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

(2) Evaluation factors for each 

assessment shall include, at a minimum, 

the following: 

(i) Technical or Quality. 

(ii) Cost Control (as applicable). 

(iii) Schedule/Timeliness. 

(iv) Management or Business 

Relations. 

(v) Small Business Subcontracting (as 

applicable). 

(3) These evaluation factors, including 

subfactors, may be tailored, however, 

each factor and subfactor shall be 

evaluated and supporting narrative 

provided. 

(4) Each evaluation factor, as listed in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall be 

rated in accordance with a five scale 

rating system (e.g., exceptional, very 

good, satisfactory, marginal, and 

unsatisfactory). Rating definitions shall 

reflect those contained in the CPARS 

Policy Guide available at http:// 

www.cpars.gov/. 

(c)(1) When the contract provides for 

incentive fees, the incentive-fee contract 

performance evaluation shall be entered 

into CPARS. (See 16.401(f).) 

(2) When the contract provides for 

award fee, the award fee-contract 

performance adjectival rating as 

described in 16.401(e)(3) shall be 

entered into CPARS. 

(d) Agency evaluations of contractor 

performance, including both negative 

and positive evaluations, prepared 

under this subpart shall be provided to 

the contractor as soon as practicable 

after completion of the evaluation. 

Contractors shall be given a minimum of 

30 days to submit comments, rebutting 

statements, or additional information. 

Agencies shall provide for review at a 

level above the contracting officer to 

consider disagreements between the 

parties regarding the evaluation. The 

ultimate conclusion on the performance 

evaluation is a decision of the 

contracting agency. Copies of the 

evaluation, contractor response, and 

review comments, if any, shall be 

retained as part of the evaluation. These 

evaluations may be used to support 

future award decisions, and should 

therefore be marked ‘‘Source Selection 

Information’’. Evaluation of Federal 

Prison Industries (FPI) performance may 

be used to support a waiver request (see 

8.604) when FPI is a mandatory source 

in accordance with subpart 8.6. The 

completed evaluation shall not be 

released to other than Government 

personnel and the contractor whose 

performance is being evaluated during 

the period the information may be used 

to provide source selection information. 

Disclosure of such information could 

cause harm both to the commercial 

interest of the Government and to the 

competitive position of the contractor 

being evaluated as well as impede the 

efficiency of Government operations. 

Evaluations used in determining award 

or incentive fee payments may also be 

used to satisfy the requirements of this 

subpart. A copy of the annual or final 

past performance evaluation shall be 

provided to the contractor as soon as it 

is finalized. 

(e) Agencies shall require— 

(1) Performance issues be documented 

promptly during contract performance 

to ensure critical details are included in 

the evaluation; 

(2) The award fee determination, if 

required, align with the contractor’s 

performance and be reflected in the 

evaluation; 

(3) Timely assessments and quality 

data (see the quality standards in the 

CPARS Policy Guide at http:// 

www.cpars.gov/) in the contractors past 

performance evaluation; and 

(4) Frequent assessment (e.g., monthly 

or quarterly) of agency compliance with 

the reporting requirements in 42.1502, 

so agencies can readily identify 

delinquent past performance reports 

and monitor their reports for quality 

control. 

(f) Agencies shall prepare and submit 

all past performance reports 

electronically into the CPARS at 

http://www.cpars.gov/. These reports are 

transmitted to the Past Performance 

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at 

http://www.ppirs.gov. Past performance 

reports for classified contracts and 

special access programs shall not be 

reported in CPARS, but will be reported 

as stated in this subpart and in 

accordance with agency procedures. 

Agencies shall ensure that appropriate 

management and technical controls are 

in place to ensure that only authorized 

personnel have access to the data and 

the information safeguarded in 

accordance with 42.1503(b). 

(g) Agencies shall use the past 

performance information in PPIRS that 

is within the last three years (six for 

construction and architect-engineer 

contracts) and information contained in 

the Federal Awardee Performance and 

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 

e.g., termination for default or cause. 

(h) Other contractor performance 

information. (1) Agencies shall ensure 

information is reported in the FAPIIS 

module of CPARS within 3 working 

days after a contracting officer— 

(i) Issues a final determination that a 

contractor has submitted defective cost 

or pricing data; 

(ii) Makes a subsequent change to the 

final determination concerning 

defective cost or pricing data pursuant 

to 15.407–1(d); 

(iii) Issues a final termination for 

cause or default notice; or 

(iv) Makes a subsequent withdrawal 

or a conversion of a termination for 

default to a termination for 

convenience. 

(2) Agencies shall establish CPARS 

focal points who will register users to 

report data into the FAPIIS module of 

CPARS (available at http:// 

www.cpars.gov/, then select FAPIIS). 

(3) The primary duties of the CPARS 

focal point is to administer CPARS and 

FAPIIS access. Agencies must also 

establish PPIRS group managers. The 

primary duties of the PPIRS group 

managers are to grant or deny access to 

PPIRS. The CPARS Reference Material, 

on the Web site, includes reporting 

instructions. 

Dated: August 3, 2011. 

Rodney P. Lantier, 

Deputy Director for Acquisition Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20089 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0057; MO 

92210–0–0008 B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List the Nueces River and 

Plateau Shiners as Threatened or 

Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the Nueces River shiner (Cyprinella sp.) 

and plateau shiner (Cyprinella lepida) 

as threatened or endangered and to 

designate critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After review of all 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing the 

Nueces River and plateau shiners is not 

warranted at this time. However, we ask 

the public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the threats to the Nueces 

River and plateau shiners or their 

habitats at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on August 9, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48778 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

[FWS–R2–ES–2011–0057]. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological 

Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet 

Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the above 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, 

Austin Ecological Services Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 512– 

490–0057, extension 248; or by 

facsimile at 512–490–0974. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, 

for any petition to revise the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants that contains 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information that listing the species may 

be warranted, we make a finding within 

12 months of the date of receipt of the 

petition. In this finding, we will 

determine that the petitioned action is: 

(1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) 

warranted, but the immediate proposal 

of a regulation implementing the 

petitioned action is precluded by other 

pending proposals to determine whether 

species are threatened or endangered, 

and expeditious progress is being made 

to add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 12- 

month findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On June 25, 2007, we received a 

petition dated June 18, 2007, from 

Forest Guardians (now WildEarth 

Guardians), requesting that 475 species 

in the southwestern United States, 

including the Nueces River and plateau 

shiners, be listed under the Act and 

critical habitat be designated. We 

acknowledged the receipt of the petition 

in a letter to the petitioner, dated July 

11, 2007. In that letter we also stated 

that the petition was under review by 

staff in our Southwest Regional Office. 

On March 19, 2008, WildEarth 

Guardians filed a complaint alleging 

that the Service failed to comply with 

its mandatory duty to make a 

preliminary 90-day finding on the June 

18, 2007, petition to list 475 southwest 

species. We subsequently published an 

initial 90-day finding for 270 of the 475 

petitioned species on January 6, 2009 

(74 FR 419), concluding that the petition 

did not present substantial information 

that listing of those 270 species may be 

warranted. This initial 90-day finding 

did not include the Nueces River and 

plateau shiners. Subsequently, on 

March 13, 2009, the Service and 

WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated 

settlement agreement, agreeing that the 

Service would submit to the Federal 

Register a finding as to whether their 

petition presented substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted for 

the remaining 192 southwestern species 

by December 9, 2009. On December 16, 

2009 (74 FR 66866), we published a 

second 90-day finding for the remaining 

192 southwestern species, which 

included a determination that listing the 

Nueces River and plateau shiners may 

be warranted, and initiated a status 

review. This notice constitutes the 12- 

month finding on the June 18, 2007, 

petition to list the Nueces River and 

plateau Shiners as threatened or 

endangered with critical habitat. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

There has been some confusion and 

inconsistency regarding the taxonomy of 

the Nueces River and plateau shiners. 

Currently, there are approximately 30 

species that belong to the genus 

Cyprinella, of which both species of 

shiners are members (Nelson et al. 2004, 

p. 69; Schonhuth and Mayden 2010, p. 

77). The taxonomy within this genus 

has been associated with extensive 

confusion because similarities in body 

characteristics have made it difficult to 

differentiate between species 

(Schonhuth and Mayden 2010, p. 77). 

Fortunately, much of this confusion is 

being resolved with advances in genetic 

analysis (Schonhuth and Mayden 2010, 

pp. 77–98). However, there are still 

outstanding taxonomic issues that need 

to be resolved to clarify any potential 

confusion between the Nueces River 

and plateau shiners. 

When first described, the Nueces 

River and plateau shiners were not 

considered separate species. They were 

both originally described as the plateau 

shiner, Cyprinella lepida, by Girard in 

1856 (Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 29). 

Nearly 100 years later, both species 

were still thought to be one species. For 

example, Hubbs (1954, pp. 277–291) 

recognized only one species as distinct, 

the plateau shiner, Notropis 

(=Cyprinella) lepidus, occurring in the 

Nueces, Frio, and upper Guadalupe 

Rivers. However, Mayden (1989, p. 60) 

later pointed out that the shiner Hubbs 

(1954, pp. 277–291) referred to in the 

upper Guadalupe River was actually a 

red shiner species, Notropis 

(=Cyprinella) lutrensis, and not the 

plateau shiner. 

Morphological studies conducted by 

Matthews (1987, pp. 616–637) and 

Mayden (1989, pp. 58–60) provided 

support that Cyprinella lepida was a 

distinct and valid species occurring in 

the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers of 

the Nueces River basin (Figure 1). 

However, Matthews (1987, p. 269) noted 

that there were morphological 

differences between specimens 

collected in the Nueces and Frio Rivers, 

but did not suggest that there were two 

separate taxonomic entities. One of the 

main differences was breeding 

coloration in male specimens collected 

in the Frio River; these male specimens 

had red on the tip of their snouts 

(Matthews 1987, pp. 632–634). The 

male specimens collected in the Nueces 

River exhibited no breeding coloration 

(Matthews 1987, pp. 632–634). 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48779 

These morphological differences 

between the Nueces and Frio Rivers’ 

shiners were validated by genetic 

investigations that revealed two distinct 

lineages within populations of 

Cyprinella lepida. In 1987 and 1988, 

Richardson and Gold (1995, p. 29) 

conducted a genetic study on Cyprinella 

lepida, in which they (Richardson and 

Gold 1995, p. 29) collected individuals 

from the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal 

Rivers. The results of their genetic 

analysis showed that Cyprinella lepida 

in the Frio and Sabinal Rivers was a 

distinct species from Cyprinella lepida 

collected in the Nueces River 

(Richardson and Gold 1995, pp. 31–33). 

Specimens collected in the Frio River 

were very similar genetically to 

specimens collected in the Sabinal River 

(Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 31). 

However, specimens collected from the 

Frio and Sabinal Rivers were quite 

different genetically from specimens 

collected in the Nueces River 

(Richardson and Gold 1995, p. 31). The 

genetic differences, along with the 

observed morphological differences, led 

Richardson and Gold (1995, pp. 31–33) 

to conclude that Cyprinella in the Frio 

and Sabinal Rivers was a distinct 

species from those in the Nueces River. 

Since 1995, the population in the 

Nueces River has been referred to as the 

Nueces River shiner, an unnamed 

species within Cyprinella, while 

populations in the Frio and Sabinal 

Rivers have kept the kept the name 

plateau shiner, Cyprinella lepida. 

Formal naming of the Nueces River 

shiner, Cyprinella sp., is still pending. 

Further genetic investigations by 

Richardson and Gold (1999) supported 

their previous conclusion that 

Cyprinella in the Frio and Sabinal 

Rivers is a distinct species from those in 

the Nueces River. In this study, 

Richardson and Gold (1999, p. 50) 

focused on variation in mitochondrial 

genes in the five species of the shiner 

group inhabiting the southwestern 

United States, which included 

specimens of Cyprinella lepida from the 

Frio River and Cyprinella sp. from the 

Nueces River. Based on results of this 

study, Richardson and Gold (1999, 

p. 55) were hesitant to promote a sister 

relationship between the Nueces River 

shiner, Cyprinella sp., and the plateau 

shiner, Cyprinella lepida, meaning that 

the two lineages were not closely 

related. Instead, they concluded that the 

Nueces River shiner and plateau shiner 

were not as closely related to each other 

as they were to other species within the 

Cyprinella genus (Richardson and Gold 

1999, p. 55). 

Another genetic study agreed that the 

Nueces River shiner and plateau shiner 

are distinct species. In 2000, Broughton 

and Gold (pp. 1–10) conducted a genetic 

analysis of all Cyprinella species found 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP09AU11.013</GPH>
48780 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

in the United States. As part of their 

methodology, Broughton and Gold 

(2000, p. 5) grouped the Nueces and 

Plateau shiners into the same species, 

Cyprinella lepida, but did make the 

distinction that ‘‘Cyprinella lepida-a’’ 

from the Frio River were not closely 

related to ‘‘Cyprinella lepida-b’’ from 

the Nueces River. 

In an effort to clarify some of the 

genus’ taxonomic confusion, Schonhuth 

and Mayden (2010, pp. 77–98) 

conducted a genetic study of all species 

within the Cyprinella genus, with a 

more exhaustive focus on the 

problematic taxa. Results from 

Schonhuth and Mayden’s (2010, p. 91) 

genetic analysis were consistent with 

previous genetic studies: Cyprinella 

lepida in the Sabinal and Frio Rivers are 

genetically separate and distinct from 

the Cyprinella sp. found in the Nueces 

River. Genetic differences between 

specimens from the Sabinal and Frio 

Rivers were very different from those 

collected in the Nueces River, enough so 

that Schonhuth and Mayden (2010, p. 

91) recommended leaving them as 

separate species. 

Despite the morphological and genetic 

studies of the Nueces River and plateau 

shiners, the scientific community has 

been inconsistent in recognizing these 

shiners as separate species. The Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 

recognizes the plateau shiner 

(Cyprinella lepida) and Nueces River 

shiner (Cyprinella sp.) as separate 

species (Norris et al. 2005, p. 10). 

However, Phillips et al. (2010, p. 130) 

failed to recognize the Nueces River 

shiner as a separate species during a 

study on sound production and 

spawning behavior. In fact, Phillips et 

al. (2010, p. 130) stated that they 

collected Cyprinella lepida with seines 

from the Nueces River 0.5 mi (0.8 km) 

west of Camp Wood, Real County, 

Texas, during December 2002 and 

March 2003, and transferred them to a 

lab to do an acoustic study on spawning 

behavior. It is not clear whether Phillips 

et al. (2010) collected actual plateau 

shiners from the Nueces River, or 

whether they collected Nueces River 

shiners but mistakenly called them 

plateau shiners. Phillips et al. (2010) did 

not mention the name Nueces River 

shiner, Cyprinella sp., nor did they 

mention how they determined that the 

fish were Cyprinella lepida. To add 

further confusion, acceptance of the 

Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella sp., as 

a separate species from the plateau 

shiner, Cyprinella lepida, by the 

American Fisheries Society (2004, p. 69) 

is still pending. On the other hand, 

Hubbs et al. (2008, p. 19) recognized the 

Nueces River and plateau shiners as 

separate species in their annotated 

checklist of the freshwater fishes of 

Texas. Because there is still 

inconsistency, a formal systematic 

description by the scientific community 

of the Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella 

sp., is needed. 

Based on the best available science, 

we accept the characterization of the 

Nueces River shiner, Cyprinella sp., and 

the plateau shiner, Cyprinella lepida, as 

separate species. We base this 

distinction on the morphological and 

genetic research conducted by 

Richardson and Gold (1995, pp. 28–37), 

Edwards et al. (2008, pp. 1–30), and 

Schonhuth and Mayden (2010, pp. 77– 

98), and due to the fact that this 

research has been accepted by much of 

the scientific community (Hubbs et al. 

2008, p. 19). However, we recognize 

there is a need for more extensive 

morphological, genetic, and life history 

research with more thorough species 

characterizations and formal 

descriptions of these two shiners, 

especially for the Nueces River shiner. 

Because we recognize these two shiners 

as separate species, we conduct separate 

five-factor analyses below under section 

4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether 

either species meets the definition of 

threatened or endangered. However, we 

address both species in this finding 

because they occur in nearby 

watersheds and could be subject to the 

similar threats. 

Distribution 

Because of the inconsistencies in 

taxonomy and species descriptions of 

the Nueces River and plateau shiners, 

there has been similar confusion and 

inconsistencies regarding these shiners’ 

distribution. However, one thing that 

has been clearly understood is that both 

the historic and current range of both 

shiners is the uppermost headwaters of 

the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers of 

the Nueces River basin (Figure 1). The 

Nueces River basin covers 

approximately 17,000 square miles 

(44,030 square kilometers), 

encompassing all or part of 23 counties 

in south-central Texas (Nueces River 

Authority 2010, p. 1). Rivers within the 

basin include Nueces, Frio, Leona, 

Sabinal, and Atascosa Rivers (Nueces 

River Authority 2010, p. 1). Because the 

Nueces River basin is so large, running 

from the Edwards Plateau region of 

Texas to the Gulf Coast of Mexico, there 

are large physical and chemical 

differences between streams in the 

upper and lower parts of the basin 

(Norris et al. 2005, p. 1; Nueces River 

Authority 2010, p. 1). The differences 

between the upper and lower parts may 

be why the Nueces River and plateau 

shiners are only found in the upper, 

cooler headwaters. 

The upper Nueces River basin, where 

the Nueces River and plateau shiners 

are found, is composed of three main 

tributary systems: The Nueces, Frio, and 

Sabinal Rivers (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 

2). The plateau shiner is an endemic 

(native to and generally confined to a 

particular region) minnow that inhabits 

clear, spring-fed streams over gravel 

limestone substrates in the uppermost 

headwaters of the Frio and Sabinal 

Rivers on the Edwards Plateau (Edwards 

et al. 2004, p. 261; Edwards et al. 2008, 

p. 2; Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19). 

Meanwhile, the Nueces River shiner is 

an endemic minnow that is only found 

in the uppermost headwaters of the 

Nueces River, which is also on the 

Edwards Plateau (Edwards et al. 2004, 

p. 261; Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19). 

An example of the inconsistency in 

the species’ distribution occurred when 

TPWD associated the plateau and 

Nueces River shiners with the wrong 

stream segments in their 2005 

designation of ecologically significant 

stream segments, which are stream 

segments designated based on factors 

related to biological function, 

hydrologic function, presence of 

riparian conservation areas, high water 

quality, exceptional aquatic life, high 

aesthetic value, threatened or 

endangered species, and uniqueness 

(Norris et al. 2005, pp. 16–19). Norris et 

al. (2005, pp. 16–19) stated that the 

Nueces River shiner occurred in the Frio 

and Sabinal River, and the plateau 

shiner occurred in the Nueces River (p. 

17). However, this inconsistency may 

have occurred because of the confusion 

associated with the species’ taxonomy, 

even though TPWD recognized the 

Nueces River and plateau shiners as two 

separate species (Norris et al. 2005, p. 

10). 

In a recent study, Edwards et al. 

(2008, p. 3) attempted to estimate the 

current distributional range of plateau 

shiner in the Frio and Sabinal Rivers, 

and Nueces River shiner in the Nueces 

River. During their seasonal sampling 

from 2007 to 2008, Edwards et al. (2008, 

p. 5) captured over 11,700 individuals 

of 24 species, including the Nueces 

River and plateau shiners. They noted 

that the Frio, Sabinal, and Nueces 

Rivers were all dominated by fishes that 

are typical of spring-fed headwater 

central Texas streams, but added that 

there is still incomplete knowledge of 

the current range of the plateau shiner 

in the Frio and Sabinal Rivers, and of 

the Nueces River shiner in the upper 

Nueces River (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 3). 

Based on the best available information, 

we believe that the Nueces River and 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48781 

plateau shiners’ historical and current 

ranges are the uppermost headwaters of 

the Sabinal, Frio, and Nueces Rivers in 

the Edwards Plateau region of Texas, 

but the extent of their ranges remains to 

be determined. 

Habitat 

There is limited information in the 

literature regarding the Nueces River 

and plateau shiners’ habitat. Edwards et 

al. (2004, p. 261) noted that the plateau 

shiner inhabited clear, spring-fed 

streams over gravel limestone 

substrates. Phillips et al. (2010, p. 133) 

noted that Cyprinella collected out of 

the Nueces River in 2002 and 2004 were 

crevice spawners (females release their 

eggs in crevices), like the majority of 

other Cyprinella species. Also, Phillips 

et al. (2010, p. 133) noted that the 

specimens they collected relied on 

spring or spring-fed water. Although not 

specified to species, we assume that the 

Cyprinella Phillips et al. (2010, p. 133) 

referred to were Nueces River shiners 

based on where the specimens were 

collected. In any case, it is apparent that 

both shiners’ habitat is spring-fed 

streams, which are typically found in 

the headwaters. Furthermore, the 

headwater streams where both Nueces 

River and plateau shiners occur are 

characterized by limestone bedrock with 

significant gravel and cobble bottoms, 

clear evidence of spring-flows with 

emergent vegetation and relatively 

shallow depths, relatively high pH 

values typical of limestone bedrock 

streams of the Edwards Plateau, 

relatively stable water temperatures, and 

dissolved oxygen levels generally 

around 10 parts per million (Edwards et 

al. 2008, p. 21). Though limited, this 

information is consistent with what is 

known about the shiners’ habitat. 

Population Abundance 

There has been much speculation and 

very little research actually surveying 

and documenting the abundance of the 

Nueces River and plateau shiners. A 

genetic study by Richardson and Gold 

(1995, p. 35) noted that the plateau 

shiner’s abundance appeared to have 

decreased considerably over the 

previous 20 years prior to their study. 

However, their note of plateau shiner 

abundance was not based on actual 

surveys or data collection (Richardson 

and Gold 1995, p. 35). Also, we could 

not find any evidence or documentation 

that either of these shiners’ abundance 

actually declined over this time period. 

Therefore, we cannot conclude that 

there was a decline in the Nueces River 

or plateau shiners over the 20 years 

prior to Richardson and Gold’s (1995) 

study. 

Because of Richardson and Gold’s 

(1995, p. 35) statement regarding the 

presumed decline of the two shiners, 

other researchers cited Richardson and 

Gold while making the same conjecture. 

For example, Hoagstrom et al. (2011, p. 

24) claimed that 41 endemic fishes, 

including plateau and Nueces River 

shiners, were declining in the plains of 

North America because of dewatering, 

low flows, habitat fragmentation, 

nonnative species, and pollution. 

However, this presumption was based 

on the Richardson and Gold (1995) 

genetic study discussed above rather 

than on actual abundance data or 

surveys. 

There has been a noted decline 

throughout Texas for many of the State’s 

native fishes (Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 2). 

Nonnative species, as well as 

degradation of water and habitat quality, 

are thought to be major components of 

the native fishes’ decline (Hubbs et al. 

2008, p. 5). As part of the annotated 

checklist of the freshwater fishes of 

Texas, Hubbs et al. (2008, p. 19) 

identified both the Nueces River and 

plateau shiners as species of special 

concern. Hubbs et al. (2008, p. 5) 

defined a species of ‘‘special concern’’ 

as a taxon whose abundance or range 

has been reduced to the degree that it 

may be threatened with extinction or 

whose range is only peripherally in 

Texas and could be easily extirpated. 

Some species were included in this 

category of special concern because upto-date information concerning their 

status was unavailable or fragmentary 

(Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 5). In any case, 

Hubbs et al. (2008) provided no 

evidence for categorizing the Nueces 

River and plateau shiners as species of 

special concern. There was no 

supporting information on abundance, 

range reduction, or any other reason for 

classifying these two fishes as species of 

special concern. Therefore, it is 

reasonable to assume that Hubbs et al. 

(2008) classified the Nueces River and 

plateau shiners as a species of special 

concern because there was no up-to-date 

information concerning their status. 

Contrary to the information above, 

other studies have noted that the Nueces 

River and plateau shiners were 

abundant within the past decade in the 

headwaters of the Sabinal, Frio, and 

Nueces Rivers (Figure 1). In fact, 

Edwards et al. (2004, p. 261) stated that 

the plateau shiner was moderately 

abundant in the Edwards Plateau region. 

To obtain a more thorough assessment 

on the status of the Nueces River and 

plateau shiners, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 

6) conducted a sampling study from 

2007 to 2008 in the Nueces, Frio, and 

Sabinal Rivers and found that the 

Nueces River and plateau shiners were 

two of the most abundant fishes in each 

of these rivers out of 21 different species 

collected. 

Even though there have been claims 

in the scientific literature that the 

Nueces River and plateau shiners were 

declining, these claims appear to be 

unsubstantiated by actual survey data. 

On the other hand, a recent study 

conducted by Edwards et al. (2008, pp. 

1–30) that surveyed abundance of the 

Nueces River and plateau shiners found 

large numbers of these species. In 

conclusion, there is insufficient 

evidence to determine population 

trends for either species. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

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

and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

part 424) set forth procedures for adding 

species to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Under section 

4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened based on any of the 

following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In making this finding, information 

pertaining to the Nueces River and 

plateau shiners in relation to the five 

factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act is discussed below. In making our 

12-month finding on the petition, we 

considered and evaluated the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information. We reviewed the petition, 

information available in our files, and 

other available published and 

unpublished information. We also 

consulted with recognized fish experts 

and biologists with TPWD and The 

Nature Conservancy. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors for Nueces River 

Shiner 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The following factors have the 

potential to affect the habitat or range of 

the Nueces River shiner: Livestock 

grazing, water quantity, water quality, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48782 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

and land use. Below, we discuss in 

detail each of these factors and 

determine whether or not they 

constitute a threat to the species. 

Livestock Grazing 

While we know that livestock grazing 

occurs within the range of the species, 

we could find no information on the 

extent or intensity of historical or 

current livestock grazing practices or the 

impact grazing might have on the 

Nueces River shiner and its habitat. In 

areas where livestock are grazed 

inappropriately, impacts could include, 

but are not limited to, runoff from 

disturbed stream banks, livestock urine 

and manure deposited into streams, 

disturbance and erosion from trampled 

banks, and increased solar exposure due 

to reduced shade from streamside 

vegetation and loss of undercut 

streambanks. Any of these impacts 

could affect the Nueces River shiner by 

degrading water quality and negatively 

impacting the species. Richardson and 

Gold (1995, p. 35) concluded that much 

of the land in the Nueces River basin is 

used for agriculture, and that 

overgrazing by cattle posed serious 

problems for aquatic fauna. However, 

we found no monitoring data indicating 

that water quality degradation 

associated with livestock grazing is 

occurring within the range of the 

Nueces River shiner. Based on the best 

available information, we could find no 

evidence that overgrazing is posing a 

threat to the Nueces River shiner or is 

likely to in the future. Therefore, 

because the best available information 

does not indicate that livestock grazing 

is negatively impacting the species, we 

find that the Nueces River shiner is not 

in danger of extinction now or in the 

foreseeable future as a result of livestock 

grazing. 

Water Quantity 

Diminished water flows can cause 

losses in habitat diversity, reduce 

stream productivity, and degrade water 

quality for many fish species (Norris et 

al. 2005, p. 1). Richardson and Gold 

(1995, p. 35) suggested that groundwater 

(underground aquifer) levels for much 

of south-central Texas had decreased 

substantially over the decade preceding 

their study (1980s), resulting in 

significantly reduced water flow in 

spring-fed rivers, including the habitat 

of the Nueces River shiner. Although 

there is evidence of stream flow 

fluctuations that most likely relate to 

annual rainfall events, the best available 

information does not indicate that 

reduced stream flows are occurring 

within the range of the Nueces River 

shiner at a level that may adversely 

impact the species. As we have noted 

previously, the Nueces River shiner is 

an endemic minnow that is only found 

in the uppermost headwaters of the 

Nueces River within the Edwards 

Plateau (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 261; 

Hubbs et al. 2008, p. 19). Over the past 

century in the Edwards Plateau region 

of Texas, there has been evidence of 

some loss of natural spring and 

headwater stream flows (Edwards et al. 

2004, p. 253). Yet, water users in the 

Edwards Plateau are altering their usage 

of waters from the aquifers of the 

Edwards Plateau. Reduced water usage 

has allowed for the conservation of 

regional spring flows (Edwards et al. 

2004, p. 263). Additionally, stream flow 

monitoring is occurring at various sites 

within the Nueces River shiner’s range 

by the United States Geological Survey 

(Edwards et al. 2008, p. 25), and 

Edwards et al. (2008, p. 25) analyzed 

these stream flow measurements in the 

Frio, Sabinal, and Nueces Rivers for the 

last decade. Results of Edward’s et al. 

(2008, p. 25) analysis showed that there 

was a normal range of flow variation in 

each of the streams due to natural 

rainfall events. Edwards et al. (2008, p. 

6) also noted that the Nueces River 

shiner was one of the most abundant 

fishes in the upper stream segments of 

the Nueces River. Thus, the stream flow 

variation was occurring at a level that 

had no known impact on the species. 

While there may be fluctuations in 

stream flow, there is no evidence 

indicating that reduced water flow is a 

threat to the species either now or in the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, we find 

that the Nueces River shiner is not in 

danger of extinction now or in the 

foreseeable future as a result of reduced 

water flow. 

Water Quality 

Within the last 12 years, there has 

been cause for concern along certain 

stream segments of the Nueces River. In 

1999, a 91-mile (mi) (147-kilometers 

(km)) stream segment of Nueces River 

that flows from Holland Dam in La Salle 

County to its confluence with the Frio 

River at the Choke Canyon Reservoir in 

Live Oak County was included in the 

State of Texas’ Clean Water Act 303(d) 

list as impaired due to concentrations of 

dissolved oxygen below the minimum 

standards criteria in the lower 25-mi 

(40-km) portion of the stream (Bonner et 

al. 2005, p. 1; Nueces River Authority 

2010, p. 13). Adequate dissolved oxygen 

is necessary for respiration and other 

essential processes of aquatic organisms; 

thus, low levels may be detrimental to 

the health of aquatic organisms. The 

majority of this lower 25-mi (40-km) 

portion of the stream occurs in 

McMullen County, which lies in the 

South Texas Brush Country region of 

Texas, well outside the historical and 

current range of the Nueces River 

shiner. As noted above in the Species 

Information section, the Nueces River 

shiner’s range occurs in the uppermost 

headwaters in the Edwards Plateau 

region of Texas. Therefore, the concerns 

about low dissolved oxygen content 

associated with this segment of Nueces 

River do not relate to the Nueces River 

shiner or its range. 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, there is no 

evidence that pollution causing 

diminished water quality may be having 

an impact on the Nueces River shiner or 

its habitat. In 2005, the TPWD reported 

the Nueces River as having high water 

quality and exceptional aquatic life 

(Norris et al. 2005, p. 17). Also, the 

TPWD designated stream segments in 

the upper Nueces River as ecologically 

significant based on low levels of 

development in the watershed, no point 

sources of pollution, no channelization, 

and no atypical nonpoint sources of 

pollution (Norris et al. 2005, p. 5). 

Furthermore, water quality monitoring 

has been conducted in the uppermost 

reaches of the Nueces River where the 

majority of Nueces River shiners occur, 

and no problems have been found 

(Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 17). 

Therefore, we find that the Nueces River 

shiner is not in danger of extinction 

now or in the foreseeable future as a 

result of diminished water quality 

caused by pollution. 

Land Use 

The decline of native fishes in the 

southern United States generally is 

attributable to pervasive, complex 

habitat degradation across the landscape 

that both reduces and fragments habitat 

and increases isolation of fish 

populations (Warren et al. 2000, p. 8). 

Often, physical habitat alteration in the 

form of channelization, impoundment, 

sedimentation, and flow modification 

are frequently associated with fish 

declines (Warren et al. 2000, p. 8). 

Edwards et al. (2008, p. 3) mentioned 

potential impacts to the Nueces River 

from existing agricultural practices, land 

use changes, and groundwater pumping, 

and stated that these have combined to 

create stream segments identified as 

impaired under section 303(d) of the 

Clean Water Act. One of the main 

purposes of the Edwards et al. (2008, p. 

3) study was to find out if these 

potential impacts may actually be a 

factor in population and range declines 

among native fishes, including the 

Nueces River shiner. In order to 

determine the extent of these potential 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48783 

impacts, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 27) 

looked at the biological integrity of 

streams in the upper Nueces River and 

found that the Nueces River had high 

water quality within the range of the 

Nueces River shiner. Also, Edwards et 

al. (2008, p. 29) noted that the fish fauna 

sampled are typically associated with 

high-quality spring-fed streams within 

the southern Edwards Plateau. On the 

other hand, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 27) 

noted some impacts along the upper 

Nueces River, such as development 

along the watercourse and recreational 

pressures during the summer months. 

Even with these impacts, the headwater 

streams of the Nueces River basin 

maintained much of their integrity as 

evidenced by such fish as the Nueces 

River shiner (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 27). 

In fact, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6) stated 

that the Nueces River shiner was one of 

the most abundant fishes in the upper 

stream segments of the Nueces River. 

Further, The Nature Conservancy of 

Texas is currently engaged in watershed 

protection in the upper Nueces River 

basin, mainly as a participant in the City 

of San Antonio’s Aquifer Protection 

Program (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 3). The 

Nature Conservancy holds several 

conservation easements and is exploring 

ways to increase conservation efforts in 

this part of the river basin (Edwards et 

al. 2008, p. 3). Therefore, we find no 

evidence indicating that land uses are 

negatively impacting the Nueces River 

shiner now or in the foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor A 

We relied on the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

which does not indicate that these or 

any factors are impacting the Nueces 

River shiner at a level that may impact 

the species. Therefore, we find that the 

Nueces River shiner is not in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future as a result of destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, there is no 

evidence that impacts are occurring to 

the Nueces River shiner or its habitat 

under this factor. Other than the 

scientific studies referenced in this 

finding, this shiner is not used for any 

commercial, recreational, or educational 

purposes. Therefore, we find that the 

Nueces River shiner is not in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future as a result of overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

We are not aware of any research that 

has been conducted to examine disease 

or predation in the Nueces River shiner. 

Also, we are not aware of any nonnative 

species that may prey on the Nueces 

River shiner. Therefore, based on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that the Nueces 

River shiner is not in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future as a result of disease or predation. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

To determine if existing regulatory 

mechanisms are adequate to protect the 

Nueces River shiner, we evaluated 

agreements and laws in effect within the 

range of the species. One regulatory 

mechanism is the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), which was established in 1972. 

The CWA is the primary Federal law 

addressing water pollution in the 

United States. The purpose of the CWA 

is to stop pollutants from being 

discharged into waterways and to 

maintain water quality to provide a safe 

environment for fishing, swimming, and 

drinking. All navigable waters in the 

United States are covered under the 

CWA. The CWA provides guidelines 

and offers Federal financial assistance 

for identifying the causes of pollution. 

There are standards and regulations that 

must be adhered to by industries that 

discharge into waterways. The CWA 

sets forth water quality standards that 

are site-specific allowable pollutant 

levels for individual water bodies, such 

as rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands. 

State agencies are required by the CWA 

to set water quality standards by 

designating uses for the water body (e.g., 

recreation, water supply, aquatic life, 

and agriculture) and applying water 

quality criteria to protect the designated 

uses. 

In Texas, the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 

formerly known as Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission, is 

the environmental agency that oversees 

water quality standards as required by 

the CWA (TCEQ 2010b, p. 19). The 

TCEQ strives to protect Texas’ human 

and natural resources consistent with 

sustainable economic development, by 

providing clean air, clean water, and the 

safe management of waste (TCEQ 2010b, 

p. 4). The TCEQ key operations include, 

but are not limited to, issuing, 

administering, renewing, and modifying 

permits, water rights, licenses, or 

certifications for organizations and 

individuals whose activities have some 

potential or actual environmental 

impact that must be formally authorized 

by the agency; monitoring the current 

condition of a geographic area or natural 

resource, often through sampling or 

surveys; and identifying, verifying, and 

tracking violations of regulations and 

initiating enforcement actions in 

response to violations (TCEQ 2010b, p. 

21). The TCEQ developed the Clean 

Rivers Program to implement the goals 

of the Texas Clean Rivers Act (TCRA), 

described below. 

The TCRA, which was passed in 1991 

by the Texas legislature, requires that 

basinwide water quality assessments be 

conducted for each river basin in Texas 

(Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 1). The 

goal of the TCRA is to provide 

waterways in the State with coordinated 

monitoring and protection, to identify 

the locations of water quality problems, 

and develop solutions on a river basin 

by river basin basis. The Clean Rivers 

Program is a partnership involving the 

TCEQ, other State agencies, river 

authorities, local governments, industry, 

and citizens (Nueces River Authority 

2010, p. 1). Also, the Nueces River 

Authority was created in 1935 by 

special act of the 44th Texas Legislature 

codified as Article 8280–115 (Texas 

Water Code Auxiliary Laws, as 

amended). Under supervision of the 

TCEQ, the Nueces River Authority has 

broad authority to preserve, protect, and 

develop surface water resources, 

including flood control, irrigation, 

navigation, water supply, wastewater 

treatment, and water quality control. 

The Nueces River Authority serves all or 

parts of 22 counties in Texas, covering 

over 17,000 square miles (44,030 square 

kilometers), including the drainage area 

of the Nueces River and its tributaries 

and the adjoining coastal basins. 

Under the Clean Rivers Program and 

using a watershed management 

approach, the Nueces River Authority 

and TCEQ work together to identify and 

evaluate surface water quality issues 

and to establish priorities for corrective 

action within the Nueces River basin 

(Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 1). The 

Nueces River Authority and TCEQ 

conduct quarterly water quality 

monitoring at routine monitoring sites, 

testing for such things as wastewater 

discharge, runoff from quarry 

operations, accidental spills, ammonia 

excreted by animals or from fertilizers, 

and agricultural runoff, among many 

other things (Nueces River Authority 

2010, pp. 2–3). If water quality issues 

are detected, the Nueces River Authority 

and TCEQ may take appropriate 

corrective actions. 

Lastly, the TPWD recognized the 

upper reaches of the West Nueces, 

Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal Rivers as 

ecologically significant river and stream 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48784 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

segments (Norris et al. 2005, p. 3). 

Designation of a stream segment as 

ecologically unique offers a certain 

degree of protection from activities such 

as reservoir construction (Norris et al. 

2005, p. 5). This designation does not 

impart protection from degradation, but 

rather prohibits a State agency or 

political subdivision of the State from 

financing the actual construction of a 

reservoir in a specific river or stream 

segment designated as ecologically 

significant by the legislature under 

section 16.051(f) of the Texas Water 

Code (Norris et al. 2005, p. 4). 

Summary of Factor D 

In conclusion, there are Federal and 

State regulatory protections currently in 

place offering some levels of protection 

for the Nueces River shiner from such 

factors as degraded water quality, 

pollution, and reservoir construction. 

However, as discussed in other Factors 

of the Nueces River shiner, we have not 

identified any threats to the species that 

are likely to negatively affect the status 

of the species such that an inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms is 

likely to be a threat to the species. 

Therefore, we find that the Nueces River 

shiner is not in danger of extinction 

now or in the foreseeable future as a 

result of inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Global climate change, and associated 

effects on regional climatic regimes, is 

not well understood, but model 

predictions are that temperatures in the 

southwestern United States will 

continue to increase, with extreme 

weather events (such as heat waves, 

drought, and flooding) occurring with 

more frequency (Archer and Predick 

2008, p. 24). Also, there is some 

scientific information suggesting that 

fish in streams in southwestern North 

America may be vulnerable to 

extirpation or extinction due to global 

climate change because many fish 

species are already living near their 

lethal thermal limits (Mathews and 

Zimmerman 1990, p. 26). Endemic 

species, like the Nueces River shiner, 

which only inhabits the spring-fed 

headwaters of the Nueces River, could 

be more vulnerable to rising stream 

temperatures because they may not be 

able to move to more suitable areas. On 

the other hand, spring-fed streams have 

nearly constant environmental 

conditions, such as temperature, due to 

the constancy of groundwater chemistry 

and discharge (Hoagstrom et al. 2011, p. 

22). Thus, areas with substantial 

connections to aquifers may sustain 

endemic fishes because groundwater 

responds slowly to climate change, 

buffering against fluctuations in climate 

conditions (Hoagstrom et al. 2011, p. 

22). Additionally, we are not aware of 

any research that has been conducted on 

water temperature tolerance of the 

Nueces River shiner. Because the 

Nueces River shiner’s water temperature 

tolerance is unknown, the point at 

which rising stream temperatures may 

impact the species is also unknown. 

Likewise, recent models on climate 

change have indicated that annual mean 

precipitation in the southwestern 

United States is likely to decrease 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 887). Decreased 

precipitation could result in diminished 

water flows, which may cause losses in 

habitat diversity, reduce stream 

productivity, and degrade water quality 

(Norris et al. 2005, p. 1). While it 

appears reasonable to assume that 

climate change could affect the Nueces 

River shiner by reduced water flows, we 

lack sufficient certainty to know 

specifically how climate change will 

affect the species. We have not 

identified, nor are we aware of, any data 

on an appropriate scale to evaluate 

habitat or population trends for the 

Nueces River shiner within its range, or 

to make predictions on future trends 

and whether the species will actually be 

impacted. 

There are multiple hypothetical 

outcomes associated with climate 

change that could potentially affect the 

Nueces River shiner, but we lack 

predictive local or regional models on 

how climate change will specifically 

affect the Nueces River shiner or its 

habitat. Currently, we have no certainty 

regarding the timing, magnitude, or 

effects of impacts. Therefore, we find at 

this time that it is not possible to make 

reliable predictions of climate change 

effects on the status of the Nueces River 

shiner due to current limitations in 

available data and climate models. 

Based on the best available information 

and our current knowledge and 

understanding, we find that the Nueces 

River shiner is not in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future as a result of natural or other 

manmade threats affecting its continued 

existence. 

Finding for the Nueces River Shiner 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

Nueces River shiner is threatened or 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We 

examined the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by the species. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, other available 

published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

recognized species experts and State 

agencies. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine how 

significant a threat it is. If the threat is 

significant, it may drive or contribute to 

the risk of extinction of the species such 

that the species warrants listing as 

threatened or endangered as those terms 

are defined by the Act. This does not 

necessarily require empirical proof of a 

threat. The combination of exposure and 

some corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively is not 

sufficient to compel a finding that 

listing is appropriate; we require 

evidence that these factors are operative 

threats that act on the species to the 

point that the species meets the 

definition of threatened or endangered 

under the Act. 

Our review of all the available 

information does not support a 

determination that any current activities 

or activities in the foreseeable future 

threaten the Nueces River shiner or its 

habitat to the point that the species 

meets the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. There is no 

evidence indicating that reduced water 

flow, improper grazing of livestock, 

pollution, and land use are affecting the 

species or its habitat. Overutilization, 

disease, and predation are not known 

concerns for this species. We find that 

no existing regulatory mechanisms are 

inadequate to limit or prevent possible 

negative impacts from human activities. 

Climate change could affect the habitat 

of the Nueces River shiner in the future, 

but we have no certainty regarding the 

timing, magnitude, or effects of impacts 

to the species. 

Based on our review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information pertaining to the five 

factors, we find that there are no threats 

to indicate that the Nueces River shiner 

is in danger of extinction (endangered) 

or likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future (threatened) 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48785 

throughout its range. Therefore, we find 

that listing the Nueces River shiner as 

endangered or threatened is not 

warranted throughout its range at this 

time. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors for Plateau Shiner 

The plateau shiner’s range is in close 

proximity to the Nueces River shiner’s 

range. Subsequently, many of the factors 

that may affect the Nueces River shiner 

also may affect the plateau shiner. 

Therefore, much of the information 

presented in this section is similar to 

that presented above for the Nueces 

River shiner. However, the plateau 

shiner does inhabit separate headwaters 

of the Sabinal and Frio Rivers in the 

Edwards Plateau region of Texas, 

whereas the Nueces River shiner 

inhabits the headwaters of the Nueces 

River. The Sabinal and Frio Rivers are 

part of the Nueces River basin because 

they flow into and become part of the 

Nueces River in south-central Texas. 

Because the plateau shiner occupies 

separate headwaters than the Nueces 

River shiner, we will discuss any 

potential threats that might uniquely 

affect the plateau shiner, but because 

these two shiner species occupy nearby 

headwaters and are very similar species, 

we will refer to the information above, 

where appropriate. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The following factors have the 

potential to affect the habitat or range of 

the plateau shiner: Livestock grazing, 

reduced water quantity, impaired water 

quality, and land use. Below, we discuss 

each of these factors and determine 

whether or not they constitute a threat 

to the plateau shiner. 

Livestock Grazing 

While we know that livestock grazing 

occurs within the range of the species, 

we could find no information on the 

extent or intensity of historical, current, 

or future livestock grazing practices or 

impacts that grazing may be having on 

the species. As previously mentioned, 

Richardson and Gold (1995, p. 35) cited 

a personal communication in their 

study to conclude that much of the land 

in the Nueces River basin was used for 

agriculture, and that overgrazing by 

cattle posed serious problems for 

aquatic fauna. However, based on the 

best available information, we could 

find no evidence or data to indicate that 

improper livestock grazing affects the 

plateau shiner or its habitat. Therefore, 

we find that the plateau shiner is not in 

danger of extinction now or in the 

foreseeable future as a result of livestock 

grazing. 

Water Quantity 

Please see Factor A discussion of the 

Nueces River shiner for a more thorough 

discussion of the potential impacts of 

reduced water flow on these fish. As 

stated above and based on the best 

available information, we have no 

evidence to indicate that reduced stream 

flow is occurring within the range of the 

plateau shiner at a level that may be 

impacting the species. As we have noted 

previously, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 25) 

analyzed stream flow measurements in 

the Frio, Sabinal, and Nueces Rivers for 

the last decade and showed that there 

was a normal range of flow variation in 

each of the streams. Therefore, based on 

the best available information, we find 

that the plateau shiner is not in danger 

of extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future as a result of reduced water 

flows. 

Water Quality 

Based on the best available 

information, there is no evidence that 

diminished water quality caused by 

pollution may be occurring within the 

range of the plateau shiner at a level that 

affects the species or its habitat. In 2005, 

the TPWD noted the Frio and Sabinal 

Rivers as having high water quality and 

exceptional aquatic life (Norris et al. 

2005, pp. 16, 19). However, water 

quality tests have been conducted on 

other areas where plateau shiners are 

known to occur, such as the uppermost 

reaches of the Sabinal River, and water 

quality impairment has been detected 

(Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 16). 

Even though a stream segment in the 

upper Frio River remains on the State of 

Texas’ Clean Water Act 303(d) list as 

impaired and is within the range of the 

species, there does not appear to be 

adverse impacts to the plateau shiner or 

its habitat. 

In 2000, a 47-mi (76-km) stream 

segment from where the West Frio River 

and the East Frio River flow together in 

Real County, at a point 110 yards (yd) 

(100 meters (m)) upstream of Highway 

90 in Uvalde County, was included on 

the State of Texas’ Clean Water Act 

303(d) list as impaired due to 

concentrations of dissolved oxygen 

below criteria associated with 

exceptional aquatic life (Bonner et al. 

2004, pp. 1–3). The dissolved oxygen 

criteria was established based on the 

fact that organisms that live in water 

need oxygen to live, and in waters with 

depressed dissolved oxygen levels, 

organisms may not have sufficient 

oxygen to survive (Nueces River 

Authority 2010, p. 3). Following this 

designation as impaired in 2000, TCEQ 

initiated a project to verify the 

impairment through the collection of 

additional physical, chemical, and 

biological data (Bonner et al. 2004, p. 3). 

As a result, Bonner et al. (2004, p. 1) 

conducted a 3-year monitoring study of 

water quality at several stations along 

the upper Frio River from 2002 through 

2004. Based upon the 24-hour dissolved 

oxygen data collected for this study, 

Bonner et al. (2004, p. 20) found no 

impairment due to depressed levels of 

dissolved oxygen in the water and 

concluded that the upper Frio River was 

meeting the exceptional aquatic life use 

standard. Routine water samples 

yielded no significant levels of nutrient 

impairment (Bonner et al. 2004, p. 20). 

Therefore, Bonner et al. (2004, p. 1) 

recommended removing the upper Frio 

River from the State’s list of impaired 

waters. 

As part of the impairment verification 

monitoring project on this 47-mi (76- 

km) stream segment in the upper Frio 

River, Ecological Communications 

Corporation conducted biological data 

collection and analysis in September 

2002, August 2003, and October 2003 

(Walther and Palma 2004, p. 3). Based 

on the biological and habitat data 

collected by Ecological Communications 

Corporation, it appeared that the 

number and diversity of aquatic 

organisms were lower than the 

established standards set forth in the 

Texas Clean Water Act (Walther and 

Palma 2004, p. 8). 

In 2008 and 2010, this same stream 

segment of the Frio River continued to 

remain on the 303(d) list because of 

concerns for impaired habitat, fish 

community, and organisms living at the 

bottom of the water (Nueces River 

Authority 2008, pp. 56–58; Nueces 

River Authority 2010, p. 17; TCEQ 

2010a, p. 86). However, all testing 

resulted in data that were within 

TCEQ’s normal range, which included 

dissolved oxygen, pH, total phosphorus, 

nitrates, ammonia, chlorophyll-a, 

nutrients, and bacteria (Nueces River 

Authority 2008, pp. 56–58; Nueces 

River Authority 2010, p. 17). Also, no 

hypotheses were given for the reasons 

this stream segment had aquatic life 

uses that were lower than established 

standards (Nueces River Authority 2008, 

2010). Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29) 

analyzed the biological integrity of 

streams in the upper headwaters of the 

Nueces River basin, and noted that the 

water quality was generally high and the 

fish fauna present were typical of highquality spring-fed streams. Also, 

Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6) stated that 

the plateau shiner was one of the most 

abundant fishes surveyed. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48786 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Another stretch of the Frio River, a 

segment 158 mi (254 km) long, from 110 

yds (100 m) upstream of Highway 90 in 

Uvalde County to the confluence with 

Choke Canyon Reservoir in McMullen 

County, was placed on the 303(d) list as 

impaired for bacteria in 2008 and 2010 

(Nueces River Authority 2008, pp. 66– 

71; Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 20; 

TCEQ 2010a, p. 86). However, this 

stretch of the Frio River is further 

downstream in south-central Texas, 

outside of the plateau shiner’s range. 

Therefore, factors affecting this stream 

segment are not likely to affect the 

plateau shiner or its habitat. 

As previously noted above under 

Factor A analysis for the Nueces River 

shiner, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 3) 

conducted a study to find out if there 

were potential impacts that may be 

factors in population and range declines 

among native fishes, including the 

plateau shiner, in the upper headwaters 

of the Nueces River basin. Edwards et 

al. (2008, p. 27) analyzed the biological 

integrity of streams in the upper Nueces 

River basin, including the Sabinal and 

Frio Rivers where the plateau shiner is 

found. Edwards et al. (2008, p. 27) 

found that the Sabinal and Frio Rivers 

had exceptional water quality within 

the range of the plateau shiners. Also, 

Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29) noted that 

the water quality was generally high and 

the fish fauna present were typical of 

high-quality spring-fed streams within 

the southern Edwards Plateau. On the 

other hand, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 29) 

noted a number of significant impacts, 

such as development along the 

watercourse, low-head dams along the 

Sabinal River, and at times intense 

recreational pressures during the 

summer months, especially along the 

Frio River. Even with these impacts to 

the streams, the headwaters of the 

Sabinal and Frio Rivers maintained 

much of their integrity as evidenced by 

the numerous indicator fishes (fishes 

thought to be sensitive to, and serve as 

an early warning indicator of, 

environmental changes), such as the 

plateau shiner (Edwards et al. 2008, p. 

27). In fact, Edwards et al. (2008, p. 6) 

stated that the plateau shiner was one of 

the most abundant fishes. Because the 

plateau shiner was one of the most 

abundant species surveyed, it does not 

appear that factors related to 

development along the watercourse, 

low-head dams, and recreational use are 

negatively impacting the plateau shiner. 

In conclusion, even though a portion 

of the Frio River is listed as impaired by 

the State of Texas under the Clean 

Water Act 303(d) because of concerns 

for impaired habitat, fish community, 

and organisms living at the bottom of 

the water, a study conducted by 

Edwards et al. (2008) found no evidence 

of actual impacts on the plateau shiner. 

Likewise, Bonner et al. (2004, p. 20) 

previously found no impairment due to 

depressed levels of dissolved oxygen in 

the water and concluded that the upper 

Frio River was meeting the exceptional 

aquatic life use standard. In addition, all 

water quality monitoring in the 

impaired stream segment resulted in 

water parameters within the normal 

range (Nueces River Authority 2008, pp. 

56–58; Nueces River Authority 2010, p. 

17). Based on the best available 

information, we find that the plateau 

shiner is not in danger of extinction 

now or in the foreseeable future as a 

result of degraded water quality. 

Land Use 

The primary land use factors that 

could affect the plateau shiner are 

recreation, agricultural activities, and 

land development. The upper Frio River 

is used extensively for recreation, and 

the extensive recreational usage is 

expected to continue in the future 

(Walther and Palma 2004, p. 1; Nueces 

River Authority 1998, p. 2). Although 

we could find no evidence to indicate 

that recreational usage may be 

impacting plateau shiner in the Sabinal 

River, it is reasonable to assume that 

recreational use does occur in this river. 

The Frio River is very popular for 

recreational activities such as canoeing, 

tubing, fishing, and wildlife viewing 

(Norris et al. 2005, p. 15). A study was 

conducted on the upper Frio River to 

evaluate the impact of recreational use 

and land development on water quality 

and the aquatic biological community 

(Nueces River Authority 1998, p. 2). 

Impacts were evaluated through the 

collection and interpretation of 

information on land uses and historic 

utilization, and by conducting biological 

assessments, toxicity testing, and water 

quality analysis (Nueces River 

Authority, p. 2). The Nueces River 

Authority (1998, p. 3) noted that the 

upper Frio River was primarily forest 

and rangeland with some agricultural 

activities, mainly orchards and 

nurseries, and very limited urban land 

development, primarily related to 

tourist and camping accommodations. 

Overall, the chemical and physical 

water quality of the upper Frio River 

was found to be very good, and 

recreational use had little impact on 

river quality during the spring and 

summer visitation period (Nueces River 

Authority 1998, p. 10). This is further 

supported by an Edwards et al. (2008, p. 

27) study, which found that the Sabinal 

and Frio Rivers had exceptional water 

quality. Based on our review of the best 

available information, we find that the 

plateau shiner is not in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future as a result of recreational use or 

any other type of land use. 

Summary of Factor A 

We relied on the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

which does not indicate that any of the 

factors discussed above are impacting 

the plateau shiner at a level that 

constitutes a threat to the species. 

Therefore, we find that the plateau 

shiner is not in danger of extinction 

now or in the foreseeable future as a 

result of the present or foreseeable 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, there is no 

evidence that impacts are occurring to 

the plateau shiner or its habitat under 

this factor. Other than the scientific 

studies referenced in this finding, the 

plateau shiner is not used for any 

commercial, recreational, or educational 

purposes. Therefore, we find that the 

plateau shiner is not in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future as a result of overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

As with the Nueces River shiner, we 

are not aware of any research that has 

been conducted to specifically examine 

disease or predation in the plateau 

shiner. There was no mention of disease 

or predation in our review of the best 

available information. Also, we are not 

aware of any nonnative species that may 

prey on the plateau shiner. Therefore, 

we find that the plateau shiner is not in 

danger of extinction now or in the 

foreseeable future as a result of disease 

or predation. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

As we discussed in more detail above 

under Factor D analysis for the Nueces 

River shiner, there are Federal and State 

regulatory protections currently in place 

offering some levels of protection for the 

plateau shiner, particularly from such 

factors as degraded water quality, 

pollution, and reservoir construction. 

The Factor D analysis for the Nueces 

River shiner presented above also 

pertains to the plateau shiner’s habitat 

and range. However, as discussed in 

other Factors for the plateau shiner, we 

have not identified any threats to the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48787 

species that are negatively affecting the 

status of the species, such that an 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms is 

likely to be a threat to the species. 

Therefore, we find that the plateau 

shiner is not in danger of extinction 

now or in the foreseeable future as a 

result of inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

The same impacts discussed above 

under the Factor E analysis for the 

Nueces River shiner also apply to the 

plateau shiner. As with the Nueces 

River shiner, there are multiple 

hypothetical outcomes associated with 

climate change that could potentially 

affect the plateau shiner, but we lack 

predictive local or regional models on 

how climate change will specifically 

affect the plateau shiner or its habitat. 

Currently, we have no certainty 

regarding the timing, magnitude, or 

effects of impacts from climate change. 

Therefore, we conclude that at this time 

it is not possible to make reliable 

predictions of climate change effects on 

the status of the plateau shiner due to 

current limitations in available data and 

climate models. Based on the best 

available information, we find that the 

plateau shiner is not in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future as a result other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Finding for the Plateau Shiner 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

plateau shiner is threatened or 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We 

examined the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by the species. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, other available 

published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

recognized species experts and State 

agencies. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine how 

significant a threat it is. If the threat is 

significant, it may drive or contribute to 

the risk of extinction of the species such 

that the species warrants listing as 

threatened or endangered as those terms 

are defined by the Act. This does not 

necessarily require empirical proof of a 

threat. The combination of exposure and 

some corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively is not 

sufficient to compel a finding that 

listing is appropriate; we require 

evidence that these factors are operative 

threats that act on the species to the 

point that the species meets the 

definition of threatened or endangered 

under the Act. 

Our review of the best available 

information does not support a 

determination that any current activities 

or activities in the foreseeable future 

threaten the plateau shiner or its habitat 

to the point that the species meets the 

definition of threatened or endangered 

under the Act. There is no evidence 

indicating that reduced water flow, 

improper grazing by livestock, 

diminished water quality caused by 

pollution, or land use is affecting the 

species or its habitat. Overutilization, 

disease, and predation are not concerns 

for this species. We find no existing 

regulatory mechanisms that are 

inadequate to limit or prevent possible 

negative impacts from human activities. 

Climate change is another factor that 

could affect the habitat of the plateau 

shiner in the future, but we have no 

certainty regarding the timing, 

magnitude, or effects of impacts to the 

species. 

Based on our review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information pertaining to the five 

factors, we find that there are no threats 

to indicate that the species is in danger 

of extinction (endangered), or likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future (threatened), 

throughout its range. Therefore, we find 

that listing the plateau shiner as a 

threatened or endangered species is not 

warranted throughout its range at this 

time. 

Significant Portion of the Range and 

Distinct Vertebrate Population 

Segments 

After assessing whether the two 

species are threatened or endangered 

throughout their ranges, we next 

consider whether either a significant 

portion of the Nueces River and plateau 

shiners’ ranges or a distinct population 

segment (DPS) of either or both species 

meets the definition of endangered or is 

likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future (threatened). 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Having determined that the Nueces 

River and plateau shiners do not meet 

the definition of a threatened or 

endangered species throughout all of 

their ranges, we must next consider 

whether there are any significant 

portions of the range where either 

species are in danger of extinction or is 

likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as one ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and a threatened species as 

one ‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The term ‘‘significant portion 

of its range’’ is not defined by the 

statute. For the purposes of this finding, 

a portion of the species’ range is 

‘‘significant’’ if it is part of the current 

range of the species, and it provides a 

crucial contribution to the 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the species. For the 

contribution to be crucial it must be at 

a level such that, without that portion, 

the species would be in danger of 

extinction. 

In determining whether a species is 

threatened or endangered in a 

significant portion of its range, we first 

identify any portions of the range of the 

species that warrant further 

consideration. The range of a species 

can theoretically be divided into 

portions an infinite number of ways. 

However, there is no purpose to 

analyzing portions of the range that are 

not reasonably likely to be significant 

and threatened or endangered. To 

identify only those portions that warrant 

further consideration, we determine 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that: (1) The portions may be 

significant, and (2) the species may be 

in danger of extinction there or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

In practice, a key part of this analysis is 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in some way. If the threats 

to the species are essentially uniform 

throughout its range, no portion is likely 

to warrant further consideration. 

Moreover, if any concentration of 

threats applies only to portions of the 

species’ range that clearly would not 

meet the biologically based definition of 

‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that 

portion clearly would not reasonably be 

expected to increase the vulnerability to 

extinction of the entire species to the 

point that the species would then be in 

danger of extinction), such portions will 

not warrant further consideration. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48788 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

If we identify portions that warrant 

further consideration, we then 

determine whether the species is 

threatened or endangered in these 

portions of its range. Depending on the 

biology of the species, its range, and the 

threats it faces, it might be more 

efficient for us to address either the 

‘‘significant’’ question first, or the status 

question first. Thus, if we determine 

that a portion of the range is not 

‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to 

determine whether the species is in 

endangered or threatened there; if we 

determine that the species is not 

endangered or threatened in a portion of 

its range, we do not need to determine 

if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ 

Applying the process described above 

for determining whether a species is 

threatened or endangered in a 

significant portion of its range, we 

consider status first to determine if any 

threats or potential threats acting 

individually or collectively threaten or 

endanger the species in a portion of its 

range. We have analyzed the threats to 

the degree possible, and determined 

they are essentially uniform throughout 

both species’ ranges. 

There is no information to suggest 

that any portion of the ranges of either 

species contributes more significantly to 

species than any other portion of their 

ranges. There is no information to 

suggest that any portion of their ranges 

is of better quality than any other 

portion, or that any portion includes 

important concentrations of certain 

types of habitat that are necessary for 

the species to carry out its life-history 

functions. As a result, we conclude that 

there is no information that a particular 

portion of the Nueces River or plateau 

shiners’ range warrants further 

consideration as threatened or 

endangered. 

Conclusion of 12-Month Finding 

We do not find the Nueces River 

shiner or plateau shiner to be in danger 

of extinction now, nor is either species 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

Therefore, listing either species as 

threatened or endangered under the Act 

is not warranted at this time. 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the species to our Austin 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES section) whenever it 

becomes available. New information 

will help us monitor the Nueces River 

and plateau shiners and encourage their 

conservation. If an emergency situation 

develops for the Nueces River shiner, 

plateau shiner, or any other species, we 

will act to provide immediate 

protection. 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment 

Under the Service’s Policy Regarding 

the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996), three elements are 

considered in the decision concerning 

the establishment and classification of a 

possible DPS. These are applied 

similarly for additions to or removal 

from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. These elements 

include: 

(1) The discreteness of a population in 

relation to the remainder of the species 

to which it belongs; 

(2) The significance of the population 

segment to the species to which it 

belongs; and 

(3) The population segment’s 

conservation status in relation to the 

Act’s standards for listing, delisting, or 

reclassification (i.e., is the population 

segment endangered or threatened). 

Discreteness 

Under the DPS policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions: 

(1) It is markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors. 

Quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation. 

(2) It is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

We determine, based on a review of 

the best available information, that 

neither the Nueces River shiner nor the 

plateau shiner meet the discreteness 

conditions of the 1996 DPS policy. 

Neither species has populations that are 

known to be markedly separate from 

other populations of the same taxon, nor 

does either species have populations 

delimited by international governmental 

boundaries. Therefore, these population 

segments do not qualify as a DPS under 

our policy and are not listable entities 

under the Act. 

The DPS policy is clear that 

significance is analyzed only when a 

population segment has been identified 

as discrete. Because no population 

segment met the discreteness element 

for either the Nueces River or plateau 

shiners, neither species qualifies as a 

DPS under the Service’s DPS policy. 

Therefore, we will not conduct an 

evaluation of significance. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Austin Ecological Services 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

staff members of the Southwest Regional 

Office. 

Authority: The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: July 27, 2011. 

James J. Slack, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20054 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS