Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20911 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Final Rules section of 

this Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Persoon, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8290, 

persoon.carolyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: March 30, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8860 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0018; 

MO92210–0–0008–B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Prairie Chub as 

Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

prairie chub (Macrhybopsis australis) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), and to designate critical 

habitat. The prairie chub is a fish 

endemic to the upper Red River basin in 

Oklahoma and Texas. Based on our 

review, we find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the prairie chub may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the status of the 

species to determine if listing the prairie 

chub is warranted. To ensure that this 

status review is comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding 

this species. Based on the status review, 

we will issue a 12-month finding on the 

petition, which will address whether 

the petitioned action is warranted, as 

provided in the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before June 

13, 2011. Please note that if you are 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(see ADDRESSES section, below), the 

deadline for submitting an electronic 

comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the box that 

reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the 

Docket number for this finding, which 

is [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0018]. 

Check the box that reads ‘‘Open for 

Comment/Submission,’’ and then click 

the Search button. You should then see 

an icon that reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ 

Please ensure that you have found the 

correct rulemaking before submitting 

your comment. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: [Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2011–0018]; Division of 

Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; 

Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information we receive 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Request for Information section 

below for more details). 

After June 13, 2011, you must submit 

information directly to the Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section below). Please note that we 

might not be able to address or 

incorporate information that we receive 

after the above requested date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dixie Bounds, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma 

Ecological Services Field Office, 9014 

East 21st Street, Tulsa, OK 74129, by 

telephone at 918–581–7458, or by 

facsimile at 918–581–7467. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly review the status 

of the species (status review). For the 

status review to be complete and based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we request 

information on the prairie chub from 

governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. We seek information 

on: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20912 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

If, after the status review, we 

determine that listing the prairie chub is 

warranted, we will propose critical 

habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) 

of the Act), under section 4 of the Act, 

to the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable at the time we propose to 

list the species. Therefore, within the 

geographical range currently occupied 

by the prairie chub, we request data and 

information on: 

(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species’’; 

(2) Where these features are currently 

found; and 

(3) Whether any of these features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. 

In addition, we request data and 

information on ‘‘specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species’’ that are ‘‘essential to the 

conservation of the species.’’ Please 

provide specific comments and 

information as to what, if any, critical 

habitat you think we should propose for 

designation if the species is proposed 

for listing, and why such habitat meets 

the requirements of section 4 of the Act. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Submissions merely stating support 

for or opposition to the action under 

consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made ‘‘solely 

on the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy that includes personal 

identifying information, you may 

request at the top of your document that 

we withhold this personal identifying 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. We will post all 

hardcopy submissions on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Information and supporting 

documentation that we received and 

used in preparing this 90-day finding 

are available for you to review at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or you may 

make an appointment during normal 

business hours at the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 12- 

month finding. 

Petition History 

On January 25, 2010, we received a 

petition dated January 14, 2010, from 

WildEarth Guardians, requesting that 

the prairie chub be listed as threatened 

or endangered and that critical habitat 

be designated under the Act. The 

petition clearly identified itself as such 

and included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioner, as 

required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a July 

19, 2010, letter to the petitioner, we 

responded that we reviewed the 

information presented in the petition 

and determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the species under section 4(b)(7) 

of the Act was not warranted. We also 

stated that, due to court orders and 

judicially approved settlement 

agreements for other listing and critical 

habitat determinations under the Act 

that required nearly all of our listing 

and critical habitat funding for fiscal 

year 2010, we would not be able to 

further address the petition at that time, 

but would complete the action when 

workload and funding allowed. This 

finding addresses the petition. 

Previous Federal Actions 

There have been no Federal actions 

specific to the prairie chub. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy and Description 

The prairie chub is a small fish that 

was originally described by Hubbs and 

Ortenberger (1929, pp. 23–28) from a 

collection in the Red River 10 to 14 

kilometers (km) (6 to 9 miles (mi)) 

southwest of Hollis, Harmon County, 

Oklahoma. Until 2004, the prairie chub 

was treated as a single, wide-ranging, 

geographically variable species, referred 

to as Macrhybopsis aestivalis (Wallace 

1980, p. 180; Eisenhour 2004, pp. 9–10). 

An analysis of the species’ morphology 

conducted by Eisenhour (2004, p. 13) 

resulted in the recognition of five 

species west of the Mississippi River 

within the Macrhybopsis complex: The 

prairie chub (M. australis) in the upper 

Red River drainage; the peppered chub 

(formerly Arkansas River speckled 

chub) (M. tetranema) in the upper 

Arkansas River drainage; the shoal chub 

(M. hyostoma) in the central and eastern 

United States; the speckled chub (M. 

aestivalis) from the Rio Grande River in 

Texas; and the burrhead chub (M. 

marconis), which occurs in the San 

Antonio and Guadalupe Rivers in Texas, 

with remnant populations possibly in 

the Edwards Plateau portion of the 

Colorado River (Miller and Robison 

2004, pp. 126–127; Hubbs et al. 2008, 

p. 21). 

Even though there are morphological 

characteristics separating Macrhybopsis 

into five species, there are genetic 

similarities that dispute this species 

separation. Underwood et al. (2003, pp. 

493, 497) examined genes in three of the 

western members of the Macrhybopsis 

complex and noted that the three forms 

of speckled chub occurring in the Red 

and Arkansas Rivers could possibly 

comprise a single species. Underwood 

et al. (2003, p. 297) suggested that the 

mixing of the species’ genes through 

hybridization may be why the shoal 

chub (M. hyostoma) in the Red and 

Arkansas Rivers is genetically similar to 

the prairie chub (M. australis) in the Red 

River and the peppered chub (M. 

tetranema) in the Arkansas River 

(Underwood et al. 2003, p. 498). Further 

genetic studies are needed on all five 

species of Macrhybopsis west of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20913 

Mississippi River to help resolve their 

genetic lineages. 

We accept the characterization of the 

prairie chub as a separate species with 

the scientific name Macrhybopsis 

australis because of research conducted 

by Eisenhour (2004, pp. 13, 28–31); this 

research has been accepted by the 

scientific community. The prairie chub 

is listed as a species in the Common and 

Scientific Names of Fishes, which was 

published by the American Fisheries 

Society in 2004. 

Distribution 

The prairie chub is endemic to the 

upper Red River basin in Oklahoma and 

Texas. Based on information in the 

petition and readily available in our 

files, the species’ current distribution 

appears to include the following rivers 

and streams: Elm Fork of the Red River, 

North Fork of the Red River downstream 

of Altus Lake, Salt Fork of the Red 

River, Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red 

River, Buck Creek, Pease River, North 

Wichita River, South Wichita River, 

Mud Creek, Bitter Creek, Gypsum Boggy 

Creek, Sandy (Lebos) Creek, Beaver 

Creek, and the Red River proper 

upstream of Lake Texoma (Wilde et al. 

1996, pp. 26–55; Underwood 2003, p. 

499; Eisenhour 2004, pp. 30, 40–41; 

Miller and Robison 2004, pp. 126–127). 

The species is presumed extirpated in 

the Washita River (Miller and Robison 

2004, p. 127) and the North Fork of the 

Red River upstream of Altus Lake 

(Winston et al. 1991, pp. 102–103). 

Habitat 

Little is known about the habitat 

requirements of the prairie chub. The 

species is known to occupy relatively 

large, shallow rivers of the Red River 

basin, and is typically found over clean 

sand or gravel substrates (Miller and 

Robinson 2004, p. 126). The peppered 

and prairie chubs are considered sister 

species with similar genetics and 

ecological distributions (Underwood 

2003, p. 498). For this reason, we can 

use scientific information gathered on 

the peppered chub as a means to 

explain unknown biological and 

ecological attributes of the prairie chub. 

Bonner (2000, p. 16) found that the 

peppered chub favored relatively 

shallow depths of 18.1 to 23.5 

centimeters (cm) (7.1 to 9.3 inches (in)) 

and swift currents of 40 centimeters per 

second (cm/s) to 62 cm/s (16 to 24 

inches per second (in/s)). Peppered 

chubs were typically collected from 

sand substrates throughout the year; 

however, the species favored cobble 

substrate during the spring and gravel 

substrate during the summer (Bonner 

2000, p. 17). The peppered chub was 

collected from water temperatures 

ranging from 0 to 34 degrees Celsius (°C) 

(32 to 93 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) 

(Bonner 2000, p. 16). 

Age and Growth 

Similar to the peppered chub, the 

prairie chub likely has a relatively short 

lifespan, with very few individuals 

surviving to their third year (Bonner 

2000, p. 44; Wilde and Durham 2008, p. 

1657). Bonner (2000, p. 63) found that 

the population of peppered chubs was 

dominated by age-0 and age-1 fish, 

suggesting high post-spawning mortality 

and high overwinter mortality. Age-2 

peppered chubs reached a maximum 

length of 77 millimeters (mm) (3 in) in 

the study (Bonner 2000, p. 64). 

Reproduction 

Little is known about prairie chub 

reproduction, but based on known 

reproductive habits of other 

Macrhybopsis species, the prairie chub 

is likely a broadcast spawner, meaning 

it releases semibuoyant nonadhesive 

eggs into moving water (Platania and 

Altenbach 1998, p. 561). This 

reproductive strategy is considered to be 

an adaptation to highly variable stream 

environments (Platania and Altenbach 

1998, p. 565). Based on drift rates and 

the length of time needed for egg 

development, Platania and Altenbach 

(1998, p. 566) suggested that peppered 

chub eggs could be transported 72 to 

144 km (44 to 90 mi) before hatching. 

Once hatched, fry (recently hatched 

fish) could continue to be transported 

downstream another 216 km (134 mi) 

until they are able to swim (Platania and 

Altenbach 1998, p. 566). 

Reproductive success of species 

within the Macrhybopsis complex 

appears to be related to stream discharge 

during the spring and summer (Wilde 

and Durham 2008, p. 1658). Many 

studies have shown that species in the 

Macryhobopsis complex spawn during 

high-discharge events (Platania and 

Altenbach 1998, p. 565). However, 

Durham and Wilde (2006, pp. 1647– 

1649) found that young were produced 

throughout the summer, when relatively 

low discharge was present. In addition, 

Durham and Wilde (2006, pp. 1647– 

1649) found that high peak discharges 

were associated with low catch rates. 

Durham and Wilde (2006, p. 1651) 

concluded that there was an association 

between moderate peak rates and 

reproductive success of five minnows, 

including the peppered chub. Further, 

Bonner (2000, p. 62) found that the 

peppered chub spawned in pools; 

however, reproductive success was not 

documented. Based on these studies, the 

reproductive success of prairie chubs 

may be related to stream discharge. 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424 set forth the procedures for 

adding a species to, or removing a 

species from, the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be a threatened or 

endangered species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding threats to the prairie chub, as 

presented in the petition and in other 

information available in our files, is 

substantial scientific or technical 

information, thereby indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. Our 

evaluation of this information is 

presented below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The petitioner asserts that 

impoundments, water quality, Red River 

chloride control, land use, water use, 

and invasive plants are threats to the 

prairie chub’s habitat or range. 

Impoundments 

Information Provided in the Petition 

In support of the assertion that 

impoundments are a threat to the prairie 

chub, the petitioner suggests that stream 

flows within the Red River basin have 

been greatly altered by dams and dikes. 

These structures include Lake 

Tanglewood Dam, Altus Dam, Altus 

Auxiliary Dike, Altus East Dike, Altus 

Lugert Dike, Altus North Dike, Altus 

South Dike, Farmers Creek Dam, and 

Fish Creek Dam. The petitioner 

referenced Bonner (2000, p. 1) to 

describe how dams alter physical and 

chemical conditions of streams. These 

alterations, including changes in 

temperature and substrate, presence of 

backwaters, and timing and volume of 

discharge, all directly affect fish 

populations. A reduction in discharge 

can result in changes to channel 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20914 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

morphology and indirectly affect stream 

fish populations that require streams or 

rivers for all or part of their life history. 

For example, Altus Dam on the North 

Fork of the Red River caused changes to 

the fish community above the dam, 

including extirpation of the prairie chub 

(Winston et al. 1991, p. 98). In addition, 

Eisenhour (2004, pp. 30–31) states that 

reproduction and recruitment would be 

affected by reservoirs because the 

species is likely a flood-pulse spawner 

and because downstream habitat in the 

form of permanent flowing streams 

would be altered. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Information readily available in our 

files supports the petitioner’s assertions 

that impoundments, such as dams and 

dikes, cause modification of prairie 

chub habitat. Streams and rivers of the 

Red River basin have been significantly 

altered by dams and small 

impoundments. A total of 660 named 

reservoirs and an additional 3,877 

impoundments, all 2 hectares (ha) (5 

acres (ac)) or larger, have been 

constructed within the prairie chub’s 

current known distribution. Twentyeight percent of named streams (181 of 

647) within the current prairie chub 

drainage have at least 1 impoundment 

over 2 ha (5 ac) in size (U.S. Geological 

Survey 2007, p. 1). 

Impoundments, particularly those 

that are regulated, cause dampened and 

less-frequent peak flows downstream of 

dams, and prolonged periods of high or 

no flow. Because reproduction of the 

prairie chub is likely dependent upon 

discharge and varying flows, any 

alteration of the natural flow regime 

could affect its reproductive capability. 

Regulation of flow also causes increased 

channelization, decreased complexity of 

stream habitats, and a loss of 

connectivity between the river and its 

floodplain (Dudley and Platania 2007, p. 

2081). As a result, flow velocity is 

increased, which increases downstream 

transport of eggs into unsuitable reaches 

such as reservoirs (Dudley and Platania 

2007, p. 2081), where the eggs drop out 

of suspension and possibly perish 

because of unsuitable habitat (Platania 

and Altenbach 1998, p. 566). 

Additionally, because the connection 

between the river and its floodplain is 

diminished or lost, refugia for newly 

hatched fish are less available, leaving 

them vulnerable to potential predation. 

Luttrell et al. (1999, p. 986) found that 

extirpation of peppered chubs from the 

Arkansas River basin coincided with 

completion of reservoirs and severe 

drought. Their finding was supported by 

a life history model for the peppered 

chub, developed by Wilde and Durham 

(2008, p. 1663), that predicted that for 

the peppered chub population to be 

maintained, an annual discharge below 

the long-term average would have to be 

followed the next year by a higher-thanaverage discharge. For example, if 

annual discharge was less than the longterm average by 10 percent, discharge 

the following year would have to exceed 

11 percent of the long-term average in 

order for the peppered chub population 

to recover. Because peppered and 

prairie chubs are thought to spawn only 

once, a quick population rebound is 

critical to its survival. Thus, 

impoundments throughout the prairie 

chub’s range may affect the ability of the 

species to rebound from a population 

decline. 

In reference to the petitioner’s claims 

regarding impoundments as a threat to 

the prairie chub, the information 

appears to be reliable. Information 

readily available in our files indicates 

that impoundments alter stream flows, 

which the prairie chub appears to be 

dependent upon for reproduction and 

recruitment. Therefore, we find that 

there is substantial information 

indicating that impoundments may be a 

threat to the species such that listing 

may be warranted. 

Water Quality 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner asserts that degraded 

water quality is a threat to the prairie 

chub. In support of this threat, the 

petitioner provided information on both 

Oklahoma and Texas water-quality 

inventories of the Upper Red River 

Basin, which demonstrate that several 

regions of the system are degraded 

(Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality 2008, Appendix 

B, pp. 1–170; Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality 2008, pp. 1– 

117). For example, in Texas, 11 stream 

segments in the Red River basin are on 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Clean Water Act 303(d) list of degraded 

waters. These segments make up close 

to 1,448 km (900 mi) of stream. 

Additionally, malathion (a chemical 

toxic to fishes) is used to eradicate boll 

weevils (Anthonomus grandis) from 

cotton crops in the region (Grefenstette 

and El-Lissy 2003, p. 131). Furthermore, 

the petitioner references Jester et al. 

(1992, p. 14) to state that the speckled 

chub (incorrectly referenced as prairie 

chub in the petition) is intolerant of 

changes to habitat and moderately 

intolerant to changes in water quality. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

With regard to degraded water quality 

being a threat to the prairie chub, the 

information provided by the petitioner 

appears to be reliable. Information in 

our files supports the petitioner’s 

assertion that water quality in many 

streams of the upper Red River basin is 

degraded to some degree and that 

prairie chubs may be susceptible to this 

degradation. Of the 14 streams known to 

recently support prairie chubs, the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

considers 10 of those to be impaired due 

to one or more of the following 

parameters: Fecal coliform, total 

dissolved solids, Escherichia coli, 

Enterococcus, turbidity, chlorides, 

selenium, sulfates, lead, 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), 

Toxaphene, and fish bioassessments 

(EPA 2008, p. 1). These elements are 

detrimental to water quality and affect 

fishes by limiting their potential 

distribution, lowering dissolved oxygen, 

and accumulating in fish tissues. 

Additionally, a study by Adornato and 

Martin (1995, p. 18) concluded that fish 

within their project area, including two 

streams occupied by prairie chubs, were 

highly contaminated with 

organochlorine pesticides, including 

dieldrin, DDT metabolites, and 

Toxaphene, all of which are known to 

be toxic to all fishes. Selenium, also 

toxic to fishes, was found to be elevated, 

which the authors attributed to crop 

irrigation (Adornato and Martin 1995, p. 

18). Because various chemical toxins 

have been found in the same streams of 

the prairie chub, and the toxins are 

known to cause mortalities in all fishes, 

degraded water quality may be a threat 

to the species. Therefore, we find that 

the petition and information in our files 

provides substantial information 

indicating that listing the prairie chub 

may be warranted due to degraded 

water quality. 

Red River Chloride Control 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner asserts that the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACE) Red 

River Chloride Control Project is a threat 

to the prairie chub. The ACE is 

authorized to identify and implement 

measures to reduce naturally occurring 

brine emissions into several Red River 

basins in Texas and Oklahoma. The 

project’s primary purpose is to 

minimize chloride inputs into the Red 

River. The petitioner references 

Matthews et al. (2005, p. 304) and states 

that completion of the program to 

control chlorides in the Upper Red 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20915 

River Basin will threaten the natural 

salinity gradient upon which many flora 

and fauna depend. Additionally, if 

chloride levels in the upper Red River 

basin were lowered to the point that 

allowed for additional irrigation, water 

withdrawals would increase and 

hydrologic estimates suggest that ‘‘noflow’’ days in the upper basin might be 

tripled annually. Taylor et al. (1993, p. 

22) is also referenced in the petition, 

suggesting that the chloride control 

program could have a substantial effect 

on the fish community structure. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claims 

that the Red River Chloride Control 

Project is a threat to the prairie chub, 

the information appears to be reliable. 

Information in our files confirms the 

petitioner’s assertion that the project 

could alter existing stream flows, thus 

negatively affecting the prairie chub’s 

ability to successfully reproduce. 

According to projections supplied by 

the ACE, the project would result in 

average annual streamflow reductions 

ranging from a 4.5 percent reduction in 

the Elm Fork of the Red River to a 52 

percent reduction in the South Fork of 

the Wichita River (Service 1996, p. iii). 

The project, in combination with 

irrigation withdrawals anticipated 

following project implementation, is 

expected to increase the number of 

average annual no-flow days from a low 

of 3 days at the Benjamin, Texas, gage 

to a high of 67 days at the Vernon, 

Texas, gage (Service 1996, p. iii). This 

decrease in flows could eliminate 

existing resources, such as food and 

habitat, and could result in less dilution 

of environmental contaminants that are 

known to exist in the system (Adornato 

and Martin 1995, p. 18; EPA 2008, p. 1). 

By limiting resources and potentially 

increasing the concentrations of 

contaminants, the Red River Chloride 

Control Project could possibly have 

negative impacts on the prairie chub. 

Also, an increase in no-flow days 

would affect the prairie chub’s ability to 

spawn. Because discharge is necessary 

for successful reproduction (Durham 

and Wilde 2006, p. 1647), any increase 

in the number of no-flow days would 

decrease the number of days prairie 

chubs have available to spawn. Because 

prairie chub eggs disperse downstream 

after spawning (Platania and Altenbach 

1998, p. 566), more frequent no-flow 

days in combination with lower overall 

flows could minimize dispersal and 

potentially cause an overall reduction in 

populations. 

After reviewing information provided 

by the petitioner and readily available 

in our files, we find that substantial 

information exists indicating that the 

Red River Chloride Control Project, 

including impacts of reduced stream 

flow and degraded water quality may be 

a threat to the prairie chub, such that 

listing may be warranted. 

Land Use 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner asserts that land use 

changes are a threat to the prairie chub. 

In support of this claim, the petitioner 

references Steuter et al. (2003, p. 53) to 

describe how southern short- and midgrass river systems, including Red River 

basin streams, have been altered by land 

use changes like oil and gas production 

and agriculture. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Regarding the petitioner’s claim that 

land use changes are a threat to the 

prairie chub, the information appears to 

be reliable. Agriculture is the principal 

land use throughout the Red River 

basin. Floodplain soils are generally 

well suited for alfalfa, wheat, corn, 

cotton, peanuts, grain sorgum, and other 

small grains. Consequently, native 

floodplain vegetation has been cleared 

or fragmented into small, isolated 

patches and replaced with pasture, hay, 

vegetables, and small grains. 

Contaminants widely known to 

originate from agricultural operations 

also appear to negatively impact fish 

and wildlife in the upper Red River 

basin and are described above under 

Water Quality. Besides agriculturerelated contaminants, the information 

provided by the petitioner and readily 

available in our files does not indicate 

that any other agriculture-related 

activities are impacting the prairie chub 

in a way that may pose a threat to the 

species. 

In reference to the petitioner’s claims 

that oil and gas production has altered 

Red River basin streams, information 

available in our files indicates that oil 

and gas production has eliminated or 

fragmented native plant communities 

throughout the Red River basin (Service 

1996, p. 5); however, the petitioner 

provided no information indicating how 

this potential impact may be acting on 

the species. Therefore, the petitioner has 

not provided substantial information 

indicating that land use changes from 

oil and gas production may be a threat 

to the prairie chub. 

In summary, we find the petition, 

along with information readily available 

in our files, presents substantial 

information indicating that agriculturalrelated contaminants, which are 

described above under Water Quality, 

may pose a threat to the prairie chub 

such that listing may be warranted. 

However, neither the petition or 

information in our files, present 

substantial information to suggest that 

oil and gas production impacts the 

prairie chub at a level where listing may 

be warranted. 

Agricultural Water Use 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner asserts that agricultural 

water use is a threat to the prairie chub. 

The petitioner provided information 

from Steuter et al. (2003, p. 53) stating 

that river flows have been greatly 

altered by dams and excessive 

groundwater withdrawals for irrigation. 

In addition, the petitioner cited 

Eisenhour (2004, pp. 30–31) to describe 

the potential disruptive impacts from 

water modification (reservoir 

construction, channelization, and 

groundwater withdrawals) on 

reproduction and recruitment of the 

prairie chub. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claim 

that water use, primarily irrigation, is a 

threat to the prairie chub, the 

information appears to be reliable. 

Ground and surface water withdrawals 

for irrigation can have significant 

negative impacts on the prairie chub. 

One of the major factors contributing to 

the decline of the Federally listed 

Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) 

is water depletion due to irrigation for 

agriculture (Service 1998, pp. 64773, 

64779). Irrigation, in combination with 

water depletions from the Red River 

Chloride Control Project, could 

significantly reduce flows in the upper 

Red River basin (Service 1996, p. iii). 

The detrimental effects of decreased 

water flows on the prairie chub are 

described above under Impoundments 

and Red River Chloride Control Project. 

Based on the effects of reduced flows, 

the information provided by the 

petitioner and readily available in our 

files indicates that agricultural water 

use and subsequent stream flow 

reduction may be a threat to the prairie 

chub, such that listing may be 

warranted. 

Invasive Plants 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner asserts that invasive 

plants are a threat to the prairie chub. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20916 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

In support of this threat, the petitioner 

states that saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) and 

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) 

are prolific along the Red River and its 

tributaries (DeLoach 2009, p. 1). 

Further, the petitioner claims that both 

plants can be detrimental to native 

plains fishes by decreasing stream 

flows. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Regarding the petitioner’s claims that 

invasive plants may be a threat to the 

prairie chub, the information appears to 

be reliable. The banks of the Red River 

once sustained growth of tall willows 

(Salix spp.) and cottonwoods (Populus 

deltoides), but these trees have been 

supplanted by saltcedar and Russian 

olive (Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department 2005, p. 151). Early studies 

of water use by saltcedar have led many 

to assume that removal of saltcedar 

would result in water savings, primarily 

as increased flows in rivers (U.S. 

Geological Survey 2009, p. 43). Some 

research has shown that removal of 

saltcedar from spring ecosystems may 

be beneficial to fish species by 

increasing groundwater inputs and 

available habitat (DeLoach 2009, p. 1). 

However, saltcedar and Russian olive 

removal projects on larger streams and 

rivers, which were intended to increase 

stream flows, have provided mixed 

results (U.S. Geological Survey 2009, 

pp. 43–44). In a few cases, clearing 

saltcedar resulted in temporary 

increases in stream flow (U.S. 

Geological Survey 2009, pp. 43–44). 

But, most studies found no significant 

long-term changes in stream flow (U.S. 

Geological Survey 2009, pp. 43–44). A 

U.S. Geological Survey (2009, p. ix) 

report suggests that additional research 

is needed at a scale large enough to 

detect changes to the water budget, and 

that all variables associated with the 

water budget should be examined. 

Based on information provided by the 

petitioner and readily available in our 

files, it appears that more research is 

needed to determine the actual impacts 

of saltcedar and Russian olive on stream 

flows in the upper Red River and to 

determine the extent that this impact 

may have on the prairie chub. At this 

time, it is unclear whether invasive 

plants may be a threat to the prairie 

chub. Therefore, we will analyze this 

issue further in the 12-month finding. 

Additionally, saltcedar and Russian 

olive encroachment has been shown to 

alter stream geomorphology by 

narrowing and deepening channels 

through dense accumulation along the 

banks (Hultine et al. 2009, p. 469). This 

alteration to stream morphology limits 

the stream’s connectivity with the 

floodplain, which is needed for native 

plant establishment (Hultine et al. 2009, 

p. 469) and refugia habitat for fishes. 

However, the petitioner provided no 

information to indicate that saltcedar 

and Russian olive within the current 

range of the prairie chub are at high 

enough densities, nor will be in the 

future, to alter stream morphology and 

affect the prairie chub’s habitat. 

In conclusion, information provided 

by the petition, and readily available in 

our files, is unclear about whether 

invasive plants, particularly saltcedar or 

Russian olive, may be a threat to the 

prairie chub because of stream flow 

alterations. Therefore, we will 

investigate this issue further in the 12- 

month finding. 

In summary of the Factor A analysis, 

we find that the petition, along with 

information available in our files, has 

presented substantial information 

indicating that the prairie chub may 

warrant listing due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range, 

primarily due to impoundments altering 

stream flows, degraded water quality, 

the Red River Chloride Control Project, 

and irrigation. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition does not present any 

information concerning impacts from 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes to the prairie chub. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

We have no information available in 

our files to indicate that any impact 

from overutilization is occurring to the 

prairie chub. Therefore, we find that the 

petition, along with information readily 

available in our files, has not presented 

substantial information that the prairie 

chub may warrant listing due to 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner asserts that nonnative 

species, such as bullfrogs (Rana 

catesbeiana), may be a threat to the 

prairie chub. However, the petitioner 

does not provide any information 

indicating how nonnative species may 

be impacting the prairie chub. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

We have no information available in 

our files to indicate that nonnative 

species, disease, or predation are 

impacting the prairie chub. Therefore, 

we find that the petition, along with 

information readily available in our 

files, has not presented substantial 

information that the prairie chub may 

warrant listing due to disease or 

predation. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner asserts that the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms is a threat to the prairie 

chub. In support of this claim, the 

petitioner states that the prairie chub 

receives no Federal or State protection, 

even though the prairie chub is listed as 

a Tier-I priority species in Oklahoma 

under the State’s Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and the 

Texas Comprehensive Conservation 

Strategy lists the prairie chub as a 

medium-priority Species of Concern. 

Also, the petitioner states that the 

Oklahoma Comprehensive Conservation 

Strategy does not identify specific 

conservation actions that will benefit 

the species. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claim 

that the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the 

species, the information appears 

reliable. However, in 2007 the State of 

Texas developed legislation that 

authorized a program that could be 

beneficial to the prairie chub by 

requiring an instream flow. An instream 

flow requirement, as defined by the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is 

the amount of water flowing through a 

natural stream course that is needed to 

sustain, rehabilitate, or restore the 

ecological functions of a stream in terms 

of hydrology, biology, geomorphology, 

connectivity, and water quality at a 

particular level (NAS 2005, p. 139). 

Although this could be beneficial to the 

prairie chub, we have no information in 

our files showing that any parts of the 

program have been implemented for the 

Red River. No such instream flow 

legislation exists in the State of 

Oklahoma. Without protection of 

existing flows, the prairie chub’s habitat 

could be significantly altered. The 

alteration of natural flows could disrupt 

the species’ ability to successfully 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20917 

spawn and disperse throughout the 

upper Red River basin. For more details 

on how reduced flows impact the 

prairie chub, see discussion in the 

Impoundments and Red River Chloride 

Control Project sections. 

Also, the EPA (2008, p. 1) established 

Total Maximum Daily Loads for many of 

the streams occupied by the prairie 

chub in order to reduce water 

degradation. However, we have no 

information in our files to suggest that 

measures to meet the established Total 

Maximum Daily Loads standards have 

been implemented. 

In summary, we find that the petition, 

along with information readily available 

in our files, presents substantial 

information indicating that prairie chub 

may warrant listing due to the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, primarily due to 

inadequate protections of water quality 

and stream flow. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Invasive Aquatic Species 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner asserts that nonnative 

aquatic species are threats to the prairie 

chub. In support of this claim, the 

petitioner references Gido et al. (2004, 

p. 128) to assert that invasive nonnative 

species may cause fish population 

declines in the southern Great Plains 

river systems. Additionally, the 

petitioner states that nonnative species 

that have invaded the Red River basin 

include common carp (Cyprinus carpio), 

threadfin shad (Dorosoma petensense), 

and inland silverside (Menidia 

beryllina). However, neither the 

petitioner, nor the references provided, 

identifies how nonnative species impact 

the prairie chub. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Information in our files supports the 

assertion that nonnative fish species 

may cause native fish population 

declines in the southern Great Plains 

river systems, but there is no evidence 

that nonnative species are impacting the 

prairie chub. Gido (2004, p. 129) found 

that Great Plains streams appear to be 

gaining introduced species at the rate of 

0.5 species every 18 years. One example 

is the introduction and establishment of 

the Red River shiner (Notropis bairdi), 

a species endemic to the Red River 

drainage, into the Cimarron River in 

Oklahoma and Kansas, which has had a 

detrimental effect on the Arkansas River 

shiner by competing for limited 

resources (Cross et al. 1983, pp. 93–98; 

Felley and Cothran 1981, p. 564). The 

Red River shiner was first recorded from 

the Cimarron River in 1976 (Marshall 

1978, p. 109). It has since colonized the 

Cimarron River and may be a dominant 

component of the fish community 

(Cross et al. 1983, pp. 93–98; Felley and 

Cothran 1981, p. 564; Service 

unpublished data 2007–2010). However, 

we do not consider the Red River shiner 

to be a threat to the prairie chub. 

Because the Red River shiner is endemic 

to the Red River basin, it has adapted 

and evolved with the prairie chub. 

Therefore, it is not considered an 

invasive species, and there is no 

evidence indicating that competition 

with the Red River shiner has any 

impacts on the prairie chub. 

In addition, the petitioners have 

provided no information indicating how 

the three invasive species mentioned in 

the petition (common carp, threadfin 

shad, and inland silverside) may be 

acting on the prairie chub, or whether 

an impact from these species may 

actually be occurring within the chub’s 

range. Although the adverse effects from 

invasive aquatic species are evident for 

other native fish species, neither the 

petition nor information available in our 

files presented substantial information 

indicating that nonnative species may 

be a threat to the prairie chub, such that 

listing may be warranted. 

Climate Change 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner asserts that climate 

change is a threat to the prairie chub, 

and further notes that climate change 

poses a fundamental challenge for all 

species’ survival in the coming years 

and decades. The petitioner provided 

information suggesting that climate 

change is already causing a rise in 

temperatures across the United States 

and is increasing extreme weather 

events such as droughts and increased 

rainfall (NSC 2003, pp. 43–44; USCCSP 

2008, pp. 35–36). The petitioner 

referenced the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007, p. 30) 

and stated that 11 of the 12 years from 

1995 through 2006 ranked among the 11 

warmest years on instrumental record. 

The petitioner also cites an IPCC 2007 

report (p. 48) to discuss how resilience 

of many ecosystems is likely to be 

exceeded, and that 20 to 30 percent of 

plant and animal species assessed are 

likely to be at increased risk of 

extinction. 

In further support of climate change 

being a threat to the prairie chub, the 

petitioner provided information on 

climate change within the Great Plains, 

where more extreme and frequent 

weather events are expected, including 

droughts, heavy rainfall, and heat waves 

(Karl et al. 2009, pp. 123–128). The 

petitioner asserts that some species may 

not be able to adapt to projected changes 

in temperature and climate change 

when combined with human-induced 

stresses (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 123–128). 

In referencing Matthews and MarshMatthews (2003, p. 1232), the petitioner 

asserts that the additional stress of 

drought will only be exacerbated if 

climate change is already increasing the 

severity and duration of droughts in the 

southern Great Plains. The petitioner 

cited Matthews and Marsh-Matthews 

(2003, p. 1232) in stating that projected 

climate change may result in massive 

changes in fish biodiversity and 

widespread extirpation of fish species in 

many regions. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claim 

that climate change is a threat to the 

prairie chub, the information appears 

reliable; however, we are lacking 

information that links reliable impacts 

from climate change to effects on prairie 

chub populations. According to the 

IPCC (2007, p. 1), ‘‘Warming of the 

climate system is unequivocal, as is now 

evident from observations of increases 

in global average air and ocean 

temperatures, widespread melting of 

snow and ice, and rising global average 

sea level.’’ Average Northern 

Hemisphere temperatures during the 

second half of the 20th century were 

very likely higher than during any other 

50-year period in the last 500 years and 

likely the highest in at least the past 

1,300 years (IPCC 2007, p. 1). It is very 

likely that over the past 50 years, cold 

days, cold nights, and frosts have 

become less frequent over most land 

areas, and hot days and hot nights have 

become more frequent (IPCC 2007, p. 1). 

Data suggest that heat waves are 

occurring more often over most land 

areas, and the frequency of heavy 

precipitation events has increased over 

most areas (IPCC 2007, p. 1). 

Regional analysis for the Great Plains 

from North Dakota to Texas predicts 

that hot extremes, heat waves, and 

heavy precipitation events will increase 

in frequency (IPCC 2007, p. 8). Milly et 

al. (2005, p. 349) projected a 10 to 30 

percent decrease in runoff in midlatitude western North America by the 

year 2050, based on an ensemble of 12 

climate models. However, predictions 

for smaller subregions, such as 

Oklahoma and Texas, are not presented 

in the petition or readily available in 

our files. In addition, the petitioner did 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20918 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

not provide information indicating how 

climate change might potentially impact 

the prairie chub. The prairie chub has 

persisted for millennia with periods of 

extreme weather events, such as 

droughts and floods. If climate change 

causes more extreme weather events, 

there is no information to indicate that 

such events will have a negative impact 

on the prairie chub. At this time, we 

lack sufficient certainty to know 

specifically how climate change will 

affect the species. We are not aware of 

any data at an appropriate scale to 

evaluate habitat or population trends for 

the prairie chub within its range, make 

predictions about future trends, or 

determine whether the species will 

actually be impacted. Therefore, based 

on information presented by the 

petitioner and readily available in our 

files, we do not consider climate change 

to be a threat to the species; however, 

we intend to investigate this factor more 

thoroughly in our status review of the 

species. 

In summary, we find that the petition, 

along with information readily available 

in our files, has not presented 

substantial information that the prairie 

chub may warrant listing due to other 

natural or manmade factors. 

Finding 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

have determined that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the prairie chub throughout its 

entire range may be warranted. This 

finding is based on information 

provided under factors A and D about 

the potential threats from altered stream 

flows and degraded water quality, and 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to protect prairie chubs 

from altered stream flows or degraded 

water quality. We determine that the 

information provided under factors B, C, 

and E is not substantial. In considering 

what factors might constitute threats, we 

must look beyond the mere exposure of 

the species to the factor to determine 

whether the species responds to the 

factor in a way that causes actual 

impacts to the species. If there is 

exposure to a factor, but no response, or 

only a positive response, that factor is 

not a threat. If there is exposure and the 

species responds negatively, the factor 

may be a threat and we then attempt to 

determine how significant a threat it is. 

If the threat is significant, it may drive 

or contribute to the risk of extinction of 

the species such that the species may 

warrant listing as threatened or 

endangered as those terms are defined 

by the Act. This does not necessarily 

require empirical proof of a threat. The 

combination of exposure and some 

corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively may 

not be sufficient to compel a finding 

that listing may be warranted. The 

information must contain evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. 

Because we have found that the 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

prairie chub may be warranted, we are 

initiating a status review to determine 

whether listing the prairie chub as 

threatened or endangered under the Act 

is warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding does not constitute a status 

review under the Act. In a 12-month 

finding, we will determine whether a 

petitioned action is warranted after we 

have completed a thorough status 

review of the species, which is 

conducted following a substantial 90- 

day finding. Because the Act’s standards 

for 90-day and 12-month findings are 

different, as described above, a 

substantial 90-day finding does not 

mean that the 12-month finding will 

result in a warranted finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Oklahoma Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

the staff of the Oklahoma Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: April 4, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9089 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0031; MO 

92210–0–0008–B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List Hermes Copper 

Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

Hermes copper butterfly (Hermelycaena 

[Lycaena] hermes) as endangered and to 

designate critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). 

After review of all available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that listing Hermes copper butterfly as 

endangered or threatened is warranted. 

Currently, however, listing Hermes 

copper butterfly is precluded by higher 

priority actions to amend the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Upon publication of this 12- 

month petition finding, we will add 

Hermes copper butterfly to our 

candidate species list. We will develop 

a proposed rule to list Hermes copper 

butterfly as our priorities allow. We will 

make any determination on critical 

habitat during development of the 

proposed listing rule. During any 

interim period, we will address the 

status of the candidate taxon through 

our annual Candidate Notice of Review 

(CNOR). 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on April 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R8–ES–2010–0031. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley 

Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the above 

internet address or the mailing address 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS