University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

US Fish & Wildlife Publications US Fish & Wildlife Service

1990

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Neosho Madtom Determined To Be Threatened

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usfwspubs

Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons

"Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Neosho Madtom Determined To Be Threatened" (1990). US Fish & Wildlife Publications. 201. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usfwspubs/201

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Fish & Wildlife Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in US Fish & Wildlife Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 21148 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 1990 I Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The Cottonwood and Spring Rivers are With the exception of mainstream part of the Neosho River drainage. Federal reservoirs, and Flint Hills Fish and Wildlife Service Specimens misidentified as furious National Wildlife Refuge at the upper Ladtom (Schilbeodes eleutherus) and end of John Redmond Reservoir, all 50 CFR Part 17 rindled madtom (Schilbeodes miurus) stream reaches in the range of the PIN 1O18-AB31 3lso were collected from the Illinois Neosho madtom are in private Ri ‘er in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma, in ownership. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 1946 (Moore and Paden 1950). The Neosho madtom is small, with and Plants; Neosho Madtom Subsequent collections in 1948 and 1950 adults averaging less than 7.5 cm (3 Determined To Be Threatened confirmed the presence of Neosho inches) long. It is characterized by madtom in the lower Illinois River having a midcaudal brownish stripe of AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service. (Wagner et al. 1984). ‘I’hese are the only pigment and a relatively deep body. The Interior. recorded occurrences of this species humeral process is moderately long, ACTION: Final rule. outside of the Neosho River drainage. with somewhat reduced serrations of Moss (1981) made later collections at the pectoral spine. The adipose fin is SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service three historical sites on the Illinois well connected with the caudal fin. The (Service) determines a fish, the Neosho River, but found no Neosho madtoms. madtom (Noturusplocidus), to be a mottled skin pigment readily He concluded that hypolimnetic distinguishes this speciesfrom other threatened species under the authority discharges from Tenkiller Ferry Dam species belonging to the same genus of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 may have produced temperatures that (Act), as amended. The madlom is found within its range (Taylor 1969, were too low for successful reproduction Wagner et al. 1984). currently known from the Neosho River and growth of the species. It is believed The species is almost exclusively (Grand Riverin Oklahoma) drainage: in the species is extirpated from the lower the Neosho, Cottonwood, and Spring found in riffles (Cross and Collins 1975, Illinois River (Wagner et al. 1984). Deacon 1961), but exceptions to this Rivers in southeastern Kansas, Sixty-eight percent of the known southwestern Missouri, and generalization may be observed during collections of this species are from 21 early life stages and during spawning northeastern Oklahoma. Habitat locations in the Neosho River (Wagner destruction and modification, principally periods. Moss (1981) found that the et al. 1984). The most upstream location Neosho madtom demonstrates a strong due to impoundments, dredging is in Lyon County, Kansas, and themost activities, and increased water downstream is near Miami, in extreme selection for small gravel substrates, demands, have decreased the usually less than 25 mm (1 inch) in northern Ottawa County, Oklahoma, diameter, and is only abundant on riffles distribution and abundance of the indicating the species is occupying at species and isolated it into three with 8—16 mm [% to %-inch) gravel least the northern portion of its historic prevalent. The substrate must be loosely populations. This rule identifies the range. Although its original range taxon as one in need of conservation, packed so the Neosho madtom can included the entire Neosho (Grand) “wriggle” down into the gravel. implements protective measures, and River drainage mainstreams, Moss makes available recovery measures (1981) was unable to locate specimens in Adults utilize moderate to swift provided by the Act. suitable habitat between the reservoirs currents, while juveniles aremost often found in areas of low current. Juveniles EFFECTIVE DATE: June 21, 1990. along this river in Oklahoma, indicating are found in depths from 0.1—1.0 m (4 to ADDRESSES: The complete file for this that reservoir construction has had an adverse impact on Neosho madtom 39 inches), while adults tend to use rule is available for inspection, by depths less than 0.3 m (12 inches) (Moss appointment, during normal business populations. Records ofNeosho madtom from the 1981). Wagner et al. (1984) found that hours at the Service’s Kansas State habitat use appeared to be very specific Office, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Cottonwood River, which is a tributary of the Neosho River, are from 8 localities and suitable habitat was easy to 315 Houston Street, Suite E, Manhattan, Identify. Moss (1981) speculated that Kansas 66502. and 22 collections, with the confluence with Middle Creek near Elmdale, Chase spawning occurs in late June and July, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: County, Kansas, the most upstream and that madtoma feed primarily on Daniel Muihern, at the above address, locality. Collections made in 1983 along aquatic insects. telephone (913) 539—3474. the Cottonwood River indicate that the On two occasions in the recent past, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: species is relatively stable in this river Neosho madtom populations have suffered severe reductions. A drought in Background (Wagner et al. 1984). The distribution of this species in the 1952—56 depleted Kansas population Gilbert’s (1886) collection of aNuturus Spring River is limited to only seven levels, but the species has subsequently specimen from the Neosho River near collections from three localities (Wagner returned to earlier levels of abundance Emporia, Kansas, apparently is the first et al. 1984, Moss 1981, Pflieger 1971, (Deacon 1961). A second reduction was known record of the Neosho madtom. Branson et al. 1969). Collections from documented in 1967 when Cross and Two more specimens were taken from both Kansas and Missouri were taken Braasch (1968) found the species absent the Neosho River in Coffey County by very near the State line. from all their sample stations in the the University of Kansas Biological The current distribution of the Neosho Neosho River and at the confluence of Survey in 1912 (Wagner et al. 1984). niadtom is restricted to the Neosho the Cottonwood Riverand the South Additional collections were made in River drainage: the Neosho River in Fork of the Cottonwood River. The 1951 and 1952 in the Neosho River in Kansas (Lyon, Coffey, Woodson. Allen. species had been locally abundant at Kansas and Oklahoma, and also the Neosho, Labette, and Cherokee these same stations in 1951 and 1952. Cottonwood River in Kansas (Taylor Counties) and Oklahoma (Ottawa and Cross and Braasch (1968) attributed the 1969, Wagner et al. 1984). Specimens of Craig Counties); the Cottonwood River decline to numerous fish kills in 1966 Neosho madtom were collected in the in Kansas (Lyon and Chase Counties); and 1067 caused by runoff from cattle Spring River in Kansas in 1963 and in and the Spring River in Missouri (Jasper feedlots. Pollution laws regulating Missouri in 1964 (Wagner et al. 1984). County) and Kansas (Cherokee County). feedlot runoff were passed in 1967, and Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 99 / Tuesday,_May 22, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 21149 collections made by Moss (1981) in these Comments received during the public provide benefits above and beyond areas indicate that the species’ comment period are covered in the species listing. The species is population had returned to earlier levels following summary. Comments of a widespread (though not abundant) and of abundance. similar nature or point were grouped mobile throughout linear stream Removal of sand and gravel may have into three general issues. These issues, drainages. Though gravel riffle areas are drastic short-term effects, but overa and the Service’s response to each, are clearly important, they may not be the longer time period the species may be discussed below. only important habitat areas for the able to recover due to the natural Issue 1: Threats to t~~eSpecies Neosho madtom. And, though it appears depositional process that takes place possible to delineate specificgravel after the disturbance ceases (Wagner et Response. One commentor questioned riffle areas that the species is presently a!. 1984). Reservoir construction is a whether or not small tributary using, some Neosho madtom may shift major threat to the species (Moss 1981, watershed structures would prove a usage to new gravel riffle areas arising Wagner at al. 1984). No specimens have threat to Neosho madtom habitat. The from changes in streamdynamics. The been collected from five reservoirs Service believes that these structures only way to legitimately identify all constructed within the species’ range, could result in either beneficial or important riffle habitats would be to end habitat inundation is assumed to ad~erseeffects, depending on designate all gravel riffles within the have caused local extirpation. The lower circumstances. For example, stabilized three rivers in question. This, in effect. section ofthe Neosho River in flows could benefit the species if they would state that any impact at or Oklahoma is a series of reservoirs that reduce the threat allow-flow drought upstream of any riffle could constitute has eliminated as much as one-third of conditions, while elimination of peak an effect. This could be viewed as an the original range of the species flood flows could adversely affect the overly protective approach for (Wagner et al. 1984). Efforts to capture madtom by reducing the rate of removal conserving the species. Instead, it may specimens in suitable habitat between of silt and debris from gravel riffles. be better to use a more judicious the Oklahoma reservoirs in 1975 were Section 7 consultation procedures will combination of Federal and State unsuccessful (Moss 1981). allow us to coordinate with Federal protection mechanisms, i.e., (a) Federal On December 30, 1982, the Service action agencies to evaluate each species protection measures under announced in theFederal Register (47 situation on a case-by-case basis. sections 7 and 9 of the Act and (b) State FR 58454) that the Neosho rnadtom, Another commentor stated that species and habitat protection measures hydropower operations at mainstream along with 146 other fish species, was to protect the Neosho madtom. A more being considered for addition to the List reservoirs appear to be a major threat to detailed discussion of this latter of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. tie species, as opposed to reservoirs approach may be found in the section on operated for flood control. The Service Under contract with the Service, a ‘Critical Habitat”. status report on the Neosho madtom accepts the feasibility of this suggestion, was prepared by the Oklahoma and this is addressed in Section A of A third commentor supported a decision not to designate critical habitat, Cooperative Fishery Research Unit ‘Summary of Factors Affecting the citing reasons which echo some of the (Wagner et al. 1984). The species was Species.” included in the Service’s September 18, Service’s concerns and conclusions. issue 2: Critical Habitat 1985, Notice of Review of Vertebrate These reasons are included in the section on “Critical Habitat”. Wildlife (50 FR 37958) as aCategory I Response: Two commentors suggested species, indicating that the Service had that critical habitat should be Issue 3: Impacts to Agriculture substantial biological data to support a designated; One, to facilitate the proposal to list the species as regulation of agricultural pesticide use; Response. One commentor questioned the economic impact that final listing endangered or threatened. On May 19, and the other, to provide an additional 1989, the Service announced in the deterrent to continued habitat may have on agricultural pesticide use. Federal Register (54 FR 21635) that it destruction by impoundments. Both This is a valid concern, no doubt shared was proposing to list the Neosho points are well-founded and were given by other parties alongthe affected river madtoni as a threatened species. consideration during initial and drainages. The impacts of Federal listing subsequent evaluation of this question. of the Neosho madtom on all parties will Summary of Comments and With regard to the first point, it is not be the same as presently occurs with Recommendations necessary to formally designate critical other listed species. Any action which is In the May 19, 1989, proposed rule and habitat to protect endangered and authorized, funded, or permitted by a associated notifications, all interested threatened species from pesticide use. Federal agency must undergo review to parties were requested to submit factual Once the Neosho madtom is listed, the ensure the action is not likely to reports or information that might Environmental Protection Agency jeopardize the continued existence of contribute to the development of a final (Agency) will need to reinitiate any listed species. In the case of rule. Appropriate State agencies, county consultation with the Service on the Environmental Protection Agency governments. Federal agencies, registration or reregistration of registrations, provisions would be scientific organizations, and other pesticides. The Service will, at that time, determined, if necessary, to avoid or interested parties were contacted and provide a biological opinion to the minimize impacts to the Neosho madtorn requested to comment. A newspaper Agency, including information and all other listed or proposed species. notice inviting general public comment identifying Neosho madtom habitat A comment also was made regarding was published in the Topeka Capitol- areas. The Agency can then use this anticipated problems with compilance Journal on June 10, 1989; in the Pittsburg information to implement appropriate by pesticide applicators, if restrictions Morning Sun on June 11, 1989; and in the restrictions for pesticides that might be are placed on pesticide use. it is Joplin Globe on June 16, 1989. Eleven used in or near these areas. premature to discuss restrictions that comments were received from three With regard to the second point, it is may be necessary to avoid jeopardy to Federal and six State agencies, one questionable as to whether critical the Neosho madtom as a result of university researcher, and one pri~ate habitat can be definitively determined pesticide use. The determination that a fisheries organization. and whether such determination would specific pesticide is likely to jeopardize 21150 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 99 I Tuesday, May 22, 1990 / Rules and Regulations the continued existence of the Neosho as much as one-third of the original directly or indirectly through impacts on rnadtom will depend on numetous range of the species (Wagner et al. water quality. Growth of filamentous factors including the specific pesticide 1984). The disappearance of Neosho algae in riffles in the Neosho River (toxicity), crops grown in the vicinity of madtorns horn the lower Illinois River in during low flows suggests that feitilizet the Neosho madtom, terrain, drift, and Oklahoma is attributed to hypolimnetic runoff also may be affecting habitat other factors submitted tn the Service by discharges from Teukiller Ferry Dam (D’a~idWiseman. Flint Hills Natiunul the Agency at the time of the which produced temperatures that were Wildlife Refuge, in lilt., 1989). consultation request. The Agency will too low for successful reproduction and Discharges from municipalities along tIre welcome any ideas or suggestions on growth of the species (Moss 1981). Neosho and Cotionwood Rivers are measures to preclude jeopardy to the Frank Cross, University of Kansas, in another sour-ce of contamination of madtom ~hi1e minimizing impact to hit., 1989, believes ihat discharges from Neosbu n;adtom habitat. pesticide users. hydropower dams eliminate Neosho The Spring River drainage in Kaimus Summary of Factors Aflecting the rnadtoms from streams below these and Missouri is rich in lead, zinc, ~nd Species dams. He notes the disappearance of the coal reserves; development of ~hese species in and downstream from all resources has been extensive and can After a thorough review and reservoirs in the basin which generate be expected to continue. Documented consideration of all information hydroelectri~power ~Oklahoma), effects include elevated levels uf suFute available, the Service has determined ~herea3 the r~peciespersists and ti-ace metals in stream water that the Neosho madtom should be downstream from flood control (Spruill 1984). The lower Spring Riser in classified as a threatened species. reservoirs not used for hydropower Missouri has also been polluted by Procedures found at section 4(a)(’t) of generation (Kansas). The water sewage and industrial effluents theEndangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. chemistry arid temperature changes (Dieffenbach and Ryck 1976). 1531 et seq.) and regulations (50 CFR associated with abrupt daily release Additionally, the Neosho River flows part 424) promulgated to implement the patterns are problems specific to the through numerous oil fields in listing provisions of the Act were generation of hydroelectricity, arid may southeastern Kansas, presenting the followed. A species may be determined ~vellbe the cause fur many local threat of oil spills into the river. Cross, to be an endangered or threatened extirpations. pars. comm., 1988, believes that runoff species due to one or more of the five The increasing demand lot water for from livestock feedlots is still a potential factors described in section 4(a)(1). agricultural and municipal use will threat to the species. These factors and their application to continue, with a projected increase in the Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus Sand and gravel dredging has been demand of ~5percent o’~er the next 50 demonstrated to affect fish communities are as follows: sears in the Neosho Rivor Basin (Kans.ss A. The present or threatened in the lower Kansas River, with the Water Office 1987), further impacting extent of the effects being dependent on destructic’n, inodification, or ci,r~uilinent Neosho madtom habitat. An example of the age and location of the dredging site of its habitat or range. Ilabitat the effects of a decrease in flow modification, both existing and (Cross et al. 1982). The short term effects occurred during the drought of 1952 1956 on the Neosho madtom of dredging potential, comprises the major threat to when the Nuosho River lacked surface the survival of the Neosho madtorn. flow along most of its length for several activities in streams utilized by the species may be drastic, but over a longer Deacon et at, (1979) recognized the months. The species ~.uffered a dramatic species as threatened because of decline and did not become common time period the species may be able to recover if the situation is not present or potential threats to its habitat again until the third consecutive summer or range. Such modification includes. of continuous flow (Deacon 19~1). compounded by additional threats. among other things, waler diversion, The Soil Conservation Service has B. Qu’erutÜization for commercial. impoundment, reallocation, proposed a project to r.oristruct as many recreational, scientific, or educational channelization, flood control, water as 11 small dams within the South Fork purposes. There is no evidence to pollution, and dredging for sand and watei’shed of the Cottonwood River. suggest overutilization of the Neusho gravel. This modification has resulted in Additionally, the Army Corps of madtom for any of these purposes. the complete destruction or curtailment Engineers (Corps) is investigating the C. Disease or predation. l’here is no of a portion of the historic habitat and possibility of constructing up to 112 evidence of threats to the Neosho modification of much of the “emair.ing small danis within the Cottonwood and madtomn from disease. Efforts to improve habitat. Upper Neosho River watersheds. The time sport fishery in the three States ha~e The construction of reser~airs causes Corps is also investigating the resulted in an increase in such predators the inundation of riffle habit,it and possibility of reallocating storage in as white bass (Morone chrysaps) and changes turbidity, nutrient levels, and existing Federal reservoirs in the walleye (Stizosted/on vitroam) in roost water temperatures downstream. No Neosho River basin. All of these Federal reservoirs, and it is likely these specimens have been captured in a actions have the potential to alter and! predators have also increased in the reservoir, and habitat inundation is or reduce flows within the Neosho associated rivers. It is not known assumed to have caused local madtom~shabitat. The Wolf Creek whether predation on Neu~honradtom extirpation of the species (Wagner et at. Nuclear Generating Station, near has inc -eased. but this species’ habit (if 1984, Moss 1981). The constiuctwn of Burlington, Kansas, uses water from occupying the 2ravel of riffle hotloms John Redmond Reservoir on the Neosho olin Redmond Reservoir, which is may preclude such a threat. River in Kansas destroyed known riffle operated by the Corps. To meet the It is unknown what role interspecific habitat. station’s legal water allocation, the competition may play in deterniining Efforts to capture specimens in elevation of the conservation pool may Neosho madtom abundance. though suitable habitat between reservoirs in have to be increased in the future, there is evidence suggestive of Oklahoma havebeen unsuccessful further depleting flows in the Neosho detrimental interspecific competition (Moss 1981). The lower section of the River, with the slender niadtom (Noturus Neosho (Grand) River in Oklahoma is a Runoff containing agricultural e~ilis)in the Spring River. The slender series of reservoirs that have eliminated chemicals may affect the species nradtomn is generally found in habitat Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 99 I Tuesday. May 22, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 21151 typically occupied by Neosho madtom, Thus, it appears that in some aspects, presently determinable or prudent for with Neosho madtom found in more existing State regulatory mechanisms this species. marginal habitat (Cross, pers. comm., are inadequate to protect the Neosho Though it is clear that the Neosho 1988). The slender madtom has not been madtom. Federal listing would provide madtom prefers gravel riffle habitat, it found at localities in the Neosho or additional protection by requiring has been foundin other types of habitat Cottonwood Rivers where Neosho Federal permits for taking thefish and during early life stages and during madtom is most abundant. increasing penalties for unauthorized spawning periods. Precise spawning D. The inadequacy of existing take. More importantly, Federal listing sites or habitats are not known with regulatory mechanisms. The Neosho would result in mandated review of certainty, nor is there much information madtom is officially listed as threatened Federal actions that might impact the on species dispersal. In addition, as by the State of Kansas, and endangered Neosho madtom and its habitat to insure noted in the “Summary of Comments by the States of Oklahoma and that any action authorized, funded, or and Recommendations,” gravel riffle Missouri. All three States prohibit taking carried out by a Federal agency is not habitat may change within the or possession of this fish without a State likely to jeopardize the continued mainstream. Hence, important habitat permit, and all three regulate impacts to existence of theNeosho madtom. areas are not specifically determinable. stream resources within State E. Other natural or manmadefactors The Service also finds that boundaries. However, these States have affecting its continued existence. The designation of critical habitat is not limited or no authority to deny Neosho madtorn has recently exhibited prudent. Although intentional taking of applications for some or all water severe population declines due to the Neosho madtom is presently not projects based on impacts to the State- pollution and drought (Deacon 1961, known to be a problem, the species is listed Neosho madtom or its habitat. Cross and Braasch 1968). While drought vulnerable to this threat. The fish is The Kansas Department of Wildlife is a natural phenomenon, the effects of typically found in very specialized, and Parks has identified portions of the drought are intensified by human easily identifiable habitat (gravel Cottonwood, Neosho, and Spring Rivers degradation. The species occupies a riffles), and most of the inhabited stream as State-designated critical habitat for very specialized macrohabitat, and its reaches are easily accessible by road, the Neosho madtom. The Kansas range has significantly decreased In the The potential threat of vandalism, Department of Wildlife and Parks also last 20 years. The species’ range is now though small, could be exacerbated by requires a permit for publicly funded or divided Into three populations: In the the publication of a detailed critical permitted actions in Kansas whichhave Neosho and Cottonwood Rivers above habitat description and maps. the potential to destroy individuals of an John Redmond Reservoir in Kansas; the endangered or threatened species or More importantly, the Service doubts Neosho River below John Redmond Dam that designation of critical habitat will their critical habitat. However, the in Kansas downstream to Grand Lake in penalty for violating a Kansas permit for provide net benefits to the 8pecies Oklahoma; and in one reach of the above and beyond species listing when a threatened species is a maximum fine Spring River in Kansas and Missouri. of $500 and/or 30 days in jail, which is The separation of these populations (by combined Federal and State protections probably not sufficient to deter adverse John Redmond Dam or by distance) are considered. By listing the species as threatened, the Act will protect the actions from occurring for large projects. would diminish the rate of As noted under Factor A, the Corps is recolonization from another population species through section 7 consultation investigating the possibility of should any population suffer a major (requiring consultation for Federal constructing up to 112 small dams in the decline. actions) and section 9 (prohibiting take upper Neosho River drainage that have The Service has carefully assessed the of the species). Therefore, future Federal the potential to alter and/or reduce best scientific and commercial activities such as water development or flows within Neosho madtom habitat. information available regarding the past, management actions contemplated by The Corps is also investigating the present, and future threats faced by this the Soil Conservation Service and the possibility of reallocating storage in species in determining to make this rule Corps that might impact the Neosho existing Federal reservoirs, and may final. Based on this evaluation, the madtom will have to undergo section 7 modify operation of John Redmond preferred action is to list the Neosho consultation. Since the Corps operates Reservoir to meet the WolfCreek madtom as a threatened species. The John Redmond Reservoir, any allocation Nuclear Generating Station’s legal water original range of the species has of water for Wolf Creek Nuclear allocation—all of which would alter decreased to three populations in three Generating Station would have to flows in the Neosho Riverdrainage. The rivers. The historical factors which undergo consultation. Hydropower Soil Conservation Service has proposed brought the species to this condition operations require issuance of Federal a project to construct as many as 11 remain current threats, Because the Energy Regulatory Commission licenses, small dams within the South Fork species remains abundant in some which must undergo section 7 watershed of the Cottonwood River. locations, it is unlikely the species will consultation. Pesticides undergoing However, these Federal actions are not become extinct in the foreseeable future. registration or reregistration by the subject to State law, e.g., the permitting Therefore, endangered status is Environmental Protection Agency will requirement, unless specifically considered inappropriate. For reasons have to be consulted on with respect to provided by Congress. given below, the Service is not the Neosho madtoin. Finally, Federal In Missouri and Oklahoma, the designating critical habitat. penalties under the Act for take of a Missouri Department of Conservation listed species, in which an individual and the Oklahoma Department of Critical Habitat may be fined up to $50,000 or imprisoned Wildlife Conservation review Section 4(a)(3) of theAct requires, to up to a year, would provide an applications for projects that might have the maximum extent prudent and additional deterrent against adverse impacts on State-endangered determinable, that the Secretary unauthorized take. species. However, these agencies have designate critical habitat at the time a The States’ protective mechanisms no authority to deny these applications, species is determined to be endangered will continue to have an important role if necessary, to protect the Neosho or threatened. The Service finds that in Neosho madtom protection. As noted madtom. designation of critical habitat is not previously. the Neosho madtom is State- 21152 Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

listed by all three States in which it is likely to 3eopardize the continued permits may be issued for a specified found, and all three States regulate existence of such a species or to destroy period of time to relieve undue economic impacts to stream resources within State or adversely modify its critical habitat. hardship that would be suffered if such boundaries. Kansas pollution laws If a Federal action may affect a listed relief were not available. Such permit regulating feedlot runoff appear to have species or its critical habitat, the action is not expected on this species. helped the Neosho madtom already. responsible Federal agency must enter Dredging for sand and gravel requires a into formal consultation with the National Environmental Policy Act permit From the Kansas Division of Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service has Water Resources. In addition, the Federal involvement is expected to determined that an Environmental Kansas Department of Wildlife and include Soil Conservation Service water Assessment, as defined under the Parks would have to issue a threatened retention practices, Corps stream authority of the National Environmental and endangered species permit allowing modification and reservoir management Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared take if a State-listed species is involved. practices, Federal Energy Regulatory Since the Neosho madtom is listed as in connection with regulations adopted Commission licensing, and pursuant to section 4(a) of the threatened in Kansas, the Department of Environmental Protection Agency Wildlife and Parks may deny a registration of pesticides. The Soil Endangered Species Act of 1973, as threatened and endangered species Conservation Service conducts water amended. A notice outlining the permit to the applicant to prevent retention projects within the watersheds Service’s reasons for this determination dredging activities detrimental to the of the three river systems sustaining the was published in the Federal Register on Neosho madtorn. In Oklahoma and Neosho madtom. The Corps conducts October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Missouri, dredging activities require activities and issues permits to References Cited permits, and the combination of State applicants for activities such as Branson, BA.. J. Triplett, andR. Hartmann. and Federal listing of the Neosho impoundment, channelization, flood 1969. A partialbiological survey of the madtom is expected to create a greater control, and dredging. The Federal Spring Riverdrainage in Kansas, awareness of the need to protect the Energy Regulatory Commission licenses Oklahoma and Missouri. Part II. The Neosho madtorn in permitting decisions hydropower operations on hydroelectric fishes. Transactions Kansas Academy of in these States. facilities. The Environmental Protection Science. 72:429—472. All involved agencies will be informed Agency registers pesticides. Ifa Cross. F.B., and M. Braasch. 1968. Qualitative of the location of existing populations of proposed activity involving these changes in the fish-fauna of the upper the Neosho madtom and the importance agencies may affect the Neosho Neosho River system, 1952—1967. of protecting this species’ habitat. No madtom, the above agencies would be Transactions Kansas Academy of further notification benefits would required to consult with the Service to Science. 71:350—360. Cross, F.B., and J.T. Collins. 1975. Fishes in accrue from designating critical habitat. ensure that the activity is not likely to Therefore, in light of the above, it would Kansas. University of KansasMuseum of jeopardize the continued existence of Natural History. Public Education Series not be prudent to determine critical this species. habitat for the Neosho madtom. No. 3. 189 pp. The Act and its implementing Cross, F.B., F.J. DeNoyelles, S.C. Leon, S.W. Available Conservation Measures regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 and Campbell. S.L. Dewey, H.D. Heacock, and D. Weirick. 1982. Report on the impacts Conservation measures provided to 17.31 set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply of commercial dredging on the fishery of species listed as endangered or the lower Kansas River. U.S. Army Corps threatened under the Endangered to all threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for of Engineers, Kansas City District. Species Act include recognition, DACW 41-79-C-0075. 287 pp. + recovery actions, requirements for any person subject to the jurisdiction of appendices. Federal protection, and prohibitions the United States to take, import or Deacon. J.E. 1961. Fish populations, following against certain practices. Recognition export, ship in interstate commerce in a drought. in theNeosho and Marais des through listing encourages and results in the course of commercial activity, or sell Cygnes Rivers of Kansas. University of conservation actions by Federal, State, or offer for sale in interstate or foreign Kansas Publications,Museum of Natural and private agencies, groups, and commerce any listed species. It also is History. 13:359-427. individuals. The Endangered Species illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, Deacon, J.E.. G. Kobetich, J.D. Williams, and Act provides for possible land transport, or ship any such wildlife that S. Contreras. 1979. Fishes of North has been taken illegally. Certain America, endangered, threatened, or of acquisition and cooperation with the special concern. 1979. Fisheries. 4(21:29— States and requires that recovery exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation 44. actions be carried out for all listed Dieffenbach. W.. and F. Ryck. Jr. 1976. Water species. The protection required of agencies. quality survey of the Elk, James, and Federal agencies and the prohibitions Permits may be issued to carry out Spring River Basins of Missouri, 1964 against taking and harm are discussed, otherwise prohibited activities involving 1965. Missouri Department of in part, below. threatened wildlife species under Conservation. Aquatic Series No. 15. 24 Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, certain circumstances. Regulations pp. requires Federal agencies to evaluate governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22, Gilbert, C.H. 1886. Third series of notes on their actions with respect to any species 17.23, and 17.32. Such permits are Kansas fishes. Bulletin of the Washburn that is proposed or listed as endangered available for scientific purposes, to College Laboratory of Natural History. 1:207—211. or threatened and with respect to its enhance the propagation or survival of Kansas Water Office. 1987. Kansas water critical habitat, if any is being the species, and/or for incidental take in supply and demand report. Background designated. Regulations implementing connection with otherwise lawful Paper No. 39 of State Water Plan. 79 pp. this interagency cooperation provision activities. For threatened species, there Moore, GA., and l.M. Paden. 1950. Thefishes of the Act arecodified at 50 CFR part are also permits for zoological of the Illinois Riverin Oklahoma and 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal exhibition, educational purposes, or Arkansas. American Midland Naturalist agencies to ensure that activities they special purposes consistent with the 44:76—95. authorize, fund, or carry out are not purpose of the Act. In some instances, Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 99 / Tuesday, May Z2, 1990 I Rules and Regulations 21153

Moss, R. 1981. Life history information for the Wagner, B., A.A. Echelte, and O.E. Maughan. Regulation Promulgation Neosho madtom (Noturus pkicidus). 1984. Status of three Oklahoma fishes KansasNongame Wildlife Improvement (Notropis perpollidus. Noturus plocidus. Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of Program, ContractNo. 38. 32 pp. Percina nasuta). Contract No. 14—Itt-- chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of Federal Pflieger, W.L. 1971. A distributional study of 0009—1513— W02—M1. Final report to U.S. Regulations. is amended as set forth Missouri fishes. University of Kansas Fish and Wildlife Service frnm below: Publications, Museum of Natural History. Oklahoma Cooperative Fishery Hesearrh 20:225—570. Unit, Stiliwatar, Oklahoma. 30 pp PART 17—EAMENDED] Spruill, T.B. 1984. Assessment of water resources in lead-zinc mined areas in Author I. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Cherokee County. Kansas. and adjacent The primary author of this final rule is areas. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Daniel W. Mulhern, Fish and Wildlife Authority: 18 U.S.C. 1361—1407; 16 U.S.C. Report 84—439. 102 pp. 1531—1543; 16 tJ.S.C. 4201—4245; Pub. L. 99— Taylor, W.R. 1969. A revision of the catfish Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, 625, 100 Stat. 3500: unless otherwise noted. genusNowrus (Rafinesque~,with an Manhattan, Kansas (913/539—3474, see analysisof higher groups in the ADDRESSES above). 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding the Ictaluridae.U.S. NationalMuseum. following, in alphabetical order, under Bulletin 2~2.315 pp. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 ‘FISHES”, to the List of Endangered and Endangered and threatened spec.ies, Threatened Wildlife: Fish, Marine mammals, Plants § 17.11 Endangered and threatened (agcjculture). wildlife.

(h) *

Species Vertebrate - .— — — population (‘~~ ~ Historic range where Status When listed ~ . ~‘~i~ Coiwnon name Scientific name ecxtangered or a ru 0 threatened FISHEs

Madtom. Neosho.. Notows plac,dus U.S.A. (KS. MC. 01<) Er’tire ... 1’ 388 NA NA

Dated: May 15, 1990. Richard N. Smith. Acting Dfrector, Fish and Wiidiife S4irvice IFR Doc. 90—11795 Filed 5—Z1--90 8:45 amj BIWNG COCE 4310-55-U