Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Prairie Chub as Threatened or Endangered, 20911-20918 [2011-9089]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Please see the direct final rule which
is located in the Final Rules section of
this Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carolyn Persoon, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8290,
persoon.carolyn@epa.gov.
In the
Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment. For additional information,
see the direct final rule which is located
in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: March 30, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011–8860 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:31 Apr 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0018;
MO92210–0–0008–B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Prairie Chub as
Threatened or Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and
initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the
prairie chub (Macrhybopsis australis) as
threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), and to designate critical
habitat. The prairie chub is a fish
endemic to the upper Red River basin in
Oklahoma and Texas. Based on our
review, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing the prairie chub may be
warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are
initiating a review of the status of the
species to determine if listing the prairie
chub is warranted. To ensure that this
status review is comprehensive, we are
requesting scientific and commercial
data and other information regarding
this species. Based on the status review,
we will issue a 12-month finding on the
petition, which will address whether
the petitioned action is warranted, as
provided in the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
conduct this review, we request that we
receive information on or before June
13, 2011. Please note that if you are
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(see ADDRESSES section, below), the
deadline for submitting an electronic
comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
information by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the box that
reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the
Docket number for this finding, which
is [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0018].
Check the box that reads ‘‘Open for
Comment/Submission,’’ and then click
the Search button. You should then see
an icon that reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’
Please ensure that you have found the
correct rulemaking before submitting
your comment.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20911
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: [Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2011–0018]; 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 information we receive
on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Request for Information section
below for more details).
After June 13, 2011, you must submit
information directly to the Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section below). Please note that we
might not be able to address or
incorporate information that we receive
after the above requested date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dixie Bounds, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma
Ecological Services Field Office, 9014
East 21st Street, Tulsa, OK 74129, by
telephone at 918–581–7458, or by
facsimile at 918–581–7467. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a
petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a
species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status
of the species (status review). For the
status review to be complete and based
on the best available scientific and
commercial information, we request
information on the prairie chub from
governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, and any other
interested parties. We seek information
on:
(1) The species’ biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range,
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat, or
both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species under section 4(a) of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
20912
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(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.
If, after the status review, we
determine that listing the prairie chub is
warranted, we will propose critical
habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A)
of the Act), under section 4 of the Act,
to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable at the time we propose to
list the species. Therefore, within the
geographical range currently occupied
by the prairie chub, we request data and
information on:
(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species’’;
(2) Where these features are currently
found; and
(3) Whether any of these features may
require special management
considerations or protection.
In addition, we request data and
information on ‘‘specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species’’ that are ‘‘essential to the
conservation of the species.’’ Please
provide specific comments and
information as to what, if any, critical
habitat you think we should propose for
designation if the species is proposed
for listing, and why such habitat meets
the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
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.
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. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the
Act 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 information
concerning this status review by one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
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 you submit a
hardcopy that includes personal
identifying information, you may
request at the top of your document that
we withhold this personal identifying
information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. We will post all
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:31 Apr 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
hardcopy submissions on https://
www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting
documentation that we received and
used in preparing this 90-day finding
are available for you to review at
https://www.regulations.gov, or you may
make an appointment during normal
business hours at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
and critical habitat funding for fiscal
year 2010, we would not be able to
further address the petition at that time,
but would complete the action when
workload and funding allowed. This
finding addresses the petition.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating 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. 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
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific
or commercial 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 scientific or
commercial information was presented,
we are required to promptly conduct a
species status review, which we
subsequently summarize in our 12month finding.
Taxonomy and Description
Petition History
On January 25, 2010, we received a
petition dated January 14, 2010, from
WildEarth Guardians, requesting that
the prairie chub be listed as threatened
or endangered and that critical habitat
be designated under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such
and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, as
required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a July
19, 2010, letter to the petitioner, we
responded that we reviewed the
information presented in the petition
and determined that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species under section 4(b)(7)
of the Act was not warranted. We also
stated that, due to court orders and
judicially approved settlement
agreements for other listing and critical
habitat determinations under the Act
that required nearly all of our listing
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Previous Federal Actions
There have been no Federal actions
specific to the prairie chub.
Species Information
The prairie chub is a small fish that
was originally described by Hubbs and
Ortenberger (1929, pp. 23–28) from a
collection in the Red River 10 to 14
kilometers (km) (6 to 9 miles (mi))
southwest of Hollis, Harmon County,
Oklahoma. Until 2004, the prairie chub
was treated as a single, wide-ranging,
geographically variable species, referred
to as Macrhybopsis aestivalis (Wallace
1980, p. 180; Eisenhour 2004, pp. 9–10).
An analysis of the species’ morphology
conducted by Eisenhour (2004, p. 13)
resulted in the recognition of five
species west of the Mississippi River
within the Macrhybopsis complex: The
prairie chub (M. australis) in the upper
Red River drainage; the peppered chub
(formerly Arkansas River speckled
chub) (M. tetranema) in the upper
Arkansas River drainage; the shoal chub
(M. hyostoma) in the central and eastern
United States; the speckled chub (M.
aestivalis) from the Rio Grande River in
Texas; and the burrhead chub (M.
marconis), which occurs in the San
Antonio and Guadalupe Rivers in Texas,
with remnant populations possibly in
the Edwards Plateau portion of the
Colorado River (Miller and Robison
2004, pp. 126–127; Hubbs et al. 2008,
p. 21).
Even though there are morphological
characteristics separating Macrhybopsis
into five species, there are genetic
similarities that dispute this species
separation. Underwood et al. (2003, pp.
493, 497) examined genes in three of the
western members of the Macrhybopsis
complex and noted that the three forms
of speckled chub occurring in the Red
and Arkansas Rivers could possibly
comprise a single species. Underwood
et al. (2003, p. 297) suggested that the
mixing of the species’ genes through
hybridization may be why the shoal
chub (M. hyostoma) in the Red and
Arkansas Rivers is genetically similar to
the prairie chub (M. australis) in the Red
River and the peppered chub (M.
tetranema) in the Arkansas River
(Underwood et al. 2003, p. 498). Further
genetic studies are needed on all five
species of Macrhybopsis west of the
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Mississippi River to help resolve their
genetic lineages.
We accept the characterization of the
prairie chub as a separate species with
the scientific name Macrhybopsis
australis because of research conducted
by Eisenhour (2004, pp. 13, 28–31); this
research has been accepted by the
scientific community. The prairie chub
is listed as a species in the Common and
Scientific Names of Fishes, which was
published by the American Fisheries
Society in 2004.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Distribution
The prairie chub is endemic to the
upper Red River basin in Oklahoma and
Texas. Based on information in the
petition and readily available in our
files, the species’ current distribution
appears to include the following rivers
and streams: Elm Fork of the Red River,
North Fork of the Red River downstream
of Altus Lake, Salt Fork of the Red
River, Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red
River, Buck Creek, Pease River, North
Wichita River, South Wichita River,
Mud Creek, Bitter Creek, Gypsum Boggy
Creek, Sandy (Lebos) Creek, Beaver
Creek, and the Red River proper
upstream of Lake Texoma (Wilde et al.
1996, pp. 26–55; Underwood 2003, p.
499; Eisenhour 2004, pp. 30, 40–41;
Miller and Robison 2004, pp. 126–127).
The species is presumed extirpated in
the Washita River (Miller and Robison
2004, p. 127) and the North Fork of the
Red River upstream of Altus Lake
(Winston et al. 1991, pp. 102–103).
Habitat
Little is known about the habitat
requirements of the prairie chub. The
species is known to occupy relatively
large, shallow rivers of the Red River
basin, and is typically found over clean
sand or gravel substrates (Miller and
Robinson 2004, p. 126). The peppered
and prairie chubs are considered sister
species with similar genetics and
ecological distributions (Underwood
2003, p. 498). For this reason, we can
use scientific information gathered on
the peppered chub as a means to
explain unknown biological and
ecological attributes of the prairie chub.
Bonner (2000, p. 16) found that the
peppered chub favored relatively
shallow depths of 18.1 to 23.5
centimeters (cm) (7.1 to 9.3 inches (in))
and swift currents of 40 centimeters per
second (cm/s) to 62 cm/s (16 to 24
inches per second (in/s)). Peppered
chubs were typically collected from
sand substrates throughout the year;
however, the species favored cobble
substrate during the spring and gravel
substrate during the summer (Bonner
2000, p. 17). The peppered chub was
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:31 Apr 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
collected from water temperatures
ranging from 0 to 34 degrees Celsius (°C)
(32 to 93 degrees Fahrenheit (°F))
(Bonner 2000, p. 16).
Age and Growth
Similar to the peppered chub, the
prairie chub likely has a relatively short
lifespan, with very few individuals
surviving to their third year (Bonner
2000, p. 44; Wilde and Durham 2008, p.
1657). Bonner (2000, p. 63) found that
the population of peppered chubs was
dominated by age-0 and age-1 fish,
suggesting high post-spawning mortality
and high overwinter mortality. Age-2
peppered chubs reached a maximum
length of 77 millimeters (mm) (3 in) in
the study (Bonner 2000, p. 64).
Reproduction
Little is known about prairie chub
reproduction, but based on known
reproductive habits of other
Macrhybopsis species, the prairie chub
is likely a broadcast spawner, meaning
it releases semibuoyant nonadhesive
eggs into moving water (Platania and
Altenbach 1998, p. 561). This
reproductive strategy is considered to be
an adaptation to highly variable stream
environments (Platania and Altenbach
1998, p. 565). Based on drift rates and
the length of time needed for egg
development, Platania and Altenbach
(1998, p. 566) suggested that peppered
chub eggs could be transported 72 to
144 km (44 to 90 mi) before hatching.
Once hatched, fry (recently hatched
fish) could continue to be transported
downstream another 216 km (134 mi)
until they are able to swim (Platania and
Altenbach 1998, p. 566).
Reproductive success of species
within the Macrhybopsis complex
appears to be related to stream discharge
during the spring and summer (Wilde
and Durham 2008, p. 1658). Many
studies have shown that species in the
Macryhobopsis complex spawn during
high-discharge events (Platania and
Altenbach 1998, p. 565). However,
Durham and Wilde (2006, pp. 1647–
1649) found that young were produced
throughout the summer, when relatively
low discharge was present. In addition,
Durham and Wilde (2006, pp. 1647–
1649) found that high peak discharges
were associated with low catch rates.
Durham and Wilde (2006, p. 1651)
concluded that there was an association
between moderate peak rates and
reproductive success of five minnows,
including the peppered chub. Further,
Bonner (2000, p. 62) found that the
peppered chub spawned in pools;
however, reproductive success was not
documented. Based on these studies, the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20913
reproductive success of prairie chubs
may be related to stream discharge.
Evaluation of Information for This
Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424 set forth the procedures for
adding a species to, or removing a
species from, the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be a threatened or
endangered species due to 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 manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In making this 90-day finding, we
evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the prairie chub, as
presented in the petition and in other
information available in our files, is
substantial scientific or technical
information, thereby indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is
presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The petitioner asserts that
impoundments, water quality, Red River
chloride control, land use, water use,
and invasive plants are threats to the
prairie chub’s habitat or range.
Impoundments
Information Provided in the Petition
In support of the assertion that
impoundments are a threat to the prairie
chub, the petitioner suggests that stream
flows within the Red River basin have
been greatly altered by dams and dikes.
These structures include Lake
Tanglewood Dam, Altus Dam, Altus
Auxiliary Dike, Altus East Dike, Altus
Lugert Dike, Altus North Dike, Altus
South Dike, Farmers Creek Dam, and
Fish Creek Dam. The petitioner
referenced Bonner (2000, p. 1) to
describe how dams alter physical and
chemical conditions of streams. These
alterations, including changes in
temperature and substrate, presence of
backwaters, and timing and volume of
discharge, all directly affect fish
populations. A reduction in discharge
can result in changes to channel
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
20914
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
morphology and indirectly affect stream
fish populations that require streams or
rivers for all or part of their life history.
For example, Altus Dam on the North
Fork of the Red River caused changes to
the fish community above the dam,
including extirpation of the prairie chub
(Winston et al. 1991, p. 98). In addition,
Eisenhour (2004, pp. 30–31) states that
reproduction and recruitment would be
affected by reservoirs because the
species is likely a flood-pulse spawner
and because downstream habitat in the
form of permanent flowing streams
would be altered.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
Information readily available in our
files supports the petitioner’s assertions
that impoundments, such as dams and
dikes, cause modification of prairie
chub habitat. Streams and rivers of the
Red River basin have been significantly
altered by dams and small
impoundments. A total of 660 named
reservoirs and an additional 3,877
impoundments, all 2 hectares (ha) (5
acres (ac)) or larger, have been
constructed within the prairie chub’s
current known distribution. Twentyeight percent of named streams (181 of
647) within the current prairie chub
drainage have at least 1 impoundment
over 2 ha (5 ac) in size (U.S. Geological
Survey 2007, p. 1).
Impoundments, particularly those
that are regulated, cause dampened and
less-frequent peak flows downstream of
dams, and prolonged periods of high or
no flow. Because reproduction of the
prairie chub is likely dependent upon
discharge and varying flows, any
alteration of the natural flow regime
could affect its reproductive capability.
Regulation of flow also causes increased
channelization, decreased complexity of
stream habitats, and a loss of
connectivity between the river and its
floodplain (Dudley and Platania 2007, p.
2081). As a result, flow velocity is
increased, which increases downstream
transport of eggs into unsuitable reaches
such as reservoirs (Dudley and Platania
2007, p. 2081), where the eggs drop out
of suspension and possibly perish
because of unsuitable habitat (Platania
and Altenbach 1998, p. 566).
Additionally, because the connection
between the river and its floodplain is
diminished or lost, refugia for newly
hatched fish are less available, leaving
them vulnerable to potential predation.
Luttrell et al. (1999, p. 986) found that
extirpation of peppered chubs from the
Arkansas River basin coincided with
completion of reservoirs and severe
drought. Their finding was supported by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:31 Apr 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
a life history model for the peppered
chub, developed by Wilde and Durham
(2008, p. 1663), that predicted that for
the peppered chub population to be
maintained, an annual discharge below
the long-term average would have to be
followed the next year by a higher-thanaverage discharge. For example, if
annual discharge was less than the longterm average by 10 percent, discharge
the following year would have to exceed
11 percent of the long-term average in
order for the peppered chub population
to recover. Because peppered and
prairie chubs are thought to spawn only
once, a quick population rebound is
critical to its survival. Thus,
impoundments throughout the prairie
chub’s range may affect the ability of the
species to rebound from a population
decline.
In reference to the petitioner’s claims
regarding impoundments as a threat to
the prairie chub, the information
appears to be reliable. Information
readily available in our files indicates
that impoundments alter stream flows,
which the prairie chub appears to be
dependent upon for reproduction and
recruitment. Therefore, we find that
there is substantial information
indicating that impoundments may be a
threat to the species such that listing
may be warranted.
Water Quality
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that degraded
water quality is a threat to the prairie
chub. In support of this threat, the
petitioner provided information on both
Oklahoma and Texas water-quality
inventories of the Upper Red River
Basin, which demonstrate that several
regions of the system are degraded
(Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality 2008, Appendix
B, pp. 1–170; Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality 2008, pp. 1–
117). For example, in Texas, 11 stream
segments in the Red River basin are on
the Environmental Protection Agency’s
Clean Water Act 303(d) list of degraded
waters. These segments make up close
to 1,448 km (900 mi) of stream.
Additionally, malathion (a chemical
toxic to fishes) is used to eradicate boll
weevils (Anthonomus grandis) from
cotton crops in the region (Grefenstette
and El-Lissy 2003, p. 131). Furthermore,
the petitioner references Jester et al.
(1992, p. 14) to state that the speckled
chub (incorrectly referenced as prairie
chub in the petition) is intolerant of
changes to habitat and moderately
intolerant to changes in water quality.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
With regard to degraded water quality
being a threat to the prairie chub, the
information provided by the petitioner
appears to be reliable. Information in
our files supports the petitioner’s
assertion that water quality in many
streams of the upper Red River basin is
degraded to some degree and that
prairie chubs may be susceptible to this
degradation. Of the 14 streams known to
recently support prairie chubs, the
Environmental Protection Agency
considers 10 of those to be impaired due
to one or more of the following
parameters: Fecal coliform, total
dissolved solids, Escherichia coli,
Enterococcus, turbidity, chlorides,
selenium, sulfates, lead,
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT),
Toxaphene, and fish bioassessments
(EPA 2008, p. 1). These elements are
detrimental to water quality and affect
fishes by limiting their potential
distribution, lowering dissolved oxygen,
and accumulating in fish tissues.
Additionally, a study by Adornato and
Martin (1995, p. 18) concluded that fish
within their project area, including two
streams occupied by prairie chubs, were
highly contaminated with
organochlorine pesticides, including
dieldrin, DDT metabolites, and
Toxaphene, all of which are known to
be toxic to all fishes. Selenium, also
toxic to fishes, was found to be elevated,
which the authors attributed to crop
irrigation (Adornato and Martin 1995, p.
18). Because various chemical toxins
have been found in the same streams of
the prairie chub, and the toxins are
known to cause mortalities in all fishes,
degraded water quality may be a threat
to the species. Therefore, we find that
the petition and information in our files
provides substantial information
indicating that listing the prairie chub
may be warranted due to degraded
water quality.
Red River Chloride Control
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACE) Red
River Chloride Control Project is a threat
to the prairie chub. The ACE is
authorized to identify and implement
measures to reduce naturally occurring
brine emissions into several Red River
basins in Texas and Oklahoma. The
project’s primary purpose is to
minimize chloride inputs into the Red
River. The petitioner references
Matthews et al. (2005, p. 304) and states
that completion of the program to
control chlorides in the Upper Red
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules
River Basin will threaten the natural
salinity gradient upon which many flora
and fauna depend. Additionally, if
chloride levels in the upper Red River
basin were lowered to the point that
allowed for additional irrigation, water
withdrawals would increase and
hydrologic estimates suggest that ‘‘noflow’’ days in the upper basin might be
tripled annually. Taylor et al. (1993, p.
22) is also referenced in the petition,
suggesting that the chloride control
program could have a substantial effect
on the fish community structure.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
In reference to the petitioner’s claims
that the Red River Chloride Control
Project is a threat to the prairie chub,
the information appears to be reliable.
Information in our files confirms the
petitioner’s assertion that the project
could alter existing stream flows, thus
negatively affecting the prairie chub’s
ability to successfully reproduce.
According to projections supplied by
the ACE, the project would result in
average annual streamflow reductions
ranging from a 4.5 percent reduction in
the Elm Fork of the Red River to a 52
percent reduction in the South Fork of
the Wichita River (Service 1996, p. iii).
The project, in combination with
irrigation withdrawals anticipated
following project implementation, is
expected to increase the number of
average annual no-flow days from a low
of 3 days at the Benjamin, Texas, gage
to a high of 67 days at the Vernon,
Texas, gage (Service 1996, p. iii). This
decrease in flows could eliminate
existing resources, such as food and
habitat, and could result in less dilution
of environmental contaminants that are
known to exist in the system (Adornato
and Martin 1995, p. 18; EPA 2008, p. 1).
By limiting resources and potentially
increasing the concentrations of
contaminants, the Red River Chloride
Control Project could possibly have
negative impacts on the prairie chub.
Also, an increase in no-flow days
would affect the prairie chub’s ability to
spawn. Because discharge is necessary
for successful reproduction (Durham
and Wilde 2006, p. 1647), any increase
in the number of no-flow days would
decrease the number of days prairie
chubs have available to spawn. Because
prairie chub eggs disperse downstream
after spawning (Platania and Altenbach
1998, p. 566), more frequent no-flow
days in combination with lower overall
flows could minimize dispersal and
potentially cause an overall reduction in
populations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:31 Apr 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
After reviewing information provided
by the petitioner and readily available
in our files, we find that substantial
information exists indicating that the
Red River Chloride Control Project,
including impacts of reduced stream
flow and degraded water quality may be
a threat to the prairie chub, such that
listing may be warranted.
Land Use
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that land use
changes are a threat to the prairie chub.
In support of this claim, the petitioner
references Steuter et al. (2003, p. 53) to
describe how southern short- and midgrass river systems, including Red River
basin streams, have been altered by land
use changes like oil and gas production
and agriculture.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
Regarding the petitioner’s claim that
land use changes are a threat to the
prairie chub, the information appears to
be reliable. Agriculture is the principal
land use throughout the Red River
basin. Floodplain soils are generally
well suited for alfalfa, wheat, corn,
cotton, peanuts, grain sorgum, and other
small grains. Consequently, native
floodplain vegetation has been cleared
or fragmented into small, isolated
patches and replaced with pasture, hay,
vegetables, and small grains.
Contaminants widely known to
originate from agricultural operations
also appear to negatively impact fish
and wildlife in the upper Red River
basin and are described above under
Water Quality. Besides agriculturerelated contaminants, the information
provided by the petitioner and readily
available in our files does not indicate
that any other agriculture-related
activities are impacting the prairie chub
in a way that may pose a threat to the
species.
In reference to the petitioner’s claims
that oil and gas production has altered
Red River basin streams, information
available in our files indicates that oil
and gas production has eliminated or
fragmented native plant communities
throughout the Red River basin (Service
1996, p. 5); however, the petitioner
provided no information indicating how
this potential impact may be acting on
the species. Therefore, the petitioner has
not provided substantial information
indicating that land use changes from
oil and gas production may be a threat
to the prairie chub.
In summary, we find the petition,
along with information readily available
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20915
in our files, presents substantial
information indicating that agriculturalrelated contaminants, which are
described above under Water Quality,
may pose a threat to the prairie chub
such that listing may be warranted.
However, neither the petition or
information in our files, present
substantial information to suggest that
oil and gas production impacts the
prairie chub at a level where listing may
be warranted.
Agricultural Water Use
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that agricultural
water use is a threat to the prairie chub.
The petitioner provided information
from Steuter et al. (2003, p. 53) stating
that river flows have been greatly
altered by dams and excessive
groundwater withdrawals for irrigation.
In addition, the petitioner cited
Eisenhour (2004, pp. 30–31) to describe
the potential disruptive impacts from
water modification (reservoir
construction, channelization, and
groundwater withdrawals) on
reproduction and recruitment of the
prairie chub.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
In reference to the petitioner’s claim
that water use, primarily irrigation, is a
threat to the prairie chub, the
information appears to be reliable.
Ground and surface water withdrawals
for irrigation can have significant
negative impacts on the prairie chub.
One of the major factors contributing to
the decline of the Federally listed
Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi)
is water depletion due to irrigation for
agriculture (Service 1998, pp. 64773,
64779). Irrigation, in combination with
water depletions from the Red River
Chloride Control Project, could
significantly reduce flows in the upper
Red River basin (Service 1996, p. iii).
The detrimental effects of decreased
water flows on the prairie chub are
described above under Impoundments
and Red River Chloride Control Project.
Based on the effects of reduced flows,
the information provided by the
petitioner and readily available in our
files indicates that agricultural water
use and subsequent stream flow
reduction may be a threat to the prairie
chub, such that listing may be
warranted.
Invasive Plants
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that invasive
plants are a threat to the prairie chub.
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
20916
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
In support of this threat, the petitioner
states that saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) and
Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)
are prolific along the Red River and its
tributaries (DeLoach 2009, p. 1).
Further, the petitioner claims that both
plants can be detrimental to native
plains fishes by decreasing stream
flows.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
Regarding the petitioner’s claims that
invasive plants may be a threat to the
prairie chub, the information appears to
be reliable. The banks of the Red River
once sustained growth of tall willows
(Salix spp.) and cottonwoods (Populus
deltoides), but these trees have been
supplanted by saltcedar and Russian
olive (Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department 2005, p. 151). Early studies
of water use by saltcedar have led many
to assume that removal of saltcedar
would result in water savings, primarily
as increased flows in rivers (U.S.
Geological Survey 2009, p. 43). Some
research has shown that removal of
saltcedar from spring ecosystems may
be beneficial to fish species by
increasing groundwater inputs and
available habitat (DeLoach 2009, p. 1).
However, saltcedar and Russian olive
removal projects on larger streams and
rivers, which were intended to increase
stream flows, have provided mixed
results (U.S. Geological Survey 2009,
pp. 43–44). In a few cases, clearing
saltcedar resulted in temporary
increases in stream flow (U.S.
Geological Survey 2009, pp. 43–44).
But, most studies found no significant
long-term changes in stream flow (U.S.
Geological Survey 2009, pp. 43–44). A
U.S. Geological Survey (2009, p. ix)
report suggests that additional research
is needed at a scale large enough to
detect changes to the water budget, and
that all variables associated with the
water budget should be examined.
Based on information provided by the
petitioner and readily available in our
files, it appears that more research is
needed to determine the actual impacts
of saltcedar and Russian olive on stream
flows in the upper Red River and to
determine the extent that this impact
may have on the prairie chub. At this
time, it is unclear whether invasive
plants may be a threat to the prairie
chub. Therefore, we will analyze this
issue further in the 12-month finding.
Additionally, saltcedar and Russian
olive encroachment has been shown to
alter stream geomorphology by
narrowing and deepening channels
through dense accumulation along the
banks (Hultine et al. 2009, p. 469). This
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:31 Apr 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
alteration to stream morphology limits
the stream’s connectivity with the
floodplain, which is needed for native
plant establishment (Hultine et al. 2009,
p. 469) and refugia habitat for fishes.
However, the petitioner provided no
information to indicate that saltcedar
and Russian olive within the current
range of the prairie chub are at high
enough densities, nor will be in the
future, to alter stream morphology and
affect the prairie chub’s habitat.
In conclusion, information provided
by the petition, and readily available in
our files, is unclear about whether
invasive plants, particularly saltcedar or
Russian olive, may be a threat to the
prairie chub because of stream flow
alterations. Therefore, we will
investigate this issue further in the 12month finding.
In summary of the Factor A analysis,
we find that the petition, along with
information available in our files, has
presented substantial information
indicating that the prairie chub may
warrant listing due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range,
primarily due to impoundments altering
stream flows, degraded water quality,
the Red River Chloride Control Project,
and irrigation.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition does not present any
information concerning impacts from
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes to the prairie chub.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
We have no information available in
our files to indicate that any impact
from overutilization is occurring to the
prairie chub. Therefore, we find that the
petition, along with information readily
available in our files, has not presented
substantial information that the prairie
chub may warrant listing due to
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that nonnative
species, such as bullfrogs (Rana
catesbeiana), may be a threat to the
prairie chub. However, the petitioner
does not provide any information
indicating how nonnative species may
be impacting the prairie chub.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
We have no information available in
our files to indicate that nonnative
species, disease, or predation are
impacting the prairie chub. Therefore,
we find that the petition, along with
information readily available in our
files, has not presented substantial
information that the prairie chub may
warrant listing due to disease or
predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is a threat to the prairie
chub. In support of this claim, the
petitioner states that the prairie chub
receives no Federal or State protection,
even though the prairie chub is listed as
a Tier-I priority species in Oklahoma
under the State’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and the
Texas Comprehensive Conservation
Strategy lists the prairie chub as a
medium-priority Species of Concern.
Also, the petitioner states that the
Oklahoma Comprehensive Conservation
Strategy does not identify specific
conservation actions that will benefit
the species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
In reference to the petitioner’s claim
that the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the
species, the information appears
reliable. However, in 2007 the State of
Texas developed legislation that
authorized a program that could be
beneficial to the prairie chub by
requiring an instream flow. An instream
flow requirement, as defined by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is
the amount of water flowing through a
natural stream course that is needed to
sustain, rehabilitate, or restore the
ecological functions of a stream in terms
of hydrology, biology, geomorphology,
connectivity, and water quality at a
particular level (NAS 2005, p. 139).
Although this could be beneficial to the
prairie chub, we have no information in
our files showing that any parts of the
program have been implemented for the
Red River. No such instream flow
legislation exists in the State of
Oklahoma. Without protection of
existing flows, the prairie chub’s habitat
could be significantly altered. The
alteration of natural flows could disrupt
the species’ ability to successfully
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules
spawn and disperse throughout the
upper Red River basin. For more details
on how reduced flows impact the
prairie chub, see discussion in the
Impoundments and Red River Chloride
Control Project sections.
Also, the EPA (2008, p. 1) established
Total Maximum Daily Loads for many of
the streams occupied by the prairie
chub in order to reduce water
degradation. However, we have no
information in our files to suggest that
measures to meet the established Total
Maximum Daily Loads standards have
been implemented.
In summary, we find that the petition,
along with information readily available
in our files, presents substantial
information indicating that prairie chub
may warrant listing due to the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, primarily due to
inadequate protections of water quality
and stream flow.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Invasive Aquatic Species
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that nonnative
aquatic species are threats to the prairie
chub. In support of this claim, the
petitioner references Gido et al. (2004,
p. 128) to assert that invasive nonnative
species may cause fish population
declines in the southern Great Plains
river systems. Additionally, the
petitioner states that nonnative species
that have invaded the Red River basin
include common carp (Cyprinus carpio),
threadfin shad (Dorosoma petensense),
and inland silverside (Menidia
beryllina). However, neither the
petitioner, nor the references provided,
identifies how nonnative species impact
the prairie chub.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
Information in our files supports the
assertion that nonnative fish species
may cause native fish population
declines in the southern Great Plains
river systems, but there is no evidence
that nonnative species are impacting the
prairie chub. Gido (2004, p. 129) found
that Great Plains streams appear to be
gaining introduced species at the rate of
0.5 species every 18 years. One example
is the introduction and establishment of
the Red River shiner (Notropis bairdi),
a species endemic to the Red River
drainage, into the Cimarron River in
Oklahoma and Kansas, which has had a
detrimental effect on the Arkansas River
shiner by competing for limited
resources (Cross et al. 1983, pp. 93–98;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:31 Apr 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
Felley and Cothran 1981, p. 564). The
Red River shiner was first recorded from
the Cimarron River in 1976 (Marshall
1978, p. 109). It has since colonized the
Cimarron River and may be a dominant
component of the fish community
(Cross et al. 1983, pp. 93–98; Felley and
Cothran 1981, p. 564; Service
unpublished data 2007–2010). However,
we do not consider the Red River shiner
to be a threat to the prairie chub.
Because the Red River shiner is endemic
to the Red River basin, it has adapted
and evolved with the prairie chub.
Therefore, it is not considered an
invasive species, and there is no
evidence indicating that competition
with the Red River shiner has any
impacts on the prairie chub.
In addition, the petitioners have
provided no information indicating how
the three invasive species mentioned in
the petition (common carp, threadfin
shad, and inland silverside) may be
acting on the prairie chub, or whether
an impact from these species may
actually be occurring within the chub’s
range. Although the adverse effects from
invasive aquatic species are evident for
other native fish species, neither the
petition nor information available in our
files presented substantial information
indicating that nonnative species may
be a threat to the prairie chub, such that
listing may be warranted.
Climate Change
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that climate
change is a threat to the prairie chub,
and further notes that climate change
poses a fundamental challenge for all
species’ survival in the coming years
and decades. The petitioner provided
information suggesting that climate
change is already causing a rise in
temperatures across the United States
and is increasing extreme weather
events such as droughts and increased
rainfall (NSC 2003, pp. 43–44; USCCSP
2008, pp. 35–36). The petitioner
referenced the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007, p. 30)
and stated that 11 of the 12 years from
1995 through 2006 ranked among the 11
warmest years on instrumental record.
The petitioner also cites an IPCC 2007
report (p. 48) to discuss how resilience
of many ecosystems is likely to be
exceeded, and that 20 to 30 percent of
plant and animal species assessed are
likely to be at increased risk of
extinction.
In further support of climate change
being a threat to the prairie chub, the
petitioner provided information on
climate change within the Great Plains,
where more extreme and frequent
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20917
weather events are expected, including
droughts, heavy rainfall, and heat waves
(Karl et al. 2009, pp. 123–128). The
petitioner asserts that some species may
not be able to adapt to projected changes
in temperature and climate change
when combined with human-induced
stresses (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 123–128).
In referencing Matthews and MarshMatthews (2003, p. 1232), the petitioner
asserts that the additional stress of
drought will only be exacerbated if
climate change is already increasing the
severity and duration of droughts in the
southern Great Plains. The petitioner
cited Matthews and Marsh-Matthews
(2003, p. 1232) in stating that projected
climate change may result in massive
changes in fish biodiversity and
widespread extirpation of fish species in
many regions.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
In reference to the petitioner’s claim
that climate change is a threat to the
prairie chub, the information appears
reliable; however, we are lacking
information that links reliable impacts
from climate change to effects on prairie
chub populations. According to the
IPCC (2007, p. 1), ‘‘Warming of the
climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases
in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of
snow and ice, and rising global average
sea level.’’ Average Northern
Hemisphere temperatures during the
second half of the 20th century were
very likely higher than during any other
50-year period in the last 500 years and
likely the highest in at least the past
1,300 years (IPCC 2007, p. 1). It is very
likely that over the past 50 years, cold
days, cold nights, and frosts have
become less frequent over most land
areas, and hot days and hot nights have
become more frequent (IPCC 2007, p. 1).
Data suggest that heat waves are
occurring more often over most land
areas, and the frequency of heavy
precipitation events has increased over
most areas (IPCC 2007, p. 1).
Regional analysis for the Great Plains
from North Dakota to Texas predicts
that hot extremes, heat waves, and
heavy precipitation events will increase
in frequency (IPCC 2007, p. 8). Milly et
al. (2005, p. 349) projected a 10 to 30
percent decrease in runoff in midlatitude western North America by the
year 2050, based on an ensemble of 12
climate models. However, predictions
for smaller subregions, such as
Oklahoma and Texas, are not presented
in the petition or readily available in
our files. In addition, the petitioner did
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
20918
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
not provide information indicating how
climate change might potentially impact
the prairie chub. The prairie chub has
persisted for millennia with periods of
extreme weather events, such as
droughts and floods. If climate change
causes more extreme weather events,
there is no information to indicate that
such events will have a negative impact
on the prairie chub. At this time, we
lack sufficient certainty to know
specifically how climate change will
affect the species. We are not aware of
any data at an appropriate scale to
evaluate habitat or population trends for
the prairie chub within its range, make
predictions about future trends, or
determine whether the species will
actually be impacted. Therefore, based
on information presented by the
petitioner and readily available in our
files, we do not consider climate change
to be a threat to the species; however,
we intend to investigate this factor more
thoroughly in our status review of the
species.
In summary, we find that the petition,
along with information readily available
in our files, has not presented
substantial information that the prairie
chub may warrant listing due to other
natural or manmade factors.
Finding
On the basis of our determination
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
have determined that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing the prairie chub throughout its
entire range may be warranted. This
finding is based on information
provided under factors A and D about
the potential threats from altered stream
flows and degraded water quality, and
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to protect prairie chubs
from altered stream flows or degraded
water quality. We determine that the
information provided under factors B, C,
and E is not substantial. In considering
what factors might constitute threats, we
must look beyond the mere exposure of
the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the
factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or
only a positive response, that factor is
not a threat. If there is exposure and the
species responds negatively, the factor
may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine how significant a threat it is.
If the threat is significant, it may drive
or contribute to the risk of extinction of
the species such that the species may
warrant listing as threatened or
endangered as those terms are defined
by the Act. This does not necessarily
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:31 Apr 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some
corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice.
The mere identification of factors that
could impact a species negatively may
not be sufficient to compel a finding
that listing may be warranted. The
information must contain evidence
sufficient to suggest that these factors
may be operative threats that act on the
species to the point that the species may
meet the definition of threatened or
endangered under the Act.
Because we have found that the
petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing the
prairie chub may be warranted, we are
initiating a status review to determine
whether listing the prairie chub as
threatened or endangered under the Act
is warranted.
The ‘‘substantial information’’
standard for a 90-day finding differs
from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and
commercial data’’ standard that applies
to a status review to determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted. A 90day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month
finding, we will determine whether a
petitioned action is warranted after we
have completed a thorough status
review of the species, which is
conducted following a substantial 90day finding. Because the Act’s standards
for 90-day and 12-month findings are
different, as described above, a
substantial 90-day finding does not
mean that the 12-month finding will
result in a warranted finding.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0031; MO
92210–0–0008–B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Hermes Copper
Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
Dated: April 4, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list
Hermes copper butterfly (Hermelycaena
[Lycaena] hermes) as endangered and to
designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act).
After review of all available scientific
and commercial information, we find
that listing Hermes copper butterfly as
endangered or threatened is warranted.
Currently, however, listing Hermes
copper butterfly is precluded by higher
priority actions to amend the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Upon publication of this 12month petition finding, we will add
Hermes copper butterfly to our
candidate species list. We will develop
a proposed rule to list Hermes copper
butterfly as our priorities allow. We will
make any determination on critical
habitat during development of the
proposed listing rule. During any
interim period, we will address the
status of the candidate taxon through
our annual Candidate Notice of Review
(CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on April 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R8–ES–2010–0031. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011.
Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above
internet address or the mailing address
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
[FR Doc. 2011–9089 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Oklahoma Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this notice is
the staff of the Oklahoma Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUMMARY:
Jim
Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20911-20918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9089]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2011-0018; MO92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Prairie Chub as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the prairie chub (Macrhybopsis
australis) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act), and to designate critical habitat. The
prairie chub is a fish endemic to the upper Red River basin in Oklahoma
and Texas. Based on our review, we find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing the prairie chub may be warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of
the species to determine if listing the prairie chub is warranted. To
ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting
scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this
species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding
on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is
warranted, as provided in the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before June 13, 2011. Please note
that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES
section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In
the box that reads ``Enter Keyword or ID,'' enter the Docket number for
this finding, which is [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2011-0018]. Check the box
that reads ``Open for Comment/Submission,'' and then click the Search
button. You should then see an icon that reads ``Submit a Comment.''
Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before
submitting your comment.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2011-0018]; 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 information we receive on https://www.regulations.gov.
This generally means that we will post any personal information you
provide us (see the Request for Information section below for more
details).
After June 13, 2011, you must submit information directly to the
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below).
Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate
information that we receive after the above requested date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dixie Bounds, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office,
9014 East 21st Street, Tulsa, OK 74129, by telephone at 918-581-7458,
or by facsimile at 918-581-7467. If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we request information on the
prairie chub from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We
seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
[[Page 20912]]
(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.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing the prairie
chub is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in
section 3(5)(A) of the Act), under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the
species. Therefore, within the geographical range currently occupied by
the prairie chub, we request data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species'';
(2) Where these features are currently found; and
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection.
In addition, we request data and information on ``specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species'' that are
``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Please provide
specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat
you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed
for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4
of the Act.
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.
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. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 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 information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES 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 you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this personal identifying 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.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this 90-day finding are available for you to review at
https://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating 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. 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 the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial 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
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On January 25, 2010, we received a petition dated January 14, 2010,
from WildEarth Guardians, requesting that the prairie chub be listed as
threatened or endangered and that critical habitat be designated under
the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included
the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as
required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a July 19, 2010, letter to the
petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in
the petition and determined that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was
not warranted. We also stated that, due to court orders and judicially
approved settlement agreements for other listing and critical habitat
determinations under the Act that required nearly all of our listing
and critical habitat funding for fiscal year 2010, we would not be able
to further address the petition at that time, but would complete the
action when workload and funding allowed. This finding addresses the
petition.
Previous Federal Actions
There have been no Federal actions specific to the prairie chub.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Description
The prairie chub is a small fish that was originally described by
Hubbs and Ortenberger (1929, pp. 23-28) from a collection in the Red
River 10 to 14 kilometers (km) (6 to 9 miles (mi)) southwest of Hollis,
Harmon County, Oklahoma. Until 2004, the prairie chub was treated as a
single, wide-ranging, geographically variable species, referred to as
Macrhybopsis aestivalis (Wallace 1980, p. 180; Eisenhour 2004, pp. 9-
10). An analysis of the species' morphology conducted by Eisenhour
(2004, p. 13) resulted in the recognition of five species west of the
Mississippi River within the Macrhybopsis complex: The prairie chub (M.
australis) in the upper Red River drainage; the peppered chub (formerly
Arkansas River speckled chub) (M. tetranema) in the upper Arkansas
River drainage; the shoal chub (M. hyostoma) in the central and eastern
United States; the speckled chub (M. aestivalis) from the Rio Grande
River in Texas; and the burrhead chub (M. marconis), which occurs in
the San Antonio and Guadalupe Rivers in Texas, with remnant populations
possibly in the Edwards Plateau portion of the Colorado River (Miller
and Robison 2004, pp. 126-127; Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 21).
Even though there are morphological characteristics separating
Macrhybopsis into five species, there are genetic similarities that
dispute this species separation. Underwood et al. (2003, pp. 493, 497)
examined genes in three of the western members of the Macrhybopsis
complex and noted that the three forms of speckled chub occurring in
the Red and Arkansas Rivers could possibly comprise a single species.
Underwood et al. (2003, p. 297) suggested that the mixing of the
species' genes through hybridization may be why the shoal chub (M.
hyostoma) in the Red and Arkansas Rivers is genetically similar to the
prairie chub (M. australis) in the Red River and the peppered chub (M.
tetranema) in the Arkansas River (Underwood et al. 2003, p. 498).
Further genetic studies are needed on all five species of Macrhybopsis
west of the
[[Page 20913]]
Mississippi River to help resolve their genetic lineages.
We accept the characterization of the prairie chub as a separate
species with the scientific name Macrhybopsis australis because of
research conducted by Eisenhour (2004, pp. 13, 28-31); this research
has been accepted by the scientific community. The prairie chub is
listed as a species in the Common and Scientific Names of Fishes, which
was published by the American Fisheries Society in 2004.
Distribution
The prairie chub is endemic to the upper Red River basin in
Oklahoma and Texas. Based on information in the petition and readily
available in our files, the species' current distribution appears to
include the following rivers and streams: Elm Fork of the Red River,
North Fork of the Red River downstream of Altus Lake, Salt Fork of the
Red River, Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River, Buck Creek, Pease
River, North Wichita River, South Wichita River, Mud Creek, Bitter
Creek, Gypsum Boggy Creek, Sandy (Lebos) Creek, Beaver Creek, and the
Red River proper upstream of Lake Texoma (Wilde et al. 1996, pp. 26-55;
Underwood 2003, p. 499; Eisenhour 2004, pp. 30, 40-41; Miller and
Robison 2004, pp. 126-127). The species is presumed extirpated in the
Washita River (Miller and Robison 2004, p. 127) and the North Fork of
the Red River upstream of Altus Lake (Winston et al. 1991, pp. 102-
103).
Habitat
Little is known about the habitat requirements of the prairie chub.
The species is known to occupy relatively large, shallow rivers of the
Red River basin, and is typically found over clean sand or gravel
substrates (Miller and Robinson 2004, p. 126). The peppered and prairie
chubs are considered sister species with similar genetics and
ecological distributions (Underwood 2003, p. 498). For this reason, we
can use scientific information gathered on the peppered chub as a means
to explain unknown biological and ecological attributes of the prairie
chub. Bonner (2000, p. 16) found that the peppered chub favored
relatively shallow depths of 18.1 to 23.5 centimeters (cm) (7.1 to 9.3
inches (in)) and swift currents of 40 centimeters per second (cm/s) to
62 cm/s (16 to 24 inches per second (in/s)). Peppered chubs were
typically collected from sand substrates throughout the year; however,
the species favored cobble substrate during the spring and gravel
substrate during the summer (Bonner 2000, p. 17). The peppered chub was
collected from water temperatures ranging from 0 to 34 degrees Celsius
([deg]C) (32 to 93 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (Bonner 2000, p. 16).
Age and Growth
Similar to the peppered chub, the prairie chub likely has a
relatively short lifespan, with very few individuals surviving to their
third year (Bonner 2000, p. 44; Wilde and Durham 2008, p. 1657). Bonner
(2000, p. 63) found that the population of peppered chubs was dominated
by age-0 and age-1 fish, suggesting high post-spawning mortality and
high overwinter mortality. Age-2 peppered chubs reached a maximum
length of 77 millimeters (mm) (3 in) in the study (Bonner 2000, p. 64).
Reproduction
Little is known about prairie chub reproduction, but based on known
reproductive habits of other Macrhybopsis species, the prairie chub is
likely a broadcast spawner, meaning it releases semibuoyant nonadhesive
eggs into moving water (Platania and Altenbach 1998, p. 561). This
reproductive strategy is considered to be an adaptation to highly
variable stream environments (Platania and Altenbach 1998, p. 565).
Based on drift rates and the length of time needed for egg development,
Platania and Altenbach (1998, p. 566) suggested that peppered chub eggs
could be transported 72 to 144 km (44 to 90 mi) before hatching. Once
hatched, fry (recently hatched fish) could continue to be transported
downstream another 216 km (134 mi) until they are able to swim
(Platania and Altenbach 1998, p. 566).
Reproductive success of species within the Macrhybopsis complex
appears to be related to stream discharge during the spring and summer
(Wilde and Durham 2008, p. 1658). Many studies have shown that species
in the Macryhobopsis complex spawn during high-discharge events
(Platania and Altenbach 1998, p. 565). However, Durham and Wilde (2006,
pp. 1647-1649) found that young were produced throughout the summer,
when relatively low discharge was present. In addition, Durham and
Wilde (2006, pp. 1647-1649) found that high peak discharges were
associated with low catch rates. Durham and Wilde (2006, p. 1651)
concluded that there was an association between moderate peak rates and
reproductive success of five minnows, including the peppered chub.
Further, Bonner (2000, p. 62) found that the peppered chub spawned in
pools; however, reproductive success was not documented. Based on these
studies, the reproductive success of prairie chubs may be related to
stream discharge.
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be a
threatened or endangered species due to 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 manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the prairie chub, as presented in the petition and
in other information available in our files, is substantial scientific
or technical information, thereby indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented
below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The petitioner asserts that impoundments, water quality, Red River
chloride control, land use, water use, and invasive plants are threats
to the prairie chub's habitat or range.
Impoundments
Information Provided in the Petition
In support of the assertion that impoundments are a threat to the
prairie chub, the petitioner suggests that stream flows within the Red
River basin have been greatly altered by dams and dikes. These
structures include Lake Tanglewood Dam, Altus Dam, Altus Auxiliary
Dike, Altus East Dike, Altus Lugert Dike, Altus North Dike, Altus South
Dike, Farmers Creek Dam, and Fish Creek Dam. The petitioner referenced
Bonner (2000, p. 1) to describe how dams alter physical and chemical
conditions of streams. These alterations, including changes in
temperature and substrate, presence of backwaters, and timing and
volume of discharge, all directly affect fish populations. A reduction
in discharge can result in changes to channel
[[Page 20914]]
morphology and indirectly affect stream fish populations that require
streams or rivers for all or part of their life history. For example,
Altus Dam on the North Fork of the Red River caused changes to the fish
community above the dam, including extirpation of the prairie chub
(Winston et al. 1991, p. 98). In addition, Eisenhour (2004, pp. 30-31)
states that reproduction and recruitment would be affected by
reservoirs because the species is likely a flood-pulse spawner and
because downstream habitat in the form of permanent flowing streams
would be altered.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Information readily available in our files supports the
petitioner's assertions that impoundments, such as dams and dikes,
cause modification of prairie chub habitat. Streams and rivers of the
Red River basin have been significantly altered by dams and small
impoundments. A total of 660 named reservoirs and an additional 3,877
impoundments, all 2 hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac)) or larger, have been
constructed within the prairie chub's current known distribution.
Twenty-eight percent of named streams (181 of 647) within the current
prairie chub drainage have at least 1 impoundment over 2 ha (5 ac) in
size (U.S. Geological Survey 2007, p. 1).
Impoundments, particularly those that are regulated, cause dampened
and less-frequent peak flows downstream of dams, and prolonged periods
of high or no flow. Because reproduction of the prairie chub is likely
dependent upon discharge and varying flows, any alteration of the
natural flow regime could affect its reproductive capability.
Regulation of flow also causes increased channelization, decreased
complexity of stream habitats, and a loss of connectivity between the
river and its floodplain (Dudley and Platania 2007, p. 2081). As a
result, flow velocity is increased, which increases downstream
transport of eggs into unsuitable reaches such as reservoirs (Dudley
and Platania 2007, p. 2081), where the eggs drop out of suspension and
possibly perish because of unsuitable habitat (Platania and Altenbach
1998, p. 566). Additionally, because the connection between the river
and its floodplain is diminished or lost, refugia for newly hatched
fish are less available, leaving them vulnerable to potential
predation.
Luttrell et al. (1999, p. 986) found that extirpation of peppered
chubs from the Arkansas River basin coincided with completion of
reservoirs and severe drought. Their finding was supported by a life
history model for the peppered chub, developed by Wilde and Durham
(2008, p. 1663), that predicted that for the peppered chub population
to be maintained, an annual discharge below the long-term average would
have to be followed the next year by a higher-than-average discharge.
For example, if annual discharge was less than the long-term average by
10 percent, discharge the following year would have to exceed 11
percent of the long-term average in order for the peppered chub
population to recover. Because peppered and prairie chubs are thought
to spawn only once, a quick population rebound is critical to its
survival. Thus, impoundments throughout the prairie chub's range may
affect the ability of the species to rebound from a population decline.
In reference to the petitioner's claims regarding impoundments as a
threat to the prairie chub, the information appears to be reliable.
Information readily available in our files indicates that impoundments
alter stream flows, which the prairie chub appears to be dependent upon
for reproduction and recruitment. Therefore, we find that there is
substantial information indicating that impoundments may be a threat to
the species such that listing may be warranted.
Water Quality
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that degraded water quality is a threat to
the prairie chub. In support of this threat, the petitioner provided
information on both Oklahoma and Texas water-quality inventories of the
Upper Red River Basin, which demonstrate that several regions of the
system are degraded (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 2008,
Appendix B, pp. 1-170; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2008,
pp. 1-117). For example, in Texas, 11 stream segments in the Red River
basin are on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act
303(d) list of degraded waters. These segments make up close to 1,448
km (900 mi) of stream. Additionally, malathion (a chemical toxic to
fishes) is used to eradicate boll weevils (Anthonomus grandis) from
cotton crops in the region (Grefenstette and El-Lissy 2003, p. 131).
Furthermore, the petitioner references Jester et al. (1992, p. 14) to
state that the speckled chub (incorrectly referenced as prairie chub in
the petition) is intolerant of changes to habitat and moderately
intolerant to changes in water quality.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
With regard to degraded water quality being a threat to the prairie
chub, the information provided by the petitioner appears to be
reliable. Information in our files supports the petitioner's assertion
that water quality in many streams of the upper Red River basin is
degraded to some degree and that prairie chubs may be susceptible to
this degradation. Of the 14 streams known to recently support prairie
chubs, the Environmental Protection Agency considers 10 of those to be
impaired due to one or more of the following parameters: Fecal
coliform, total dissolved solids, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus,
turbidity, chlorides, selenium, sulfates, lead,
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), Toxaphene, and fish
bioassessments (EPA 2008, p. 1). These elements are detrimental to
water quality and affect fishes by limiting their potential
distribution, lowering dissolved oxygen, and accumulating in fish
tissues. Additionally, a study by Adornato and Martin (1995, p. 18)
concluded that fish within their project area, including two streams
occupied by prairie chubs, were highly contaminated with organochlorine
pesticides, including dieldrin, DDT metabolites, and Toxaphene, all of
which are known to be toxic to all fishes. Selenium, also toxic to
fishes, was found to be elevated, which the authors attributed to crop
irrigation (Adornato and Martin 1995, p. 18). Because various chemical
toxins have been found in the same streams of the prairie chub, and the
toxins are known to cause mortalities in all fishes, degraded water
quality may be a threat to the species. Therefore, we find that the
petition and information in our files provides substantial information
indicating that listing the prairie chub may be warranted due to
degraded water quality.
Red River Chloride Control
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (ACE)
Red River Chloride Control Project is a threat to the prairie chub. The
ACE is authorized to identify and implement measures to reduce
naturally occurring brine emissions into several Red River basins in
Texas and Oklahoma. The project's primary purpose is to minimize
chloride inputs into the Red River. The petitioner references Matthews
et al. (2005, p. 304) and states that completion of the program to
control chlorides in the Upper Red
[[Page 20915]]
River Basin will threaten the natural salinity gradient upon which many
flora and fauna depend. Additionally, if chloride levels in the upper
Red River basin were lowered to the point that allowed for additional
irrigation, water withdrawals would increase and hydrologic estimates
suggest that ``no-flow'' days in the upper basin might be tripled
annually. Taylor et al. (1993, p. 22) is also referenced in the
petition, suggesting that the chloride control program could have a
substantial effect on the fish community structure.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
In reference to the petitioner's claims that the Red River Chloride
Control Project is a threat to the prairie chub, the information
appears to be reliable. Information in our files confirms the
petitioner's assertion that the project could alter existing stream
flows, thus negatively affecting the prairie chub's ability to
successfully reproduce. According to projections supplied by the ACE,
the project would result in average annual streamflow reductions
ranging from a 4.5 percent reduction in the Elm Fork of the Red River
to a 52 percent reduction in the South Fork of the Wichita River
(Service 1996, p. iii). The project, in combination with irrigation
withdrawals anticipated following project implementation, is expected
to increase the number of average annual no-flow days from a low of 3
days at the Benjamin, Texas, gage to a high of 67 days at the Vernon,
Texas, gage (Service 1996, p. iii). This decrease in flows could
eliminate existing resources, such as food and habitat, and could
result in less dilution of environmental contaminants that are known to
exist in the system (Adornato and Martin 1995, p. 18; EPA 2008, p. 1).
By limiting resources and potentially increasing the concentrations of
contaminants, the Red River Chloride Control Project could possibly
have negative impacts on the prairie chub.
Also, an increase in no-flow days would affect the prairie chub's
ability to spawn. Because discharge is necessary for successful
reproduction (Durham and Wilde 2006, p. 1647), any increase in the
number of no-flow days would decrease the number of days prairie chubs
have available to spawn. Because prairie chub eggs disperse downstream
after spawning (Platania and Altenbach 1998, p. 566), more frequent no-
flow days in combination with lower overall flows could minimize
dispersal and potentially cause an overall reduction in populations.
After reviewing information provided by the petitioner and readily
available in our files, we find that substantial information exists
indicating that the Red River Chloride Control Project, including
impacts of reduced stream flow and degraded water quality may be a
threat to the prairie chub, such that listing may be warranted.
Land Use
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that land use changes are a threat to the
prairie chub. In support of this claim, the petitioner references
Steuter et al. (2003, p. 53) to describe how southern short- and mid-
grass river systems, including Red River basin streams, have been
altered by land use changes like oil and gas production and
agriculture.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Regarding the petitioner's claim that land use changes are a threat
to the prairie chub, the information appears to be reliable.
Agriculture is the principal land use throughout the Red River basin.
Floodplain soils are generally well suited for alfalfa, wheat, corn,
cotton, peanuts, grain sorgum, and other small grains. Consequently,
native floodplain vegetation has been cleared or fragmented into small,
isolated patches and replaced with pasture, hay, vegetables, and small
grains. Contaminants widely known to originate from agricultural
operations also appear to negatively impact fish and wildlife in the
upper Red River basin and are described above under Water Quality.
Besides agriculture-related contaminants, the information provided by
the petitioner and readily available in our files does not indicate
that any other agriculture-related activities are impacting the prairie
chub in a way that may pose a threat to the species.
In reference to the petitioner's claims that oil and gas production
has altered Red River basin streams, information available in our files
indicates that oil and gas production has eliminated or fragmented
native plant communities throughout the Red River basin (Service 1996,
p. 5); however, the petitioner provided no information indicating how
this potential impact may be acting on the species. Therefore, the
petitioner has not provided substantial information indicating that
land use changes from oil and gas production may be a threat to the
prairie chub.
In summary, we find the petition, along with information readily
available in our files, presents substantial information indicating
that agricultural-related contaminants, which are described above under
Water Quality, may pose a threat to the prairie chub such that listing
may be warranted. However, neither the petition or information in our
files, present substantial information to suggest that oil and gas
production impacts the prairie chub at a level where listing may be
warranted.
Agricultural Water Use
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that agricultural water use is a threat to
the prairie chub. The petitioner provided information from Steuter et
al. (2003, p. 53) stating that river flows have been greatly altered by
dams and excessive groundwater withdrawals for irrigation. In addition,
the petitioner cited Eisenhour (2004, pp. 30-31) to describe the
potential disruptive impacts from water modification (reservoir
construction, channelization, and groundwater withdrawals) on
reproduction and recruitment of the prairie chub.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
In reference to the petitioner's claim that water use, primarily
irrigation, is a threat to the prairie chub, the information appears to
be reliable. Ground and surface water withdrawals for irrigation can
have significant negative impacts on the prairie chub. One of the major
factors contributing to the decline of the Federally listed Arkansas
River shiner (Notropis girardi) is water depletion due to irrigation
for agriculture (Service 1998, pp. 64773, 64779). Irrigation, in
combination with water depletions from the Red River Chloride Control
Project, could significantly reduce flows in the upper Red River basin
(Service 1996, p. iii). The detrimental effects of decreased water
flows on the prairie chub are described above under Impoundments and
Red River Chloride Control Project. Based on the effects of reduced
flows, the information provided by the petitioner and readily available
in our files indicates that agricultural water use and subsequent
stream flow reduction may be a threat to the prairie chub, such that
listing may be warranted.
Invasive Plants
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that invasive plants are a threat to the
prairie chub.
[[Page 20916]]
In support of this threat, the petitioner states that saltcedar
(Tamarix spp.) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) are prolific
along the Red River and its tributaries (DeLoach 2009, p. 1). Further,
the petitioner claims that both plants can be detrimental to native
plains fishes by decreasing stream flows.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Regarding the petitioner's claims that invasive plants may be a
threat to the prairie chub, the information appears to be reliable. The
banks of the Red River once sustained growth of tall willows (Salix
spp.) and cottonwoods (Populus deltoides), but these trees have been
supplanted by saltcedar and Russian olive (Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department 2005, p. 151). Early studies of water use by saltcedar have
led many to assume that removal of saltcedar would result in water
savings, primarily as increased flows in rivers (U.S. Geological Survey
2009, p. 43). Some research has shown that removal of saltcedar from
spring ecosystems may be beneficial to fish species by increasing
groundwater inputs and available habitat (DeLoach 2009, p. 1). However,
saltcedar and Russian olive removal projects on larger streams and
rivers, which were intended to increase stream flows, have provided
mixed results (U.S. Geological Survey 2009, pp. 43-44). In a few cases,
clearing saltcedar resulted in temporary increases in stream flow (U.S.
Geological Survey 2009, pp. 43-44). But, most studies found no
significant long-term changes in stream flow (U.S. Geological Survey
2009, pp. 43-44). A U.S. Geological Survey (2009, p. ix) report
suggests that additional research is needed at a scale large enough to
detect changes to the water budget, and that all variables associated
with the water budget should be examined. Based on information provided
by the petitioner and readily available in our files, it appears that
more research is needed to determine the actual impacts of saltcedar
and Russian olive on stream flows in the upper Red River and to
determine the extent that this impact may have on the prairie chub. At
this time, it is unclear whether invasive plants may be a threat to the
prairie chub. Therefore, we will analyze this issue further in the 12-
month finding.
Additionally, saltcedar and Russian olive encroachment has been
shown to alter stream geomorphology by narrowing and deepening channels
through dense accumulation along the banks (Hultine et al. 2009, p.
469). This alteration to stream morphology limits the stream's
connectivity with the floodplain, which is needed for native plant
establishment (Hultine et al. 2009, p. 469) and refugia habitat for
fishes. However, the petitioner provided no information to indicate
that saltcedar and Russian olive within the current range of the
prairie chub are at high enough densities, nor will be in the future,
to alter stream morphology and affect the prairie chub's habitat.
In conclusion, information provided by the petition, and readily
available in our files, is unclear about whether invasive plants,
particularly saltcedar or Russian olive, may be a threat to the prairie
chub because of stream flow alterations. Therefore, we will investigate
this issue further in the 12-month finding.
In summary of the Factor A analysis, we find that the petition,
along with information available in our files, has presented
substantial information indicating that the prairie chub may warrant
listing due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range, primarily due to impoundments
altering stream flows, degraded water quality, the Red River Chloride
Control Project, and irrigation.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition does not present any information concerning impacts
from overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes to the prairie chub.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
We have no information available in our files to indicate that any
impact from overutilization is occurring to the prairie chub.
Therefore, we find that the petition, along with information readily
available in our files, has not presented substantial information that
the prairie chub may warrant listing due to overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that nonnative species, such as bullfrogs
(Rana catesbeiana), may be a threat to the prairie chub. However, the
petitioner does not provide any information indicating how nonnative
species may be impacting the prairie chub.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
We have no information available in our files to indicate that
nonnative species, disease, or predation are impacting the prairie
chub. Therefore, we find that the petition, along with information
readily available in our files, has not presented substantial
information that the prairie chub may warrant listing due to disease or
predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is a threat to the prairie chub. In support of this claim,
the petitioner states that the prairie chub receives no Federal or
State protection, even though the prairie chub is listed as a Tier-I
priority species in Oklahoma under the State's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy, and the Texas Comprehensive Conservation
Strategy lists the prairie chub as a medium-priority Species of
Concern. Also, the petitioner states that the Oklahoma Comprehensive
Conservation Strategy does not identify specific conservation actions
that will benefit the species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
In reference to the petitioner's claim that the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the species, the
information appears reliable. However, in 2007 the State of Texas
developed legislation that authorized a program that could be
beneficial to the prairie chub by requiring an instream flow. An
instream flow requirement, as defined by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), is the amount of water flowing through a natural stream
course that is needed to sustain, rehabilitate, or restore the
ecological functions of a stream in terms of hydrology, biology,
geomorphology, connectivity, and water quality at a particular level
(NAS 2005, p. 139). Although this could be beneficial to the prairie
chub, we have no information in our files showing that any parts of the
program have been implemented for the Red River. No such instream flow
legislation exists in the State of Oklahoma. Without protection of
existing flows, the prairie chub's habitat could be significantly
altered. The alteration of natural flows could disrupt the species'
ability to successfully
[[Page 20917]]
spawn and disperse throughout the upper Red River basin. For more
details on how reduced flows impact the prairie chub, see discussion in
the Impoundments and Red River Chloride Control Project sections.
Also, the EPA (2008, p. 1) established Total Maximum Daily Loads
for many of the streams occupied by the prairie chub in order to reduce
water degradation. However, we have no information in our files to
suggest that measures to meet the established Total Maximum Daily Loads
standards have been implemented.
In summary, we find that the petition, along with information
readily available in our files, presents substantial information
indicating that prairie chub may warrant listing due to the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms, primarily due to inadequate
protections of water quality and stream flow.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Invasive Aquatic Species
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that nonnative aquatic species are threats
to the prairie chub. In support of this claim, the petitioner
references Gido et al. (2004, p. 128) to assert that invasive nonnative
species may cause fish population declines in the southern Great Plains
river systems. Additionally, the petitioner states that nonnative
species that have invaded the Red River basin include common carp
(Cyprinus carpio), threadfin shad (Dorosoma petensense), and inland
silverside (Menidia beryllina). However, neither the petitioner, nor
the references provided, identifies how nonnative species impact the
prairie chub.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Information in our files supports the assertion that nonnative fish
species may cause native fish population declines in the southern Great
Plains river systems, but there is no evidence that nonnative species
are impacting the prairie chub. Gido (2004, p. 129) found that Great
Plains streams appear to be gaining introduced species at the rate of
0.5 species every 18 years. One example is the introduction and
establishment of the Red River shiner (Notropis bairdi), a species
endemic to the Red River drainage, into the Cimarron River in Oklahoma
and Kansas, which has had a detrimental effect on the Arkansas River
shiner by competing for limited resources (Cross et al. 1983, pp. 93-
98; Felley and Cothran 1981, p. 564). The Red River shiner was first
recorded from the Cimarron River in 1976 (Marshall 1978, p. 109). It
has since colonized the Cimarron River and may be a dominant component
of the fish community (Cross et al. 1983, pp. 93-98; Felley and Cothran
1981, p. 564; Service unpublished data 2007-2010). However, we do not
consider the Red River shiner to be a threat to the prairie chub.
Because the Red River shiner is endemic to the Red River basin, it has
adapted and evolved with the prairie chub. Therefore, it is not
considered an invasive species, and there is no evidence indicating
that competition with the Red River shiner has any impacts on the
prairie chub.
In addition, the petitioners have provided no information
indicating how the three invasive species mentioned in the petition
(common carp, threadfin shad, and inland silverside) may be acting on
the prairie chub, or whether an impact from these species may actually
be occurring within the chub's range. Although the adverse effects from
invasive aquatic species are evident for other native fish species,
neither the petition nor information available in our files presented
substantial information indicating that nonnative species may be a
threat to the prairie chub, such that listing may be warranted.
Climate Change
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that climate change is a threat to the
prairie chub, and further notes that climate change poses a fundamental
challenge for all species' survival in the coming years and decades.
The petitioner provided information suggesting that climate change is
already causing a rise in temperatures across the United States and is
increasing extreme weather events such as droughts and increased
rainfall (NSC 2003, pp. 43-44; USCCSP 2008, pp. 35-36). The petitioner
referenced the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007,
p. 30) and stated that 11 of the 12 years from 1995 through 2006 ranked
among the 11 warmest years on instrumental record. The petitioner also
cites an IPCC 2007 report (p. 48) to discuss how resilience of many
ecosystems is likely to be exceeded, and that 20 to 30 percent of plant
and animal species assessed are likely to be at increased risk of
extinction.
In further support of climate change being a threat to the prairie
chub, the petitioner provided information on climate change within the
Great Plains, where more extreme and frequent weather events are
expected, including droughts, heavy rainfall, and heat waves (Karl et
al. 2009, pp. 123-128). The petitioner asserts that some species may
not be able to adapt to projected changes in temperature and climate
change when combined with human-induced stresses (Karl et al. 2009, pp.
123-128). In referencing Matthews and Marsh-Matthews (2003, p. 1232),
the petitioner asserts that the additional stress of drought will only
be exacerbated if climate change is already increasing the severity and
duration of droughts in the southern Great Plains. The petitioner cited
Matthews and Marsh-Matthews (2003, p. 1232) in stating that projected
climate change may result in massive changes in fish biodiversity and
widespread extirpation of fish species in many regions.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
In reference to the petitioner's claim that climate change is a
threat to the prairie chub, the information appears reliable; however,
we are lacking information that links reliable impacts from climate
change to effects on prairie chub populations. According to the IPCC
(2007, p. 1), ``Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global
average sea level.'' Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during
the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during
any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest
in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 2007, p. 1). It is very likely
that over the past 50 years, cold days, cold nights, and frosts have
become less frequent over most land areas, and hot days and hot nights
have become more frequent (IPCC 2007, p. 1). Data suggest that heat
waves are occurring more often over most land areas, and the frequency
of heavy precipitation events has increased over most areas (IPCC 2007,
p. 1).
Regional analysis for the Great Plains from North Dakota to Texas
predicts that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events
will increase in frequency (IPCC 2007, p. 8). Milly et al. (2005, p.
349) projected a 10 to 30 percent decrease in runoff in mid-latitude
western North America by the year 2050, based on an ensemble of 12
climate models. However, predictions for smaller subregions, such as
Oklahoma and Texas, are not presented in the petition or readily
available in our files. In addition, the petitioner did
[[Page 20918]]
not provide information indicating how climate change might potentially
impact the prairie chub. The prairie chub has persisted for millennia
with periods of extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods. If
climate change causes more extreme weather events, there is no
information to indicate that such events will have a negative impact on
the prairie chub. At this time, we lack sufficient certainty to know
specifically how climate change will affect the species. We are not
aware of any data at an appropriate scale to evaluate habitat or
population trends for the prairie chub within its range, make
predictions about future trends, or determine whether the species will
actually be impacted. Therefore, based on information presented by the
petitioner and readily available in our files, we do not consider
climate change to be a threat to the species; however, we intend to
investigate this factor more thoroughly in our status review of the
species.
In summary, we find that the petition, along with information
readily available in our files, has not presented substantial
information that the prairie chub may warrant listing due to other
natural or manmade factors.
Finding
On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we have determined that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
prairie chub throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding
is based on information provided under factors A and D about the
potential threats from altered stream flows and degraded water quality,
and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect prairie
chubs from altered stream flows or degraded water quality. We determine
that the information provided under factors B, C, and E is not
substantial. In considering what factors might constitute threats, we
must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to
determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that
causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor,
but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a
threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the
factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant
a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or
contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species may warrant listing as threatened or endangered as those terms
are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical
proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating
evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere
identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may
not be sufficient to compel a finding that listing may be warranted.
The information must contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these
factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point
that the species may meet the definition of threatened or endangered
under the Act.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing the prairie chub may be warranted,
we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing the
prairie chub as threatened or endangered under the Act is warranted.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Oklahoma
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Oklahoma
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: April 4, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-9089 Filed 4-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P