Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64337

requirements, packing densities,

materials requirements, venomous

species shipping requirements, and

other related issues.

In addition the Service has received

numerous criticisms of the proposed

rule from the commercial trade

community involved in exporting

hatchling farm raised turtles. The

Service notes that this proposed rule

does not affect the export of live reptiles

and amphibians from the United States

or their interstate (domestic) commerce.

Under the Lacey Act Amendments of

1981, the Service does not have the

statutory authority to regulate humane

and healthful transport of live reptiles

and amphibians being exported from the

United States. Therefore, the only

humane and healthful transport rules

applicable to the export of non-CITES

reptiles and amphibians from the

United States are the IATA Live

Animals Regulations, which are

enforced privately by participating

airlines. Exports of live CITES-listed

reptiles and amphibians are still

required to be shipped in accordance

with IATA packing requirements, but

that requirement is independent, and

not related to, this proposed

rulemaking. This proposed rule applies

only to live reptiles and amphibians

being imported into the United States.

In order to provide the public with

additional opportunities to

communicate with the Service regarding

these proposed regulations, and to

provide an opportunity to clarify

misunderstandings in the public sector

regarding this proposed rule, including

its content and the process of Federal

rulemaking, the Service will reopen the

comment period from January 17–

February 17, and hold two public

meetings during that time, one in New

York, NY, and one in Los Angeles, CA,

as discussed above (see DATES and

ADDRESSES). These two cities were

selected by the Service because of the

high volume of live reptiles and

amphibians which are imported into the

United States through local Fish and

Wildlife Service designated ports, and

the corresponding concentration of

affected members of the general public.

Interested members of the general

public are encouraged to attend these

meetings to communicate their opinions

and pertinent factual information to the

Service regarding the proposed

regulations which can be utilized by the

Service in preparation of a final rule.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Lacey Act, as amended (18 U.S.C. 42

(c)).

Dated: November 26, 1997.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97–31925 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AC62

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Public

Comment Period on the 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; Notice reopening

the public comment period.

SUMMARY: On August 3, 1994, the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

proposed to list the Arkansas River

basin population of the Arkansas (AR)

River shiner (Notropis girardi) as an

endangered species under the authority

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended (Act)(59 FR 39532). Public

comments were solicited, three public

hearings were held, and the last

comment period expired on February 3,

1995 (60 FR 2070).

The enactment of Pub. L. 104–6 in

April 1995, and a series of continuing

resolutions from October 1, 1995,

through April 26, 1996, established a

moratorium against issuing final listings

or critical habitat designations. The

Service’s listing program was essentially

shut down and listing program

personnel were reassigned to other

duties. When the moratorium was lifted,

the Service published guidance for

assigning relative priorities to listing

actions conducted under section 4 of the

Act during Fiscal Year 1997 (61 FR

64475).

This species was proposed for

endangered status in 1994. New

information concerning the AR River

shiner’s status has since become

available.

This notice identifies possible issues

the public should be aware of and

provides the public opportunity to

comment on these issues. All previous

comments submitted in response to the

August 3, 1994, proposal, including

comments that were received after the

expiration of the previous comment

periods, will be entered into the public

record for the AR River shiner.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by January 5,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

materials should be sent to: Supervisor,

Ecological Services Field Office, 222

South Houston, Suite A, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74127–8909. 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 (telephone

918/581–7458 ext. 230).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 3, 1994 (59 FR 39532), the

Service proposed to list the Arkansas

River basin population of the AR River

shiner (Notropis girardi) as an

endangered species under the authority

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended (Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.). The introduced population which

occurs in the Pecos River basin is not

under consideration for protection

under the Act because it is not native to

the area.

Two public comment periods were

established, with the last comment

period expiring on February 3, 1995 (60

FR 2070). During the second comment

period, the Service held three public

hearings, one each in Kansas,

Oklahoma, and Texas. The Service

received 602 comments (letters and oral

testimony) from 567 individuals or

agencies, including a petition

containing the names of 36 individuals.

Contents of the written comments and

oral statements obtained during the

public hearings and comment periods

were being evaluated at the time Public

Law 104–6 was enacted.

The enactment of Pub. L. 104–6 in

April 1995, and a series of continuing

resolutions from October 1, 1995,

through April 26, 1996, established a

moratorium against issuing final listings

or critical habitat designations. Funding

for the Service’s listing program was

severely reduced or eliminated and

listing personnel were reassigned to

other duties, essentially shutting down

the listing program.

On April 26, 1996, President Clinton

approved the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1996 and

exercised the authority granted under

this Act to waive the listing moratorium.

When the moratorium was lifted, the

Service published guidance for

assigning relative priorities to listing

actions conducted under section 4 of the

Act during Fiscal Year 1997 (61 FR

64475). Based on this priority system,
64338 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

the listing of the Arkansas River basin

population of the AR River shiner was

assigned to Tier 2. Tier 2 includes

processing of final decisions on pending

proposed listings. The Service has

determined that an additional comment

period is needed to allow public

comment on all relevant information

that has arisen since the close of the last

comment period for the AR River

shiner.

Summary of Information Relevant to

the Listing Decision

The Service has received information

indicating that populations of AR River

shiners in the Canadian River upstream

from Lake Meredith may be stable (and

not declining as suggested in the

proposed rule).

1. Effects of the Bureau of

Reclamations’s Lake Meredith Salinity

Control Project

In the proposed rule, the U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation’s (Bureau) Lake

Meredith Salinity Control Project was

identified as a significant, ongoing

threat to the aggregations of AR River

shiners that occur in the Canadian River

between Ute Reservoir in New Mexico

and Lake Meredith in Texas. Based on

information available at the time of the

proposed listing, the abundance of AR

River shiners within this stream

segment were believed to be declining

and operation of the salinity control

project would have resulted in

significant reductions in stream flow,

affecting habitat for the species within

the Canadian River above Lake

Meredith. New information (J.C.

Williams, Canadian River Municipal

Water Authority, in litt. 1997; Gene

Wilde, Texas Tech University, in litt.

1997; Bureau 1995) does not support

this assertion and the Service solicits

questions and comments regarding this

issue.

2. Influence of the High Plains Aquifer

on Canadian River Stream Flows

New information provided by the U.S.

Geological Survey, State of Texas, and

High Plains Underground Water

Conservation District clarified the

influence of the High Plains aquifer

(Ogallala Aquifer) on Canadian River

stream flows, particularly upstream of

Lake Meredith. The High Plains aquifer

in Texas underlies all or portions of 48

counties of the Panhandle region. The

aquifer is constricted in the vicinity of

Randall and Potter counties, Texas, and

this constriction is considered a

subdivision boundary which divides the

Southern High Plains from the Central

High Plains regions (Dugan and Sharpe

1996). Groundwater in the Southern

High Plains region moves in a

southeasterly direction away from the

Canadian River, based on the altitude of

water levels within the aquifer

(Peckham and Ashworth 1993). This

region of the aquifer appears to have

little influence, if any, over observed

stream flows within the Canadian River

in Texas.

Upstream of the Hutchinson-Roberts

County line, including Lake Meredith,

the Canadian River stream bed is below

the elevation of the High Plains aquifer

(John Ashworth, Texas Water

Development Board, in litt. 1995).

Induced recharge of the High Plains

aquifer by the Canadian River within

this segment, caused by a lowering of

the water table, is not likely to occur.

The primary influence of the High

Plains aquifer on stream flow within

this reach would be predominantly

through spring flow and similar

emissions (e.g., natural discharge) where

the water table intersects the land

surface (Peckham and Ashworth 1993,

Brune 1981, Texas State Board of

Engineers 1938a, 1938b).

The contribution of the High Plains

aquifer to stream flows downstream of

Lake Meredith, and the influence of

groundwater pumping on observed

stream flows, is difficult to determine

with the existing information available

to the Service. Considering the small

amounts of springflow within this

segment, reductions in such flows are

not likely to have had a profound

impact on stream flows or habitat for the

AR River shiner. Any impact from a

reduction or cessation of springflow is

considerably less significant than the

influence of Lake Meredith on current

stream flows. The Service requests

questions, comments, or any new

information regarding the High Plains

Aquifer. Information indicates that

withdrawals from the High Plains

aquifer may have affected stream flow

within the Canadian River in Roberts

and Hemphill counties, Texas, but the

data necessary to confirm this

assumption or determine the degree to

which stream flows have been affected

is lacking. Comments are sought on this

particular issue, including any

information that would clarify the

influence of the High Plains aquifer on

stream flows in this stream segment.

3. Susceptibility of Extant Populations

to Catastrophic Events

The proposed rule indicated that the

Arkansas River basin population was

essentially limited to one river system

and was extremely susceptible to

extinction from a single catastrophic

event. In making this determination, the

Service essentially discounted the small

aggregations of AR River shiners

occurring in the Cimarron River and

considered the artificially isolated

aggregations upstream of Lake Meredith

vulnerable to the same singular

catastrophic event. Likewise, the

Service considered any AR River shiner

aggregations in the Beaver/North

Canadian River to be the result of

releases by commercial bait operators

and such aggregations did not represent

a naturally reproducing or selfsustaining population. Upon review of

comments received during the comment

periods, the Service has reassessed the

significance of these factors in the status

of the species.

Lake Meredith is an effective artificial

barrier to movement of stream fishes

and does provide a small degree of

protection to AR River shiner

aggregations upstream of Lake Meredith

from introductions of nonnative fishes

that might occur downstream of the

reservoir. Essentially two separate

events would be required to affect both

the upstream and downstream

aggregations. Consequently, the Service

acknowledges that a single catastrophic

event, such as establishment of the nonnative Red River shiners, would not

necessarily affect existing aggregations

of AR River shiners in the Canadian/

South Canadian River system

simultaneously. However, aggregations

of AR River shiners upstream of Lake

Meredith are less numerous than those

in the remainder of the Canadian/South

Canadian River system and the risk of

extinction for the Arkansas River basin

population would increase if Red River

shiners became established downstream

of Lake Meredith.

Comments (from one individual)

during the public comment period

indicate that AR River shiners may still

exist in the Beaver/North Canadian

River near Turpin, Oklahoma. Likewise,

AR River shiners may still occur in the

Cimarron River. The Service recognizes

that additional aggregations of AR River

shiners may occur outside the

Canadian/South Canadian River system.

However, the viability of these

aggregations is unknown and their

present contribution to survival of the

Arkansas River basin population is

likely to be minimal considering the

small size of these aggregations.

The Service also did not adequately

consider the importance of the Pecos

River population to the survival of the

Arkansas River basin population of the

AR River shiner. The Pecos River

population was accidentally established

with individuals trans-located from the

Arkansas River basin and could be used

in conservation efforts following a

severe drought within the Arkansas
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64339

River basin. While the Pecos River

population is nonnative and not

currently proposed for protection under

the Act, this population essentially

represents a refugia population that

could be utilized in restoration efforts.

The Service requests any additional

information, questions, or comments

regarding AR River shiner aggregations.

4. Status of Population Above Lake

Meredith

Recent (1995–96) data collected by

Texas Tech University, supports the

position of the Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department (TPWD) for the aggregations

of AR River shiners upstream of Lake

Meredith. At the time of the publication

of the proposed rule, AR River shiner

aggregations upstream of Lake Meredith

were believed to be declining in

abundance. However, current data may

indicate otherwise. While the number of

AR River shiners collected upstream of

Lake Meredith has declined since the

1950’s, the relative abundance of the AR

River shiner in this stream segment has

remained almost constant. Except for

1990 collections, the relative abundance

of AR River shiners within this stream

segment has varied between 22 and 26

percent (Gene Wilde, Texas Tech

University, in litt. 1997). The Service

requests information on the aggregations

of AR River shiners between Ute

Reservoir and Lake Meredith.

5. The Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) Between the Service and the

States of Texas and Oklahoma

On March 7, 1997, the Service met

with representatives from four of the

five affected State fish and wildlife

conservation agencies and the Bureau to

discuss conservation of the Arkansas

River basin population of the AR River

shiner. The Kansas Department of

Wildlife and Parks was unable to send

a representative to this meeting. The

invited parties included those agencies

with the responsibility, authority, and

funding mechanisms to implement

conservation actions for the AR River

shiner.

Following this meeting, the Service

and the states of Texas and Oklahoma

cooperated in drafting a MOU outlining

actions the agencies should undertake to

conserve the species. The purpose of the

draft MOU is twofold—(1) to establish a

general framework for cooperation

among the signatory parties to conserve

the Arkansas River basin population of

the AR River shiner, and (2) to seek

commitments from the signatory states

that will provide conservation benefits

to the shiner, thereby lessening the

likelihood of extinction.

The TPWD and the Oklahoma

Department of Wildlife (ODWC) will

accomplish the following actions under

the MOU, to the extent that funding and

authorities allow:

(A) Work in partnership with the

Service and other State fish and wildlife

resource agencies to develop and

implement a detailed conservation

strategy to address known and possible

future threats to the AR River shiner,

and recovery opportunities;

implementation of the conservation

strategy will be initiated within 18

months from the effective date of this

MOU.

(B) Work in partnership with the

Service to coordinate with other

applicable State agencies and other

stakeholders to develop adequate

actions that eliminate or reduce threats

to the AR River shiner and identify

recovery actions for inclusion in the

conservation strategy.

(C) Work in partnership with the

Service to develop and implement a

systematic program to annually monitor

the distribution and abundance of the

AR River shiner and other nongame

fishes within the Arkansas River Basin

within each State (the McClellan-Kerr

Arkansas River Navigation System is

exempt).

Likewise, the Service agreed to

accomplish the following actions under

the MOU, to the extent that funding and

authorities allow:

(A) Work in partnership with the

ODWC, TPWD and other State fish and

wildlife resource agencies in the

development of a conservation strategy

that involves appropriate stakeholders,

including applicable Federal and State

agencies, that identifies appropriate

measures needed to eliminate or reduce

threats to the AR River shiner and

initiate recovery actions. The Service

will coordinate the first meeting with

future coordination responsibilities

determined by consensus.

(B) Seek to increase Endangered

Species Act section 6 funds and assist

in obtaining funds from other sources

for states within the geographic range of

the AR River shiner to assist in the

conservation of this species as outlined

in this MOU, the conservation strategy,

and the recovery plan.

(C) If the species is listed as

threatened, work cooperatively with the

State fish and wildlife resource agencies

in promulgating a 4(d) rule under the

Act that encompasses the conservation

strategy and other management/recovery

actions developed by the Service in

partnership with the State fish and

wildlife resource agencies.

(D) Initiate delisting activities for the

AR River shiner when protection under

the Act is no longer warranted and the

Service and State fish and wildlife

resource agencies fulfill the obligations

stipulated in the 4(d) rule, the

conservation strategy, and recovery

plan.

The draft MOU also contains an

appendix specific to Texas that reflects

the unique nature of the threats and

recovery opportunities available in that

State and will serve to guide

development of the conservation

strategy for the AR River shiner. The

Texas appendix contains these

principles—

(A) Conservation strategies will not

restrict or regulate groundwater use of

the High Plains Aquifer (formerly the

Ogallala Aquifer) in Texas since, based

on current knowledge, there is no

hydrologic connection between

groundwater resources of this aquifer

and surface flows in the Canadian River

in Texas. Conservation of the aquifer’s

water resources, however, is

encouraged.

(B) Conservation strategies will not

require releases of water from Lake

Meredith, except as might be voluntarily

agreed to by controlling authorities in

contributing to the conservation and

recovery of the species and its habitat.

(C) Existing (i.e., traditional, in the

sense that they are ongoing) agricultural

and land management activities as

currently practiced adjacent to occupied

AR River shiner habitat in Texas will

not be adversely affected as part of

developing and implementing

conservation strategies, unless—(1)

those practices are modified to

adversely affect the species or its

habitat, existing stream flow, or

degradation of water quality; or (2)

changes in those practices would benefit

the species or its habitat, and are

mutually agreed to by the landowner(s),

TPWD, and the Service.

The draft MOU will become effective

upon signature of all parties, and will

remain in force until modified or

terminated. The MOU may be modified

at any time during the period of

performance by mutual consent of the

signatory parties. If changes to an

appendix are warranted, the respective

State and the Service may make such

changes. If a proposed change to an

appendix would affect other signatory

states, then all signatory parties must

consent to the change. This MOU, as

drafted, may be terminated at any time

during the period of performance, upon

30 days written notice, by any of the

signatory parties.

The TPWD and the ODWC signed the

draft MOU in early May. The State of

Kansas declined to enter into the MOU

due to staff and fiscal constraints (Steve
64340 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Williams, Secretary, Kansas Department

of Wildlife and Parks, in litt. 1997).

Likewise, the State of New Mexico

declined to enter into the MOU due to

staff and fiscal constraints (Jerry A.

Maracchini, Director, New Mexico

Department of Game and Fish, in litt.

1997).

Public Comments Solicited

The Service solicits written comments

on information described in this notice.

All previous comments and information

submitted in response to earlier

comment periods on this proposed

action will be considered.

Communications received during this

comment period may lead to a final

regulation that differs from that

presented in this notice.

References Cited

Brune, G. 1981. Springs of Texas volume I.

Branch-Smith, Inc. Fort Worth, TX

Dugan, J.T. and J.B. Sharpe. 1996. Water-level

changes in the High Plains aquifer

predevelopment to 1994. WaterResources Investigations Report 95–

4208. U.S. Geological Survey. Lincoln,

NE.

Peckham, D.S. and J.B. Ashworth. 1993. The

High Plains aquifer system of Texas,

1980 to 1990 overview and projections.

Texas Water Development Board. Austin,

TX 34 pp.

Texas State Board of Water Engineers. 1938a.

Oldham County, Texas records of wells

and springs, driller’s logs, water analysis

and map showing location of wells and

springs. WPA Project 6017–5674. State

Board of Water Engineers, U.S.

Geological Survey, and Univ. Texas

Bureau of Industrial Chemistry. Austin,

TX. 50 pp.

Texas State Board of Water Engineers. 1938b.

Potter County, Texas records of wells,

springs, and representative earthen

tanks, driller’s logs, water analysis and

map showing location of wells. WPA

Ground-water Survey Project 5674. State

Board of Water Engineers, Univ. Texas

Bureau of Industrial Chemistry, and U.S.

Geological Survey. Austin, TX. 52 pp.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1995. Final

supplemental environmental assessment

Lake Meredith Salinity Control Project

Texas-New Mexico. Great Plains Region,

Oklahoma-Texas Area Office. Oklahoma

City, OK 57 pp.

Author

The primary author of this notice is

Ken Collins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (see ADDRESSES above).

Authority

The authority for this action is 16

U.S.C. 1531–1544.

Dated: November 24, 1997.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97–31840 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE39

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Endangered

Status for Two Cave Animals From

Kauai, Hawaii

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) proposes endangered

status pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),

for two animals—the Kauai cave wolf

spider (Adelocosa anops), and the Kauai

cave amphipod (Spelaeorchestia

koloana). These two species are found

on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. The

Kauai cave wolf spider is known from

two populations, and Kauai cave

amphipod is known from four

populations. These animals and their

habitats have been variously affected or

are currently threatened by the

following: Habitat degradation/loss from

development; competition for space,

water, and nutrients by naturalized,

introduced animals; biological/chemical

pesticide use; and an increased

likelihood of extinction from proposed

development activities and naturally

occurring events. This proposal, if made

final, would extend Federal protection

and recovery provisions of the Act for

these animal taxa. Additionally, Hawaii

state regulations protecting these

animals as endangered species would be

triggered.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by February 3,

1998. Public hearing requests must be

received by January 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material

concerning this proposal should be sent

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 6307,

P.O. Box 50167, Honolulu, Hawaii

96850. Comments and material received

will be available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert P. Smith, Pacific Islands

Ecoregion Manager, at the above address

(808/541–2749).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Kauai cave wolf spider

(Adelocosa anops) and Kauai cave

amphipod (Spelaeorchestia koloana) are

known only from the Hawaiian island of

Kauai. The Kauai cave wolf spider is

known from two populations, and Kauai

cave amphipod from four populations.

The Hawaiian archipelago includes

eight large volcanic islands (Niihau,

Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai,

Kahoolawe, Maui, and Hawaii), as well

as offshore islets, shoals, and atolls set

on submerged volcanic remnants at the

northwest end of the chain (the

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands). Each

island was built sequentially from

frequent, voluminous basaltic lava flows

(Stearns 1985). The youngest island,

Hawaii, is still volcanically active, and

retains its form of coalesced, gently

sloping, unweathered shield volcanoes.

Vulcanism on the older islands has long

since ceased, with subsequent erosion

forming heavily weathered valleys with

steep walls, and well-developed streams

and soils (Zimmerman 1948).

In the formation of the islands, the

lava flows create caves, cracks, gas

pockets and smaller, interconnected

subterranean spaces or mesocaverns

(Howarth 1973; 1987a). While unique

subterranean faunas have long been

known from temperate continental cave

systems, until the 1970’s obligate cave

inhabiting animals were thought to be

absent from tropical and island systems

(Howarth 1987a). In the last 3 decades,

however, a remarkable assemblage of

about 50 species of cave-adapted

animals have been discovered in

Hawaiian caves (Howarth 1972; 1987a,

b). Cave adapted species have evolved

directly from native surface dwelling

ancestors in at least 12 groups of

Hawaiian arthropods (Howarth 1991).

These obligate cave-dwellers are

generally found on the younger islands

where an abundance of unweathered

lava flows exist (Howarth 1983c). On

older islands, soil formation, erosion

and siltation have filled in most

subterranean voids thus eliminating the

habitat for cave animals. The island of

Kauai is the oldest of the eight major

Hawaiian islands and was formed by a

single shield volcano approximately 5.6

million years ago (Stearns 1985). Three

million years of weathering eliminated

most cave habitats formed during this

initial vulcanism. Between 0.6 and 1.4

million years ago, the Koloa series of

post-erosional lava flows again provided

available habitat for subterranean

animals. Subsequent erosion also filled

in most of the habitat in the Koloa series