Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to List the Arkansas River Basin Population of the Arkansas River Shiner as Endangered

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC 62

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to

List the Arkansas River Basin Population of the Arkansas River Shiner

as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to list

the Arkansas River basin population of the Arkansas River shiner

(Notropis girardi) as an endangered species under the authority of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. The Arkansas River

shiner is a small fish found in the Canadian (South Canadian) River in

New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; and the Cimarron River in Kansas and

Oklahoma. A non-native, introduced population occurs in the Pecos River

in New Mexico; however, protection for this population is not under

consideration. The Arkansas River basin population is threatened by

habitat destruction and modification from stream dewatering or

depletion due to diversion of surface water and excessive groundwater

pumping, water quality degradation, and construction of impoundments.

Incidental capture of the Arkansas River shiner during pursuit of

commercial bait fish species, and competition with the introduced Red

River shiner (Notropis bairdi) may also contribute to reduced

population sizes. This proposal, if made final, will implement Federal

protection provided by the Act for Notropis girardi. Critical habitat

is prudent but not currently determinable.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by October

3, 1994. Public hearing requests must be received by September 19,

1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be

sent to: Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office, 222 South

Houston, Suite A, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127. Comments and materials

received will be available for public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Collins at the above address (918/

581-7458).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Arkansas River shiner was first discovered by A. I. Ortenburger

in 1926 in the Cimarron River northwest of Kenton, Cimarron County,

Oklahoma (Hubbs and Ortenburger 1929). The Arkansas River shiner is a

small, robust shiner with a small, dorsally flattened head, rounded

snout, and small subterminal mouth (Miller and Robison 1973, Robison

and Buchanan 1985). Adults attain a maximum length of 51 millimeters

(mm) (2 inches (in)). Dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins all have eight rays

and there is usually a small, black chevron present at the base of the

caudal fin. Dorsal coloration tends to be light tan, with silvery sides

gradually grading to white on the belly. The Arkansas River shiner

historically inhabited the main channels of wide, shallow, sandy-

bottomed rivers and streams of the Arkansas River Basin. Adults are

uncommon in quiet pools or backwaters, and almost never occur in

tributaries having deep water and bottoms of mud or stone (Cross 1967).

Adults prefer to orient into the current on the ``lee'' sides of

transverse sand ridges and feed upon organisms washed downstream (Cross

1967). Their food habits have not been recorded but their principal

food items are presumed to be small aquatic invertebrates (Gilbert

1978) or plankton (Sublette et al. 1990). The Arkansas River shiner

spawns in July, usually coinciding with flood flows following heavy

rains (Moore 1944). The pelagic eggs drift with the swift current and

hatching occurs within 24-48 hours. The larvae are capable of swimming

within 3-4 days; they then seek out backwater pools and quiet water at

the mouths of tributaries where food is more abundant (Moore 1944).

Both Moore (1944) and Cross (1967) inferred that this species will not

spawn unless conditions are favorable to the survival of the larvae.

Maximum longevity is unknown, but Moore (1944) speculated that the

species' life span is likely less than 3 years (age class II) in the

wild. The age structure of Arkansas River shiners collected from the

Pecos River in New Mexico included three, and possibly four, age

classes (Bestgen et al. 1989). The majority of the fish captured were

juveniles (age class 0) and first-time spawners (age class I). Most of

the fish in spawning condition were age class I. Bestgen et al. (1989)

thought mortality of post-spawning fish was extremely high based on the

absence of age class I and older fish from collections made after the

spawning period (late July and August).

Historically, the Arkansas River shiner was widespread and abundant

throughout the western portions of the Arkansas River Basin in Kansas,

New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. There is one record from the Arkansas

River at the mouth of Piney Creek in Logan County, Arkansas (Black

(1940), as cited in Robison and Buchanan (1988)). A record (one

individual) also exists for the Red River Basin in Oklahoma (Cross

1970), possibly originating from a release of bait fish by anglers.

Within the last 20 years, this species has disappeared from over 80

percent of its historic range and is now almost entirely restricted to

the Canadian (South Canadian) River in Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico.

A non-native population of the Arkansas River shiner has become

established in the Pecos River of New Mexico within the last 15 years

(Bestgen et al. 1989).

Recent surveys for the Arkansas River shiner were conducted at 155

localities within the Arkansas River Basin (Larson et al. 1991). Fish

collections were made at 128 of 155 localities; the remaining 27 sites

were dry. The surveys resulted in the capture of 1,455 Arkansas River

shiners from 23 localities: 14 in Oklahoma, 5 in Texas, and 4 in New

Mexico. No Arkansas River shiners were captured in Kansas. The decline

of this species throughout its historic range may primarily be

attributed to inundation and modification of stream discharge by

impoundments, channel desiccation by water diversion and excessive

groundwater pumping for agriculture, stream channelization, and

introduction of non-native species.

The Arkansas River shiner began to decline in the Arkansas River in

western Kansas prior to 1950 due to increasing water diversions for

irrigation and completion of John Martin Reservoir in 1942 (Cross et

al. 1985). The Arkansas River from Coolidge to near Great Bend, Kansas,

is frequently dewatered (Cross et al. 1985). Habitat alteration

following construction of Kaw and Keystone reservoirs on the Arkansas

River in Oklahoma, in conjunction with completion of the McClellan-Kerr

Navigation System in 1970, greatly reduced Arkansas River shiner

habitat in Oklahoma and Arkansas. The Arkansas River shiner no longer

occurs in the Arkansas River in Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma.

The Arkansas River shiner was once common throughout the Cimarron

River and its tributaries (Pigg 1991). The abundance of the Arkansas

River shiner in the Cimarron River declined markedly after 1964 (Felley

and Cothran 1981). In 1976, the Red River shiner (Notropis bairdi) was

first recorded from the Cimarron River (Marshall 1978). Since that

time, the Red River shiner has essentially replaced the Arkansas River

shiner. Habitat alteration and resulting flow modification also

contributed to the decline of the species from the Cimarron River. A

small, remnant population may still persist in the Cimarron River,

based on the collection of nine individuals since 1985.

The Arkansas River shiner was first reported from the North

Canadian (Beaver) River drainage in 1926 (Hubbs and Ortenburger 1929).

Collections between 1947 and 1976 indicated that the Arkansas River

shiner occurred in large numbers in the river and some larger

tributaries despite the construction of Optima and Canton reservoirs

(Pigg 1991). This fish was still sporadically collected from the North

Canadian River until 1987. Several collection attempts at 15 localities

over the next 2 years failed to capture any Arkansas River shiners

(Pigg 1991). In 1990, four specimens were collected from the river

south of Turpin, Beaver County, Oklahoma (Larson et al. 1991; Jimmie

Pigg, Oklahoma Department of Health, pers. comm., 1993). Commercial

bait dealers were observed flushing their tanks in the vicinity of the

site where the Arkansas River shiners were captured and may have been

responsible for the unintentional release of this species back into the

North Canadian River. The species has not been captured from the North

Canadian River since 1990 (J. Pigg, pers. comm., 1993).

Historically, the species occurred in the Canadian (South Canadian)

River from its confluence with the Arkansas River near Sallisaw,

Sequoyah County, Oklahoma as far upstream as the Sabinoso area in

central San Miguel County, New Mexico (Pigg 1991, Sublette et al.

1990). Construction and operation of Ute and Conchas reservoirs in New

Mexico, Lake Meredith in Texas, and Eufaula Reservoir in Oklahoma

altered or eliminated sections of riverine habitat and diminished the

range of Arkansas River shiners within the Canadian River. Eufaula

Reservoir isolated Canadian River populations from the Arkansas River

and, in combination with Lake Meredith and Ute Reservoir, confined

Arkansas River shiners to two restricted segments of the Canadian

River, one between Ute Dam and the upper reaches of Lake Meredith, and

the other below Lake Meredith to the upper reaches of Eufaula

Reservoir. The reservoirs function as barriers, significantly

inhibiting dispersal and interchange between the two segments.

A non-native population of Arkansas River shiners has become

established in the Pecos River in New Mexico, presumably originating

from the release of bait fish downstream of Sumner Dam in 1978 (Bestgen

et al. 1989). The species is presently known to occupy a portion of the

Pecos River extending from Ft. Sumner to Carlsbad, New Mexico. The

largest populations, based on the number of fish collected, occur in

the vicinity of Lake Arthur Falls. Natural flow patterns in the Pecos

River have been altered by reservoir releases and irrigation

withdrawals and return flows. Flow regimes in the Pecos River now mimic

the intermittent flows formerly present within areas historically

supporting natural populations of Arkansas River shiners, and are

presently serving to maintain habitat and provide discharge pulses

necessary for reproduction and survival of this population (Bestgen et

al. 1989). As demand for water increases in New Mexico, the success of

this artificial population may decline or the population may cease to

exist. Protection of this artificial population would also conflict

with efforts to manage native fish populations in the Pecos River. The

Pecos River supports populations of the federally threatened Pecos

bluntnose shiner (Notropis simus pecosensis) and once supported the

proposed federally endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus

amarus). The establishment of Arkansas River shiners in the Pecos River

is a potential threat to the Pecos bluntnose shiner (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1992). Recovery of the native fish fauna of the Pecos

River may eventually require restoration of historic flow conditions

and eradication of competitive, non-native fishes such as the Arkansas

River shiner. Management and recovery efforts for the Pecos bluntnose

shiner and other fish species native to the Pecos River will focus on

the preservation of native species to the detriment of the Arkansas

River shiner population. Listing and protection of the Pecos River

population of the Arkansas River shiner would conflict with the

preservation of the Pecos bluntnose shiner and possibly the Rio Grande

silvery minnow. While the Pecos River population may be important in

efforts to supplement natural, native populations within the historic

range of the species, protection of this artificial population would

not improve the status of the Arkansas River shiner within its historic

range. Therefore, the Service is not proposing to list the introduced

population in the Pecos River.

The Arkansas River shiner first received listing consideration when

the species was included in the September 18, 1985, Review of

Vertebrate Wildlife (50 FR 37958) as a category 2 candidate for

listing. Category 2 comprises taxa for which information indicates that

a proposal to list as endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate,

but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats

are not currently available to support proposed rules. A January 6,

1989, revised Animal Notice of Review (54 FR 554) retained this status

for the Arkansas River shiner. Detailed information on the status of

the species was first provided to the Service in 1989 by Pigg (1989).

Additional information on the status of this species was obtained

through a partial status survey by Larson et al. (1990). The Service

subsequently prepared a status report on this species (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1990). In the November 21, 1991, Animal Candidate

Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (56 FR 58804),

the Arkansas River shiner was reclassified as a category 1 candidate.

Category 1 comprises taxa for which the Service has substantial

information on biological vulnerability and threats to support

proposals to list the taxa as endangered or threatened. Additional

status survey information was provided in Larson et al. (1991) and Pigg

(1991).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations (50 CFR Part 424)

promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth

the procedures for adding species to the Federal ``List of Endangered

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants''. A species may be determined to be

an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five

factors described in Section 4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the Arkansas River basin population of the Arkansas

River shiner (Notropis girardi) are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. Once abundant and widely

distributed throughout the Arkansas River basin, the Arkansas River

shiner now inhabits about 20 percent of its historic range. Navigation

improvements on the Arkansas River by the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers

(Corps) began in Arkansas in 1832, 4 years before Arkansas gained

statehood (Corps of Engineers 1989). Initially, construction projects

generally consisted of small improvements, such as clearing and

snagging operations, until passage of the River and Harbor Act in 1946

authorized construction of the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System from

the Mississippi River upstream to Catoosa, Oklahoma. Project

construction began in the 1950's and intensified during the 1960's.

Project segments from the Mississippi confluence upstream to Fort

Smith, Arkansas, were completed by 1969. By 1970, the channel had been

extended up the Arkansas River as far as Muskogee, Oklahoma, and was

essentially complete. The project included numerous bank stabilization

and channel rectification projects, 17 locks and dams (12 in Arkansas),

annual channel maintenance, and port facilities. Several of the locks

and dams are multipurpose facilities, providing peak power generation.

The Corps maintains a minimum channel depth of 3 meters (m) (9 feet

(ft)) and minimum width of 76 m (250 ft). These modifications have

eliminated suitable habitat and are presumably responsible for the

extirpation of the Arkansas River shiner within the State of Arkansas

and contributed to the decline of the species in Oklahoma. Buchanan

(1976) failed to collect any Arkansas River shiners from the Arkansas

River Navigation System in Arkansas, and fish collections between 1972

and 1988 from the Arkansas River near Ft. Smith, Arkansas also failed

to produce any Arkansas River shiner specimens (Robison and Buchanan

1988). Arkansas River shiners were last observed within the Arkansas

River downstream of Muskogee in 1985 (Pigg 1991).

Numerous multipurpose impoundments, including three mainstem

reservoirs on the Arkansas River and four mainstem reservoirs on the

Canadian River, have been constructed within the Arkansas River Basin.

These impoundments have inundated, dewatered, or otherwise altered

considerable sections of riverine habitat once inhabited by Arkansas

River shiners. Inundation has eliminated Arkansas River shiner spawning

habitat, isolated populations, and favored an increased abundance of

predators. Water releases from impoundments may be infrequent or non-

existent, resulting in dewatering of stream sections downstream of the

reservoir. Where sufficient water is released to maintain downstream

flows, the releases generally alter the natural flow regime for

considerable distances downstream of the impoundment, establishing a

stream environment unlike that which existed under pre-impoundment

conditions. Physical changes resulting from altered flows may include

modifications to water velocity, wetted perimeter (amount of streambed

exposed to water at any given flow), water depth, streambed and bank

erosion, and suspension and distribution of bed and bank sediments.

In 1952, the Arkansas River shiner was believed to inhabit the

entire Arkansas mainstem in Kansas, but was already suspected to be

declining due to the construction of John Martin Reservoir 10 years

earlier on the Arkansas River in Bent County, Colorado (Cross et al.

1985). By 1960, the species had disappeared from the Arkansas River

mainstem west of Wichita, Kansas, and was absent from the entire Kansas

portion of the Arkansas mainstem by 1983 (Cross et al. 1985).

Arkansas River shiners were apparently abundant in the Arkansas

River near Tulsa, Oklahoma, prior to construction of Keystone Reservoir

in 1964 (Pigg 1991). Following the addition of hydropower at Keystone

Dam in 1968, the resultant flow alterations severely depleted Arkansas

River shiner populations. The Arkansas river shiner was last observed

from the section of the Arkansas River between Keystone Reservoir and

Muskogee, Oklahoma, in 1982. Kaw Reservoir, another Arkansas River

mainstem impoundment, located upstream of Keystone Reservoir, became

operational in 1976. In 1989, hydropower was added to Kaw Dam. Shiners

were last observed downstream of Kaw Reservoir in 1986 (Larson et al.

1991, Pigg 1991).

On the Canadian River, Lake Meredith and Eufaula Reservoir have

impacted the Arkansas River shiner. Prior to completion of Eufaula

Reservoir, Arkansas River shiners were abundant in the Canadian River

between the proposed dam site and the Arkansas River (Pigg 1991).

Arkansas River shiners have not been collected from this reach of the

Canadian River since the reservoir became operational in 1964. The

disappearance of Arkansas River shiners below Eufaula Reservoir has

been attributed to rapid water level fluctuations occurring during

hydropower generation and altered conditions favoring an abundant

predatory fish population (Pigg 1991). Lake Meredith was constructed by

the Bureau of Reclamation in 1965 and conservation storage is presently

managed by the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. Releases from

Lake Meredith are infrequent to non-existent (Williams and Wolman l984)

and have considerably altered flows in the Canadian River downstream of

the reservoir. Historically, discharge at Canadian, Texas, located 121

kilometers (km) (75 miles (mi)) below Lake Meredith, averaged 15.5

cubic meters per second (549 cubic ft per second (cfs)); however,

following completion of the reservoir, annual discharge has averaged

only 2.5 cubic meters per second (87.7 cfs) (Buckner et al. 1985).

Principal sources of water to the Canadian River below Lake Meredith

are sewage effluent, tributary inflow, and groundwater emergence.

Reduced flows below Lake Meredith have considerably altered the

morphology of the Canadian River and have reduced the extent of

suitable habitat for Arkansas River shiners. Stinnett et al. (1988)

examined a 370 km (230 mi) stretch of the Canadian River and associated

floodplain 72,843 hectares (179,995 acres) between the western Oklahoma

border and the western Pottawatomie County line near Norman, Oklahoma.

Quantification of wetland areas between 1955 and l984 revealed that the

amount of riverine wetlands (shoreline and open water) had decreased by

about 50 percent. Sandbar acreage alone had been reduced by 54 percent.

Wetland and associated floodplain changes were principally the result

of hydrological modifications due to the influence of Lake Meredith

(Stinnett et al. 1988). The lack of significant scouring flows

permitted the encroachment of vegetation within the channel, reducing

channel width by almost 50 percent since 1955. Although Arkansas River

shiners persist in the Canadian River downstream of Lake Meredith, the

reduction in available habitat has likely suppressed shiner

populations. Habitat alterations associated with reduced flows

downstream of Lake Meredith are considered to be a significant, ongoing

threat to the continued existence of the Arkansas River shiner within

the Canadian River.

Other mainstem impoundments within the historic range of Arkansas

River shiner include Ute and Conchas reservoirs on the upper Canadian

River, Optima and Canton reservoirs on the North Canadian River, and

Great Salt Plains Reservoir on the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River.

Arkansas River shiner populations persist only below Ute Reservoir

(Larson et al. 1991, Pigg 1991).

Groundwater is an extremely important source of water in western

Oklahoma, western Kansas, and the Texas panhandle (Stoner 1985, Texas

Department of Water Resources 1984, Oklahoma Water Resources Board

1980, 1990). Withdrawals from western Oklahoma aquifers account for

about 80 percent of the State's total groundwater usage (Oklahoma Water

Resources Board 1990). Irrigation of croplands has diverted surface

water and lowered groundwater tables throughout southwestern Kansas and

northwestern Oklahoma. Water tables receded from 3 m (10 ft) to more

than 30 m (100 ft) over much of southwestern Kansas during the period

from 1950 to 1975 (Cross et al. 1983). Between 1955 and 1980, declines

in water levels by as much as 31 m (102 ft) have been recorded in the

Ogallala Aquifer in Oklahoma (Oklahoma Water Resources Board 1980). In

1960, there were about 400 groundwater wells in the Oklahoma panhandle;

by 1965 the number had risen to 975; and in 1974, the number of wells

had risen to 2,067 (Oklahoma Water Resources Board 1980). By 1988,

there were an estimated 3,200 high capacity wells overlying the

Ogallala Aquifer in western Oklahoma alone (Oklahoma Water Resources

Board 1990). At present, rainfall and runoff contribute little recharge

to the underlying aquifers. In Texas, withdrawals of groundwater in the

Canadian River Basin were as much as 33 times higher than the annual

natural recharge in 1980, and irrigation return flows in the Basin are

negligible (Texas Department of Water Resources 1984). When groundwater

is pumped faster than it is restored, water tables drop, channel

seepage ceases, and streams cease to flow. Under these conditions,

suitable habitat to support Arkansas River shiner populations is non-

existent.

Surface water withdrawals constitute a small percentage of the

total water used within the western sections of the historic range of

the Arkansas River shiner, primarily because of the limited number of

impoundments and elevated levels of chlorides. However, natural flows

in the Cimarron River upstream of Waynoka, Oklahoma, are affected by

several diversions for irrigation. Dewatering and reduced base flows

because of groundwater and surface water withdrawals is considered a

significant, ongoing threat to the Arkansas River shiner in

southwestern Kansas, northwestern Oklahoma and the Texas panhandle

(Larson et al. 1991, Cross et al. 1985).

Water quality in the Canadian River in Texas generally declines as

the river flows eastward. The Canadian River traverses oil and gas

producing areas and receives municipal sewage effluent and

manufacturing return flows, all of which degrade water quality (Texas

Department of Water Resources 1984). Water quality degradation is

believed to have suppressed Arkansas River shiner populations within

affected reaches of the Canadian River. Water quality within the

Canadian River begins to improve as the river flows through the

sparsely populated counties in western Oklahoma. Poor water quality in

the North Canadian River near Oklahoma City and in the Arkansas River

at Tulsa are also believed to have contributed to localized declines in

Arkansas River shiner populations. The North Canadian River from

western Oklahoma City downstream to Eufaula Reservoir is considered to

be the most nutrient-enriched stream in Oklahoma (Pigg et al. 1992).

The Arkansas River shiner has not been found in this section of the

North Canadian River since 1975 (Pigg 1991).

The proposed Lake Meredith Salinity Control Project is designed to

control brine seeping into the Canadian River from a brine aquifer in

New Mexico. The project could have an effect on the quantity and

quality of flow in the Canadian River between Ute Dam near Logan, New

Mexico and Lake Meredith in Texas. The impacts of this project on

Arkansas River shiner populations have not yet been determined.

Arkansas River shiner populations in this 219 km (136 mi) reach of the

Canadian River are isolated from other populations by Ute and Meredith

reservoirs. Flow reductions in this reach could severely deplete, or

possibly extirpate, these populations.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. Though not selectively harvested as a bait

species, the inadvertent collection of Arkansas River shiners during

harvest of commercial bait species may limit population growth. While

some harvest of bait species, either for commercial or personal

consumptive uses, occurs in New Mexico and Texas, the greatest threat

to Arkansas River shiner from overutilization occurs in the State of

Oklahoma.

In 1985, the Cimarron and South Canadian rivers produced over 55

percent of the bait fish harvested in Oklahoma, providing over 20,846

kilograms (kg) (45,958 pounds (lbs)) of fish (Peterson 1986). Plains

minnow (Hybognathus placidus), which may reach total lengths of 127 mm

(5 in), was the primary species reported harvested by the commercial

minnow dealers. In 1991, the Cimarron and South Canadian rivers

produced over 50 percent of the bait fish harvested in Oklahoma,

providing over 25,118 kg (55,376 lbs) of fish (Peterson 1992). Plains

minnow was again reported to be the primary species harvested. Although

the percent of the total poundage harvested from the Cimarron and South

Canadian rivers has declined slightly since 1985, the amount, by

weight, of fish harvested has increased by over 20 percent. Within the

last 10 years (1980-81 to 1991), the percent of the total harvest taken

from the South Canadian and Cimarron rivers has varied from 67 percent

in 1982 (Peterson and Weeks 1983) to 46 percent in 1989 (Larson et al.

1991). The amount of fish taken varied from over 37,762 kg (83,252 lbs)

in 1982 to 19,147 kg (42,213 lbs) in 1989. The lists of species

harvested did not include Arkansas River shiners.

Larson et al. (1991) reported that there is no evidence that the

species has been adversely affected by the commercial harvest of bait

fish. The reported capture of predominantly large species (plains

minnows) and the continued existence of the Arkansas River shiner in

the South Canadian River, the drainage supporting the majority of the

harvest, was the primary evidence used in arriving at this conclusion.

Larson et al. (1991) suggested that slender-bodied fishes such as the

Arkansas River shiner would constitute only a small percentage of the

commercial harvest, assuming the commercial bait industry used large-

mesh seines as the major mode of capture. However, other evidence

indicates that the Arkansas River shiner, while perhaps not a highly

sought commercial species, is being affected by the commercial bait

industry.

The rapid establishment of the Arkansas River shiner in the Pecos

River, presumably from the release of bait fish, indicates that a large

number of fish were released in a single event. Otherwise, if Arkansas

River shiners occur only occasionally in the commercial harvest,

several releases over a short period of time would be required to

ensure that a large enough population existed to facilitate natural

reproduction. In either instance, the evidence would indicate that

shiners may occasionally occur in commercial catches in fairly large

numbers. The capture of four individuals in the North Canadian River in

1990 also suggests that Arkansas River shiners are occasionally being

harvested by commercial bait dealers.

Lists of fish species reported captured by commercial bait dealers

are not always accurate and likely fail to report the capture of

Arkansas River shiners. Based on the large percentage of golden shiners

(Notemigonus crysoleucas) reported captured by commercial bait dealers

in 1989, Larson et al. (1991) believed the list to be suspect, since no

locality was encountered in their collections where golden shiners

comprised such a high proportion. In 1982, Peterson and Weeks (1983),

stated that the river shiner (Notropis blennius) was the primary

species harvested by commercial bait dealers in the seven river

drainages for which they had data (South Canadian, North Canadian, Red,

Salt Fork of Red, North Fork of Red, Salt Fork of Arkansas, and

Cimarron rivers). However, the river shiner has not been recorded from

the South Canadian, North Canadian, Salt Fork of Red, or North Fork of

Red rivers (Miller and Robison 1973). Larson et al. (1991), in their

survey for Arkansas River shiners, also did not report capturing a

single river shiner from 128 sampling localities within the Arkansas

River basin.

Information provided by the commercial bait industry cannot

reliably be used as evidence to suggest that commercial bait harvest is

not impacting Arkansas River shiner populations. The sheer numbers of

fish collected from the South Canadian River would imply that Arkansas

River shiners could constitute a considerable percentage of the by-

catch taken during commercial harvest. While there is no conclusive

evidence to suggest that commercial harvest has contributed to the

decline of the Arkansas River shiner, take of this species during

commercial bait harvest may be significant and suggests that the effect

of this factor warrants further investigation.

C. Disease or predation. No studies have been conducted on the

impact of disease or predation upon the Arkansas River shiner;

therefore, the significance of these threats upon existing populations

is unknown. There is no direct evidence to suggest that disease

threatens the continued existence of the species. Disease is not likely

to be a significant threat except under certain habitat conditions,

such as crowding during periods of reduced flows, or episodes of poor

water quality, such as low dissolved oxygen or elevated nutrient

levels. During these events, stress reduces resistance to pathogens and

disease outbreaks may occur. Parasites and bacterial and viral agents

are generally the most common causes of mortality. Lesions caused by

injuries, bacterial infections, and parasites often become the sites of

secondary fungal infections.

Some predation of Arkansas River shiners by largemouth bass

(Micropterus salmoides), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), channel

catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and other species undoubtedly occurs,

but the extent is unknown. Plains fishes have evolved under adverse

conditions of widely fluctuating, often intermittent flows, high summer

temperatures, high rates of evaporation, and high concentrations of

dissolved solids. These conditions are not favored by most large

predaceous fish and tend to preclude existence of significant

populations of these species. However, alteration of historic flow

regimes and construction of reservoirs have created favorable

conditions for some predatory species such as white bass (Morone

chrysops) and striped bass (M. saxatilis). State and Federal fish and

wildlife management agencies, through efforts to develop sport

fisheries in these reservoirs, have facilitated the expansion of some

predatory species. The impact of predation is likely to be localized

and insignificant, particularly where habitat conditions upstream of

mainstem reservoirs are not favorable to the long-term establishment of

large populations of predatory fish.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The State of

Kansas lists the Arkansas River shiner as a State endangered species.

The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks has designated portions of

the mainstem Cimarron, Arkansas, South Fork Ninnescah, and Ninnescah

rivers as critical habitat for the shiner (Vernon Tabor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Kansas State Office, pers. comm., 1993). A permit is

also required for public actions that have the potential to destroy

listed individuals or their critical habitat. Subject activities

include any publicly funded or State or federally assisted action, or

any action requiring a permit from any other State or Federal agency.

Violation of the permit constitutes an unlawful taking, a Class A

misdemeanor, and is punishable by a maximum fine of $2,500 and

confinement for a period not to exceed one year (V. Tabor, pers. comm.,

1993). Kansas does not permit the commercial harvest of bait fish from

rivers and streams within the State.

The State of New Mexico lists the Arkansas River shiner as a State

endangered species. This listing prohibits the taking of the Arkansas

River shiner without a valid scientific collecting permit but does not

provide habitat protection. The State of Oklahoma lists the Arkansas

River shiner as a State threatened species, but, as in New Mexico, this

listing does not provide habitat protection. The States of Arkansas and

Texas provide no special protection for the species or its habitat.

While Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma protect the Arkansas River

shiner from take and/or possession, only Kansas addresses the problem

of habitat destruction or modification. None of the States provide

significant protection from the potential introduction of competitive

species. Listing under the Act would provide additional protection and

encourage active management through ``Available Conservation Measures''

discussed below.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. The overall trend in the status of this species is

characterized by dramatic declines in numbers and distribution. The

apparent isolation of self-sustaining populations of Arkansas River

shiners to one river system renders the remaining populations extremely

vulnerable to any natural or manmade factors that might further reduce

population size. The occurrence of a single, catastrophic event, such

as the introduction of competitive species, or a prolonged period of

low or no flow, would significantly increase the likelihood of

extinction.

The introduction and establishment of the Red River shiner, a

species endemic to the Red River Drainage, into the Cimarron River in

Oklahoma and Kansas has had a detrimental effect on the Arkansas River

shiner (Cross et al. 1983, Felley and Cothran 1981). The Red River

shiner was first recorded from the Cimarron River in 1976 (Marshall

1978). The Red River shiner has since colonized the Cimarron River and

frequently may be a dominant component of the fish community (Cross et

al. 1983, Felley and Cothran 1981). The morphological characteristics,

population size, and ecological preferences exhibited by the Red River

shiner suggest that competition for food and other essential life

requisites occurs with Arkansas River shiners (Cross et al. 1983,

Felley and Cothran 1981). The unintentional release of Red River

shiners, or other potential competitors, into the Canadian River by

anglers or the commercial bait industry is a potentially serious threat

and could lead to decimation or extirpation of the remaining natural

Arkansas River shiner populations.

The limited occurrence of Red River pupfish (Cyprinodon

rubrofluviatilis) in the Canadian River drainage since 1969 (Pigg et

al. 1984) indicates that the release of at least one Red River endemic

has already occurred in this drainage. While the introduction of non-

native fish does not fully account for the disappearance of Arkansas

River shiners, particularly outside of the Cimarron River, competition

with introduced species can have a significant adverse impact on

Arkansas River shiner populations.

The reproductive characteristics and specialized spawning and early

life-history requirements of this species intensify the effects of

certain natural or manmade factors, such as drought. Successful

reproduction of the Arkansas River shiner appears to require precise

flow conditions conducive to breeding and embryonic development.

Spawning is triggered, in part, by abrupt increases in stream flow

during the late spring or summer (Cross et al. 1983, Moore 1944).

Stream flows favorable to spawning must be sustained over at least a 24

hour period to ensure complete embryonic and larval development. As

discussed under Factor A, suitable habitat conditions are becoming

scarce and where conditions are not favorable, rapid population

declines have occurred.

Declining populations of the Arkansas River shiner may also be due

to poor survival of juveniles. Bestgen et al. (1989) observed that

spawning in Arkansas River shiners appeared to be primarily limited to

age class I individuals, based on an absence of age class I and older

fish from collections made after the spawning period. The apparent

extremely high post-spawning mortality observed in Arkansas River

shiner populations in the Pecos River suggests that the reproductive

contribution of individuals in age class II or older is very limited.

Thus, the continued existence of Arkansas River shiner populations may

be almost entirely dependent upon successful annual reproduction and

subsequent recruitment of age class 0 (juvenile) individuals into the

population. The loss of a single reproductive event/cycle would

seriously reduce recruitment, and possibly lead to localized

extinctions. The fragmentation of Arkansas River shiner habitat by

impoundments intensifies the effects of failed reproduction by

hindering repopulation following rapid declines or localized

extinctions.

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by this species in determining to propose this

rule. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list the

Arkansas River basin population of the Arkansas River shiner as

endangered. Endangered status, which means that the species is in

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its

range, is appropriate for the Arkansas River shiner because of its

significantly reduced range, including the apparent extirpation of the

shiner in Arkansas, Kansas, and throughout much of its historic range

in Oklahoma. Threatened status does not appear appropriate considering

the extent of the species' population decline and the vulnerability of

the remaining populations.

Critical Habitat

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, requires that, to the maximum extent

prudent and determinable, the Secretary propose critical habitat at the

time the species is proposed to be endangered or threatened. The

Service finds that designation of critical habitat is not presently

determinable for this species. The Service's regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(2)) state that critical habitat is not determinable if

information sufficient to perform required analyses of the impacts of

the designation is lacking or if the biological needs of the species

are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as

critical habitat.

Arkansas River shiners occur at scattered locations throughout the

Canadian River. Specific habitat features, such as substrate

composition, water depths, and water velocities, preferred by Arkansas

River shiners are unknown and data explaining the distribution and

abundance of Arkansas River shiners within a given segment of stream

are lacking. Without this information, designation of critical habitat

is not possible because the Service cannot adequately determine the

precise constituent elements within specific areas that are essential

to the survival and recovery of the Arkansas River shiner. The Service

has initiated studies, funded under the provisions of Section 6(d) of

the Act, which will determine and characterize the specific physical

habitat requirements of the Arkansas River shiner. Within 2 years from

the date of publication of this proposed rule, the Service must

designate critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent (50 CFR

424.17(b)(2)).

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in

conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,

and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the States and authorizes recovery plans for all

listed species. The protection required of Federal agencies and the

prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as

endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if

any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency

cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part 402.

Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer informally with the

Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse

modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed

subsequently, Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into formal consultation with the Service.

A number of Federal agencies have jurisdiction and responsibilities

potentially affecting the Arkansas River shiner, and Section 7

consultation may be required in a number of instances. Federal

involvement is expected to include the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed

Lake Meredith Salinity Control Project and Corps of Engineers' multi-

purpose reservoir operations throughout the Arkansas River Basin. The

Corps of Engineers will also consider the Arkansas River shiner in

administration of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency will consider the Arkansas River shiner

in the registration of pesticides, adoption of water quality criteria,

and other pollution control programs. The U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, will consider the

effects of bridge and road construction at locations where known

habitat may be impacted. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service, will be required to consider the effects of

structures installed under the Watershed Protection and Floodwater

Prevention program. The U.S. Forest Service's management actions on the

Cimarron and Kiowa National Grasslands may also require Section 7

consultation.

The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set

forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all

endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for

any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take

(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or

collect, or to attempt any of these), import or export, ship in

interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or

offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It

also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship

any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions

apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such

permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the

propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in

connection with otherwise lawful activities.

Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed wildlife

and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico,

87103 (505/766-2914) and fax (505/766-8063).

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this

proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments

particularly are sought concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;

(2) The location of any additional populations of this species and

the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be

critical habitat as provided by Section 4 of the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of this species; and

(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their

possible impacts on this species.

Final promulgation of the regulation on this species will take into

consideration the comments and any additional information received by

the Service, and such communications may lead to a final regulation

that differs from this proposal.

The Endangered Species Act provides for a public hearing on this

proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the

date of publication of the proposal. Such requests must be made in

writing and addressed to Field Supervisor, Tulsa, Oklahoma (see

ADDRESSES above).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental

Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection

with regulations adopted pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Act. A notice

outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in

the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

Bestgen, K.R., S.P. Platania, J.E. Brooks, and D.L. Propst. 1989.

Dispersal and life history traits of Notropis girardi

(Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), introduced into the Pecos River, New

Mexico. Am. Midl. Nat. 122(2):228-235.

Buchanan, T.M. 1976. An evaluation of the effects of dredging within

the Arkansas River Navigation System, Volume V-the effects upon the

fish population. Ark. Water Resour. Res. Cen. Publ. No. 47. Univ.

Ark. Fayetteville. 277 pp.

Buckner, H.D., E. R. Carrillo, and H. J. Davidson. 1985. Water

resources data-Texas Water Year 1984: Volume 1. Arkansas River

Basin, Red River Basin, Sabine River Basin, Neches River Basin,

Trinity River Basin, and Intervening Coastal Basins. U.S. Dept.

Int., Geological Survey. Water-Data Rept. TX-84-1. Austin, TX. 485

pp.

Cross, F.B. 1970. Occurrence of the Arkansas River shiner, Notropis

girardi Hubbs and Ortenburger, in the Red River System. Southwest.

Nat. 14(3):370.

Cross, F.B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas. Univ. Kans. Mus.

Nat. Hist. Misc. Publ. No. 45. 357 pp.

Cross, F.B., O.T. Gorman, and S.G. Haslouer. 1983. The Red River

shiner, Notropis bairdi in Kansas with notes on depletion of its

Arkansas River cognate, Notropis girardi. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sci.

86:93-98.

Cross, F.B., R.E. Moss, and J.T. Collins. 1985. Assessment of

dewatering impacts on stream fisheries in the Arkansas and Cimarron

Rivers. Univ. Kans. Mus. Nat. Hist. Lawrence. 161 pp.

Felley, J.D., and E.G. Cothran. 1981. Notropis bairdi (Cyprinidae)

in the Cimarron River, Oklahoma. Southwest. Nat. 25:564.

Gilbert, C.R. 1978. Notropis girardi Hubbs and Ortenburger Arkansas

River shiner. P. 268 In: D. S. Lee et al. Atlas of North American

freshwater fishes. N. Carolina Biol. Surv. Publ. No. 1980-12. N.

Carolina State Mus. Nat. Hist., Raleigh. 854 pp.

Hubbs, C.L., and A.I. Ortenburger. 1929. Further notes on the fishes

of Oklahoma with descriptions of new species of Cyprinidae. Publ.

Univ. Okla. Biological Surv. 1(2):17-43.

Larson, R.D., A.A. Echelle, and A.V. Zale. 1990. Life history and

distribution of the Arkansas River shiner in Oklahoma. Job no. 1:

Status of threatened and endangered fishes in Oklahoma June 1, 1989

through May 31, 1990. Annual Performance Rept., Federal Aid Proj.

No. E-8-1. Okla. Dept. Wildl. Cons., Oklahoma City. 15 pp.

Larson, R.D., A.A. Echelle, and A.V. Zale. 1991. Life history and

distribution of the Arkansas River shiner in Oklahoma. Job no. 1:

Status of threatened and endangered fishes in Oklahoma June 1, 1989

through August 31, 1991. Final Rept., Federal Aid Proj. No. E-8.

Okla. Dept. Wildl. Cons., Oklahoma City. 94 pp.

Marshall, C.I. 1978. The distribution of Notropis bairdi along the

Cimarron River in Logan County, Oklahoma. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci.

58:109.

Miller, R.J., and H.W. Robison. 1973. The fishes of Oklahoma. Okla.

State Univ. Press, Stillwater. 246 pp.

Moore, G.A. 1944. Notes on the early life history of Notropis

girardi. Copeia 1944:209-214.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 1990. Oklahoma water atlas. Okla.

Water Res. Board Publ. 135. Oklahoma City, OK. 360 pp.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 1980. Oklahoma comprehensive water

plan. Okla. Water Res. Board Publ. 94. Oklahoma City, OK. 248 pp.

Peterson, G.L. 1986. Annual report Commercial Fisheries Research and

Development Act--January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986. NMFS

Proj. 2-410-R-3, Oklahoma Commercial Fishery Statistics. Okla. Dept.

Wildl. Cons., Oklahoma City. 11 pp.

Peterson, G.L. 1992. Annual report Oklahoma commercial fishery

statistics--January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992. Federal Aid

Proj. No. F-44-D-7. Okla. Dept. Wildl. Cons., Oklahoma City. 11 pp.

Peterson, G., and H. Weeks 1983. Final report Commercial Fisheries

Research and Development Act--January 1, 1983 through December 31,

1983. NMFS Proj. 2-396-R-1, Oklahoma Commercial Fishery Statistics

II. Okla. Dept. Wildl. Cons., Oklahoma City. n.p.

Pigg, J. 1991. Decreasing distribution and current status of the

Arkansas River shiner, Notropis girardi, in the rivers of Oklahoma

and Kansas. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 71:5-15.

Pigg, J. 1989. The current status of the Arkansas River shiner,

Notropis girardi in the Arkansas River Drainage of Oklahoma. Draft

Rept. Okla. Dept. of Health, State Water Quality Laboratory,

Oklahoma City. n.p.

Pigg, J., M.S. Coleman, and J. Duncan. 1992. An ecological

investigation of the ichthyofauna of the North Canadian River in

Oklahoma: 1976-1989. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 72:21-32.

Pigg, J., W. Harrison, and R. Gibbs. 1984. Red River pupfish,

Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis (Fowler) in the Arkansas River Drainage

in western Oklahoma. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 64:48.

Robison, H.W., and T.M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. Univ. of

Ark. Press, Fayetteville, AR. 536 pp.

Stinnett, D.P., R.W. Smith, and S.W. Conrady. 1988. Riparian areas

of western Oklahoma: a case study of the Canadian River. Pp. 22-29

In: P.J. Stuber, Coord. Proceedings of the national symposium on

protection of wetlands from agricultural impacts a compilation of

papers and discussions presented at Colorado State University, Fort

Collins, Colorado, April 25-29, 1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Biol. Rept. 88(16), Washington, D.C. 221 pp.

Stoner, J.D. 1985. Reported withdrawals and estimated use of water

in Oklahoma during 1982. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-Resources Invest.

Rept. 85-4084, Geological Survey. Oklahoma City. 96.

Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New

Mexico. Univ. New Mexico Press. Albuquerque, NM. 393 pp.

Texas Department of Water Resources. 1984. Water for Texas-technical

appendix, volume 2. Tex. Dept. Water Res. Austin, TX

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989. Water resources development by

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Arkansas. Southwestern Division,

Dallas, TX. 76 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Status report on Arkansas

River shiner (Notropis girardi). Kansas State Office, Region 6,

Manhattan, KS. 19 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Pecos bluntnose shiner

recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2,

Albuquerque, NM. 57 pp.

Williams, G.P., and M. G. Wolman. 1984. Downstream effects of dams

on alluvial rivers. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1286. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 81 pp.

Author

The primary author of this proposed rule is Ken Collins, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES above).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

PART 17--[AMENDED]

Accordingly, it is hereby proposed to amend part 17, subchapter B

of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth

below:

1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. It is proposed to amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following,

in alphabetical order under ``FISHES,'' to the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Species Vertebrate population

---------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special

Common name Scientific name threatened habitat rules

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fishes

* * * * * * *

Shiner, Arkansas River... Notropis girardi........ U.S.A. (AR, KS, NM, OK, Arkansas River basin E ........... NA NA

TX). (AR, KS, NM, OK, TX).

* * * * * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: July 14, 1994.

Mollie H. Beattie,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 94-18924 Filed 8-2-94; 8:45 am]

Billing Code 4310-55-p