Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Nueces River and Plateau Shiners as Threatened or Endangered, 48777-48788 [2011-20054]
Download as PDF
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(2) Evaluation factors for each
assessment shall include, at a minimum,
the following:
(i) Technical or Quality.
(ii) Cost Control (as applicable).
(iii) Schedule/Timeliness.
(iv) Management or Business
Relations.
(v) Small Business Subcontracting (as
applicable).
(3) These evaluation factors, including
subfactors, may be tailored, however,
each factor and subfactor shall be
evaluated and supporting narrative
provided.
(4) Each evaluation factor, as listed in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall be
rated in accordance with a five scale
rating system (e.g., exceptional, very
good, satisfactory, marginal, and
unsatisfactory). Rating definitions shall
reflect those contained in the CPARS
Policy Guide available at https://
www.cpars.gov/.
(c)(1) When the contract provides for
incentive fees, the incentive-fee contract
performance evaluation shall be entered
into CPARS. (See 16.401(f).)
(2) When the contract provides for
award fee, the award fee-contract
performance adjectival rating as
described in 16.401(e)(3) shall be
entered into CPARS.
(d) Agency evaluations of contractor
performance, including both negative
and positive evaluations, prepared
under this subpart shall be provided to
the contractor as soon as practicable
after completion of the evaluation.
Contractors shall be given a minimum of
30 days to submit comments, rebutting
statements, or additional information.
Agencies shall provide for review at a
level above the contracting officer to
consider disagreements between the
parties regarding the evaluation. The
ultimate conclusion on the performance
evaluation is a decision of the
contracting agency. Copies of the
evaluation, contractor response, and
review comments, if any, shall be
retained as part of the evaluation. These
evaluations may be used to support
future award decisions, and should
therefore be marked ‘‘Source Selection
Information’’. Evaluation of Federal
Prison Industries (FPI) performance may
be used to support a waiver request (see
8.604) when FPI is a mandatory source
in accordance with subpart 8.6. The
completed evaluation shall not be
released to other than Government
personnel and the contractor whose
performance is being evaluated during
the period the information may be used
to provide source selection information.
Disclosure of such information could
cause harm both to the commercial
interest of the Government and to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
competitive position of the contractor
being evaluated as well as impede the
efficiency of Government operations.
Evaluations used in determining award
or incentive fee payments may also be
used to satisfy the requirements of this
subpart. A copy of the annual or final
past performance evaluation shall be
provided to the contractor as soon as it
is finalized.
(e) Agencies shall require—
(1) Performance issues be documented
promptly during contract performance
to ensure critical details are included in
the evaluation;
(2) The award fee determination, if
required, align with the contractor’s
performance and be reflected in the
evaluation;
(3) Timely assessments and quality
data (see the quality standards in the
CPARS Policy Guide at https://
www.cpars.gov/) in the contractors past
performance evaluation; and
(4) Frequent assessment (e.g., monthly
or quarterly) of agency compliance with
the reporting requirements in 42.1502,
so agencies can readily identify
delinquent past performance reports
and monitor their reports for quality
control.
(f) Agencies shall prepare and submit
all past performance reports
electronically into the CPARS at
https://www.cpars.gov/. These reports are
transmitted to the Past Performance
Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at
https://www.ppirs.gov. Past performance
reports for classified contracts and
special access programs shall not be
reported in CPARS, but will be reported
as stated in this subpart and in
accordance with agency procedures.
Agencies shall ensure that appropriate
management and technical controls are
in place to ensure that only authorized
personnel have access to the data and
the information safeguarded in
accordance with 42.1503(b).
(g) Agencies shall use the past
performance information in PPIRS that
is within the last three years (six for
construction and architect-engineer
contracts) and information contained in
the Federal Awardee Performance and
Integrity Information System (FAPIIS),
e.g., termination for default or cause.
(h) Other contractor performance
information. (1) Agencies shall ensure
information is reported in the FAPIIS
module of CPARS within 3 working
days after a contracting officer—
(i) Issues a final determination that a
contractor has submitted defective cost
or pricing data;
(ii) Makes a subsequent change to the
final determination concerning
defective cost or pricing data pursuant
to 15.407–1(d);
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48777
(iii) Issues a final termination for
cause or default notice; or
(iv) Makes a subsequent withdrawal
or a conversion of a termination for
default to a termination for
convenience.
(2) Agencies shall establish CPARS
focal points who will register users to
report data into the FAPIIS module of
CPARS (available at https://
www.cpars.gov/, then select FAPIIS).
(3) The primary duties of the CPARS
focal point is to administer CPARS and
FAPIIS access. Agencies must also
establish PPIRS group managers. The
primary duties of the PPIRS group
managers are to grant or deny access to
PPIRS. The CPARS Reference Material,
on the Web site, includes reporting
instructions.
Dated: August 3, 2011.
Rodney P. Lantier,
Deputy Director for Acquisition Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011–20089 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0057; MO
92210–0–0008 B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List the Nueces River and
Plateau Shiners as Threatened or
Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list
the Nueces River shiner (Cyprinella sp.)
and plateau shiner (Cyprinella lepida)
as threatened or 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 the
Nueces River and plateau shiners is not
warranted at this time. However, we ask
the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the threats to the Nueces
River and plateau shiners or their
habitats at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on August 9, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
48778
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
[FWS–R2–ES–2011–0057]. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological
Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet
Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758.
Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor,
Austin Ecological Services Field Office
(see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 512–
490–0057, extension 248; or by
facsimile at 512–490–0974. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that,
for any petition to revise the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants that contains
substantial scientific or commercial
information that listing the species may
be warranted, we make a finding within
12 months of the date of receipt of the
petition. In this finding, we will
determine that the petitioned action is:
(1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3)
warranted, but the immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether
species are threatened or endangered,
and expeditious progress is being made
to add or remove qualified species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the
date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, we received a
petition dated June 18, 2007, from
Forest Guardians (now WildEarth
Guardians), requesting that 475 species
in the southwestern United States,
including the Nueces River and plateau
shiners, be listed under the Act and
critical habitat be designated. We
acknowledged the receipt of the petition
in a letter to the petitioner, dated July
11, 2007. In that letter we also stated
that the petition was under review by
staff in our Southwest Regional Office.
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth
Guardians filed a complaint alleging
that the Service failed to comply with
its mandatory duty to make a
preliminary 90-day finding on the June
18, 2007, petition to list 475 southwest
species. We subsequently published an
initial 90-day finding for 270 of the 475
petitioned species on January 6, 2009
(74 FR 419), concluding that the petition
did not present substantial information
that listing of those 270 species may be
warranted. This initial 90-day finding
did not include the Nueces River and
plateau shiners. Subsequently, on
March 13, 2009, the Service and
WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated
settlement agreement, agreeing that the
Service would submit to the Federal
Register a finding as to whether their
petition presented substantial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted for
the remaining 192 southwestern species
by December 9, 2009. On December 16,
2009 (74 FR 66866), we published a
second 90-day finding for the remaining
192 southwestern species, which
included a determination that listing the
Nueces River and plateau shiners may
be warranted, and initiated a status
review. This notice constitutes the 12month finding on the June 18, 2007,
petition to list the Nueces River and
plateau Shiners as threatened or
endangered with critical habitat.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
There has been some confusion and
inconsistency regarding the taxonomy of
the Nueces River and plateau shiners.
Currently, there are approximately 30
species that belong to the genus
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Cyprinella, of which both species of
shiners are members (Nelson et al. 2004,
p. 69; Schonhuth and Mayden 2010, p.
77). The taxonomy within this genus
has been associated with extensive
confusion because similarities in body
characteristics have made it difficult to
differentiate between species
(Schonhuth and Mayden 2010, p. 77).
Fortunately, much of this confusion is
being resolved with advances in genetic
analysis (Schonhuth and Mayden 2010,
pp. 77–98). However, there are still
outstanding taxonomic issues that need
to be resolved to clarify any potential
confusion between the Nueces River
and plateau shiners.
When first described, the Nueces
River and plateau shiners were not
considered separate species. They were
both originally described as the plateau
shiner, Cyprinella lepida, by Girard in
1856 (Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 29).
Nearly 100 years later, both species
were still thought to be one species. For
example, Hubbs (1954, pp. 277–291)
recognized only one species as distinct,
the plateau shiner, Notropis
(=Cyprinella) lepidus, occurring in the
Nueces, Frio, and upper Guadalupe
Rivers. However, Mayden (1989, p. 60)
later pointed out that the shiner Hubbs
(1954, pp. 277–291) referred to in the
upper Guadalupe River was actually a
red shiner species, Notropis
(=Cyprinella) lutrensis, and not the
plateau shiner.
Morphological studies conducted by
Matthews (1987, pp. 616–637) and
Mayden (1989, pp. 58–60) provided
support that Cyprinella lepida was a
distinct and valid species occurring in
the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers of
the Nueces River basin (Figure 1).
However, Matthews (1987, p. 269) noted
that there were morphological
differences between specimens
collected in the Nueces and Frio Rivers,
but did not suggest that there were two
separate taxonomic entities. One of the
main differences was breeding
coloration in male specimens collected
in the Frio River; these male specimens
had red on the tip of their snouts
(Matthews 1987, pp. 632–634). The
male specimens collected in the Nueces
River exhibited no breeding coloration
(Matthews 1987, pp. 632–634).
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
These morphological differences
between the Nueces and Frio Rivers’
shiners were validated by genetic
investigations that revealed two distinct
lineages within populations of
Cyprinella lepida. In 1987 and 1988,
Richardson and Gold (1995, p. 29)
conducted a genetic study on Cyprinella
lepida, in which they (Richardson and
Gold 1995, p. 29) collected individuals
from the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal
Rivers. The results of their genetic
analysis showed that Cyprinella lepida
in the Frio and Sabinal Rivers was a
distinct species from Cyprinella lepida
collected in the Nueces River
(Richardson and Gold 1995, pp. 31–33).
Specimens collected in the Frio River
were very similar genetically to
specimens collected in the Sabinal River
(Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 31).
However, specimens collected from the
Frio and Sabinal Rivers were quite
different genetically from specimens
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
collected in the Nueces River
(Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 31). The
genetic differences, along with the
observed morphological differences, led
Richardson and Gold (1995, pp. 31–33)
to conclude that Cyprinella in the Frio
and Sabinal Rivers was a distinct
species from those in the Nueces River.
Since 1995, the population in the
Nueces River has been referred to as the
Nueces River shiner, an unnamed
species within Cyprinella, while
populations in the Frio and Sabinal
Rivers have kept the kept the name
plateau shiner, Cyprinella lepida.
Formal naming of the Nueces River
shiner, Cyprinella sp., is still pending.
Further genetic investigations by
Richardson and Gold (1999) supported
their previous conclusion that
Cyprinella in the Frio and Sabinal
Rivers is a distinct species from those in
the Nueces River. In this study,
Richardson and Gold (1999, p. 50)
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48779
focused on variation in mitochondrial
genes in the five species of the shiner
group inhabiting the southwestern
United States, which included
specimens of Cyprinella lepida from the
Frio River and Cyprinella sp. from the
Nueces River. Based on results of this
study, Richardson and Gold (1999,
p. 55) were hesitant to promote a sister
relationship between the Nueces River
shiner, Cyprinella sp., and the plateau
shiner, Cyprinella lepida, meaning that
the two lineages were not closely
related. Instead, they concluded that the
Nueces River shiner and plateau shiner
were not as closely related to each other
as they were to other species within the
Cyprinella genus (Richardson and Gold
1999, p. 55).
Another genetic study agreed that the
Nueces River shiner and plateau shiner
are distinct species. In 2000, Broughton
and Gold (pp. 1–10) conducted a genetic
analysis of all Cyprinella species found
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
EP09AU11.013
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48780
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
in the United States. As part of their
methodology, Broughton and Gold
(2000, p. 5) grouped the Nueces and
Plateau shiners into the same species,
Cyprinella lepida, but did make the
distinction that ‘‘Cyprinella lepida-a’’
from the Frio River were not closely
related to ‘‘Cyprinella lepida-b’’ from
the Nueces River.
In an effort to clarify some of the
genus’ taxonomic confusion, Schonhuth
and Mayden (2010, pp. 77–98)
conducted a genetic study of all species
within the Cyprinella genus, with a
more exhaustive focus on the
problematic taxa. Results from
Schonhuth and Mayden’s (2010, p. 91)
genetic analysis were consistent with
previous genetic studies: Cyprinella
lepida in the Sabinal and Frio Rivers are
genetically separate and distinct from
the Cyprinella sp. found in the Nueces
River. Genetic differences between
specimens from the Sabinal and Frio
Rivers were very different from those
collected in the Nueces River, enough so
that Schonhuth and Mayden (2010, p.
91) recommended leaving them as
separate species.
Despite the morphological and genetic
studies of the Nueces River and plateau
shiners, the scientific community has
been inconsistent in recognizing these
shiners as separate species. The Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)
recognizes the plateau shiner
(Cyprinella lepida) and Nueces River
shiner (Cyprinella sp.) as separate
species (Norris et al. 2005, p. 10).
However, Phillips et al. (2010, p. 130)
failed to recognize the Nueces River
shiner as a separate species during a
study on sound production and
spawning behavior. In fact, Phillips et
al. (2010, p. 130) stated that they
collected Cyprinella lepida with seines
from the Nueces River 0.5 mi (0.8 km)
west of Camp Wood, Real County,
Texas, during December 2002 and
March 2003, and transferred them to a
lab to do an acoustic study on spawning
behavior. It is not clear whether Phillips
et al. (2010) collected actual plateau
shiners from the Nueces River, or
whether they collected Nueces River
shiners but mistakenly called them
plateau shiners. Phillips et al. (2010) did
not mention the name Nueces River
shiner, Cyprinella sp., nor did they
mention how they determined that the
fish were Cyprinella lepida. To add
further confusion, acceptance of the
Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella sp., as
a separate species from the plateau
shiner, Cyprinella lepida, by the
American Fisheries Society (2004, p. 69)
is still pending. On the other hand,
Hubbs et al. (2008, p. 19) recognized the
Nueces River and plateau shiners as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
separate species in their annotated
checklist of the freshwater fishes of
Texas. Because there is still
inconsistency, a formal systematic
description by the scientific community
of the Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella
sp., is needed.
Based on the best available science,
we accept the characterization of the
Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella sp., and
the plateau shiner, Cyprinella lepida, as
separate species. We base this
distinction on the morphological and
genetic research conducted by
Richardson and Gold (1995, pp. 28–37),
Edwards et al. (2008, pp. 1–30), and
Schonhuth and Mayden (2010, pp. 77–
98), and due to the fact that this
research has been accepted by much of
the scientific community (Hubbs et al.
2008, p. 19). However, we recognize
there is a need for more extensive
morphological, genetic, and life history
research with more thorough species
characterizations and formal
descriptions of these two shiners,
especially for the Nueces River shiner.
Because we recognize these two shiners
as separate species, we conduct separate
five-factor analyses below under section
4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether
either species meets the definition of
threatened or endangered. However, we
address both species in this finding
because they occur in nearby
watersheds and could be subject to the
similar threats.
Distribution
Because of the inconsistencies in
taxonomy and species descriptions of
the Nueces River and plateau shiners,
there has been similar confusion and
inconsistencies regarding these shiners’
distribution. However, one thing that
has been clearly understood is that both
the historic and current range of both
shiners is the uppermost headwaters of
the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers of
the Nueces River basin (Figure 1). The
Nueces River basin covers
approximately 17,000 square miles
(44,030 square kilometers),
encompassing all or part of 23 counties
in south-central Texas (Nueces River
Authority 2010, p. 1). Rivers within the
basin include Nueces, Frio, Leona,
Sabinal, and Atascosa Rivers (Nueces
River Authority 2010, p. 1). Because the
Nueces River basin is so large, running
from the Edwards Plateau region of
Texas to the Gulf Coast of Mexico, there
are large physical and chemical
differences between streams in the
upper and lower parts of the basin
(Norris et al. 2005, p. 1; Nueces River
Authority 2010, p. 1). The differences
between the upper and lower parts may
be why the Nueces River and plateau
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
shiners are only found in the upper,
cooler headwaters.
The upper Nueces River basin, where
the Nueces River and plateau shiners
are found, is composed of three main
tributary systems: The Nueces, Frio, and
Sabinal Rivers (Edwards et al. 2008, p.
2). The plateau shiner is an endemic
(native to and generally confined to a
particular region) minnow that inhabits
clear, spring-fed streams over gravel
limestone substrates in the uppermost
headwaters of the Frio and Sabinal
Rivers on the Edwards Plateau (Edwards
et al. 2004, p. 261; Edwards et al. 2008,
p. 2; Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19).
Meanwhile, the Nueces River shiner is
an endemic minnow that is only found
in the uppermost headwaters of the
Nueces River, which is also on the
Edwards Plateau (Edwards et al. 2004,
p. 261; Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19).
An example of the inconsistency in
the species’ distribution occurred when
TPWD associated the plateau and
Nueces River shiners with the wrong
stream segments in their 2005
designation of ecologically significant
stream segments, which are stream
segments designated based on factors
related to biological function,
hydrologic function, presence of
riparian conservation areas, high water
quality, exceptional aquatic life, high
aesthetic value, threatened or
endangered species, and uniqueness
(Norris et al. 2005, pp. 16–19). Norris et
al. (2005, pp. 16–19) stated that the
Nueces River shiner occurred in the Frio
and Sabinal River, and the plateau
shiner occurred in the Nueces River (p.
17). However, this inconsistency may
have occurred because of the confusion
associated with the species’ taxonomy,
even though TPWD recognized the
Nueces River and plateau shiners as two
separate species (Norris et al. 2005, p.
10).
In a recent study, Edwards et al.
(2008, p. 3) attempted to estimate the
current distributional range of plateau
shiner in the Frio and Sabinal Rivers,
and Nueces River shiner in the Nueces
River. During their seasonal sampling
from 2007 to 2008, Edwards et al. (2008,
p. 5) captured over 11,700 individuals
of 24 species, including the Nueces
River and plateau shiners. They noted
that the Frio, Sabinal, and Nueces
Rivers were all dominated by fishes that
are typical of spring-fed headwater
central Texas streams, but added that
there is still incomplete knowledge of
the current range of the plateau shiner
in the Frio and Sabinal Rivers, and of
the Nueces River shiner in the upper
Nueces River (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 3).
Based on the best available information,
we believe that the Nueces River and
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
plateau shiners’ historical and current
ranges are the uppermost headwaters of
the Sabinal, Frio, and Nueces Rivers in
the Edwards Plateau region of Texas,
but the extent of their ranges remains to
be determined.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Habitat
There is limited information in the
literature regarding the Nueces River
and plateau shiners’ habitat. Edwards et
al. (2004, p. 261) noted that the plateau
shiner inhabited clear, spring-fed
streams over gravel limestone
substrates. Phillips et al. (2010, p. 133)
noted that Cyprinella collected out of
the Nueces River in 2002 and 2004 were
crevice spawners (females release their
eggs in crevices), like the majority of
other Cyprinella species. Also, Phillips
et al. (2010, p. 133) noted that the
specimens they collected relied on
spring or spring-fed water. Although not
specified to species, we assume that the
Cyprinella Phillips et al. (2010, p. 133)
referred to were Nueces River shiners
based on where the specimens were
collected. In any case, it is apparent that
both shiners’ habitat is spring-fed
streams, which are typically found in
the headwaters. Furthermore, the
headwater streams where both Nueces
River and plateau shiners occur are
characterized by limestone bedrock with
significant gravel and cobble bottoms,
clear evidence of spring-flows with
emergent vegetation and relatively
shallow depths, relatively high pH
values typical of limestone bedrock
streams of the Edwards Plateau,
relatively stable water temperatures, and
dissolved oxygen levels generally
around 10 parts per million (Edwards et
al. 2008, p. 21). Though limited, this
information is consistent with what is
known about the shiners’ habitat.
Population Abundance
There has been much speculation and
very little research actually surveying
and documenting the abundance of the
Nueces River and plateau shiners. A
genetic study by Richardson and Gold
(1995, p. 35) noted that the plateau
shiner’s abundance appeared to have
decreased considerably over the
previous 20 years prior to their study.
However, their note of plateau shiner
abundance was not based on actual
surveys or data collection (Richardson
and Gold 1995, p. 35). Also, we could
not find any evidence or documentation
that either of these shiners’ abundance
actually declined over this time period.
Therefore, we cannot conclude that
there was a decline in the Nueces River
or plateau shiners over the 20 years
prior to Richardson and Gold’s (1995)
study.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
Because of Richardson and Gold’s
(1995, p. 35) statement regarding the
presumed decline of the two shiners,
other researchers cited Richardson and
Gold while making the same conjecture.
For example, Hoagstrom et al. (2011, p.
24) claimed that 41 endemic fishes,
including plateau and Nueces River
shiners, were declining in the plains of
North America because of dewatering,
low flows, habitat fragmentation,
nonnative species, and pollution.
However, this presumption was based
on the Richardson and Gold (1995)
genetic study discussed above rather
than on actual abundance data or
surveys.
There has been a noted decline
throughout Texas for many of the State’s
native fishes (Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 2).
Nonnative species, as well as
degradation of water and habitat quality,
are thought to be major components of
the native fishes’ decline (Hubbs et al.
2008, p. 5). As part of the annotated
checklist of the freshwater fishes of
Texas, Hubbs et al. (2008, p. 19)
identified both the Nueces River and
plateau shiners as species of special
concern. Hubbs et al. (2008, p. 5)
defined a species of ‘‘special concern’’
as a taxon whose abundance or range
has been reduced to the degree that it
may be threatened with extinction or
whose range is only peripherally in
Texas and could be easily extirpated.
Some species were included in this
category of special concern because upto-date information concerning their
status was unavailable or fragmentary
(Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 5). In any case,
Hubbs et al. (2008) provided no
evidence for categorizing the Nueces
River and plateau shiners as species of
special concern. There was no
supporting information on abundance,
range reduction, or any other reason for
classifying these two fishes as species of
special concern. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that Hubbs et al.
(2008) classified the Nueces River and
plateau shiners as a species of special
concern because there was no up-to-date
information concerning their status.
Contrary to the information above,
other studies have noted that the Nueces
River and plateau shiners were
abundant within the past decade in the
headwaters of the Sabinal, Frio, and
Nueces Rivers (Figure 1). In fact,
Edwards et al. (2004, p. 261) stated that
the plateau shiner was moderately
abundant in the Edwards Plateau region.
To obtain a more thorough assessment
on the status of the Nueces River and
plateau shiners, Edwards et al. (2008, p.
6) conducted a sampling study from
2007 to 2008 in the Nueces, Frio, and
Sabinal Rivers and found that the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48781
Nueces River and plateau shiners were
two of the most abundant fishes in each
of these rivers out of 21 different species
collected.
Even though there have been claims
in the scientific literature that the
Nueces River and plateau shiners were
declining, these claims appear to be
unsubstantiated by actual survey data.
On the other hand, a recent study
conducted by Edwards et al. (2008, pp.
1–30) that surveyed abundance of the
Nueces River and plateau shiners found
large numbers of these species. In
conclusion, there is insufficient
evidence to determine population
trends for either species.
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and implementing regulations (50 CFR
part 424) set forth procedures for adding
species to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
determined to be endangered or
threatened based on any of the
following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In making this finding, information
pertaining to the Nueces River and
plateau shiners in relation to the five
factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act is discussed below. In making our
12-month finding on the petition, we
considered and evaluated the best
available scientific and commercial
information. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, and
other available published and
unpublished information. We also
consulted with recognized fish experts
and biologists with TPWD and The
Nature Conservancy.
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors for Nueces River
Shiner
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The following factors have the
potential to affect the habitat or range of
the Nueces River shiner: Livestock
grazing, water quantity, water quality,
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
48782
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and land use. Below, we discuss in
detail each of these factors and
determine whether or not they
constitute a threat to the species.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Livestock Grazing
While we know that livestock grazing
occurs within the range of the species,
we could find no information on the
extent or intensity of historical or
current livestock grazing practices or the
impact grazing might have on the
Nueces River shiner and its habitat. In
areas where livestock are grazed
inappropriately, impacts could include,
but are not limited to, runoff from
disturbed stream banks, livestock urine
and manure deposited into streams,
disturbance and erosion from trampled
banks, and increased solar exposure due
to reduced shade from streamside
vegetation and loss of undercut
streambanks. Any of these impacts
could affect the Nueces River shiner by
degrading water quality and negatively
impacting the species. Richardson and
Gold (1995, p. 35) concluded that much
of the land in the Nueces River basin is
used for agriculture, and that
overgrazing by cattle posed serious
problems for aquatic fauna. However,
we found no monitoring data indicating
that water quality degradation
associated with livestock grazing is
occurring within the range of the
Nueces River shiner. Based on the best
available information, we could find no
evidence that overgrazing is posing a
threat to the Nueces River shiner or is
likely to in the future. Therefore,
because the best available information
does not indicate that livestock grazing
is negatively impacting the species, we
find that the Nueces River shiner is not
in danger of extinction now or in the
foreseeable future as a result of livestock
grazing.
Water Quantity
Diminished water flows can cause
losses in habitat diversity, reduce
stream productivity, and degrade water
quality for many fish species (Norris et
al. 2005, p. 1). Richardson and Gold
(1995, p. 35) suggested that groundwater
(underground aquifer) levels for much
of south-central Texas had decreased
substantially over the decade preceding
their study (1980s), resulting in
significantly reduced water flow in
spring-fed rivers, including the habitat
of the Nueces River shiner. Although
there is evidence of stream flow
fluctuations that most likely relate to
annual rainfall events, the best available
information does not indicate that
reduced stream flows are occurring
within the range of the Nueces River
shiner at a level that may adversely
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
impact the species. As we have noted
previously, the Nueces River shiner is
an endemic minnow that is only found
in the uppermost headwaters of the
Nueces River within the Edwards
Plateau (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 261;
Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19). Over the past
century in the Edwards Plateau region
of Texas, there has been evidence of
some loss of natural spring and
headwater stream flows (Edwards et al.
2004, p. 253). Yet, water users in the
Edwards Plateau are altering their usage
of waters from the aquifers of the
Edwards Plateau. Reduced water usage
has allowed for the conservation of
regional spring flows (Edwards et al.
2004, p. 263). Additionally, stream flow
monitoring is occurring at various sites
within the Nueces River shiner’s range
by the United States Geological Survey
(Edwards et al. 2008, p. 25), and
Edwards et al. (2008, p. 25) analyzed
these stream flow measurements in the
Frio, Sabinal, and Nueces Rivers for the
last decade. Results of Edward’s et al.
(2008, p. 25) analysis showed that there
was a normal range of flow variation in
each of the streams due to natural
rainfall events. Edwards et al. (2008, p.
6) also noted that the Nueces River
shiner was one of the most abundant
fishes in the upper stream segments of
the Nueces River. Thus, the stream flow
variation was occurring at a level that
had no known impact on the species.
While there may be fluctuations in
stream flow, there is no evidence
indicating that reduced water flow is a
threat to the species either now or in the
foreseeable future. Therefore, we find
that the Nueces River shiner is not in
danger of extinction now or in the
foreseeable future as a result of reduced
water flow.
Water Quality
Within the last 12 years, there has
been cause for concern along certain
stream segments of the Nueces River. In
1999, a 91-mile (mi) (147-kilometers
(km)) stream segment of Nueces River
that flows from Holland Dam in La Salle
County to its confluence with the Frio
River at the Choke Canyon Reservoir in
Live Oak County was included in the
State of Texas’ Clean Water Act 303(d)
list as impaired due to concentrations of
dissolved oxygen below the minimum
standards criteria in the lower 25-mi
(40-km) portion of the stream (Bonner et
al. 2005, p. 1; Nueces River Authority
2010, p. 13). Adequate dissolved oxygen
is necessary for respiration and other
essential processes of aquatic organisms;
thus, low levels may be detrimental to
the health of aquatic organisms. The
majority of this lower 25-mi (40-km)
portion of the stream occurs in
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
McMullen County, which lies in the
South Texas Brush Country region of
Texas, well outside the historical and
current range of the Nueces River
shiner. As noted above in the Species
Information section, the Nueces River
shiner’s range occurs in the uppermost
headwaters in the Edwards Plateau
region of Texas. Therefore, the concerns
about low dissolved oxygen content
associated with this segment of Nueces
River do not relate to the Nueces River
shiner or its range.
Based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, there is no
evidence that pollution causing
diminished water quality may be having
an impact on the Nueces River shiner or
its habitat. In 2005, the TPWD reported
the Nueces River as having high water
quality and exceptional aquatic life
(Norris et al. 2005, p. 17). Also, the
TPWD designated stream segments in
the upper Nueces River as ecologically
significant based on low levels of
development in the watershed, no point
sources of pollution, no channelization,
and no atypical nonpoint sources of
pollution (Norris et al. 2005, p. 5).
Furthermore, water quality monitoring
has been conducted in the uppermost
reaches of the Nueces River where the
majority of Nueces River shiners occur,
and no problems have been found
(Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 17).
Therefore, we find that the Nueces River
shiner is not in danger of extinction
now or in the foreseeable future as a
result of diminished water quality
caused by pollution.
Land Use
The decline of native fishes in the
southern United States generally is
attributable to pervasive, complex
habitat degradation across the landscape
that both reduces and fragments habitat
and increases isolation of fish
populations (Warren et al. 2000, p. 8).
Often, physical habitat alteration in the
form of channelization, impoundment,
sedimentation, and flow modification
are frequently associated with fish
declines (Warren et al. 2000, p. 8).
Edwards et al. (2008, p. 3) mentioned
potential impacts to the Nueces River
from existing agricultural practices, land
use changes, and groundwater pumping,
and stated that these have combined to
create stream segments identified as
impaired under section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act. One of the main
purposes of the Edwards et al. (2008, p.
3) study was to find out if these
potential impacts may actually be a
factor in population and range declines
among native fishes, including the
Nueces River shiner. In order to
determine the extent of these potential
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
impacts, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 27)
looked at the biological integrity of
streams in the upper Nueces River and
found that the Nueces River had high
water quality within the range of the
Nueces River shiner. Also, Edwards et
al. (2008, p. 29) noted that the fish fauna
sampled are typically associated with
high-quality spring-fed streams within
the southern Edwards Plateau. On the
other hand, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 27)
noted some impacts along the upper
Nueces River, such as development
along the watercourse and recreational
pressures during the summer months.
Even with these impacts, the headwater
streams of the Nueces River basin
maintained much of their integrity as
evidenced by such fish as the Nueces
River shiner (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 27).
In fact, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6) stated
that the Nueces River shiner was one of
the most abundant fishes in the upper
stream segments of the Nueces River.
Further, The Nature Conservancy of
Texas is currently engaged in watershed
protection in the upper Nueces River
basin, mainly as a participant in the City
of San Antonio’s Aquifer Protection
Program (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 3). The
Nature Conservancy holds several
conservation easements and is exploring
ways to increase conservation efforts in
this part of the river basin (Edwards et
al. 2008, p. 3). Therefore, we find no
evidence indicating that land uses are
negatively impacting the Nueces River
shiner now or in the foreseeable future.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Summary of Factor A
We relied on the best available
scientific and commercial information,
which does not indicate that these or
any factors are impacting the Nueces
River shiner at a level that may impact
the species. Therefore, we find that the
Nueces River shiner is not in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable
future as a result of destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, there is no
evidence that impacts are occurring to
the Nueces River shiner or its habitat
under this factor. Other than the
scientific studies referenced in this
finding, this shiner is not used for any
commercial, recreational, or educational
purposes. Therefore, we find that the
Nueces River shiner is not in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable
future as a result of overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any research that
has been conducted to examine disease
or predation in the Nueces River shiner.
Also, we are not aware of any nonnative
species that may prey on the Nueces
River shiner. Therefore, based on the
best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the Nueces
River shiner is not in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable
future as a result of disease or predation.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
To determine if existing regulatory
mechanisms are adequate to protect the
Nueces River shiner, we evaluated
agreements and laws in effect within the
range of the species. One regulatory
mechanism is the Clean Water Act
(CWA), which was established in 1972.
The CWA is the primary Federal law
addressing water pollution in the
United States. The purpose of the CWA
is to stop pollutants from being
discharged into waterways and to
maintain water quality to provide a safe
environment for fishing, swimming, and
drinking. All navigable waters in the
United States are covered under the
CWA. The CWA provides guidelines
and offers Federal financial assistance
for identifying the causes of pollution.
There are standards and regulations that
must be adhered to by industries that
discharge into waterways. The CWA
sets forth water quality standards that
are site-specific allowable pollutant
levels for individual water bodies, such
as rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands.
State agencies are required by the CWA
to set water quality standards by
designating uses for the water body (e.g.,
recreation, water supply, aquatic life,
and agriculture) and applying water
quality criteria to protect the designated
uses.
In Texas, the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ),
formerly known as Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission, is
the environmental agency that oversees
water quality standards as required by
the CWA (TCEQ 2010b, p. 19). The
TCEQ strives to protect Texas’ human
and natural resources consistent with
sustainable economic development, by
providing clean air, clean water, and the
safe management of waste (TCEQ 2010b,
p. 4). The TCEQ key operations include,
but are not limited to, issuing,
administering, renewing, and modifying
permits, water rights, licenses, or
certifications for organizations and
individuals whose activities have some
potential or actual environmental
impact that must be formally authorized
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48783
by the agency; monitoring the current
condition of a geographic area or natural
resource, often through sampling or
surveys; and identifying, verifying, and
tracking violations of regulations and
initiating enforcement actions in
response to violations (TCEQ 2010b, p.
21). The TCEQ developed the Clean
Rivers Program to implement the goals
of the Texas Clean Rivers Act (TCRA),
described below.
The TCRA, which was passed in 1991
by the Texas legislature, requires that
basinwide water quality assessments be
conducted for each river basin in Texas
(Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 1). The
goal of the TCRA is to provide
waterways in the State with coordinated
monitoring and protection, to identify
the locations of water quality problems,
and develop solutions on a river basin
by river basin basis. The Clean Rivers
Program is a partnership involving the
TCEQ, other State agencies, river
authorities, local governments, industry,
and citizens (Nueces River Authority
2010, p. 1). Also, the Nueces River
Authority was created in 1935 by
special act of the 44th Texas Legislature
codified as Article 8280–115 (Texas
Water Code Auxiliary Laws, as
amended). Under supervision of the
TCEQ, the Nueces River Authority has
broad authority to preserve, protect, and
develop surface water resources,
including flood control, irrigation,
navigation, water supply, wastewater
treatment, and water quality control.
The Nueces River Authority serves all or
parts of 22 counties in Texas, covering
over 17,000 square miles (44,030 square
kilometers), including the drainage area
of the Nueces River and its tributaries
and the adjoining coastal basins.
Under the Clean Rivers Program and
using a watershed management
approach, the Nueces River Authority
and TCEQ work together to identify and
evaluate surface water quality issues
and to establish priorities for corrective
action within the Nueces River basin
(Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 1). The
Nueces River Authority and TCEQ
conduct quarterly water quality
monitoring at routine monitoring sites,
testing for such things as wastewater
discharge, runoff from quarry
operations, accidental spills, ammonia
excreted by animals or from fertilizers,
and agricultural runoff, among many
other things (Nueces River Authority
2010, pp. 2–3). If water quality issues
are detected, the Nueces River Authority
and TCEQ may take appropriate
corrective actions.
Lastly, the TPWD recognized the
upper reaches of the West Nueces,
Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers as
ecologically significant river and stream
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
48784
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
segments (Norris et al. 2005, p. 3).
Designation of a stream segment as
ecologically unique offers a certain
degree of protection from activities such
as reservoir construction (Norris et al.
2005, p. 5). This designation does not
impart protection from degradation, but
rather prohibits a State agency or
political subdivision of the State from
financing the actual construction of a
reservoir in a specific river or stream
segment designated as ecologically
significant by the legislature under
section 16.051(f) of the Texas Water
Code (Norris et al. 2005, p. 4).
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Summary of Factor D
In conclusion, there are Federal and
State regulatory protections currently in
place offering some levels of protection
for the Nueces River shiner from such
factors as degraded water quality,
pollution, and reservoir construction.
However, as discussed in other Factors
of the Nueces River shiner, we have not
identified any threats to the species that
are likely to negatively affect the status
of the species such that an inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms is
likely to be a threat to the species.
Therefore, we find that the Nueces River
shiner is not in danger of extinction
now or in the foreseeable future as a
result of inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Global climate change, and associated
effects on regional climatic regimes, is
not well understood, but model
predictions are that temperatures in the
southwestern United States will
continue to increase, with extreme
weather events (such as heat waves,
drought, and flooding) occurring with
more frequency (Archer and Predick
2008, p. 24). Also, there is some
scientific information suggesting that
fish in streams in southwestern North
America may be vulnerable to
extirpation or extinction due to global
climate change because many fish
species are already living near their
lethal thermal limits (Mathews and
Zimmerman 1990, p. 26). Endemic
species, like the Nueces River shiner,
which only inhabits the spring-fed
headwaters of the Nueces River, could
be more vulnerable to rising stream
temperatures because they may not be
able to move to more suitable areas. On
the other hand, spring-fed streams have
nearly constant environmental
conditions, such as temperature, due to
the constancy of groundwater chemistry
and discharge (Hoagstrom et al. 2011, p.
22). Thus, areas with substantial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
connections to aquifers may sustain
endemic fishes because groundwater
responds slowly to climate change,
buffering against fluctuations in climate
conditions (Hoagstrom et al. 2011, p.
22). Additionally, we are not aware of
any research that has been conducted on
water temperature tolerance of the
Nueces River shiner. Because the
Nueces River shiner’s water temperature
tolerance is unknown, the point at
which rising stream temperatures may
impact the species is also unknown.
Likewise, recent models on climate
change have indicated that annual mean
precipitation in the southwestern
United States is likely to decrease
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 887). Decreased
precipitation could result in diminished
water flows, which may cause losses in
habitat diversity, reduce stream
productivity, and degrade water quality
(Norris et al. 2005, p. 1). While it
appears reasonable to assume that
climate change could affect the Nueces
River shiner by reduced water flows, we
lack sufficient certainty to know
specifically how climate change will
affect the species. We have not
identified, nor are we aware of, any data
on an appropriate scale to evaluate
habitat or population trends for the
Nueces River shiner within its range, or
to make predictions on future trends
and whether the species will actually be
impacted.
There are multiple hypothetical
outcomes associated with climate
change that could potentially affect the
Nueces River shiner, but we lack
predictive local or regional models on
how climate change will specifically
affect the Nueces River shiner or its
habitat. Currently, we have no certainty
regarding the timing, magnitude, or
effects of impacts. Therefore, we find at
this time that it is not possible to make
reliable predictions of climate change
effects on the status of the Nueces River
shiner due to current limitations in
available data and climate models.
Based on the best available information
and our current knowledge and
understanding, we find that the Nueces
River shiner is not in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable
future as a result of natural or other
manmade threats affecting its continued
existence.
Finding for the Nueces River Shiner
As required by the Act, we considered
the five factors in assessing whether the
Nueces River shiner is threatened or
endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We
examined the best scientific and
commercial information available
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regarding the past, present, and future
threats faced by the species. We
reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, other available
published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with
recognized species experts and State
agencies.
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 warrants 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 is not
sufficient to compel a finding that
listing is appropriate; we require
evidence that these factors are operative
threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the
definition of threatened or endangered
under the Act.
Our review of all the available
information does not support a
determination that any current activities
or activities in the foreseeable future
threaten the Nueces River shiner or its
habitat to the point that the species
meets the definition of threatened or
endangered under the Act. There is no
evidence indicating that reduced water
flow, improper grazing of livestock,
pollution, and land use are affecting the
species or its habitat. Overutilization,
disease, and predation are not known
concerns for this species. We find that
no existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to limit or prevent possible
negative impacts from human activities.
Climate change could affect the habitat
of the Nueces River shiner in the future,
but we have no certainty regarding the
timing, magnitude, or effects of impacts
to the species.
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five
factors, we find that there are no threats
to indicate that the Nueces River shiner
is in danger of extinction (endangered)
or likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future (threatened)
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
throughout its range. Therefore, we find
that listing the Nueces River shiner as
endangered or threatened is not
warranted throughout its range at this
time.
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors for Plateau Shiner
The plateau shiner’s range is in close
proximity to the Nueces River shiner’s
range. Subsequently, many of the factors
that may affect the Nueces River shiner
also may affect the plateau shiner.
Therefore, much of the information
presented in this section is similar to
that presented above for the Nueces
River shiner. However, the plateau
shiner does inhabit separate headwaters
of the Sabinal and Frio Rivers in the
Edwards Plateau region of Texas,
whereas the Nueces River shiner
inhabits the headwaters of the Nueces
River. The Sabinal and Frio Rivers are
part of the Nueces River basin because
they flow into and become part of the
Nueces River in south-central Texas.
Because the plateau shiner occupies
separate headwaters than the Nueces
River shiner, we will discuss any
potential threats that might uniquely
affect the plateau shiner, but because
these two shiner species occupy nearby
headwaters and are very similar species,
we will refer to the information above,
where appropriate.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The following factors have the
potential to affect the habitat or range of
the plateau shiner: Livestock grazing,
reduced water quantity, impaired water
quality, and land use. Below, we discuss
each of these factors and determine
whether or not they constitute a threat
to the plateau shiner.
Livestock Grazing
While we know that livestock grazing
occurs within the range of the species,
we could find no information on the
extent or intensity of historical, current,
or future livestock grazing practices or
impacts that grazing may be having on
the species. As previously mentioned,
Richardson and Gold (1995, p. 35) cited
a personal communication in their
study to conclude that much of the land
in the Nueces River basin was used for
agriculture, and that overgrazing by
cattle posed serious problems for
aquatic fauna. However, based on the
best available information, we could
find no evidence or data to indicate that
improper livestock grazing affects the
plateau shiner or its habitat. Therefore,
we find that the plateau shiner is not in
danger of extinction now or in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
foreseeable future as a result of livestock
grazing.
Water Quantity
Please see Factor A discussion of the
Nueces River shiner for a more thorough
discussion of the potential impacts of
reduced water flow on these fish. As
stated above and based on the best
available information, we have no
evidence to indicate that reduced stream
flow is occurring within the range of the
plateau shiner at a level that may be
impacting the species. As we have noted
previously, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 25)
analyzed stream flow measurements in
the Frio, Sabinal, and Nueces Rivers for
the last decade and showed that there
was a normal range of flow variation in
each of the streams. Therefore, based on
the best available information, we find
that the plateau shiner is not in danger
of extinction now or in the foreseeable
future as a result of reduced water
flows.
Water Quality
Based on the best available
information, there is no evidence that
diminished water quality caused by
pollution may be occurring within the
range of the plateau shiner at a level that
affects the species or its habitat. In 2005,
the TPWD noted the Frio and Sabinal
Rivers as having high water quality and
exceptional aquatic life (Norris et al.
2005, pp. 16, 19). However, water
quality tests have been conducted on
other areas where plateau shiners are
known to occur, such as the uppermost
reaches of the Sabinal River, and water
quality impairment has been detected
(Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 16).
Even though a stream segment in the
upper Frio River remains on the State of
Texas’ Clean Water Act 303(d) list as
impaired and is within the range of the
species, there does not appear to be
adverse impacts to the plateau shiner or
its habitat.
In 2000, a 47-mi (76-km) stream
segment from where the West Frio River
and the East Frio River flow together in
Real County, at a point 110 yards (yd)
(100 meters (m)) upstream of Highway
90 in Uvalde County, was included on
the State of Texas’ Clean Water Act
303(d) list as impaired due to
concentrations of dissolved oxygen
below criteria associated with
exceptional aquatic life (Bonner et al.
2004, pp. 1–3). The dissolved oxygen
criteria was established based on the
fact that organisms that live in water
need oxygen to live, and in waters with
depressed dissolved oxygen levels,
organisms may not have sufficient
oxygen to survive (Nueces River
Authority 2010, p. 3). Following this
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48785
designation as impaired in 2000, TCEQ
initiated a project to verify the
impairment through the collection of
additional physical, chemical, and
biological data (Bonner et al. 2004, p. 3).
As a result, Bonner et al. (2004, p. 1)
conducted a 3-year monitoring study of
water quality at several stations along
the upper Frio River from 2002 through
2004. Based upon the 24-hour dissolved
oxygen data collected for this study,
Bonner et al. (2004, p. 20) found no
impairment due to depressed levels of
dissolved oxygen in the water and
concluded that the upper Frio River was
meeting the exceptional aquatic life use
standard. Routine water samples
yielded no significant levels of nutrient
impairment (Bonner et al. 2004, p. 20).
Therefore, Bonner et al. (2004, p. 1)
recommended removing the upper Frio
River from the State’s list of impaired
waters.
As part of the impairment verification
monitoring project on this 47-mi (76km) stream segment in the upper Frio
River, Ecological Communications
Corporation conducted biological data
collection and analysis in September
2002, August 2003, and October 2003
(Walther and Palma 2004, p. 3). Based
on the biological and habitat data
collected by Ecological Communications
Corporation, it appeared that the
number and diversity of aquatic
organisms were lower than the
established standards set forth in the
Texas Clean Water Act (Walther and
Palma 2004, p. 8).
In 2008 and 2010, this same stream
segment of the Frio River continued to
remain on the 303(d) list because of
concerns for impaired habitat, fish
community, and organisms living at the
bottom of the water (Nueces River
Authority 2008, pp. 56–58; Nueces
River Authority 2010, p. 17; TCEQ
2010a, p. 86). However, all testing
resulted in data that were within
TCEQ’s normal range, which included
dissolved oxygen, pH, total phosphorus,
nitrates, ammonia, chlorophyll-a,
nutrients, and bacteria (Nueces River
Authority 2008, pp. 56–58; Nueces
River Authority 2010, p. 17). Also, no
hypotheses were given for the reasons
this stream segment had aquatic life
uses that were lower than established
standards (Nueces River Authority 2008,
2010). Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29)
analyzed the biological integrity of
streams in the upper headwaters of the
Nueces River basin, and noted that the
water quality was generally high and the
fish fauna present were typical of highquality spring-fed streams. Also,
Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6) stated that
the plateau shiner was one of the most
abundant fishes surveyed.
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48786
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Another stretch of the Frio River, a
segment 158 mi (254 km) long, from 110
yds (100 m) upstream of Highway 90 in
Uvalde County to the confluence with
Choke Canyon Reservoir in McMullen
County, was placed on the 303(d) list as
impaired for bacteria in 2008 and 2010
(Nueces River Authority 2008, pp. 66–
71; Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 20;
TCEQ 2010a, p. 86). However, this
stretch of the Frio River is further
downstream in south-central Texas,
outside of the plateau shiner’s range.
Therefore, factors affecting this stream
segment are not likely to affect the
plateau shiner or its habitat.
As previously noted above under
Factor A analysis for the Nueces River
shiner, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 3)
conducted a study to find out if there
were potential impacts that may be
factors in population and range declines
among native fishes, including the
plateau shiner, in the upper headwaters
of the Nueces River basin. Edwards et
al. (2008, p. 27) analyzed the biological
integrity of streams in the upper Nueces
River basin, including the Sabinal and
Frio Rivers where the plateau shiner is
found. Edwards et al. (2008, p. 27)
found that the Sabinal and Frio Rivers
had exceptional water quality within
the range of the plateau shiners. Also,
Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29) noted that
the water quality was generally high and
the fish fauna present were typical of
high-quality spring-fed streams within
the southern Edwards Plateau. On the
other hand, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29)
noted a number of significant impacts,
such as development along the
watercourse, low-head dams along the
Sabinal River, and at times intense
recreational pressures during the
summer months, especially along the
Frio River. Even with these impacts to
the streams, the headwaters of the
Sabinal and Frio Rivers maintained
much of their integrity as evidenced by
the numerous indicator fishes (fishes
thought to be sensitive to, and serve as
an early warning indicator of,
environmental changes), such as the
plateau shiner (Edwards et al. 2008, p.
27). In fact, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6)
stated that the plateau shiner was one of
the most abundant fishes. Because the
plateau shiner was one of the most
abundant species surveyed, it does not
appear that factors related to
development along the watercourse,
low-head dams, and recreational use are
negatively impacting the plateau shiner.
In conclusion, even though a portion
of the Frio River is listed as impaired by
the State of Texas under the Clean
Water Act 303(d) because of concerns
for impaired habitat, fish community,
and organisms living at the bottom of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
the water, a study conducted by
Edwards et al. (2008) found no evidence
of actual impacts on the plateau shiner.
Likewise, Bonner et al. (2004, p. 20)
previously found no impairment due to
depressed levels of dissolved oxygen in
the water and concluded that the upper
Frio River was meeting the exceptional
aquatic life use standard. In addition, all
water quality monitoring in the
impaired stream segment resulted in
water parameters within the normal
range (Nueces River Authority 2008, pp.
56–58; Nueces River Authority 2010, p.
17). Based on the best available
information, we find that the plateau
shiner is not in danger of extinction
now or in the foreseeable future as a
result of degraded water quality.
available information, we find that the
plateau shiner is not in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable
future as a result of recreational use or
any other type of land use.
Land Use
The primary land use factors that
could affect the plateau shiner are
recreation, agricultural activities, and
land development. The upper Frio River
is used extensively for recreation, and
the extensive recreational usage is
expected to continue in the future
(Walther and Palma 2004, p. 1; Nueces
River Authority 1998, p. 2). Although
we could find no evidence to indicate
that recreational usage may be
impacting plateau shiner in the Sabinal
River, it is reasonable to assume that
recreational use does occur in this river.
The Frio River is very popular for
recreational activities such as canoeing,
tubing, fishing, and wildlife viewing
(Norris et al. 2005, p. 15). A study was
conducted on the upper Frio River to
evaluate the impact of recreational use
and land development on water quality
and the aquatic biological community
(Nueces River Authority 1998, p. 2).
Impacts were evaluated through the
collection and interpretation of
information on land uses and historic
utilization, and by conducting biological
assessments, toxicity testing, and water
quality analysis (Nueces River
Authority, p. 2). The Nueces River
Authority (1998, p. 3) noted that the
upper Frio River was primarily forest
and rangeland with some agricultural
activities, mainly orchards and
nurseries, and very limited urban land
development, primarily related to
tourist and camping accommodations.
Overall, the chemical and physical
water quality of the upper Frio River
was found to be very good, and
recreational use had little impact on
river quality during the spring and
summer visitation period (Nueces River
Authority 1998, p. 10). This is further
supported by an Edwards et al. (2008, p.
27) study, which found that the Sabinal
and Frio Rivers had exceptional water
quality. Based on our review of the best
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, there is no
evidence that impacts are occurring to
the plateau shiner or its habitat under
this factor. Other than the scientific
studies referenced in this finding, the
plateau shiner is not used for any
commercial, recreational, or educational
purposes. Therefore, we find that the
plateau shiner is not in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable
future as a result of overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Summary of Factor A
We relied on the best available
scientific and commercial information,
which does not indicate that any of the
factors discussed above are impacting
the plateau shiner at a level that
constitutes a threat to the species.
Therefore, we find that the plateau
shiner is not in danger of extinction
now or in the foreseeable future as a
result of the present or foreseeable
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
As with the Nueces River shiner, we
are not aware of any research that has
been conducted to specifically examine
disease or predation in the plateau
shiner. There was no mention of disease
or predation in our review of the best
available information. Also, we are not
aware of any nonnative species that may
prey on the plateau shiner. Therefore,
we find that the plateau shiner is not in
danger of extinction now or in the
foreseeable future as a result of disease
or predation.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
As we discussed in more detail above
under Factor D analysis for the Nueces
River shiner, there are Federal and State
regulatory protections currently in place
offering some levels of protection for the
plateau shiner, particularly from such
factors as degraded water quality,
pollution, and reservoir construction.
The Factor D analysis for the Nueces
River shiner presented above also
pertains to the plateau shiner’s habitat
and range. However, as discussed in
other Factors for the plateau shiner, we
have not identified any threats to the
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
species that are negatively affecting the
status of the species, such that an
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms is
likely to be a threat to the species.
Therefore, we find that the plateau
shiner is not in danger of extinction
now or in the foreseeable future as a
result of inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
The same impacts discussed above
under the Factor E analysis for the
Nueces River shiner also apply to the
plateau shiner. As with the Nueces
River shiner, there are multiple
hypothetical outcomes associated with
climate change that could potentially
affect the plateau shiner, but we lack
predictive local or regional models on
how climate change will specifically
affect the plateau shiner or its habitat.
Currently, we have no certainty
regarding the timing, magnitude, or
effects of impacts from climate change.
Therefore, we conclude that at this time
it is not possible to make reliable
predictions of climate change effects on
the status of the plateau shiner due to
current limitations in available data and
climate models. Based on the best
available information, we find that the
plateau shiner is not in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable
future as a result other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Finding for the Plateau Shiner
As required by the Act, we considered
the five factors in assessing whether the
plateau shiner is threatened or
endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We
examined the best scientific and
commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future
threats faced by the species. We
reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, other available
published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with
recognized species experts and State
agencies.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
significant, it may drive or contribute to
the risk of extinction of the species such
that the species warrants 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 is not
sufficient to compel a finding that
listing is appropriate; we require
evidence that these factors are operative
threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the
definition of threatened or endangered
under the Act.
Our review of the best available
information does not support a
determination that any current activities
or activities in the foreseeable future
threaten the plateau shiner or its habitat
to the point that the species meets the
definition of threatened or endangered
under the Act. There is no evidence
indicating that reduced water flow,
improper grazing by livestock,
diminished water quality caused by
pollution, or land use is affecting the
species or its habitat. Overutilization,
disease, and predation are not concerns
for this species. We find no existing
regulatory mechanisms that are
inadequate to limit or prevent possible
negative impacts from human activities.
Climate change is another factor that
could affect the habitat of the plateau
shiner in the future, but we have no
certainty regarding the timing,
magnitude, or effects of impacts to the
species.
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five
factors, we find that there are no threats
to indicate that the species is in danger
of extinction (endangered), or likely to
become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout its range. Therefore, we find
that listing the plateau shiner as a
threatened or endangered species is not
warranted throughout its range at this
time.
Significant Portion of the Range and
Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments
After assessing whether the two
species are threatened or endangered
throughout their ranges, we next
consider whether either a significant
portion of the Nueces River and plateau
shiners’ ranges or a distinct population
segment (DPS) of either or both species
meets the definition of endangered or is
likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future (threatened).
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48787
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that the Nueces
River and plateau shiners do not meet
the definition of a threatened or
endangered species throughout all of
their ranges, we must next consider
whether there are any significant
portions of the range where either
species are in danger of extinction or is
likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future.
The Act defines an endangered
species as one ‘‘in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,’’ and a threatened species as
one ‘‘likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’ The term ‘‘significant portion
of its range’’ is not defined by the
statute. For the purposes of this finding,
a portion of the species’ range is
‘‘significant’’ if it is part of the current
range of the species, and it provides a
crucial contribution to the
representation, resiliency, or
redundancy of the species. For the
contribution to be crucial it must be at
a level such that, without that portion,
the species would be in danger of
extinction.
In determining whether a species is
threatened or endangered in a
significant portion of its range, we first
identify any portions of the range of the
species that warrant further
consideration. The range of a species
can theoretically be divided into
portions an infinite number of ways.
However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that are
not reasonably likely to be significant
and threatened or endangered. To
identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine
whether there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) The portions may be
significant, and (2) the species may be
in danger of extinction there or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future.
In practice, a key part of this analysis is
whether the threats are geographically
concentrated in some way. If the threats
to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, no portion is likely
to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of
threats applies only to portions of the
species’ range that clearly would not
meet the biologically based definition of
‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that
portion clearly would not reasonably be
expected to increase the vulnerability to
extinction of the entire species to the
point that the species would then be in
danger of extinction), such portions will
not warrant further consideration.
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
48788
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
If we identify portions that warrant
further consideration, we then
determine whether the species is
threatened or endangered in these
portions of its range. Depending on the
biology of the species, its range, and the
threats it faces, it might be more
efficient for us to address either the
‘‘significant’’ question first, or the status
question first. Thus, if we determine
that a portion of the range is not
‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to
determine whether the species is in
endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not
endangered or threatened in a portion of
its range, we do not need to determine
if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’
Applying the process described above
for determining whether a species is
threatened or endangered in a
significant portion of its range, we
consider status first to determine if any
threats or potential threats acting
individually or collectively threaten or
endanger the species in a portion of its
range. We have analyzed the threats to
the degree possible, and determined
they are essentially uniform throughout
both species’ ranges.
There is no information to suggest
that any portion of the ranges of either
species contributes more significantly to
species than any other portion of their
ranges. There is no information to
suggest that any portion of their ranges
is of better quality than any other
portion, or that any portion includes
important concentrations of certain
types of habitat that are necessary for
the species to carry out its life-history
functions. As a result, we conclude that
there is no information that a particular
portion of the Nueces River or plateau
shiners’ range warrants further
consideration as threatened or
endangered.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Conclusion of 12-Month Finding
We do not find the Nueces River
shiner or plateau shiner to be in danger
of extinction now, nor is either species
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Aug 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
significant portion of their range.
Therefore, listing either species as
threatened or endangered under the Act
is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the status of, or
threats to, the species to our Austin
Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section) whenever it
becomes available. New information
will help us monitor the Nueces River
and plateau shiners and encourage their
conservation. If an emergency situation
develops for the Nueces River shiner,
plateau shiner, or any other species, we
will act to provide immediate
protection.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Under the Service’s Policy Regarding
the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996), three elements are
considered in the decision concerning
the establishment and classification of a
possible DPS. These are applied
similarly for additions to or removal
from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. These elements
include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in
relation to the remainder of the species
to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population
segment to the species to which it
belongs; and
(3) The population segment’s
conservation status in relation to the
Act’s standards for listing, delisting, or
reclassification (i.e., is the population
segment endangered or threatened).
Discreteness
Under the DPS policy, a population
segment of a vertebrate taxon may be
considered discrete if it satisfies either
one of the following conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors.
Quantitative measures of genetic or
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation
status, or regulatory mechanisms exist
that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
We determine, based on a review of
the best available information, that
neither the Nueces River shiner nor the
plateau shiner meet the discreteness
conditions of the 1996 DPS policy.
Neither species has populations that are
known to be markedly separate from
other populations of the same taxon, nor
does either species have populations
delimited by international governmental
boundaries. Therefore, these population
segments do not qualify as a DPS under
our policy and are not listable entities
under the Act.
The DPS policy is clear that
significance is analyzed only when a
population segment has been identified
as discrete. Because no population
segment met the discreteness element
for either the Nueces River or plateau
shiners, neither species qualifies as a
DPS under the Service’s DPS policy.
Therefore, we will not conduct an
evaluation of significance.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Austin Ecological Services
Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
staff members of the Southwest Regional
Office.
Authority: The authority for this section is
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 27, 2011.
James J. Slack,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–20054 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48777-48788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20054]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2011-0057; MO 92210-0-0008 B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Nueces River and Plateau Shiners as
Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Nueces River shiner
(Cyprinella sp.) and plateau shiner (Cyprinella lepida) as threatened
or 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 the Nueces
River and plateau shiners is not warranted at this time. However, we
ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes
available concerning the threats to the Nueces River and plateau
shiners or their habitats at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 9,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://
[[Page 48778]]
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number [FWS-R2-ES-2011-0057]. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office,
10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor,
Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone
at 512-490-0057, extension 248; or by facsimile at 512-490-0974. If you
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition
to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information
that listing the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of receipt of the petition. In this finding, we will
determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted, (2)
warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending
proposals to determine whether species are threatened or endangered,
and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a
petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is,
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must
publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, we received a petition dated June 18, 2007, from
Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians), requesting that 475 species
in the southwestern United States, including the Nueces River and
plateau shiners, be listed under the Act and critical habitat be
designated. We acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to
the petitioner, dated July 11, 2007. In that letter we also stated that
the petition was under review by staff in our Southwest Regional
Office.
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint alleging
that the Service failed to comply with its mandatory duty to make a
preliminary 90-day finding on the June 18, 2007, petition to list 475
southwest species. We subsequently published an initial 90-day finding
for 270 of the 475 petitioned species on January 6, 2009 (74 FR 419),
concluding that the petition did not present substantial information
that listing of those 270 species may be warranted. This initial 90-day
finding did not include the Nueces River and plateau shiners.
Subsequently, on March 13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth Guardians
filed a stipulated settlement agreement, agreeing that the Service
would submit to the Federal Register a finding as to whether their
petition presented substantial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted for the remaining 192 southwestern
species by December 9, 2009. On December 16, 2009 (74 FR 66866), we
published a second 90-day finding for the remaining 192 southwestern
species, which included a determination that listing the Nueces River
and plateau shiners may be warranted, and initiated a status review.
This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the June 18, 2007,
petition to list the Nueces River and plateau Shiners as threatened or
endangered with critical habitat.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
There has been some confusion and inconsistency regarding the
taxonomy of the Nueces River and plateau shiners. Currently, there are
approximately 30 species that belong to the genus Cyprinella, of which
both species of shiners are members (Nelson et al. 2004, p. 69;
Schonhuth and Mayden 2010, p. 77). The taxonomy within this genus has
been associated with extensive confusion because similarities in body
characteristics have made it difficult to differentiate between species
(Schonhuth and Mayden 2010, p. 77). Fortunately, much of this confusion
is being resolved with advances in genetic analysis (Schonhuth and
Mayden 2010, pp. 77-98). However, there are still outstanding taxonomic
issues that need to be resolved to clarify any potential confusion
between the Nueces River and plateau shiners.
When first described, the Nueces River and plateau shiners were not
considered separate species. They were both originally described as the
plateau shiner, Cyprinella lepida, by Girard in 1856 (Richardson and
Gold 1995, p. 29). Nearly 100 years later, both species were still
thought to be one species. For example, Hubbs (1954, pp. 277-291)
recognized only one species as distinct, the plateau shiner, Notropis
(=Cyprinella) lepidus, occurring in the Nueces, Frio, and upper
Guadalupe Rivers. However, Mayden (1989, p. 60) later pointed out that
the shiner Hubbs (1954, pp. 277-291) referred to in the upper Guadalupe
River was actually a red shiner species, Notropis (=Cyprinella)
lutrensis, and not the plateau shiner.
Morphological studies conducted by Matthews (1987, pp. 616-637) and
Mayden (1989, pp. 58-60) provided support that Cyprinella lepida was a
distinct and valid species occurring in the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal
Rivers of the Nueces River basin (Figure 1). However, Matthews (1987,
p. 269) noted that there were morphological differences between
specimens collected in the Nueces and Frio Rivers, but did not suggest
that there were two separate taxonomic entities. One of the main
differences was breeding coloration in male specimens collected in the
Frio River; these male specimens had red on the tip of their snouts
(Matthews 1987, pp. 632-634). The male specimens collected in the
Nueces River exhibited no breeding coloration (Matthews 1987, pp. 632-
634).
[[Page 48779]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU11.013
These morphological differences between the Nueces and Frio Rivers'
shiners were validated by genetic investigations that revealed two
distinct lineages within populations of Cyprinella lepida. In 1987 and
1988, Richardson and Gold (1995, p. 29) conducted a genetic study on
Cyprinella lepida, in which they (Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 29)
collected individuals from the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers. The
results of their genetic analysis showed that Cyprinella lepida in the
Frio and Sabinal Rivers was a distinct species from Cyprinella lepida
collected in the Nueces River (Richardson and Gold 1995, pp. 31-33).
Specimens collected in the Frio River were very similar genetically to
specimens collected in the Sabinal River (Richardson and Gold 1995, p.
31). However, specimens collected from the Frio and Sabinal Rivers were
quite different genetically from specimens collected in the Nueces
River (Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 31). The genetic differences, along
with the observed morphological differences, led Richardson and Gold
(1995, pp. 31-33) to conclude that Cyprinella in the Frio and Sabinal
Rivers was a distinct species from those in the Nueces River. Since
1995, the population in the Nueces River has been referred to as the
Nueces River shiner, an unnamed species within Cyprinella, while
populations in the Frio and Sabinal Rivers have kept the kept the name
plateau shiner, Cyprinella lepida. Formal naming of the Nueces River
shiner, Cyprinella sp., is still pending.
Further genetic investigations by Richardson and Gold (1999)
supported their previous conclusion that Cyprinella in the Frio and
Sabinal Rivers is a distinct species from those in the Nueces River. In
this study, Richardson and Gold (1999, p. 50) focused on variation in
mitochondrial genes in the five species of the shiner group inhabiting
the southwestern United States, which included specimens of Cyprinella
lepida from the Frio River and Cyprinella sp. from the Nueces River.
Based on results of this study, Richardson and Gold (1999, p. 55) were
hesitant to promote a sister relationship between the Nueces River
shiner, Cyprinella sp., and the plateau shiner, Cyprinella lepida,
meaning that the two lineages were not closely related. Instead, they
concluded that the Nueces River shiner and plateau shiner were not as
closely related to each other as they were to other species within the
Cyprinella genus (Richardson and Gold 1999, p. 55).
Another genetic study agreed that the Nueces River shiner and
plateau shiner are distinct species. In 2000, Broughton and Gold (pp.
1-10) conducted a genetic analysis of all Cyprinella species found
[[Page 48780]]
in the United States. As part of their methodology, Broughton and Gold
(2000, p. 5) grouped the Nueces and Plateau shiners into the same
species, Cyprinella lepida, but did make the distinction that
``Cyprinella lepida-a'' from the Frio River were not closely related to
``Cyprinella lepida-b'' from the Nueces River.
In an effort to clarify some of the genus' taxonomic confusion,
Schonhuth and Mayden (2010, pp. 77-98) conducted a genetic study of all
species within the Cyprinella genus, with a more exhaustive focus on
the problematic taxa. Results from Schonhuth and Mayden's (2010, p. 91)
genetic analysis were consistent with previous genetic studies:
Cyprinella lepida in the Sabinal and Frio Rivers are genetically
separate and distinct from the Cyprinella sp. found in the Nueces
River. Genetic differences between specimens from the Sabinal and Frio
Rivers were very different from those collected in the Nueces River,
enough so that Schonhuth and Mayden (2010, p. 91) recommended leaving
them as separate species.
Despite the morphological and genetic studies of the Nueces River
and plateau shiners, the scientific community has been inconsistent in
recognizing these shiners as separate species. The Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPWD) recognizes the plateau shiner (Cyprinella
lepida) and Nueces River shiner (Cyprinella sp.) as separate species
(Norris et al. 2005, p. 10). However, Phillips et al. (2010, p. 130)
failed to recognize the Nueces River shiner as a separate species
during a study on sound production and spawning behavior. In fact,
Phillips et al. (2010, p. 130) stated that they collected Cyprinella
lepida with seines from the Nueces River 0.5 mi (0.8 km) west of Camp
Wood, Real County, Texas, during December 2002 and March 2003, and
transferred them to a lab to do an acoustic study on spawning behavior.
It is not clear whether Phillips et al. (2010) collected actual plateau
shiners from the Nueces River, or whether they collected Nueces River
shiners but mistakenly called them plateau shiners. Phillips et al.
(2010) did not mention the name Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella sp.,
nor did they mention how they determined that the fish were Cyprinella
lepida. To add further confusion, acceptance of the Nueces River
shiner, Cyprinella sp., as a separate species from the plateau shiner,
Cyprinella lepida, by the American Fisheries Society (2004, p. 69) is
still pending. On the other hand, Hubbs et al. (2008, p. 19) recognized
the Nueces River and plateau shiners as separate species in their
annotated checklist of the freshwater fishes of Texas. Because there is
still inconsistency, a formal systematic description by the scientific
community of the Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella sp., is needed.
Based on the best available science, we accept the characterization
of the Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella sp., and the plateau shiner,
Cyprinella lepida, as separate species. We base this distinction on the
morphological and genetic research conducted by Richardson and Gold
(1995, pp. 28-37), Edwards et al. (2008, pp. 1-30), and Schonhuth and
Mayden (2010, pp. 77-98), and due to the fact that this research has
been accepted by much of the scientific community (Hubbs et al. 2008,
p. 19). However, we recognize there is a need for more extensive
morphological, genetic, and life history research with more thorough
species characterizations and formal descriptions of these two shiners,
especially for the Nueces River shiner. Because we recognize these two
shiners as separate species, we conduct separate five-factor analyses
below under section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether either
species meets the definition of threatened or endangered. However, we
address both species in this finding because they occur in nearby
watersheds and could be subject to the similar threats.
Distribution
Because of the inconsistencies in taxonomy and species descriptions
of the Nueces River and plateau shiners, there has been similar
confusion and inconsistencies regarding these shiners' distribution.
However, one thing that has been clearly understood is that both the
historic and current range of both shiners is the uppermost headwaters
of the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers of the Nueces River basin
(Figure 1). The Nueces River basin covers approximately 17,000 square
miles (44,030 square kilometers), encompassing all or part of 23
counties in south-central Texas (Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 1).
Rivers within the basin include Nueces, Frio, Leona, Sabinal, and
Atascosa Rivers (Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 1). Because the Nueces
River basin is so large, running from the Edwards Plateau region of
Texas to the Gulf Coast of Mexico, there are large physical and
chemical differences between streams in the upper and lower parts of
the basin (Norris et al. 2005, p. 1; Nueces River Authority 2010, p.
1). The differences between the upper and lower parts may be why the
Nueces River and plateau shiners are only found in the upper, cooler
headwaters.
The upper Nueces River basin, where the Nueces River and plateau
shiners are found, is composed of three main tributary systems: The
Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 2). The
plateau shiner is an endemic (native to and generally confined to a
particular region) minnow that inhabits clear, spring-fed streams over
gravel limestone substrates in the uppermost headwaters of the Frio and
Sabinal Rivers on the Edwards Plateau (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 261;
Edwards et al. 2008, p. 2; Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19). Meanwhile, the
Nueces River shiner is an endemic minnow that is only found in the
uppermost headwaters of the Nueces River, which is also on the Edwards
Plateau (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 261; Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19).
An example of the inconsistency in the species' distribution
occurred when TPWD associated the plateau and Nueces River shiners with
the wrong stream segments in their 2005 designation of ecologically
significant stream segments, which are stream segments designated based
on factors related to biological function, hydrologic function,
presence of riparian conservation areas, high water quality,
exceptional aquatic life, high aesthetic value, threatened or
endangered species, and uniqueness (Norris et al. 2005, pp. 16-19).
Norris et al. (2005, pp. 16-19) stated that the Nueces River shiner
occurred in the Frio and Sabinal River, and the plateau shiner occurred
in the Nueces River (p. 17). However, this inconsistency may have
occurred because of the confusion associated with the species'
taxonomy, even though TPWD recognized the Nueces River and plateau
shiners as two separate species (Norris et al. 2005, p. 10).
In a recent study, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 3) attempted to
estimate the current distributional range of plateau shiner in the Frio
and Sabinal Rivers, and Nueces River shiner in the Nueces River. During
their seasonal sampling from 2007 to 2008, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 5)
captured over 11,700 individuals of 24 species, including the Nueces
River and plateau shiners. They noted that the Frio, Sabinal, and
Nueces Rivers were all dominated by fishes that are typical of spring-
fed headwater central Texas streams, but added that there is still
incomplete knowledge of the current range of the plateau shiner in the
Frio and Sabinal Rivers, and of the Nueces River shiner in the upper
Nueces River (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 3). Based on the best available
information, we believe that the Nueces River and
[[Page 48781]]
plateau shiners' historical and current ranges are the uppermost
headwaters of the Sabinal, Frio, and Nueces Rivers in the Edwards
Plateau region of Texas, but the extent of their ranges remains to be
determined.
Habitat
There is limited information in the literature regarding the Nueces
River and plateau shiners' habitat. Edwards et al. (2004, p. 261) noted
that the plateau shiner inhabited clear, spring-fed streams over gravel
limestone substrates. Phillips et al. (2010, p. 133) noted that
Cyprinella collected out of the Nueces River in 2002 and 2004 were
crevice spawners (females release their eggs in crevices), like the
majority of other Cyprinella species. Also, Phillips et al. (2010, p.
133) noted that the specimens they collected relied on spring or
spring-fed water. Although not specified to species, we assume that the
Cyprinella Phillips et al. (2010, p. 133) referred to were Nueces River
shiners based on where the specimens were collected. In any case, it is
apparent that both shiners' habitat is spring-fed streams, which are
typically found in the headwaters. Furthermore, the headwater streams
where both Nueces River and plateau shiners occur are characterized by
limestone bedrock with significant gravel and cobble bottoms, clear
evidence of spring-flows with emergent vegetation and relatively
shallow depths, relatively high pH values typical of limestone bedrock
streams of the Edwards Plateau, relatively stable water temperatures,
and dissolved oxygen levels generally around 10 parts per million
(Edwards et al. 2008, p. 21). Though limited, this information is
consistent with what is known about the shiners' habitat.
Population Abundance
There has been much speculation and very little research actually
surveying and documenting the abundance of the Nueces River and plateau
shiners. A genetic study by Richardson and Gold (1995, p. 35) noted
that the plateau shiner's abundance appeared to have decreased
considerably over the previous 20 years prior to their study. However,
their note of plateau shiner abundance was not based on actual surveys
or data collection (Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 35). Also, we could
not find any evidence or documentation that either of these shiners'
abundance actually declined over this time period. Therefore, we cannot
conclude that there was a decline in the Nueces River or plateau
shiners over the 20 years prior to Richardson and Gold's (1995) study.
Because of Richardson and Gold's (1995, p. 35) statement regarding
the presumed decline of the two shiners, other researchers cited
Richardson and Gold while making the same conjecture. For example,
Hoagstrom et al. (2011, p. 24) claimed that 41 endemic fishes,
including plateau and Nueces River shiners, were declining in the
plains of North America because of dewatering, low flows, habitat
fragmentation, nonnative species, and pollution. However, this
presumption was based on the Richardson and Gold (1995) genetic study
discussed above rather than on actual abundance data or surveys.
There has been a noted decline throughout Texas for many of the
State's native fishes (Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 2). Nonnative species, as
well as degradation of water and habitat quality, are thought to be
major components of the native fishes' decline (Hubbs et al. 2008, p.
5). As part of the annotated checklist of the freshwater fishes of
Texas, Hubbs et al. (2008, p. 19) identified both the Nueces River and
plateau shiners as species of special concern. Hubbs et al. (2008, p.
5) defined a species of ``special concern'' as a taxon whose abundance
or range has been reduced to the degree that it may be threatened with
extinction or whose range is only peripherally in Texas and could be
easily extirpated. Some species were included in this category of
special concern because up-to-date information concerning their status
was unavailable or fragmentary (Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 5). In any case,
Hubbs et al. (2008) provided no evidence for categorizing the Nueces
River and plateau shiners as species of special concern. There was no
supporting information on abundance, range reduction, or any other
reason for classifying these two fishes as species of special concern.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Hubbs et al. (2008)
classified the Nueces River and plateau shiners as a species of special
concern because there was no up-to-date information concerning their
status.
Contrary to the information above, other studies have noted that
the Nueces River and plateau shiners were abundant within the past
decade in the headwaters of the Sabinal, Frio, and Nueces Rivers
(Figure 1). In fact, Edwards et al. (2004, p. 261) stated that the
plateau shiner was moderately abundant in the Edwards Plateau region.
To obtain a more thorough assessment on the status of the Nueces River
and plateau shiners, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6) conducted a sampling
study from 2007 to 2008 in the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers and
found that the Nueces River and plateau shiners were two of the most
abundant fishes in each of these rivers out of 21 different species
collected.
Even though there have been claims in the scientific literature
that the Nueces River and plateau shiners were declining, these claims
appear to be unsubstantiated by actual survey data. On the other hand,
a recent study conducted by Edwards et al. (2008, pp. 1-30) that
surveyed abundance of the Nueces River and plateau shiners found large
numbers of these species. In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence
to determine population trends for either species.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the Nueces River
and plateau shiners in relation to the five factors provided in section
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In making our 12-month finding
on the petition, we considered and evaluated the best available
scientific and commercial information. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, and other available published and
unpublished information. We also consulted with recognized fish experts
and biologists with TPWD and The Nature Conservancy.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors for Nueces River
Shiner
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The following factors have the potential to affect the habitat or
range of the Nueces River shiner: Livestock grazing, water quantity,
water quality,
[[Page 48782]]
and land use. Below, we discuss in detail each of these factors and
determine whether or not they constitute a threat to the species.
Livestock Grazing
While we know that livestock grazing occurs within the range of the
species, we could find no information on the extent or intensity of
historical or current livestock grazing practices or the impact grazing
might have on the Nueces River shiner and its habitat. In areas where
livestock are grazed inappropriately, impacts could include, but are
not limited to, runoff from disturbed stream banks, livestock urine and
manure deposited into streams, disturbance and erosion from trampled
banks, and increased solar exposure due to reduced shade from
streamside vegetation and loss of undercut streambanks. Any of these
impacts could affect the Nueces River shiner by degrading water quality
and negatively impacting the species. Richardson and Gold (1995, p. 35)
concluded that much of the land in the Nueces River basin is used for
agriculture, and that overgrazing by cattle posed serious problems for
aquatic fauna. However, we found no monitoring data indicating that
water quality degradation associated with livestock grazing is
occurring within the range of the Nueces River shiner. Based on the
best available information, we could find no evidence that overgrazing
is posing a threat to the Nueces River shiner or is likely to in the
future. Therefore, because the best available information does not
indicate that livestock grazing is negatively impacting the species, we
find that the Nueces River shiner is not in danger of extinction now or
in the foreseeable future as a result of livestock grazing.
Water Quantity
Diminished water flows can cause losses in habitat diversity,
reduce stream productivity, and degrade water quality for many fish
species (Norris et al. 2005, p. 1). Richardson and Gold (1995, p. 35)
suggested that groundwater (underground aquifer) levels for much of
south-central Texas had decreased substantially over the decade
preceding their study (1980s), resulting in significantly reduced water
flow in spring-fed rivers, including the habitat of the Nueces River
shiner. Although there is evidence of stream flow fluctuations that
most likely relate to annual rainfall events, the best available
information does not indicate that reduced stream flows are occurring
within the range of the Nueces River shiner at a level that may
adversely impact the species. As we have noted previously, the Nueces
River shiner is an endemic minnow that is only found in the uppermost
headwaters of the Nueces River within the Edwards Plateau (Edwards et
al. 2004, p. 261; Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19). Over the past century in
the Edwards Plateau region of Texas, there has been evidence of some
loss of natural spring and headwater stream flows (Edwards et al. 2004,
p. 253). Yet, water users in the Edwards Plateau are altering their
usage of waters from the aquifers of the Edwards Plateau. Reduced water
usage has allowed for the conservation of regional spring flows
(Edwards et al. 2004, p. 263). Additionally, stream flow monitoring is
occurring at various sites within the Nueces River shiner's range by
the United States Geological Survey (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 25), and
Edwards et al. (2008, p. 25) analyzed these stream flow measurements in
the Frio, Sabinal, and Nueces Rivers for the last decade. Results of
Edward's et al. (2008, p. 25) analysis showed that there was a normal
range of flow variation in each of the streams due to natural rainfall
events. Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6) also noted that the Nueces River
shiner was one of the most abundant fishes in the upper stream segments
of the Nueces River. Thus, the stream flow variation was occurring at a
level that had no known impact on the species. While there may be
fluctuations in stream flow, there is no evidence indicating that
reduced water flow is a threat to the species either now or in the
foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that the Nueces River shiner is
not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future as a
result of reduced water flow.
Water Quality
Within the last 12 years, there has been cause for concern along
certain stream segments of the Nueces River. In 1999, a 91-mile (mi)
(147-kilometers (km)) stream segment of Nueces River that flows from
Holland Dam in La Salle County to its confluence with the Frio River at
the Choke Canyon Reservoir in Live Oak County was included in the State
of Texas' Clean Water Act 303(d) list as impaired due to concentrations
of dissolved oxygen below the minimum standards criteria in the lower
25-mi (40-km) portion of the stream (Bonner et al. 2005, p. 1; Nueces
River Authority 2010, p. 13). Adequate dissolved oxygen is necessary
for respiration and other essential processes of aquatic organisms;
thus, low levels may be detrimental to the health of aquatic organisms.
The majority of this lower 25-mi (40-km) portion of the stream occurs
in McMullen County, which lies in the South Texas Brush Country region
of Texas, well outside the historical and current range of the Nueces
River shiner. As noted above in the Species Information section, the
Nueces River shiner's range occurs in the uppermost headwaters in the
Edwards Plateau region of Texas. Therefore, the concerns about low
dissolved oxygen content associated with this segment of Nueces River
do not relate to the Nueces River shiner or its range.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
there is no evidence that pollution causing diminished water quality
may be having an impact on the Nueces River shiner or its habitat. In
2005, the TPWD reported the Nueces River as having high water quality
and exceptional aquatic life (Norris et al. 2005, p. 17). Also, the
TPWD designated stream segments in the upper Nueces River as
ecologically significant based on low levels of development in the
watershed, no point sources of pollution, no channelization, and no
atypical nonpoint sources of pollution (Norris et al. 2005, p. 5).
Furthermore, water quality monitoring has been conducted in the
uppermost reaches of the Nueces River where the majority of Nueces
River shiners occur, and no problems have been found (Nueces River
Authority 2010, p. 17). Therefore, we find that the Nueces River shiner
is not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future as a
result of diminished water quality caused by pollution.
Land Use
The decline of native fishes in the southern United States
generally is attributable to pervasive, complex habitat degradation
across the landscape that both reduces and fragments habitat and
increases isolation of fish populations (Warren et al. 2000, p. 8).
Often, physical habitat alteration in the form of channelization,
impoundment, sedimentation, and flow modification are frequently
associated with fish declines (Warren et al. 2000, p. 8).
Edwards et al. (2008, p. 3) mentioned potential impacts to the
Nueces River from existing agricultural practices, land use changes,
and groundwater pumping, and stated that these have combined to create
stream segments identified as impaired under section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act. One of the main purposes of the Edwards et al. (2008,
p. 3) study was to find out if these potential impacts may actually be
a factor in population and range declines among native fishes,
including the Nueces River shiner. In order to determine the extent of
these potential
[[Page 48783]]
impacts, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 27) looked at the biological
integrity of streams in the upper Nueces River and found that the
Nueces River had high water quality within the range of the Nueces
River shiner. Also, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29) noted that the fish
fauna sampled are typically associated with high-quality spring-fed
streams within the southern Edwards Plateau. On the other hand, Edwards
et al. (2008, p. 27) noted some impacts along the upper Nueces River,
such as development along the watercourse and recreational pressures
during the summer months. Even with these impacts, the headwater
streams of the Nueces River basin maintained much of their integrity as
evidenced by such fish as the Nueces River shiner (Edwards et al. 2008,
p. 27). In fact, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6) stated that the Nueces
River shiner was one of the most abundant fishes in the upper stream
segments of the Nueces River. Further, The Nature Conservancy of Texas
is currently engaged in watershed protection in the upper Nueces River
basin, mainly as a participant in the City of San Antonio's Aquifer
Protection Program (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 3). The Nature Conservancy
holds several conservation easements and is exploring ways to increase
conservation efforts in this part of the river basin (Edwards et al.
2008, p. 3). Therefore, we find no evidence indicating that land uses
are negatively impacting the Nueces River shiner now or in the
foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
We relied on the best available scientific and commercial
information, which does not indicate that these or any factors are
impacting the Nueces River shiner at a level that may impact the
species. Therefore, we find that the Nueces River shiner is not in
danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future as a result of
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
there is no evidence that impacts are occurring to the Nueces River
shiner or its habitat under this factor. Other than the scientific
studies referenced in this finding, this shiner is not used for any
commercial, recreational, or educational purposes. Therefore, we find
that the Nueces River shiner is not in danger of extinction now or in
the foreseeable future as a result of overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any research that has been conducted to examine
disease or predation in the Nueces River shiner. Also, we are not aware
of any nonnative species that may prey on the Nueces River shiner.
Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the Nueces River shiner is not in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable future as a result of disease or
predation.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
To determine if existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to
protect the Nueces River shiner, we evaluated agreements and laws in
effect within the range of the species. One regulatory mechanism is the
Clean Water Act (CWA), which was established in 1972. The CWA is the
primary Federal law addressing water pollution in the United States.
The purpose of the CWA is to stop pollutants from being discharged into
waterways and to maintain water quality to provide a safe environment
for fishing, swimming, and drinking. All navigable waters in the United
States are covered under the CWA. The CWA provides guidelines and
offers Federal financial assistance for identifying the causes of
pollution. There are standards and regulations that must be adhered to
by industries that discharge into waterways. The CWA sets forth water
quality standards that are site-specific allowable pollutant levels for
individual water bodies, such as rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands.
State agencies are required by the CWA to set water quality standards
by designating uses for the water body (e.g., recreation, water supply,
aquatic life, and agriculture) and applying water quality criteria to
protect the designated uses.
In Texas, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ),
formerly known as Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, is
the environmental agency that oversees water quality standards as
required by the CWA (TCEQ 2010b, p. 19). The TCEQ strives to protect
Texas' human and natural resources consistent with sustainable economic
development, by providing clean air, clean water, and the safe
management of waste (TCEQ 2010b, p. 4). The TCEQ key operations
include, but are not limited to, issuing, administering, renewing, and
modifying permits, water rights, licenses, or certifications for
organizations and individuals whose activities have some potential or
actual environmental impact that must be formally authorized by the
agency; monitoring the current condition of a geographic area or
natural resource, often through sampling or surveys; and identifying,
verifying, and tracking violations of regulations and initiating
enforcement actions in response to violations (TCEQ 2010b, p. 21). The
TCEQ developed the Clean Rivers Program to implement the goals of the
Texas Clean Rivers Act (TCRA), described below.
The TCRA, which was passed in 1991 by the Texas legislature,
requires that basinwide water quality assessments be conducted for each
river basin in Texas (Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 1). The goal of
the TCRA is to provide waterways in the State with coordinated
monitoring and protection, to identify the locations of water quality
problems, and develop solutions on a river basin by river basin basis.
The Clean Rivers Program is a partnership involving the TCEQ, other
State agencies, river authorities, local governments, industry, and
citizens (Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 1). Also, the Nueces River
Authority was created in 1935 by special act of the 44th Texas
Legislature codified as Article 8280-115 (Texas Water Code Auxiliary
Laws, as amended). Under supervision of the TCEQ, the Nueces River
Authority has broad authority to preserve, protect, and develop surface
water resources, including flood control, irrigation, navigation, water
supply, wastewater treatment, and water quality control. The Nueces
River Authority serves all or parts of 22 counties in Texas, covering
over 17,000 square miles (44,030 square kilometers), including the
drainage area of the Nueces River and its tributaries and the adjoining
coastal basins.
Under the Clean Rivers Program and using a watershed management
approach, the Nueces River Authority and TCEQ work together to identify
and evaluate surface water quality issues and to establish priorities
for corrective action within the Nueces River basin (Nueces River
Authority 2010, p. 1). The Nueces River Authority and TCEQ conduct
quarterly water quality monitoring at routine monitoring sites, testing
for such things as wastewater discharge, runoff from quarry operations,
accidental spills, ammonia excreted by animals or from fertilizers, and
agricultural runoff, among many other things (Nueces River Authority
2010, pp. 2-3). If water quality issues are detected, the Nueces River
Authority and TCEQ may take appropriate corrective actions.
Lastly, the TPWD recognized the upper reaches of the West Nueces,
Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers as ecologically significant river and
stream
[[Page 48784]]
segments (Norris et al. 2005, p. 3). Designation of a stream segment as
ecologically unique offers a certain degree of protection from
activities such as reservoir construction (Norris et al. 2005, p. 5).
This designation does not impart protection from degradation, but
rather prohibits a State agency or political subdivision of the State
from financing the actual construction of a reservoir in a specific
river or stream segment designated as ecologically significant by the
legislature under section 16.051(f) of the Texas Water Code (Norris et
al. 2005, p. 4).
Summary of Factor D
In conclusion, there are Federal and State regulatory protections
currently in place offering some levels of protection for the Nueces
River shiner from such factors as degraded water quality, pollution,
and reservoir construction. However, as discussed in other Factors of
the Nueces River shiner, we have not identified any threats to the
species that are likely to negatively affect the status of the species
such that an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is likely to
be a threat to the species. Therefore, we find that the Nueces River
shiner is not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future
as a result of inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Global climate change, and associated effects on regional climatic
regimes, is not well understood, but model predictions are that
temperatures in the southwestern United States will continue to
increase, with extreme weather events (such as heat waves, drought, and
flooding) occurring with more frequency (Archer and Predick 2008, p.
24). Also, there is some scientific information suggesting that fish in
streams in southwestern North America may be vulnerable to extirpation
or extinction due to global climate change because many fish species
are already living near their lethal thermal limits (Mathews and
Zimmerman 1990, p. 26). Endemic species, like the Nueces River shiner,
which only inhabits the spring-fed headwaters of the Nueces River,
could be more vulnerable to rising stream temperatures because they may
not be able to move to more suitable areas. On the other hand, spring-
fed streams have nearly constant environmental conditions, such as
temperature, due to the constancy of groundwater chemistry and
discharge (Hoagstrom et al. 2011, p. 22). Thus, areas with substantial
connections to aquifers may sustain endemic fishes because groundwater
responds slowly to climate change, buffering against fluctuations in
climate conditions (Hoagstrom et al. 2011, p. 22). Additionally, we are
not aware of any research that has been conducted on water temperature
tolerance of the Nueces River shiner. Because the Nueces River shiner's
water temperature tolerance is unknown, the point at which rising
stream temperatures may impact the species is also unknown.
Likewise, recent models on climate change have indicated that
annual mean precipitation in the southwestern United States is likely
to decrease (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p.
887). Decreased precipitation could result in diminished water flows,
which may cause losses in habitat diversity, reduce stream
productivity, and degrade water quality (Norris et al. 2005, p. 1).
While it appears reasonable to assume that climate change could affect
the Nueces River shiner by reduced water flows, we lack sufficient
certainty to know specifically how climate change will affect the
species. We have not identified, nor are we aware of, any data on an
appropriate scale to evaluate habitat or population trends for the
Nueces River shiner within its range, or to make predictions on future
trends and whether the species will actually be impacted.
There are multiple hypothetical outcomes associated with climate
change that could potentially affect the Nueces River shiner, but we
lack predictive local or regional models on how climate change will
specifically affect the Nueces River shiner or its habitat. Currently,
we have no certainty regarding the timing, magnitude, or effects of
impacts. Therefore, we find at this time that it is not possible to
make reliable predictions of climate change effects on the status of
the Nueces River shiner due to current limitations in available data
and climate models. Based on the best available information and our
current knowledge and understanding, we find that the Nueces River
shiner is not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future
as a result of natural or other manmade threats affecting its continued
existence.
Finding for the Nueces River Shiner
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the Nueces River shiner is threatened or endangered throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. We examined the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future threats faced by the species. We reviewed the
petition, information available in our files, other available published
and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized species
experts and State agencies.
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 warrants
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 is not sufficient to
compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that
these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the definition of threatened or endangered
under the Act.
Our review of all the available information does not support a
determination that any current activities or activities in the
foreseeable future threaten the Nueces River shiner or its habitat to
the point that the species meets the definition of threatened or
endangered under the Act. There is no evidence indicating that reduced
water flow, improper grazing of livestock, pollution, and land use are
affecting the species or its habitat. Overutilization, disease, and
predation are not known concerns for this species. We find that no
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to limit or prevent
possible negative impacts from human activities. Climate change could
affect the habitat of the Nueces River shiner in the future, but we
have no certainty regarding the timing, magnitude, or effects of
impacts to the species.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that there are no
threats to indicate that the Nueces River shiner is in danger of
extinction (endangered) or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened)
[[Page 48785]]
throughout its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Nueces River
shiner as endangered or threatened is not warranted throughout its
range at this time.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors for Plateau
Shiner
The plateau shiner's range is in close proximity to the Nueces
River shiner's range. Subsequently, many of the factors that may affect
the Nueces River shiner also may affect the plateau shiner. Therefore,
much of the information presented in this section is similar to that
presented above for the Nueces River shiner. However, the plateau
shiner does inhabit separate headwaters of the Sabinal and Frio Rivers
in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas, whereas the Nueces River shiner
inhabits the headwaters of the Nueces River. The Sabinal and Frio
Rivers are part of the Nueces River basin because they flow into and
become part of the Nueces River in south-central Texas. Because the
plateau shiner occupies separate headwaters than the Nueces River
shiner, we will discuss any potential threats that might uniquely
affect the plateau shiner, but because these two shiner species occupy
nearby headwaters and are very similar species, we will refer to the
information above, where appropriate.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The following factors have the potential to affect the habitat or
range of the plateau shiner: Livestock grazing, reduced water quantity,
impaired water quality, and land use. Below, we discuss each of these
factors and determine whether or not they constitute a threat to the
plateau shiner.
Livestock Grazing
While we know that livestock grazing occurs within the range of the
species, we could find no information on the extent or intensity of
historical, current, or future livestock grazing practices or impacts
that grazing may be having on the species. As previously mentioned,
Richardson and Gold (1995, p. 35) cited a personal communication in
their study to conclude that much of the land in the Nueces River basin
was used for agriculture, and that overgrazing by cattle posed serious
problems for aquatic fauna. However, based on the best available
information, we could find no evidence or data to indicate that
improper livestock grazing affects the plateau shiner or its habitat.
Therefore, we find that the plateau shiner is not in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable future as a result of livestock
grazing.
Water Quantity
Please see Factor A discussion of the Nueces River shiner for a
more thorough discussion of the potential impacts of reduced water flow
on these fish. As stated above and based on the best available
information, we have no evidence to indicate that reduced stream flow
is occurring within the range of the plateau shiner at a level that may
be impacting the species. As we have noted previously, Edwards et al.
(2008, p. 25) analyzed stream flow measurements in the Frio, Sabinal,
and Nueces Rivers for the last decade and showed that there was a
normal range of flow variation in each of the streams. Therefore, based
on the best available information, we find that the plateau shiner is
not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future as a
result of reduced water flows.
Water Quality
Based on the best available information, there is no evidence that
diminished water quality caused by pollution may be occurring within
the range of the plateau shiner at a level that affects the species or
its habitat. In 2005, the TPWD noted the Frio and Sabinal Rivers as
having high water quality and exceptional aquatic life (Norris et al.
2005, pp. 16, 19). However, water quality tests have been conducted on
other areas where plateau shiners are known to occur, such as the
uppermost reaches of the Sabinal River, and water quality impairment
has been detected (Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 16). Even though a
stream segment in the upper Frio River remains on the State of Texas'
Clean Water Act 303(d) list as impaired and is within the range of the
species, there does not appear to be adverse impacts to the plateau
shiner or its habitat.
In 2000, a 47-mi (76-km) stream segment from where the West Frio
River and the East Frio River flow together in Real County, at a point
110 yards (yd) (100 meters (m)) upstream of Highway 90 in Uvalde
County, was included on the State of Texas' Clean Water Act 303(d) list
as impaired due to concentrations of dissolved oxygen below criteria
associated with exceptional aquatic life (Bonner et al. 2004, pp. 1-3).
The dissolved oxygen criteria was established based on the fact that
organisms that live in water need oxygen to live, and in waters with
depressed dissolved oxygen levels, organisms may not have sufficient
oxygen to survive (Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 3). Following this
designation as impaired in 2000, TCEQ initiated a project to verify the
impairment through the collection of additional physical, chemical, and
biological data (Bonner et al. 2004, p. 3). As a result, Bonner et al.
(2004, p. 1) conducted a 3-year monitoring study of water quality at
several stations along the upper Frio River from 2002 through 2004.
Based upon the 24-hour dissolved oxygen data collected for this study,
Bonner et al. (2004, p. 20) found no impairment due to depressed levels
of dissolved oxygen in the water and concluded that the upper Frio
River was meeting the exceptional aquatic life use standard. Routine
water samples yielded no significant levels of nutrient impairment
(Bonner et al. 2004, p. 20). Therefore, Bonner et al. (2004, p. 1)
recommended removing the upper Frio River from the State's list of
impaired waters.
As part of the impairment verification monitoring project on this
47-mi (76-km) stream segment in the upper Frio River, Ecological
Communications Corporation conducted biological data collection and
analysis in September 2002, August 2003, and October 2003 (Walther and
Palma 2004, p. 3). Based on the biological and habitat data collected
by Ecological Communications Corporation, it appeared that the number
and diversity of aquatic organisms were lower than the established
standards set forth in the Texas Clean Water Act (Walther and Palma
2004, p. 8).
In 2008 and 2010, this same stream segment of the Frio River
continued to remain on the 303(d) list because of concerns for impaired
habitat, fish community, and organisms living at the bottom of the
water (Nueces River Authority 2008, pp. 56-58; Nueces River Authority
2010, p. 17; TCEQ 2010a, p. 86). However, all testing resulted in data
that were within TCEQ's normal range, which included dissolved oxygen,
pH, total phosphorus, nitrates, ammonia, chlorophyll-a, nutrients, and
bacteria (Nueces River Authority 2008, pp. 56-58; Nueces River
Authority 2010, p. 17). Also, no hypotheses were given for the reasons
this stream segment had aquatic life uses that were lower than
established standards (Nueces River Authority 2008, 2010). Edwards et
al. (2008, p. 29) analyzed the biological integrity of streams in the
upper headwaters of the Nueces River basin, and noted that the water
quality was generally high and the fish fauna present were typical of
high-quality spring-fed streams. Also, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6)
stated that the plateau shiner was one of the most abundant fishes
surveyed.
[[Page 48786]]
Another stretch of the Frio River, a segment 158 mi (254 km) long,
from 110 yds (100 m) upstream of Highway 90 in Uvalde County to the
confluence with Choke Canyon Reservoir in McMullen County, was placed
on the 303(d) list as impaired for bacteria in 2008 and 2010 (Nueces
River Authority 2008, pp. 66-71; Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 20;
TCEQ 2010a, p. 86). However, this stretch of the Frio River is further
downstream in south-central Texas, outside of the plateau shiner's
range. Therefore, factors affecting this stream segment are not likely
to affect the plateau shiner or its habitat.
As previously noted above under Factor A analysis for the Nueces
River shiner, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 3) conducted a study to find out
if there were potential impacts that may be factors in population and
range declines among native fishes, including the plateau shiner, in
the upper headwaters of the Nueces River basin. Edwards et al. (2008,
p. 27) analyzed the biological integrity of streams in the upper Nueces
River basin, including the Sabinal and Frio Rivers where the plateau
shiner is found. Edwards et al. (2008, p. 27) found that the Sabinal
and Frio Rivers had exceptional water quality within the range of the
plateau shiners. Also, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29) noted that the
water quality was generally high and the fish fauna present were
typical of high-quality spring-fed streams within the southern Edwards
Plateau. On the other hand, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29) noted a number
of significant impacts, such as development along the watercourse, low-
head dams along the Sabinal River, and at times intense recreational
pressures during the summer months, especially along the Frio River.
Even with these impacts to the streams, the headwaters of the Sabinal
and Frio Rivers maintained much of their integrity as evidenced by the
numerous indicator fishes (fishes thought to be sensitive to, and serve
as an early warning indicator of, environmental changes), such as the
plateau shiner (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 27). In fact, Edwards et al.
(2008, p. 6) stated that the plateau shiner was one of the most
abundant fishes. Because the plateau shiner was one of the most
abundant species surveyed, it does not appear that factors related to
development along the watercourse, low-head dams, and recreational use
are negatively impacting the plateau shiner.
In conclusion, even though a portion of the Frio River is listed as
impaired by the State of Texas under the Clean Water Act 303(d) because
of concerns for impaired habitat, fish community, and organisms living
at the bottom of the water, a study conducted by Edwards et al. (2008)
found no evidence of actual impacts on the plateau shiner. Likewise,
Bonner et al. (2004, p. 20) previously found no impairment due to
depressed levels of dissolved oxygen in the water and concluded that
the upper Frio River was meeting the exceptional aquatic life use
standard. In addition, all water quality monitoring in the impaired
stream segment resulted in water parameters within the normal range
(Nueces River Authority 2008, pp. 56-58; Nueces River Authority 2010,
p. 17). Based on the best available information, we find that the
plateau shiner is not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable
future as a result of degraded water quality.
Land Use
The primary land use factors that could affect the plateau shiner
are recreation, agricultural activities, and land development. The
upper Frio River is used extensively for recreation, and the extensive
recreational usage is expected to continue in the future (Walther and
Palma 2004, p. 1; Nueces River Authority 1998, p. 2). Although we could
find no evidence to indicate that recreational usage may be impacting
plateau shiner in the Sabinal River, it is reasonable to assume that
recreational use does occur in this river. The Frio River is very
popular for recreational activities such as canoeing, tubing, fishing,
and wildlife viewing (Norris et al. 2005, p. 15). A study was conducted
on the upper Frio River to evaluate the impact of recreational use and
land development on water quality and the aquatic biological community
(Nueces River Authority 1998, p. 2). Impacts were evaluated through the
collection and interpretation of information on land uses and historic
utilization, and by conducting biological assessments, toxicity
testing, and water quality analysis (Nueces River Authority, p. 2). The
Nueces River Authority (1998, p. 3) noted that the upper Frio River was
primarily forest and rangeland with some agricultural activities,
mainly orchards and nurseries, and very limited urban land development,
primarily related to tourist and camping accommodations. Overall, the
chemical and physical water quality of the upper Frio River was found
to be very good, and recreational use had little impact on river
quality during the spring and summer visitation period (Nueces River
Authority 1998, p. 10). This is further supported by an Edwards et al.
(2008, p. 27) study, which found that the Sabinal and Frio Rivers had
exceptional water quality. Based on our review of the best available
information, we find that the plateau shiner is not in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable future as a result of recreational
use or any other type of land use.
Summary of Factor A
We relied on the best available scientific and commercial
information, which does not indicate that any of the factors discussed
above are impacting the plateau shiner at a level that constitutes a
threat to the species. Therefore, we find that the plateau shiner is
not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future as a
result of the present or foreseeable destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
there is no evidence that impacts are occurring to the plateau shiner
or its habitat under this factor. Other than the scientific studies
referenced in this finding, the plateau shiner is not used for any
commercial, recreational, or educational purposes. Therefore, we find
that the plateau shiner is not in danger of extinction now or in the
foreseeable future as a result of overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
As with the Nueces River shiner, we are not aware of any research
that has been conducted to specifically examine disease or predation in
the plateau shiner. There was no mention of disease or predation in our
review of the best available information. Also, we are not aware of any
nonnative species that may prey on the plateau shiner. Therefore, we
find that the plateau shiner is not in danger of extinction now or in
the foreseeable future as a result of disease or predation.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
As we discussed in more detail above under Factor D analysis for
the Nueces River shiner, there are Federal and State regulatory
protections currently in place offering some levels of protection for
the plateau shiner, particularly from such factors as degraded water
quality, pollution, and reservoir construction. The Factor D analysis
for the Nueces River shiner presented above also pertains to the
plateau shiner's habitat and range. However, as discussed in other
Factors for the plateau shiner, we have not identified any threats to
the
[[Page 48787]]
species that are negatively affecting the status of the species, such
that an inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms is likely to be a threat to
the species. Therefore, we find that the plateau shiner is not in
danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future as a result of
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
The same impacts discussed above under the Factor E analysis for
the Nueces River shiner also apply to the plateau shiner. As with the
Nueces River shiner, there are multiple hypothetical outcomes
associated with climate change that could potentially affect the
plateau shiner, but we lack predictive local or regional models on how
climate change will specifically affect the plateau shiner or its
habitat. Currently, we have no certainty regarding the timing,
magnitude, or effects of impacts from climate change. Therefore, we
conclude that at this time it is not possible to make reliable
predictions of climate change effects on the status of the plateau
shiner due to current limitations in available data and climate models.
Based on the best available information, we find that the plateau
shiner is not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future
as a result other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Finding for the Plateau Shiner
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the plateau shiner is threatened or endangered throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific
and commercial informa