        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List a Distinct Population Segment of the Roundtail Chub in the Lower Colorado River Basin and To List the Headwater Chub as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day 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 a distinct population segment of the roundtail chub (Gila robusta) in the Lower Colorado River basin, and to list the headwater chub (G. nigra) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial data indicating that these listings may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing these species is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding these species. The petition also asked the Service to designate critical habitat for these species. The Act does not allow petitions for designation of critical habitat. However, any determinations on critical habitat will be made if and when a listing action is initiated for these species.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on June 30, 2005. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, comments and information should be submitted to us by September 12, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Data, information, comments, or questions concerning this petition and our finding should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Drive, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona. The petition, supporting data, and comments will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Office at the above address (telephone 602-242-0210; facsimile 602-242-2513).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Information Solicited
        When we make a finding that substantial information is presented to indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information on the roundtail and headwater chubs. We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of the roundtail and headwater chubs. We are seeking information regarding the two species' historical and current status and distribution, their biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species and their habitat, and threats to the species and their habitat.

        If you wish to comment or provide information, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor (see
          ADDRESSES).

        Our practice is to make comments and materials provided, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold a respondent's identity, to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your submission. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address provided under ADDRESSES.

        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), 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 all information available to us at the time we make the finding. 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 this finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial 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 information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species.

        In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioners and evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process of coming to a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold.
        We do not conduct additional research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to rigorous critical review. Rather, as the Act and regulations contemplate, in coming to a 90-day finding, we accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information unless we have specific information to the contrary.
        Our finding considers whether the petition states a reasonable case for listing on its face. Thus, our finding expresses no view as to the ultimate issue of whether the species should be listed. We reach a conclusion on that issue only after a more thorough review of the species' status. In that review, which will take approximately 9 months, we will perform a rigorous, critical analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information, not just the information in the petition. We will ensure that the data used to make our determination as to the status of the species is consistent with the Act and the Information Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 3504(d)(1) and 3516 note).
        Petition
        On April 14, 2003, we received a petition dated April 2, 2003, requesting that we list a distinct population segment (DPS) of the roundtail chub in the Lower Colorado River basin as endangered or threatened, that we list the headwater chub as endangered or threatened, and that critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing for both species. The petition, submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity (Center), was clearly identified as a petition for a listing rule, and it contained the names, signatures, and addresses of the requesting parties. Included in the petition was supporting information regarding the species' taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution, present status, and potential causes of decline. We acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to Mr. Noah Greenwald, dated June 4, 2003. In that letter, we also advised the petitioners that, due to funding constraints in fiscal year 2003, we would not be able to begin processing the petition in a timely manner.

        On May 18, 2004, the Center sent a Notice of Intent to sue, contending that the Service had violated the Act by failing to make a timely 90-day finding on the petition to list a distinct population segment of the roundtail chub in the Lower Colorado River basin, and the headwater chub. On September 20, 2004, the Center filed a complaint against the Secretary of the Interior and the Service for failure to make a 90-day petition finding under section 4 of the Act. In a stipulated settlement agreement we agreed to submit a 90-day finding to the Federal Register by June 30, 2005 [Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, CV-04-496-TUC-CKJ (D. AZ)]. The settlement agreement was signed and adopted by the District Court for the District of Arizona on May 5, 2005. This notice constitutes our 90-day finding for the petition to list a DPS of the roundtail chub in the Lower Colorado River basin, and to list the headwater chub, as endangered or threatened, pursuant to the Court's order.
        Biology and Distribution
        The general background information provided in this section below is based on information in the petition and in our files.

        The roundtail and headwater chubs are both cyprinid fish (members of Cyprinidae, the minnow family) with streamlined body shapes. Color in roundtail chub is usually olive-gray to silvery, with the belly lighter, and sometimes with dark blotches on the sides; headwater chub color is usually dark gray to brown overall, with silvery sides that often have faded lateral stripes. Roundtail chub are generally 25 to 35 centimeters (cm) [9 to 14 inches (in)] in length, but can reach 50 cm (20 in). Headwater chub are quite similar in appearance to roundtail chub, although they are generally smaller, likely due to the smaller streams in which they occur (Minckley 1973; Sublette et al. 1990; Propst 1999; Minckley and Demaris 2000; Voeltz 2002).

        Baird and Girard first described roundtail chub from specimens collected from the Zuni River in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico (Baird and Girard 1853). Headwater chub was first described from Ash Creek and the San Carlos River in east-central Arizona in 1874 (Cope and Yarrow 1875). The taxonomy of these two species has undergone numerous revisions (see Miller 1945; Holden 1968; Rinne 1969; Holden and Stalnaker 1970; Rinne 1976; Smith et al. 1977; DeMarais 1986; Rosenfeld and Wilkinson 1989; DeMarais 1992; Dowling and DeMarais 1993; Douglas et al. 1998; Minckley and DeMarais 2000; Gerber et al. 2001); however, both are now recognized as distinct species (Minckley and DeMarais 2000; Nelson et al. 2004). A summary of the taxonomic history can be found in Voeltz (2002).

        The historical distribution of headwater and roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin is poorly documented, due to the paucity of early collections and the widespread anthropogenic (manmade) changes to aquatic ecosystems beginning in the mid 19th century [i.e., habitat alteration and nonnative species introductions (Girmendonk and Young 1997)]. Both of these species were historically considered common throughout their respective ranges (Minckley 1973; Holden and Stalnaker 1975; Propst 1999). Voeltz (2002) estimated historical distribution based on museum collection records, agency database searches, literature searches, and discussion with biologists.

        Roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin was historically found in (1) the Gila and Zuni Rivers in New Mexico and (2) the Black, Colorado, Little Colorado, Bill Williams, Gila, San Francisco, San Carlos, San Pedro, Salt, Verde, White, and Zuni Rivers in Arizona, as well as in numerous tributaries within those basins. Voeltz (2002) estimated the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub historically occupied approximately 4,500 kilometers (km) [2,796 miles (mi)] of rivers and streams in Arizona and New Mexico. A form that until recently was considered to be the roundtail chub outside the Colorado River basin in Mexico is now considered a different species, Gila minacae (S. Norris, California State University Channel Islands, pers. comm. 2004).
        Roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin in Arizona currently occurs in two tributaries of the Little Colorado River (Chevelon and East Clear Creeks); several tributaries of the Bill Williams River basin (Boulder, Burro, Conger, Francis, Kirkland, Sycamore, and Trout Creeks); the Salt River and two of its tributaries (Cherry Creek and Salome Creek); the Verde River and four of its tributaries (Fossil, Oak, West Clear, and Wet Beaver Creeks); Aravaipa Creek; and in New Mexico, in the upper Gila River (Voeltz 2002).

        Roundtail chub in the Lower Colorado River basin are found in cool to warm waters of mid-elevation rivers and streams, and often occupy the deepest pools and eddies of large streams (Minckley 1973; Brouder et al. 2000; Minckley and DeMarais 2000; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002). Although roundtail chub are often associated with various cover features, such as boulders, vegetation, and undercut banks, they are less apt to use cover than congeneric species (of the same genus) such as the headwater chub and Gila chub (Gila intermedia) (Minckley and DeMarais 2000). Water temperatures for the species vary between 14° and 24° Celsius (C) (57° and 75° Fahrenheit (F)); spawning has been documented at 18° and 22° C (64° and 72° F) (Bestgen 1985; Kaeding et al. 1990; Brouder et al. 2000). Spawning occurs from February through June in pool, run, and riffle habitats, with slow to moderate water velocities (Neve 1976; Bestgen 1985; Propst 1999; Brouder et al. 2000). Roundtail chub are omnivores, consuming aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, aquatic vegetation, detritus, and occasionally vertebrates (Propst 1999; Schreiber and Micnkley 1981).
        Historically, headwater chub likely occurred in a number of tributaries of the Verde River, most of the Tonto Creek drainage, much of the San Carlos River drainage, and parts of the upper Gila River in New Mexico (Voeltz 2002). Voeltz (2002) estimated that headwater chub historically occupied approximately 500 km (312 mi) in Arizona and New Mexico. The species currently occurs in the same areas, but has a smaller distribution. In Arizona, headwater chub currently occur in four tributaries of the Verde River (Fossil Creek, the East Verde River, Wet Bottom Creek, and Deadman Creek); Tonto Creek and eight of its tributaries (Buzzard Roost, Gordon, Gun, Haigler, Horton, Marsh, Rock and Spring Creeks); and in New Mexico, in the upper East Fork, lower Middle Fork, and lower West Forks of the Gila River (Voeltz 2002). Headwater chub also appear to have been documented recently in the San Carlos River drainage, though their status in that system is unknown (Minckley and DeMarais 2000; Voeltz 2002).
        Headwater chub occur in the middle to upper reaches of moderately sized streams (Minckley and DeMarais 2000). Bestgen and Propst (1989) examined status and life history in the Gila River drainage in New Mexico and found that headwater chubs occupied tributary and mainstem habitats in the upper Gila River at elevations of 1,325 meters (m) (4,347 feet (ft)) to 2,000 m (6,562 ft). Maximum water temperatures of headwater chub habitat vary between 20° to 27° C (68° and 81° F), and minimum water temperatures were around 7° C (45° F) (Bestgen and Propst 1989; Barrett and Maughan 1994). Typical adult microhabitat consists of nearshore pools adjacent to swifter riffles and runs over sand and gravel substrate, with young of the year and juvenile headwater chub using smaller pools and areas with undercut banks and low current (Anderson and Turner 1978; Bestgen and Propst 1989). Spawning in Fossil Creek occurred in spring and was observed in March in pool-riffle areas with sandy-rocky substrates (Neve 1976). Neve (1976) reported that the diet of headwater chub included aquatic insects, ostracods (minute aquatic crustaceans), and plant material.
        Previous Federal Actions
        We placed the headwater chub (as G. r. grahami) on the list of candidate species as a category 2 species on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454). Category 2 species were those for which existing information indicated that listing was possibly appropriate, but for which substantial supporting biological data to prepare a proposed rule were lacking. On January 6, 1989, the roundtail chub (as G. robusta, which at that time included headwater chub) was placed into category 2 (54 FR 554). Due to lack of funding to gather existing information on these fishes, both species remained as category 2 candidate species through the 1991 (56 FR 58804; November 21, 1991) and 1994 (59 FR 58982; November 15, 1994) Candidate Notices of Review. In the 1996 Candidate Notice of Review (61 FR 7596; February 28, 1996), the use of category 2 candidates was discontinued, and the roundtail and headwater chub were no longer recognized as candidates.
        Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

        The petitioners have asked us to consider designating a DPS for the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin. Under the Act, we consider for listing any species, subspecies, or, DPSs of vertebrate species/subspecies, if information is sufficient to indicate that such action may be warranted. To implement the measures prescribed by the Act and its Congressional guidance, we developed a joint policy with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration entitled Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population (61 FR 4721; February 7, 1996) (DPS policy) to clarify our interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying species under the Act. Under our DPS policy, we consider three elements in a decision regarding the status of a possible DPS as endangered or threatened under the Act. These are applied similarly for addition to the lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, for reclassification, and for removal. The elements are: (1) The population segment's discreteness from the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs; (2) the population segment's significance to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing (i.e., when treated as if it were a species, is the population segment endangered or threatened?). Our DPS policy further recognizes it may be appropriate to assign different classifications (i.e., threatened or endangered) to different DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon (61 FR 4721; February 7, 1996).
        Discreteness
        The DPS policy's standard for discreteness allows an entity given DPS status under the Act to be adequately defined and described in some way that distinguishes it from other representatives of its species. A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following two 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; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which significant differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist.
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petitioners state that the roundtail chub meets the standard for discreteness because populations in the upper and lower Colorado River basins appear to have been separate in historical times, and this is supported by current information from molecular investigations.
        The historical range of roundtail chub included both the upper and lower Colorado River basins in the States of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada, and likely Baja California and Sonora, Mexico (Propst 1999; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002; Voeltz 2002). Currently this species occurs in the upper basin in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. In the lower basin it currently occurs in New Mexico and Arizona. The petitioners maintain that, although the populations in the upper and lower Colorado River basins were presumed to have intermixed with each other in the mainstem Colorado River, historical collections and genetic evidence show that there were and are, in fact two discrete populations, one in each basin.

        Further, the petitioners cite Bezzerides and Bestgen (2002), who concluded that, historically, the distribution of roundtail chub was continuous in the Colorado River basin via the mainstem Colorado River, although they found that two discrete population centers were evident, one in each of the lower and upper basins. Although early surveys were infrequent, only four records of roundtail chub are documented in the mainstem Colorado River between the two basins (Voeltz 2002). Based on this information, Minckley (1979) and C.O. Minckley (1996) considered roundtail chub rare in the Colorado River mainstem. Thus, the petitioners conclude that the historical situation of roundtail chub in the Colorado River basin appears to be that there were two population centers, one each in the upper and lower basins, likely with very little mixing.

        The petitioners argue that discreteness of the populations of roundtail chub in each basin also appears to be supported by molecular investigations. Allozymes and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation of roundtail chub in the two basins are significantly different (DeMarais 1992; Dowling and DeMarais 1993; Minckley and DeMarais 2000; Gerber et al. 2001). Further, the petitioners note that Gerber et al. (2001) found that mtDNA of lower basin roundtail chub was entirely absent from roundtail chub in the upper basin.
        Significance
        Under our DPS policy, in addition to our consideration that a population segment is discrete, we consider its biological and ecological significance to the taxon to which it belongs, within the context that the DPS policy be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity (61 FR 4721; February 7, 1996). This consideration may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting that is unique for the taxon; evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; evidence that the population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; and evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petitioners maintain that roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin should be considered significant under our DPS policy for several reasons. They state that roundtail chub in the lower basin occur in an ecological setting unique for the species based on differences in various ecoregion variables, such as hydrograph, sediment, substrate, nutrient flow, cover, and water chemistry (Burkham 1970; Sellers 1974; Carlson and Muth 1989; Miller and Hubert 1990; Minckley and Rinne 1991; Leopold 1994; Bailey 1995; Rosgen 1996). The petitioners maintain that loss of the lower Colorado River DPS of roundtail chub would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon because this population segment constitutes a majority of the species' range in two states (Arizona and New Mexico) and all of several major river systems, including the Little Colorado, Bill Williams, and Gila River basins. They also cite data that indicate the lower Colorado River population of roundtail chub is significant in that it differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. As mentioned above, they note that allozymes and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation of roundtail chub in the two basins are significantly different (DeMarais 1992; Dowling and DeMarais 1993; Minckley and Demarais 2000; Gerber et al. 2001), and cite that Gerber et al. (2001) found that mtDNA of lower basin roundtail chub was entirely absent from roundtail chub in the upper basin. Based on this information, the petitioners argue that the lower Colorado River roundtail chub population offers unique opportunities to uncover scientific information available through study of its unique evolutionary trajectory. The petitioners also argue that there are differences in status and management needs between the populations in the two basins (the upper basin has fewer people; has less extreme threats to aquatic habitats, in part because there is more water and less demand for water; and has more significant Federal programs in place to protect and recover native fishes).
        Evaluation of Information in the Petition
        Based on the data presented in the petition, there appears to be substantial scientific information that roundtail chub populations in the lower Colorado River warrant further review of whether they are discrete from the rest of the species' range and that they may be significant to the taxon as a whole, as defined in our DPS policy.
        According to our DPS policy, if a population of species if found to be both discrete and significant, we then evaluate the conservation status of the population in relation to the listing factors found in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Our assessment of the conservation status of the population of the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin based on the information provided in the petition is provided in the “Discussion” section below.
        Discussion
        In the following discussion, we discuss each of the major assertions made in the petition, organized by the listing factors found in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal list of endangered and threatened species. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species if it is threatened by one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act and meets either the definition of endangered or threatened pursuant to section 3 of the Act. The five listing factors are: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        This 90-day finding is not a status assessment of either species and does not constitute a status review under the Act. The discussion presents information provided in the petition related to the factors used for evaluation of listing pursuant to section 4(a)(1) of the Act for both species, the population of the roundtail chub in the Lower Colorado River Basin and the headwater chub.
        A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
        Geographic Range and Status
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petitioners claim that the decline of the roundtail chub was noted as early as 1961 (Miller 1961), and that recent status reviews of both headwater and roundtail chub (Bestgen 1985; Girmendonk and Young 1997; Bezzarides and Bestgen 2002; Voeltz 2002) led our Desert Fishes Recovery team to recommend that both species be listed as endangered on numerous occasions. They also cite the recent Arizona Game and Fish Department (Voeltz 2002) review of these species, which found declines from historical levels and indicated that many of the remaining populations were vulnerable to extirpation from various threats. Of the 40 recently documented populations of roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin, Voeltz (2002) found that 6 were stable-threatened, 13 were unstable-threatened, 10 were extirpated, and 11 populations were of unknown status. Voeltz (2002) considered a population stable if the species was abundant or common and data over 5-10 years indicated a recruiting population; secure if no obvious threats were apparent; and threatened if nonnative aquatic species were present or serious current or future habitat-altering land or water uses were identified.

        Of the 19 recently documented populations of headwater chub, Voeltz (2002) found that 6 were stable-threatened, 6 were unstable-threatened, 1 was stable-secure, 3 were extirpated, and 3 populations were of unknown status. Deadman Creek, the one population that Voeltz considered stable-secure, has since been invaded by nonnative green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus); thus that population should now be considered stable-threatened (Voeltz, Arizona Game and Fish Department, pers. comm. 2003).
        Habitat
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petitioners state that roundtail and headwater chub are threatened by a variety of actions: livestock grazing, water withdrawal, dam and dam operation, roads and logging, recreation, mining, urban development, channelization, and the cumulative effects of these actions. The petitioners contend that habitat in substantial portions of the range of these species has been significantly altered by these factors, and they contend that remaining areas known to be occupied by roundtail and headwater chub are threatened by additional loss and degradation of habitat (Minckley 1985; Bestgen and Propst 1989; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002; Tellman et al. 1997; Voeltz 2002).
        Summary of Habitat Threats and Evaluation of Information in the Petition
        The petitioners have provided substantial scientific information that a variety of anthropogenic activities that affect the habitat of roundtail and headwater chub in the lower Colorado River basin either singly or in combination with one another, may be destroying or modifying roundtail and headwater chub habitat.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petitioners do not provide information suggesting that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a threat to either the roundtail or headwater chubs; however, they do consider overutilization in their analysis of the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms and in their analysis of recreation as form of habitat loss.
        Evaluation of Information in the Petition
        Our response to these issues is included within those sections of our analysis.
        C. Disease or Predation
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petitioners contend that nonnative fish that compete with and/or prey on roundtail and headwater chub are a serious and persistent threat to the continued existence of these species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999 a, b, 2001a, b), and they cite a number of examples of nonnative fish species negatively affecting native fish populations. They also claim that largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, green sunfish, flathead catfish, channel catfish, black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), and yellow bullhead are all known or suspected to prey on native fish and are to some degree sympatric (occupying the same or overlapping geographic areas without interbreeding) with either roundtail or headwater chub (Girmendonk and Young 1997; Voeltz 2002).

        The petitioners contend that most streams within the range of the roundtail and headwater chub contain multiple nonnative species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001a and b), and that aquatic nonnative species continue to be introduced into streams in Arizona, likely through a variety of mechanisms, both intentional and accidental, that include interbasin water transfer, sport stocking, aquaculture, aquarium releases, bait-bucket release (release of fish used as bait by anglers), and biological control (Rosen et al. 1995; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). The petitioners note that nonnatives are present and considered a threat to remnant populations of roundtail or headwater chub in 28 of the 30 streams in which they occur (Voeltz 2002).

        The petitioners also contend that disease, and especially parasites, may be a threat and cite the following information. Roundtail and headwater chub have been found to be infected by a number of parasites, including protozoans (Ichthyophthirius multifiliis), trematodes (Ornithodiplostomum ptychocheilus, Clinostomum marginatum, and Plagioporus species), cestodes (Isoglaridacris bulboocirrus), nematodes (Dacnitoides species, Rhabdochona decaturensis, and Rhabdochona species), and anchor worms (Lernaea species) (Girmendonk and Young 1997; James 1968; Mpoame 1981; Voeltz 2002).
        Evaluation of Information in the Petition
        The petition provides substantial scientific information that predation and disease is a factor that may threaten the continued existence of the roundtail and headwater chubs.
        D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petitioners state that there are at present no specific Federal protections for roundtail or headwater chub, and generalized Federal protections found in Forest plans, Clean Water Act dredge and fill regulations for streams, and other statutory, regulatory, or policy provisions have been inadequate to check the rapid decline of these two fishes. The petitioners cite Doremus and Pagel (2001) who found that State, local, and private laws and regulations were of substantially less effectiveness at conservation of imperiled species than the Act and concluded that “Background law generally does not protect species against either of these two primary threats (habitat degradation and exotic species). Even the Act provides little protection against exotic species, but it does provide the strongest currently available protection against habitat degradation.” The petitioners review a substantial body of Federal, State, and Tribal statutes, regulations, and planning work against conservation of roundtail and headwater chubs and their habitat, and contend that these also indicate the plight of roundtail and headwater chub can be remedied only through Federal listing under the Act.

        As an example, the petitioners examined management on 58 U.S. Forest Service allotments with known roundtail or headwater chub populations and contend that the agency failed to consider the effects of livestock grazing on these species on 23 allotments, and that livestock grazing was considered to potentially impact these species or their habitat on 20 of the other 35; in two of these cases the U.S. Forest Service concluded that grazing would “eventually trend the species toward federal listing.” They also contend that of the 58 allotments that contained these species, poor riparian and watershed conditions were found on 40 of the 58 allotments, and only four allotments were noted as having healthy riparian conditions.
        Evaluation of Information in the Petition
        The petition provides substantial information that relates to the inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms to address significant threats to roundtail and headwater chub throughout their range.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petitioners contend that the probability of catastrophic stochastic (random) events is exacerbated by a century of livestock grazing and fire suppression that have led to unnaturally high fuel loadings (Cooper 1960; Covington and Moore 1994; Swetnam and Baison 1994; Touchan et al. 1995; White 1985). Forests that once frequently burned at low intensities now rarely burn, but when they do, it is often at stand-replacing intensity (Covington and Moore 1994). Fires in the southwest frequently occur during the summer monsoon season. As a result, fires are often followed by rain that washes ash-laden debris into streams (Rinne 1996). It is such debris, rather than the fires themselves, that impacts and/or devastates fish populations. For example, the petition states that the 1990 Dude Fire was known to severely impact fish in the East Verde River. Voeltz (2002) states: “Fish populations within the East Verde drainage were heavily impacted following the Dude Fire in 1990. Runoff from storms following the fire washed ash and sediments off of the burned slopes into the system, reducing or eliminating fish populations in many of the small tributary streams in the area of the fire.”
        The petitioners also maintain that extensive human alteration of watersheds that has occurred over the past 150 years in the lower Colorado River basin has resulted in changes in the hydrologic regimes of the rivers and in the geomorphology of the river channels. This human-initiated change is exacerbated by the naturally highly variable climate of the area. Peaks of flood flows have increased in volume while moving through the system more rapidly, so that damaging floods have become more frequent and more destructive. This increase in destruction is also tied to removal of riparian vegetation and encroachment of agricultural fields and buildings upon the floodplain. Because of the reduced distribution and isolation of remaining roundtail and headwater chub populations in combination with increased severity of fire and altered hydrologic regimes, the petitioners argue that both species are at risk of extinction independent of any other factors, such as nonnative fish or habitat degradation.
        Evaluation of Information in the Petition

        The petition provides substantial scientific information that illustrates the severity of the threat of stochastic events to rare and fragmented populations, and includes research conducted specifically in the southwest, and on a suite of fishes including roundtail and headwater chubs (Fagan et al. 2002).
        Finding
        We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition, and we have evaluated that information in relation to other pertinent literature and information available in our files. On the basis of our review, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that listing the roundtail chub as a distinct population segment in the lower Colorado River basin, and the headwater chub throughout its range, may be warranted.
        We have reviewed the available information to determine if the existing and foreseeable threats pose an emergency. We have determined that emergency listing is not warranted for these species at this time, because of the overall number of extant populations and the fact that some of these appear to be stable at the current time. However, if at any time we determine that emergency listing of the roundtail or headwater chub are warranted, we will seek to initiate an emergency listing.
        The petitioners also request that critical habitat be designated for this species. We always consider the need for critical habitat designation when listing species. If we determine in our 12-month finding that listing the roundtail and headwater chub is warranted, we will address the designation of critical habitat at the time of the proposed rulemaking.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).
        Author

        The primary authors of this document are staff at the Arizona Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).

          Authority:

          The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: June 30, 2005.
          Matt Hogan,
          Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-13315 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 81
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0467; FRL-9901-12-Region 9]
        Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Basin, Coachella Valley, and Sacramento Metro Ozone Nonattainment Areas; Reclassification

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Withdrawal of proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is withdrawing a proposed action to reclassify the Indian country pertaining to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Morongo Reservation) from “severe-17” to “extreme” for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.

          DATES:
          The proposed rule published on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 43654) is withdrawn with respect to the Morongo Reservation on September 23, 2013.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ken Israels, Grants and Program Integration Office (AIR-8), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4102, israels.ken@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On August 27, 2009 (74 FR 43654), EPA published a proposed rule to grant requests by the State of California to reclassify four nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and to reclassify Indian country in keeping with the classifications of nonattainment areas within which they are located. On May 5, 2010 (75 FR 24409), EPA finalized the action as proposed except that EPA deferred reclassification of Indian country pertaining to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Morongo Reservation) and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians (Pechanga Reservation) in keeping with the state's request for the South Coast Air Basin. On January 2, 2013 (78 FR 51), EPA proposed to revise the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin nonattainment area to designate the Morongo Reservation as a separate air quality planning area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. In the January 2, 2013 proposed rule, EPA indicated that, if the Agency finalizes the January 2, 2013 proposed rule, as proposed, EPA would withdraw the August 27, 2009 proposed rule to the extent that the 2009 proposed rule relates to the Morongo Reservation. In the Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is finalizing its January 2, 2013 proposed rule, as proposed. In light of final Agency action on the January 2, 2013 proposal, EPA is withdrawing the August 27, 2009 proposed reclassification of the Morongo Reservation for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. This withdrawal is being taken under Clean Air Act sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness areas.

          Dated: September 4, 2013.
          Jared Blumenfeld,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2013-22871 Filed 9-20-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        49 CFR Part 40
        [Docket OST-2008-0088]
        RIN OST 2105-AE01
        Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Secretary, DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Department of Transportation is proposing only to extend the date for the mandatory use of our recently updated Alcohol Testing Form (ATF) to January 1, 2011. The revised ATF went into effect on February 25, 2010 with a mandatory use date of August 1, 2010. After publishing the February 25 revisions, we learned that vendors and users of the ATF will not be able to deplete their current supply of ATFs by August 1, 2010. Therefore, in order to assist the transportation industries and their service agents in their efforts to be economically efficient and more environmentally “green,” we are seeking public comment to extend the mandatory use date to January 1, 2011.

          DATES:
          Comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking should be submitted by May 26, 2010. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

          ADDRESSES:
          To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please submit them by only one of the following means:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
          • Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

            Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number DOT- OST—or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For program issues, Bohdan Baczara, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-3784 (voice), (202) 366-3897 (fax), or bohdan.baczara@dot.gov (e-mail).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background and Purpose
        On February 25, 2010, the Department published a final rule [75 FR 8528] which updated the Alcohol Testing Form (ATF). The Department anticipated that employers and alcohol testing technicians may currently have a large supply of old ATFs and to avoid unnecessarily wasting these forms, the Department permitted the use of the old ATF until August 1, 2010. Employers were authorized to begin using the updated ATF immediately.
        Since the final rule was published, the Department became aware that some vendors of the ATF might not be able to deplete their current supply of the ATFs before the August 1, 2010 implementation date. In light of this new information and so as not to have the industry waste forms, the Department is proposing to extend the implementation date to January 1, 2011. The Department seeks your comments only about this new implementation date.
        Regulatory Analyses and Notices

        The statutory authority for this proposed rule derives from the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322, 5331, 20140, 31306, and 45101 et seq.) and the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 322).
        This proposed rule is a non-significant rule both for purposes of Executive Order 12886 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Department certifies that it will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department makes these statements on the basis that by extending the implementation date of the new form, this rule will not impose any significant costs on anyone. The costs of the underlying Part 40 final rule were analyzed in connection with its issuance in December 2000. Therefore, it has not been necessary for the Department to conduct a regulatory evaluation or Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this proposed rule. The alcohol testing form complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act. It has no Federalism impacts that would warrant a Federalism assessment.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40
          Administrative practice and procedures, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol testing, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

          Issued April 28, 2010, at Washington DC.
          Jim L. Swart,
          Director.

        For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Transportation proposes to amend 49 CFR part 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

          PART 40—PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAMS
          1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 40 continues to read as follows:

              Authority:

            49 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322, 5331, 20140, 31306, and 45101 et seq.

          2. In Appendix G to Part 40—Alcohol Testing Form, the paragraph is being revised by removing the text “August 1, 2010” and replacing it with “January 1, 2011”.

      [FR Doc. 2010-10488 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 130716623-4062-01]
        RIN 0648-BD50
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 8

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Framework Adjustment 8 (Framework 8) proposes several changes to facilitate operation of the butterfish discard cap in the longfin squid fishery and the directed butterfish fishery. Framework 8 would allocate the butterfish discard cap among trimesters in the same percentages used for the trimester allocations for longfin squid: 43 percent to Trimester I (January to April); 17 percent to Trimester II (May to August), and 40 percent to Trimester III (September to December). Each trimester would close when it is estimated that 95 percent of the butterfish discard cap has been taken. In addition, Framework 8 would allow NMFS to transfer, in either direction, up to 50 percent of unused quota between the butterfish landing allocation and the discard cap on the longfin squid fishery. This would occur near the end of the year in order to optimally utilize the butterfish that is available for fishing each year.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received by March 3, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, telephone (302) 674-2331. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0010, by any one of the following methods:
          _ Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0010, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments;
          _ Mail: Submit written comments to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Framework 8;”

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter“N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978- 281-9195, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        NMFS implemented the butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery on January 1, 2011, as part of Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (75 FR 11441, March 11, 2010) as a means of reducing fishing mortality on the butterfish stock. Framework Adjustment 7 to the MSB FMP (78 FR 14230, March 5, 2013) changed the butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery from a catch cap to a discard cap to accommodate a potential directed fishery for butterfish. Butterfish discards in the longfin squid fishery account for the largest source of butterfish fishing mortality. If management measures do not control butterfish discards in the longfin squid fishery in real time, substantial overages of the butterfish annual catch limit (ACL), which includes both butterfish landings and discards, could occur. Since NMFS must deduct catch in excess of the ACL from the following fishing year's ACL, overages in one year could substantially disrupt the directed butterfish and longfin squid fisheries the next year. In order to minimize the likelihood of a butterfish ACL overage, NMFS tracks directed butterfish landings (allocated as the butterfish domestic annual harvest or domestic annual harvest (DAH)) in real-time, and NMFS reduces the directed trip limit to ensure that the landings quota is not exceeded. Similarly, NMFS tracks butterfish discards in the longfin squid fishery in real time, and NMFS issues a closure of the longfin squid fishery once NMFS projects that the fishery has harvested the applicable amount of the butterfish discard cap.
        The butterfish discard cap is currently allocated by trimesters, with 65 percent of the cap allocated to Trimester I (January to April); 3.3 percent to Trimester II (May to August); and 31.7 percent to Trimester III (September to December). NMFS can close the directed longfin squid fishery when the fishery has harvested: 80 percent of the Trimester I cap; 75 percent of the annual cap in Trimester II; or 95 percent of the annual cap in Trimester III. Butterfish discard cap underages and overages from Trimesters I and II currently roll over into Trimester III.
        Amendment 10 to the MSB FMP initially allocated a very low amount of the cap to Trimester II because, historically, butterfish bycatch in the longfin squid fishery during that period was very low. In recent years, longfin squid catches in Trimester II have been substantial, and if butterfish discards on longfin squid trips are substantial, the potential exists for 75 percent of the entire annual cap to be harvested in Trimester II alone. This could lead to a variety of negative outcomes, including premature closure of the Trimester III longfin squid fishery, and/or deductions from future years if the fishery exceeds the butterfish ACL.
        In order to address this issue, Framework 8 measures would adjust the trimester allocations for the butterfish discard cap and create distinct closure thresholds for each trimester. The proposed action would set the following initial allocations for the trimesters beginning in January 2014: 43 percent to Trimester I; 17 percent to Trimester II; and 40 percent to Trimester III. The proposed trimester allocation percentages for the butterfish discard cap match the trimester allocations for the directed longfin squid fishery. Framework 8 proposes that each trimester would close when the fishery has harvested an estimated 95 percent of the butterfish discard cap.
        Framework 8 would also allow NMFS to transfer unused butterfish quota in either direction, between the butterfish DAH and the butterfish discard cap on the longfin squid fishery. Prior to November each year, NMFS would make a projection regarding the likely trajectories of butterfish landings and the butterfish discard cap. If the butterfish DAH appears likely to constrain the directed butterfish fishery or the butterfish discard cap appears likely to constrain the longfin squid fishery, and the other fishery appears unlikely to be impacted by a shift in quota, NMFS could transfer up to 50 percent of the total butterfish DAH or total butterfish discard cap to optimize the use of the overall butterfish quota. NMFS would make this transfer on or about November 15 each fishing year, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, in order to optimally utilize the butterfish that is available for fishing each year.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the MSB FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows.
        Statement of Objective and Need

        This action proposes management measures for the longfin squid and butterfish fisheries. A complete description of the reasons why the Council and NMFS are considering this action, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are contained elsewhere in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here.

        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
        Subsequent to Council action related to this proposed rule, the Small Business Administration revised its small business size standards for several industries in a final rule effective July 22, 2013. The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $4.0 to 19.0 million, Shellfish Fishing from $4.0 to 5.0 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $4.0 to 7.0 million. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this action in light of the new size standards. While longfin squid is technically a shellfish, and would fall under the lower shellfish fishing standard of $5.0 million, all entities subject to this action were considered small entities under the former, lower size standards, thus they all would continue to be considered small under the new standards. Thus, all of the approximately 375 vessels with limited access butterfish/longfin squid permits would qualify as small businesses.
        Having different size standards for different types of marine fishing activities creates difficulties in categorizing businesses that participate in more than one of these activities. For now, the short-term approach is to classify a business entity into the SBA defined categories based on which activity produced the most gross revenue. In this case, it is very likely the revenue from finfishing was greater than revenue (if any) from shellfishing and greater than the revenue from charter boat fishing. Based on these assumptions, the finfish size standard would apply and the business is considered large, only if revenues are greater than $19 million. Section 5.6 in the Framework 8 EA describes the vessels, key ports, and revenue information for the longfin squid and butterfish fisheries; therefore, that information is not repeated here.
        Although it is possible that some entities, based on rules of affiliation, would qualify as large business entities, due to lack of reliable ownership affiliation data NMFS cannot apply the business size standard at this time. NMFS is currently compiling data on vessel ownership that should permit a more refined assessment and determination of the number of large and small entities for future actions. For this action, since available data are not adequate to identify affiliated vessels, each operating unit is considered a small entity for purposes of the RFA, and, therefore, there is no differential impact between small and large entities. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities.
        The measures in this action could have some impact on the approximately 375 vessels with limited access butterfish/longfin squid permits, all of which qualify as small businesses because their gross revenues are less than $19 million annually. With a longfin squid price of approximately $1,600/mt, the fishery's FY 2012 landings totaled 671 mt and generated $1.1 million in ex-vessel revenues.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
        This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        Economic Impact of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-Selected Alternatives

        The Council conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of Framework 8 in the EA (see ADDRESSES), and a discussion of this evaluation follows.
        Framework 8 proposes adjusting the trimester allocations for the butterfish cap (Trimester I: 43 percent; Trimester II: 17 percent; Trimester III: 40 percent), and proposes closing each trimester when it is projected that 95 percent of the trimester allocation has been harvested (Alternative 2). In addition to the no action alternative (Alternative 1), Framework 8 also considered allocating 54 percent of the butterfish cap to Trimester I, 10.15 percent to Trimester II, and 35.85 percent to Trimester III, with 95 percent closure thresholds for each trimester (Alternative 3). Similar to the status quo alternative, both of the adjusted allocations proposed in the action alternatives would allow rollovers of quota not used during trimesters early in the year, and would deduct overages from later trimesters when the trimester allocations have been exceeded early in the year.
        The alternatives to amend in-season Trimester II closure authority would result in positive long-term socioeconomic impacts compared to the status quo because they would: (1) Reduce the chance of acceptable biological catch (ABC) overages that could reduce long-term butterfish productivity; (2) avoid distributional issues in the longfin squid fishery that would occur if Trimester II harvested most (75 percent) of the butterfish cap; and (3) avoid future disruptions of the fishery if the status quo led to an ABC overage that had to be repaid.
        Compared to the status quo, it is possible that either of the action alternatives could result in vessel owners losing some squid revenues in the short term if NMFS were to close Trimester II earlier than it would under the status quo, especially if those revenues are not recouped later in the year because squid are unavailable. The amount of potential relative losses is not clear because there have been no closures at current cap levels on which to base potential economic impacts. The longer-term benefits of reducing the likelihood of exceeding ABC each year would offset any occasional short-term losses of revenue.
        There are distributional issues in the longfin squid fishery that would occur if most (75 percent) of the butterfish cap was harvested in Trimester II. The disparity of allocation percentages between the current butterfish cap and the longfin squid allocation could cause unnecessary closures that would be avoided if the allocation percentages were the same. Under the status quo, Trimester I receives a large percentage of the cap (65 percent), but Trimester II is not limited by the cap until 75 percent of the entire annual cap is reached. This means that no catch might be available in Trimester III if the combined Trimester I and Trimester II usage of the cap nears 75 percent. The preferred alternative, Alternative 2, would provide vessels with the opportunity to maximize their longfin squid catch while avoiding closures due to the butterfish cap. Maximized catch with no closures would allow for increased and steady revenues for vessels and the fishery as a whole.

        To ensure that Trimester III has a reasonable amount of quota, some quota must be reallocated from Trimesters I and II. At the same time, Trimester II needs to retain a reasonable quota allocation. At current cap quota levels, none of the proposed allocations would be expected to cause a closure as long as the longfin squid fleet maintains relatively low butterfish discard rates. The preferred alternative, Alternative 2, was chosen because it aligns the cap allocation with the squid allocation. Thus, each longfin squid Trimester is responsible for its butterfish cap, and each trimester starts with a butterfish cap that matches its longfin squid allocation. This provides good incentive for vessels to avoid discarding butterfish each trimester and does not penalize vessels fishing in a trimester that had low historical butterfish discards by giving it a very low quota. By avoiding closures and discouraging discards, Alternative 2 would maximize potential revenues for the fishery.
        Among the alternatives, Trimester I has the most cap allocation under the status quo, less under Alternative 3, and least under the preferred Alternative 2. However, since the offshore fleet fishes in Trimesters I and III, and the overall purpose is to ensure that a reasonable amount of cap remains for Trimester III, any disadvantage from losing cap quota in Trimester I for the offshore fleet may be made up by improved access to Trimester III.
        Framework 8 considered two alternatives to shift quota between the butterfish cap and butterfish landings: Status quo (Alternative 4) and the proposed alternative, which would allow for transfers between these two allocations late in the year in order to optimally utilize the available butterfish allocation (Alternative 5). The alternative to shift quota at the end of the year could facilitate some additional butterfish fishing or additional longfin squid fishing compared to the status quo, which would have positive economic effects for the fisheries. The maximum transfer amount is 50 percent of the original quota, i.e., 50 percent of one could be transferred to the other (50 percent of the landings quota to the cap quota or 50 percent of the cap quota to landings). As there has been no directed butterfish fishery in the past, it is not possible to predict the exact amount of landings this could result in over time, but because the transfer would occur near the end of the FY, they would probably be limited. Since the transfer would only be in place after November 15, (approximately 12 percent of the FY) a substantial amount of effort would have already taken place earlier in the year, but a transfer could still offer additional fishing opportunity compared to the status quo.
        Since the 2013 butterfish landings quota is 2,570 mt, this provides a starting point for examining the range of benefits that could accrue from a transfer from butterfish landings to the cap. At most, one half of the landings quota (1,285 mt) could be transferred. It is possible that such a transfer could result in reopening of the longfin fishery for the last 6 weeks of the year, or the longfin squid fishery staying open when it would have otherwise closed. While the last 6 weeks of the year have seen relatively low longfin squid landings recently, late season catches in 2004-2007 demonstrate that catches of 1-2 million lb (453.6 to 907.1 mt) per week of longfin squid are possible in the last six weeks of the year, which could theoretically result in additional revenues of approximately $6-$12 million, given recent longfin squid prices, though this would likely be the high end of the range.
        With the butterfish cap in 2013 set at 3,884 mt, half of that amount would be 1,942 mt which would be the most that could be transferred to butterfish landings. It is possible that 1,942 mt of butterfish could be landed in 6 weeks, but the price of such landings is difficult to determine. In recent years, prices have ranged from $1,400—$1,800 per metric ton, which could theoretically mean additional revenues of around $3 million dollars, though it is not clear that recent prices would be maintained at higher landings levels, which would mean that $3 million should be considered the high end of possible additional revenues.
        In both of the transfer scenarios, since a transfer would only be made if it appears the quota would not be used during the FY, there are no opportunity costs associated with the transfer in terms of other fishery operations.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: January 24, 2014.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 648.22, paragraphs (b)(3)(vi) and (vii) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.22
          Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish specifications.

          (b)  * * *
          (3) * * *
          (vi) The butterfish mortality cap will be based on a portion of the ACT (set annually during specifications) and the specified cap amount will be allocated to the longfin squid fishery as follows: Trimester I—43 percent; Trimester II—17 percent; and Trimester III—40 percent.
          (vii) Any underages of the cap for Trimester I that are greater than 25 percent of the Trimester I cap will be reallocated to Trimester II and III (split equally between both trimesters) of the same year. The reallocation of the cap from Trimester I to Trimester II is limited, such that the Trimester II cap may only be increased by 50 percent; the remaining portion of the underage will be reallocated to Trimester III. Any underages of the cap for Trimester I that are less than 25 percent of the Trimester I quota will be applied to Trimester III of the same year. Any overages of the cap for Trimesters I and II will be subtracted from Trimester III of the same year.

        3. In § 648.24, paragraph (c)(3) is revised and paragraph (c)(5) is added to read as follows:

          § 648.24
          Fishery closures and accountability measures.

          (c) * * *
          (3) Butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery. NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for longfin squid when the Regional Administrator projects that 95 percent of each Trimester's butterfish mortality cap allocation has been harvested.

          (5) Butterfish allocation transfer. NMFS may transfer up to 50 percent of any unused butterfish allocation from the butterfish DAH to the butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery if the butterfish catch in the longfin squid fishery is likely to result in a closure of the longfin squid fishery, and provided the transfer does not increase the likelihood of closing the directed butterfish fishery. NMFS may instead transfer up to 50 percent of the unused butterfish catch from the butterfish mortality cap allocation to the butterfish DAH if harvest of butterfish in the directed butterfish fishery is likely to exceed the butterfish DAH, and provided the transfer of butterfish allocation from the butterfish mortality cap allocation does not increase the likelihood of closing the longfin squid fishery due to harvest of the butterfish mortality cap. NMFS would make this transfer on or about November 15 each fishing year, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

      [FR Doc. 2014-01896 Filed 1-30-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AH96
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Public Comment Period on Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Great Plains Breeding Population of the Piping Plover

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), provide notice of the reopening of the public comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat for the northern Great Plains population of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and the associated draft environmental assessment and economic analysis, to allow all interested parties to comment. Comments previously submitted via regular or express postal mail need not be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final rule. Please resubmit comments via regular or express mail that were sent to us by electronic mail since December 2001. We have not received your comments because the Service's internet electronic mail has not been available due to a court order in an unrelated case.

          DATES:
          The comment period is opened and will close on May 20, 2002. Any comments that are received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this proposal.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit written comments and information to Piping Plover Comments, South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 420 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 400, Pierre, SD 57501, or by facsimile to 605-224-9974.
          You may hand-deliver written comments to our South Dakota Field Office at the address given above.

          Copies of the draft economic analysis, draft environmental assessment, and proposed rule for designation of critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover are available from the above address or on the Internet at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/pipingplover. Please note that at the time this notice was prepared the Service's web pages and electronic mail were not available because of a court order in an unrelated case. If you are unable to access the above website please contact the South Dakota Field Office by telephone or regular mail at the above address.
          You may view comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nell McPhillips, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address or at 605-224-8693, extension 32.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        We published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover in the Federal Register on June 12, 2001 (66 FR 31760). Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available and after taking into consideration the economic impacts, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        The proposed designation includes 11 areas of prairie alkali wetlands, inland and reservoir lakes in 5 counties in Montana, 18 counties in North Dakota, and 1 county at Lake-of-the-Woods, Minnesota, totaling approximately 196,576.5 acres (79,553.1 hectares). It also includes five areas of portions of four rivers in the States of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska, totaling approximately 1,338 miles (2,152.9 kilometers) of river. If this proposal is made final, section 7 of the Act would prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency.

        We reopened the comment period on the proposed critical habitat and provided a notice of availability for the economic analysis in the Federal Register on December 28, 2001 (66 FR 67165). However, prior to that reopening the Service's web sites and electronic mail were disconnected in response to a court order in an unrelated lawsuit. Persons who have submitted electronic comments to the Service on this proposal since December 28, 2001, should resubmit those comments directly to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section above via regular or express mail or facsimile.
        Public Comments Solicited

        We solicit public comment on the proposal to designate critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover, as well as the associated draft environmental assessment and draft economic analysis. We will accept written comments and information during this comment period. Previous written comments and information submitted during the comment period need not be resubmitted; however, comments submitted by electronic mail since December 28, 2001, should be resubmitted by regular or express mail or facsimile (see ADDRESSES section).

        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the South Dakota Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Our practice is to make all comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record; we will honor these requests to the extent allowed by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, allowed by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
        Author

        The primary authors of this notice are the South Dakota Field Office staff (see ADDRESSES section).

          Authority:

          The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: March 13, 2002.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 02-6802 Filed 3-20-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P