leading
us to conclude that the species may not
be at risk of imminent extinction.
Flooding following severe storm
events can wash tidewater gobies out of
an estuary, which may play an
important role in recolonizing localities
where the species has been extirpated
(Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1448). The
mixing of freshwater from a flood and
the saltwater offshore, and the resulting
reduction in salinity, may allow
tidewater gobies to make limited
alongshore migrations to other suitable
habitat. Evidence indicates that this is
part of the mechanism that has allowed
the species to recover its numbers
following the 1987–1992 drought in
California. Conversely, the potential
positive effects of flooding may be
negated when channelization has
occurred upstream and alters the flood
dynamics of the system. In these cases,
channelization can increase the
duration and intensity of flood events,
not only contributing to loss of
tidewater gobies from the estuary, but
also reducing the likelihood of
recolonization because the high volume
flows of water may prevent tidewater
gobies from entering an estuary they
might otherwise be able to colonize.
Stochastic events may have both
positive and negative effects on the
tidewater goby. Drought has been shown
to have substantial negative effects on
the species by drying up estuaries and
reducing the population size at
individual localities. In a positive sense,
periodic flooding may promote
dispersal and colonization between
estuaries that are otherwise separated by
beaches or bluffs by allowing tidewater
gobies to move along the coast when
salinity would otherwise be too high
under non-flood conditions. Under
certain situations, flooding may also
have a negative effect on the tidewater
goby; when upstream modifications for
flood control alter the intensity of
outflow through an estuary, tidewater
gobies may be flushed into the ocean
and prevented from returning when
flows are too strong for them to
navigate. As discussed under the section
on climate change, we expect the
freshwater flows into coastal estuaries to
decrease over time as droughts become
more frequent or severe. This
combination of factors could have a
substantial negative impact on tidewater
goby habitat in the foreseeable future.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
Summary of Factor E
For Factor E, we conclude that some
aspects of the threats due to other
natural or manmade factors are
currently having a negative effect on the
tidewater goby, while others may be
acting on the species but the effects do
not appear to be significant. For
example, competition for resources is
always a concern for wildlife, and we
know competition from nonnative
species has operated negatively on some
populations and may have resulted in
the extirpation of one tidewater goby
locality; however, the best available
scientific and commercial information
does not indicate that competition is
significantly impacting the tidewater
goby at current population levels, and
we consider competition to be a minor
threat to the species as a whole. We also
note that water quality was poor in
many localities occupied by the
tidewater goby in 2005, and that even
more of its localities may have
experienced declining water quality
since then; however, the best available
information has not established a link
between water quality and an impact on
tidewater goby populations.
In contrast, habitat fragmentation has
been shown to be a concern both for
wildlife in general and especially for a
species like the tidewater goby that
exists as metapopulations for which
connectivity may be critical for their
persistence and for the maintenance of
genetic diversity that imparts fitness in
the face of environmental change.
Stochastic events like periodic drought
are of special concern because we have
observed the number of occupied
localities drop to as low as 43 at the
height of a prolonged drought. This
means that any time we enter a period
of drought, tidewater goby numbers are
likely to drop; however, we have also
seen that the tidewater goby populations
are resilient in the face of such events
and population numbers can rebound
when climatic conditions change. We
conclude that the threat due to habitat
fragmentation persists throughout the
species’ range, and that the effects of
stochastic events may be severe, such as
may occur during the next drought,
similar to the drought of the late 1980s
and early 1990s. The tidewater goby has
shown its ability to recover from the
effects of drought once rainfall returns,
but the effects of the other natural or
manmade factors (such as
fragmentation) may persist.
Cumulative Impacts
As noted in the sections above, some
of the threats to the tidewater goby may
be exacerbated under certain conditions
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14357
where the individual threats may not
otherwise be severe. While any likely
combination of threats will have an
additive effect on the species in a
particular location, any of the threats
combined with drought would appear to
pose the greatest risk to the tidewater
goby. As observed when the tidewater
goby was listed as endangered in 1994
after several years of drought in
California, the species declined to the
point where the Service believed it
faced extinction. A drought of the
magnitude that lead to the species’
listing could have the same impact, but
even short periods of drought may have
a substantial effect on individual
populations if other threats are in place.
For example, we recognize that
predation by nonnative species is likely
not a major factor in the tidewater
goby’s status overall, although it may be
important in some localities (Service
2007, p. 22). However, because
predation may depress population
numbers in some areas, another factor,
such as drought, may have a greater
effect because the population is already
reduced or stressed by the presence of
predators. We can conclude that such a
locality is more likely to lose its
tidewater goby population during a
drought than one where predation is not
an additional stressor.
A more dramatic cumulative effect
resulting from drought may be due to
upstream diversion or withdrawal of
water from drainages. Where water may
already be limited due to upstream uses
before it can reach tidewater goby
habitat and create the brackish
conditions the species requires, even a
small period of drought is likely to
cause the species’ habitat to dry up; this
is especially of concern at smaller
watersheds. If the drought is extended,
the return of tidewater gobies to that
locality would be dependent on proper
functioning of the metapopulation
dynamics that allow recolonization from
adjacent refugia, as we conclude
happened at the end of the drought in
the late 1980s and early 1990s in
California.
This same principle applies to those
localities where threats such as water
pollution, upstream barriers, and
disease or parasites may be a limiting
factor in the tidewater goby’s numbers.
Because adequate water supply is
critical to the species’ life cycle, large
declines in water in the tidewater goby’s
habitat are likely to exacerbate threats
that alone are not limiting.
A cursory review of the known
occupied localities and the threats
identified for those localities (Service
2005, Appendix E) does not reveal a
correlation between the number of
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
14358
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
threats and the status of the tidewater
goby at those localities. In other words,
localities with a large number of threats
do not appear to have lower or more
variable population densities than
locations with fewer threats. The most
likely correlation is between the status
and the size of the habitat, with larger
habitats having abundant numbers and
less vulnerable populations (Service
2005, Appendix E). A more vigorous
statistical analysis may reveal some
pattern of correlation, but we conclude
that combinations of threats and the
cumulative impact on tidewater goby
populations in those localities with
smaller habitats are likely to be greater
than they are for larger habitat localities.
The reasons for this include the
following: (1) There are more refugia in
larger habitats; (2) threats are more
dispersed; and (3) larger habitats are less
vulnerable to short-term impacts.
Summary of Factors
The primary factors that led to the
listing of the tidewater goby as
endangered in 1994 were: (1) The
tidewater goby had been extirpated from
nearly 50 percent of the lagoons and
estuaries it had inhabited due to habitat
alteration (channelization, water
diversions, etc.) and drought; (2) only 43
populations remained, of which only 8
were considered large enough to be
stable; and (3) the tidewater goby was
threatened by development, water
quality issues, and other habitat
alterations. We concluded in the 1994
listing rule that the downward trend in
the tidewater goby’s populations was
likely to continue; however, when the
prolonged drought in California ended
and normal rainfall patterns resumed,
the number of occupied localities grew
through recolonization (or apparent
recolonization as greater numbers
increased the species’ detectability)
from 43 up to 114 as of the publication
of the final revised critical habitat
designation (78 FR 8746), showing the
species’ resiliency in the face of
changing conditions. The other factors
that led to the tidewater goby’s listing
are still acting on the species, but it
appears that they are not severe enough
at current population levels to place the
species currently in danger of
extinction.
As an example, our analysis of Factor
A concludes that the destruction,
modification, or curtailment of
tidewater goby habitat is currently a
threat, and we expect the threat to
continue in the future. While the
elements that constitute the Factor A
threats (habitat disturbance, sandbar
breaching, etc.) that destroy, modify, or
curtail habitat are having a negative
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
effect on tidewater goby habitat
throughout its range, we conclude that
impacts to the tidewater goby from these
relatively small projects and activities
are not having a substantial effect on the
species throughout its range. This is
based on the fact that these threats were
in place prior to and after the species
was listed in 1994 and have continued,
yet the tidewater goby rebounded from
a severe drought in the face of the Factor
A elements (other than climate change).
This indicates that the Factor A threats
alone are not severe enough to cause the
species’ decline.
We further conclude that predation or
disease alone are not a significant threat
to the tidewater goby, although we do
have evidence that predation by
nonnative fishes may have contributed
to the extirpation of some populations.
Throughout the species’ range, the loss
of tidewater goby populations has not
been attributed solely to disease,
parasites, predation, or competition
from other species, and the best
available information indicates that
such threats are currently only
moderately important in the species’
survival, although such threats may
exacerbate or combine with other
threats to increase the species’
vulnerability. While we conclude these
are only moderately important threats,
we cannot reasonably predict whether
new nonnative species will be
introduced, to what extent they will
become established in tidewater goby
habitat, and what their effects will be on
tidewater goby populations. We may
draw different conclusions regarding
future introductions of nonnative
species, depending on the specific
circumstances.
The listing of the tidewater goby
under the Act benefits the species in
several ways. For example, listing under
the Act often requires coordination with
the Service if the tidewater goby is
present in a project area so that
conservation of that species can be
considered in the planning and
implementation, and requires
interagency consultation if a federal
action may affect a listed species to
ensure that such action is not likely to
jeopardize the listed species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat.
Another potential benefit of the Act is
under section 6, which authorizes us to
enter into cooperative conservation
agreements with States, and to allocate
funds for conservation programs to
benefit endangered or threatened
species. Reclassifying tidewater goby
from endangered to threatened would
not change any the protections afforded
to this species under the Act or other
regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
With the addition of three new
regulations enacted subsequent to the
listing of the tidewater goby, existing
regulations have slowed the loss,
especially on a large scale, of the
tidewater goby’s habitat. One of the new
regulations in particular, the Sikes Act
Improvement Act, has resulted in
substantial new protections to the
tidewater goby and its habitat in
southern California.
Although regulations are in place that
provide substantial protections to the
tidewater goby and its habitat, smallscale loss of habitat continues to occur
throughout the range of the species as
many regulations allow impacts to
habitat to occur under certain
conditions, and we therefore conclude
that existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to protect the tidewater goby
without the additional protections
afforded under the Act.
From our review of the most recent
data and analyses, we conclude that sea
levels are rising and may eventually
eliminate much of the tidewater goby
habitat due to seawater intrusion and
changes in hydrology. Combined with
past habitat losses and current threats,
sea level rise due to climate change
poses a severe threat to the species’
survival. While sea level rise is
occurring and has been since the last
century, and we can project what effect
rising sea levels will have on the
tidewater goby, sea level rise is
happening gradually, and demonstrable
effects to the tidewater goby will only be
manifested after decades of global
temperature increases. Habitat at some
localities that are small in size and
constrained by natural or manmade
features will be lost. Some larger
localities are less constrained and new
habitat may form in upstream areas, but
the number of sites where this is likely
to occur is limited. While gobies may
persist at a limited number of larger
sites, by that time, the numbers and
sizes of tidewater goby populations will
be reduced and populations will be
more vulnerable to remaining threats.
Thus, sea level rise is a threat to the
species in the foreseeable future, but is
not an imminent threat.
The tidewater goby is facing
numerous threats, including habitat loss
from multiple sources, habitat
fragmentation due to the loss of
stepping stone localities between
populations, disruption of
metapopulation dynamics and loss of
genetic exchange among populations,
predation and nonnative competitors,
alterations to hydrology (for example,
sandbar breaching and channelization),
changes in water quality, stochastic
events such as drought, and the growing
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
and inevitable impact of sea level rise.
While some of these threats can singly
have a substantial impact on individual
tidewater goby localities, in most cases
it is the combined impact of those
threats with prolonged drought and
eventually sea level rise that will have
the greatest effect on the species.
Recovery Plan
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to
develop and implement recovery plans
for the conservation and survival of
endangered and threatened species
unless we determine that such a plan
will not promote the conservation of the
species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum
extent practicable, include: ‘‘Objective,
measurable criteria which, when met,
would result in a determination, in
accordance with the provisions of
[section 4 of the Act], that the species
be removed from the list.’’ However,
revisions to the list (adding, removing,
or reclassifying a species) must reflect
determinations made in accordance
with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act.
Section 4(a)(1) requires that the
Secretary determine whether a species
is endangered or threatened (or not)
because of one or more of five threat
factors. Section 4(b) of the Act requires
that the determination be made ‘‘solely
on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’ Therefore,
recovery criteria should help indicate
when we would anticipate an analysis
of the five threat factors under section
4(a)(1) would result in a determination
that the species is no longer an
endangered species or threatened
species because of any of the five
statutory factors.
Thus, while recovery plans provide
important guidance to the Service,
States, and other partners on methods of
minimizing threats to listed species and
measurable objectives against which to
measure progress towards recovery, they
are not regulatory documents and
cannot substitute for the determinations
and promulgation of regulations
required under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. A decision to revise the status of or
remove a species from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately based on an
analysis of the best scientific and
commercial data then available to
determine whether a species is no
longer an endangered species or a
threatened species, regardless of
whether that information differs from
the recovery plan.
The Recovery Plan for the Tidewater
Goby was approved by the Service on
December 7, 2005 (Service 2005). The
recovery plan has as its overall recovery
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
objective to downlist the species to
threatened status, then delist. The
primary objective of the recovery plan is
to manage the threats to and improve
the population status of the tidewater
goby sufficiently to warrant
reclassification (from endangered to
threatened status) or delisting.
The recovery plan established the
following criteria for downlisting the
tidewater goby from endangered to
threatened (Service 2005, pp. 40–41):
(1)(a) Specific threats to each
metapopulation, such as habitat
destruction and alteration (including
coastal development, upstream
diversion, channelization of rivers and
streams, discharge of agriculture and
sewage effluents), introduced predators
(such as centrarchid fishes), and
competition with introduced species
(yellowfin and chameleon gobies, for
example), have been addressed through
the development and implementation of
individual management plans that
cumulatively cover the full range of the
species.
(1)(b) A metapopulation viability
analysis based on scientifically credible
monitoring over a 10-year period
indicates that each Recovery Unit is
viable, with at least 5 subunits in the
North Coast Unit, 8 subunits in the
Greater Bay Unit, 3 subunits in the
Central Coast Unit, 3 subunits in the
Conception Unit, 1 subunit in the Los
Angeles/Ventura Unit, and 2 subunits in
the South Coast Unit to individually
having a 75 percent chance of persisting
for 100 years.
The first criterion was intended to
identify the point at which specific
threats to each metapopulation were
being adequately managed and
addressed. Under criterion (1)(a), some
of the past habitat alteration has been
addressed through implementation of
existing regulations (such as the Clean
Water Act), although it has not been
eliminated. Only limited, rangewide
efforts to eliminate introduced predators
have been implemented for the benefit
of the tidewater goby. The only
management plans of which we are
aware that address conservation of the
tidewater goby are the INRMPs for MCB
Camp Pendleton and VAFB, and plans
under development for Mission Creek in
Santa Barbara County, the Santa Clara
River estuary in Ventura County, and
Malibu Lagoon in Los Angeles County.
In any case, plans to manage specific
threats to the tidewater goby do not
cumulatively cover the full range of the
species; therefore, recovery criterion
1(a) has not been fully met. However, as
discussed above, we have determined
that the threats this criterion was
intended to address are not as severe as
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14359
previously thought. We conclude that
none of these threats is likely to cause
the imminent extinction of the tidewater
goby, and therefore, the threats are
sufficiently reduced that the
requirement to have plans specifically
addressing them is no longer an
appropriate criterion for downlisting the
species to threatened.
The second criterion was intended to
indicate whether the species has
responded as expected to measures to
reduce threats and to ensure that the
tidewater goby remains well-distributed
and resilient in the face of stochastic
events throughout its range. None of the
metapopulation viability analyses
described in the recovery plan (criterion
1(b)) have been completed, as far as we
know. While metapopulation viability
analyses have not been conducted, the
tidewater goby currently occurs at
localities in all six recovery units. The
species now occupies nearly three times
as many localities as it did at the time
of listing, indicating the species is more
resilient than previously thought. While
we do not have detailed analyses of
viability for individual
metapopulations, the species’ ability to
respond positively to the end of drought
conditions over approximately a 20-year
period and for populations to be
recolonized or recover, indicates the
species likely has generally exhibited
positive demographic characteristics
such as reproductive rate and survival.
So, while criterion (1)(b) has not been
met, we conclude we have sufficient
evidence that the species has responded
positively to the end of the drought and
that previously identified threats have
not had as severe an effect on the
species as expected.
Despite the fact that none of the
downlisting criteria from the recovery
plan have been fully achieved, we have
concluded that other factors presented
in this proposed rule provide sufficient
support for our determination. When
the tidewater goby was listed in 1994,
the number of occupied localities had
dropped to 43 in the face of an extended
drought, and we were not certain that
the unoccupied localities would be
recolonized after the drought ended. We
had concluded that the species’
downward trend would continue due to
the other threats, so even when the
drought ended we believed the
tidewater goby would continue to
decline. Upon the resumption of
‘‘normal’’ rainfall patterns, the number
of localities found to be occupied
rebounded to almost three times the
number known in 1992, when listing
was first proposed, despite the
continuing effects of the remaining
threats. This indicated to us that species
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
14360
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
was more resilient than we had known
and that the low numbers seen in
response to drought did not mean the
species was in imminent danger of
extinction. Also, the number of
occupied localities had increased so
much that even in the face of the
ongoing threats and the likelihood that
these would continue to affect the
tidewater goby in the future, the species
is no longer currently at risk of
extinction.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the tidewater goby
(Eucyclogobius newberryi). In our
analysis of the 5 factors relating to the
species’ status we have reached the
following conclusions:
Factor A (The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range): We
have found that the tidewater goby is
currently experiencing some habitat loss
and will continue to experience small
losses in the foreseeable future. We do
not anticipate any repeat of the large
losses that occurred prior to regulations
that protected coastal wetlands. At the
time of listing in 1994, when the
tidewater goby occupied only 43
localities and a severe drought was
ending, habitat loss posed a relatively
greater threat to species. After the
drought ended, the number of localities
known to be occupied by tidewater
gobies has increased to at least 114, and
currently available information does not
indicate that habitat loss alone is having
a substantial effect on the tidewater
goby’s numbers or distribution. We do
anticipate that global sea level rise will
have a profound effect on the species’
habitat in the foreseeable future;
however, we do not believe that the
threat from sea level rise is imminent.
While sea level rise is occurring and has
been since the last century, the change
has been and will be gradual, perhaps
over decades instead of months or years.
The threats discussed under Factor A
are not likely to cause the tidewater
goby’s extinction in the near future;
however, sea level rise by itself poses a
substantial threat to the species that,
while not an imminent threat, is
reasonably foreseeable and could lead to
the species’ extinction.
Factor B (Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes): We found no
evidence of risk to the tidewater goby
from overutilization, nor do we
anticipate any such impacts to the
species in the foreseeable future.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
Factor C (Disease or Predation):
Parasites and nonnative predators are
likely to be having some negative effects
on the tidewater goby. Our review of the
available information does not indicate
that these negative effects are reducing
the tidewater goby’s numbers
rangewide, but may act in concert with
other stressors to have a greater impact
at a local level. Disease or predation
alone are not sufficient to cause the
species’ extinction in the foreseeable
future.
Factor D (Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms): Existing
regulations have been effective at
protecting the tidewater goby from
large-scale habitat loss, and the
enactment of the Sikes Act
Improvement Act subsequent to listing
has been a major benefit to the species
in southern California. However, smallscale, localized habitat loss and
alteration continue to occur, and
existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to protect the tidewater goby
without the additional protections
afforded under the Act.
Factor E (Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence): We conclude that some
natural or human-caused factors are
having a negative effect on the tidewater
goby, but we cannot reasonably
determine whether the effects of some
other factors are negatively impacting
the tidewater goby. Habitat
fragmentation (natural or
anthropogenic) and stochastic events
(like drought) have clearly had a
negative impact on the tidewater goby
since the species has been monitored.
However, the best available information
does not indicate that competition with
other species (native or nonnative) and
poor water quality are having an
influence on the species’ overall status.
Our conclusion is that drought and
additional fragmentation are foreseeable
threats to the tidewater goby and could
contribute to the species’ extinction in
the future, while the rangewide
influence of other factors cannot be
demonstrated.
Based on the analysis above, we
conclude that the tidewater goby is not
in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range, but instead is threatened; that
is, the species is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range.
Significant Portion of the Range
Analysis
Having examined the status of the
tidewater goby throughout all its range
and determined that the species is
threatened throughout all its range, we
next examine whether the species is in
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
danger of extinction in a significant
portion of its range. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into
portions in an infinite number of ways;
however, there is no purpose in
analyzing portions of the range that
have no reasonable potential to be
significant or in analyzing portions of
the range in which there is no
reasonable potential for the species to be
endangered or threatened. To identify
only those portions that warrant further
consideration, we determine whether
there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) The portions may be
‘‘significant’’ and (2) the species may be
in danger of extinction there or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future.
Depending on the biology of the species,
its range, and the threats it faces, it
might be more efficient for us to address
the significance question first or the
status question first. Thus, if we
determine that a portion of the range is
not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to
determine whether the species is
endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not
endangered or threatened in a portion of
its range, we do not need to determine
if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In
practice, a key part of the determination
that a species is in danger of extinction
in a significant portion of its range is
whether the threats are geographically
concentrated in some way. If the threats
to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, no portion is likely
to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of
threats to the species occurs only in
portions of the species’ range that
clearly would not meet the biologically
based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ such
portions will not warrant further
consideration.
The geographic range of the tidewater
goby is limited to the coast of California
(Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262; Swift et
al. 1989, p. 12). The species historically
occurred from 5 km (3 mi) south of the
California-Oregon border (Tillas Slough
in Del Norte County) to 71 km (44 mi)
north of the United States-Mexico
border (Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San
Diego County). The available
documentation suggests the
northernmost locality that forms one
end of the historical and current
geographic range of the tidewater goby
has not changed over time (see for
example, Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262;
Swift et al. 1989, p. 12). Tidewater
gobies do not currently occur in Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, and the species’
southernmost known extant occurrence
is the San Luis Rey River 8 km (5 mi)
north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Although the northernmost and
southernmost extent of the tidewater
goby’s range has not changed much over
time, the species’ distribution within
the historical range has become patchy
and fragmented.
Tidewater gobies are naturally absent
from several large (80 to 217 km (50 to
135 mi)) stretches of coastline lacking
lagoons or estuaries, and with steep
topography or swift currents that may
prevent the species from dispersing
between adjacent localities (Earl et al.
2010, p. 104; Swift et al. 1989, p. 13).
One such gap of approximately 160 km
(100 mi) occurs from the Eel River in
Humboldt County to Ten Mile River in
Mendocino County. A second gap of
approximately 97 km (60 mi) occurs
between Lagoon Creek in Mendocino
County to Salmon Creek in Sonoma
County. Another large, natural gap of
approximately 160 km (100 mi) occurs
between the Salinas River in Monterey
County and Arroyo del Oso in San Luis
Obispo County. The southernmost gap,
which is most likely the result of habitat
loss and alteration, occurs between the
Los Angeles Basin (city of Santa
Monica, western Los Angeles County)
and San Mateo Creek (MCB Camp
Pendleton, San Diego County), a
distance of approximately 130 km (80
mi).
Habitat loss and other anthropogenic
(human-caused) factors have resulted in
the tidewater goby now being absent
from several localities where it
historically occurred. These
disappearances from specific localities
have created smaller, artificial gaps in
the species’ geographic distribution
(Capelli 1997, p. 7). Such localities
include San Francisco Bay in San
Francisco and Alameda Counties, and
Redwood Creek and Freshwater Lagoon
in Humboldt County. In central and
northern California, Swift (in litt. 2007)
believes it very unlikely that genetic
interchange is possible between several
groups of populations naturally
separated by 32 km (20 mi) or more of
rugged coastline. As anthropogenic gaps
are created of equal or greater distance,
recolonization and genetic exchange
becomes less likely.
Swift et al. (1989, p. 13) reported that,
as of 1984, tidewater gobies occurred, or
had been known to occur, at 87
localities. This included localities at the
extreme northern and southern end of
the species’ historical geographic range.
An assessment of the species’
distribution in 1993, using records that
were limited to the area between the
Monterey Peninsula in Monterey
County and the United States-Mexico
border, found tidewater gobies
occurring at four additional sites since
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
1984 (Swift et al. 1993, p. 129). Other
tidewater goby localities have been
identified since 1993. Considering all of
the known historical and currently
occupied sites, tidewater gobies have
been documented at 135 localities, and
of these 135 localities, 21 (16 percent)
are no longer known to be occupied by
tidewater gobies (78 FR 8746).
Therefore, we conclude that 114
localities are currently occupied (see
Figure 1, above). These localities are not
regularly monitored so the current
status of tidewater goby in many of
these places may have changed.
Given their patchy distribution and
metapopulation dynamics of extirpation
and recolonization, no individual area is
likely to be of greater biological or
conservation importance than any other
area. Additionally, all recovery units,
which span the entire extent of the
species’ range, are currently occupied,
so no major portion of the species’ range
has been lost. Therefore, we conclude
that the lost historical range is not a
significant portion of the tidewater
goby’s range.
To further identify potentially
significant portions of the range that
might warrant further analysis, we
considered whether the threats facing
the tidewater goby are geographically
concentrated or different in some
fashion, which could indicate a portion
or portions of the range where the
species is likely to be endangered and
could warrant further consideration of
whether it is a significant portion of the
species’ range.
In the recovery plan (Service 2005,
pp. 30–35), we divided the range of the
tidewater goby into six recovery units
based on observed genetic and
morphological differences. Each of the
recovery units provides important
increments of redundancy, resiliency,
and representation that contribute to the
species’ long-term viability. In our fivefactor analysis in this proposed rule,
based on the best available information
we have identified several threats to the
species including small-scale habitat
loss, nonnative predators, habitat
fragmentation, and competition with
other species (see Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species section). All these
threats occur in each of the recovery
units, and the threats are not
concentrated more in one unit than
another. Additionally, as described
above, a cursory review of the known
occupied localities and the threats
identified for those localities (Service
2005, Appendix E) does not reveal a
correlation between the number of
threats and the status of the tidewater
goby at those localities. In other words,
localities with a large number of threats
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14361
do not appear to have lower or more
variable population densities than
locations with fewer threats. While
threats may vary from locality to
locality, differences in number and type
of threats don’t appear to be causing a
greater risk of extirpation in some
localities as opposed to others. More
importantly, the most serious threats to
the tidewater goby are drought and sea
level rise, which would have relatively
the same effect on each recovery unit.
Therefore, we find that none of the six
recovery units is likely to be at greater
risk of extinction than any other, and
therefore none warrants further
consideration as potentially endangered
significant portions of the range.
Southern California, in particular,
could potentially be considered a
significant portion of the range for two
reasons: (1) In 1999, the Service
proposed that threats to the tidewater
goby were more concentrated and
therefore more severe in the southern
California portion of the species’ range
than they were elsewhere in the range
to the north because only six occupied
localities remained in southern
California (64 FR 33816), and (2)
tidewater gobies in the southern
California portion of the range have
been found to be genetically distinct
from those in the rest of the range (see
Species Information section). Since the
Service’s 1999 proposal, tidewater
gobies now occur at two additional
localities bringing the total occupied
localities in southern California to eight.
More importantly, as discussed under
factor D, MCB Camp Pendleton’s
INRMP, which was put into effect
subsequent to the 1999 proposal,
provides substantial protections for
seven of the eight populations that
occur in southern California that were
not in place at the time of the proposed
rule. Therefore, we no longer consider
threats in southern California to be more
severe or different from other areas, and
therefore conclude the tidewater goby is
not likely to be danger of extinction (as
opposed to the rangewide status of
threatened) in the southern California
portion of its range.
In summary, we did not find that any
portion of the species’ range has a
greater concentration of threats than
others and, therefore, conclude that no
portion warrants further consideration.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, we
conclude that the tidewater goby is no
longer in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, but instead is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
14362
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
its range. The species more
appropriately meets the definition of a
threatened species. Therefore, we
propose to reclassify the tidewater goby
from an endangered species to a
threatened species.
Effects of This Rule
This proposal, if made final, would
revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify the
tidewater goby from endangered to
threatened. This rule formally
recognizes that this species is no longer
in imminent danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. However, this reclassification
does not significantly change the
protection afforded this species under
the Act. The regulatory protections of
section 9 and section 7 of the Act
remain in place. Anyone taking,
attempting to take, or otherwise
possessing a tidewater goby or parts
thereof, in violation of section 9 of the
Act, is still subject to a penalty under
section 11 of the Act, unless their action
is covered under a special rule under
section 4(d) of the Act. At this time, we
are not proposing a special rule under
section 4(d) of the Act for the tidewater
goby. Under section 7 of the Act,
Federal agencies must ensure that any
actions they authorize, fund, or carry
out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the tidewater
goby.
Recovery actions directed at the
tidewater goby will continue to be
implemented as outlined in the recovery
plan for the tidewater goby (Service
2005), including development of
management plans such as those at MCB
Camp Pendleton and VAFB.
Required Determinations
References Cited
Clarity of This Proposed Rule
A complete list of all references cited
in this final rule is available at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2014–0001 or upon
request from the Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with
regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of
the Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244).
*
*
Goby, tidewater .......
*
Eucyclogobius
newberryi.
*
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby propose to
amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 17.11 by revising the entry
for ‘‘Goby, tidewater’’ in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
U.S.A. (CA) .............
*
T
*
527
*
*
*
Entire ......................
*
When listed
Dated: March 5, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–05335 Filed 3–12–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Mar 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
*
*
*
*
*
Status
*
*
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
*
Scientific name
*
FISHES
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Vertebrate
population where
endangered or
threatened
Historic range
Common name
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are staff members of the Service’s
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES).
■
National Environmental Policy Act
Species
Authors
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
*
*
17.95(e)
NA
*
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14339-14362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05335]
[[Page 14339]]
Vol. 79
Thursday,
No. 49
March 13, 2014
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the
Tidewater Goby From Endangered to Threatened; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 14340]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0001;FXES11130900000C6-123-FF09E30000]
RIN 1018-AY03
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the
Tidewater Goby From Endangered to Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to reclassify the tidewater goby
(Eucyclogobius newberryi) as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The species is currently listed as
endangered. After review of all available scientific and commercial
information, we find that reclassifying the tidewater goby as
threatened is warranted, and, therefore, we propose to reclassify
tidewater goby as threatened under the Act. We are seeking information
and comments from the public regarding this proposed rule.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before May
12, 2014. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an electronic
comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on this date. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by April 28, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2014-0001, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in
the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document
Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document.
You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2014-0001; Division of
Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401
N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
Copies of documents: This proposed rule is available on https://www.regulations.gov. In addition, the supporting file for this proposed
rule will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura,
CA 93003; telephone 805-644-1766. Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Services (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen P. Henry, Deputy Field
Supervisor, telephone: 805-644-1766. Direct all questions or requests
for additional information to: TIDEWATER GOBY QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road,
Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or
speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337
for TTY assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of Regulatory Action
On May 18, 2010, we received a petition dated May 13, 2010, from
The Pacific Legal Foundation, requesting that the tidewater goby be
reclassified as threatened under the Act. We published a 90-day finding
on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3069), that stated our conclusion that the
petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. This document
serves as the 12-month finding for the petition, as well as a proposed
rule to reclassify the tidewater goby as threatened.
Description of Proposed Action
On February 4, 1994, we listed the tidewater goby as endangered
based on the threats described below in the Previous Determinations
Regarding the Tidewater Goby section of this proposed rule.
According to the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(c), a
species may be reclassified if the best scientific and commercial data
available substantiate that the species is no longer endangered because
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. After review of all available
scientific and commercial information, we find that reclassifying the
tidewater goby as threatened is warranted for the following reasons:
(1) The number of localities known to be occupied has nearly
tripled since listing (from 43 to 114; see 78 FR 8746).
(2) The increase in occupied localities indicates that the
tidewater goby is more resilient in the face of severe drought events
than believed at the time of listing.
(3) Threats identified at the time of listing have been reduced or
are not as serious as previously thought. Threats appeared more
pervasive due to the severe drought from 1987 to 1992.
(4) Sea level rise poses a substantial threat to the species that,
while not an imminent threat, is likely to lead to the species becoming
endangered in the foreseeable future.
We conclude that the endangered designation no longer correctly
reflects the current status of the species and the tidewater goby is
more appropriately classified as a threatened species.
Information Requested
We want any final rule resulting from this proposal to be as
effective as possible. Therefore, we invite tribal and governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested
parties to submit information, comments or recommendations concerning
any aspect of this proposed rule. Comments should be as specific as
possible. We are specifically requesting information regarding:
(1) The potential effects of climate change on the tidewater goby's
status, especially in regard to sea level rise;
(2) Progress toward completion of metapopulation viability analyses
for the species;
(3) Any previously unknown threats not discussed in this proposed
rule or threats that may be having an effect of the tidewater goby's
status not fully analyzed in this proposed rule;
(4) The development of management plans within the tidewater goby's
range since its listing in 1994 that may have positive effects on the
species' conservation; and
(5) The appropriate taxonomic classification of the tidewater goby
(particularly regarding the southern California populations), along
with any
[[Page 14341]]
additional supporting genetic, morphological, or other information.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please
note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or 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 the proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments must be submitted to https://www.regulations.gov
before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the date specified in the DATES
section.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. We must receive your request within 45
days after the date of this Federal Register publication. Send your
request to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We
will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested,
and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as
how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and
local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy, ``Notice of Interagency
Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act
Activities,'' which was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we
will seek the expert opinion of at least three appropriate independent
specialists regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in
this proposed rule. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the
peer reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal
Register. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our decisions
are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. Peer
reviewers will conduct an assessment of the proposed rule, and the
specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed
downlisting. This assessment will be completed during the public
comment period.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule as we prepare the final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Previous Federal Action
On October 24, 1990, we received a petition to add the tidewater
goby to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We
published a finding on March 22, 1991, that listing the tidewater goby
as endangered may be warranted (56 FR 12146). A proposal to list the
species as endangered was published on December 11, 1992 (57 FR 58770),
and following a public comment period, we listed the tidewater goby as
endangered throughout its entire range on February 4, 1994 (59 FR
5494).
On June 24, 1999, the Service published a proposed rule to remove
the northern populations of tidewater goby from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife (delist), concurrent with a proposal to keep
listed as endangered a distinct population segment (DPS) of tidewater
goby in Orange and San Diego Counties (64 FR 33816). On November 7,
2002, we withdrew the proposed delisting and DPS designation rule
because we determined, based upon comments received, that our specific
conclusions in the proposal were not corroborated by the information we
received during three comment periods (67 FR 67803). Withdrawing the
delisting proposal for the northern populations of the tidewater goby
made the establishment of an endangered southern California DPS
unnecessary.
On February 6, 2013, we published a final rule designating critical
habitat in 65 units covering 12,156 acres in California (78 FR 8746).
Details on the history of legal actions related to the critical habitat
designation can be found in that final rule.
We finalized the recovery plan for the tidewater goby on December
7, 2005. A detailed discussion of the recovery plan and the downlisting
and delisting criteria are provided below in the ``Recovery Plan''
section, following the analysis of the statutory factors.
We published a notice announcing the initiation of a 5-year status
review for the tidewater goby under section 4(c)(2) of the Act on March
22, 2006 (71 FR 14538), and requested information from the public
concerning the status of the tidewater goby (71 FR 14538). We notified
the public of completion of the 5-year review on March 5, 2008 (73 FR
11945). In the 5-year review, completed on September 28, 2007, we
recommended that the tidewater goby be reclassified as threatened
because we concluded that the species was not in imminent danger of
extinction. A copy of the 2007 5-year review for the tidewater goby is
available on the Service's Environmental Conservation Online System
(https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E071) and at https://www.regulations.gov.
On May 18, 2010, we received a petition dated May 13, 2010, from
The Pacific Legal Foundation, requesting that the tidewater goby be
reclassified as threatened under the Act. The petitioner cited the 5-
year review of the tidewater goby's status completed by the Service in
2007 to support the petition. We published a 90-day finding on January
19, 2011 (76 FR 3069), concluding that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action (reclassification of the tidewater goby) may be
warranted. This proposed rule constitutes the 12-month finding on the
May 13, 2010, petition to reclassify the tidewater goby as threatened.
Background
Species Information
Species Description and Taxonomy
The tidewater goby is a small, elongate, gray-brown fish that
rarely exceeds 5 centimeters (cm) (2 inches (in)) in length (Service
2005, p. 2). This species possesses large pectoral fins, and the pelvic
or ventral fins are joined to each other below the chest and belly from
below the gill cover back to just anterior of the anus. Male tidewater
gobies are nearly transparent with a mottled brownish upper surface.
Female tidewater gobies develop darker colors,
[[Page 14342]]
often black, on the body and dorsal and anal fins. Tidewater gobies
have two dorsal fins set very close together or with a slightly
confluent membrane. The first dorsal fin has five to seven slender
spines, the second 11 to 13 soft, branched rays. The anal fin has 11 to
13 rays as well. The median fins are usually dusky, and the pectoral
fins are transparent.
The tidewater goby is the only member of the genus Eucyclogobius in
the Family Gobiidae. It was first described by Girard (1856), and Gill
(1863) proposed it as a new species Eucyclogobius newberryi to
distinguish the tidewater goby from other members of the family.
Eucyclogobius newberryi is the currently published scientific name for
the tidewater goby.
Distribution
The geographic range of the tidewater goby is limited to the coast
of California (Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262; Swift et al. 1989, p.
12). The species historically occurred from 5 kilometers (km) (3 miles
(mi)) south of the California-Oregon border (Tillas Slough in Del Norte
County) to 71 km (44 mi) north of the United States-Mexico border (Agua
Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County). The available documentation
suggests the northernmost locality that forms one end of the historical
and current geographic range of the tidewater goby has not changed over
time (see for example, Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262; Swift et al.
1989, p. 12). Tidewater gobies do not currently occur in Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, and the species' southernmost known extant occurrence is the
San Luis Rey River 8 km (5 mi) north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Although
the northernmost and southernmost extent of the tidewater goby's range
has not changed much over time, the species' distribution within the
historical range has become patchy and fragmented.
Tidewater gobies are naturally absent from several large (80 to 217
km (50 to 135 mi)) stretches of coastline lacking lagoons or estuaries,
and with steep topography or swift currents that may prevent the
species from dispersing between adjacent localities (Earl et al. 2010,
p. 104; Swift et al. 1989, p. 13). One such gap of approximately 160 km
(100 mi) occurs from the Eel River in Humboldt County to Ten Mile River
in Mendocino County. A second gap of approximately 97 km (60 mi) occurs
between Lagoon Creek in Mendocino County to Salmon Creek in Sonoma
County. Another large, natural gap of approximately 160 km (100 mi)
occurs between the Salinas River in Monterey County and Arroyo del Oso
in San Luis Obispo County. The southernmost gap, which is most likely
the result of habitat loss and alteration, occurs between the Los
Angeles Basin (city of Santa Monica, western Los Angeles County) and
San Mateo Creek (Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton, San Diego
County), a distance of approximately 130 km (80 mi).
Habitat loss and other anthropogenic (human--caused) factors have
resulted in the tidewater goby now being absent from several localities
where it historically occurred. These disappearances from specific
localities have created smaller, artificial gaps in the species'
geographic distribution (Capelli 1997, p. 7). Such localities include
San Francisco Bay in San Francisco and Alameda Counties, and Redwood
Creek and Freshwater Lagoon in Humboldt County. In central and northern
California, Swift (in litt. 2007) believes it very unlikely that
genetic interchange is possible between several groups of populations
naturally separated by 32 km (20 mi) or more of rugged coastline. As
anthropogenic gaps are created of equal or greater distance,
recolonization and genetic exchange becomes less likely.
Swift et al. (1989, p. 13) reported that, as of 1984, tidewater
gobies occurred, or had been known to occur, at 87 localities. This
included localities at the extreme northern and southern end of the
species' historical geographic range. An assessment of the species'
distribution in 1993, using records that were limited to the area
between the Monterey Peninsula in Monterey County and the United
States-Mexico border, found tidewater gobies occurring at four
additional sites since 1984 (Swift et al. 1993, p. 129). Other
tidewater goby localities have been identified since 1993. Considering
all of the known historical and currently occupied sites, tidewater
gobies have been documented at 135 localities. Of these localities,
gobies have been extirpated from 21 (16 percent), for a total of 114
localities that are known to be currently occupied (78 FR 8746) (see
Figure 1); however, these localities are not regularly monitored, so
the status of tidewater goby in many of these places may have changed
since they were last surveyed.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 14343]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13MR14.011
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Habitat
The tidewater goby inhabits lagoons, estuaries, backwater marshes,
and freshwater tributaries to estuarine environments that closely
correspond to major stream drainages. Sediments provided by major
drainages produce sandy beaches with low-lying coastal areas conducive
to formation of coastal lagoons (Habel and Armstrong 1977, p. 6; Swift
et al. 1989, p. 13). Tidewater
[[Page 14344]]
gobies generally select habitat in the upper estuary, usually within
the freshwater-saltwater interface. Although they may range upstream a
short distance into freshwater, and downstream into water of up to
about 75 percent saltwater (28 parts per thousand), the species is
typically found in salinities of less than 12 parts per thousand (Swift
et al. 1989, p. 7). These conditions occur in two relatively distinct
situations: (1) The upper edge of large tidal bays, such as Tomales and
Bolinas Bays near the entrance of freshwater tributaries; and (2) the
coastal lagoons formed at the mouths of coastal rivers, streams, or
seasonally wet canyons.
The areas that tidewater gobies occupy are dynamic environments
that are subject to considerable fluctuation on a seasonal and annual
basis. For example, the formation of a sandbar at the mouth of a lagoon
occurs in the late spring as freshwater flows into the lagoon decline
enough to allow the ocean to build up the sandbar through wave action
on the beach. Winter rains and subsequently increased stream flows may
bring in considerable sediment and dramatically affect the bottom
profile and substrate composition of a lagoon or estuary. Fine mud and
clay either move through the lagoon or estuary or settle out in the
backwater marshes, while heavier sand is left in the lagoon or estuary.
High flows associated with winter rains can scour out the lagoon
bottom, with sand building up again after flows decline. These dynamic
processes result in wetland habitats that, over time, change in
location relative to stationary features that exist outside the flood
zone (such as roads or buildings).
Tidewater gobies appear to be adapted to this broad range of
environmental conditions (Worcester and Lea 1996, no pagination).
Individuals held at the Granite Canyon Fish Culture Facility were
subjected to a salinity tolerance test in hypersaline water (45 to 54
parts per thousand) for 6 months, with no mortality (Worcester and Lea
1996, no pagination). (The natural salinity of seawater ranges from 33
to 37 parts per thousand.) Holding temperatures (freshwater) varied
from 4.0 to 21.5 degrees Celsius (C[deg]) (39.2 to 70.7 degrees
Fahrenheit (F[deg])). During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Karen
Worcester (Morro Bay Estuary Program) conducted an investigation of
habitat use in Pico Creek lagoon, and observed large numbers of
tidewater gobies using the lower portion of the lagoon where highest
salinities (up to 27 parts per thousand) were observed. In general,
abundance did not appear to be associated with oxygen levels, which at
times were quite low (Service 2007, p. 11).
While tidewater gobies tolerate a wide range of salinity and water
quality conditions, Smith (in litt. 2007) reports that sandbar
formation is important to produce the calm conditions that bring about
the very abundant late summer populations. Periodic natural or
artificial breaching of sandbars in summer reverses the freshening
process, and sandbar re-formation produces stratified salinity
conditions, with resultant warm and hypoxic (lacking oxygen) bottom
conditions unsuitable for benthic invertebrates and for lagoon fish. As
a result, artificial breaching or lack of sandbar formation may result
in smaller populations that are restricted to areas upstream of tidal
action (where salinity is lower and dissolved oxygen is higher). Open
lagoons can sometimes provide some marginal habitat for fish near the
tidally mixed mouth, but the substantially reduced remainder of the
lagoon tends to be stratified, warm, and relatively unproductive.
Partially closed lagoons tend to have warm, stratified conditions
except every 2 weeks when very high tides cool and mix the lagoon.
Tidewater gobies also depend on calm backwaters as refuges against
storm flows and/or draining of small lagoons when the sandbar is opened
in winter. Populations are apparently periodically lost and then
recolonize lagoon systems that provide poor winter refuges in flood
years (such as Aptos, Soquel, and Moran lagoons in Santa Cruz County).
At several localities, tidewater gobies have been apparently extirpated
from lagoons that lack winter refugia (Waddell Lagoon in northern Santa
Cruz County, for example).
Another feature of lagoons important to the tidewater goby is the
availability of sediments for burrow construction and spawning. The
sediments are usually spread quite evenly by declining flows; lagoons
often end up only 1 to 2 meters (m) (3.3 to 6.6 feet (ft)) deep despite
a width of 30 to 150 m (100 to 500 ft) or more (Habel and Armstrong
1977, pp. 4-7). This pattern holds true even in larger systems, such as
the Santa Ynez River (Santa Barbara County) and Santa Margarita River
(San Diego County). Half or more of the substrate of the lagoon will be
soft sand, with mud in backwaters. Some rocks or gravel may be present,
mostly at the upper (inlet) and lower (outlet) ends where constricted
flow directly scours the channel. These rocks are exposed by high water
flow. Declining flows continue to bring in sand that often covers the
rocks by early spring.
Life History
Tidewater gobies generally live for only 1 year, with few
individuals living longer than a year (Moyle 2002, p. 432). They may
reproduce only once during their lifetime. Reproduction can occur at
any time of the year, but it tends to peak from late April or May to
July, and can continue into November, depending on seasonal
temperatures and rainfall (Swenson 1999, p. 107). Fluctuations in rates
of reproduction are probably due to death of breeding adults in early
summer and colder temperatures or hydrological disruptions in winter
(Swift et al. 1989, p. 107). Reproduction takes place in water between
9 to 25 C[deg] (48 to 77 F[deg]) at salinities of 2 to 27 parts per
thousand (Swenson 1999, p. 103).
Male tidewater gobies begin digging vertical breeding burrows
approximately 10 to 20 cm (4 to 8 in) deep in relatively
unconsolidated, clean, coarse sand (averaging 0.5 millimeter (mm) (0.02
in) in diameter), after lagoons are closed off to the ocean by natural
berms (Swift et al. 1989, p. 3; Swenson 1995). After the female lays
eggs in the burrow, the male guards the eggs until they hatch. The
larval gobies move to midwater vegetation until they mature enough to
become benthic (free-swimming) and breed the next season.
Metapopulation Dynamics
Local populations of tidewater gobies are best characterized as
metapopulations (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1448). A metapopulation is a
collection of populations separated by geographic distance, but
connected by dispersing individuals. Local tidewater goby populations
that occupy coastal lagoons and estuaries are usually separated from
each other by the open ocean. Very few tidewater gobies have ever been
captured in the marine environment (Swift et al. 1989, p. 7), which
suggests this species rarely occurs in the open ocean. Studies suggest
that some tidewater goby populations are persistent (Lafferty et al.
1999a, p. 1452), while other tidewater goby populations appear to
experience intermittent extirpations. These extirpations may result
from one or a series of factors, such as the drying up of some small
streams during prolonged droughts (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1451).
Some of the areas where tidewater gobies have been extirpated
apparently have been recolonized when extant populations were present
within a relatively short distance of the extirpated population. For
example, Lafferty et al. (1999b, p. 621) concluded that tidewater
gobies had recolonized Ca[ntilde]ada Honda Creek in Santa Barbara
[[Page 14345]]
County from the Santa Ynez River approximately 9 km (5.5 mi) to the
north. Recolonization may be occurring when high freshwater flows into
lagoons and estuaries cause the entrance to the system to be breached
and connect directly to the ocean. The high flows may flush tidewater
gobies into the ocean and allow them to move up or down the coast with
longshore currents and into adjacent lagoons where the species had been
extirpated (Lafferty et al. 1999b, p. 621). These recolonization events
suggest that tidewater goby populations exhibit a metapopulation
dynamic where some populations survive or remain viable by continually
exchanging individuals and recolonizations after occasional
extirpations (Doak and Mills 1994, p. 619). They also suggest that
flooding may sometimes have a positive effect by contributing to
recolonization of localities where a tidewater goby population has
become extirpated.
The largest wetland habitats where tidewater gobies have been known
to occur are not necessarily the most secure, as evidenced by the fact
that the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County and the San
Francisco Bay have lost their populations of the tidewater goby. Water
quality, habitat modification, and the introduction of numerous
nonnative fish species (both competitors and predators) may have caused
the tidewater goby to disappear from both areas (Service 2005, pp. 18-
21, Appendix E). Today, the majority of the most stable and largest
tidewater goby populations consist of lagoons and estuaries of
intermediate sizes (2 to 50 hectares (ha) or 5 to 125 acres (ac)) that
have remained relatively unaffected by human activities (Service 2005,
p. 12). Many of the localities where tidewater gobies are persistent
are likely to be ``source'' populations, and such localities probably
provide the colonists for localities that intermittently lose their
tidewater goby populations.
Historical records and survey results for several localities
occupied by the tidewater goby are available (see Swift et al. 1989,
pp. 18-19; Swift et al. 1994, pp. 8-16). These documents suggest the
persistence of tidewater goby populations is related to habitat size,
configuration, location, and proximity to human development. In
general, the most stable and persistent tidewater goby populations
occur in the lagoons and estuaries that are more than 1 ha (2.47 ac) in
size and that have remained relatively unaffected by human activities
(Lafferty et al. 1999a, pp. 1450-1453). We note, however, that some
systems that are affected or altered by human activities also have
relatively large and stable populations (for example, Humboldt Bay in
Humboldt County, Pismo Creek in San Luis Obispo County, Santa Ynez
River in Santa Barbara County, and the Santa Clara River in Ventura
County). Also, some habitats less than 1 ha (2.47 ac) in size have
tidewater goby populations that persist (Swift et al. 1997, p. 3). The
best available information suggests that the lagoons and estuaries that
have persistent populations are likely the source populations that
provide individuals that colonize adjacent, smaller localities that
have ephemeral tidewater goby populations (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p.
1452).
Genetics
Various genetic markers demonstrate that pronounced differences in
the genetic structure of tidewater goby metapopulations exist, and that
tidewater gobies in many localities are genetically distinct. Genetic
variability across a species' distribution may be important to long-
term species persistence because it represents the raw material for
adaptation to differing local conditions and environmental change
(Frankham 2005, p. 754). A study of mitochondrial control region and
cytochrome b DNA sequences (molecular material used in genetic studies)
from tidewater gobies that were collected at 31 localities throughout
the species' geographic range has identified six major phylogeographic
units (Dawson et al. 2001, p. 1171). These six regional units include
the following areas: (1) North Coast (NC) Unit: Tillas Slough (Smith
River) in Del Norte County to Lagoon Creek in Mendocino County; (2)
Greater Bay (GB) Unit: Salmon Creek in Sonoma County to Bennett's
Slough in Monterey County; (3) Central Coast (CC) Unit: Arroyo del Oso
to Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County; (4) Conception (CO) Unit: San
Luis Obispo Creek in San Luis Obispo County to Rincon Creek in Santa
Barbara County; (5) Los Angeles-Ventura (LV) Unit: Ventura River in
Ventura County to Topanga Creek in Los Angeles County; and (6) South
Coast (SC) Unit: San Pedro Harbor in Los Angeles County to Los
Pe[ntilde]asquitos Lagoon in San Diego County. These units correspond
to the recovery units identified in the recovery plan for the tidewater
goby (Service 2005).
A more recent study to gather genetic distribution data for
tidewater goby (Earl et al. 2010) used microsatellite DNA (versus the
mitochondrial control region and cytochrome b DNA used by Dawson et al.
2001). Earl et al. concluded the following: (1) Populations of
tidewater goby in northern San Diego County form a clade (a group of
organisms that are more closely related to each other than any other
group, implying a shared common ancestor) that has been reproductively
isolated from all others for more than 2 million years (Earl et al.
2010, p. 112), and which appears to merit formal description as a
species-level taxon; (2) populations along the mid-coast of California
are sub-divided into regional groups, which are more similar to each
other than different as believed from previous studies based on
mitochondrial DNA (such as Dawson et al. 2001); and (3) the tidewater
goby dispersed widely during a sea-level rise event approximately 7,000
years ago that connected separate watersheds, followed by increased
isolation as the oceans receded again, resulting in geographic
separation in the northernmost populations descended from a common
ancestor (Earl et al. 2010, p. 111).
The conclusion that the North Coast populations of tidewater goby
formed as a result of a single, evolutionarily recent episode of
colonization of newly formed habitats is supported by McCraney and
Kinziger (2009). They compared genetic variation of 13 naturally and
artificially fragmented populations of tidewater goby in Northern
California, including eight Humboldt Bay populations and five coastal
lagoon populations, and made conclusions similar to Earl et al. (2010).
McCraney and Kinziger (2009) also concluded that natural and artificial
habitat fragmentation caused marked divergence among tidewater gobies
in the North Coast populations. Their study showed that Humboldt Bay
populations, due to isolation by manmade barriers, exhibited very high
levels of genetic differentiation between populations, extremely low
levels of genetic diversity within populations, and no migration among
populations. They concluded that this pattern makes the Humboldt Bay
populations of tidewater goby vulnerable to extirpation. In contrast,
the study found that while coastal lagoon populations also exhibited
very high levels of genetic differentiation between populations, the
coastal lagoon populations displayed substantial levels of genetic
diversity within populations, indicating occasional migration among
lagoons (McCraney and Kinziger 2009, p. 32).
All coastal lagoons, with exception of Lake Earl in Del Norte
County, appear to be stable and genetically healthy (McCraney and
Kinziger 2009, p. 34). The Lake Earl population exhibited reduced
levels of genetic diversity in comparison to similar coastal lagoon
[[Page 14346]]
populations (McCraney and Kinziger 2009. p. 34). They further concluded
that reduced genetic diversity detected within Lake Earl is likely due
to repeated population bottlenecking (previous reduction in population
size that results in the population being descended from a small number
of individuals, resulting in reduced genetic diversity within the
population) that is a result of regular artificial breaching of the
lagoon mouth.
Earl et al. (2010, p. 112) have suggested that the southern
population of the tidewater goby to the south of the gap between Los
Angeles and Orange Counties may merit formal description as a distinct
species based on their different genetic makeup. However, a formal
description has not yet been published. The Service is evaluating the
genetic and taxonomic information to determine if it would be
appropriate to consider listing the tidewater goby as separate species
or other taxonomic units. For example, this could include considering
listing a goby species or taxonomic unit to the south of Los Angeles
County and another to the north. We are requesting information and
comments on this distinction.
The conclusions from these genetic studies are: (1) Tidewater
gobies exhibit considerable genetic diversity across their range; (2)
the species can be divided into six phylogeographic units based on
genetic similarities and differences; (3) the tidewater gobies to the
south of the gap between Los Angeles and Orange Counties may be a
distinct species based on their divergent genetic makeup compared to
populations to the north; (4) the northernmost populations are also
genetically distinct from other tidewater goby populations; (5) the
populations at the north end of the species' distribution probably
arose from a common ancestor at the end of sea level rises 7,000 years
ago; and (6) natural and anthropogenic barriers have contributed to
genetic differentiation among populations.
Previous Determinations Regarding the Tidewater Goby
Listing Rule
The 1990 petition to list the tidewater goby was submitted at the
end of an extended drought in California that resulted in loss of
habitat for the tidewater goby and severe declines in the number of
occupied localities. In the 1994 listing rule (59 FR 5494), we made our
determination that the tidewater goby was endangered based on the
following: (1) The tidewater goby had been extirpated from nearly 50
percent of the lagoons and estuaries it had inhabited due to habitat
alteration (channelization, water diversions, etc.) and drought; (2)
only 43 populations remained, of which only 8 were considered large
enough to be stable; (3) the tidewater goby was threatened by
development, water quality issues, and other habitat alterations; and
(4) the tidewater goby's downward trend was likely to continue
regardless of the end of the drought due to the other threats acting on
the species.
Proposed Delisting Rule
In the 1999 proposed rule to delist the northern populations of the
tidewater goby (64 FR 33816), we identified three major reasons for our
proposed action: (1) There were more populations in the north than were
known at the time of listing (85 extant populations); (2) threats to
those populations were less severe than previously believed; and (3)
the tidewater goby has a greater ability than was known at the time of
listing to recolonize sites from which it is temporarily absent. On
November 7, 2002, we withdrew the proposed delisting and DPS
designation rule because we determined, based upon comments received,
that our specific conclusions in the proposal were not corroborated by
the information we received during three comment periods (67 FR 67803).
We determined that the information provided by the scientific community
indicated that our 1999 assessment of the importance of new tidewater
goby populations and the recolonization ability of the tidewater goby
in the proposed delisting rule were premature, and agreed that it was
prudent to wait and assess the persistence of these populations for a
longer period of time. Withdrawing the delisting proposal for the
northern populations of the tidewater goby made the establishment of an
endangered southern California DPS unnecessary. We stated that we would
focus on proceeding with the recovery planning process that would both
guide conservation activities for the species and make explicit under
what criteria the tidewater goby should be considered for delisting.
Importantly, at the time of the withdrawal of the proposed delisting
rule, we did not evaluate the appropriateness of downlisting the
species instead of delisting, and we did not attempt to provide a more
in-depth analysis of the magnitude and imminence of the various threats
to the species.
5-Year Review
In conducting the 5-year status review (Service 2007), we performed
an in-depth analysis of the magnitude and imminence of the various
threats to the tidewater goby in light of the distribution of the
species, and concluded that the tidewater goby should be reclassified
as threatened because the species was not in imminent danger of
extinction. The main reasons for this conclusion were: (1) The number
of localities known to be occupied had increased since listing from 43
to 106; (2) the increase in occupied localities indicated the tidewater
goby was more resilient in the face of severe drought events than
believed at the time of listing; and (3) threats identified at the time
of listing had been reduced or were not as serious as previously
thought. We also concluded that there was a high likelihood that the
results of ongoing genetic studies would indicate potential changes to
the tidewater goby taxonomic classification, and that we should review
those results prior to publication of a proposed downlisting rule.
Summary of Previous Determinations
At the time of its listing as endangered in 1994: (1) The tidewater
goby had been extirpated from nearly 50 percent of the lagoons and
estuaries it had inhabited due to an extended drought combined with
habitat alteration (channelization, water diversions, etc.); (2) only
43 populations remained, of which only eight were considered large
enough to be stable; and (3) the tidewater goby was threatened by
development, water quality issues, and other habitat alterations. We
concluded that these factors were severe enough that the tidewater goby
was in a downward trend that would continue regardless of the end of
the 1987-1992 drought. When we prepared a review of the species' status
in 2007, the number of known occupied localities had increased to 106
at that time, and it was apparent that the predicted downward trend was
in error. Although the other threats identified at the time of listing
continued to impact the goby, we concluded that the main reason for the
species' decline at the time of listing was the drought, and that the
tidewater goby was more resilient than expected.
In the following sections, we analyze the current threats to the
species to determine if their severity and magnitude have increased,
decreased, or remain unchanged from the time of listing. We also
evaluate whether any changes in these threats are sufficient to warrant
reclassification of the tidewater goby.
[[Page 14347]]
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying
species, or removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined
by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or
wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species
may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of
one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act: (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 human made factors affecting its
continued existence. A species may be reclassified on the same basis.
Determining whether the status of a species has improved to the
point that it can be downlisted requires consideration of whether the
species is endangered or threatened because of the same five categories
of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that
are already listed as endangered or threatened, this analysis of
threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the
species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the
species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or
downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections.
A species is an ``endangered species'' for purposes of the Act if
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The word ``range'' in the significant
portion of its range phrase refers to the range in which the species
currently exists at the time of this status review. For the purposes of
this analysis, we first evaluate the status of the species throughout
all its range, then consider whether the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in any significant portion of its
range.
The following analysis examines all five factors currently
affecting, or that are likely to affect, the tidewater goby within the
foreseeable future.
The tidewater goby was listed as endangered on February 4, 1994 (59
FR 5494). We made our determination based on the following: (1) The
tidewater goby had been extirpated from nearly 50 percent of the
lagoons and estuaries it had inhabited; (2) only 43 populations
remained, and only eight of those were considered large enough to be
stable; (3) the tidewater goby would continue to be at risk due to
development, water quality issues, and other habitat alterations; and
(4) the tidewater goby's downward trend was likely to continue
regardless of the end of the drought due to the other threats acting on
the species.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Capelli (1997, p. 7) estimated that 75 to 90 percent of the
original estuarine acreage of California had been lost since 1850. Many
of these wetlands were probably entirely lost to development (including
development of harbors, channels, agriculture, industrial and business
uses, residential development, and road construction) before surveys
for tidewater gobies were being conducted. For example, over 95 percent
of the wetlands that existed prior to 1850 in the San Francisco Bay
have been lost (U.S. Geological Survey 2003), most of which were filled
in entirely and are now covered by development.
By 1994, when the tidewater goby was listed, researchers believed
that the species had been extirpated from nearly 50 percent of the
lagoons within its historical range and that only 43 occupied
localities remained (59 FR 5497). The final rule stated that the
tidewater goby had experienced a substantial decline throughout its
historical range and faced threats indicating the downward trend would
continue because the species lives within specific habitat zones that
have been, and would continue to be, targeted for development and
degraded by human activities. In our 5-year review of the species
(Service 2007), we recommended downlisting the tidewater goby to
threatened because we concluded, in part, that threats such as habitat
loss were not as severe as originally believed, as shown by the
species' rebound from the drought (the number of occupied localities
had increased from 43 to 106 at that time) despite continued effects of
development and altered wetlands.
According to the recovery plan, approximately 55 to 70 of the
localities recolonized since the listing in 1994 are naturally so small
or have been so degraded over time that long-term persistence is
uncertain (Service 2005, p. 6). By our calculation, approximately 60
percent of the recolonized localities are classified ``small habitat
size'' (Service 2005, Appendix E). These small habitat areas are more
likely to support ephemeral tidewater goby populations that may
disappear when adverse conditions, such as drought or a rise in sea
level (discussed below), affect the region (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p.
1452). Larger core or source populations may persist through conditions
that would extirpate small populations. According to the recovery plan
(Service 2005, Appendix E), 10 of these large core or source
populations (described as large habitat size, abundant population
density, regular presence) are known to exist.
Habitat Loss, Hydrology, and Sandbar Breaching
As described above, an estimated 75 to 90 percent of estuarine
wetlands that possibly could have supported tidewater gobies have been
lost in California (Capelli 1997, p. 7). Consequently, tidewater gobies
likely occurred historically in more localities than at present. In
many cases, these losses resulted in artificial gaps between localities
or the widening of existing gaps. The habitat at many of these
historical localities was lost to development (for example, harbors,
channels, agriculture, industrial and business uses, residential
development, road construction) before surveys for tidewater gobies
were being conducted (see San Francisco Bay example, above). Most of
these wetlands were filled in entirely and are now covered by
development. Given that tidewater gobies may be able to disperse along
sandy shores to some degree, it is likely that tidewater gobies in the
southern portion of their range occupied estuaries and lagoons along
the shores from Palos Verdes to the headlands at La Jolla when and
where appropriate intermittently closed habitat occurred (Jacobs, in
litt. 2007). Nearly all of this habitat has been opened for marinas and
harbors (or closed to create freshwater impoundments). This has
produced an anthropogenic (human-caused) gap between those occupied
localities in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties of at least 130 km (80
mi).
Large areas of estuarine and coastal wetland habitat and many
smaller estuaries and lagoons had been lost prior to the enactment of
certain regulations that protect wetlands. Those losses that occurred
in the past have largely been eliminated as a result of current laws
and regulations protecting coastal habitats (see section below on
Factor D). Although major habitat loss is
[[Page 14348]]
now unlikely, minor habitat disturbances (mostly less than one acre)
will continue to occur throughout the tidewater goby's range, which in
turn will result in impacts to the species. The amount of habitat
disturbed varies widely from year-to-year, and we have no way of
predicting how much will occur in any given year. However, Toline et
al. (2006, no pagination) reported that since the tidewater goby was
listed in 1994, over 100 biological opinions had been written by the
Service to address adverse effects to the species (averaging
approximately 8 projects per year, none of which posed jeopardy to the
species). Projects covered by these biological opinions included: Flood
control projects, removal of pipelines, bridge or crossing replacement
and installations, water diversions, channel maintenance, sand and
gravel extraction, and others. Many of these projects had a temporary
effect on tidewater goby habitat, but some resulted in permanent
changes, such as creation of permanent connections to seawater and
channelization to encourage flushing of estuaries, that continue to
have adverse effects on the tidewater goby throughout its range.
Some type of habitat degradation has occurred or is currently
occurring throughout the current range of the species (Service 2005,
Appendix E). Examples of ongoing activities that are occurring within
tidewater goby habitat include annual dredging (such as that at Goleta
Slough, Santa Barbara County), habitat restoration projects that are
not compatible with tidewater goby needs (examples include Malibu
Lagoon, Los Angeles County; Mission Creek, Santa Barbara County), and
bridge widening projects (like Mission Creek). These projects are small
in scale compared to large-scale habitat losses that occurred in the
past; however, even small projects can have substantial effects on the
species. One example of a small project that had a substantial effect
on a tidewater goby population was repair work that began on February
24, 1998, on railroad trestles crossing San Mateo Creek Lagoon, San
Diego County. This work included dredging portions of the creek and
lagoon, and filling freshwater marshes that functioned as tidewater
goby refugia. Previous surveys had found tidewater gobies to be
abundant, but no tidewater gobies were found after the construction was
completed (Swift and Holland 1998, pp. 5-7). The locality has since
been recolonized or the numbers have rebounded after being driven to
undetectable levels by the project (Toline et al. 2006, no pagination).
Based on the best available information, we conclude that these
small projects generally have isolated, temporary effects and are not,
by themselves, likely to significantly reduce the number of localities
occupied by the tidewater goby in the future, compared to the extensive
habitat losses that occurred prior to the species' listing in 1994. Our
conclusion is based on the fact that the species continues to occupy
those localities where these minor projects have occurred. Also, the
current information indicates the tidewater goby has the capacity to
recover from a severe drought that reduced its numbers dramatically,
despite the ongoing effect of these smaller habitat disturbances.
Prior to the listing of the tidewater goby, modifications to the
hydrology upstream of the lagoons and estuaries were common. These
changes ranged from the installation and operation of tide gates (such
as those at Humboldt Bay) to channelization for flood control. The
functioning of these structures is intended to control water entering
the lagoons from the watershed, and they are typically operated to
minimize flooding of adjacent low-lying features like roads and
buildings. McCraney et al. (2010, p. 3325) showed that artificial
fragmentation of tidewater goby populations, such as those in Humboldt
Bay caused by floodgates and levees, can lead to genetic isolation and
possibly interfere with the long-term persistence of the tidewater goby
in some localities. These current operations and potential future
modifications for flood control do not mimic the natural conditions
that tidewater gobies require for reproduction and may adversely
influence salinities and the distribution of tidewater gobies in
localities where they occur.
One method of controlling water levels in lagoons and estuaries is
the breaching of sandbars. Such breaching occurs throughout the range
of the tidewater goby. The main purpose of authorized breaching
(pursuant to existing regulations) is to prevent inundation of nearby
roads and private property (such as that at Lake Earl, Del Norte County
and Goleta Slough, Santa Barbara County). Unauthorized breaching occurs
periodically at the mouth of the Santa Clara River; the purpose is
unknown but may be intended to expose mudflats for shorebirds, to
enhance local surfing conditions, or to prevent inundation of the
adjacent campgrounds at McGrath State Beach. In some instances,
breaching is intended to move the stagnant water behind the sandbar out
to the ocean due to the offensive odor or poor water conditions (Malibu
Lagoon, Los Angeles County, for example). At the Bolsa Chica Reserve in
Orange County, the lagoon has been permanently breached to encourage
saltwater flow into the lagoon for the benefit of nesting birds such as
plovers, terns, and gulls, and is no longer viable as tidewater goby
habitat. Whatever the reason, breaching of sandbars drains lagoons and
estuaries and results in habitat alterations that strand tidewater
gobies and their eggs, leaving them vulnerable to predation by seabirds
or desiccation, and may disrupt the normal breeding cycle (depending on
when breaching occurs) (Capelli 1997, pp. 8-10). Where it happens,
sandbar breaching has a substantial effect on the population at that
locality.
Breaching is ongoing and likely to continue into the future to
reduce upstream flooding when lagoons and estuaries are closed to the
ocean. Other than permanent breaching, such as that at Bolsa Chica,
these specific breaching activities and others do not happen every
year, and the frequency at which they occur is dependent upon weather,
tides, and other factors that we cannot predict very far into the
future. Breaching occurs throughout the range of the species but is
usually random, irregular, and sporadic. However, in response to
climate change and sea level rise, we anticipate that sandbar breaching
may occur more frequently in the future.
In terms of habitat loss and modification, our information
indicates that despite advances in halting large-scale loss of wetland
habitat that could support tidewater gobies, losses and alterations
still occur and are expected to continue, but we cannot predict the
number and locations of such projects in the future. Large projects
have been replaced by multiple smaller projects, as demonstrated by the
numerous biological opinions we have prepared for adverse effects to
the tidewater goby since it was listed in 1994. Many of these projects
are currently affecting tidewater goby habitat, and we expect more to
occur in the future. We also know that hydrological changes to
tidewater goby habitat have occurred and continue to occur, and that
these changes are detrimental to tidewater goby persistence in some
localities, and that sandbar breaching is a fairly widespread activity
in the range of the tidewater goby. Some localities have experienced or
are experiencing multiple threats; according to the recovery plan
(Service 2005, Appendix E), more than 75 localities are likely subject
to 2 or more kinds of habitat
[[Page 14349]]
degradation. Cumulatively, these activities are having a negative
effect on tidewater goby habitat throughout its range, and other less
common impacts, such as those resulting from agriculture, cattle
grazing, and sewage treatment plant discharge, are also contributing to
habitat loss and alteration.
While many sources of habitat loss or alteration are evident,
compared to the large-scale habitat losses that occurred prior to the
tidewater goby's listing, these are generally temporary and isolated or
small in scale, so we do not anticipate severe impacts to the tidewater
goby throughout its range in the short term. Where small and usually
temporary effects occur, the tidewater goby has been able to persist
(we do not have data on the size of populations following small
projects, but the species reproduces profusely under proper conditions,
and we expect it to rebound effectively). Over time, as these habitat
alterations continue and other factors develop (such as climate
change), we expect there may be a cumulative habitat loss that will
result in loss of populations at some localities and that will reduce
the range of the species. However, we conclude that the types of
habitat alteration described above are not sufficient to currently
cause rangewide declines in the tidewater goby's abundance or
distribution.
Climate Change
In addition to the threats to tidewater goby habitat due to
development, water quality, upstream flood control, and other
alterations, the localities where tidewater gobies occur are threatened
by global climate change. Sea level rise and hydrological changes
associated with climate change are anticipated to have significant
effects on tidewater goby habitat over the next several decades.
Sea level rise is a result of two phenomena: Thermal expansion
(increased sea water temperatures) and global ice melt (Cayan et al.
2006, p. 5). Between 1897 and 2006, the observed sea level rise has
been approximately 2 mm (0.08 in) per year, or a total of 20 cm (8 in)
over that period (Heberger et al. 2009, p. 6). Older estimates
projected that sea level rise along the California coast would follow a
similar rate and reach 0.2-0.6 m (0.7-2 ft) by 2100 (IPCC 2007). More
recent observations and models indicate that those projections were
conservative and ignored some critical factors, such as melting of the
Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets (Heberger et al. 2009, p. 6).
Heberger et al. (2009, p. 8) have updated the sea level rise
projections for California to 1.0-1.4 m (3.3-4.6 ft) by 2100, while
Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009, p. 21530) calculate the sea level rise
globally at 0.57-1.9 m (2.4-6.2 ft); in both cases, recent estimates
are more than twice earlier projections.
The effects of sea level rise could be compounded by and work
synergistically with normal hydrological and meteorological phenomena
along the California coast. The normal, but dramatic, tidal
fluctuations that occur in California could be further increased with
sea level rise. Storm severity is projected to increase with more
frequent El Ni[ntilde]o Southern Oscillations due to increasing surface
water temperature (Cayan et al. 2006, p. 17). Storm severity is
projected to increase to the north and decrease to the south, likely a
consequence of the winter storm track shifting to the north (Cayan et
al. 2009, p. 38). The combined effect of these phenomena could result
in sea level rise reaching farther inland than previously anticipated
in some models (Cayan et al. 2006, pp. 48-49; Cayan et al. 2009, p.
40).
Park et al. (1989, pp. 1-52) projected that of the saltmarshes
along the coast of the contiguous United States, 30 percent would be
lost with a 0.5-m (1.6-ft) sea level rise, 46 percent with a 1-m (3.3-
ft) sea level rise, 52 percent with a 2-m (6.6-ft) sea level rise, and
65 percent with a 3-m (9.8-ft) sea level rise. While we cannot project
directly to California from the estimates of Park et al. (1989, pp. 1-
52), who focused on the east coast and Gulf coast of the United States,
we can use it to make some estimates of what could happen along the
West Coast. Assuming their estimates are accurate, we can anticipate
that with a projected global sea level rise of up to almost 2 m (6.6
ft), approximately 52 percent of the remaining coastal saltmarshes in
California could be inundated by 2100. Applying Heberger et al.'s
(2009, p. 8) more conservative estimates for California to Park et
al.'s calculations, with a projected sea level rise of 1.0-1.4 m (3.3-
4.6 ft) by 2100, somewhere between 46 and 52 percent of the coastal
saltmarshes in California would be inundated.
For the tidewater goby, these projections indicate that seal level
rise has the potential to inundate coastal lagoons and transform them
into primarily saltwater bodies (Cayan et al. 2006, pp. 34, 48-49).
More severe storms that are likely to result from climate change (Cayan
et al. 2006, p. 17), especially along the northern coast of California
(Cayan et al. 2009, p. 38), combined with the higher than normal sea
levels, will breach lagoon mouths more frequently from the ocean side.
These breaches would increase the salinity within the tidewater goby's
habitat. This would likely disrupt the tidewater goby's normal
reproduction process, which requires closed lagoons and a specific
range of salinities. The conversion of coastal lagoons and estuaries
from brackish to primarily saltwater bodies, in addition to the
inundation and breaching of sandbars, would eliminate habitat for
tidewater gobies in many areas.
In addition to sea level rise, projections are that climate change
will result in reduced freshwater flows into coastal lagoons and
estuaries due to the following: (1) Decreased Sierra snowpack and more
frequent droughts; (2) the need to extract more freshwater for human
use (agriculture, growing populations) before it enters estuarine
ecosystems; and (3) the likely intrusion of saltwater into California's
single largest source of freshwater (the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta)
(Anderson et al. 2008, p. 4). Reduced freshwater supplies to coastal
lagoons and estuaries, besides simulating the effects of drought on the
tidewater goby, will exacerbate the intrusion of saltwater into coastal
lagoons and estuaries that may result from sea level rise, thus
converting lagoons and estuaries into primarily saltwater bodies that
are not conducive to supporting tidewater gobies.
Although currently occupied localities may be inundated with
saltwater due to sea level rise and declining freshwater input,
currently freshwater habitats upstream of existing tidewater goby
locations may become brackish as a result of sea level rise and develop
habitat conditions suitable for the tidewater goby. In areas where this
occurs, tidewater gobies may be able to move farther upstream as
seawater moves farther inland. The ability of new habitat to develop
and tidewater gobies to move upstream in response to saltwater
intrusion is limited in many places by upstream modifications for flood
control or other purposes (Service 2005, p. 17). In these locations,
hard structures or development limit the extent of upstream habitat
available that could potentially be converted to suitable brackish
water areas suitable for gobies. These barriers are found throughout
the range of the tidewater goby, and among regularly occupied tidewater
goby localities, a few examples where upstream modifications may
prevent migration include: Lagunitas Creek which has been subjected to
channelization; the Santa Ynez River, which is channelized in portions
and is diverted in some areas; Bennett Slough, which is channelized
upstream, has been diverted, and for which flood control structures
have
[[Page 14350]]
been installed; and the J Street Drain, which is concrete-lined and
flows are controlled with a tide gate (Service 2005, Appendices C and
E). As the sea level rises, the ability of tidewater gobies to move
upstream to seek the habitat conditions they need may be impeded by
these and other modifications. In addition, the lack of a natural
interface between seawater and freshwater inflows may result in an
abrupt change between saltwater and freshwater (instead of the mixing
zone that exists under current conditions) and create unsuitable
habitat for the tidewater goby.
The recovery plan (Service 2005, Appendix E) lists the localities
currently and historically occupied by the tidewater goby and the
threats to those localities. We assume that a shift upstream by
tidewater gobies would be precluded at ``regularly'' and
``intermittently'' occupied localities where ``stream channelization''
is listed as a threat because the interface between saltwater and
freshwater would not inundate areas where lagoons could form, but would
be an abrupt interface where mixing of saltwater and freshwater occurs
and does not allow tidewater goby habitat to establish. Similarly,
those occupied localities for which ``salinity regime: dikes, levees,
dams, etc.'' was listed as a threat could also form an abrupt fresh/
saltwater interface where tidewater goby habitat could not form. Based
on this assumption, we can calculate the number of localities where
suitable tidewater goby habitat is not likely to form in response to
sea level rise. Of the 124 localities considered ``regularly'' or
``intermittently'' occupied at the time the recovery plan was published
(2005), 52 have ``stream channelization'' listed as a threat, 50 have
``salinity regime'' listed as a threat, and 26 localities have both
listed as a threat. In total, 73 localities occupied by tidewater goby
have either ``stream channelization'' or ``salinity regime'' or both
listed as a threat. That would indicate that at least 59 percent (73 of
124) of the occupied localities that would be inundated by sea level
rise may have little or no opportunity for suitable tidewater goby
habitat to form upstream.
Another consideration is the human response to sea level rise.
Existing development and infrastructure are at increasing risk, and
those planning responses to sea level rise in California are exploring
several options, including hard engineering, soft engineering,
accommodation/adaptation, or retreat (California Coastal Commission
2001, pp. 18-25). While none of the responses have been ruled out, hard
engineering (like sea walls or levees) and soft engineering (beach
replenishment, sand bar protection) may be the most viable options
(accommodation/adaptation could require costly structural fixes, and
retreat requires the use of land that may not be available). Both of
these engineering solutions are designed to work against sea level rise
and will create an abrupt interface between saltwater and freshwater as
opposed to allowing flooding of low-lying coastal areas. Consequently,
areas where sea level rise is met by engineering solutions are less
likely to accommodate a shift in tidewater goby habitat.
To summarize our analysis of the potential for upstream shifts in
tidewater goby habitat in response to sea level rise, we estimate that
up to 59 percent of the 124 localities considered regularly or
intermittently occupied in the 2005 recovery plan (Service 2005,
Appendix E) are not likely to accommodate higher sea levels such that
``new'' habitat for tidewater gobies would be created. Thus, we
anticipate that by 2100, as much as 59 percent, and perhaps more, of
the occupied localities could be extirpated by the combination of sea
level rise with existing and future barriers to tidal inflow.
A less well-known aspect of climate change is ocean acidification.
The increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means rainfall
captures more carbon dioxide and delivers it to the oceans. When carbon
dioxide dissolves in seawater, the concentration of hydrogen ions
increases, thereby increasing the acidity (Orr et al. 2005, p. 1). The
lowering pH makes calcium carbonate less available for organisms that
use it to form shells and exoskeletons. Projections are that ocean
acidification, which began shortly after the Industrial Revolution and
is accelerating in the 21st century, could disrupt the life cycles of
many marine organisms that form the basis of complex ecosystems (Orr et
al. 2005, p. 685). The tidewater goby forages on a variety of small
organisms that may rely on the availability of calcium carbonate to
form exoskeletons and shells. If ocean acidification decreases the
availability of such prey, tidewater goby populations could be
affected. While the effects of carbon dioxide dissolving in the oceans
are apparent in some cases (coral reefs), the impacts to tidewater goby
habitat and prey are speculative. Although acidification may have some
effect on the species, at this time we cannot make meaningful
projections on either the degree of acidification that is likely to
occur within the range of the tidewater goby, or how the species may
react to acidification.
Considering the number of historical localities listed as
extirpated (24) in the recovery plan (Service 2005, p. 27), and those
considered so small or degraded that long-term persistence is
questionable (55 to 70; Service 2005, p. 6), the additional threat due
to climate change and sea level rise increases the likelihood that the
number of tidewater goby populations will decline and those that remain
will be further fragmented.
Summary of Factor A
On the basis of this analysis, we find that the destruction,
modification, or curtailment of tidewater goby habitat is currently a
threat to the tidewater goby rangewide, and we expect the threat to
continue in the future. While the large-scale impacts to tidewater goby
habitat have slowed due to regulations that protect wetland areas,
multiple small losses and alterations still occur and are expected to
continue to degrade tidewater goby habitat throughout the species'
range. Hydrological changes to tidewater goby habitat, such as flood
control and bridge replacement, continue to occur, and these changes
are detrimental to tidewater goby persistence in some localities.
Sandbar breaching is a fairly pervasive activity throughout the range
of the tidewater goby and has a significant negative impact on the
populations where it occurs. Cumulatively, while these activities are
having a negative effect on tidewater goby habitat throughout its
range, and we predict that activities that remove or degrade tidewater
goby habitat will continue, we conclude that impacts to the tidewater
goby from these activities are not currently having a substantial
effect on the species throughout its range, but may in the future as
these effects accumulate.
A primary reason for the above conclusion is the tidewater goby's
ability to rebound after prolonged periods of unsuitable habitat
conditions (e.g., prolonged drought). At the time of listing in 1994,
when the tidewater goby was known to occupy only 43 localities, we
concluded that the species' ``downward trend was likely to continue''
due to threats posed by, among others, habitat loss. When the drought
that had reduced the number of localities to 43 ended, the tidewater
goby numbers rebounded to a now estimated 114 occupied localities (78
FR 8746). This indicates that the species is able to recover from a
serious drought and that the threats we believed would cause a
continuing downward trend are not as serious as previously determined.
In addition to the direct human-caused losses of tidewater goby
habitat described above, climate change
[[Page 14351]]
(including ocean acidification), and sea level rise in particular, will
have a significant negative impact on the species. Sea levels have been
rising since the last century, and we can project how sea level rise
will affect the tidewater goby; however, sea level rise is happening
gradually and demonstrable effects to the tidewater goby will only be
manifested after decades of global temperature increases. Thus, we
conclude that sea level rise is a threat to the species in the
foreseeable future, but is not an imminent threat.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Based on our review of the available information, we found no
evidence of risks from overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes affecting the tidewater goby or
potential risks in the future. While some scientific collecting has
been done for genetic analysis, the number of individual gobies removed
has been kept to levels that would not have a noticeable impact on
discrete populations. We therefore conclude that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a
threat to the tidewater goby now, and we do not anticipate
overutilization becoming a threat in the future.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease/Parasites
Disease was not considered a threat to the tidewater goby in the
final listing rule for the species; however, concern exists over the
effects of certain parasites on the tidewater goby. Cryptocotyle lingua
is one parasite that has been documented in the tidewater goby (Swift
et al. 1989, p. 7; Swenson 1999). It is an introduced fluke (flatworm)
native to the eastern Atlantic Ocean that infects marine fish as an
intermediate host (Sindermann and Farrin 1962, pp. 69-75). The source
of this parasite is not known, but it may have been introduced in
ballast water from vessels from eastern Atlantic ports. As a trigenetic
parasite, Cryptocotyle lingua has two intermediate hosts; the first is
a snail, the second a fish like the tidewater goby. The second
intermediate host passes along the parasite to the final host, such as
a bird or mammal, when the fish is consumed. The intermediate host is
weakened by the parasite but not killed. Although all localities may
potentially support this parasite, it has only been documented to
infect tidewater gobies at Gannon Slough, Humboldt County, Pescadero
Creek, San Mateo County, and possibly Corcoran Lagoon, Santa Cruz
County (Swenson 1999). While a typical trigenetic parasite has effects
on its intermediate hosts described above, we have no information
indicating that Cryptocotyle lingua infestations of the tidewater goby
are substantial enough to cause the loss of populations or have caused
a decline in the species' distribution or numbers. In the future, if
Cryptocotyle lingua spreads, it may have a greater effect on the
tidewater goby than currently observed.
McGourty et al. (2007, pp. 655-660) report that a newly recognized
species of protozoan parasite, Kabatana newberryi, may be specific to
the tidewater goby. Their data suggest that Kabatana newberryi occurs
sympatrically (overlaps geographically) with the tidewater goby
throughout northern California. During presence-absence surveys of
tidewater gobies in 2003 and 2004, McGourty et al. (2007, p. 655) found
individuals throughout the northern range of the species infected with
Kabatana newberryi, as shown by the presence of opaque white muscle
tissue. Voucher specimens of tidewater gobies taken from Rodeo Lagoon,
Marin County, California in 2005 exhibited similar infections (D. Fong,
pers. comm. as cited in McGourty et al. 2007, p. 659). No specific
identification of the parasites could be made because the voucher
specimens were preserved in formalin; however, the parasite from the
Rodeo Lagoon specimens appears very similar to Kabatana newberryi in
that it infects muscle cells. Kabatana newberryi has not been reported
in the southern portion of the tidewater goby's range, and the
dispersal mechanism of Kabatana newberryi is not well understood
(McGourty et al. 2007, pp. 659-670). Surveys evaluating the presence
and potential effects of Kabatana newberryi on tidewater gobies are
needed to assess whether this parasite represents a significant threat
to its host and could contribute to its decline. Because this parasite
was discovered in tidewater goby specimens captured in Big Lagoon,
Humboldt County, an otherwise large and reasonably secure population,
this suggests that even populations at otherwise low risk from habitat
loss or destruction may be at risk from disease or parasites (Service
2007, p. 24).
Although parasites have been found in tidewater gobies, diseases
and parasites and how they affect tidewater goby populations are not
well understood at this time. Only recently has research begun to
analyze the relationship between tidewater gobies and parasites, and
how the tidewater goby populations are affected. Native parasites, such
as Kabatana newberryi, that target a specific host (in this case, the
tidewater goby) are probably not a threat because a successful
monospecific parasite does not decimate its host populations, although
it can affect individual animals. Nonnative parasites, such as
Cryptocotyle lingua, may be more of a threat because they did not
evolve a host-parasite relationship with the tidewater goby, they can
occupy more than one host species, and an infestation could possibly
reduce tidewater goby numbers.
Although parasites can have effects on individual tidewater gobies,
we have no information attributing any population declines or loss of
localities to parasitic infestations. The best available information
does not indicate that these parasites pose a significant threat to the
tidewater goby now. We have no data with which to predict the future
impacts of parasites on the tidewater goby, but the potential exists
for parasites to reduce tidewater goby numbers if the parasites spread
or increase in number.
Predation
Native fish species, such as some salmonids, may prey on tidewater
gobies (Moyle 2002, p. 432). This is a natural phenomenon, and we
expect gobies to be adapted to some level of predation by native
species with which they have evolved, but when tidewater goby numbers
and habitat are reduced through human-induced threats, these native
predators may have a greater effect on a tidewater goby population.
Introduced aquatic species that may have arrived in ballast water from
foreign vessels or been deliberately released may be more damaging
because they did not evolve in conjunction with native species, and
they can be prolific in the absence of their own natural controls (that
is, disease or predators). We know that introduced predatory fish have
a negative impact on most of California's native coastal species and
some prey on tidewater gobies (Service 2007, p. 21). According to the
recovery plan, approximately 65 localities are known to have native and
nonnative predators that feed on tidewater gobies (Service 2005,
Appendix E). Introduced species may affect tidewater goby populations
by preying on adults, larvae, or eggs. Predation by introduced or
native species can be particularly damaging to species, such as
tidewater goby, that are generally distributed across small, isolated
populations and are prone to fluctuations in population
[[Page 14352]]
size (Pimm et al. 1988, p. 777; Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1448).
Specific examples of situations where predation by nonnative
species may have negatively affected tidewater goby populations can be
found in M. Capelli, in litt. 1999, p. 13; D. Holland, in litt. 1999,
pp. 5-6; and C. Swift, in litt. 1999, no pagination. In the Santa Ynez
River system, tidewater gobies accounted for 61 percent of the prey
volume of 55 percent (10 of 18) of the juvenile largemouth bass sampled
(Swift et al. 1997; M. Capelli, in litt. 1999, p. 13). The decline and
subsequent recovery of the tidewater goby population in Las Pulgas
Creek closely tracked the presence and absence of green sunfish in the
lagoon of this system (Swift and Holland 1998, p. 10). The elimination
of tidewater gobies from the Santa Margarita River, San Diego County,
may have been due to the combined influence of nonnative species and
decreasing habitat available for the tidewater goby (Swift and Holland
1998, pp. 14-17). Largemouth bass in Old Creek of San Luis Obispo
County are likely responsible for the elimination and prevention of re-
establishment of tidewater gobies there (D. Holland, in litt. 1999, p.
6). This evidence, though indirect, suggests that some nonnative
predators can have significant negative impacts on tidewater gobies, up
to and including extirpation from individual localities (K. Lafferty,
in litt. 1999). In addition, predation by nonnatives may have negative
effects short of extirpation, reducing tidewater goby population sizes
and thereby rendering populations more vulnerable over the long term to
extirpation as a result of natural perturbations of habitat conditions
at the site (M. Capelli, in litt. 1999, p. 11).
Fish surveys along the California coast conducted by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) Office of Spill Prevention and
Response identified the presence of numerous introduced predatory
species, including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white catfish
(Amerius catus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), common carp
(Cyprinus carpio), threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense), redear sunfish
(Lepomis microlophus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), and inland silverside (Menidia beryllina). These
fish have been introduced historically in California waters as sport
fish or forage.
Currently, the impact of nonnative fish appears to be isolated and
infrequent (see examples above); however, if introductions of nonnative
fish continue in the future and more waters that support tidewater
gobies are affected, we can expect nonnative predators to have a more
widespread negative impact on tidewater goby populations.
Amphibians are also known predators of native fish species (Swift
and Holland 1998, p. 26). Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) have been
introduced to California either accidentally through the aquarium trade
and during trout stocking, or deliberately for pest control or sport.
Bullfrogs are known predators on a wide variety of species, including
many fish, and are suspected to have significant negative impacts on
tidewater goby populations (Swift and Holland 1998, p. 26; Holland et
al. 2001, pp. 35-36). Furthermore, bullfrogs have been implicated in
the demise of the Old Creek, San Luis Obispo County, tidewater goby
population (Rathbun 1991, p. 4).
In summary, numerous native and nonnative predators have been
documented in tidewater goby habitat. While there is evidence that
predators can affect individual tidewater goby localities, the impacts
do not appear to be widespread and are more acute where predation is
occurring in the presence of other factors that have depressed the
species' numbers, such as drought. We conclude predation alone is not a
severe threat to the species as a whole. As discussed under Factor D
below, subsequent to the listing of the species, the State of
California has enacted regulations to help control aquatic invasive
species, including those that may arrive in ballast water, and this may
reduce the threat from nonnative predators.
Summary of Factor C
The best available information indicates that at current population
levels, parasitic infections and nonnative predators are not a major
threat to the tidewater goby rangewide; however, under certain
conditions (for example, poor water quality, drought), parasites and
nonnative predators could have substantial negative impacts to
populations of tidewater goby at specific localities in the future. At
the time of listing in 1994, when the tidewater goby occupied only 43
localities and a severe drought was ending, parasites and predators
posed a relatively greater threat to species. After the drought ended,
the number of localities known to be occupied by tidewater gobies has
increased to an estimated 114 (78 FR 8746), and currently available
information does not indicate that parasites and predators are having a
substantial effect on the tidewater goby's numbers or distribution at
current levels.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Reclassifying the tidewater goby from endangered to threatened
would not change the protections afforded to this species under the Act
or other regulations. The listing rule for the tidewater goby described
several Federal and State regulations that provide protection for the
tidewater goby and its habitat including the Rivers and Harbors Act (33
U.S.C. 401 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and
the California Coastal Act (see the final listing rule for details on
these and other regulations (59 FR 5494)). These regulations all remain
in effect and continue to provide substantial protections for the
tidewater goby and its habitat. However, while regulations have largely
eliminated the large-scale destruction of habitat, these same
regulations contain permitting processes that allow certain actions to
continue, and small-scale habitat loss or degradation (meaning roughly
a few acres per project) continues to occur (California Coastal
Commission 1994, no pagination).
Subsequent to the listing of the tidewater goby as endangered,
three new regulations have been enacted that provide additional
protection for the species, the Federal Sikes Act Improvement Act, the
California Ballast Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act,
and the California Marine Invasive Species Act.
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.)
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to develop cooperative plans with
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior for natural resources
on public lands. The Sikes Act Improvement Act requires Department of
Defense installations to prepare integrated natural resources
management plans (INRMPs) that manage natural resources on military
lands consistent with the use of military installations to ensure the
readiness of the Armed Forces. INRMPs incorporate, to the maximum
extent practicable, ecosystem management principles and provide the
landscape necessary to sustain military land uses. INRMPs are developed
in coordination with the State and the Service, and are generally
updated every 5 years although they remain in effect during that
process. Although implementation is subject to funding availability,
INRMPs are important guiding documents that help to integrate natural
resource conservation with military readiness
[[Page 14353]]
and training. Each INRMP includes the following:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) is located on the central
California coast, approximately 225 km (140 mi) northwest of Los
Angeles and is approximately 67 km (42 mi) in length. VAFB completed an
INRMP in 2011 that protects in several ways the five localities on the
base occupied by the tidewater goby. These measures include: (1)
Avoiding the tidewater goby and its habitat, whenever possible, in
project planning; (2) scheduling activities that may affect tidewater
goby outside of the peak breeding period (March to July); (3)
coordinating with VAFB water quality staff to prevent degradation and
contamination of aquatic habitats; and (4) prohibiting the introduction
of nonnative fishes into streams on-base (VAFB 2011, Tab D, p. 15).
Furthermore, VAFB's environmental staff reviews projects and enforces
existing regulations and orders that, through their implementation,
avoid and minimize impacts to natural resources, including the
tidewater goby and its habitat. In addition, VAFB's INRMP protects
aquatic habitats for the tidewater goby by excluding cattle from
wetlands and riparian areas through the installation and maintenance of
fencing.
Seven of the eight occupied localities remaining in southern
California are on MCB Camp Pendleton, which is located on the southern
coast of California approximately 132 km (82 mi) south of Los Angeles
and is approximately 21 km (13 mi) in length. MCB Camp Pendleton
completed its INRMP in 2001, followed by a revised and updated version
in 2007, which includes several measures that protect the tidewater
goby and its habitat.
Management and protection measures that benefit the tidewater goby
identified in Appendix B of the INRMP (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007,
Appendix B, pp. B5-B7) include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Maintaining connectivity of beach and estuarine ecosystems with
riparian and upland ecosystems; (2) promoting natural hydrological
processes to maintain estuarine water quality and quantity; and (3)
maximizing the probability of tidewater goby metapopulation existence
within the lagoon complex. Management and protection measures that
benefit tidewater goby identified in Appendix C of the INRMP (MCB Camp
Pendleton 2007, Appendix C, pp. C5-C8) include, but are not limited to,
the following: (1) Eliminating nonnative, invasive species (such as
Arundo donax (giant reed)) on the installation and off the installation
in partnership with upstream landowners to enhance ecosystem value; (2)
providing viable riparian corridors and promoting connectivity of
native riparian habitats; (3) providing for unimpeded hydrologic and
sedimentary floodplain dynamics to support the maintenance and
enhancement of biota; (4) maintaining natural floodplain processes and
extent of these areas by avoiding and minimizing further permanent loss
of floodplain habitats; (5) maintaining to the maximum extent possible
natural flood regimes; (6) maintaining to the extent practicable stream
and river flows needed to support riparian habitat; (7) monitoring and
maintaining groundwater levels and basin withdrawals to avoid loss and
degradation of habitat quality; (8) restoring areas to their original
condition after disturbance, such as following project construction or
fire damage; and (9) promoting increased tidewater goby populations in
watersheds through perpetuation of natural ecosystem processes and
programmatic instruction application for avoidance and minimization of
impacts.
MCB Camp Pendleton's INRMP also benefits tidewater goby through
ongoing monitoring and research efforts. The installation conducts
monitoring of tidewater goby populations at least once every 3 years
(MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix B, p. B8). Additionally, MCB Camp
Pendleton collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey's Biological
Resources Division to develop and implement a rigorous, science-based
monitoring protocol for tidewater goby populations throughout the
installation, including monitoring water quality variables at all
historically occupied sites regardless of current occupation status.
The completion of the MCB Camp Pendleton INRMP and the protections
it affords to the tidewater goby and its habitat on the base is of
particular significance to the status of the species as seven of the
eight occupied localities remaining in southern California (south of
Los Angeles County) are on MCB Camp Pendleton. As recently as 1999, the
Service considered southern California to be the most seriously
threatened portion of the tidewater goby's range (64 FR 33816).
However, the MCB Camp Pendleton INRMP has substantially reduced threats
in the region.
The California Ballast Management for Control of Nonindigenous
Species Act of 1999 was adopted by the State of California to establish
a multi-agency program to prevent the introduction and spread of
nonnative aquatic species from the ballast of ships into the State
waters of California. The program was designed to determine the current
level of species invasions while researching alternative control
strategies. Under this program, the CDFW is required to study the
extent of nonnative species introductions into the coastal waters of
the State. To fulfill this requirement, the CDFW's Office of Spill
Prevention and Response initiated several baseline field surveys of
ports and bays along the California coast and a literature survey of
records of nonindigenous species.
The California Marine Invasive Species Act was passed in 2003,
widening the scope of the original ballast water program (CDFG 2008, p.
47). The 2003 act requires ballast water management for all vessels
that intend to discharge ballast water in California waters. All
qualifying vessels coming from ports within the Pacific Coast region
must conduct an exchange [in waters at least 50 nautical mi offshore
and 200 m (656 ft) deep], or retain all ballast water and associated
sediments. To determine the effectiveness of the management provisions
of this act, the legislation also requires State agencies to conduct a
series of biological surveys to monitor new introductions to coastal
and estuarine waters. Implementation of these measures should further
reduce the frequency of new introductions of invasive species into
California's coastal waters that could be a threat to the tidewater
goby. The Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act of 2006 deleted a sunset
provision of the Marine Invasive Species Act, making the program
permanent.
Upon its listing as endangered, the tidewater goby benefited from
the protections of Act, which include the prohibition against take and
the requirement for interagency consultation for Federal actions that
may affect the species. Section 9 of the
[[Page 14354]]
Act and Federal regulations prohibit the take of endangered and
threatened species without special exemption. The Act defines ``take''
as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C.
1532(19)). Our regulations define ``harm'' to include significant
habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to
listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Our
regulations also define ``harass'' as intentional or negligent actions
that create the likelihood of injury to a listed species by annoying it
to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns,
which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
(50 CFR 17.3). Section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires all Federal agencies
to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and
threatened species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species
or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. Section 6 of the
Act, which authorizes us to enter into cooperative conservation
agreements with States, and to allocate funds for conservation programs
to benefit threatened or endangered species, provides another potential
benefit. Neither section 6 of the Act nor Service policy gives higher
priority to endangered species over threatened species for conservation
funding.
Thus, listing the tidewater goby provided a variety of protections,
including the prohibition against take and the conservation mandates of
section 7 for all Federal agencies. Because the Service has regulations
that prohibit take of all threatened wildlife species (50 CFR
17.31(a)), unless modified by a special rule issued under section 4(d)
of the Act (50 CFR 17.31(c)), the regulatory protections of the Act are
largely the same for wildlife species listed as endangered and as
threatened; thus, the protections provided by the Act will remain in
place if the tidewater goby is reclassified as a threatened species.
Summary of Factor D
In summary, the tidewater goby is currently protected by a variety
of regulatory mechanisms throughout its range, and we anticipate those
protections will continue for the foreseeable future. Regulations in
place when the tidewater goby was listed continue to provide
substantial protection for the species and its habitat. The passing of
the Sikes Act Improvement Act subsequent to the listing has been
particularly beneficial to the tidewater goby in southern California
where seven of the eight occupied locations in that region receive a
substantial level of protection through the INRMP developed by MCB Camp
Pendleton. Although the INRMP developed by VAFB provides substantial
protections to the tidewater goby and its habitat, the VAFB INRMP only
covers the five localities on the base. The other two regulations
passed since the species was listed, the California Ballast Management
for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act and the California Marine
Invasive Species Act, help reduce the threat of the introduction of new
invasive species from ballast water throughout the entire range of the
species. Overall, regulations in effect at the time of listing and new
regulations passed subsequent to listing have substantially reduced,
but have not eliminated any of, the threats to the tidewater goby and
its habitat. Therefore, we conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to protect the tidewater goby without the additional
protections afforded under the Act.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Competition
One of the potential threats to the tidewater goby is competition
from nonnative species. This competition is mainly for prey, but can
also be competition for other resources. For example, Big Lagoon and
Freshwater Lagoon in Humboldt County support populations of the
nonnative New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) that was
likely introduced by fisherman or boats, either on the outside of the
vessels or in ballast water (Service 2008, no pagination). The New
Zealand mudsnail blankets the bottom of these lagoons and may
outcompete other native species, including the tidewater goby, for
space and resources. The New Zealand mudsnail may have the overall
effect of altering the ecosystem to the point it cannot support other
native species.
Several small, potentially competitive, estuarine fishes have also
been introduced into tidewater goby habitat. These include the
rainwater killifish (Lucania parva), chameleon goby (Tridentiger
trigonocephalus), yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius flavimanus), and
shimofuri goby (Tridentiger bifasciatus). The first three species
appeared in the 1960s in San Francisco Bay, coincident with the last
collections of tidewater gobies there (Haaker 1979; Swift et al. 1989).
Rainwater killifish have become widespread in San Francisco Bay, and
have recently become established in Upper Newport Bay, Orange County,
but have not become established elsewhere (Moyle 2002, p. 315).
Yellowfin gobies have seldom been collected in the smaller, brackish,
non-tidal systems where tidewater gobies are found (Swift et al. 1994,
p. 21); however, in 1992 and 1993, yellowfin gobies were collected in
the Santa Clara River (Ventura County) and Santa Margarita River (San
Diego County) lagoons (Swift et al. 1994, p. 15). The recent appearance
of yellowfin gobies in southern California and the coincident
disappearance of the tidewater goby in the Santa Margarita River in
late 1993 suggest that the species is slowly spreading to brackish
habitats and may be eliminating tidewater gobies.
Chameleon gobies have been locally abundant on hard substrates in
San Francisco and Los Angeles harbors since the 1960s and 1970s,
respectively (Haaker 1979, p. 59). Initial experiments by Swenson and
Matern (1995, p. 3) indicated that shimofuri gobies aggressively
intimidate, outcompete, and prey on tidewater gobies in the laboratory.
However, like the chameleon goby, the shimofuri goby prefers hard
substrates. Thus, it might be expected to remain in such habitats in
coastal lagoons, and perhaps not interact extensively with tidewater
gobies. To date, the possible effects of interactions in the wild
between these nonnative estuarine fish and tidewater gobies are largely
conjectural.
These nonnative competitors may be having a negative effect on
tidewater goby numbers, but the relationship is not demonstrated by the
best available information. We can infer from the overall impact of
introducing nonnative competitors in other situations that nonnative
species like the New Zealand mussel will deplete resources used by the
tidewater goby, but based on the best available information, we
conclude that competition is not a substantial, uniform threat to the
species throughout its range. As discussed under Factor D above, the
State of California has enacted regulations to help control aquatic
invasive species (CDFG 2008), including those introduced in ballast
water, and while these regulations may not eliminate competition from
nonnative species, they should help reduce the future threat.
[[Page 14355]]
Water Quality
Impaired water quality was cited as a potential threat to the
tidewater goby in the recovery plan (Service 2005, p. 21, 28, Appendix
C). Water quality issues still affect some of the localities occupied
by tidewater gobies. For example, the Tillas Slough in Del Norte County
is subject to runoff from pastures that carry nitrogenous waste, which
in turn increases algae production and depletes oxygen levels in the
water. In the Santa Clara River estuary, the natural flows are
augmented by discharges from a wastewater treatment plant that have
degraded water quality. These impacts on the tidewater goby habitat are
not uncommon and appear ongoing and are likely to continue into the
future in many parts of its range.
At the time the recovery plan was published (Service 2005), we
determined that 54 localities that currently or historically supported,
or could potentially support, tidewater gobies were ``Water Quality
Limited'' as defined by the State Water Resources Control Board's 2002
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments.
The designation indicates that the listed water bodies do not meet
current water quality standards set by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Contaminants may include everything from sediment to
coliform bacteria to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Although the 2010 303(d) list includes an additional 30 localities
listed in the recovery plan (Service 2005, Appendix C) that currently
or historically supported, or could potentially support, tidewater
gobies and are now considered ``Water Quality Limited'' (for a total of
84 localities), no link has been established between impaired water
quality and negative impacts on tidewater goby populations (Service
2005, pp. 47, 50, 52). Therefore, based on the best available
information, we conclude that impaired water quality is not a
substantial threat to the tidewater goby. The recovery plan cites the
need to explore water quality issues to ascertain the level of threat
posed in these ``Water Quality Limited'' segments. This need may become
more critical as more localities that support the species are added to
the 303(d) list. (Note: Some additions to the list may be due to
changes in the criteria for meeting the ``Water Quality Limited''
standards and not solely to declining water quality.)
Habitat Fragmentation
Metapopulation dynamics are an important aspect of tidewater goby
biology and, in turn, the species' conservation. Maintaining
metapopulation relationships ensures that processes of extirpation and
recolonization, genetic exchange leading to enhanced fitness, and
connectivity between populations are preserved. Studies such as
Lafferty et al. (1999a, 1999b) and recovery planning efforts (Service
2005) emphasize the need to understand metapopulation dynamics for
conserving the tidewater goby.
Tidewater goby metapopulation structures that may have existed in
the past have been altered by the creation of additional gaps and
increases in the number and size of gaps in the species' distribution
(Smith, in litt. 2007) as a result of habitat alteration and other
factors that have rendered some localities unsuitable for tidewater
gobies. Connectivity of many populations has been reduced or eliminated
by loss of localities, increased distance between localities, and lack
of suitable, intermediate habitats (``stepping stones''). For example:
(1) Waddell Creek in Santa Cruz County has been lost as a possible 24-
km (15-mi) stepping stone between those localities to the north in San
Mateo County and those to the south (for example, Scott Creek); (2)
Schwans and Woods Lagoons have been lost as suitable stepping stones
between the Baldwin/Wilder metapopulation north of the Santa Cruz and
Corcoran/Moran metapopulation south of Santa Cruz; and (3) San Vicente
and Liddell Creeks have been lost between Scott and Laguna Creeks
(Santa Cruz County) (Smith, in litt. 2007).
In central and northern California, Swift (in litt. 2007) believes
it very unlikely that genetic interchange (sharing of genes among
populations that may allow for exchange of beneficial mutations that
enhance survival under changing conditions, usually through dispersal
of breeding individuals) is possible between several groups of
populations naturally separated by 32 km (20 mi) or more of rugged
coastline. For example, isolated populations in Mendocino County in the
Ten Mile River-Virgin Creek-Pudding Creek group are unlikely to receive
dispersing tidewater gobies and their genetic material from either the
north or the south. These populations are too far away from other
populations to be recolonized if lost and are unlikely to contribute
genetic material in either direction as well. Farther south, a wide gap
exists between Gaviota Creek and Winchester/Bell Canyon in Santa
Barbara County (Swift, in litt. 2007). Similar long distances exist
between Winchester/Bell Canyon and Arroyo Burro and Mission Creek-
Laguna Channel (in Santa Barbara County) and between these latter two
and the Ventura River and Santa Clara River pair (Ventura County).
These large gaps seem to disrupt the metapopulations along most of the
coast from Point Conception to Rincon Point (Swift, in litt. 2007),
leaving individual populations vulnerable to loss of both the
recolonization potential and the benefits of genetic interchange.
The substantial destruction of coastal wetlands, lagoons, and
estuaries in the past has also contributed to many tidewater goby
localities becoming more isolated, thus threatening the stability of
some metapopulations through the potential loss of recolonization
opportunities and the benefits of genetic interchange. An example of
where this has occurred is the San Francisco Bay area. We have no means
to determine how many tidewater goby localities existed in this area
prior to development, but we do know that approximately 95 percent of
the wetlands in this area have been filled (Josselyn 1983). Available
records indicate at least seven tidewater goby localities have been
extirpated, and there are now no occupied localities within the San
Francisco Bay (see Figure 1, above). Lagunitas Creek is the only
remaining occupied locality within Tomales Bay in Marin County, and is
now separated from its nearest neighbor to the north, Estero de San
Antonio, by a distance of about 25 km (15.5 mi), and from its nearest
neighbor to the south, Rodeo Lagoon, by a distance of 38 km (23.6 mi).
If tidewater gobies at Lagunitas Creek were extirpated during a
drought, it is unlikely that the location would be recolonized
naturally. The Rodeo Lagoon locality is also isolated. The closest
known existing localities of tidewater goby to Rodeo Lagoon are
Lagunitas Creek in Tomales Bay, 38 km (23.6 mi) to the north, and San
Gregorio Creek, 58 km (36 mi) to the south. If the population at Rodeo
Lagoon were extirpated, the tidewater goby would disappear from about a
70-km (60-mi) portion of the coast.
Another complicating factor that may be important to recolonization
is the direction of long-shore currents. These currents flow
predominantly from north to south. Because tidewater gobies are
considered to be weak swimmers, recolonization may be limited to
extirpated localities to the south of occupied ones.
[[Page 14356]]
While the metapopulation structure of tidewater gobies has been
disrupted to some extent by an increase in the number and size of gaps
between localities, we are aware that some areas where tidewater gobies
have been extirpated apparently have been recolonized when extant
populations were present within a relatively short distance of the
extirpated population. For example, Lafferty et al. (1999b, p. 621)
concluded that tidewater gobies had recolonized Ca[ntilde]ada Honda
Creek in Santa Barbara County from the Santa Ynez River approximately 9
km (5.5 mi) to the north. Recolonization may be occurring when high
freshwater flows into lagoons and estuaries cause the entrance to the
system to be breached and connect directly to the ocean. Additionally,
as discussed above, the number of tidewater goby localities has
increased from 43 at the time of listing to an estimated 114 localities
occupied currently (78 FR 8746), indicating that the species has been
able to recolonize many localities that had become extirpated during
the extended drought that occurred immediately prior to the species'
listing. Local extirpations and recolonizations are a natural part of
tidewater goby metapopulation dynamics. We expect some local
extirpations as part of this natural dynamic. However, because of
increasing fragmentation, we expect that some populations will be
extirpated over the long term and will not be recolonized. We cannot
predict with certainty which populations may become permanently
extirpated and which will eventually be recolonized, but we expect any
permanent loss of populations to be gradual.
When metapopulations are fragmented and isolated from each other,
genetic exchange within and between them is correspondingly limited,
which may result in increased genetic drift (random changes in gene
frequencies within populations resulting because each generation
contains only a subset, or sample, of all the genes present in the
previous generation) and inbreeding (mating between close relatives).
Genetic drift can result in loss of alleles (gene variants),
particularly those that occur in low frequencies within populations,
and can contribute to loss of genetic diversity within and among
populations. Loss of genetic diversity in small populations may
decrease the potential for persistence in the face of long-term
environmental change (Shaffer 1981, p. 133). Loss of genetic diversity
can also result in decline in fitness from expression of deleterious
recessive alleles (Meffe and Carroll 1994, pp. 150-152). Change in the
distribution of diversity can destroy local adaptations or break up
coadapted gene complexes (outbreeding depression). These problems can
lead to a poorer ``match'' of the organism to its environment, reducing
individual fitness and increasing the probability of population or
species extinction (Meffe and Carroll 1994, p. 131). Genetic drift and
inbreeding are reduced when there is genetic exchange among
populations, which can restore genes lost through drift or bring in new
genes, while also increasing the likelihood of matings between
unrelated individuals.
As discussed above in the ``Genetics'' section, tidewater goby
populations currently exhibit population genetic structuring (groups of
populations are genetically more similar to each other than to other
populations). This indicates that some degree of isolation/genetic
differentiation is probably normal for tidewater gobies and is the
result of the evolutionary history of the species. Under this
situation, we expect greater gene flow within major phylogeographic
groups (groups of closely related populations) than between the groups.
However, habitat loss and anthropogenic factors have resulted in the
creation of additional gaps in the species' distribution. This
fragmentation may be resulting in isolation not only among major groups
of related populations, but also between populations within groups, and
thus reducing the levels of normally expected gene flow. For the
tidewater goby, where metapopulation dynamics dictate gene flow and
genetic diversity, the observed fragmentation of some parts of the
species' distribution indicate that some subpopulations are likely
genetically isolated from others. The effects of this genetic isolation
are exhibited by the results of genetics studies cited earlier that
conclude that natural and anthropogenic barriers have contributed to
genetic differentiation among populations. The implications for the
survival of the tidewater goby are not clear, but the loss of genetic
interchange between populations may cause increased inbreeding and the
loss of fitness afforded a species by having a diverse genetic makeup.
While we expect that increased fragmentation and isolation may
adversely affect gene flow and eventually lead to reduced fitness of
populations, these processes generally occur over many generations.
Stochastic Events
Stochastic events in ecology are random, usually natural
occurrences, which can affect a species or its ecosystem. Such events
may include wildfire, earthquakes, landslides, and climatic phenomena
such as floods or drought. These events can have a substantial impact
on a species at any level, from individuals to rangewide. Of particular
concern for the tidewater goby are the stochastic events related to
climate, including drought and flood.
The most significant natural factor adversely affecting the
tidewater goby is drought and the resultant alteration of coastal and
riparian habitats. Periodic droughts are a historical feature of
California, which has been repeatedly subject to prolonged droughts
(U.S. Geological Survey 2004). When the tidewater goby was proposed for
listing as endangered in 1992 (57 FR 58770; December 11, 1992),
California had just experienced what is considered the most severe
drought in the history of the State; the drought lasted for 5 years
from 1987 to 1992 (Priest et al. 1993, p. 1). Although some localities
may have actually been occupied but at such low numbers as to be
undetectable, at the time of listing in 1994, we concluded that all but
43 tidewater goby localities had been extirpated. During such periods,
when the number of localities is severely reduced or the size of
populations declines drastically, the risk of extinction increases.
Drought conditions, when combined with human-induced water
reductions (diversions of water from streams, excessive groundwater
withdrawals), have degraded coastal and riparian ecosystems and have
created extremely stressful conditions for most aquatic species,
including the tidewater goby. Drought can have dramatic negative
effects on tidewater gobies, at times decreasing their populations to
very low levels (perhaps to the point where they are undetectable) and
at the extreme, extirpating populations. For example, we state in the
final listing rule for the tidewater goby (59 FR 5494; February 4,
1994) that formerly large populations of tidewater gobies had declined
in numbers because of the reduced availability of suitable lagoon
habitats (San Simeon Creek and Pico Creek in San Luis Obispo County),
while others disappeared when the lagoons dried (as seen at Santa Rosa
Creek, San Luis Obispo County).
Despite the tidewater goby's negative response to the extreme
drought of 1987-1992, when normal rainfall patterns returned, the
species either recolonized localities that had been dry or numbers
increased in localities where drought conditions had reduced numbers to
an undetectable level. When the species was listed in 1994, this level
of resiliency was not well-documented.
[[Page 14357]]
By the time we conducted our 5-year review of the species' status
(Service 2007), the overall tidewater goby population numbers had
continued to rise, and we concluded that the tidewater goby was much
more resilient than previously believed, thus leading us to conclude
that the species may not be at risk of imminent extinction.
Flooding following severe storm events can wash tidewater gobies
out of an estuary, which may play an important role in recolonizing
localities where the species has been extirpated (Lafferty et al.
1999a, p. 1448). The mixing of freshwater from a flood and the
saltwater offshore, and the resulting reduction in salinity, may allow
tidewater gobies to make limited alongshore migrations to other
suitable habitat. Evidence indicates that this is part of the mechanism
that has allowed the species to recover its numbers following the 1987-
1992 drought in California. Conversely, the potential positive effects
of flooding may be negated when channelization has occurred upstream
and alters the flood dynamics of the system. In these cases,
channelization can increase the duration and intensity of flood events,
not only contributing to loss of tidewater gobies from the estuary, but
also reducing the likelihood of recolonization because the high volume
flows of water may prevent tidewater gobies from entering an estuary
they might otherwise be able to colonize.
Stochastic events may have both positive and negative effects on
the tidewater goby. Drought has been shown to have substantial negative
effects on the species by drying up estuaries and reducing the
population size at individual localities. In a positive sense, periodic
flooding may promote dispersal and colonization between estuaries that
are otherwise separated by beaches or bluffs by allowing tidewater
gobies to move along the coast when salinity would otherwise be too
high under non-flood conditions. Under certain situations, flooding may
also have a negative effect on the tidewater goby; when upstream
modifications for flood control alter the intensity of outflow through
an estuary, tidewater gobies may be flushed into the ocean and
prevented from returning when flows are too strong for them to
navigate. As discussed under the section on climate change, we expect
the freshwater flows into coastal estuaries to decrease over time as
droughts become more frequent or severe. This combination of factors
could have a substantial negative impact on tidewater goby habitat in
the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
For Factor E, we conclude that some aspects of the threats due to
other natural or manmade factors are currently having a negative effect
on the tidewater goby, while others may be acting on the species but
the effects do not appear to be significant. For example, competition
for resources is always a concern for wildlife, and we know competition
from nonnative species has operated negatively on some populations and
may have resulted in the extirpation of one tidewater goby locality;
however, the best available scientific and commercial information does
not indicate that competition is significantly impacting the tidewater
goby at current population levels, and we consider competition to be a
minor threat to the species as a whole. We also note that water quality
was poor in many localities occupied by the tidewater goby in 2005, and
that even more of its localities may have experienced declining water
quality since then; however, the best available information has not
established a link between water quality and an impact on tidewater
goby populations.
In contrast, habitat fragmentation has been shown to be a concern
both for wildlife in general and especially for a species like the
tidewater goby that exists as metapopulations for which connectivity
may be critical for their persistence and for the maintenance of
genetic diversity that imparts fitness in the face of environmental
change. Stochastic events like periodic drought are of special concern
because we have observed the number of occupied localities drop to as
low as 43 at the height of a prolonged drought. This means that any
time we enter a period of drought, tidewater goby numbers are likely to
drop; however, we have also seen that the tidewater goby populations
are resilient in the face of such events and population numbers can
rebound when climatic conditions change. We conclude that the threat
due to habitat fragmentation persists throughout the species' range,
and that the effects of stochastic events may be severe, such as may
occur during the next drought, similar to the drought of the late 1980s
and early 1990s. The tidewater goby has shown its ability to recover
from the effects of drought once rainfall returns, but the effects of
the other natural or manmade factors (such as fragmentation) may
persist.
Cumulative Impacts
As noted in the sections above, some of the threats to the
tidewater goby may be exacerbated under certain conditions where the
individual threats may not otherwise be severe. While any likely
combination of threats will have an additive effect on the species in a
particular location, any of the threats combined with drought would
appear to pose the greatest risk to the tidewater goby. As observed
when the tidewater goby was listed as endangered in 1994 after several
years of drought in California, the species declined to the point where
the Service believed it faced extinction. A drought of the magnitude
that lead to the species' listing could have the same impact, but even
short periods of drought may have a substantial effect on individual
populations if other threats are in place.
For example, we recognize that predation by nonnative species is
likely not a major factor in the tidewater goby's status overall,
although it may be important in some localities (Service 2007, p. 22).
However, because predation may depress population numbers in some
areas, another factor, such as drought, may have a greater effect
because the population is already reduced or stressed by the presence
of predators. We can conclude that such a locality is more likely to
lose its tidewater goby population during a drought than one where
predation is not an additional stressor.
A more dramatic cumulative effect resulting from drought may be due
to upstream diversion or withdrawal of water from drainages. Where
water may already be limited due to upstream uses before it can reach
tidewater goby habitat and create the brackish conditions the species
requires, even a small period of drought is likely to cause the
species' habitat to dry up; this is especially of concern at smaller
watersheds. If the drought is extended, the return of tidewater gobies
to that locality would be dependent on proper functioning of the
metapopulation dynamics that allow recolonization from adjacent
refugia, as we conclude happened at the end of the drought in the late
1980s and early 1990s in California.
This same principle applies to those localities where threats such
as water pollution, upstream barriers, and disease or parasites may be
a limiting factor in the tidewater goby's numbers. Because adequate
water supply is critical to the species' life cycle, large declines in
water in the tidewater goby's habitat are likely to exacerbate threats
that alone are not limiting.
A cursory review of the known occupied localities and the threats
identified for those localities (Service 2005, Appendix E) does not
reveal a correlation between the number of
[[Page 14358]]
threats and the status of the tidewater goby at those localities. In
other words, localities with a large number of threats do not appear to
have lower or more variable population densities than locations with
fewer threats. The most likely correlation is between the status and
the size of the habitat, with larger habitats having abundant numbers
and less vulnerable populations (Service 2005, Appendix E). A more
vigorous statistical analysis may reveal some pattern of correlation,
but we conclude that combinations of threats and the cumulative impact
on tidewater goby populations in those localities with smaller habitats
are likely to be greater than they are for larger habitat localities.
The reasons for this include the following: (1) There are more refugia
in larger habitats; (2) threats are more dispersed; and (3) larger
habitats are less vulnerable to short-term impacts.
Summary of Factors
The primary factors that led to the listing of the tidewater goby
as endangered in 1994 were: (1) The tidewater goby had been extirpated
from nearly 50 percent of the lagoons and estuaries it had inhabited
due to habitat alteration (channelization, water diversions, etc.) and
drought; (2) only 43 populations remained, of which only 8 were
considered large enough to be stable; and (3) the tidewater goby was
threatened by development, water quality issues, and other habitat
alterations. We concluded in the 1994 listing rule that the downward
trend in the tidewater goby's populations was likely to continue;
however, when the prolonged drought in California ended and normal
rainfall patterns resumed, the number of occupied localities grew
through recolonization (or apparent recolonization as greater numbers
increased the species' detectability) from 43 up to 114 as of the
publication of the final revised critical habitat designation (78 FR
8746), showing the species' resiliency in the face of changing
conditions. The other factors that led to the tidewater goby's listing
are still acting on the species, but it appears that they are not
severe enough at current population levels to place the species
currently in danger of extinction.
As an example, our analysis of Factor A concludes that the
destruction, modification, or curtailment of tidewater goby habitat is
currently a threat, and we expect the threat to continue in the future.
While the elements that constitute the Factor A threats (habitat
disturbance, sandbar breaching, etc.) that destroy, modify, or curtail
habitat are having a negative effect on tidewater goby habitat
throughout its range, we conclude that impacts to the tidewater goby
from these relatively small projects and activities are not having a
substantial effect on the species throughout its range. This is based
on the fact that these threats were in place prior to and after the
species was listed in 1994 and have continued, yet the tidewater goby
rebounded from a severe drought in the face of the Factor A elements
(other than climate change). This indicates that the Factor A threats
alone are not severe enough to cause the species' decline.
We further conclude that predation or disease alone are not a
significant threat to the tidewater goby, although we do have evidence
that predation by nonnative fishes may have contributed to the
extirpation of some populations. Throughout the species' range, the
loss of tidewater goby populations has not been attributed solely to
disease, parasites, predation, or competition from other species, and
the best available information indicates that such threats are
currently only moderately important in the species' survival, although
such threats may exacerbate or combine with other threats to increase
the species' vulnerability. While we conclude these are only moderately
important threats, we cannot reasonably predict whether new nonnative
species will be introduced, to what extent they will become established
in tidewater goby habitat, and what their effects will be on tidewater
goby populations. We may draw different conclusions regarding future
introductions of nonnative species, depending on the specific
circumstances.
The listing of the tidewater goby under the Act benefits the
species in several ways. For example, listing under the Act often
requires coordination with the Service if the tidewater goby is present
in a project area so that conservation of that species can be
considered in the planning and implementation, and requires interagency
consultation if a federal action may affect a listed species to ensure
that such action is not likely to jeopardize the listed species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. Another potential
benefit of the Act is under section 6, which authorizes us to enter
into cooperative conservation agreements with States, and to allocate
funds for conservation programs to benefit endangered or threatened
species. Reclassifying tidewater goby from endangered to threatened
would not change any the protections afforded to this species under the
Act or other regulations.
With the addition of three new regulations enacted subsequent to
the listing of the tidewater goby, existing regulations have slowed the
loss, especially on a large scale, of the tidewater goby's habitat. One
of the new regulations in particular, the Sikes Act Improvement Act,
has resulted in substantial new protections to the tidewater goby and
its habitat in southern California.
Although regulations are in place that provide substantial
protections to the tidewater goby and its habitat, small-scale loss of
habitat continues to occur throughout the range of the species as many
regulations allow impacts to habitat to occur under certain conditions,
and we therefore conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to protect the tidewater goby without the additional
protections afforded under the Act.
From our review of the most recent data and analyses, we conclude
that sea levels are rising and may eventually eliminate much of the
tidewater goby habitat due to seawater intrusion and changes in
hydrology. Combined with past habitat losses and current threats, sea
level rise due to climate change poses a severe threat to the species'
survival. While sea level rise is occurring and has been since the last
century, and we can project what effect rising sea levels will have on
the tidewater goby, sea level rise is happening gradually, and
demonstrable effects to the tidewater goby will only be manifested
after decades of global temperature increases. Habitat at some
localities that are small in size and constrained by natural or manmade
features will be lost. Some larger localities are less constrained and
new habitat may form in upstream areas, but the number of sites where
this is likely to occur is limited. While gobies may persist at a
limited number of larger sites, by that time, the numbers and sizes of
tidewater goby populations will be reduced and populations will be more
vulnerable to remaining threats. Thus, sea level rise is a threat to
the species in the foreseeable future, but is not an imminent threat.
The tidewater goby is facing numerous threats, including habitat
loss from multiple sources, habitat fragmentation due to the loss of
stepping stone localities between populations, disruption of
metapopulation dynamics and loss of genetic exchange among populations,
predation and nonnative competitors, alterations to hydrology (for
example, sandbar breaching and channelization), changes in water
quality, stochastic events such as drought, and the growing
[[Page 14359]]
and inevitable impact of sea level rise. While some of these threats
can singly have a substantial impact on individual tidewater goby
localities, in most cases it is the combined impact of those threats
with prolonged drought and eventually sea level rise that will have the
greatest effect on the species.
Recovery Plan
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include:
``Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of [section 4 of the
Act], that the species be removed from the list.'' However, revisions
to the list (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect
determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the
Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a
species is endangered or threatened (or not) because of one or more of
five threat factors. Section 4(b) of the Act requires that the
determination be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.'' Therefore, recovery criteria should help
indicate when we would anticipate an analysis of the five threat
factors under section 4(a)(1) would result in a determination that the
species is no longer an endangered species or threatened species
because of any of the five statutory factors.
Thus, while recovery plans provide important guidance to the
Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to
listed species and measurable objectives against which to measure
progress towards recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the
status of or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately based on an analysis
of the best scientific and commercial data then available to determine
whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened
species, regardless of whether that information differs from the
recovery plan.
The Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby was approved by the
Service on December 7, 2005 (Service 2005). The recovery plan has as
its overall recovery objective to downlist the species to threatened
status, then delist. The primary objective of the recovery plan is to
manage the threats to and improve the population status of the
tidewater goby sufficiently to warrant reclassification (from
endangered to threatened status) or delisting.
The recovery plan established the following criteria for
downlisting the tidewater goby from endangered to threatened (Service
2005, pp. 40-41):
(1)(a) Specific threats to each metapopulation, such as habitat
destruction and alteration (including coastal development, upstream
diversion, channelization of rivers and streams, discharge of
agriculture and sewage effluents), introduced predators (such as
centrarchid fishes), and competition with introduced species (yellowfin
and chameleon gobies, for example), have been addressed through the
development and implementation of individual management plans that
cumulatively cover the full range of the species.
(1)(b) A metapopulation viability analysis based on scientifically
credible monitoring over a 10-year period indicates that each Recovery
Unit is viable, with at least 5 subunits in the North Coast Unit, 8
subunits in the Greater Bay Unit, 3 subunits in the Central Coast Unit,
3 subunits in the Conception Unit, 1 subunit in the Los Angeles/Ventura
Unit, and 2 subunits in the South Coast Unit to individually having a
75 percent chance of persisting for 100 years.
The first criterion was intended to identify the point at which
specific threats to each metapopulation were being adequately managed
and addressed. Under criterion (1)(a), some of the past habitat
alteration has been addressed through implementation of existing
regulations (such as the Clean Water Act), although it has not been
eliminated. Only limited, rangewide efforts to eliminate introduced
predators have been implemented for the benefit of the tidewater goby.
The only management plans of which we are aware that address
conservation of the tidewater goby are the INRMPs for MCB Camp
Pendleton and VAFB, and plans under development for Mission Creek in
Santa Barbara County, the Santa Clara River estuary in Ventura County,
and Malibu Lagoon in Los Angeles County. In any case, plans to manage
specific threats to the tidewater goby do not cumulatively cover the
full range of the species; therefore, recovery criterion 1(a) has not
been fully met. However, as discussed above, we have determined that
the threats this criterion was intended to address are not as severe as
previously thought. We conclude that none of these threats is likely to
cause the imminent extinction of the tidewater goby, and therefore, the
threats are sufficiently reduced that the requirement to have plans
specifically addressing them is no longer an appropriate criterion for
downlisting the species to threatened.
The second criterion was intended to indicate whether the species
has responded as expected to measures to reduce threats and to ensure
that the tidewater goby remains well-distributed and resilient in the
face of stochastic events throughout its range. None of the
metapopulation viability analyses described in the recovery plan
(criterion 1(b)) have been completed, as far as we know. While
metapopulation viability analyses have not been conducted, the
tidewater goby currently occurs at localities in all six recovery
units. The species now occupies nearly three times as many localities
as it did at the time of listing, indicating the species is more
resilient than previously thought. While we do not have detailed
analyses of viability for individual metapopulations, the species'
ability to respond positively to the end of drought conditions over
approximately a 20-year period and for populations to be recolonized or
recover, indicates the species likely has generally exhibited positive
demographic characteristics such as reproductive rate and survival. So,
while criterion (1)(b) has not been met, we conclude we have sufficient
evidence that the species has responded positively to the end of the
drought and that previously identified threats have not had as severe
an effect on the species as expected.
Despite the fact that none of the downlisting criteria from the
recovery plan have been fully achieved, we have concluded that other
factors presented in this proposed rule provide sufficient support for
our determination. When the tidewater goby was listed in 1994, the
number of occupied localities had dropped to 43 in the face of an
extended drought, and we were not certain that the unoccupied
localities would be recolonized after the drought ended. We had
concluded that the species' downward trend would continue due to the
other threats, so even when the drought ended we believed the tidewater
goby would continue to decline. Upon the resumption of ``normal''
rainfall patterns, the number of localities found to be occupied
rebounded to almost three times the number known in 1992, when listing
was first proposed, despite the continuing effects of the remaining
threats. This indicated to us that species
[[Page 14360]]
was more resilient than we had known and that the low numbers seen in
response to drought did not mean the species was in imminent danger of
extinction. Also, the number of occupied localities had increased so
much that even in the face of the ongoing threats and the likelihood
that these would continue to affect the tidewater goby in the future,
the species is no longer currently at risk of extinction.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). In our analysis of the
5 factors relating to the species' status we have reached the following
conclusions:
Factor A (The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range): We have found that the tidewater
goby is currently experiencing some habitat loss and will continue to
experience small losses in the foreseeable future. We do not anticipate
any repeat of the large losses that occurred prior to regulations that
protected coastal wetlands. At the time of listing in 1994, when the
tidewater goby occupied only 43 localities and a severe drought was
ending, habitat loss posed a relatively greater threat to species.
After the drought ended, the number of localities known to be occupied
by tidewater gobies has increased to at least 114, and currently
available information does not indicate that habitat loss alone is
having a substantial effect on the tidewater goby's numbers or
distribution. We do anticipate that global sea level rise will have a
profound effect on the species' habitat in the foreseeable future;
however, we do not believe that the threat from sea level rise is
imminent. While sea level rise is occurring and has been since the last
century, the change has been and will be gradual, perhaps over decades
instead of months or years. The threats discussed under Factor A are
not likely to cause the tidewater goby's extinction in the near future;
however, sea level rise by itself poses a substantial threat to the
species that, while not an imminent threat, is reasonably foreseeable
and could lead to the species' extinction.
Factor B (Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes): We found no evidence of risk to the tidewater
goby from overutilization, nor do we anticipate any such impacts to the
species in the foreseeable future.
Factor C (Disease or Predation): Parasites and nonnative predators
are likely to be having some negative effects on the tidewater goby.
Our review of the available information does not indicate that these
negative effects are reducing the tidewater goby's numbers rangewide,
but may act in concert with other stressors to have a greater impact at
a local level. Disease or predation alone are not sufficient to cause
the species' extinction in the foreseeable future.
Factor D (Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms): Existing
regulations have been effective at protecting the tidewater goby from
large-scale habitat loss, and the enactment of the Sikes Act
Improvement Act subsequent to listing has been a major benefit to the
species in southern California. However, small-scale, localized habitat
loss and alteration continue to occur, and existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to protect the tidewater goby without the
additional protections afforded under the Act.
Factor E (Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence): We conclude that some natural or human-caused factors are
having a negative effect on the tidewater goby, but we cannot
reasonably determine whether the effects of some other factors are
negatively impacting the tidewater goby. Habitat fragmentation (natural
or anthropogenic) and stochastic events (like drought) have clearly had
a negative impact on the tidewater goby since the species has been
monitored. However, the best available information does not indicate
that competition with other species (native or nonnative) and poor
water quality are having an influence on the species' overall status.
Our conclusion is that drought and additional fragmentation are
foreseeable threats to the tidewater goby and could contribute to the
species' extinction in the future, while the rangewide influence of
other factors cannot be demonstrated.
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the tidewater goby is
not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, but instead is
threatened; that is, the species is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
Having examined the status of the tidewater goby throughout all its
range and determined that the species is threatened throughout all its
range, we next examine whether the species is in danger of extinction
in a significant portion of its range. The range of a species can
theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways;
however, there is no purpose in analyzing portions of the range that
have no reasonable potential to be significant or in analyzing portions
of the range in which there is no reasonable potential for the species
to be endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that
warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is
substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be
``significant'' and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction
there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Depending
on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it
might be more efficient for us to address the significance question
first or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is
``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout
its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of threats to the species occurs only in
portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the
biologically based definition of ``significant,'' such portions will
not warrant further consideration.
The geographic range of the tidewater goby is limited to the coast
of California (Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262; Swift et al. 1989, p.
12). The species historically occurred from 5 km (3 mi) south of the
California-Oregon border (Tillas Slough in Del Norte County) to 71 km
(44 mi) north of the United States-Mexico border (Agua Hedionda Lagoon
in San Diego County). The available documentation suggests the
northernmost locality that forms one end of the historical and current
geographic range of the tidewater goby has not changed over time (see
for example, Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262; Swift et al. 1989, p. 12).
Tidewater gobies do not currently occur in Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and
the species' southernmost known extant occurrence is the San Luis Rey
River 8 km (5 mi) north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
[[Page 14361]]
Although the northernmost and southernmost extent of the tidewater
goby's range has not changed much over time, the species' distribution
within the historical range has become patchy and fragmented.
Tidewater gobies are naturally absent from several large (80 to 217
km (50 to 135 mi)) stretches of coastline lacking lagoons or estuaries,
and with steep topography or swift currents that may prevent the
species from dispersing between adjacent localities (Earl et al. 2010,
p. 104; Swift et al. 1989, p. 13). One such gap of approximately 160 km
(100 mi) occurs from the Eel River in Humboldt County to Ten Mile River
in Mendocino County. A second gap of approximately 97 km (60 mi) occurs
between Lagoon Creek in Mendocino County to Salmon Creek in Sonoma
County. Another large, natural gap of approximately 160 km (100 mi)
occurs between the Salinas River in Monterey County and Arroyo del Oso
in San Luis Obispo County. The southernmost gap, which is most likely
the result of habitat loss and alteration, occurs between the Los
Angeles Basin (city of Santa Monica, western Los Angeles County) and
San Mateo Creek (MCB Camp Pendleton, San Diego County), a distance of
approximately 130 km (80 mi).
Habitat loss and other anthropogenic (human-caused) factors have
resulted in the tidewater goby now being absent from several localities
where it historically occurred. These disappearances from specific
localities have created smaller, artificial gaps in the species'
geographic distribution (Capelli 1997, p. 7). Such localities include
San Francisco Bay in San Francisco and Alameda Counties, and Redwood
Creek and Freshwater Lagoon in Humboldt County. In central and northern
California, Swift (in litt. 2007) believes it very unlikely that
genetic interchange is possible between several groups of populations
naturally separated by 32 km (20 mi) or more of rugged coastline. As
anthropogenic gaps are created of equal or greater distance,
recolonization and genetic exchange becomes less likely.
Swift et al. (1989, p. 13) reported that, as of 1984, tidewater
gobies occurred, or had been known to occur, at 87 localities. This
included localities at the extreme northern and southern end of the
species' historical geographic range. An assessment of the species'
distribution in 1993, using records that were limited to the area
between the Monterey Peninsula in Monterey County and the United
States-Mexico border, found tidewater gobies occurring at four
additional sites since 1984 (Swift et al. 1993, p. 129). Other
tidewater goby localities have been identified since 1993. Considering
all of the known historical and currently occupied sites, tidewater
gobies have been documented at 135 localities, and of these 135
localities, 21 (16 percent) are no longer known to be occupied by
tidewater gobies (78 FR 8746). Therefore, we conclude that 114
localities are currently occupied (see Figure 1, above). These
localities are not regularly monitored so the current status of
tidewater goby in many of these places may have changed.
Given their patchy distribution and metapopulation dynamics of
extirpation and recolonization, no individual area is likely to be of
greater biological or conservation importance than any other area.
Additionally, all recovery units, which span the entire extent of the
species' range, are currently occupied, so no major portion of the
species' range has been lost. Therefore, we conclude that the lost
historical range is not a significant portion of the tidewater goby's
range.
To further identify potentially significant portions of the range
that might warrant further analysis, we considered whether the threats
facing the tidewater goby are geographically concentrated or different
in some fashion, which could indicate a portion or portions of the
range where the species is likely to be endangered and could warrant
further consideration of whether it is a significant portion of the
species' range.
In the recovery plan (Service 2005, pp. 30-35), we divided the
range of the tidewater goby into six recovery units based on observed
genetic and morphological differences. Each of the recovery units
provides important increments of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation that contribute to the species' long-term viability. In
our five-factor analysis in this proposed rule, based on the best
available information we have identified several threats to the species
including small-scale habitat loss, nonnative predators, habitat
fragmentation, and competition with other species (see Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species section). All these threats occur in each
of the recovery units, and the threats are not concentrated more in one
unit than another. Additionally, as described above, a cursory review
of the known occupied localities and the threats identified for those
localities (Service 2005, Appendix E) does not reveal a correlation
between the number of threats and the status of the tidewater goby at
those localities. In other words, localities with a large number of
threats do not appear to have lower or more variable population
densities than locations with fewer threats. While threats may vary
from locality to locality, differences in number and type of threats
don't appear to be causing a greater risk of extirpation in some
localities as opposed to others. More importantly, the most serious
threats to the tidewater goby are drought and sea level rise, which
would have relatively the same effect on each recovery unit. Therefore,
we find that none of the six recovery units is likely to be at greater
risk of extinction than any other, and therefore none warrants further
consideration as potentially endangered significant portions of the
range.
Southern California, in particular, could potentially be considered
a significant portion of the range for two reasons: (1) In 1999, the
Service proposed that threats to the tidewater goby were more
concentrated and therefore more severe in the southern California
portion of the species' range than they were elsewhere in the range to
the north because only six occupied localities remained in southern
California (64 FR 33816), and (2) tidewater gobies in the southern
California portion of the range have been found to be genetically
distinct from those in the rest of the range (see Species Information
section). Since the Service's 1999 proposal, tidewater gobies now occur
at two additional localities bringing the total occupied localities in
southern California to eight. More importantly, as discussed under
factor D, MCB Camp Pendleton's INRMP, which was put into effect
subsequent to the 1999 proposal, provides substantial protections for
seven of the eight populations that occur in southern California that
were not in place at the time of the proposed rule. Therefore, we no
longer consider threats in southern California to be more severe or
different from other areas, and therefore conclude the tidewater goby
is not likely to be danger of extinction (as opposed to the rangewide
status of threatened) in the southern California portion of its range.
In summary, we did not find that any portion of the species' range
has a greater concentration of threats than others and, therefore,
conclude that no portion warrants further consideration.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the tidewater goby is
no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, but instead is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
[[Page 14362]]
its range. The species more appropriately meets the definition of a
threatened species. Therefore, we propose to reclassify the tidewater
goby from an endangered species to a threatened species.
Effects of This Rule
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to
reclassify the tidewater goby from endangered to threatened. This rule
formally recognizes that this species is no longer in imminent danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
However, this reclassification does not significantly change the
protection afforded this species under the Act. The regulatory
protections of section 9 and section 7 of the Act remain in place.
Anyone taking, attempting to take, or otherwise possessing a tidewater
goby or parts thereof, in violation of section 9 of the Act, is still
subject to a penalty under section 11 of the Act, unless their action
is covered under a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act. At this
time, we are not proposing a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act
for the tidewater goby. Under section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies
must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the tidewater goby.
Recovery actions directed at the tidewater goby will continue to be
implemented as outlined in the recovery plan for the tidewater goby
(Service 2005), including development of management plans such as those
at MCB Camp Pendleton and VAFB.
Required Determinations
Clarity of This Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is
available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-
0001 or upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the
Service's Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11 by revising the entry for ``Goby, tidewater'' in
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Goby, tidewater.................. Eucyclogobius U.S.A. (CA)........ Entire............. T 527 17.95(e) NA
newberryi.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: March 5, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-05335 Filed 3-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P