Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66295

should be addressed to the Audio

Services Division, (202) 418–2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 97–195,

adopted December 3, 1997, and released

December 12, 1997. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC’s Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Hawaii, is amended

by adding Haiku, Channel 293C.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–33047 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–193; RM–9125]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Kaunakakai, HI

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel

272C to Kaunakakai, Hawaii, as that

community’s first local aural

transmission service, in response to a

petition for rule making filed on behalf

of Native Hawaiian Broadcasting. See 62

FR 47406, September 9, 1997.

Coordinates used for Channel 272C at

Kaunakakai, Hawaii, are 21–05–30 and

157–01–24. With this action, the

proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective January 26, 1998. A

filing window for Channel 272C at

Kaunakakai, Hawaii, will not be opened

at this time. Instead, the issue of

opening a filing window for this

channel will be addressed by the

Commission in a subsequent Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180. Questions related to the

window application filing process

should be addressed to the Audio

Services Division, (202) 418–2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 97–193,

adopted November 26, 1997, and

released December 12, 1997. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC’s Reference Center (Room 239),

1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The complete text of this decision may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Hawaii, is amended

by adding Kaunakakai, Channel 272C.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–33045 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD28

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Final Rule To List Three

Aquatic Invertebrates in Comal and

Hays Counties, TX, as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) determines three aquatic

invertebrate species known only from

Comal and Hays counties, Texas, to be

endangered species under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). The invertebrates to be

listed are Peck’s cave amphipod

(Stygobromus pecki), Comal Springs

riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis),

and Comal Springs dryopid beetle

(Stygoparnus comalensis). The primary

threat to these species is a decrease in

water quantity and quality as a result of

water withdrawal and other human

activities throughout the San Antonio

segment of the Edwards Aquifer. This

action implements Federal protection

provided by the Act for these three

invertebrates.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the Ecological Services Field

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin,

Texas 78758.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ruth Stanford, Ecologist (see ADDRESSES

section) (512/490–0057; facsimile (512/

490–0974).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Service designates Peck’s cave

amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), Comal

Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis

comalensis), and Comal Springs dryopid

beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis) as

endangered under the authority of the

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). These three

aquatic invertebrate species are

restricted in distribution to spring sites

in Comal and Hays counties, Texas, and

in the case of Peck’s cave amphipod and

Comal Springs dryopid beetle, the

associated aquifer. Peck’s cave

amphipod is known from Comal Springs

and Hueco Springs, both in Comal

County. The Comal Springs riffle beetle

is known from Comal Springs and San

Marcos Springs (Hays County). The

Comal Springs dryopid beetle is known

from Comal Springs and Fern Bank

Springs (Hays County).

The water flowing out of each of these

spring orifices comes from the Edwards

Aquifer (Balcones Fault Zone—San

Antonio Region), which extends from

Hays County west to Kinney County.

Comal Springs are located in Landa

Park, which is owned and operated by

the City of New Braunfels, and on

private property adjacent to Landa Park.

Hueco Springs and Fern Bank Springs

are located on private property. The San

Marcos Springs are located on the

property of Southwest Texas State

University.
66296 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Peck’s cave amphipod is a

subterranean, aquatic crustacean in the

family Crangonyctidae. The Comal

Springs riffle beetle is an aquatic,

surface-dwelling species in the family

Elmidae. The Comal Springs dryopid

beetle is the only known subterranean

member of the beetle family Dryopidae.

Elmid and dryopid beetles live

primarily in flowing, uncontaminated

waters.

The first recorded specimen of the

amphipod Stygobromus (=Stygonectes)

pecki (Holsinger 1967) was collected by

Peck at Comal Springs in June 1964.

Reddell collected a second specimen at

the same place in May 1965. In 1967,

Holsinger named the species

Stygonectes pecki, in Peck’s honor,

selecting the 1965 specimen as the type

specimen. Later he included all the

nominal Stygonectes species in the

synonymy of the large genus

Stygobromus. The Service has used

‘‘cave amphipod’’ as a generic common

name for members of this genus, and

this name was simply transliterated as

‘‘Peck’s cave amphipod’’ without

reference to a particular cave.

Over 300 specimens of Peck’s cave

amphipod have been collected since its

description. Most specimens were

netted from crevices in rock and gravel

near the three largest orifices of Comal

Springs on the west side of Landa Park

in Comal County, Texas (Arsuffi 1993,

Barr 1993). Barr collected one specimen

from a fourth Comal spring run on

private property adjacent to Landa Park

and one specimen from Hueco Springs,

about 7 kilometers (km) (4 miles (mi))

north of Comal Springs (Barr 1993).

Despite extensive collecting efforts, no

specimens have been found in other

areas of the Edwards Aquifer.

Like all members of the exclusively

subterranean genus Stygobromus, this

species is eyeless and unpigmented,

indicating that its primary habitat is a

zone of permanent darkness in the

underground aquifer feeding the

springs. Above ground, individuals are

easy prey for predators, but they usually

take shelter in the rock and gravel

crevices and may succeed in reentering

the spring orifice. Barr (1993) got most

specimens in drift nets at spring orifices

and found them less often as she moved

downstream, supporting the notion that

they may be easy prey and do not likely

survive for long outside the aquifer.

The Comal Springs riffle beetle is a

small, aquatic beetle known from Comal

Springs and San Marcos Springs. It was

first collected by Bosse in 1976 and was

described in 1988 by Bosse et al. The

closest relative of H. comalensis appears

to be H. glabra, a species that occurs

farther to the west in the Big Bend

region (Bosse et al. 1988).

Adult Comal Springs riffle beetles are

about 2 millimeters (mm) (1⁄8 inch (in))

long, with females slightly larger than

males. Unlike the other two organisms

listed here, the Comal Springs riffle

beetle is not a subterranean species. It

occurs in the gravel substrate and

shallow riffles in spring runs. Some

riffle beetle species can fly (Brown

1987), but the hind wings of H.

comalensis are short and almost

certainly non-functional, making the

species incapable of this mode of

dispersal (Bosse et al. 1988).

Larvae have been collected with

adults in the gravel substrate of the

spring headwaters and not on

submerged wood as is typical of most

Heterelmis species (Brown and Barr

1988). Usual water depth in occupied

habitat is 2 to 10 centimeters (cm)(1 to

4 in) although the beetle may also occur

in slightly deeper areas within the

spring runs. Populations are reported to

reach their greatest densities from

February to April (Bosse et al. 1988).

The Comal Springs riffle beetle has been

collected from spring runs 1, 2, and 3

at Comal Springs in Landa Park (springs

j, k, and l in Brune 1981) and a single

specimen was collected from San

Marcos Springs 32 km (20 mi) to the

northeast.

The Comal Springs dryopid beetle is

a recently discovered species. It was

first collected in 1987 and described as

a new genus and species in 1992 by Barr

(California State University) and

Spangler (National Museum of Natural

History, Smithsonian Institution). Adult

Comal Springs dryopid beetles are about

3.0–3.7 mm (1⁄8 inch) long. They have

vestigial (non-functional) eyes, are

weakly pigmented, translucent, and

thin-skinned. This species is the first

subterranean aquatic member of its

family to be discovered (Brown and Barr

1988; Barr, in litt. 1990; Barr and

Spangler 1992).

Collection records for the Comal

Springs dryopid beetle are primarily

from spring run 2 at Comal Springs, but

they have also been collected from runs

3 and 4 at Comal and from Fern Bank

Springs about 32 km (20 mi) to the

northeast in Hays County. Collections

have been from April through August.

Most of the specimens have been taken

from drift nets or from inside the spring

orifices. Although the larvae of the

Comal Springs dryopid beetle have been

collected in drift nets positioned over

the spring openings, they are presumed

to be associated with air-filled voids

inside the spring orifices since all other

known dryopid beetle larvae are

terrestrial. Unlike Peck’s cave

amphipod, the Comal Springs dryopid

beetle does not swim, and it may have

a smaller range within the aquifer.

The exact depth and subterranean

extent of the ranges of the two

subterranean species (Comal Springs

dryopid beetle and Peck’s cave

amphipod) are not precisely known

because of a lack of methodologies

available for studying karst aquifer

systems and the organisms that inhabit

such systems. Presumably an

interconnected area, the subterranean

portion of this habitat, provides for

feeding, growth, survival, and

reproduction of the Comal Springs

dryopid beetle and Peck’s cave

amphipod. However, no specimens of

these species have appeared in

collections from 22 artesian and

pumped wells flowing from the

Edwards Aquifer (Barr 1993) suggesting

that these species may be confined to

small areas surrounding the spring

openings and are not distributed

throughout the aquifer. Barr (1993) also

surveyed nine springs in Bexar, Comal,

and Hays counties considered most

likely to provide habitat for endemic

invertebrates and found Stygoparnus

comalensis only at Comal and Fern

Bank springs and Stygobromus pecki

only at Comal and Hueco springs.

Although these species are fully

aquatic and two of the three require

flowing water for respiration, the

absolute low water limits for survival

are not known. They survived the

drought of the middle 1950’s, which

resulted in cessation of flow at Comal

Springs from June 13 through November

3, 1956. Hueco Springs is documented

to have gone dry in the past (Brune

1981, Barr 1993) and, although no

information is available for Fern Bank

Springs, given its higher elevation, it

has probably gone dry as well (Glenn

Longley, Edwards Aquifer Research and

Data Center, personal communication,

1993). San Marcos Springs has not gone

dry in recorded history.

These invertebrates were not

extirpated by the only recorded

temporary cessation of spring flow.

However, given that they are fully

aquatic and that no water was present

in the springs for a period of several

months, they were probably negatively

impacted. These species are not likely

adapted to surviving long periods of

drying (up to several years in duration)

that may occur in the absence of a water

management plan for the Edwards

Aquifer that accommodates the needs of

these invertebrates. Stagnation of water

may be a limiting condition, particularly

for the Comal Springs dryopid beetle

and Peck’s cave amphipod.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66297

Stagnation of water and/or drying

within the spring runs and the photic

(lighted) zone of the spring orifices

would probably be limiting for the

Comal Springs riffle beetle because

natural water flow is considered

important to the respiration and

therefore survival of this invertebrate

species. Elmid and dryopid beetles have

a mass of tiny, hydrophobic

(unwettable) hairs on their underside

where they maintain a thin bubble of air

through which gas exchange occurs

(Chapman 1982). This method of

respiration loses its effectiveness as the

level of dissolved oxygen in the water

decreases. A number of aquatic insects

that use dissolved oxygen rely on

flowing water to obtain oxygen.

Previous Federal Action

In a petition dated September 9, 1974,

the Conservation Committee of the

National Speleological Society

requested the Service to list

Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki. The

species was included in a notice of

review published on April 28, 1975 (40

FR 18476). A ‘‘warranted but

precluded’’ finding regarding several

species in that petition was made on

October 12, 1983, and published on

January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485). A

warranted but precluded finding means

that available information indicates

listing the species as threatened or

endangered is appropriate but that the

listing is precluded by higher priority

actions. The same determination has

been repeated for Peck’s cave amphipod

in subsequent years. The species was

included as a category 2 candidate in

comprehensive notices of review

published on May 22, 1984 (49 FR

21664), January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and

November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804).

Category 2 candidates were those

species for which data in the Service’s

possession indicated that listing was

possibly appropriate, but for which

substantial data on biological

vulnerability and threats were not

known or on file to support proposed

rules. Stygobromus pecki was elevated

to category 1 status in the 1994 notice

of review (59 FR 58982). Category 1

candidates were those species for which

the Service had on file substantial

information on biological vulnerability

and threats to support a proposal to list.

As published in the Federal Register on

February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596),

candidate category 2 status was

discontinued and only category 1

species are currently recognized as

candidates for listing purposes.

In a petition dated June 20, 1990, and

received June 21, 1990, Mr. David

Whatley, then Director of the City of

New Braunfels Parks and Recreation

Department, requested that the Service

list five invertebrate taxa, including

Peck’s cave amphipod and four insects.

The Service treated this as a second

petition for the amphipod. A notice of

finding published April 29, 1991 (56 FR

19632), announced that the petition

presented substantial information and

that listing the Comal Springs riffle

beetle and the Comal Springs dryopid

beetle may be warranted. Formal status

review was initiated for those species.

Both species became candidates for

listing in the 1994 notice of review (59

FR 58982).

Peck’s cave amphipod, Comal Springs

riffle beetle, and Comal Springs dryopid

beetle were proposed for listing on June

5, 1995 (60 FR 29537). The Act requires

that a final determination on a proposed

listing be made within one year of the

proposal. However, a congressionallyimposed moratorium on final listing

actions combined with a recision of

funding for the Service’s listing program

prohibited timely publication of this

final rule.

Summary of Comments and

Recommendations

In the June 5, 1995, proposed rule (60

FR 29537) and associated Federal

Register notices all interested parties

were requested to submit factual reports

or information to be considered in

making a final listing determination.

Appropriate Federal and State agencies,

local governments, scientific

organizations, and other interested

parties were contacted and requested to

comment.

A public hearing request came from

Mr. David Langford, Executive Vice

President of the Texas Wildlife

Association, by letter dated June 22,

1995. The hearing was held on July 24,

1995 at the New Braunfels Civic Center

in New Braunfels, Texas. Legal notices

of the public hearing, which invited

general public comment, were

published in The New Braunfels HeraldZeitung, the San Marcos Daily Record,

the Uvalde Leader-News, the Medina

Valley-Times, and the San Antonio

Express-News. Sixteen people attended

the public hearing and one person

provided oral testimony.

The Service received 1 oral and 24

written comments on the proposal. Of

the letters and oral testimony received,

nine supported the proposed action,

seven opposed it, and nine did not

clearly state support or opposition.

The Service solicited formal scientific

peer review of the proposal from six

professional biologists during the public

comment period and received

comments from two reviewers. Their

comments are either incorporated into

this listing decision as appropriate, or

are addressed below.

Written and oral comments presented

at the public hearing and received

during the comment period were

incorporated into this final rule where

appropriate. Comments not

incorporated are addressed in the

following summary. Comments of a

similar nature or point are grouped and

summarized. Where differing

viewpoints around a similar issue were

made, the Service has briefly

summarized the general issue.

Comment 1: Threats to the species are

greatly exaggerated and inconsistent

with available data. No real or

immediate threat exists that would

justify listing these invertebrates.

Service Response: The primary threat

to these species is loss of water in their

habitat at Comal Springs and other

springs where they occur. This threat is

discussed in detail in Factor A of this

rule.

Comment 2: Samples of all three of

the species were collected after the

springs had ceased flowing in the

immediately preceding years.

Service Response: Spring flow did not

cease from all outlets in 1990, and only

spring run 1 at Comal saw significant

loss of water. During brief periods of

very low spring flow the spring runs

probably retain sufficient subsurface

moisture to allow the Comal springs

riffle beetle to survive. Furthermore,

when periods of low spring flow are

brief and the spring runs are not

completely dry, the subsurface water

level likely remains higher and closer to

the spring openings. These conditions

may allow the survival of these species,

whereas a period of extensive, long-term

cessation of spring flow likely would

not. Because these invertebrates are

fully aquatic and require relatively welloxygenated water, a reduction or

cessation of spring flows, even if

standing water remains around the

spring orifices, may negatively impact

the species. Loss of water entirely,

within their habitat, would result in the

extirpation of these aquatic species.

Comment 3: It was noted that the

Edwards Aquifer Authority (Authority)

was created by S.B. 1477 to regulate

withdrawal of water from the aquifer.

The Authority withstood legal

challenges with the passage of H.B.

3189, which was passed with the

cooperation and guidance of the

Department of Justice and

implementation is anticipated. The

commenter further stated that

implementation of S.B. 1477 and H.B.

3189 will regulate water withdrawal,
66298 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

thus eliminating the primary threat, and

the need to list the species.

Service Response: Some of the legal

issues regarding the establishment of the

Authority have been resolved since the

time the proposed rule was published

and the elected board is in effect at this

time. However, an aquifer management

plan that would provide for protection

of these species and their habitat is not

yet in place. Further progress of this

board could be beneficial in the future

and, if threats are reduced or removed,

could result in downlisting or, possibly,

delisting the species.

Comment 4: The City of New

Braunfels has obtained surface water to

meet base demand which will eliminate

pumping in the immediate area of the

springs and substantially diminish

threats to the species.

Service Response: As discussed in

Factor A, all of the springs where these

species occur are affected by water

withdrawal throughout the aquifer’s

artesian zone to the west. Therefore, a

management plan for the entire aquifer,

not just the area near the springs, is

necessary to moderate threats to the

species.

Comment 5: Service treatment of this

complex and dynamic issue is

incomplete and erroneous. The Service

ignores Texas Natural Resources

Conservation Commission (TNRCC)

rules and proposed amendments to

address water quality.

Service Response: The Service

acknowledges the extreme complexity

of issues regarding the quality and

quantity of water in the Edwards

Aquifer. The TNRCC rules deal

primarily with water quality issues. The

more significant issue, however, is

maintaining adequate spring flows and

the likelihood that a water management

plan will be in effect in the foreseeable

future that will provide protection for

these invertebrates, as discussed in

Factor A.

Comment 6: If currently listed species

are provided adequate spring flow, then

species that have survived previous

cessation of spring flow will receive

adequate protection without the need to

list.

Service Response: While there are

species within the Comal and San

Marcos ecosystems that are presently

listed as threatened or endangered, none

of these listed species are assured

adequate spring flow. Furthermore,

some of the techniques, such as spring

flow augmentation, under consideration

by some for providing spring flow, will

not adequately provide for the

invertebrates addressed in this final

rule. For example, the Comal Springs

riffle beetle occurs in the spring runs. If

water is ‘‘augmented’’ into this area after

the springs cease flowing, the spring

orifices will act as recharge features.

The water would return to the aquifer

rather than remaining in the spring

runs. In addition, if augmentation is

attempted through subsurface

modifications of the aquifer, the habitat

of the two subterranean species could be

negatively impacted.

Comment 7: In 1991, the Service

reported that these invertebrates were

endemic to Comal Springs. Now each of

the invertebrates is known from one

other spring and each is known from all

of the upper springs at Comal. This

establishes a potentially wide range for

the species. The subterranean habits of

two of the species and the fact that they

are found at springs as much as 20 miles

apart suggests a much wider

distribution in the aquifer that would

obviate the need to list them as

endangered.

Service Response: Status surveys that

were conducted for each of these

species following the petition to list

them found only one new location for

each species. Locations in more than

one spring run at Comal Springs is not

surprising given the proximity of the

spring runs. As stated previously,

extensive surveys for the species at

springs throughout Bexar, Comal, and

Hays counties and examination of

numerous well samples have found

each of the species at Comal Springs

and in very low numbers at one

additional spring system each. The

species were not found at most of the

locations surveyed.

Disjunct distributions (e.g., those that

are separated by 20 miles) are common

in nature and can arise from many

evolutionary and ecological processes.

Unfortunately, these species are not

sufficiently studied to allow us to give

a precise explanation for the disjunct

distribution, or to determine with

certainty whether it is disjunct.

Information in the Background section

discusses the fact that specimens of the

subterranean species have not been

found in well samples throughout the

aquifer area, in spite of extensive

sampling. The Service believes this is a

good indication that the species are not

widely distributed underground. We do

believe that efforts to collect the species

in any appropriate habitat where

researchers were granted access were

sufficient to determine that, in all

probability, the species do not exist

throughout the underground portions of

the aquifer.

Comment 8: Listing is not warranted

until highly variable and interruptible

spring flow is considered as part of the

historical cycle to which these species

are adapted to survive.

Service Response: These species

exhibit no morphological characteristics

or behaviors indicating an ability to

survive extended drying of their habitat.

The Comal Springs riffle beetle lacks the

ability to fly that many other riffle

beetles have, suggesting that it is

adapted to continuous and reliable

spring flows (although flow may still be

variable). The more frequent and severe

drying that is expected at current and

increasing rates of withdrawal from the

aquifer will create a condition to which

these species are not adapted to survive.

Comment 9: As late as 1991, the

Service made a warranted but precluded

finding for Peck’s cave amphipod. The

proposed listing gives no explanation of

the change in position from ‘‘warranted

but precluded’’ to ‘‘proposed for

listing.’’ This is ironic since potential

threats to the species have been

substantially addressed during this 4-

year period.

Service Response: A warranted but

precluded finding means that the best

available information indicates that

listing the species is appropriate but

that other pending listing actions are

more urgently needed and given a

higher priority. Many of those other

listing actions have now been

completed. Before publishing the

proposed listing, the Service reviewed

the most current information available

and determined that the threats to the

species are still significant. The Service

acknowledges and commends the efforts

that so many individuals, agencies, and

organizations have put into looking for

ways to manage the Edwards Aquifer in

a manner that will both protect the

endemic species and provide for human

water users. However, significant

aquifer issues remain unresolved.

Comment 10: Spring flow may be

irrelevant to the suitability of habitat in

the aquifer for the subterranean species.

Service Response: The Service

recognizes that the Peck’s cave

amphipod and the Comal Springs

dryopid beetle are fully aquatic and

show morphological adaptations to a

subterranean existence. However,

neither of these species has shown up

in well samples and both have only

been collected near the spring orifices,

a key feature of their habitat is the

water/spring orifice boundary. Reduced

spring flows will alter the position and

the nature of this boundary and may

have a negative effect on these species.

Further information is discussed in the

Background section.

Comment 11: The Service’s failure to

define a range or location of habitat for

these species is tantamount to an
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66299

admission that the Service does not

know enough about the species to

warrant a conclusion that the species’

habitat is threatened by drought.

Service Response: The best available

information indicates that the range of

each species is limited to a small area

near each spring opening where the

species have been found. The range of

each of the species is both small in size

and probably disjunct in distribution.

Further information on each species’

habitat is presented in the Background

section.

Comment 12: Until more is known

about the proposed species, and some

real harm is shown as a consequence of

variable and interruptible spring flows,

they are not endangered species.

Service Response: The Service must

make determinations for listing of

species based on ‘‘the best scientific and

commercial data available’’ at the time

of listing. Existing knowledge indicates

that these species require a reliable

supply of clean water. The species have

survived past dry periods, but models

and predictions cited in the proposal

and in this final rule all agree that

cessation of spring flow is likely to be

more frequent and of longer duration

given present pumping levels, as well as

those outlined in S.B. 1477. Although

S.B. 1477 limits total water withdrawal

from the aquifer, the limits may

currently be too high to assure long-term

spring flow. The Texas Water

Development Board (1992) models

indicate that at the proposed pumping

limit of 450,000 acre-feet, and given

recharge levels and patterns similar to

those that occurred from 1934 to 1990,

Comal Springs could spend 10 to 20

years below 100 cubic feet per second

(cfs), and could stop flowing entirely for

several years at a time (Texas Water

Development Board, personal

communication). Negative impacts to

the habitat in spring run 1 at Comal

Springs, including drying, occur as

flows approach 100 cfs.

Comment 13: Studies show that

dissolved oxygen is high even at the

lowest spring flows. Dissolved oxygen

does not appear to be a determinative

factor in the decision whether to list the

species.

Service Response: The primary factor

threatening the long-term survival of

these species is availability of a

sufficient quantity of water to maintain

essential characteristics of their habitat.

Although water quality, including the

need for certain levels of dissolved

oxygen, may be an important factor in

their survival, the magnitude of the

threat from total loss of water is viewed

as the greater threat.

Comment 14: There is no economic

advantage to protecting these

invertebrates, and putting the life of

virtually unknown species ahead of

human welfare does not make sense.

Service Response: Like these

invertebrates, humans depend on

reliable supplies of clean water, and

thus protecting our water resources is

vital to protecting human health. While

the Service cannot consider the

economic consequences of species

listings when making listing

determinations, we believe that

protecting these species will have a

positive effect to humans in that it will

ensure the persistence of the water

resource for future generations and will

maintain a healthy ecosystem. In

addition, continuing spring flow is

economically important both in the

vicinity of the springs for water

recreation businesses and downstream

as far as the Gulf of Mexico, where

inflow of fresh water into the bays and

estuaries is vital to recreational and

commercial fisheries.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

After a thorough review and

consideration of all information

available, the Service has determined

that Peck’s cave amphipod

(Stygobromus pecki), Comal Springs

riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis),

and Comal Springs dryopid beetle

(Stygoparnus comalensis) should be

classified as endangered species.

Procedures found at section 4(a)(1) of

the Act and regulations implementing

the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR

part 424) were followed. A species may

be determined to be endangered or

threatened due to one or more of the

five factors described in section 4(a)(1).

These factors and their application to

these three invertebrate species are as

follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Their Habitat or Range

The main threat to the habitat of these

aquatic invertebrates is a reduction or

loss of water of adequate quantity and

quality, due primarily to human

withdrawal of water from the San

Antonio segment of the Edwards

(Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer and other

activities. Total withdrawal from the

San Antonio region of the Edwards

Aquifer has been increasing since at

least 1934, when the total well

discharge was 101,900 acre-feet

(Edwards Underground Water District

1989). In 1989, the total well discharge

was the highest on record at slightly

more than 542,000 acre-feet (Longley

1991, Edwards Underground Water

District 1992a). Between 1989 and 1995,

total well discharge has ranged from

327,000 acre-feet in 1992 to 489,000

acre-feet in 1990 (U.S. Geological

Survey, San Antonio, 1996).

There is an integral connection

between the water in the aquifer west of

the springs and the water serving as

habitat for these species. Water in the

Edwards Aquifer flows from west to east

or northeast and withdrawal or

contamination of water in the western

part of the aquifer can have a direct

effect on the quantity and quality of

water flowing toward the springs and at

the spring openings. Prior to wells being

drilled into the aquifer, almost all of the

water entering the aquifer eventually

exited at springs (Guadalupe-Blanco

River Authority 1988).

The Texas Water Commission (TWC)

(1989) classified the San Antonio

segment of the Edwards Aquifer as a

critical area in terms of its potential for

groundwater problems related to

overdrafting. They also ranked Bexar,

Comal, and Hays counties among the

top 23 counties in Texas for number of

active groundwater public supply

systems. Human population in the

region is expected to increase

(Technical Advisory Panel 1990,

Edwards Underground Water District

1993), which will result in increased

demand for water from the aquifer.

The Texas Water Development Board

has applied its model (1992) of the

Edwards Aquifer to determine the

maximum pumping level that would

allow Comal Springs to continue to

flow, assuming historic recharge

(Technical Advisory Panel 1990). They

found that during a drought similar to

that of the 1950’s, the maximum

pumpage that would allow spring flow

at Comal Springs is about 250,000 acrefeet per year. ‘‘At this pumping level,

Comal Springs could be expected to

maintain some annual flow although

they may flow on an intermittent basis

during a recurrence of the drought of

record’’ (Technical Advisory Panel

1990). The Panel also stated that in the

year 2000, if pumping continues to grow

at historical rates and a drought occurs,

Comal Springs would go dry for a

number of years (Technical Advisory

Panel 1990).

Wanakule (1990) states that ‘‘the

present problem facing the Edwards

Aquifer is the threat of overdrafting of

the annual average recharge rate.’’

McKinney and Watkins (1993)

evaluated the Texas Water Development

Board model and other models and

concluded that, without limiting

withdrawal to about 200,000 acre-feet

per year, Comal Springs will likely go
66300 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

dry for extended periods during even a

minor drought. The recent creation of

the Authority may help to alleviate this

threat to some degree (see Factor D for

further discussion).

The Texas Water Development Board

model runs indicate that at the proposed

pumping limit of 450,000 acre-feet, and

given recharge levels and patterns

similar to what occurred from 1934 to

1990, Comal Springs could spend 10 to

20 years below 100 cfs, and could stop

flowing entirely for several years at a

time (Texas Water Development Board,

personal communication, 1997). A

model run with the same general

parameters but a withdrawal of 400,000

acre-feet shows the same pattern with

some increase in spring flow, but still

extended periods with no spring flow

(Texas Water Development Board,

personal communication, 1997).

In 1984 and 1990, some of the higherelevation Comal Springs ceased flowing

and water levels in the index well (J–17)

in San Antonio dropped to within 3.7

meters (m) (12 feet (ft)) of the historic

low of 186.7 m (612.5 ft) that occurred

in 1956 (Wanakule 1990). During the

drought conditions in the summer of

1996, spring flows at Comal Springs

dropped to a low of 83 cfs. During the

entire year of 1996, spring flow stayed

below 200 cfs for about 252 days and

below 100 cfs, the approximate flow at

which spring run 1 stops flowing, for

about 59 days. Because these

invertebrates require relatively welloxygenated water, a reduction or

cessation of spring flows, even if

standing water remains around the

spring orifices, may negatively impact

the species. Complete loss of water

would likely result in the extirpation of

these aquatic species.

In addition to a loss of water, a

decrease in the water level in the aquifer

could lead to decreased water quality at

the springs. The Balcones Fault Zone—

San Antonio Region is bounded on the

south and east by a ‘‘bad water’’

interface across which the groundwater

quality abruptly deteriorates to greater

than 1000 mg/l total dissolved solids.

Crossing the bad water interface,

groundwater goes from fresh to saline or

brackish. Lowered water levels resulting

from groundwater pumpage and/or

decreased recharge may at some point

result in deterioration of water quality

in the fresh water section of the aquifer

through movement of the bad water

interface. The Comal and San Marcos

Springs are less than 305 and 62 m

(1,000 and 200 ft), respectively, from the

bad water interface (TWC 1989,

Edwards Underground Water District

1992b). Although the data are

inconclusive at present, even a small

movement of the water may negatively

impact the species.

Other possible effects of reduced

spring flow exist. These include changes

in the chemical composition of the

water in the aquifer and at the springs,

a decrease in current velocity and

corresponding increase in siltation, and

an increase in temperature and

temperature fluctuations in the aquatic

habitat (McKinney and Watkins 1993).

Another threat to the habitat of these

species is the potential for groundwater

contamination. Pollutants of concern

include, but are not limited to, those

associated with human sewage

(particularly septic tanks), leaking

underground storage tanks, animal/

feedlot waste, agricultural chemicals

(especially insecticides, herbicides, and

fertilizers) and urban runoff (including

pesticides, fertilizers, and detergents).

Pipeline, highway, and railway

transportation of hydrocarbons and

other potentially harmful materials in

the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and

its watershed, with the attendant

possibility of accidents, present a

particular risk to water quality in Comal

and San Marcos Springs. Comal and San

Marcos Springs are both located in

urbanized areas. Hueco Springs is

located alongside River Road, which is

heavily traveled for recreation on the

Guadalupe River, and may be

susceptible to road runoff and spills

related to traffic. Fern Bank Springs is

in a relatively remote, rural location and

its principal vulnerability is probably to

contaminants associated with leaking

septic tanks, animal/feedlot wastes, and

agricultural chemicals.

Of the counties containing portions of

the San Antonio segment of the

Edwards Aquifer, the potential for

acute, catastrophic contamination of the

aquifer is greatest in Bexar, Hays, and

Comal counties because of the greater

level of urbanization compared to the

western counties. Although spill or

contamination events that could affect

water quality do happen to the west of

Bexar County, dilution and the time

required for the water to reach the

springs may lessen the threat from that

area. As aquifer levels decrease,

however, dilution of contaminants

moving through the aquifer may also

decrease.

The TWC reported that in 1988 within

the San Antonio segment of the

Edwards Aquifer, Bexar, Hays, and

Comal counties had the greatest number

of land-based oil and chemical spills in

central Texas that affected surface and/

or groundwater with 28, 6, and 4 spills,

respectively (TWC 1989). As of July,

1988, Bexar County had between 26 and

50 confirmed leaking underground

storage tanks, Hays County had between

6 and 10, and Comal County had

between 2 and 5 (TWC 1989) putting

them among the top 5 counties in

central Texas for confirmed

underground storage tank leaks. The

TWC estimates that, on average, every

leaking underground storage tank will

leak about 500 gallons per year of

contaminants before the leak is

detected. These tanks are considered

one of the most significant sources of

groundwater contamination in the state

(TWC 1989).

The TWC (1989), using the

assessment tool DRASTIC (Aller, et al.

1987), classified aquifers statewide

according to their pollution potential.

The Edwards Aquifer (Balcones Fault

Zone—Austin and San Antonio

Regions) was ranked among the highest

in pollution potential of all major Texas

aquifers. The project’s objective was to

identify areas sensitive to groundwater

pollution from a contaminated land

surface based on the hydrogeologic

setting. The area of particular concern

was the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone

and its watershed.

The TWC (1989) also reviewed and

reported known and potential risks to

Texas aquifers, such as from sanitary

landfills, hazardous waste disposal

facilities, industrial waste and sewage

disposal wells, commercial feedlots, and

graveyards. They found the following:

‘‘Based on this statewide assessment of

potential and actual ground-water

contaminants, waste disposal practices

being employed and existing regulations

which are available for contamination

detection and mitigation, it was

concluded that there are still conditions

that exist or practices being used that

are cause for concern. For the most part,

the state presently has in place

regulations that will effectively reduce

future pollution, however past practices

may return to haunt us.’’

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

No threat from overutilization of this

species is known at this time.

C. Disease or Predation

While individuals of these three

species may be preyed upon by various

predatory insects or fish, no information

indicates that this is a substantial threat.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

Invertebrates are not included on the

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s

(TPWD) list of threatened and

endangered species and are provided no

protection by the State. The TPWD
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66301

regulations do not contain provisions

for protecting habitat of any listed

species.

Traditionally, the State of Texas has

had no authority to regulate withdrawal

of groundwater from an aquifer. After a

lawsuit filed against the Service by the

Sierra Club (Sierra Club v. Babbitt,

formerly Sierra Club v. Lujan), the Texas

State Legislature passed a bill (S.B.

1477) authorizing the creation of the

Authority and granted the Authority the

power to regulate groundwater

withdrawal from the Edwards Aquifer.

The bill limits groundwater withdrawal

from the aquifer to 450,000 acre-feet per

year initially, reducing it to 400,000

acre-feet per year by January 1, 2008.

However, Texas Water Development

Board models indicate that, at these

proposed withdrawal limits, the upperelevation spring runs at Comal Springs

could go dry frequently and for

significant periods of time (as happened

in 1996) and significant negative

impacts to the species could occur

before continuous minimum

springflows are in place.

One goal of the bill is to provide

continuous minimum spring flow, as

defined by Federal statute, at Comal and

San Marcos Springs by the year 2012.

This minimum flow is to protect species

that are designated as threatened or

endangered under Federal or State law,

but does not protect unlisted species. In

addition, an evaluation of the Texas

Water Development Board models used

to set these withdrawal limits shows

that flow at Comal Springs will drop

below 100 cfs and will likely go dry for

extended periods in time of severe

drought and probably during minor

droughts (McKinney and Watkins 1993,

TWDB 1992). McKinney and Watkins

(1993) believe it is unlikely that spring

flow in Comal Springs of at least 100 cfs

for 80 percent of the time, except during

severe drought, can be met with a

pumping limit greater than 200,000

acre-feet per year. In addition, when the

flow drops to 96 cfs, spring run 1 at

Comal Springs has already dried

substantially (Thornhill, deposition in

Sierra Club v. Lujan). Finally, efforts to

maintain minimum spring flow at

Comal and San Marcos Springs would

not necessarily be sufficient to maintain

flow at Hueco and Fern Bank Springs,

which lie at higher elevations.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Their Continued Existence

The effect of natural droughts in south

central Texas will increase in severity

due to the large increase in human

groundwater withdrawals (Wanakule

1990). These species’ very limited

habitat is likely to be lost through

drying or decreased volume of spring

flow during minor or severe drought.

At present, competition is not known

to be a significant threat to these

species. However, two exotic snail

species, Thiara granifera and Thiara

tuberculata, are common in the spring

runs and, as grazers, may compete for

food. Another exotic species, the giant

ramshorn snail (Marisa cornuarietis), is

present in two of the spring runs and

may colonize the other runs at low flow

levels. Marisa can have a tremendous

impact on vegetation, that in turn may

affect the habitat for surface-dwelling

grazers like the riffle beetle.

The Service has carefully assessed the

best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past,

present, and future threats faced by

these species in making this final rule.

Based on this evaluation the preferred

action is to list the Peck’s cave

amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), Comal

Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis

comalensis), and Comal Springs dryopid

beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis) as

endangered. Endangered status is

determined appropriate for these three

invertebrates given that threats are

significant and could result in

extinction of these species throughout

all or a significant portion of their range.

The immediate nature of these threats

precluded determining these species to

be threatened species.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as: (i) The specific areas

within the geographical area occupied

by a species, at the time it is listed in

accordance with the Act, on which are

found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require

special management considerations or

protection; and (ii) specific areas

outside the geographical area occupied

by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use

of all methods and procedures needed

to bring the species to the point at

which listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as

amended, and implementing regulations

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the

maximum extent prudent and

determinable, the Secretary designate

critical habitat at the time the species is

determined to be endangered or

threatened. The Service finds that

designation of critical habitat is not

prudent for Peck’s cave amphipod, the

Comal Springs riffle beetle, and the

Comal Springs dryopid beetle. Service

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state

that designation of critical habitat is not

prudent when one or both of the

following situations exist: (1) The

species is threatened by taking or other

human activity, and identification of

critical habitat can be expected to

increase the degree of threat to the

species, or (2) such designation of

critical habitat would not be beneficial

to the species.

Designation of critical habitat would

provide no benefits to these species

beyond those provided by listing and

the subsequent evaluation of activities

under section 7 of the Act. Section 7

prohibits Federal agencies from

jeopardizing the continued existence of

listed species or destroying or adversely

modifying listed species’ designated

critical habitat.

In the Service’s section 7 regulations

at 50 CFR part 402, the definition of

‘‘jeopardize the continued existence of’’

includes ‘‘to reduce appreciably the

likelihood of both the survival and

recovery of the listed species,’’ and

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ is

defined as ‘‘a direct or indirect

alteration that appreciably diminishes

the value of critical habitat for both the

survival and recovery of a listed

species.’’ Both of these definitions refer

to actions that reduce the survival and

recovery of a listed species. Any action

that would appreciably diminish the

value, in quality or quantity, of spring

flows (habitat) on which the species

depend would also reduce appreciably

the likelihood of survival and recovery

of the three species. Because these

species are endemic to such highly

localized areas, actions that affect water

quality and quantity at the springs will

be fully evaluated for their effects on the

three species through analysis of

whether the actions would be likely to

jeopardize their continued existence.

The analysis for possible jeopardy

applied to these species would therefore

be identical to the analysis for

determining adverse modification or

destruction of critical habitat. Therefore,

there is no distinction between jeopardy

and adverse modification for activities

impacting the springs on which these

species depend.

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 public awareness and

conservation actions by Federal, State,

and local agencies, private
66302 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

organizations, and individuals. The Act

provides for cooperation with the States

and requires that recovery actions be

carried out for all species. The

protection required of Federal agencies

and the prohibitions against taking and

harm are discussed, in part, below.

Conservation and management of the

Peck’s cave amphipod, Comal Springs

riffle beetle, and Comal Springs dryopid

beetle are likely to involve protection

and conservation of the Edwards

Aquifer and spring flow at Comal,

Hueco, San Marcos, and Fern Bank

Springs. It is also anticipated that listing

will encourage research on critical

aspects of the species’ biology.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,

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. 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 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. Federal actions that may

require consultation include projects

that would affect the quality or quantity

of water within the San Antonio

segment of the Edwards Aquifer or

otherwise significantly affect the outlets

or water output of Comal Springs in

New Braunfels, Texas; San Marcos

Springs in San Marcos, Texas; Hueco

Springs in Comal County, Texas; and

Fern Bank Springs in Hays County,

Texas. Examples of these types of

activities include projects that would

involve withdrawal of water from the

aquifer; permits for municipal

wastewater discharge; agricultural

irrigation; use of pesticides and

herbicides; Environmental Protection

Agency National Discharge Elimination

System permits; section 18 exemptions

under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Corps

of Engineers permits for stream

crossings; and Department of Housing

and Urban Development projects.

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. It is anticipated that few trade

permits would ever be sought or issued

because these species are not known to

be in trade.

It is the policy of the Service (July 1,

1994; 59 FR 34272) to identify to the

maximum extent practicable at the time

a species is listed those activities that

would or would not constitute a

violation of section 9 of the Act. The

intent of this policy is to increase public

awareness of the effect of listing on

proposed and ongoing activities within

a species’ range. The purpose of this

guidance is not only to identify

activities that would or would not likely

result in take of individuals, but

activities that in combination will

ultimately affect the long-term survival

of these species. This guidance should

not be used to substitute for local efforts

to develop and implement

comprehensive management programs.

The Service believes that, based on

the best available information, activities

that could potentially harm these

invertebrates and result in ‘‘take’’

include, but are not limited to:

(1) Collecting or handling of the

species;

(2) Activities that may result in

destruction or alteration of the species’

habitat including, but not limited to,

withdrawal of water from the aquifer to

the point at which habitat becomes

unsuitable for the species, alteration of

the physical habitat within the spring

runs, or physical alteration of the spring

orifices or of the subsurface pathways

providing water to the springs;

(3) Discharge or dumping of

chemicals, silt, pollutants, household or

industrial waste, or other material into

the springs or into areas that provide

access to the aquifer and where such

discharge or dumping could affect water

quality;

(4) Herbicide, pesticide, or fertilizer

application in or near the springs

containing the species; and

(5) Introduction of non-native species

(fish, plants, other) into these spring

ecosystems.

The Service believes that a wide

variety of activities would not harm

these species if undertaken in the

vicinity of their habitats and thus would

not constitute taking. In general, any

activity in the contributing, recharge, or

artesian zones of the Edwards aquifer

that would not have potential for the

cumulative or acute/catastrophic

negative effects on water quantity or

quality within the aquifer should not

harm these species. Inquiries

concerning the possible effects of

specific activities, copies of regulations

regarding listed wildlife, or inquiries

regarding prohibitions and permits

should be directed to the Service’s

Austin Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has

determined that Environmental

Assessments and Environmental Impact

Statements, 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

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. A notice outlining the

Service’s reasons for this determination

was published in the Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

The Service has examined this

regulation under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to

contain no information collection

requirements.

References Cited

Aller, L., T. Bennett, J.H. Lehr, R.J. Petty, and

G. Hackett. 1987. DRASTIC: a

standardized system for evaluating

groundwater pollution potential using

hydrogeologic settings. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/

600/2–87/035. 622 pp.

Arsuffi, Thomas L. 1993. Status of the Comal

Springs Riffle Beetle (Heterelmis

comalensis Bosse, Tuff, and Brown),

Peck’s Cave Amphipod (Stygobromus

pecki Holsinger), and the Comal Springs

Dryopid Beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis

Barr and Spangler). Prepared for the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 25 pp.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66303

Barr, C.B. 1993. Survey for two Edwards

Aquifer invertebrates: Comal Springs

dryopid beetle Stygoparnus comalensis

Barr and Spangler (Coleoptera:

Dryopidae) and Peck’s cave amphipod

Stygobromus pecki Holsinger

(Amphipoda: Crangonyctidae). Prepared

for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 70 pp.

Barr, C.B., and P.J. Spangler. 1992. A new

genus and species of stygobiontic

dryopid beetle, Stygoparnus comalensis

(Coleoptera: Dryopidae), from Comal

Springs, Texas. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.

105(1):40–54.

Bosse, L.S., D.W. Tuff, and H.P. Brown. 1988.

A new species of Heterelmis from Texas

(Coleoptera: Elmidae). Southwestern

Naturalist 33(2):199–203.

Brown, H.P. 1987. Biology of Riffle Beetles.

Annual Review of Entomology. 32:253–

73

Brown, H.P., and C.B. Barr. 1988. First report

of stygobiontic (subterranean) riffle

beetles in North America. Program

abstract for April 22, 1988, meeting of

Southwestern Association of Naturalists.

5 pp.

Brune, G. 1981. Springs of Texas, Volume 1.

Branch-Smith Inc., Ft. Worth, Texas.

Chapman, R.F., 1982. The Insects: Structure

and Function. Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MA. 919 pp.

Edwards Underground Water District. 1989.

Compilation of hydrologic data for the

Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio area,

Texas, 1988, with 1934–88 summary:

Bulletin 48, 157 pp.

Edwards Underground Water District. 1992a.

Report of the technical data review panel

on the water resources of the south

central Texas region. 307 pp.

Edwards Underground Water District. 1992b.

Investigation of the fresh/saline water

interface in the Edwards Aquifer in New

Braunfels and San Marcos, Texas. Report

92–02. 18 pp.

Edwards Underground Water District. 1993.

Urban Development on the Edwards

Aquifer Recharge Zone. Report 93–09. 40

pp.

Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority. 1988.

The Edwards Aquifer: Underground

River of Texas. Guadalupe-Blanco River

Authority, Seguin, Texas. 63 pp.

Holsinger, J.R. 1967. Systematics, speciation,

and distribution of the subterranean

amphipod genus Stygonectes

(Gammaridae). Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus.

259:1–176.

Longley, G. 1991. Status and trends of the

Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer

in the San Antonio Region. pp. 4–18 In:

Proceedings of South Texas Irrigation

Conference. Guy Fipps, ed. 146 pp.

McKinney, D.C., and D.W. Watkins, Jr. 1993.

Management of the Edwards Aquifer: A

critical assessment. Technical Report

CRWR 244. Center for Research in Water

Resources, Bureau of Engineering

Research. University of Texas at Austin.

94 pp.

Technical Advisory Panel. 1990. Technical

factors in Edwards Aquifer use and

management. Prepared for Special

Committee on the Edwards Aquifer. 57

pp.

Texas Department of Water Resources. 1979.

Geohydrology of Comal, San Marcos, and

Hueco Springs. Report 234. Prepared by

Guyton ans Associates. 85 pp.

Texas Water Commission. 1989. Groundwater quality of Texas-an overview of

natural and man-affected conditions.

Austin, Texas. 197 pp. and 3 plates.

Texas Water Development Board. 1992.

Model Refinement and Applications for

the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone)

Aquifer for the San Antonio Region,

Texas. Texas Water Development Board.

Report 340. July 1992. 33 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. Unpublished

summary tables on Edwards Aquifer

discharge. U.S. Geological Survey, San

Antonio. 3 pp.

Wanakule, N. 1990. Stochastic drought

analysis of the Edwards Aquifer.

Edwards Aquifer Research and Data

Center No. R1.–90, San Marcos, Texas.

32 pp.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and

Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, the Service amends as

follows:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

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. Section 17.11(h) is amended by

adding the following, in alphabetical

order under Crustaceans and Insects,

respectively, to the List of Endangered

and Threatened Wildlife to read as

follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Scientific name Common name

CRUSTACEANS

* * * * * * *

Stygobromus

(=Stygonectes)

pecki.

Amphipod, Peck’s

cave.

U.S.A. (TX) ............. Crangonyctidae ....... E .................... NA NA

* * * * * * *

INSECTS

* * * * * * *

Stygoparnus

comalensis.

Beetle, Comal

Springs dryopid.

U.S.A. (TX) ............. Dryopidae ................ E .................... NA NA

* * * * * * *

Heterelmis

comalensis.

Beetle, Comal

Springs riffle.

U.S.A. (TX) ............. Elmidae ................... E .................... NA NA

* * * * * * *
66304 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: October 21, 1997.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97–33041 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 961204340–7087–02; I.D.

121297A]

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Trip

Limit Reduction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Trip limit reduction.

SUMMARY: NMFS reduces the

commercial trip limit of Atlantic

migratory group Spanish mackerel in or

from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)

in the southern zone to 1,500 lb (680 kg)

per day. This trip limit reduction is

necessary to protect the Atlantic

migratory group Spanish mackerel

resource.

DATES: Effective 6:00 a.m., local time,

December 16, 1997, through March 31,

1998, unless changed by further

notification in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark F. Godcharles, 813–570–5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish

(king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero,

cobia, little tunny, dolphin, and, in the

Gulf of Mexico only, bluefish) is

managed under the Fishery

Management Plan for the Coastal

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf

of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP).

The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of

Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery

Management Councils (Councils) and is

implemented under the authority of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act by

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. The Councils recommended and

NMFS implemented an adjusted quota

and commercial trip limits for Atlantic

migratory group Spanish mackerel from

the southern zone. As set forth at 50

CFR 622.44(b)(2), the adjusted quota is

3.25 million lb (1.47 million kg). In

accordance with 50 CFR

622.44(b)(1)(ii)(C), after 75 percent of

the adjusted quota of Atlantic migratory

group Spanish mackerel from the

southern zone is taken until 100 percent

of the adjusted quota is taken, Atlantic

migratory group Spanish mackerel in or

from the EEZ in the southern zone may

not be possessed on board or landed

from a vessel in a day in amounts

exceeding 1,500 lb (680 kg). The

southern zone for Atlantic migratory

group Spanish mackerel extends from

30°42’45.6’’ N. lat., which is a line

directly east from the Georgia/Florida

boundary, to 25°20.4’ N. lat., which is

a line directly east from the Dade/

Monroe County, FL, boundary.

NMFS has determined that 75 percent

of the adjusted quota for Atlantic

migratory group Spanish mackerel from

the southern zone was taken by

December 15, 1997. Accordingly, the

1,500–lb (680–kg) per day commercial

trip limit applies to Atlantic migratory

group Spanish mackerel in or from the

EEZ in the southern zone effective 6:00

a.m., local time, December 16, 1997,

through March 31, 1998, unless changed

by further notification in the Federal

Register.

Classification

This action is taken under 50 CFR

622.44(b)(2) and is exempt from review

under E.O. 12866.

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

Dated: December 15, 1997.

Gary C. Matlock,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–33099 Filed 12–15–97; 3:12 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 971015246–7293–02; I.D.

100897D]

RIN 0648–AK44

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and

Black Sea Bass Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final specifications for the 1998

summer flounder, scup, and black sea

bass fisheries; final rule, technical

amendment; notifications of commercial

quota harvest.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues the final

specifications for the 1998 summer

flounder, scup, and black sea bass

fisheries. The intent of this document is

to comply with implementing

regulations for the summer flounder,

scup, and black sea bass fisheries that

require NMFS to publish measures for

the upcoming fishing year that will

prevent overfishing of these species.

NMFS announces that no quota is

available in several states for specified

1998 fisheries as follows: the State of

Delaware is notified that no commercial

summer flounder or Summer period

commercial scup quotas are available in

1998; the State of New Hampshire is

notified that no Summer period

commercial scup quota is available for

1998. NMFS advises vessel and dealer

permit holders that no commercial

quotas are available for landing those

species in those States during the

specified time periods.

DATES: The amendments to

§§ 648.14(u)(1), 648.100(a), 648.143(a),

and § 648.144(a)(1)(i) are effective

January 1, 1998. The final specifications

for the 1998 summer flounder, scup,

and black sea bass fisheries and

notifications of commercial quota

harvest are effective January 1, 1998,

through December 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting

documents used by the Summer

Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass

Monitoring Committees and of the

Environmental Assessment (EA),

Regulatory Impact Review, and the

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(FRFA) are available from: David R.

Keifer, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Council, Room

2115, Federal Building, 300 South New

Street, Dover, DE 19904–6790.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina L. Spallone, Fishery Policy

Analyst, (978) 281–9221.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Fishery Management Plan for the

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea

Bass Fisheries (FMP) was developed

jointly by the Atlantic States Marine

Fisheries Commission (Commission)

and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council) in

consultation with the New England and

South Atlantic Fishery Management

Councils. The management units

specified in the FMP include summer

flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in U.S.

waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the

southern border of North Carolina

northward to the U.S./Canada border,

and scup (Stenotomus chrysops) and

black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in

U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from

35°15.3′ N. latitude, the latitude of Cape

Hatteras Light, NC, northward to the

U.S./Canada border. Implementing