[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18924]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 3, 1994]


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

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