Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules 16981

online instructions for submitting Dated: March 22, 2017. Section, Air Planning and comments. Once submitted, comments Robert A. Kaplan, Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides cannot be edited or removed from Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Regulations.gov. For either manner of [FR Doc. 2017–06883 Filed 4–6–17; 8:45 am] Environmental Protection Agency, submission, EPA may publish any BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., comment received to its public docket. Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Akers Do not submit electronically any can be reached via telephone at (404) information you consider to be ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 562–9089 or via electronic mail at Confidential Business Information (CBI) AGENCY [email protected]. or other information whose disclosure is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the restricted by statute. Multimedia 40 CFR Part 52 Final Rules section of this Federal submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be [EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0575; FRL–9960–56– Register, EPA is approving the State’s accompanied by a written comment. Region 4] SIP revision as a direct final rule The written comment is considered the without prior proposal because the official comment and should include Air Plan Approval; Tennessee: Agency views this as a noncontroversial discussion of all points you wish to Reasonable Measures Required submittal and anticipates no adverse make. EPA will generally not consider AGENCY: Environmental Protection comments. A detailed rationale for the comments or comment contents located Agency. approval is set forth in the direct final outside of the primary submission (i.e. ACTION: Proposed rule. rule. If no adverse comments are on the web, cloud, or other file sharing received in response to this rule, no system). For additional submission SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection further activity is contemplated. If EPA methods, please contact the person Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a receives adverse comments, the direct identified in the FOR FURTHER State Implementation Plan (SIP) final rule will be withdrawn and all INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the revision submitted by the State of public comments received will be full EPA public comment policy, Tennessee, through the Tennessee addressed in a subsequent final rule information about CBI or multimedia Department of Environment and based on this proposed rule. EPA will submissions, and general guidance on Conservation (TDEC), on March 25, not institute a second comment period making effective comments, please visit 1999. The SIP submittal includes a on this document. Any parties http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ change to the TDEC regulation interested in commenting on this commenting-epa-dockets. ‘‘Reasonable Measures Required.’’ EPA document should do so at this time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: is proposing to approve this SIP revision Matt Dated: March 15, 2017. Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control because it is consistent with the Clean V. Anne Heard, Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch Air Act and federal regulations (AR–18J), Environmental Protection governing SIPs. Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson DATES: Written comments must be [FR Doc. 2017–06878 Filed 4–6–17; 8:45 am] Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, received on or before May 8, 2017. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P (312) 886–6524, [email protected]. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– Final Rules section of this Federal OAR–2016–0575 at http:// DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Register, EPA is approving the State’s www.regulations.gov. Follow the online SIP submittal as a direct final rule instructions for submitting comments. Fish and Wildlife Service without prior proposal because the Once submitted, comments cannot be Agency views this as a noncontroversial edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 50 CFR Part 17 submittal and anticipates no adverse EPA may publish any comment received [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2015–0148; comments. A detailed rationale for the to its public docket. Do not submit 4500030113] approval is set forth in the direct final electronically any information you rule. If no adverse comments are consider to be Confidential Business RIN 1018–BA86 Information (CBI) or other information received in response to this rule, no Endangered and Threatened Wildlife whose disclosure is restricted by statute. further activity is contemplated. If EPA and Plants; Threatened Species Status Multimedia submissions (audio, video, receives adverse comments, the direct for the Headwater Chub and Roundtail etc.) must be accompanied by a written final rule will be withdrawn and all Chub Distinct Population Segment public comments received will be comment. The written comment is addressed in a subsequent final rule considered the official comment and AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, based on this proposed rule. EPA will should include discussion of all points Interior. not institute a second comment period. you wish to make. EPA will generally ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. Any parties interested in commenting not consider comments or comment on this action should do so at this time. contents located outside of the primary SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Please note that if EPA receives adverse submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the comment on an amendment, paragraph, other file sharing system). For proposed rule to list the headwater chub or section of this rule and if that additional submission methods, the full (Gila nigra) and a distinct population provision may be severed from the EPA public comment policy, segment (DPS) of the roundtail chub remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt information about CBI or multimedia (Gila robusta) from the lower Colorado as final those provisions of the rule that submissions, and general guidance on River basin as threatened species under are not the subject of an adverse making effective comments, please visit the Endangered Species Act (Act). This comment. For additional information, http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ withdrawal is based on a thorough see the direct final rule which is located commenting-epa-dockets. review of the best scientific and in the Rules section of this Federal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. commercial data available, which Register. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management indicate that the headwater chub and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS 16982 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules

the roundtail chub DPS are not discrete these species, please refer to the October Rinne 1969; Holden and Stalnaker 1970; taxonomic entities and do not meet the 7, 2015, proposed listing rule (80 FR Rinne 1976; Smith et al. 1977; DeMarais definition of a species under the Act. 60754). 1986; Rosenfeld and Wilkinson 1989; These fish are now recognized as a part Dowling and DeMarais 1993; Douglas et Background of a single taxonomic species—the al. 1998; Minckley and DeMarais 2000; roundtail chub (Gila robusta). Because At the time we published our Gerber et al. 2001). As noted by nearly the entities previously proposed for proposed rule (October 7, 2015; 80 FR all researchers investigating the listing are no longer recognized as 60754), the Committee on Names of systematics of Gila spp., the taxonomic species, as defined by the Act, we have Fishes, a joint committee of the situation is complicated and determined that they are not listable American Fisheries Society and problematic (Holden and Stalnaker entities and we are withdrawing our American Society of Ichthyologists and 1970; Minckley 1973; Minckley and proposed rule to add them to the List of Herpetologists (the Societies) (Page et al. DeMarais 2000; Gerber et al. 2001; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 2013, p. 71), considered headwater chub Scho¨nhuth et al. 2014) due to various Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and and roundtail chub to be separate factors including multiple independent implementing regulations at 50 CFR species. As a consortium of fisheries hybridization events over time (Rinne 424.17 provide that the Service must, scientists, the American Fisheries 1976; DeMarais 1986; Rosenfeld and within 1 year of a proposed rule to list, Society is the recognized and accepted Wilkinson 1989; DeMarais et al. 1992; delist, or reclassify species, or to scientific authority on fish taxonomy. Dowling and DeMarais 1993; Minckley designate or revise critical habitat, Accordingly, our proposed rule assessed and DeMarais 2000; Gerber et al. 2001; withdraw the proposal if the available the headwater chub and roundtail chub Schwemm 2006; Scho¨nhuth et al. 2014; evidence does not justify the proposed as separate species. However, Brandenburg et al. 2015,) potential past action. The document withdrawing the commenters on our proposed rule raised introgression (the transfer of genetic rule must set forth the basis upon which questions during the public comment information from one species to another the proposed rule has been found not to period regarding the taxonomic as a result of hybridization between be supported by available evidence. distinctness of the headwater and them and repeated backcrossing) Once withdrawn, the action may not be roundtail chubs, as related to the Gila (DeMarais et al. 1992; Minckley and re-proposed unless sufficient new chub (Gila intermedia). At that time, DeMarais 2000), recent divergence information is available. some scientists knowledgeable about the within the three fish (Schwemm 2006). Further, the original assignment to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: fish contended that the three entities species was based on the assumption Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. were not separate species (Carter et al. that the three fish do not overlap Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 2016 in press; Copus et al. 2016). For geographically (parapatry), which we Ecological Services Office, 9828 North this reason, the Arizona Game and Fish recognize now is not an accurate 31st Ave., #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051– Department requested that the Societies assumption. Additionally, in some 2517; telephone 602–242–0210. Persons evaluate the most recent literature instances when the same fish was who use a telecommunications device associated with roundtail chub, identified based on morphology for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal headwater chub, and Gila chub (physical characteristics) it was Relay Services at 800–877–8339. taxonomy. In their final report to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the identified as one species and when SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Societies panel concluded that ‘‘no identified based on genetic analysis it Previous Federal Action morphological or genetic data define was identified as a different species populations of Gila in the lower (Dowling et al. 2015, pp. 14–15). Recent On October 7, 2015 (80 FR 60754), we and ongoing genetic and morphologic published a proposed rule to list the Colorado River basin (which, as defined by the Service, includes the Little analyses of chubs in the Gila River basin headwater chub and the lower Colorado continue to yield conflicting results River basin roundtail chub DPS Colorado River, Bill Williams River, Gila River, Verde River, and Salt River (DeMarais et al. 1992; Schwemm 2006; (roundtail chub DPS) as threatened Dowling et al. 2008 and 2015; species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et drainages) as members of more than one species’’ and ‘‘that the data available Scho¨nhuth et al. 2014; Marsh et al. seq.). On August 15, 2016 (81 FR 2016, all entire). 54018), we announced a 6-month support recognition of only one species extension on the final listing of Gila, the roundtail chub, Gila History robusta’’ (Page et al. 2016, p. 1). These determination that the Act allows when Gila robusta (roundtail chub) was first three fish are now considered by the there is substantial disagreement described by Baird and Girard (1853, p. Societies to be a single species, regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of 365–369) from specimens collected in roundtail chub (Gila robusta) because the available data, and reopened the 1851 from the Zuni River (tributary to comment period on the proposed data do not support recognition of three Little Colorado River). Gila nigra listings for 30 days. During this species. (headwater chub; formerly known as G. comment period we received new Taxonomy robusta graham or G. grahami) was first information. On November 1, 2016 (81 described as a subspecies (G. robusta FR 75801), we reopened the comment Introduction graham) from Ash Creek in the San period on the proposed listings for an The taxonomic history of the genus Carlos River in east-central Arizona in additional 45 days to provide the public Gila in the Colorado River basin has 1874 (Cope and Yarrow 1875, p. 663), additional time to review and consider changed over time, especially for the but not returned to full species status the proposed rulemakings in light of three forms (roundtail, headwater, and (G. robusta) until proposed so by this new information. As a result of the Gila chub) found in the Gila River basin. Minckley and DeMarais (2000, p. 6-month extension, the deadline to These forms have been variously entire). The Societies accepted Gila finalize, modify, or withdraw the classified as full species, assigned as nigra as a full species (Nelson et al. proposed rule is April 7, 2017. different species, subspecies of Gila 2004, p. 71), as did the New Mexico For a description of additional robusta, or as part of a ‘‘Gila robusta Department of Game, Fish (Carman previous Federal actions concerning complex’’ (Miller 1945; Holden 1968; 2006, p. 3), Arizona Game, and Fish

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules 16983

Department (AGFD 2006, p. 3) and 254) indicate that G. nigra is physically as separate non-overlapping (allopatric) continued to recognize G. robusta as a different from G. intermedia even morphological species. In addition, distinct species. Therefore, based on the though they appear physically more some populations assigned to species best available commercial and scientific similar to one another than either is to based on genetics appeared to conflict data the Service accepted both Gila G. robusta. In addition, Copus et al. with the species level-assignment based robusta and Gila nigra as full species as (2016, p. 13) did not find physical on morphology (Dowling et al. 2008, p. documented in our 12-month findings characteristics in the Minckley and 27). (May 3, 2006; 71 FR 26007 and July 7, DeMarais (2000, pp. 254–255) Speciation 2009; 74 FR 32352). In their 2013 classification key to reliably publication of Common and Scientific differentiate G. robusta, G. nigra, and G. Minckley and DeMarais (2000, p. 253) Names of Fishes from the United States, intermedia from one another. Copus et describe three different taxonomic Canada, and Mexico, the Societies al. (2016 p. 16) concluded that there was options for chubs in the Gila River continued to list both Gila robusta and no morphological basis for taxonomic basin: a single species with many Gila nigra as distinct species (Page et al. distinctions within the Gila spp. different forms or stages (polymorphic 2013, p. 71). A summary of the historic complex. species), a species containing multiple and current nomenclature from Rinne subspecies, or three full species. They Genetics (1976, entire), Sublette et al. (1990, acknowledge that none of these entire), and Minckley and DeMarais Multiple genetic analysis studies have taxonomic options is biologically (2000, entire) is summarized in Voeltz been conducted that reveal differences justified without knowing if these fish (2002, pp. 8) and Copus et al. (2016, pp. between different chub populations, but naturally occur in the same geographic 1&6). The Gila chub (Gila intermedia) is have been unable to identify differences area (sympatry, indicating an initial currently listed as an endangered between G. robusta, G. nigra, and G. interbreeding population that split), or species (November 2, 2005; 70 FR intermedia (DeMarais et al. 1992, pp. occur immediately adjacent to each 66664). 2748–2749; Schwemm 2006, p. 29; other but not significantly overlapping These entities were originally Dowling et al. 2008, p. 2, and 2015, p. (parapatry, indicating there is no barrier classified based on the streams in which 13; Copus et al. 2016, pp. 14–15; Marsh to gene flow). They further acknowledge they were found (Minckley and et al, 2016, p.58). Mitochondrial DNA that a persistent narrow interaction zone DeMarais 2000, p. 252), under the analysis (Scho¨nhuth et al. 2014, p. 223) (parapatry, indicating there is no barrier assumption that G. robusta and G. nigra indicates that G. robusta, G. nigra, and to gene flow) of morphologically either did not overlap (allopatric, no G. intermedia belong to one clade (a distinguishable G. robusta, G. gene flow) or there was only a narrow grouping that includes a common intermedia, and G. nigra has been overlap (parapatric; limited interaction ancestor and all its descendants, living confirmed, but note that in no instance and opportunity for gene flow) and extinct, of that ancestor). was any two of the three caught at the (Minckley and DeMarais 2000 pp. 252– Scho¨nhuth et al. (2014, p. 223) same locality (allopatric, no gene flow; 254). Because hybridization between G. hypothesized that this could reflect p. 251). However, they also robusta and G. intermedia indicates that hybridization or incomplete lineage acknowledge that hybridization these fish must co-occur in some sorting (when the lineage of a specific (between G. robusta and G. intermedia, streams (Minckley and DeMarais 2000, gene is not the same as the lineage of the resulting in G. nigra) in the past must entire), we conclude that Minckley and species, obscuring the true species have occurred in some places and not DeMarais’s (2000) assumption they did relationship). others, thereby demonstrating not overlap was unfounded. Further, However, when nuclear DNA (rather occurrence in the same geographic area other studies have found that fish than mitochondrial DNA) was analyzed, (sympatry) (p. 253). They conversely designated as G. robusta, G. nigra, and a broader grouping was identified that hypothesized that the current minimal G. intermedia overlap geographically or included G. seminude and G. elegans, overlap in an area where species are occur adjacent to one another (Dowling but when mitochondrial and nuclear adjacent (parapatry, indicating there is and Marsh 2009, p. 1; Marsh et al. 2016, DNA results are combined G. robusta, G. no barrier to gene flow) may thus reflect p. 57; Brandenburg et al. 2015, p. 18). nigra, and G. intermedia were in one an ancestral ecological segregation area grouping (Scho¨nhuth et al. 2014, p. (sympatry, indicating an initial Morphology 223). Preliminary studies by Chafin et interbreeding population that split due The approach for classifying G. al. (2016) indicate evolutionary to the use of different habitats and robusta, G. nigra, and G. intermedia independent lineages for G. robusta, G. resources) that promoted persistence in developed by Minckley and DeMarais nigra, and G. intermedia, and that the the ever-increasing aridity of the (2000, pp. 254–255) presumes there is hybrid origin of G. nigra is not Southwest (p. 253). little intraspecific variation (differences supported. Studies by Marsh et al. In Fossil Creek, G. nigra and G. within a species) in the morphologic (2016, entire) point to genetic variation robusta appear to be sympatric, and meristic (counting quantitative between populations of G. robusta and including hybrids between G. robusta characteristics such as fins) G. nigra, and demonstrate evidence that and G. nigra (Marsh et al. 2016, p. 57). characteristics used to distinguish these distinct ecological differences between Brandenburg et al. (2015, p. 18) three taxa. However, the three purported some populations are now thought to concluded that the morphological species overlap in physical exist. Minckley and DeMarais (2000, assessment of Gila spp. in New Mexico characteristics, and many fish have entire) supported recognition of three confirmed that the three fish were found intermediate physical characteristics. species, but acknowledged that most in the same geographic area (sympatric) Those characteristics that do not overlap genetic variation was within in almost all cases, contradicting are separated by very small margins, populations for G. robusta, and was Minckley and DeMarais’ results (2000, making species-level identification of among populations for G. intermedia p. 251) as well as other previous individual fish problematic, even when and G. nigra. Minckley and DeMarais literature suggesting that these Gila spp. the geographic origin of the species is (2000, p. 253) also indicated that these are occurring in separate non- known (Brandenburg 2015, entire). three fishes share genetic features (that overlapping geographical areas Minckley and DeMarais (2000, pp. 253– had been studied so far) while behaving (allopatric) through their ranges (Rinne

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS 16984 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules

1969, p. entire; DeMarais 1986, p. entire; scientific organizations; interested seminuda and G. elegans, but when Minckley and DeMarais 2000, p. 253). In groups; and other interested parties. mitochondrial and nuclear DNA results Fossil Creek, they found that G. nigra In accordance with our peer review were combined, G. robusta, G. nigra, and G. robusta are locally in the same policy published in the Federal Register and G. intermedia were alone in one geographic area (sympatric) and have on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we grouping. While Marsh et al. (2016, hybridized (Marsh et al. 2016, p. 57). solicited independent opinions from at entire) concluded there are two similar Marsh et al. (2016, p. 58) concluded least three knowledgeable individuals but genetically distinguishable species there are two morphologically similar, who have expertise with these fish, who in the creek they studied, their findings but genetically distinguishable, chub in possess a current knowledge of the differ somewhat from Schwemm (2006) Fossil Creek, G. robusta and G. nigra. geographic region where the fish occurs, and Dowling et al. (2008 and 2015, and/or are familiar with the principles entire), who were unable to Conservation Implications of conservation biology. conclusively identify distinct species Dowling et al. (2015, pp. 14–15) We reviewed all comments received using genetic markers across a much reasoned that the lack of diagnostic from peer reviewers and the public for wider range. Further, the Societies molecular characteristics does not substantive issues and new information conducted a review of the literature and inform the status of these three fish, but regarding the proposed listing of G. found no evidence to support three rather highlights the role that local nigra and the G. robusta DPS. species. The Service has reviewed the evolution has played in shaping Substantive comments pertaining to the best available scientific and commercial patterns of variation in these taxa and taxonomy of these fish received during data and also found a lack of sufficient the importance of accounting for this the comment period are addressed evidence to support more than one variation when managing the complex. below. We also received several species. Most, if not all, scientists agree that comments from both the public and (2) Comment: Recognized authorities conservation actions for these chubs peer reviewers concerning threats to on the taxonomy and ecology of these must be directed at the population level these fish; however, because our fish recognized these fish as separate and must include consideration of the withdrawal is due to taxonomic revision species based on morphological complex as a whole (Dowling et al. such comments are outside the scope of diagnostics. 2008, pp. 30–31; Dowling and DeMarais this withdrawal. Response: Minckley and DeMarais 1993, p. 445; Gerber et al. 2001, p. 2037; (2000), Miller et al. (2005), and Peer Review Comments Schwemm et al. 2006, pp. 32–33). The Minckley and Marsh (2009) report Arizona Game and Fish Department (1) Comment: One peer reviewed identification of three species using a recognizes the importance of conserving stated that there are no recent (since diagnostic morphological key. However, the currently recognized roundtail chub 2000) publications in the peer-reviewed additional reports were unable to population rangewide (including the literature that provide evidence that reliably identify these three fish to formerly known headwater chub and Gila intermedia, G. nigra, and G. robusta species using the same diagnostic key Gila chub) and is committed to the are other than separate and distinct (Carter et al. 2016, p. 2 and 20, in press; conservation agreements and practices species. The peer reviewer further stated Brandenburg 2015, entire; Copus et al. that have been in place since 2006 that there are articles that study the 2016, p. 13). Further, Minckley and (AGFD 2017, entire; AGFD 2006, entire). genetics or morphology of these fish DeMarais (2000, pp. 253–254) stated without questioning its taxonomy, that G. nigra is morphologically separate Public Comments specifically Scho¨nhuth et al. 2014, from G. intermedia, but that G. nigra In our October 7, 2015 proposed rule Scho¨nhuth et al. 2012, and Marsh et al. and G. intermedia appear (80 FR 60754), we requested that all in press. morphologically more similar to one interested parties submit comments or Response: Multiple studies since 2000 another than either is to G. robusta. In information concerning the proposed provide information on the genetic addition to issues surrounding listings during a 60 day comment analysis for these fish, including morphological identification, multiple period, ending December 7, 2015. We Schwemm 2006, Dowling et al. 2008 genetic analysis studies have found particularly sought comments and 2015, and Copus et al. 2016. While population-level differences, but have concerning genetics and taxonomy. In these studies may not have questioned been unable to identify genetic markers our August 15, 2016, 6-month extension the taxonomic classification, they also that have the ability to distinguish document (81 FR 54018), we reopened have not been able to identify genetic among G. robusta, G. nigra, and G. the comment period on the proposed markers that have the ability to intermedia (DeMarais 1992, pp. 2748– rule for 30 days, ending September 14, distinguish among G. robusta, G. nigra, 2749; Schwemm 2006, p. 29; Dowling et 2016, and we again requested comments and G. intermedia. Scho¨nhuth et al. al. 2008, p. 2, and 2015, p. 13; Copus and information regarding genetics and (2008, p. 213; 2014, p. 223), using et al. 2016, pp. 14–15). There are also morphology that would aid in resolving mitochondrial and nuclear DNA the findings of Scho¨nhuth et al. (2014), the ongoing taxonomic issues regarding sequencing, found that G. robusta, G. Scho¨nhuth et al. (2012) as described in classification of these fish. On nigra, and G. intermedia were well Response to Comment 1. November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75801, we supported as having a common (3) Comment: Conclusions are mainly announced an additional 45-day ancestor. Using mitochondrial DNA, based on two ‘‘gray literature’’ reports comment period, ending December 16, Scho¨nhuth et al. (2008, p. 213; 2014, p. that have not undergone peer review 2016, on the October 7, 2015 proposed 223) found that G. robusta, G. nigra, and (Copus et al. 2016) or were not available rule. G. intermedia were in one grouping that for public consideration (Carter et al. We provided notification of these included a common ancestor and all the 2016, in press). publications and their comment periods descendants (living and extinct) of that Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the through email, letters, and news releases ancestor (clade), and this could reflect Act requires the Service to make listing faxed and/or mailed to the appropriate incomplete lineage sorting or or delisting decisions based on the best Federal, State, and local agencies; hybridization. However, when nuclear scientific and commercial data county governments; elected officials; DNA was analyzed, a broader grouping available. Further, our Policy on media outlets; local jurisdictions; was identified that included G. Information Standards under the Act

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules 16985

(July 1, 1994; 59 FR 34271), the Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION obtain a complete list of references cited Information Quality Act (section 515 of CONTACT). The Service has reviewed the on the Internet at http:// the Treasury and General Government best available scientific and commercial www.regulations.gov and upon request Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 data and found a lack of sufficient from the Arizona Ecological Services (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658)), and our evidence to support more than one Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION associated Information Quality species. CONTACT). In regards to the Guidelines (https://www.fws.gov/ (5) Comment: This taxonomic dispute mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic informationquality), provide criteria is not simply an academic exercise of analysis, Copus et al.’s findings are and, guidance, and establish procedures whether to lump or split taxa, because consistent with Scho¨nhuth et al.’s to ensure that our decisions are based the decision has enormous implications (2014) and Scho¨nhuth et al.’s (2012) on the best scientific data available. for the conservation of imperiled mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic They require us, to the extent consistent species. Multiple experts recommended analysis. In addition, multiple genetic with the Act and with the use of the best that the roundtail chub complex, analysis studies have been conducted scientific data available, to use primary however it is constituted, be managed as that indicate population-level and original sources of information as separate populations or managed as a differences, but do not identify genetic the basis for our determinations. complex. markers that have the ability to Primary or original information sources Response: The Service recognizes that distinguish among G. robusta, G. nigra, are those that are closest to the subject multiple experts agree that conservation and G. intermedia (DeMarais 1992, pp. being studied, as opposed to those that actions must be directed at the 2748–2749; Schwemm 2006, p. 29; cite, comment on, or build upon population level and must include Dowling et al. 2008, p. 2, and 2015, p. primary sources. The Act and our consideration of the complex as a whole 13). regulations do not require us to use only (Dowling et al. 2008, pp. 30–31; In regards to morphological diagnostic peer-reviewed literature, but instead Dowling and DeMarais 1993, p. 445; errors due to using preserved they require us to use the ‘‘best Gerber et al. 2001, p. 2037; Schwemm specimens, Copus et al. (2016) did use scientific and commercial data 2006, pp. 32–33). However, the Service preserved specimens. However, they available.’’ We use information from must adhere to the Act and its also analyzed fresh material and many different sources, including implementing regulations, which define concluded that no single diagnostic articles in peer-reviewed journals, a ‘‘species’’ as any species or subspecies character can be used for species scientific status surveys and studies of fish, wildlife, or plant, and any identification, and with considerable completed by qualified individuals, distinct population segment of any overlap among species in every Master’s thesis research that has been vertebrate species which interbreeds morphological character, no suite of reviewed but not published in a journal, when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16) and 50 characters can distinguish species other unpublished governmental and CFR 424.02). The best available unambiguously (Copus et al. 2016, p. nongovernmental reports, reports scientific and commercial data as 13). Brandenburg et al. (2015, entire) prepared by industry, personal discussed above in the Taxonomy also reported overlap in the meristic and communication about management or section, support recognition of only one morphometric characteristics, records of other relevant topics, conservation plans species, Gila robusta. The Service’s many individual fish with intermediate developed by States and counties, withdrawal of our proposed rule to list physical characteristics, and even those biological assessments, other the headwater and roundtail chub based characters that do not overlap are unpublished materials, experts’ on new taxonomic classification does separated by very small margins making opinions or personal knowledge, and not diminish the conservation efforts of species-level identification of individual other sources. For these reasons, we our partners to conserve this species fish problematic, even when the think it is appropriate to include review and habitat, nor does our decision affect geographic origin of the species is of Copus et al. (2016) and Carter et al. the State’s ability to conserve this known. species under its own authority. The (2016, in press), as well as other Public Comments sources, within our review. Arizona Game and Fish Department (4) Comment: Several authors recognizes the importance of conserving (7) Comment: Multiple commenters presented data and conclusions that the currently recognized roundtail chub requested various listing alternatives conflicted with the previously cited population rangewide (including the under the Act including: List G. robusta Carter et al. (2016, in press) and Copus formerly known headwater chub and as threatened and encompass all et al. (2016) reports pertaining to Gila chub) and is committed to the populations of the chub complex within morphological identification, DNA conservation agreements and practices the Gila basin requiring a revision of the analysis, and ecological equivalency to that have been in place since 2006 recovery plan, list G. robusta and G. a subset of the Joint Committee (AGFD 2017, entire; AGFD 2006, entire). nigra as threatened and retain the convened in April 2016, to specifically (6) Comment: Multiple commenters current endangered species status of G. address the taxonomy of the roundtail raised concerns with Copus et al. (2016) intermedia, list G. robusta as threatened chub complex. methods and conclusions, particularly and retain the current endangered Response: We were present at the small sample size, lack of key analytical species status of G. intermedia, or other April 2016 Joint Committee webinar, and laboratory steps, the study’s DNA combinations. and experts beyond Carter and Copus, sequence data filtering and analyses that Response: The Service must adhere to such as Brandenburg, Schwemm, failed to follow best practices for the Act and its implementing Dowling, O’Neill, and Chafin, also phylogenetic analysis, and specimen regulations, which define a ‘‘species’’ as provided information based on research shrinkage associated with duration of any species or subspecies of fish, they either had previously conducted or preservation impacting morphological wildlife, or plant, and any distinct are currently conducting on Gila. A diagnostics. population segment of any vertebrate complete list of references cited may be Response: The Service did not rely species which interbreeds when mature obtained on the Internet at http:// solely on Copus et al. 2016. We (16 U.S.C. 1532(16) and 50 CFR 424.02), www.regulations.gov and upon request considered the best available and based on our review, the best from the Arizona Ecological Services commercial and scientific data; you may available scientific and commercial data

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS 16986 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules

support recognition of only one species, result of hybridization between the well as the Service review, of the best Gila robusta. As the headwater chub other two taxa, so we would expect the available scientific and commercial data and roundtail chub DPS no longer meet greatest morphological overlap from that did not result in a species-level the definition of a ‘‘species’’ under the species with the other two taxa. The differentiation between G. robusta and Act, we must withdraw our proposed question then becomes, is G. nigra G. intermedia, or among G. robusta, G. rule to list them as threatened species. continuing to differentiate from intermedia, and G. nigra. (8) Comment: Multiple commenters ancestral G. robusta? When in sympatry, (11) Comment: One commenter stated that there is a great amount of G. nigra and G. robusta are becoming recommend that we proceed with an morphological overlap among counts increasingly reproductively isolated amended recovery plan to list the status and measures for these chub taxa and from one another (Desert Fishes Council of this species as threatened under the that this has long been recognized. If a meeting, Dowling et al. 2016). Act. The listing of this species is taxonomic key is not 100 percent Response: We recognize that multiple necessary even if all populations of G. correct, that does not necessarily mean studies have indicated that intermedia and G. nigra are subsumed that these are not taxa that are hybridization has occurred among G. into G. robusta. biologically distinct at the specific level. intermedia and G. robusta resulting in Response: An assessment of the entire A test of the key would require the a G. nigra and that continuing evolution range of the new taxonomic group of priori identification of each individual may occur (Schwemm 2006; Dowling et roundtail chub is planned. We are to species. Rather than dismiss the al. 2008, entire). However, there has initiating a status review of the new species’ taxonomic status, biologists also been information presented taxonomic entity in 2 to 4 years. should be working to make a better key showing no evidence of the hybrid Following that review, we will take that can be used in the field for the origin of G. nigra, and that G. action as appropriate. effective identification and management intermedia and G. nigra evolved Determinations of the species. separately in non-overlapping areas Response: We recognize that (parapatry) (Chafin 2016, entire). In An entity may only be listed under diagnostic keys do not produce correct addition, past research (Dowling et al. the Act if that entity meets the Act’s results all the time, whether due to 2008, 2015; Schwemm 2006) indicate definition of a species. The recent report human error or morphological that there is more variation among by the Societies indicates that neither similarities among purported species. populations and unique genetics within the headwater chub nor the roundtail However, Copus et al. (2016, p. 13) specific populations (streams). chub can be considered species, as concluded that, based on genetic (10) Comment: If only G. robusta and defined by the Act. Under section 3 of analysis, no single diagnostic character G. intermedia are evaluated, there is no the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)) and can be used for species identification, question that they would be considered associated implementing regulations at and with considerable overlap among distinct morphological species. 50 CFR 424.02, a ‘‘species’’ is defined to species in every morphological Response: Carter et al. (2016, in press) include any species or subspecies of character, no suite of characters can found that the physical characteristics fish, wildlife, or plant, and any distinct distinguish species unambiguously. did not reliably differentiate among G. population segment of any vertebrate Brandenburg et al. (2015, entire) also robusta, G. intermedia, and G. nigra. In species which interbreeds when mature. reported overlap in the meristic and addition, Brandenburg et al. (2015, pp. The Act’s implementing regulations at morphometric characteristics, and there 8–9) found physically similarity of the 50 CFR 424.11(a) and the Service are many individual fish whose three species, as numerous individuals Director’s November 25, 1992, morphology resides on an intermediate exhibited intermediate characters along ‘‘Taxonomy and the Endangered Species spectrum, and even those characters the species gradient. The discriminant Act’’ Memorandum (Memo) provide that do not overlap are separated by function analysis (a statistical analysis additional guidance on how to consider very small margins, making species- tool to determine which variables taxonomic information when assessing a level identification of individual fish discriminate between two or more species for listing under the Act. The problematic, even if the geographic naturally occurring groups) classified regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(a) state, origin of the species is known. In only 16 percent (n = 42) of G. ‘‘In determining whether a particular regards to a priori identification of fish, intermedia (the fewest) while the taxon or population is a species for the assignment to species has been based on majority of the samples were classified purposes of the Act, the Secretary [of the stream in which the fish occurs as G. robusta (53.2 percent, n = 140), the Interior] shall rely on standard (Minckley and DeMarais 2000, p. 252), which indicates that the ability to taxonomic distinction and the biological so the identification of the fish that classify these fish correctly to G. expertise of the Department [of the occurs in each stream is assumed to be intermedia or G. robusta based on Interior] and the scientific community known. Consequently, there exists the physical characteristics was low. Due to concerning the relevant taxonomic ability to compare findings from the the complex genetic makeup and group.’’ The Director’s Memo specifies diagnostic key to the fish within a observable characteristics or traits (i.e., that the Service is ‘‘required to exercise particular stream. An updated key may physical appearance, behavior, or a degree of scientific judgment regarding be prudent; however, the Service must physiology) of these species, there are the acceptance of taxonomic use the best available scientific and some stream locations where we do not interpretations, particularly when more commercial data available, and we have know where the geographic overlap of than one possible interpretation is concluded from our review that the data headwater, roundtail, and, in some available. The Memo further states, currently support only one species, Gila cases Gila chub, begins and ends, ‘‘When informed taxonomic opinion is robusta. Further, given the overlap in because of the plasticity of observable not unanimous, we evaluate available diagnostic characteristics, the characteristics or traits of these fish published and unpublished information development of a valid key seems within individual streams. Our review and come to our own adequately unlikely. of the data does indicate that there are documented conclusion regarding the (9) Comment: Multiple commenters differences in observable characteristics validity of taxa.’’ stated that it has long been or traits between the fish in different The Act requires that we finalize, hypothesized that G. nigra formed as the streams, but the Societies’ review, as modify, or withdraw the proposed rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules 16987

within 12 months. The Act provides for species as valid from various works, we not able to identify genetic markers one 6-month extension for scientific made little or no judgment on authors’ distinguishing between the three fish. uncertainty, which we have used. As species concepts. Taxa of uncertain Finally, Scho¨nhuth et al. (2014, p. 223) such, we are required to make a status were dealt with on a case-by-case found that G. robusta, G. nigra, and G. decision regarding the entities’ basis.’’ Based on the Societies’ expertise intermedia were in one grouping that eligibility for listing at this time. In and their internal guidance (stated included a common ancestor and all the addition, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act above) on making such decisions, we descendants (living and extinct) of that requires the Service to make listing or conclude that the preponderance of ancestor (clade), and hypothesized this delisting decisions based on the best evidence before them was clear and could reflect incomplete lineage sorting scientific and commercial data decisive enough to make a taxonomic or hybridization, but this was not available. Further, our Policy on change. studied. Information Standards under the Act After reviewing the best available For the purposes of our (July 1, 1994; 59 FR 34271), the scientific and commercial information Information Quality Act (section 515 of (as described above in the Taxonomy determination, we accept the ‘‘single the Treasury and General Government section and summarized below) and species’’ finding by the Societies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 applying statutory and regulatory described above and, consequently, (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658)), and our guidance, we determined that the withdraw the proposed rule to list the associated Information Quality Societies’ report considered the best headwater chub (Gila nigra) and a DPS Guidelines (https://www.fws.gov/ commercial and scientific data of the roundtail chub (Gila robusta) informationquality), provide criteria, available. We agree with the conclusion from the lower Colorado River basin as guidance, and establish procedures to that available data support recognition threatened species under the Act. This ensure that our decisions are based on of only one species, Gila robusta. Our withdrawal is based on a thorough the best scientific data available. They determination is based on various review of the best scientific and require us, to the extent consistent with factors, including the method of original commercial data available, which the Act and with the use of the best assignment to species, hybridization indicate that the headwater chub and scientific data available, to use primary events, conflicting identification of the DPS of the roundtail chub are not and original sources of information as species based on morphology versus discrete taxonomic entities and do not the basis for recommendations. Primary genetics, evolutionary history, meet the definition of species under the or original information sources are those morphological identification Act. These fish are now recognized as a that are closest to the subject being limitations, and lack of genetic markers single taxonomic species—the roundtail studied, as opposed to those that cite, to identify species. We lack confidence chub (Gila robusta). Because the entities comment on, or build upon primary in the initial species assignments to G. previously proposed for listing are no sources. The Act and our regulations do robusta, G. nigra, and G. intermedia due longer recognized as species, as defined not require us to use only peer-reviewed to the scientific methods used (fish were by the Act, we have determined that literature, but instead they require us to assigned to a species based on the use the ‘‘best scientific and commercial they are not listable entities, and we are stream in which they occurred, the withdrawing our proposed rule to list. data available.’’ We use information erroneous assumption that these fish from many different sources, including did not overlap geographically, and the Future Actions articles in peer-reviewed journals, absence of genetic or morphological scientific status surveys and studies diagnostic information). Minckley and Following the publication of this completed by qualified individuals, DeMarais (2000, entire) based their withdrawal, we intend to reevaluate the Master’s thesis research that has been diagnostic key on the assumption that status of the Gila chub (currently listed reviewed but not published in a journal, none of these species occurs in the same as endangered) in the near future and other unpublished governmental and locality; however, they acknowledge initiate a range-wide species status nongovernmental reports, reports hybridization among G. robusta and G. assessment (SSA) of the newly- prepared by industry, personal intermedia. Further, other studies have recognized roundtail chub (Gila communication about management or found that fish designated as G. robusta, robusta). other relevant topics, conservation plans G. nigra, and G. intermedia overlap developed by States and counties, geographically or occur adjacent to one References Cited biological assessments, other another (Dowling and Marsh 2009, p. 1; A complete list of references cited in unpublished materials, experts’ Marsh et al. 2016, p. 57; Brandenburg et opinions or personal knowledge, and this document is available on the al. 2015, p. 18). In addition, some Internet at http://www.regulations.gov other sources. populations appeared to conflict and upon request from the Arizona We conducted a similar internal genetically with the species-level Ecological Services Office (see FOR review of the information presented by assignment based on morphology FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). and available to the Societies in their (Dowling et al. 2015, pp. 14–15). review. Our review primarily focused Multiple scientists (as described above) Authors on Marsh et al. (2016), Carter et al. found Minckley and DeMarais’s (2000, (2016, in press), Copus et al. (2016), entire) key for identification of G. The primary authors of this document Minckley and DeMarais (2000), and robusta, G. nigra, and G. intermedia to are the staff members of the Arizona Chafin et al. (2015), as well as other not reliably differentiate among these Ecological Services Office. literature as discussed above in the three fish. In Fossil Creek, Marsh et al. Authority Taxonomy section. In their most recent (2016, entire) concluded there are two publication of Common and Scientific morphologically similar, but genetically The authority for this action is section Names of Fishes (Page et al. 2013, p. 8), distinguishable chub. However, there 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species the Societies state the following are several genetic analysis studies Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 regarding the common process of their indicating population-level differences et seq.) naming committee: ‘‘In accepting among these fish, but the studies were

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS 16988 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules

Dated: March 21, 2017. James W. Kurth, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2017–06995 Filed 4–6–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS