Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48777

(2) Evaluation factors for each competitive position of the contractor (iii) Issues a final termination for assessment shall include, at a minimum, being evaluated as well as impede the cause or default notice; or the following: efficiency of Government operations. (iv) Makes a subsequent withdrawal (i) Technical or Quality. Evaluations used in determining award or a conversion of a termination for (ii) Cost Control (as applicable). or incentive fee payments may also be default to a termination for (iii) Schedule/Timeliness. used to satisfy the requirements of this convenience. (iv) Management or Business subpart. A copy of the annual or final (2) Agencies shall establish CPARS Relations. past performance evaluation shall be focal points who will register users to (v) Small Business Subcontracting (as provided to the contractor as soon as it report data into the FAPIIS module of applicable). is finalized. CPARS (available at http:// (3) These evaluation factors, including (e) Agencies shall require— www.cpars.gov/, then select FAPIIS). subfactors, may be tailored, however, (1) Performance issues be documented (3) The primary duties of the CPARS each factor and subfactor shall be promptly during contract performance focal point is to administer CPARS and evaluated and supporting narrative to ensure critical details are included in FAPIIS access. Agencies must also provided. the evaluation; establish PPIRS group managers. The (4) Each evaluation factor, as listed in (2) The award fee determination, if primary duties of the PPIRS group paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall be required, align with the contractor’s managers are to grant or deny access to rated in accordance with a five scale performance and be reflected in the PPIRS. The CPARS Reference Material, rating system (e.g., exceptional, very evaluation; on the Web site, includes reporting good, satisfactory, marginal, and (3) Timely assessments and quality instructions. unsatisfactory). Rating definitions shall data (see the quality standards in the Dated: August 3, 2011. reflect those contained in the CPARS CPARS Policy Guide at http:// Policy Guide available at http:// www.cpars.gov/) in the contractors past Rodney P. Lantier, www.cpars.gov/. performance evaluation; and Deputy Director for Acquisition Policy. (c)(1) When the contract provides for (4) Frequent assessment (e.g., monthly [FR Doc. 2011–20089 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] incentive fees, the incentive-fee contract or quarterly) of agency compliance with BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P performance evaluation shall be entered the reporting requirements in 42.1502, into CPARS. (See 16.401(f).) so agencies can readily identify (2) When the contract provides for delinquent past performance reports DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR award fee, the award fee-contract and monitor their reports for quality performance adjectival rating as control. Fish and Wildlife Service described in 16.401(e)(3) shall be (f) Agencies shall prepare and submit entered into CPARS. all past performance reports 50 CFR Part 17 (d) Agency evaluations of contractor electronically into the CPARS at performance, including both negative [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0057; MO http://www.cpars.gov/. These reports are 92210–0–0008 B2] and positive evaluations, prepared transmitted to the Past Performance under this subpart shall be provided to Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the contractor as soon as practicable http://www.ppirs.gov. Past performance and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a after completion of the evaluation. reports for classified contracts and Petition To List the Nueces River and Contractors shall be given a minimum of special access programs shall not be Plateau Shiners as Threatened or 30 days to submit comments, rebutting reported in CPARS, but will be reported Endangered statements, or additional information. as stated in this subpart and in AGENCY: Agencies shall provide for review at a accordance with agency procedures. Fish and Wildlife Service, level above the contracting officer to Agencies shall ensure that appropriate Interior. consider disagreements between the management and technical controls are ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition parties regarding the evaluation. The in place to ensure that only authorized finding. ultimate conclusion on the performance personnel have access to the data and SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and evaluation is a decision of the the information safeguarded in contracting agency. Copies of the Wildlife Service (Service), announce a accordance with 42.1503(b). 12-month finding on a petition to list evaluation, contractor response, and (g) Agencies shall use the past the Nueces River shiner (Cyprinella sp.) review comments, if any, shall be performance information in PPIRS that and plateau shiner (Cyprinella lepida) retained as part of the evaluation. These is within the last three years (six for as threatened or endangered and to evaluations may be used to support construction and architect-engineer designate critical habitat under the future award decisions, and should contracts) and information contained in Endangered Species Act of 1973, as therefore be marked ‘‘Source Selection the Federal Awardee Performance and amended (Act). After review of all Information’’. Evaluation of Federal Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), available scientific and commercial Prison Industries (FPI) performance may e.g., termination for default or cause. be used to support a waiver request (see (h) Other contractor performance information, we find that listing the 8.604) when FPI is a mandatory source information. (1) Agencies shall ensure Nueces River and plateau shiners is not in accordance with subpart 8.6. The information is reported in the FAPIIS warranted at this time. However, we ask completed evaluation shall not be module of CPARS within 3 working the public to submit to us any new released to other than Government days after a contracting officer— information that becomes available personnel and the contractor whose (i) Issues a final determination that a concerning the threats to the Nueces performance is being evaluated during contractor has submitted defective cost River and plateau shiners or their the period the information may be used or pricing data; habitats at any time. to provide source selection information. (ii) Makes a subsequent change to the DATES: The finding announced in this Disclosure of such information could final determination concerning document was made on August 9, 2011. cause harm both to the commercial defective cost or pricing data pursuant ADDRESSES: This finding is available on interest of the Government and to the to 15.407–1(d); the Internet at http://

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 48778 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number Previous Federal Actions Cyprinella, of which both species of [FWS–R2–ES–2011–0057]. Supporting On June 25, 2007, we received a shiners are members (Nelson et al. 2004, documentation we used in preparing petition dated June 18, 2007, from p. 69; Schonhuth and Mayden 2010, p. this finding is available for public Forest Guardians (now WildEarth 77). The taxonomy within this genus inspection, by appointment, during Guardians), requesting that 475 species has been associated with extensive normal business hours at the U.S. Fish in the southwestern United States, confusion because similarities in body and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological including the Nueces River and plateau characteristics have made it difficult to Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet shiners, be listed under the Act and differentiate between species Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758. critical habitat be designated. We (Schonhuth and Mayden 2010, p. 77). Please submit any new information, acknowledged the receipt of the petition Fortunately, much of this confusion is materials, comments, or questions in a letter to the petitioner, dated July being resolved with advances in genetic concerning this finding to the above 11, 2007. In that letter we also stated analysis (Schonhuth and Mayden 2010, address. that the petition was under review by pp. 77–98). However, there are still staff in our Southwest Regional Office. outstanding taxonomic issues that need FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On March 19, 2008, WildEarth to be resolved to clarify any potential Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, Guardians filed a complaint alleging confusion between the Nueces River Austin Ecological Services Field Office that the Service failed to comply with and plateau shiners. (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 512– its mandatory duty to make a When first described, the Nueces 490–0057, extension 248; or by preliminary 90-day finding on the June River and plateau shiners were not facsimile at 512–490–0974. If you use a 18, 2007, petition to list 475 southwest considered separate species. They were telecommunications device for the deaf species. We subsequently published an both originally described as the plateau (TDD), please call the Federal initial 90-day finding for 270 of the 475 shiner, Cyprinella lepida, by Girard in Information Relay Service (FIRS) at petitioned species on January 6, 2009 1856 (Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 29). 800–877–8339. (74 FR 419), concluding that the petition Nearly 100 years later, both species did not present substantial information were still thought to be one species. For SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: that listing of those 270 species may be example, Hubbs (1954, pp. 277–291) Background warranted. This initial 90-day finding recognized only one species as distinct, did not include the Nueces River and the plateau shiner, Notropis Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered plateau shiners. Subsequently, on (=Cyprinella) lepidus, occurring in the Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) March 13, 2009, the Service and Nueces, Frio, and upper Guadalupe (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated Rivers. However, Mayden (1989, p. 60) for any petition to revise the Federal settlement agreement, agreeing that the later pointed out that the shiner Hubbs Lists of Endangered and Threatened Service would submit to the Federal (1954, pp. 277–291) referred to in the Wildlife and Plants that contains Register a finding as to whether their upper Guadalupe River was actually a substantial scientific or commercial petition presented substantial red shiner species, Notropis information that listing the species may information indicating that the (=Cyprinella) lutrensis, and not the be warranted, we make a finding within petitioned action may be warranted for plateau shiner. 12 months of the date of receipt of the the remaining 192 southwestern species Morphological studies conducted by petition. In this finding, we will by December 9, 2009. On December 16, Matthews (1987, pp. 616–637) and determine that the petitioned action is: 2009 (74 FR 66866), we published a Mayden (1989, pp. 58–60) provided (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) second 90-day finding for the remaining support that Cyprinella lepida was a warranted, but the immediate proposal 192 southwestern species, which distinct and valid species occurring in of a regulation implementing the included a determination that listing the the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers of petitioned action is precluded by other Nueces River and plateau shiners may the Nueces River basin (Figure 1). pending proposals to determine whether be warranted, and initiated a status However, Matthews (1987, p. 269) noted species are threatened or endangered, review. This notice constitutes the 12- that there were morphological and expeditious progress is being made month finding on the June 18, 2007, differences between specimens to add or remove qualified species from petition to list the Nueces River and collected in the Nueces and Frio Rivers, the Federal Lists of Endangered and plateau Shiners as threatened or but did not suggest that there were two Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section endangered with critical habitat. separate taxonomic entities. One of the 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we Species Information main differences was breeding treat a petition for which the requested coloration in male specimens collected action is found to be warranted but Taxonomy and Species Description in the Frio River; these male specimens precluded as though resubmitted on the There has been some confusion and had red on the tip of their snouts date of such finding, that is, requiring a inconsistency regarding the taxonomy of (Matthews 1987, pp. 632–634). The subsequent finding to be made within the Nueces River and plateau shiners. male specimens collected in the Nueces 12 months. We must publish these 12- Currently, there are approximately 30 River exhibited no breeding coloration month findings in the Federal Register. species that belong to the genus (Matthews 1987, pp. 632–634).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48779

These morphological differences collected in the Nueces River focused on variation in mitochondrial between the Nueces and Frio Rivers’ (Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 31). The genes in the five species of the shiner shiners were validated by genetic genetic differences, along with the group inhabiting the southwestern investigations that revealed two distinct observed morphological differences, led United States, which included lineages within populations of Richardson and Gold (1995, pp. 31–33) specimens of Cyprinella lepida from the Cyprinella lepida. In 1987 and 1988, to conclude that Cyprinella in the Frio Frio River and Cyprinella sp. from the Richardson and Gold (1995, p. 29) and Sabinal Rivers was a distinct Nueces River. Based on results of this conducted a genetic study on Cyprinella species from those in the Nueces River. study, Richardson and Gold (1999, lepida, in which they (Richardson and Since 1995, the population in the p. 55) were hesitant to promote a sister Gold 1995, p. 29) collected individuals Nueces River has been referred to as the relationship between the Nueces River from the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Nueces River shiner, an unnamed shiner, Cyprinella sp., and the plateau Rivers. The results of their genetic species within Cyprinella, while shiner, Cyprinella lepida, meaning that analysis showed that Cyprinella lepida populations in the Frio and Sabinal the two lineages were not closely in the Frio and Sabinal Rivers was a Rivers have kept the kept the name related. Instead, they concluded that the distinct species from Cyprinella lepida plateau shiner, Cyprinella lepida. Nueces River shiner and plateau shiner collected in the Nueces River Formal naming of the Nueces River were not as closely related to each other (Richardson and Gold 1995, pp. 31–33). shiner, Cyprinella sp., is still pending. as they were to other species within the Specimens collected in the Frio River Further genetic investigations by Cyprinella genus (Richardson and Gold were very similar genetically to Richardson and Gold (1999) supported 1999, p. 55). specimens collected in the Sabinal River their previous conclusion that Another genetic study agreed that the (Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 31). Cyprinella in the Frio and Sabinal Nueces River shiner and plateau shiner However, specimens collected from the Rivers is a distinct species from those in are distinct species. In 2000, Broughton Frio and Sabinal Rivers were quite the Nueces River. In this study, and Gold (pp. 1–10) conducted a genetic different genetically from specimens Richardson and Gold (1999, p. 50) analysis of all Cyprinella species found

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP09AU11.013 48780 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

in the United States. As part of their separate species in their annotated shiners are only found in the upper, methodology, Broughton and Gold checklist of the freshwater fishes of cooler headwaters. (2000, p. 5) grouped the Nueces and Texas. Because there is still The upper Nueces River basin, where Plateau shiners into the same species, inconsistency, a formal systematic the Nueces River and plateau shiners Cyprinella lepida, but did make the description by the scientific community are found, is composed of three main distinction that ‘‘Cyprinella lepida-a’’ of the Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella tributary systems: The Nueces, Frio, and from the Frio River were not closely sp., is needed. Sabinal Rivers (Edwards et al. 2008, p. related to ‘‘Cyprinella lepida-b’’ from Based on the best available science, 2). The plateau shiner is an endemic the Nueces River. we accept the characterization of the (native to and generally confined to a In an effort to clarify some of the Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella sp., and particular region) minnow that inhabits genus’ taxonomic confusion, Schonhuth the plateau shiner, Cyprinella lepida, as clear, spring-fed streams over gravel and Mayden (2010, pp. 77–98) separate species. We base this limestone substrates in the uppermost conducted a genetic study of all species distinction on the morphological and headwaters of the Frio and Sabinal within the Cyprinella genus, with a genetic research conducted by Rivers on the Edwards Plateau (Edwards more exhaustive focus on the Richardson and Gold (1995, pp. 28–37), et al. 2004, p. 261; Edwards et al. 2008, problematic taxa. Results from Edwards et al. (2008, pp. 1–30), and p. 2; Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19). Schonhuth and Mayden’s (2010, p. 91) Schonhuth and Mayden (2010, pp. 77– Meanwhile, the Nueces River shiner is genetic analysis were consistent with 98), and due to the fact that this an endemic minnow that is only found previous genetic studies: Cyprinella research has been accepted by much of in the uppermost headwaters of the lepida in the Sabinal and Frio Rivers are the scientific community (Hubbs et al. Nueces River, which is also on the genetically separate and distinct from 2008, p. 19). However, we recognize Edwards Plateau (Edwards et al. 2004, the Cyprinella sp. found in the Nueces there is a need for more extensive p. 261; Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19). River. Genetic differences between morphological, genetic, and life history An example of the inconsistency in specimens from the Sabinal and Frio research with more thorough species the species’ distribution occurred when Rivers were very different from those characterizations and formal TPWD associated the plateau and collected in the Nueces River, enough so descriptions of these two shiners, Nueces River shiners with the wrong that Schonhuth and Mayden (2010, p. especially for the Nueces River shiner. stream segments in their 2005 91) recommended leaving them as Because we recognize these two shiners designation of ecologically significant separate species. as separate species, we conduct separate stream segments, which are stream Despite the morphological and genetic five-factor analyses below under section segments designated based on factors studies of the Nueces River and plateau 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether related to biological function, shiners, the scientific community has either species meets the definition of hydrologic function, presence of been inconsistent in recognizing these threatened or endangered. However, we riparian conservation areas, high water shiners as separate species. The Texas address both species in this finding quality, exceptional aquatic life, high Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) because they occur in nearby aesthetic value, threatened or recognizes the plateau shiner watersheds and could be subject to the endangered species, and uniqueness (Cyprinella lepida) and Nueces River similar threats. (Norris et al. 2005, pp. 16–19). Norris et shiner (Cyprinella sp.) as separate al. (2005, pp. 16–19) stated that the species (Norris et al. 2005, p. 10). Distribution Nueces River shiner occurred in the Frio However, Phillips et al. (2010, p. 130) Because of the inconsistencies in and Sabinal River, and the plateau failed to recognize the Nueces River taxonomy and species descriptions of shiner occurred in the Nueces River (p. shiner as a separate species during a the Nueces River and plateau shiners, 17). However, this inconsistency may study on sound production and there has been similar confusion and have occurred because of the confusion spawning behavior. In fact, Phillips et inconsistencies regarding these shiners’ associated with the species’ taxonomy, al. (2010, p. 130) stated that they distribution. However, one thing that even though TPWD recognized the collected Cyprinella lepida with seines has been clearly understood is that both Nueces River and plateau shiners as two from the Nueces River 0.5 mi (0.8 km) the historic and current range of both separate species (Norris et al. 2005, p. west of Camp Wood, Real County, shiners is the uppermost headwaters of 10). Texas, during December 2002 and the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers of In a recent study, Edwards et al. March 2003, and transferred them to a the Nueces River basin (Figure 1). The (2008, p. 3) attempted to estimate the lab to do an acoustic study on spawning Nueces River basin covers current distributional range of plateau behavior. It is not clear whether Phillips approximately 17,000 square miles shiner in the Frio and Sabinal Rivers, et al. (2010) collected actual plateau (44,030 square kilometers), and Nueces River shiner in the Nueces shiners from the Nueces River, or encompassing all or part of 23 counties River. During their seasonal sampling whether they collected Nueces River in south-central Texas (Nueces River from 2007 to 2008, Edwards et al. (2008, shiners but mistakenly called them Authority 2010, p. 1). Rivers within the p. 5) captured over 11,700 individuals plateau shiners. Phillips et al. (2010) did basin include Nueces, Frio, Leona, of 24 species, including the Nueces not mention the name Nueces River Sabinal, and Atascosa Rivers (Nueces River and plateau shiners. They noted shiner, Cyprinella sp., nor did they River Authority 2010, p. 1). Because the that the Frio, Sabinal, and Nueces mention how they determined that the Nueces River basin is so large, running Rivers were all dominated by fishes that fish were Cyprinella lepida. To add from the Edwards Plateau region of are typical of spring-fed headwater further confusion, acceptance of the Texas to the Gulf Coast of Mexico, there central Texas streams, but added that Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella sp., as are large physical and chemical there is still incomplete knowledge of a separate species from the plateau differences between streams in the the current range of the plateau shiner shiner, Cyprinella lepida, by the upper and lower parts of the basin in the Frio and Sabinal Rivers, and of American Fisheries Society (2004, p. 69) (Norris et al. 2005, p. 1; Nueces River the Nueces River shiner in the upper is still pending. On the other hand, Authority 2010, p. 1). The differences Nueces River (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 3). Hubbs et al. (2008, p. 19) recognized the between the upper and lower parts may Based on the best available information, Nueces River and plateau shiners as be why the Nueces River and plateau we believe that the Nueces River and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48781

plateau shiners’ historical and current Because of Richardson and Gold’s Nueces River and plateau shiners were ranges are the uppermost headwaters of (1995, p. 35) statement regarding the two of the most abundant fishes in each the Sabinal, Frio, and Nueces Rivers in presumed decline of the two shiners, of these rivers out of 21 different species the Edwards Plateau region of Texas, other researchers cited Richardson and collected. but the extent of their ranges remains to Gold while making the same conjecture. Even though there have been claims be determined. For example, Hoagstrom et al. (2011, p. in the scientific literature that the 24) claimed that 41 endemic fishes, Nueces River and plateau shiners were Habitat including plateau and Nueces River declining, these claims appear to be There is limited information in the shiners, were declining in the plains of unsubstantiated by actual survey data. literature regarding the Nueces River North America because of dewatering, On the other hand, a recent study and plateau shiners’ habitat. Edwards et low flows, habitat fragmentation, conducted by Edwards et al. (2008, pp. al. (2004, p. 261) noted that the plateau nonnative species, and pollution. 1–30) that surveyed abundance of the shiner inhabited clear, spring-fed However, this presumption was based Nueces River and plateau shiners found streams over gravel limestone on the Richardson and Gold (1995) large numbers of these species. In substrates. Phillips et al. (2010, p. 133) genetic study discussed above rather conclusion, there is insufficient noted that Cyprinella collected out of than on actual abundance data or evidence to determine population the Nueces River in 2002 and 2004 were surveys. trends for either species. crevice spawners (females release their There has been a noted decline eggs in crevices), like the majority of throughout Texas for many of the State’s Summary of Information Pertaining to other Cyprinella species. Also, Phillips native fishes (Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 2). the Five Factors et al. (2010, p. 133) noted that the Nonnative species, as well as Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) specimens they collected relied on degradation of water and habitat quality, and implementing regulations (50 CFR spring or spring-fed water. Although not are thought to be major components of part 424) set forth procedures for adding specified to species, we assume that the the native fishes’ decline (Hubbs et al. species to, removing species from, or Cyprinella Phillips et al. (2010, p. 133) 2008, p. 5). As part of the annotated reclassifying species on the Federal referred to were Nueces River shiners checklist of the freshwater fishes of Lists of Endangered and Threatened based on where the specimens were Texas, Hubbs et al. (2008, p. 19) Wildlife and Plants. Under section collected. In any case, it is apparent that identified both the Nueces River and 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be both shiners’ habitat is spring-fed plateau shiners as species of special determined to be endangered or streams, which are typically found in concern. Hubbs et al. (2008, p. 5) threatened based on any of the the headwaters. Furthermore, the defined a species of ‘‘special concern’’ following five factors: headwater streams where both Nueces as a taxon whose abundance or range (A) The present or threatened River and plateau shiners occur are has been reduced to the degree that it destruction, modification, or characterized by limestone bedrock with may be threatened with extinction or curtailment of its habitat or range; significant gravel and cobble bottoms, whose range is only peripherally in (B) Overutilization for commercial, clear evidence of spring-flows with Texas and could be easily extirpated. recreational, scientific, or educational emergent vegetation and relatively Some species were included in this purposes; shallow depths, relatively high pH category of special concern because up- (C) Disease or predation; values typical of limestone bedrock to-date information concerning their (D) The inadequacy of existing streams of the Edwards Plateau, status was unavailable or fragmentary regulatory mechanisms; or relatively stable water temperatures, and (Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 5). In any case, (E) Other natural or manmade factors dissolved oxygen levels generally Hubbs et al. (2008) provided no affecting its continued existence. around 10 parts per million (Edwards et evidence for categorizing the Nueces In making this finding, information al. 2008, p. 21). Though limited, this River and plateau shiners as species of pertaining to the Nueces River and information is consistent with what is special concern. There was no plateau shiners in relation to the five known about the shiners’ habitat. supporting information on abundance, factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Population Abundance range reduction, or any other reason for Act is discussed below. In making our classifying these two fishes as species of 12-month finding on the petition, we There has been much speculation and special concern. Therefore, it is very little research actually surveying considered and evaluated the best reasonable to assume that Hubbs et al. available scientific and commercial and documenting the abundance of the (2008) classified the Nueces River and Nueces River and plateau shiners. A information. We reviewed the petition, plateau shiners as a species of special information available in our files, and genetic study by Richardson and Gold concern because there was no up-to-date (1995, p. 35) noted that the plateau other available published and information concerning their status. unpublished information. We also shiner’s abundance appeared to have Contrary to the information above, consulted with recognized fish experts decreased considerably over the other studies have noted that the Nueces and biologists with TPWD and The previous 20 years prior to their study. River and plateau shiners were Nature Conservancy. However, their note of plateau shiner abundant within the past decade in the abundance was not based on actual headwaters of the Sabinal, Frio, and Summary of Information Pertaining to surveys or data collection (Richardson Nueces Rivers (Figure 1). In fact, the Five Factors for Nueces River and Gold 1995, p. 35). Also, we could Edwards et al. (2004, p. 261) stated that Shiner not find any evidence or documentation the plateau shiner was moderately that either of these shiners’ abundance abundant in the Edwards Plateau region. Factor A. The Present or Threatened actually declined over this time period. To obtain a more thorough assessment Destruction, Modification, or Therefore, we cannot conclude that on the status of the Nueces River and Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range there was a decline in the Nueces River plateau shiners, Edwards et al. (2008, p. The following factors have the or plateau shiners over the 20 years 6) conducted a sampling study from potential to affect the habitat or range of prior to Richardson and Gold’s (1995) 2007 to 2008 in the Nueces, Frio, and the Nueces River shiner: Livestock study. Sabinal Rivers and found that the grazing, water quantity, water quality,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 48782 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

and land use. Below, we discuss in impact the species. As we have noted McMullen County, which lies in the detail each of these factors and previously, the Nueces River shiner is South Texas Brush Country region of determine whether or not they an endemic minnow that is only found Texas, well outside the historical and constitute a threat to the species. in the uppermost headwaters of the current range of the Nueces River Nueces River within the Edwards shiner. As noted above in the Species Livestock Grazing Plateau (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 261; Information section, the Nueces River While we know that livestock grazing Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19). Over the past shiner’s range occurs in the uppermost occurs within the range of the species, century in the Edwards Plateau region headwaters in the Edwards Plateau we could find no information on the of Texas, there has been evidence of region of Texas. Therefore, the concerns extent or intensity of historical or some loss of natural spring and about low dissolved oxygen content current livestock grazing practices or the headwater stream flows (Edwards et al. associated with this segment of Nueces impact grazing might have on the 2004, p. 253). Yet, water users in the River do not relate to the Nueces River Nueces River shiner and its habitat. In Edwards Plateau are altering their usage shiner or its range. areas where livestock are grazed of waters from the aquifers of the Based on the best available scientific inappropriately, impacts could include, Edwards Plateau. Reduced water usage and commercial information, there is no but are not limited to, runoff from has allowed for the conservation of evidence that pollution causing disturbed stream banks, livestock urine regional spring flows (Edwards et al. diminished water quality may be having and manure deposited into streams, 2004, p. 263). Additionally, stream flow an impact on the Nueces River shiner or disturbance and erosion from trampled monitoring is occurring at various sites its habitat. In 2005, the TPWD reported banks, and increased solar exposure due within the Nueces River shiner’s range the Nueces River as having high water to reduced shade from streamside by the United States Geological Survey quality and exceptional aquatic life vegetation and loss of undercut (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 25), and (Norris et al. 2005, p. 17). Also, the streambanks. Any of these impacts Edwards et al. (2008, p. 25) analyzed TPWD designated stream segments in could affect the Nueces River shiner by these stream flow measurements in the the upper Nueces River as ecologically degrading water quality and negatively Frio, Sabinal, and Nueces Rivers for the significant based on low levels of impacting the species. Richardson and last decade. Results of Edward’s et al. development in the watershed, no point Gold (1995, p. 35) concluded that much (2008, p. 25) analysis showed that there sources of pollution, no channelization, of the land in the Nueces River basin is was a normal range of flow variation in and no atypical nonpoint sources of used for agriculture, and that each of the streams due to natural pollution (Norris et al. 2005, p. 5). overgrazing by cattle posed serious rainfall events. Edwards et al. (2008, p. Furthermore, water quality monitoring problems for aquatic fauna. However, 6) also noted that the Nueces River has been conducted in the uppermost we found no monitoring data indicating shiner was one of the most abundant reaches of the Nueces River where the that water quality degradation fishes in the upper stream segments of majority of Nueces River shiners occur, associated with livestock grazing is the Nueces River. Thus, the stream flow and no problems have been found occurring within the range of the variation was occurring at a level that (Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 17). Nueces River shiner. Based on the best had no known impact on the species. Therefore, we find that the Nueces River available information, we could find no While there may be fluctuations in shiner is not in danger of extinction evidence that overgrazing is posing a stream flow, there is no evidence now or in the foreseeable future as a threat to the Nueces River shiner or is indicating that reduced water flow is a result of diminished water quality likely to in the future. Therefore, threat to the species either now or in the caused by pollution. because the best available information foreseeable future. Therefore, we find Land Use does not indicate that livestock grazing that the Nueces River shiner is not in is negatively impacting the species, we danger of extinction now or in the The decline of native fishes in the find that the Nueces River shiner is not foreseeable future as a result of reduced southern United States generally is in danger of extinction now or in the water flow. attributable to pervasive, complex foreseeable future as a result of livestock habitat degradation across the landscape grazing. Water Quality that both reduces and fragments habitat Within the last 12 years, there has and increases isolation of fish Water Quantity been cause for concern along certain populations (Warren et al. 2000, p. 8). Diminished water flows can cause stream segments of the Nueces River. In Often, physical habitat alteration in the losses in habitat diversity, reduce 1999, a 91-mile (mi) (147-kilometers form of channelization, impoundment, stream productivity, and degrade water (km)) stream segment of Nueces River sedimentation, and flow modification quality for many fish species (Norris et that flows from Holland Dam in La Salle are frequently associated with fish al. 2005, p. 1). Richardson and Gold County to its confluence with the Frio declines (Warren et al. 2000, p. 8). (1995, p. 35) suggested that groundwater River at the Choke Canyon Reservoir in Edwards et al. (2008, p. 3) mentioned (underground aquifer) levels for much Live Oak County was included in the potential impacts to the Nueces River of south-central Texas had decreased State of Texas’ Clean Water Act 303(d) from existing agricultural practices, land substantially over the decade preceding list as impaired due to concentrations of use changes, and groundwater pumping, their study (1980s), resulting in dissolved oxygen below the minimum and stated that these have combined to significantly reduced water flow in standards criteria in the lower 25-mi create stream segments identified as spring-fed rivers, including the habitat (40-km) portion of the stream (Bonner et impaired under section 303(d) of the of the Nueces River shiner. Although al. 2005, p. 1; Nueces River Authority Clean Water Act. One of the main there is evidence of stream flow 2010, p. 13). Adequate dissolved oxygen purposes of the Edwards et al. (2008, p. fluctuations that most likely relate to is necessary for respiration and other 3) study was to find out if these annual rainfall events, the best available essential processes of aquatic organisms; potential impacts may actually be a information does not indicate that thus, low levels may be detrimental to factor in population and range declines reduced stream flows are occurring the health of aquatic organisms. The among native fishes, including the within the range of the Nueces River majority of this lower 25-mi (40-km) Nueces River shiner. In order to shiner at a level that may adversely portion of the stream occurs in determine the extent of these potential

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48783

impacts, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 27) Factor C. Disease or Predation by the agency; monitoring the current looked at the biological integrity of We are not aware of any research that condition of a geographic area or natural streams in the upper Nueces River and has been conducted to examine disease resource, often through sampling or found that the Nueces River had high or predation in the Nueces River shiner. surveys; and identifying, verifying, and water quality within the range of the Also, we are not aware of any nonnative tracking violations of regulations and Nueces River shiner. Also, Edwards et species that may prey on the Nueces initiating enforcement actions in al. (2008, p. 29) noted that the fish fauna River shiner. Therefore, based on the response to violations (TCEQ 2010b, p. sampled are typically associated with best available scientific and commercial 21). The TCEQ developed the Clean high-quality spring-fed streams within information, we find that the Nueces Rivers Program to implement the goals of the Texas Clean Rivers Act (TCRA), the southern Edwards Plateau. On the River shiner is not in danger of other hand, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 27) described below. extinction now or in the foreseeable noted some impacts along the upper The TCRA, which was passed in 1991 future as a result of disease or predation. Nueces River, such as development by the Texas legislature, requires that along the watercourse and recreational Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing basinwide water quality assessments be pressures during the summer months. Regulatory Mechanisms conducted for each river basin in Texas (Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 1). The Even with these impacts, the headwater To determine if existing regulatory goal of the TCRA is to provide streams of the Nueces River basin mechanisms are adequate to protect the waterways in the State with coordinated maintained much of their integrity as Nueces River shiner, we evaluated monitoring and protection, to identify evidenced by such fish as the Nueces agreements and laws in effect within the the locations of water quality problems, River shiner (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 27). range of the species. One regulatory and develop solutions on a river basin In fact, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6) stated mechanism is the Clean Water Act by river basin basis. The Clean Rivers that the Nueces River shiner was one of (CWA), which was established in 1972. Program is a partnership involving the the most abundant fishes in the upper The CWA is the primary Federal law stream segments of the Nueces River. TCEQ, other State agencies, river addressing water pollution in the Further, The Nature Conservancy of authorities, local governments, industry, United States. The purpose of the CWA Texas is currently engaged in watershed and citizens (Nueces River Authority is to stop pollutants from being protection in the upper Nueces River 2010, p. 1). Also, the Nueces River discharged into waterways and to basin, mainly as a participant in the City Authority was created in 1935 by maintain water quality to provide a safe of San Antonio’s Aquifer Protection special act of the 44th Texas Legislature environment for fishing, swimming, and Program (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 3). The codified as Article 8280–115 (Texas drinking. All navigable waters in the Nature Conservancy holds several Water Code Auxiliary Laws, as United States are covered under the conservation easements and is exploring amended). Under supervision of the CWA. The CWA provides guidelines ways to increase conservation efforts in TCEQ, the Nueces River Authority has this part of the river basin (Edwards et and offers Federal financial assistance broad authority to preserve, protect, and al. 2008, p. 3). Therefore, we find no for identifying the causes of pollution. develop surface water resources, evidence indicating that land uses are There are standards and regulations that including flood control, irrigation, negatively impacting the Nueces River must be adhered to by industries that navigation, water supply, wastewater shiner now or in the foreseeable future. discharge into waterways. The CWA treatment, and water quality control. sets forth water quality standards that The Nueces River Authority serves all or Summary of Factor A are site-specific allowable pollutant parts of 22 counties in Texas, covering We relied on the best available levels for individual water bodies, such over 17,000 square miles (44,030 square scientific and commercial information, as rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands. kilometers), including the drainage area which does not indicate that these or State agencies are required by the CWA of the Nueces River and its tributaries any factors are impacting the Nueces to set water quality standards by and the adjoining coastal basins. River shiner at a level that may impact designating uses for the water body (e.g., Under the Clean Rivers Program and the species. Therefore, we find that the recreation, water supply, aquatic life, using a watershed management Nueces River shiner is not in danger of and agriculture) and applying water approach, the Nueces River Authority extinction now or in the foreseeable quality criteria to protect the designated and TCEQ work together to identify and future as a result of destruction, uses. evaluate surface water quality issues modification, or curtailment of its In Texas, the Texas Commission on and to establish priorities for corrective habitat or range. Environmental Quality (TCEQ), action within the Nueces River basin formerly known as Texas Natural (Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 1). The Factor B. Overutilization for Resource Conservation Commission, is Nueces River Authority and TCEQ Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or the environmental agency that oversees conduct quarterly water quality Educational Purposes water quality standards as required by monitoring at routine monitoring sites, Based on the best available scientific the CWA (TCEQ 2010b, p. 19). The testing for such things as wastewater and commercial information, there is no TCEQ strives to protect Texas’ human discharge, runoff from quarry evidence that impacts are occurring to and natural resources consistent with operations, accidental spills, ammonia the Nueces River shiner or its habitat sustainable economic development, by excreted by animals or from fertilizers, under this factor. Other than the providing clean air, clean water, and the and agricultural runoff, among many scientific studies referenced in this safe management of waste (TCEQ 2010b, other things (Nueces River Authority finding, this shiner is not used for any p. 4). The TCEQ key operations include, 2010, pp. 2–3). If water quality issues commercial, recreational, or educational but are not limited to, issuing, are detected, the Nueces River Authority purposes. Therefore, we find that the administering, renewing, and modifying and TCEQ may take appropriate Nueces River shiner is not in danger of permits, water rights, licenses, or corrective actions. extinction now or in the foreseeable certifications for organizations and Lastly, the TPWD recognized the future as a result of overutilization for individuals whose activities have some upper reaches of the West Nueces, commercial, recreational, scientific, or potential or actual environmental Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers as educational purposes. impact that must be formally authorized ecologically significant river and stream

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 48784 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

segments (Norris et al. 2005, p. 3). connections to aquifers may sustain regarding the past, present, and future Designation of a stream segment as endemic fishes because groundwater threats faced by the species. We ecologically unique offers a certain responds slowly to climate change, reviewed the petition, information degree of protection from activities such buffering against fluctuations in climate available in our files, other available as reservoir construction (Norris et al. conditions (Hoagstrom et al. 2011, p. published and unpublished 2005, p. 5). This designation does not 22). Additionally, we are not aware of information, and we consulted with impart protection from degradation, but any research that has been conducted on recognized species experts and State rather prohibits a State agency or water temperature tolerance of the agencies. political subdivision of the State from Nueces River shiner. Because the In considering what factors might financing the actual construction of a Nueces River shiner’s water temperature constitute threats, we must look beyond reservoir in a specific river or stream tolerance is unknown, the point at the mere exposure of the species to the segment designated as ecologically which rising stream temperatures may factor to determine whether the species significant by the legislature under impact the species is also unknown. responds to the factor in a way that section 16.051(f) of the Texas Water Likewise, recent models on climate causes actual impacts to the species. If Code (Norris et al. 2005, p. 4). change have indicated that annual mean there is exposure to a factor, but no precipitation in the southwestern response, or only a positive response, Summary of Factor D United States is likely to decrease that factor is not a threat. If there is In conclusion, there are Federal and (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate exposure and the species responds State regulatory protections currently in Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 887). Decreased negatively, the factor may be a threat place offering some levels of protection precipitation could result in diminished and we then attempt to determine how for the Nueces River shiner from such water flows, which may cause losses in significant a threat it is. If the threat is factors as degraded water quality, habitat diversity, reduce stream significant, it may drive or contribute to pollution, and reservoir construction. productivity, and degrade water quality the risk of extinction of the species such However, as discussed in other Factors (Norris et al. 2005, p. 1). While it that the species warrants listing as of the Nueces River shiner, we have not appears reasonable to assume that threatened or endangered as those terms identified any threats to the species that climate change could affect the Nueces are defined by the Act. This does not are likely to negatively affect the status River shiner by reduced water flows, we necessarily require empirical proof of a of the species such that an inadequacy lack sufficient certainty to know threat. The combination of exposure and of existing regulatory mechanisms is specifically how climate change will some corroborating evidence of how the likely to be a threat to the species. affect the species. We have not species is likely impacted could suffice. Therefore, we find that the Nueces River identified, nor are we aware of, any data The mere identification of factors that shiner is not in danger of extinction on an appropriate scale to evaluate could impact a species negatively is not now or in the foreseeable future as a habitat or population trends for the sufficient to compel a finding that result of inadequacy of existing Nueces River shiner within its range, or listing is appropriate; we require regulatory mechanisms. to make predictions on future trends evidence that these factors are operative Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade and whether the species will actually be threats that act on the species to the Factors Affecting Its Continued impacted. point that the species meets the There are multiple hypothetical Existence definition of threatened or endangered outcomes associated with climate under the Act. Global climate change, and associated change that could potentially affect the Our review of all the available effects on regional climatic regimes, is Nueces River shiner, but we lack information does not support a not well understood, but model predictive local or regional models on determination that any current activities predictions are that temperatures in the how climate change will specifically or activities in the foreseeable future southwestern United States will affect the Nueces River shiner or its threaten the Nueces River shiner or its continue to increase, with extreme habitat. Currently, we have no certainty habitat to the point that the species weather events (such as heat waves, regarding the timing, magnitude, or meets the definition of threatened or drought, and flooding) occurring with effects of impacts. Therefore, we find at endangered under the Act. There is no more frequency (Archer and Predick this time that it is not possible to make evidence indicating that reduced water 2008, p. 24). Also, there is some reliable predictions of climate change flow, improper grazing of livestock, scientific information suggesting that effects on the status of the Nueces River pollution, and land use are affecting the fish in streams in southwestern North shiner due to current limitations in species or its habitat. Overutilization, America may be vulnerable to available data and climate models. disease, and predation are not known extirpation or extinction due to global Based on the best available information concerns for this species. We find that climate change because many fish and our current knowledge and no existing regulatory mechanisms are species are already living near their understanding, we find that the Nueces inadequate to limit or prevent possible lethal thermal limits (Mathews and River shiner is not in danger of negative impacts from human activities. Zimmerman 1990, p. 26). Endemic extinction now or in the foreseeable Climate change could affect the habitat species, like the Nueces River shiner, future as a result of natural or other of the Nueces River shiner in the future, which only inhabits the spring-fed manmade threats affecting its continued but we have no certainty regarding the headwaters of the Nueces River, could existence. timing, magnitude, or effects of impacts be more vulnerable to rising stream to the species. temperatures because they may not be Finding for the Nueces River Shiner Based on our review of the best able to move to more suitable areas. On As required by the Act, we considered available scientific and commercial the other hand, spring-fed streams have the five factors in assessing whether the information pertaining to the five nearly constant environmental Nueces River shiner is threatened or factors, we find that there are no threats conditions, such as temperature, due to endangered throughout all or a to indicate that the Nueces River shiner the constancy of groundwater chemistry significant portion of its range. We is in danger of extinction (endangered) and discharge (Hoagstrom et al. 2011, p. examined the best scientific and or likely to become endangered within 22). Thus, areas with substantial commercial information available the foreseeable future (threatened)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48785

throughout its range. Therefore, we find foreseeable future as a result of livestock designation as impaired in 2000, TCEQ that listing the Nueces River shiner as grazing. initiated a project to verify the endangered or threatened is not impairment through the collection of Water Quantity warranted throughout its range at this additional physical, chemical, and time. Please see Factor A discussion of the biological data (Bonner et al. 2004, p. 3). Nueces River shiner for a more thorough As a result, Bonner et al. (2004, p. 1) Summary of Information Pertaining to discussion of the potential impacts of conducted a 3-year monitoring study of the Five Factors for Plateau Shiner reduced water flow on these fish. As water quality at several stations along The plateau shiner’s range is in close stated above and based on the best the upper Frio River from 2002 through proximity to the Nueces River shiner’s available information, we have no 2004. Based upon the 24-hour dissolved range. Subsequently, many of the factors evidence to indicate that reduced stream oxygen data collected for this study, that may affect the Nueces River shiner flow is occurring within the range of the Bonner et al. (2004, p. 20) found no also may affect the plateau shiner. plateau shiner at a level that may be impairment due to depressed levels of Therefore, much of the information impacting the species. As we have noted dissolved oxygen in the water and presented in this section is similar to previously, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 25) concluded that the upper Frio River was that presented above for the Nueces analyzed stream flow measurements in meeting the exceptional aquatic life use River shiner. However, the plateau the Frio, Sabinal, and Nueces Rivers for standard. Routine water samples shiner does inhabit separate headwaters the last decade and showed that there yielded no significant levels of nutrient of the Sabinal and Frio Rivers in the was a normal range of flow variation in impairment (Bonner et al. 2004, p. 20). Edwards Plateau region of Texas, each of the streams. Therefore, based on Therefore, Bonner et al. (2004, p. 1) whereas the Nueces River shiner the best available information, we find recommended removing the upper Frio inhabits the headwaters of the Nueces that the plateau shiner is not in danger River from the State’s list of impaired River. The Sabinal and Frio Rivers are of extinction now or in the foreseeable waters. part of the Nueces River basin because future as a result of reduced water As part of the impairment verification they flow into and become part of the flows. monitoring project on this 47-mi (76- Nueces River in south-central Texas. Water Quality km) stream segment in the upper Frio Because the plateau shiner occupies River, Ecological Communications separate headwaters than the Nueces Based on the best available Corporation conducted biological data River shiner, we will discuss any information, there is no evidence that collection and analysis in September potential threats that might uniquely diminished water quality caused by 2002, August 2003, and October 2003 affect the plateau shiner, but because pollution may be occurring within the (Walther and Palma 2004, p. 3). Based these two shiner species occupy nearby range of the plateau shiner at a level that on the biological and habitat data headwaters and are very similar species, affects the species or its habitat. In 2005, collected by Ecological Communications we will refer to the information above, the TPWD noted the Frio and Sabinal Corporation, it appeared that the where appropriate. Rivers as having high water quality and number and diversity of aquatic exceptional aquatic life (Norris et al. organisms were lower than the Factor A. The Present or Threatened 2005, pp. 16, 19). However, water established standards set forth in the Destruction, Modification, or quality tests have been conducted on Texas Clean Water Act (Walther and Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range other areas where plateau shiners are Palma 2004, p. 8). The following factors have the known to occur, such as the uppermost In 2008 and 2010, this same stream potential to affect the habitat or range of reaches of the Sabinal River, and water segment of the Frio River continued to the plateau shiner: Livestock grazing, quality impairment has been detected remain on the 303(d) list because of reduced water quantity, impaired water (Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 16). concerns for impaired habitat, fish quality, and land use. Below, we discuss Even though a stream segment in the community, and organisms living at the each of these factors and determine upper Frio River remains on the State of bottom of the water (Nueces River whether or not they constitute a threat Texas’ Clean Water Act 303(d) list as Authority 2008, pp. 56–58; Nueces to the plateau shiner. impaired and is within the range of the River Authority 2010, p. 17; TCEQ species, there does not appear to be 2010a, p. 86). However, all testing Livestock Grazing adverse impacts to the plateau shiner or resulted in data that were within While we know that livestock grazing its habitat. TCEQ’s normal range, which included occurs within the range of the species, In 2000, a 47-mi (76-km) stream dissolved oxygen, pH, total phosphorus, we could find no information on the segment from where the West Frio River nitrates, ammonia, chlorophyll-a, extent or intensity of historical, current, and the East Frio River flow together in nutrients, and bacteria (Nueces River or future livestock grazing practices or Real County, at a point 110 yards (yd) Authority 2008, pp. 56–58; Nueces impacts that grazing may be having on (100 meters (m)) upstream of Highway River Authority 2010, p. 17). Also, no the species. As previously mentioned, 90 in Uvalde County, was included on hypotheses were given for the reasons Richardson and Gold (1995, p. 35) cited the State of Texas’ Clean Water Act this stream segment had aquatic life a personal communication in their 303(d) list as impaired due to uses that were lower than established study to conclude that much of the land concentrations of dissolved oxygen standards (Nueces River Authority 2008, in the Nueces River basin was used for below criteria associated with 2010). Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29) agriculture, and that overgrazing by exceptional aquatic life (Bonner et al. analyzed the biological integrity of cattle posed serious problems for 2004, pp. 1–3). The dissolved oxygen streams in the upper headwaters of the aquatic fauna. However, based on the criteria was established based on the Nueces River basin, and noted that the best available information, we could fact that organisms that live in water water quality was generally high and the find no evidence or data to indicate that need oxygen to live, and in waters with fish fauna present were typical of high- improper livestock grazing affects the depressed dissolved oxygen levels, quality spring-fed streams. Also, plateau shiner or its habitat. Therefore, organisms may not have sufficient Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6) stated that we find that the plateau shiner is not in oxygen to survive (Nueces River the plateau shiner was one of the most danger of extinction now or in the Authority 2010, p. 3). Following this abundant fishes surveyed.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 the water, a study conducted by available information, we find that the segment 158 mi (254 km) long, from 110 Edwards et al. (2008) found no evidence plateau shiner is not in danger of yds (100 m) upstream of Highway 90 in of actual impacts on the plateau shiner. extinction now or in the foreseeable Uvalde County to the confluence with Likewise, Bonner et al. (2004, p. 20) future as a result of recreational use or Choke Canyon Reservoir in McMullen previously found no impairment due to any other type of land use. County, was placed on the 303(d) list as depressed levels of dissolved oxygen in Summary of Factor A impaired for bacteria in 2008 and 2010 the water and concluded that the upper (Nueces River Authority 2008, pp. 66– Frio River was meeting the exceptional We relied on the best available 71; Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 20; aquatic life use standard. In addition, all scientific and commercial information, TCEQ 2010a, p. 86). However, this water quality monitoring in the which does not indicate that any of the stretch of the Frio River is further impaired stream segment resulted in factors discussed above are impacting downstream in south-central Texas, water parameters within the normal the plateau shiner at a level that outside of the plateau shiner’s range. range (Nueces River Authority 2008, pp. constitutes a threat to the species. Therefore, factors affecting this stream 56–58; Nueces River Authority 2010, p. Therefore, we find that the plateau segment are not likely to affect the 17). Based on the best available shiner is not in danger of extinction plateau shiner or its habitat. information, we find that the plateau now or in the foreseeable future as a As previously noted above under shiner is not in danger of extinction result of the present or foreseeable Factor A analysis for the Nueces River now or in the foreseeable future as a destruction, modification, or shiner, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 3) result of degraded water quality. curtailment of its habitat or range. conducted a study to find out if there Factor B. Overutilization for were potential impacts that may be Land Use factors in population and range declines The primary land use factors that Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or among native fishes, including the could affect the plateau shiner are Educational Purposes plateau shiner, in the upper headwaters recreation, agricultural activities, and Based on the best available scientific of the Nueces River basin. Edwards et land development. The upper Frio River and commercial information, there is no al. (2008, p. 27) analyzed the biological is used extensively for recreation, and evidence that impacts are occurring to integrity of streams in the upper Nueces the extensive recreational usage is the plateau shiner or its habitat under River basin, including the Sabinal and expected to continue in the future this factor. Other than the scientific Frio Rivers where the plateau shiner is (Walther and Palma 2004, p. 1; Nueces studies referenced in this finding, the found. Edwards et al. (2008, p. 27) River Authority 1998, p. 2). Although plateau shiner is not used for any found that the Sabinal and Frio Rivers we could find no evidence to indicate commercial, recreational, or educational had exceptional water quality within that recreational usage may be purposes. Therefore, we find that the the range of the plateau shiners. Also, impacting plateau shiner in the Sabinal plateau shiner is not in danger of Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29) noted that River, it is reasonable to assume that extinction now or in the foreseeable the water quality was generally high and recreational use does occur in this river. future as a result of overutilization for the fish fauna present were typical of The Frio River is very popular for commercial, recreational, scientific, or high-quality spring-fed streams within recreational activities such as canoeing, educational purposes. the southern Edwards Plateau. On the tubing, fishing, and wildlife viewing Factor C. Disease or Predation other hand, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29) (Norris et al. 2005, p. 15). A study was noted a number of significant impacts, conducted on the upper Frio River to As with the Nueces River shiner, we such as development along the evaluate the impact of recreational use are not aware of any research that has watercourse, low-head dams along the and land development on water quality been conducted to specifically examine Sabinal River, and at times intense and the aquatic biological community disease or predation in the plateau recreational pressures during the (Nueces River Authority 1998, p. 2). shiner. There was no mention of disease summer months, especially along the Impacts were evaluated through the or predation in our review of the best Frio River. Even with these impacts to collection and interpretation of available information. Also, we are not the streams, the headwaters of the information on land uses and historic aware of any nonnative species that may Sabinal and Frio Rivers maintained utilization, and by conducting biological prey on the plateau shiner. Therefore, much of their integrity as evidenced by assessments, toxicity testing, and water we find that the plateau shiner is not in the numerous indicator fishes (fishes quality analysis (Nueces River danger of extinction now or in the thought to be sensitive to, and serve as Authority, p. 2). The Nueces River foreseeable future as a result of disease an early warning indicator of, Authority (1998, p. 3) noted that the or predation. environmental changes), such as the upper Frio River was primarily forest Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing plateau shiner (Edwards et al. 2008, p. and rangeland with some agricultural Regulatory Mechanisms 27). In fact, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6) activities, mainly orchards and stated that the plateau shiner was one of nurseries, and very limited urban land As we discussed in more detail above the most abundant fishes. Because the development, primarily related to under Factor D analysis for the Nueces plateau shiner was one of the most tourist and camping accommodations. River shiner, there are Federal and State abundant species surveyed, it does not Overall, the chemical and physical regulatory protections currently in place appear that factors related to water quality of the upper Frio River offering some levels of protection for the development along the watercourse, was found to be very good, and plateau shiner, particularly from such low-head dams, and recreational use are recreational use had little impact on factors as degraded water quality, negatively impacting the plateau shiner. river quality during the spring and pollution, and reservoir construction. In conclusion, even though a portion summer visitation period (Nueces River The Factor D analysis for the Nueces of the Frio River is listed as impaired by Authority 1998, p. 10). This is further River shiner presented above also the State of Texas under the Clean supported by an Edwards et al. (2008, p. pertains to the plateau shiner’s habitat Water Act 303(d) because of concerns 27) study, which found that the Sabinal and range. However, as discussed in for impaired habitat, fish community, and Frio Rivers had exceptional water other Factors for the plateau shiner, we and organisms living at the bottom of quality. Based on our review of the best have not identified any threats to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48787

species that are negatively affecting the significant, it may drive or contribute to Significant Portion of the Range status of the species, such that an the risk of extinction of the species such inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms is that the species warrants listing as Having determined that the Nueces likely to be a threat to the species. threatened or endangered as those terms River and plateau shiners do not meet Therefore, we find that the plateau are defined by the Act. This does not the definition of a threatened or shiner is not in danger of extinction necessarily require empirical proof of a endangered species throughout all of now or in the foreseeable future as a threat. The combination of exposure and their ranges, we must next consider result of inadequacy of regulatory some corroborating evidence of how the whether there are any significant mechanisms. species is likely impacted could suffice. portions of the range where either The mere identification of factors that species are in danger of extinction or is Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade could impact a species negatively is not likely to become endangered in the Factors Affecting Its Continued sufficient to compel a finding that foreseeable future. Existence listing is appropriate; we require The Act defines an endangered The same impacts discussed above evidence that these factors are operative species as one ‘‘in danger of extinction under the Factor E analysis for the threats that act on the species to the throughout all or a significant portion of Nueces River shiner also apply to the point that the species meets the its range,’’ and a threatened species as plateau shiner. As with the Nueces definition of threatened or endangered one ‘‘likely to become an endangered River shiner, there are multiple under the Act. species within the foreseeable future hypothetical outcomes associated with Our review of the best available throughout all or a significant portion of climate change that could potentially information does not support a its range.’’ The term ‘‘significant portion affect the plateau shiner, but we lack determination that any current activities of its range’’ is not defined by the predictive local or regional models on or activities in the foreseeable future statute. For the purposes of this finding, how climate change will specifically threaten the plateau shiner or its habitat a portion of the species’ range is affect the plateau shiner or its habitat. to the point that the species meets the ‘‘significant’’ if it is part of the current Currently, we have no certainty definition of threatened or endangered range of the species, and it provides a regarding the timing, magnitude, or under the Act. There is no evidence crucial contribution to the effects of impacts from climate change. indicating that reduced water flow, representation, resiliency, or Therefore, we conclude that at this time improper grazing by livestock, redundancy of the species. For the it is not possible to make reliable diminished water quality caused by contribution to be crucial it must be at predictions of climate change effects on pollution, or land use is affecting the a level such that, without that portion, the status of the plateau shiner due to species or its habitat. Overutilization, the species would be in danger of current limitations in available data and disease, and predation are not concerns extinction. climate models. Based on the best for this species. We find no existing available information, we find that the regulatory mechanisms that are In determining whether a species is plateau shiner is not in danger of inadequate to limit or prevent possible threatened or endangered in a extinction now or in the foreseeable negative impacts from human activities. significant portion of its range, we first future as a result other natural or Climate change is another factor that identify any portions of the range of the manmade factors affecting its continued could affect the habitat of the plateau species that warrant further existence. shiner in the future, but we have no consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into Finding for the Plateau Shiner certainty regarding the timing, magnitude, or effects of impacts to the portions an infinite number of ways. As required by the Act, we considered species. However, there is no purpose to the five factors in assessing whether the Based on our review of the best analyzing portions of the range that are plateau shiner is threatened or available scientific and commercial not reasonably likely to be significant endangered throughout all or a information pertaining to the five and threatened or endangered. To significant portion of its range. We factors, we find that there are no threats identify only those portions that warrant examined the best scientific and to indicate that the species is in danger further consideration, we determine commercial information available of extinction (endangered), or likely to whether there is substantial information regarding the past, present, and future become endangered within the indicating that: (1) The portions may be threats faced by the species. We foreseeable future (threatened), significant, and (2) the species may be reviewed the petition, information throughout its range. Therefore, we find in danger of extinction there or likely to available in our files, other available that listing the plateau shiner as a become so within the foreseeable future. published and unpublished threatened or endangered species is not In practice, a key part of this analysis is information, and we consulted with warranted throughout its range at this whether the threats are geographically recognized species experts and State time. concentrated in some way. If the threats agencies. to the species are essentially uniform In considering what factors might Significant Portion of the Range and throughout its range, no portion is likely constitute threats, we must look beyond Distinct Vertebrate Population to warrant further consideration. the mere exposure of the species to the Segments Moreover, if any concentration of factor to determine whether the species After assessing whether the two threats applies only to portions of the responds to the factor in a way that species are threatened or endangered species’ range that clearly would not causes actual impacts to the species. If throughout their ranges, we next meet the biologically based definition of there is exposure to a factor, but no consider whether either a significant ‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that response, or only a positive response, portion of the Nueces River and plateau portion clearly would not reasonably be that factor is not a threat. If there is shiners’ ranges or a distinct population expected to increase the vulnerability to exposure and the species responds segment (DPS) of either or both species extinction of the entire species to the negatively, the factor may be a threat meets the definition of endangered or is point that the species would then be in and we then attempt to determine how likely to become endangered in the danger of extinction), such portions will significant a threat it is. If the threat is foreseeable future (threatened). not warrant further consideration.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 48788 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

If we identify portions that warrant significant portion of their range. morphological discontinuity may further consideration, we then Therefore, listing either species as provide evidence of this separation. determine whether the species is threatened or endangered under the Act (2) It is delimited by international threatened or endangered in these is not warranted at this time. governmental boundaries within which portions of its range. Depending on the We request that you submit any new differences in control of exploitation, biology of the species, its range, and the information concerning the status of, or management of habitat, conservation threats it faces, it might be more threats to, the species to our Austin status, or regulatory mechanisms exist efficient for us to address either the Ecological Services Field Office (see that are significant in light of section ‘‘significant’’ question first, or the status ADDRESSES section) whenever it 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. question first. Thus, if we determine becomes available. New information We determine, based on a review of that a portion of the range is not will help us monitor the Nueces River the best available information, that ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to and plateau shiners and encourage their neither the Nueces River shiner nor the determine whether the species is in conservation. If an emergency situation plateau shiner meet the discreteness endangered or threatened there; if we develops for the Nueces River shiner, conditions of the 1996 DPS policy. determine that the species is not plateau shiner, or any other species, we Neither species has populations that are endangered or threatened in a portion of will act to provide immediate known to be markedly separate from its range, we do not need to determine protection. other populations of the same taxon, nor if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ does either species have populations Applying the process described above Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment delimited by international governmental for determining whether a species is Under the Service’s Policy Regarding boundaries. Therefore, these population threatened or endangered in a the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate segments do not qualify as a DPS under significant portion of its range, we Population Segments Under the our policy and are not listable entities consider status first to determine if any Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, under the Act. threats or potential threats acting February 7, 1996), three elements are The DPS policy is clear that individually or collectively threaten or considered in the decision concerning significance is analyzed only when a endanger the species in a portion of its the establishment and classification of a population segment has been identified range. We have analyzed the threats to possible DPS. These are applied as discrete. Because no population the degree possible, and determined similarly for additions to or removal segment met the discreteness element they are essentially uniform throughout from the Federal List of Endangered and for either the Nueces River or plateau both species’ ranges. Threatened Wildlife. These elements shiners, neither species qualifies as a There is no information to suggest include: DPS under the Service’s DPS policy. that any portion of the ranges of either (1) The discreteness of a population in Therefore, we will not conduct an species contributes more significantly to relation to the remainder of the species evaluation of significance. species than any other portion of their to which it belongs; ranges. There is no information to References Cited (2) The significance of the population suggest that any portion of their ranges A complete list of references cited is segment to the species to which it is of better quality than any other available on the Internet at http:// belongs; and portion, or that any portion includes www.regulations.gov and upon request important concentrations of certain (3) The population segment’s from the Austin Ecological Services conservation status in relation to the types of habitat that are necessary for Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). the species to carry out its life-history Act’s standards for listing, delisting, or functions. As a result, we conclude that reclassification (i.e., is the population Authors there is no information that a particular segment endangered or threatened). The primary authors of this notice are portion of the Nueces River or plateau Discreteness staff members of the Southwest Regional shiners’ range warrants further Office. consideration as threatened or Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be Authority: The authority for this section is endangered. section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of considered discrete if it satisfies either 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Conclusion of 12-Month Finding one of the following conditions: We do not find the Nueces River (1) It is markedly separated from other Dated: July 27, 2011. shiner or plateau shiner to be in danger populations of the same taxon as a James J. Slack, of extinction now, nor is either species consequence of physical, physiological, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. likely to become endangered within the ecological, or behavioral factors. [FR Doc. 2011–20054 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] foreseeable future throughout all or a Quantitative measures of genetic or BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS