[Federal Register: August 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 161)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48359-48362]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19au08-34]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-IA-2008-0092; 96100-1671-0000-B6]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Northern Snakehead Fish (Channa argus) Under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
90-day finding on a petition to list the northern snakehead fish
(Channa argus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act). We find that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing this species under the Act may be warranted. We will not
initiate a status review in response to this petition and,
consequently, will not consider the designation of critical habitat as
petitioned.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 19,
2008. New information concerning this species may be submitted for our
consideration at any time.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this
finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division
of Scientific Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA
22203; telephone, 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276. Please submit any
new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the above address or via electronic mail (e-mail) at
Scientificauthority@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie T. Maltese, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone, 703-358-1708; fax,
703-358-2276; or by e-mail, Scientificauthority@fws.gov. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information that the petitioned
action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information
provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the
petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time
we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to
make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and
publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information with
regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that amount of information
that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure
proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we
find that substantial information was presented, we are required to
promptly commence a review of the status of the species.
We base this finding on information provided by the petitioners
that we
[[Page 48360]]
determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the
petition and information available in our files at the time of the
petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50
CFR 424.14(b). Our process of making this 90-day finding under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is
limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition
meets the ``substantial scientific or commercial information''
threshold.
Petition History
On January 4, 2005, the Service received a petition dated December
30, 2004, from Alan D. Gardner, a member of the Washington County
Commission in Utah, on behalf of 14 additional county officials
representing 13 western States (petitioners), to list the northern
snakehead fish (Channa argus) as an endangered species and to designate
the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed as critical habitat. The petition
clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite
identification information as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a).
Previous Federal Actions
The Service published a final rule on October 4, 2002 (67 FR 62193)
that added all snakehead fishes of the family Channidae, including the
northern snakehead fish, to the list of injurious wildlife species
under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). In taking this action, the Service
found that all snakehead fishes are injurious to the wildlife and
wildlife resources of the United States. As an injurious species, the
interstate transportation and importation of any live animal or viable
egg of snakeheads into the United States without an injurious wildlife
permit is prohibited.
Species Information
The native range of the northern snakehead includes the middle and
lower Amur River basin of China; Songhua (Sungari) River, Manchuria;
Tunguska River at Khabarovsk, Russia; Ussuri River basin, Russia; Lake
Khanka, Korea, except the northeastern region; and rivers of China
south and southwest to the upper tributaries of the Chang Jian
(Yangtze) River basin in northeast Yunnan Province. The species has
been reported in Guangdong Province, China, either as an introduction
or perhaps because of misidentification of the species. Snakehead
fishes are widely distributed in Chinese reservoirs (Courtenay and
Williams 2004, p. 33). Northern snakehead fishes prefer stagnant
shallow ponds or swamps with mud substrates and aquatic vegetation.
This species also occupies slow-moving muddy streams, canals,
reservoirs, lakes, and rivers (Courtenay and Williams 2004, p. 38). The
northern snakehead tolerates a wide range of water temperatures, from 0
[deg]C (32 [deg]F) to more than 30 [deg]C (86 [deg]F) (Courtenay and
Williams 2004, p. 38).
The northern snakehead reaches sexual maturity at about 3 years of
age in the Amur region of China and the Syr Dar'ya region of
Uzbekistan; however, there have been reports that snakehead fishes in
Japanese waters have spawned at 2 years of age (Courtenay and Williams
2004, p. 38). Annual spawning rates vary by location and temperature,
from two to three times per year in the Syr Dar'ya basin, to as many as
five times per year in the Amur basin (Courtenay and Williams 2004, pp.
38-39).
Several species of snakehead fishes are capable of overland
migration by wriggling motions of their elongated, flattened bodies;
indeed, observations indicate that Channa species which are ventrally
flattened are the most capable of overland migrations (Courtenay and
Williams 2004, p. 10). Those species with more rounded bodies, such as
C. argus, are less likely to migrate because they have an extremely
limited ability to move on land except during floods.
The northern snakehead does not naturally occur in the Chesapeake
Bay or anywhere within the United States; it is considered an invasive,
non-native species within United States waters. The species' occurrence
within the United States is believed to be the result of accidental or
intentional releases of live fish purchased at fish markets for human
consumption, or pet fish which were previously available through the
aquarium trade, and have since grown too large for their tanks, or are
simply no longer wanted.
The petitioners did not make it clear whether they were petitioning
to list the entire species or the specific non-native population of the
northern snakehead that currently inhabits several areas within the
Chesapeake Bay region. We determined that the petitioners intended to
petition the Service to list the Chesapeake Bay population of the
northern snakehead fish because information submitted with the petition
focuses on the species in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Therefore, we
have evaluated the petition, and the supporting documentation that was
included with the petition, to determine if substantial scientific or
commercial information has been presented to indicate that listing the
northern snakehead fish within the Chesapeake Bay watershed may be
warranted.
To support the petition, the petitioners submitted a three-page
report, ``Northern Snakehead Channa argus'' written by John Franklin
Heppler, Professor of Biology associated with Dixie State College of
Utah, and a double-sided fact sheet, ``Do You Know the Difference?''--
published by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
The petition stated that there are extremely low numbers of the
species in the Potomac River and the Pohick Bay in Virginia, and that
the few snakehead fish that have been located have been destroyed. It
further states that because the number of fish is low, the species
could easily go extinct in the United States, and therefore, it must be
listed immediately before additional take can occur. The petitioners
did not provide any supporting documentation to support these
statements about snakehead population numbers. Furthermore, according
to the petitioners, ``if the snakehead fish lived in the West, no
expense, or no expanse of land, would be too great to protect a fish of
this caliber if it were threatened by extinction.''
The report that was compiled by Dr. John Franklin Heppler,
``Northern Snakehead Channa argus'', is a three-page document that
describes the natural history of the species. It did not address
specific threats to the species that might warrant the petitioned
action. The document begins with a brief description of the species'
taxonomy, a physical description of the fish, and a discussion of the
snakeheads' unique capability of breathing atmospheric oxygen, which
allows it to move across land in some instances. Information regarding
the species' trophic level (the level in the food chain defined by the
method of obtaining food), habitat preferences, and reproductive
requirements were also addressed within the report. The author
suggested that the species was introduced into non-native habitats
through: (1) Intentional releases by pet owners and, (2) released live
fish from live fish markets. The petition states that snakehead fish
have been found in seven States: California, Florida, Illinois,
Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and are assumed
to be breeding in Florida, Maryland, and Virginia, although there was
no documentation to support this assumption. The author also noted that
several States are conducting investigations of people who are rearing
the species or who have released snakehead fish. Confiscations of live
[[Page 48361]]
fish have occurred, according to Dr. Heppler; but again, documentation
was not presented to support this statement. The author speculates that
the northern snakehead may be able to transfer pathogens and that
Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome (EUS) has been ``fairly well documented''
as being a transmittable pathogen to native aquatic species. In spite
of these statements, there is no discussion regarding the cause of EUS,
or any other pathogens, in snakehead fishes, nor is there any data
presented in this report regarding the suggested pathogenicity of EUS
in fishes native to the United States.
Dr. Heppler mentions the Service's listing of all snakehead species
as injurious wildlife in the report, and notes that about 20 States had
banned possession of live specimens of snakehead fishes by 2004. He
further suggests that it will be many years before we know the impact
the species will have on our aquatic waterways, but that introduced
species are not always unwelcome, citing the introduction of wolves
into Yellowstone [National Park]. However, citing the re-introduction
of a native species (wolves) to its former native habitat (Yellowstone
National Park) is quite different than introducing a non-native
predacious fish species to an aquatic waterway outside of its natural
range. The report ends with a caution that impacts of the species'
introductions should be monitored to see if these ``introduced species
would actually assimilate in time and become part of a viable aquatic
ecosystem.''
The other supporting documentation submitted with the petition is a
two-page fact sheet published by the Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries: ``Do you know the difference?''--which targets the
sport-fishing community. Drawings of the northern snakehead fish,
bowfin (Amia calva), and American eel (Anguilla rostrata) are
exhibited, and specific morphological features that differentiate
between the species, such as the absence or presence of specific fins,
and fin length and size comparisons, are indicated. On the reverse side
of the page is a map of the Potomac River in Maryland, the District of
Columbia, and northern Virginia, indicating northern snakehead fish
capture sites in 2004. This documentation is merely informational, and
does not present any substantial information, scientific or commercial,
that indicates that the petitioned action may be warranted.
Threats Analysis
Under section 4(a) of the Act, we may list a species on the basis
of five threat factors: (A) Present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) Inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted
based on any of the above threat factors, either singly or in
combination.
Under the Act, a threatened species is defined as a species which
is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An endangered
species is defined as a species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we
evaluate the petition to determine if it contains substantial
scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
The petition did not include any information on threats to the
northern snakehead by the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range in the Chesapeake
Bay region or its native habitat and range. Therefore, the petition and
its supporting documentation did not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing the northern snakehead
as threatened or endangered may be warranted, under this threat factor.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition notes that snakehead fish are a favored food
throughout Southeast Asia and that certain cultures believe the species
may have curative properties. Accordingly, the petition asserts that
they have been in great demand in the United States. As of 2004 when
this report was written, the author notes that live snakehead fish were
still being sold at fish markets and in some restaurants in Boston and
New York. Previously, snakehead fish have been popular as a curiosity
in the pet trade, and the author claims that in 2004, they could be
purchased on eBay. An unconfirmed statement in the report also noted
that some Asian religious practices may involve releasing live fish
into waterways. Therefore, the petitioners maintain that snakehead
fishes are used for commercial and recreational purposes; however, they
did not indicate that overutilization for these or any other purposes
is a threat to the species.
C. Disease or Predation
The author of the report indicates, in an unconfirmed statement,
that the northern snakehead may be able to transmit pathogens to native
fish species. However, the standard under section 4(a) of the Act is
whether disease presents a threat to the petitioned species, not
whether the petitioned species presents a disease threat to other
species. The author further notes that Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome
(EUS) has been fairly well documented as being a transmittable pathogen
to native species. Therefore, while the discussion of disease within
the petition infers that the northern snakehead could be a threat to
native species through the transmission of disease, it does not
specifically present any information indicating that disease is a
threat to the northern snakehead.
Likewise, the northern snakehead appears to have no natural
predators in the United States. Predation by the northern snakehead is
a threat to native species, but predation is not a threat to the
northern snakehead (Heppler 2004, p.1). Once again, the petition
indicates that the threat is actually reversed (the snakehead fish is
the threat to the native species) and provides no information showing
that predation is a threat to the northern snakehead fishes.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the northern
snakehead within the Chesapeake Bay region. We are not aware of any
existing regulatory mechanisms within the species' native range. The
report submitted with the petition mentioned that all members of the
family Channidae were added to the Service's list of injurious fish,
mollusks, and crustaceans on October 4, 2002 (67 FR 62193). As an
injurious species, the Service has found that this non-native, invasive
species is likely to compete with native species and may transmit
parasites to native species. Live snakeheads currently in captivity
have a high likelihood of escape into the wild in the United States,
and once established, are expected to multiply rapidly. The injurious
wildlife listing prohibits the interstate transportation and
importation of any live snakehead fish or viable eggs into the United
States without an injurious wildlife permit. The petition and its
supporting documentation did not present
[[Page 48362]]
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing the northern snakehead as threatened or endangered may be
warranted under this threat factor.
E. Other Natural or Man-made Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
The petitioners did not present any further information describing
any other natural or man-made factors that are considered to be threats
which would affect the continued existence of the species. Therefore,
the petition and its supporting documentation did not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing the northern snakehead as threatened or endangered may be
warranted under this threat factor.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and the literature cited in the
petition. We find that substantial scientific or commercial information
has not been presented by the petitioners to indicate that listing the
northern snakehead fish as a threatened species or an endangered
species under the Act may be warranted. We will not commence a status
review in response to this petition and, consequently, will not
consider the designation of critical habitat, as petitioned.
References Cited
Courtenay, Walter R. Jr. and J. D. Williams. 2002. Snakeheads
(Pisces: Channidae): A biological synopsis and risk assessment. USGS
Florida Integrated Science Centers, Gainesville, Florida. 162 pp.
Heppler, John Franklin. 2004. Northern Snakehead Channa argus.
Report compiled for a petition to list the northern snakehead under
the Endangered Species Act. 3pp.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2004. Do you know
the difference? Fisheries fact sheet. 2pp.
Author
The primary author of this notice is Marie T. Maltese, Division of
Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 28, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-19155 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P