Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Monongahela River Basin Population of the Longnose Sucker as Endangered, 10477-10480 [E7-4081]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Flooding source(s)
* Elevation in feet (NGVD)
+ Elevation in feet (NAVD)
# Depth in feet above
ground
Location of referenced elevation
Effective
10477
Communities affected
Modified
Tributary 8 ......................
At the confluence with Uwharrie River .........................
None
+557
Walkers Creek ......................
Approximately 190 feet upstream of Alexandria Drive
At the confluence with Uwharrie River .........................
None
None
+663
+376
Approximately 1,775 feet upstream of the confluence
with Uwharrie River.
None
Randolph County (Unincorporated Areas), City
of Archdale.
+385
Randolph County (Unincorporated Areas).
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
# Depth in feet above ground.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
ADDRESSES
Randolph County (Unincorporated Areas)
Maps are available for inspection at the Randolph County Planning and Zoning Department, 725 McDowell Road, Asheboro, North Carolina.
Send comments to Mr. Richard T. Wells, Randolph County Manager, P.O. Box 4728, Asheboro, North Carolina 27204–4728.
City of Archdale
Maps are available for inspection at the Archdale City Hall, 307 Balfour Drive, Archdale, North Carolina.
Send comments to The Honorable Bert Lance Stone, Mayor of the City of Archdale, P.O. Box 14068, Archdale, North Carolina 27263.
City of Trinity
Maps are available for inspection at the Trinity City Hall, 6701 NC Highway 62, Trinity, North Carolina.
Send comments to The Honorable Fran Andrews, Mayor of the City of Trinity, P.O. Box 50, Trinity, North Carolina 27370.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)
Dated: February 28, 2007.
David I. Maurstad,
Director, Mitigation Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department
of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E7–4155 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Monongahela River
Basin Population of the Longnose
Sucker as Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the
Monongahela River Basin population of
Catostomus catostomus (longnose
sucker) as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We find that the petition
does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing C. catostomus may be warranted.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:51 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
This finding is based on our
determination that there is insufficient
evidence to indicate that the
Monongahela River Basin population of
C. catostomus represents a distinct
population segment (DPS) and,
therefore, it cannot be considered a
listable entity under section 3(15) of the
Act. Accordingly, we will not initiate a
status review in response to this
petition. However, the public may at
any time submit to us information
concerning whether the Monongahela
River Basin population of Catostomus
catostomus meets the DPS criteria for
this otherwise widespread species.
The finding announced in this
document was made on March 8, 2007.
DATES:
The complete file for this
finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the
Pennsylvania Field Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 315 South Allen
Street, Suite 322, State College, PA
16801. Submit new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning the status of or threats to
this taxon to us at the above address.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Densmore, Supervisor,
Pennsylvania Field Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES)
(telephone 814–234–4090; facsimile
814–234–0748).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that we make a
finding on whether a petition to list,
delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information
provided in the petition, supporting
information submitted with the petition,
and information otherwise available in
our files at the time we make the
determination. To the maximum extent
practicable, we are to make this finding
within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition, and publish our notice of this
finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial
information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of
information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we
find that substantial information was
presented, we are required to promptly
commence a review of the status of the
species.
In making this finding, we relied on
information provided by the petitioners
and otherwise available in our files at
the time of the petition review and
evaluated this information in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our
process of making a 90-day finding
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
10478
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and
section 424.14(b) of our regulations is
limited to a determination of whether
the information in the petition meets the
‘‘substantial information’’ threshold.
Unless otherwise noted, the following
summary regarding the species, its
distribution, and taxonomy was
provided in the petition.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Petition
On December 27, 2002, we received a
formal petition from the Fisheries
Technical Committee of the
Pennsylvania Biological Survey to list a
population of longnose sucker
(Catostomus catostomus), that is
restricted to the Monongahela River
Basin, as an endangered species under
section 4 of the Act. The petition also
requested that subsequent to listing, the
Service make a definitive determination
of the population’s taxonomic status,
address direct and potential threats,
investigate life history, and reintroduce
the species within its historic range in
the Monongahela River Basin.
Action on the petition was precluded
by court orders and settlement
agreements for other listing actions that
required nearly all of our listing funds
for fiscal year 2003. A letter was sent to
the petitioners on January 17, 2003,
acknowledging receipt of the petition
and explaining the reasons for the delay
in processing.
Species Information
Catostomus catostomus, or longnose
sucker, is a member of the family
Catostomidae, a group of freshwater,
principally substrate foraging fishes.
This species was described by Forster in
1773, based on specimens collected
from tributaries to the Hudson Bay. The
subject of the petition is a disjunct
population that occurs in the
Monongahela River drainage in West
Virginia, western Maryland, and
southwestern Pennsylvania. This
southern population is geographically
separated from the larger range of the
fish. According to the petition, no other
populations are known from the Ohio
River drainage, or any other Mississippi
River basin tributaries, excepting the
Missouri River (Gilbert & Lee, 1980;
Page and Burr, 1991).
The petition utilizes several
references regarding longnose sucker
life history and habitat (e.g., Harris
1962; Becker 1983; Cooper 1983; Geen
et al., 1966; Smith 1985). None are
specific to longnose suckers in the
Monongahela River system, but present
general information concerning
longnose sucker habitats and life
history. Longnose suckers occur in
clear, cold waters throughout much of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:51 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
northern North America and parts of
eastern Asia. Those in the Monongahela
River Basin generally occur in small to
medium-sized streams, most often in
deeper pools with either boulder-rubble
substrate or a significant amount of
coarse, woody debris. These pools and
runs (streams) are usually immediately
below faster-flowing riffle areas. On the
basis of available information, the
Monongahela River population occurs
primarily in clear, cool streams, which
appear to be consistent with habitats
utilized elsewhere throughout its range.
The petitioners do not reference
specific studies regarding reproductive
behavior of the longnose sucker
population in the Monongahela River
Basin, but the species has been
documented to spawn in water
temperatures ranging from 10 to 15
degrees Celsius (50 to 59 degrees
Fahrenheit), with schools of the fish
gathering over gravel substrates in
stream riffles and lake shoals. Longnose
suckers exhibit high fecundity, with egg
counts ranging from 17,000 to more than
60,000 per female. Annual survival of
eggs and fry is low, leading to low
annual recruitment into juvenile age
classes. The species has been
documented to begin to reach maturity
at 4 years of age for males and 5 years
of age for females in western Lake
Superior. Longnose suckers exhibit
some variation in mature size across
their range; the largest individual
recorded was a 642 millimeter (mm)
(25.3 inches) female estimated to be 19
years old from Great Slave Lake,
Northwest Territories, Canada.
Populations of apparently ‘‘stunted’’
individuals have also been reported in
parts of the species’ range. Whether
environmentally influenced or genetic,
the largest specimen recorded from the
Monongahela River drainage is less than
250 mm.
Distribution
The longnose sucker is among the
most widely distributed of North
American freshwater fishes, ranging, in
the east from western Labrador and
Quebec; south to West Virginia; west to
Nebraska, Colorado, and Washington;
and north throughout most of Alaska
and Canada, including the Arctic and
extending into eastern Siberia. The
Monongahela River drainage in West
Virginia, western Maryland, and
southwestern Pennsylvania supports the
disjunct population that is the subject of
the petition.
The petition reports 39 collection
records for the longnose sucker from the
Monongahela River Basin (with
references including Jordon 1878,
Goldsborough and Clark 1908, and
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Hendricks 1980). With the exception of
a collection record from the Tygart
Valley River, West Virginia, and the
Youghiogheny River (a Monongahela
River tributary), Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, longnose sucker
collection records are restricted to a
Youghiogheny River tributary drainage,
the Casselman River Basin in Garrett
County, Maryland and Somerset
County, Pennsylvania. The most recent
reported collection from Maryland was
in 1978, and the species is considered
to be extirpated from the State
(Maryland Department of Natural
Resources 2004). The petition concludes
that since 2000, longnose suckers have
only been collected in the Monongahela
River Basin in Pennsylvania within
reaches of four Casselman River
tributary streams: Elklick Creek,
Flaugherty Creek, Piney Creek, and
Whites Creek.
Taxonomy
The petition references McPhail and
Taylor (1990) in asserting that across the
species’ range, longnose suckers are
morphologically variable, with some
evidence of eastern and western
divergence across North America.
However, no such variation is described
for the population in the Monongahela
River Basin. The Monongahela River
Basin is geographically separated from
other waters supporting this species by
a watershed divide; the closest
population is the one that occurs in the
Lake Erie Basin, more than 257
kilometers (km) (160 miles (mi)) to the
north. The petitioners present
information that theorizes that longnose
suckers in the Monongahela River Basin
became isolated from the main
populations to the north through stream
capture and changing flow patterns that
occurred during the Wisconsin glacial
retreat, and that this subpopulation may
have persisted in the Monongahela
River Basin for 15,000 years or more.
The petitioners suggest that this period
of isolation may have resulted in genetic
differences from other longnose sucker
populations. They indicate that the
Salish sucker, a longnose sucker
population native to the Frazier River
and Puget Sound, Canada, appears to be
genetically distinct from other
northwestern longnose suckers. The
petition uses this example to suggest
that the Monongahela River population
of the longnose sucker may also be
genetically distinct from other longnose
sucker populations. However, the
petition does not present any genetic
data or other specific information to
support this hypothesis. Rather, the
petition specifically requests that the
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Service make a ‘‘definitive
determination of its taxonomic status.’’
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
The petitioners have asked us to
consider listing the longnose sucker in
the Monongahela River Basin in
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West
Virginia as endangered. Under the Act,
we can consider for listing any species,
subspecies, or distinct population
segment (DPS) of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife that
interbreeds when mature, if information
is substantial to indicate that such
action may be warranted. To implement
the measures prescribed by the Act and
its Congressional guidance (see Senate
Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session),
we developed a joint policy with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration entitled ‘‘Policy
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments under
the Act’’ (61 FR 4725; February 7, 1996).
According to the Service’s policy on
distinct vertebrate population segments,
the three elements considered regarding
the potential recognition of a DPS as
endangered or threatened are: (1) The
discreteness of the population segment
in relation to the remainder of the
species to which it belongs; (2) the
significance of the population segment
to the species to which it belongs; and
(3) the population segment’s
conservation status in relation to the
Act’s standards for listing (i.e., when
treated as if it were a species, is the
population segment endangered or
threatened?). Following is our
evaluation of these elements in relation
to the petitioned entity, the longnose
sucker in the Monongahela River Basin.
Discreteness: A population segment of
a vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if it is markedly separated from
other populations of the same taxon as
a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors, or if it is delimited by
international governmental boundaries
within which differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
The petition states that the longnose
sucker population in the Monongahela
River Basin is the only population of
this species recorded from the Ohio
River Basin, and is markedly separated
from the rest of the species’ range, with
the nearest population occurring across
a major watershed boundary in the Lake
Erie Basin at least 265 km (160 mi) to
the north (Gilbert and Lee 1980; Page
and Burr 1991). The petition further
hypothesizes that the population in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:51 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
Monongahela River Basin appears to be
a glacial relic and may have been
separated from the larger range of the
species as much as 15,000 years ago
(Hendricks et al. 1983). On the basis of
a review of the information centered
within the petition, we find that the
petition presents substantial evidence to
indicate that the species is markedly
separated from other populations of the
same taxon by physical factors.
Therefore, we conclude that the
longnose sucker population in the
Monongahela River Basin meets the
‘‘discreteness’’ criterion.
Significance: If a population segment
is considered discrete under one or
more of the conditions listed in the
Service’s DPS policy, its biological and
ecological significance will then be
considered in light of Congressional
guidance that the authority to list DPS’s
be used ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging
the conservation of genetic diversity. In
carrying out this evaluation, the Service
considers available scientific evidence
of the potential DPS’s importance to the
taxon to which it belongs. This
consideration may include, but is not
limited to: (1) Persistence of the DPS in
an ecological setting unusual or unique
for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of
the DPS would result in a significant
gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence
that the DPS represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon
that may be more abundant elsewhere as
an introduced population outside its
historic range; or (4) evidence that the
DPS differs markedly from other
populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics. Each of these factors is
discussed below, based on the
information presented in the petition.
Persistence of the population segment
in an ecological setting that is unique
for the taxon. Longnose suckers in the
Monongahela River Basin appear to use
habitat that is similar to stream habitats
used by the species throughout its
range. Although situated geographically
to the south, the ecological setting is
consistent with habitats described
elsewhere in the species’ range (i.e.,
cool, clear streams with gravel and
cobble substrates). Therefore, on the
basis of information provided in the
petition, it is our determination that the
Monongahela River population does not
appear to exist in either an unusual or
unique setting for the species.
Loss of the population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range
of taxon. Both the historic, and current,
range of longnose suckers in the
Monongahela River Basin represents a
very small percentage (less than one
percent) of the species’ overall global
range. While the loss of this population
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10479
would eliminate the species from the
Monongahela River drainage, the
species would continue to exist in over
99 percent of its range. As a result, we
do not believe that a significant gap in
the species’ range would result.
Furthermore, neither the petition nor
information in our files indicates that
loss of this population would result in
a significant gap at the edge of the
species range.
The population segment represents
the only surviving natural occurrence of
a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population
outside its historical range. The
Monongahela River population of the
longnose sucker does not represent the
only surviving natural occurrence of
this species. According to the petition,
the longnose sucker survives naturally
throughout much of northern North
America. Therefore, we have
determined that this criterion is not
relevant to this evaluation.
The discrete population segment
differs markedly from other populations
of the species in its genetic
characteristics. The petitioners
speculate that longnose suckers from the
Monongahela River Basin may be
genetically distinct from longnose
sucker populations to the north and
west, and suggest that this population
may be ‘‘stunted.’’ The petitioners
suggest that because the Salish sucker
(Catostomus catostomus), appears to be
genetically distinct from longnose
sucker populations elsewhere in the
Frazier River and Puget Sound, Canada,
that genetic differences may also exist
between the Monongahela River Basin
population of the longnose sucker and
longnose suckers elsewhere. However,
no data regarding quantitative or
morphological analysis or literature
citations were presented to support the
genetic distinctiveness of the
Monongahela River population of the
longnose sucker, and the petition
recommends that such studies be
initiated. Therefore, on the basis of a
review of the information provided in
the petition, we have determined that
there is insufficient evidence to suggest
that the Monongahela River population
of the longnose sucker differs markedly
from other populations of the longnose
sucker.
Based on an evaluation of each of the
criteria identified in the Service’s DPS
policy under significance relative to the
information provided in the petition, we
have determined that the Monongahela
River Basin population of the longnose
sucker does not meet the ‘‘significance’’
criterion under the Service’s DPS
policy. Because the Monongahela River
Basin population of the longnose sucker
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
10480
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
fails to meet one of the first two criteria
for a distinct vertebrate population
segment per our policy (i.e., the
significance criterion), we have
determined that it is not a listable entity
under the Act. We note that the petition
also fails to present substantial
information that the range of the
longnose sucker within the
Monongahela River Basin may be a
significant portion of the range of the
species. Therefore, we are not
proceeding with an evaluation of its
conservation status relative to the Act’s
standards for listing as endangered or
threatened.
The petition presented information
for the five listing factors in section 4 of
the Act in an effort to identify threats
that may be leading to the decline of the
Monongahela River population of the
longnose sucker. These factors are
pertinent only in cases where the
organism being proposed for listing is a
listable entity as defined by section
3(15) of the Act. Because the
Monongahela River basin population
does not meet the significance criterion
for a DPS, and therefore not a listable
entity, the five threat factors are not
analyzed for that population here.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Finding
We have reviewed the information
presented in the petition, and evaluated
that information in relation to
information readily available in our
files. Based on this review, we find the
petition does not present substantial
information indicating that listing the
Monongahela River population of C.
catostomus may be warranted. This
finding is based on the lack of evidence
to indicate that the Monongahela River
population of C. catostomus meets the
criteria for being classified as a DPS.
Although it is geographically and
reproductively isolated, scientific
evidence was not provided to document
this population’s biological or ecological
significance under the Service’s DPS
policy. Therefore, we have concluded
that the Monongahela River population
of the longnose sucker is not a listable
entity under section 3(15) of the Act. We
will not commence a status review in
response to this petition. We encourage
interested parties to monitor the
Monongahela River population’s status
and trends, and potential threats, and to
implement actions that will contribute
to this species’ conservation. We also
encourage interested parties to continue
to gather data that will assist with these
conservation efforts. New information
regarding this population’s potential
consideration as a DPS should be
submitted to the Field Supervisor,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:51 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
Pennsylvania Field Office (see
ADDRESSES).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available, upon request, from
the Pennsylvania Field Office, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary author of this notice is
Robert M. Anderson, Pennsylvania Field
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: February 23, 2007.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7–4081 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 070302052–7052–01; I.D.
021307B]
RIN 0648–AV09
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Commercial Shark
Management Measures
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would
establish the 2007 second and third
trimester season quotas for large coastal
sharks (LCS), small coastal sharks (SCS),
and pelagic sharks based on over- or
underharvests from the 2006 second and
third trimester seasons. In addition, this
rule proposes the opening and closing
dates for the LCS fishery based on
adjustments to the trimester quotas. The
intended effect of these proposed
actions is to provide advance notice of
quotas and season dates for the Atlantic
commercial shark fishery.
DATES: Written comments will be
accepted until March 28, 2007.
Public hearings will be held from 6–
8 p.m. on March 22 and March 28, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the
proposed rule may be submitted to
LeAnn Southward Hogan, Highly
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Migratory Species Management Division
via:
• E-mail: SF1.021307B@noaa.gov.
• Mail: 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark
on the outside of the envelope
‘‘Comments on Proposed Rule for 2007
2nd & 3rd Trimester Season Lengths and
Quotas.’’
• Fax: 301–713–1917.
• Federal e-Rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Include in the
subject line the following identifier: I.D.
021307B.
The hearing locations are:
1. March 22, 2007 from 6–8 p.m.
Orlando Public Library, 101 E. Central
Blvd., Orlando, FL 32801.
2. March 28, 2007 from 6–8 p.m.
Town Hall, 407 Budleigh Street,
Manteo, NC 27954.
Copies of the draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) and other relevant
document are available from the HMS
website (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/
hms/), or by contacting LeAnn
Southward Hogan (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LeAnn Southward Hogan or Karyl
Brewster-Geisz by phone: 301–713–2347
or by fax: 301–713–1917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Atlantic shark fishery is managed
under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act). NMFS recently finalized a
Consolidated Highly Migratory Species
(HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP)
that consolidated and replaced previous
FMPs for Atlantic Billfish and Atlantic
Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. The
HMS FMP is implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
Currently, the Atlantic shark annual
quotas, with the exception of pelagic
sharks, are split among three regions
based on historic landings (1999–2003).
Consistent with 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(iii)
and (iv), the annual LCS quota (1,017 mt
dw) is split among the three regions as
follows: 52 percent to the Gulf of
Mexico, 41 percent to the South
Atlantic, and 7 percent to the North
Atlantic. The annual SCS quota (454 mt
dw) is split among the three regions as
follows: 10 percent to the Gulf of
Mexico, 87 percent to the South
Atlantic, and 3 percent to the North
Atlantic. The regional quotas for LCS
and SCS are divided equally between
the trimester seasons in the South
Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, and
according to historical landings in the
North Atlantic.
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10477-10480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4081]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Monongahela River Basin Population of the
Longnose Sucker as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Monongahela River Basin
population of Catostomus catostomus (longnose sucker) as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find
that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing C. catostomus may be warranted.
This finding is based on our determination that there is insufficient
evidence to indicate that the Monongahela River Basin population of C.
catostomus represents a distinct population segment (DPS) and,
therefore, it cannot be considered a listable entity under section
3(15) of the Act. Accordingly, we will not initiate a status review in
response to this petition. However, the public may at any time submit
to us information concerning whether the Monongahela River Basin
population of Catostomus catostomus meets the DPS criteria for this
otherwise widespread species.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on March 8,
2007.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Pennsylvania Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 315 South
Allen Street, Suite 322, State College, PA 16801. Submit new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning the status of
or threats to this taxon to us at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Densmore, Supervisor,
Pennsylvania Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
ADDRESSES) (telephone 814-234-4090; facsimile 814-234-0748).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to
indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base
this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting
information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the
maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days
of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding
promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species.
In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the
petitioners and otherwise available in our files at the time of the
petition review and evaluated this information in accordance with 50
CFR 424.14(b). Our process of making a 90-day finding
[[Page 10478]]
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our
regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in
the petition meets the ``substantial information'' threshold. Unless
otherwise noted, the following summary regarding the species, its
distribution, and taxonomy was provided in the petition.
Petition
On December 27, 2002, we received a formal petition from the
Fisheries Technical Committee of the Pennsylvania Biological Survey to
list a population of longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), that is
restricted to the Monongahela River Basin, as an endangered species
under section 4 of the Act. The petition also requested that subsequent
to listing, the Service make a definitive determination of the
population's taxonomic status, address direct and potential threats,
investigate life history, and reintroduce the species within its
historic range in the Monongahela River Basin.
Action on the petition was precluded by court orders and settlement
agreements for other listing actions that required nearly all of our
listing funds for fiscal year 2003. A letter was sent to the
petitioners on January 17, 2003, acknowledging receipt of the petition
and explaining the reasons for the delay in processing.
Species Information
Catostomus catostomus, or longnose sucker, is a member of the
family Catostomidae, a group of freshwater, principally substrate
foraging fishes. This species was described by Forster in 1773, based
on specimens collected from tributaries to the Hudson Bay. The subject
of the petition is a disjunct population that occurs in the Monongahela
River drainage in West Virginia, western Maryland, and southwestern
Pennsylvania. This southern population is geographically separated from
the larger range of the fish. According to the petition, no other
populations are known from the Ohio River drainage, or any other
Mississippi River basin tributaries, excepting the Missouri River
(Gilbert & Lee, 1980; Page and Burr, 1991).
The petition utilizes several references regarding longnose sucker
life history and habitat (e.g., Harris 1962; Becker 1983; Cooper 1983;
Geen et al., 1966; Smith 1985). None are specific to longnose suckers
in the Monongahela River system, but present general information
concerning longnose sucker habitats and life history. Longnose suckers
occur in clear, cold waters throughout much of northern North America
and parts of eastern Asia. Those in the Monongahela River Basin
generally occur in small to medium-sized streams, most often in deeper
pools with either boulder-rubble substrate or a significant amount of
coarse, woody debris. These pools and runs (streams) are usually
immediately below faster-flowing riffle areas. On the basis of
available information, the Monongahela River population occurs
primarily in clear, cool streams, which appear to be consistent with
habitats utilized elsewhere throughout its range.
The petitioners do not reference specific studies regarding
reproductive behavior of the longnose sucker population in the
Monongahela River Basin, but the species has been documented to spawn
in water temperatures ranging from 10 to 15 degrees Celsius (50 to 59
degrees Fahrenheit), with schools of the fish gathering over gravel
substrates in stream riffles and lake shoals. Longnose suckers exhibit
high fecundity, with egg counts ranging from 17,000 to more than 60,000
per female. Annual survival of eggs and fry is low, leading to low
annual recruitment into juvenile age classes. The species has been
documented to begin to reach maturity at 4 years of age for males and 5
years of age for females in western Lake Superior. Longnose suckers
exhibit some variation in mature size across their range; the largest
individual recorded was a 642 millimeter (mm) (25.3 inches) female
estimated to be 19 years old from Great Slave Lake, Northwest
Territories, Canada. Populations of apparently ``stunted'' individuals
have also been reported in parts of the species' range. Whether
environmentally influenced or genetic, the largest specimen recorded
from the Monongahela River drainage is less than 250 mm.
Distribution
The longnose sucker is among the most widely distributed of North
American freshwater fishes, ranging, in the east from western Labrador
and Quebec; south to West Virginia; west to Nebraska, Colorado, and
Washington; and north throughout most of Alaska and Canada, including
the Arctic and extending into eastern Siberia. The Monongahela River
drainage in West Virginia, western Maryland, and southwestern
Pennsylvania supports the disjunct population that is the subject of
the petition.
The petition reports 39 collection records for the longnose sucker
from the Monongahela River Basin (with references including Jordon
1878, Goldsborough and Clark 1908, and Hendricks 1980). With the
exception of a collection record from the Tygart Valley River, West
Virginia, and the Youghiogheny River (a Monongahela River tributary),
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, longnose sucker collection records are
restricted to a Youghiogheny River tributary drainage, the Casselman
River Basin in Garrett County, Maryland and Somerset County,
Pennsylvania. The most recent reported collection from Maryland was in
1978, and the species is considered to be extirpated from the State
(Maryland Department of Natural Resources 2004). The petition concludes
that since 2000, longnose suckers have only been collected in the
Monongahela River Basin in Pennsylvania within reaches of four
Casselman River tributary streams: Elklick Creek, Flaugherty Creek,
Piney Creek, and Whites Creek.
Taxonomy
The petition references McPhail and Taylor (1990) in asserting that
across the species' range, longnose suckers are morphologically
variable, with some evidence of eastern and western divergence across
North America. However, no such variation is described for the
population in the Monongahela River Basin. The Monongahela River Basin
is geographically separated from other waters supporting this species
by a watershed divide; the closest population is the one that occurs in
the Lake Erie Basin, more than 257 kilometers (km) (160 miles (mi)) to
the north. The petitioners present information that theorizes that
longnose suckers in the Monongahela River Basin became isolated from
the main populations to the north through stream capture and changing
flow patterns that occurred during the Wisconsin glacial retreat, and
that this subpopulation may have persisted in the Monongahela River
Basin for 15,000 years or more. The petitioners suggest that this
period of isolation may have resulted in genetic differences from other
longnose sucker populations. They indicate that the Salish sucker, a
longnose sucker population native to the Frazier River and Puget Sound,
Canada, appears to be genetically distinct from other northwestern
longnose suckers. The petition uses this example to suggest that the
Monongahela River population of the longnose sucker may also be
genetically distinct from other longnose sucker populations. However,
the petition does not present any genetic data or other specific
information to support this hypothesis. Rather, the petition
specifically requests that the
[[Page 10479]]
Service make a ``definitive determination of its taxonomic status.''
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
The petitioners have asked us to consider listing the longnose
sucker in the Monongahela River Basin in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
West Virginia as endangered. Under the Act, we can consider for listing
any species, subspecies, or distinct population segment (DPS) of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature, if
information is substantial to indicate that such action may be
warranted. To implement the measures prescribed by the Act and its
Congressional guidance (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st
Session), we developed a joint policy with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration entitled ``Policy Regarding the Recognition
of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Act'' (61 FR 4725;
February 7, 1996). According to the Service's policy on distinct
vertebrate population segments, the three elements considered regarding
the potential recognition of a DPS as endangered or threatened are: (1)
The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder
of the species to which it belongs; (2) the significance of the
population segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) the
population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's
standards for listing (i.e., when treated as if it were a species, is
the population segment endangered or threatened?). Following is our
evaluation of these elements in relation to the petitioned entity, the
longnose sucker in the Monongahela River Basin.
Discreteness: A population segment of a vertebrate species may be
considered discrete if it is markedly separated from other populations
of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors, or if it is delimited by
international governmental boundaries within which differences in
control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
The petition states that the longnose sucker population in the
Monongahela River Basin is the only population of this species recorded
from the Ohio River Basin, and is markedly separated from the rest of
the species' range, with the nearest population occurring across a
major watershed boundary in the Lake Erie Basin at least 265 km (160
mi) to the north (Gilbert and Lee 1980; Page and Burr 1991). The
petition further hypothesizes that the population in the Monongahela
River Basin appears to be a glacial relic and may have been separated
from the larger range of the species as much as 15,000 years ago
(Hendricks et al. 1983). On the basis of a review of the information
centered within the petition, we find that the petition presents
substantial evidence to indicate that the species is markedly separated
from other populations of the same taxon by physical factors.
Therefore, we conclude that the longnose sucker population in the
Monongahela River Basin meets the ``discreteness'' criterion.
Significance: If a population segment is considered discrete under
one or more of the conditions listed in the Service's DPS policy, its
biological and ecological significance will then be considered in light
of Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPS's be used
``sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity.
In carrying out this evaluation, the Service considers available
scientific evidence of the potential DPS's importance to the taxon to
which it belongs. This consideration may include, but is not limited
to: (1) Persistence of the DPS in an ecological setting unusual or
unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the DPS would result in
a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence that the DPS
represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be
more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its
historic range; or (4) evidence that the DPS differs markedly from
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. Each
of these factors is discussed below, based on the information presented
in the petition.
Persistence of the population segment in an ecological setting that
is unique for the taxon. Longnose suckers in the Monongahela River
Basin appear to use habitat that is similar to stream habitats used by
the species throughout its range. Although situated geographically to
the south, the ecological setting is consistent with habitats described
elsewhere in the species' range (i.e., cool, clear streams with gravel
and cobble substrates). Therefore, on the basis of information provided
in the petition, it is our determination that the Monongahela River
population does not appear to exist in either an unusual or unique
setting for the species.
Loss of the population segment would result in a significant gap in
the range of taxon. Both the historic, and current, range of longnose
suckers in the Monongahela River Basin represents a very small
percentage (less than one percent) of the species' overall global
range. While the loss of this population would eliminate the species
from the Monongahela River drainage, the species would continue to
exist in over 99 percent of its range. As a result, we do not believe
that a significant gap in the species' range would result. Furthermore,
neither the petition nor information in our files indicates that loss
of this population would result in a significant gap at the edge of the
species range.
The population segment represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historical range. The Monongahela
River population of the longnose sucker does not represent the only
surviving natural occurrence of this species. According to the
petition, the longnose sucker survives naturally throughout much of
northern North America. Therefore, we have determined that this
criterion is not relevant to this evaluation.
The discrete population segment differs markedly from other
populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. The
petitioners speculate that longnose suckers from the Monongahela River
Basin may be genetically distinct from longnose sucker populations to
the north and west, and suggest that this population may be
``stunted.'' The petitioners suggest that because the Salish sucker
(Catostomus catostomus), appears to be genetically distinct from
longnose sucker populations elsewhere in the Frazier River and Puget
Sound, Canada, that genetic differences may also exist between the
Monongahela River Basin population of the longnose sucker and longnose
suckers elsewhere. However, no data regarding quantitative or
morphological analysis or literature citations were presented to
support the genetic distinctiveness of the Monongahela River population
of the longnose sucker, and the petition recommends that such studies
be initiated. Therefore, on the basis of a review of the information
provided in the petition, we have determined that there is insufficient
evidence to suggest that the Monongahela River population of the
longnose sucker differs markedly from other populations of the longnose
sucker.
Based on an evaluation of each of the criteria identified in the
Service's DPS policy under significance relative to the information
provided in the petition, we have determined that the Monongahela River
Basin population of the longnose sucker does not meet the
``significance'' criterion under the Service's DPS policy. Because the
Monongahela River Basin population of the longnose sucker
[[Page 10480]]
fails to meet one of the first two criteria for a distinct vertebrate
population segment per our policy (i.e., the significance criterion),
we have determined that it is not a listable entity under the Act. We
note that the petition also fails to present substantial information
that the range of the longnose sucker within the Monongahela River
Basin may be a significant portion of the range of the species.
Therefore, we are not proceeding with an evaluation of its conservation
status relative to the Act's standards for listing as endangered or
threatened.
The petition presented information for the five listing factors in
section 4 of the Act in an effort to identify threats that may be
leading to the decline of the Monongahela River population of the
longnose sucker. These factors are pertinent only in cases where the
organism being proposed for listing is a listable entity as defined by
section 3(15) of the Act. Because the Monongahela River basin
population does not meet the significance criterion for a DPS, and
therefore not a listable entity, the five threat factors are not
analyzed for that population here.
Finding
We have reviewed the information presented in the petition, and
evaluated that information in relation to information readily available
in our files. Based on this review, we find the petition does not
present substantial information indicating that listing the Monongahela
River population of C. catostomus may be warranted. This finding is
based on the lack of evidence to indicate that the Monongahela River
population of C. catostomus meets the criteria for being classified as
a DPS. Although it is geographically and reproductively isolated,
scientific evidence was not provided to document this population's
biological or ecological significance under the Service's DPS policy.
Therefore, we have concluded that the Monongahela River population of
the longnose sucker is not a listable entity under section 3(15) of the
Act. We will not commence a status review in response to this petition.
We encourage interested parties to monitor the Monongahela River
population's status and trends, and potential threats, and to implement
actions that will contribute to this species' conservation. We also
encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will
assist with these conservation efforts. New information regarding this
population's potential consideration as a DPS should be submitted to
the Field Supervisor, Pennsylvania Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon
request, from the Pennsylvania Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary author of this notice is Robert M. Anderson,
Pennsylvania Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 23, 2007.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-4081 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
