Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 107 / Monday, June 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 29537

6. Section 80.953 is amended by Comments and materials received will the same place in May, 1965. In 1967, redesignating the text as paragraph (a), be available for public inspection, by Holsinger named the species revising the first sentence of paragraph appointment, during normal business Stygonectes pecki, in Peck’s honor; the (a), removing the second sentence of hours at the above address. 1965 specimen, an adult female 10.5 paragraph (a) and adding a new FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: mm (about one half inch) long, served paragraph (b) to read as follows: Ruth Stanford, Ecologist, or Alisa Shull, as the type specimen. Later he included Fish and Wildlife Biologist (see all the nominal Stygonectes species in § 80.953 Inspection and certification. ADDRESSES section) (512/490–0057). the synonymy of the large genus (a) Each U.S. flag vessel subject to the Stygobromus. The Service has used Great Lakes Agreement must have an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘cave amphipod’’ as a generic common inspection of the required Background name for members of this genus, and radiotelephone installation at least once this name was simply translated as The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service every 13 months. * ** ‘‘Peck’s cave amphipod’’ without (Service) proposes to list as endangered (b) This inspection may be conducted reference to a particular cave. Other under the Endangered Species Act of by the FCC or by a classification society known springs and artesian wells of the 1973, as amended (Act) three aquatic that is a member of the International Edwards Aquifer in central Texas have invertebrate animal species with a Association of Classification Societies been extensively sampled for amphipod known distribution in spring sites in (IACS). A certificate issued by a crustaceans; a single specimen of Peck’s Comal and Hays counties, Texas; two of classification society has the same cave amphipod was collected at Hueco the species are subterranean. Peck’s standing as one issued by the FCC. Springs by Barr in August, 1992. cave amphipod is known from Comal Over 300 specimens of Peck’s cave [FR Doc. 95–13491 Filed 6–2–95; 8:45 am] Springs and Hueco Springs, both in amphipod have been collected since its BILLING CODE 6712±01±M Comal County. The Comal Springs riffle description. Most documented beetle is known from Comal Springs and specimens were netted from crevices in San Marcos Springs (Hays County). The rock and gravel near the orifices of the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Comal Springs dryopid beetle is known three largest Comal Springs on the west from Comal Springs and Fern Bank side of Landa Park in Comal County, Fish and Wildlife Service Springs (Hays County). The water Texas. Barr collected one specimen from flowing out of each of these springs 50 CFR Part 17 a fourth Comal spring run on private comes from the Edwards Aquifer property adjacent to Landa Park and one RIN 1018±AD28 (Balcones Fault Zone—San Antonio specimen from Hueco Springs, about 7 Region), which extends from Hays km (4 miles) north of Comal Springs Endangered and Threatened Wildlife County on the east to Kinney County on (Barr 1993). However, like all members and Plants; Proposal To List Three the west. Comal Springs are located in of the exclusively subterranean genus Aquatic Invertebrates in Comal and Landa Park, which is owned and Stygobromus, this species is eyeless and Hays Counties, Texas, as Endangered operated by the City of New Braunfels, unpigmented, indicating that its and on private property adjacent to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, primary habitat is a zone of permanent Landa Park. Hueco Springs and Fern Interior. darkness in the underground aquifer Bank Springs are located on private feeding the springs. Above ground, ACTION: Proposed rule. property. San Marcos Springs are individuals are easy prey for predators, located on the property of Aquarena SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service but they usually take shelter in the rock Springs, formerly a privately owned proposes to list three aquatic and gravel crevices and may succeed in resort facility. Southwest Texas State invertebrate species known only from reentering the spring orifice. Barr (1993) University purchased the facility in Comal and Hays counties, Texas, as got most specimens in drift nets at 1994. Aquarena Springs continues to endangered species under the spring orifices and found them less operate as a resort, but the university Endangered Species Act of 1973, as often as she moved downstream, plans to increase conference facilities amended (Act). The primary threat to supporting the notion that they may be and provide educational and these species is a decrease in water easy prey and do not likely survive for interpretive displays and to increase quantity and quality as a result of water long outside the aquifer. availability of the springs for biological withdrawal and other activities by The Comal Springs riffle beetle is a and ecological research (Billy Moore, humans throughout the San Antonio small, aquatic beetle known from Comal Public Affairs Director, Southwest Texas Springs and San Marcos Springs. It was segment of the Edwards Aquifer. This State University, pers. comm., 1995). first collected by Bosse in 1976 and was proposal, if made final, will implement Peck’s cave amphipod is a described in 1988 by Bosse et al. The Federal protection provided by the Act subterranean, aquatic crustacean. The closest relative of H. comalensis appears for the Peck’s cave amphipod other two species are aquatic beetles. to be a species that occurs farther to the (Stygobromus pecki), Comal Springs The families to which these beetles west (Bosse et al. 1988). riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), belong live primarily in flowing, Adult Comal Springs riffle beetles are and Comal Springs dryopid beetle uncontaminated waters. The Comal about 2 mm (1⁄10 inch) long, with (Stygoparnus comalensis). Springs riffle beetle is a surface species females slightly larger than males. DATES: Comments from all interested in the family Elmidae. The Comal Unlike the other two organisms parties must be received by August 4, Springs dryopid beetle is the only proposed here, the Comal Springs riffle 1995. Public hearing requests must be known subterranean member of the beetle is not a subterranean species. It received by July 20, 1995. family Dryopidae. occurs in the gravel substrate and ADDRESSES: Comments and materials The first recorded specimen of the shallow riffles in spring runs. Some concerning this proposal should be sent amphipod Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) riffle beetle species can fly, but the hind to the State Administrator, U.S. Fish pecki (Holsinger 1967) was collected by wings of Heterelmis comalensis are and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Peck at Comal Springs in June, 1964. short and almost certainly non- Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758. Reddell collected a second specimen at functional, making the species 29538 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 107 / Monday, June 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules incapable of this mode of dispersal Springs dryopid beetle and Peck’s cave requested the Service to list Peck’s cave (Bosse et al. 1988). The larvae have been amphipod, which are obligate aquatic amphipod. The species was included in collected with adults in the gravel stygobiontic species. However, no a notice of review published on April substrate of the spring headwaters and specimens of Stygoparnus comalensis or 28, 1975 (40 FR 18476). A ‘‘warranted not on submerged wood as is typical of Stygobromus pecki have appeared in but precluded’’ finding regarding most Heterelmis species (Brown and collections from 22 artesian and several species in that petition was Barr 1988). Usual water depth in pumped wells flowing from the made October 12, 1983, and published occupied habitat is 2 to 10 cm (1 to 4 Edwards Aquifer (Barr 1993), suggesting January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485). The inches) although the beetle may also that these species may be confined to same petition determination has been occur in slightly deeper areas within the small areas surrounding the spring repeated for Peck’s cave amphipod in spring runs. Populations are reported to openings and are not distributed subsequent years. The species was reach their greatest densities from throughout the aquifer. Barr (1993) also included as a category 2 candidate in February to April (Bosse et al. 1988). surveyed nine springs in Bexar, Comal, comprehensive notices of review The Comal Springs riffle beetle has been and Hays counties considered most published May 22, 1984 (49 FR 21664), collected from spring runs 1, 2, and 3 likely to provide habitat for endemic January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and at Comal Springs in Landa Park, and a invertebrates and found Stygoparnus November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804). In single specimen was collected from San comalensis only at Comal and Fern the latest notice of review of November Marcos Springs 32 km (20 miles) to the Bank springs and Stygobromus pecki 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982), it was included northeast. only at Comal and Hueco springs. as a category 1 candidate. The Comal Springs dryopid beetle is The low water limits for survival are In a petition dated June 20, 1990, and a recently discovered species. It was not known for any of these three received June 21, 1990, Mr. David first collected in 1987 and described as invertebrate species. At least a single Whatley, Director of the City of New a new genus and species in 1992 by Barr population of each species survived the Braunfels Parks and Recreation (California State University) and drought of the middle 1950’s, which Department, requested the Service to list Spangler (National Museum of Natural resulted in cessation of flow at Comal five invertebrate taxa, including Peck’s History, Smithsonian Institution). Adult Springs from June 13 through November cave amphipod and four insects. The Comal Springs dryopid beetles are about 3, 1956. Hueco springs is documented to Service treated this as a second petition 3.0–3.7 mm (1⁄8 inch) long. They have have gone dry in the past (Brune 1981; for the amphipod. A notice of 90-day vestigial (non-functional) eyes and are Barr 1993), and although no information petition finding published April 29, weakly pigmented, translucent, and is available for Fern Bank Springs, it has 1991 (56 FR 19632) announced that the thin-skinned. The species is the first probably gone dry as well given its petition had presented substantial stygobiontic (subterranean aquatic) higher elevation (Glenn Longley, information indicating that listing the member of its family to be discovered Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Comal Springs riffle beetle and the (Brown and Barr 1988, Barr, in litt. Center, pers. comm., 1993). San Marcos Comal Springs dryopid beetle may be 1990, Barr and Spangler 1992). Springs has not gone dry in recorded warranted, and initiated a formal status Collection records for the Comal Springs history. review for those species. Taxonomic dryopid beetle are primarily from spring Although these invertebrates were not uncertainties about the Comal Springs run 2 at Comal Springs, but they have entirely extirpated by the temporary Microcylloepus riffle beetle and also been collected from runs 3 and 4 cessation of spring flow, they may have Hexagenia mayfly, also included in the at Comal Springs and from Fern Bank been adversely affected and are not June 21, 1990, petition, led to 90-day Springs about 32 km (20 miles) to the expected to be able to survive long petition findings that were negative for northeast in Hays County. Specimens periods of drying (up to several years in those insects. The Heterelmis was have been collected in April, May, June, duration) that may occur in the absence recognized as a category 2 candidate in July, and August. Most of the specimens of an adequate water management plan the November 21, 1989, notice of have been taken from drift nets or from for the Edwards Aquifer. Stagnation of review, and both it and the Stygoparnus inside the spring orifices. Although the water may be a limiting condition, were recognized as category 1 larvae of the Comal Springs dryopid particularly for the two stygobiontic candidates in the 1994 notice of review. beetle have been collected in drift nets invertebrates. Stagnation of water and/ The present proposal constitutes a positioned over the spring openings, or drying within the spring runs and the positive 1-year finding for the petitions they are presumed to be associated with photic (lighted) zone of the spring to list the Comal Springs riffle beetle, air-filled voids inside the spring orifices orifices would probably be limiting for Comal Springs dryopid beetle, and since all other known dryopid beetle the Comal Springs riffle beetle. Natural Peck’s cave amphipod. larvae are terrestrial. Unlike Peck’s cave water flow is considered important to Summary of Factors Affecting the amphipod, the Comal Springs dryopid the respiration and therefore survival of Species beetle does not swim, and it may have these species. The two beetle species a smaller range within the aquifer. have a mass of tiny, hydrophobic Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered The exact depth and subterranean (unwettable) hairs on their underside Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and extent of the ranges of the two where they maintain a thin bubble of air regulations promulgated to implement subterranean species (Comal Springs through which gas exchange occurs the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR dryopid beetle and Peck’s cave (Chapman 1982). This method of Part 424) set forth the procedures for amphipod) are not precisely known respiration loses its effectiveness as the adding species to the Federal lists. A because of a lack of methodologies level of dissolved oxygen in the water species may be determined to be an available for studying karst aquifer decreases. A number of aquatic insects endangered or threatened species due to systems and the organisms that inhabit that use dissolved oxygen rely on one or more of the five factors described such systems. The subterranean portion flowing water to obtain oxygen from the in Section 4(a)(1). These factors and of this habitat may be a single, water. their application to the Peck’s cave interconnected system that provides the In a petition dated September 9, 1974, amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), Comal area necessary for the feeding, growth, the Conservation Committee of the Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis survival, and reproduction of the Comal National Speleological Society comalensis), and Comal Springs dryopid Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 107 / Monday, June 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 29539 beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis) are as The Texas Water Development Board quality abruptly deteriorates to greater follows: has applied its model of the Edwards than 1000 mg/l total dissolved solids A. The present or threatened Aquifer to determine the maximum (TDS). In other words, at the bad water destruction, modification, or pumping level that would allow Comal line, there is a transition in groundwater curtailment of their habitat or range. Springs to continue to flow (Technical from fresh to saline or brackish. The main threat to the habitat of these Advisory Panel 1990). The Board found Lowered water levels resulting from aquatic invertebrates is a reduction or that during a drought similar to that of groundwater pumpage or decreased loss of water of adequate quantity and the 1950’s, the maximum pumpage that recharge may result in deterioration of quality, due primarily to human would allow spring flow at Comal water quality in the fresh water section withdrawal of water from the Edwards Springs is about 250,000 acre-feet per of the aquifer through movement of the Aquifer and other activities. Total year (less than half the current pumping bad water line. The Comal and San withdrawal from the San Antonio region rate). ‘‘At this pumping level, Comal Marcos Springs are very close to the bad of the Edwards Aquifer has been Springs could be expected to maintain water line (TWC 1989; Edwards increasing since at least 1934, when the some annual flow although they may Underground Water District 1992b) and total well discharge was 101,900 acre- flow on an intermittent basis during a although the data are inconclusive at feet (Edwards Underground Water recurrence of the drought of record’’ present, these springs may be sensitive District 1989). In 1989, the total well (Technical Advisory Panel 1990). The to intrusion of saline waters at low discharge was slightly more than Panel also stated that in the year 2000, aquifer levels. Other possible effects of 542,000 acre-feet (Longley 1991; if pumping continues to grow at reduced springflow levels include Edwards Underground Water District historical rates and a drought of record changes in the chemical composition of 1992a). were to occur, Comal Springs would go the water in the aquifer and at the There is an integral connection dry for a number of years (Technical springs, a decrease in current velocity between the waters in the aquifer west Advisory Panel 1990). Wanakule (1990) and corresponding increase in siltation, of the springs and the waters serving as states: ‘‘The present problem facing the and increase in temperature and habitat for these species at the springs. Edwards Aquifer is the threat of temperature fluctuations in the aquatic Water entering the Edwards Aquifer as overdrafting of the annual average habitat (McKinney and Watkins 1993). far west as Kinney County would recharge rate (1934–1988) of Another threat to the habitat of these eventually exit at springs were it not for approximately 635,500 acre-feet. species is the potential for groundwater contamination. Pollutants of concern withdrawal of groundwater from wells. McKinney and Watkins (1993) include those associated with human Water in the Edwards Aquifer flows evaluated the Texas Water Development sewage (particularly septic tanks), from west to east or northeast, and Board model and other models and animal/feedlot waste, agricultural withdrawal or contamination of water in concluded that, without limiting chemicals (especially insecticides, the western part of the aquifer can have withdrawal to about 200,000 acre-feet herbicides, and fertilizers) and urban a direct effect on the quantity and per year, Comal Springs will likely go runoff (including pesticides, fertilizers, quality of water flowing toward the dry for extended periods during even a minor drought. The creation of the and detergents). Pipeline, highway, and springs and at the spring openings. Edwards Aquifer Authority may help to railway transportation of potentially Prior to wells being drilled into the alleviate this threat to some degree (see harmful materials in the Edwards aquifer, the average springflow from Factor D for further discussion). The Aquifer recharge zone and its watershed Comal and San Marcos springs was Edwards Aquifer Authority is currently with the attendant possibility of equal to the average annual recharge. subject to litigation regarding violation accidents presents a particular risk to That is, almost all of the water entering of the Voting Rights Act in its formation. water quality in Comal and San Marcos the aquifer eventually exited at the The Texas Legislature is now springs. Comal and San Marcos springs springs. At present, much of the considering bills designed to bring the are both located in highly urbanized recharge is pumped out of the aquifer, Authority into compliance, but the areas. Hueco Springs is located and most of what is left becomes the outcome of this effort remains to be alongside River Road, which is heavily average springflow (Guadalupe-Blanco determined. travelled for recreation on the River Authority 1988). The amount of In 1984 and 1990, some of the higher- Guadalupe River, and may be water removed by wells is therefore a elevation Comal Springs ceased flowing susceptible to road runoff and spills direct, one-for-one depletion of water and water levels in the index well (J–17) related to traffic. Fern Bank Springs is that would otherwise exit through the in San Antonio dropped to within in a relatively remote, rural location and springs (Guadalupe-Blanco River twelve feet of the historic low of 612.5 its principal vulnerability is probably to Authority 1988) and provide habitat for ft that occurred in 1956 (Wanakule contaminants associated with leaking the proposed invertebrates. 1990). Because these invertebrates septic tanks, animal/feedlot wastes, and The Texas Water Commission (TWC) require relatively well-oxygenated agricultural chemicals. (1989) classified the San Antonio water, a reduction or cessation of spring Of the counties containing portions of segment of the Edwards Aquifer as a flows, even if standing water remained the San Antonio segment of the critical area in terms of its potential for around the spring orifices, may Edwards Aquifer, the potential for groundwater problems related to adversely affect the species. Loss of acute, catastrophic contamination of the overdrafting. The Commission also water entirely within their habitat aquifer is greatest in Bexar, Hays, and ranked Bexar, Comal, and Hays counties would result in the extirpation of these Comal counties because of the higher among the top 23 counties in Texas for aquatic species from their native habitat. density of urbanization compared to the number of active groundwater public In addition to a loss of water, a western counties. Although spill or supply systems. Human population in decrease in the water level in the aquifer contamination events that could affect the region is expected to increase could lead to a decreased quality of water quality may occur to the west of (Technical Advisory Panel 1990; water at the springs. The Balcones Fault Bexar County, dilution and the time Edwards Underground Water District Zone—San Antonio Region is bounded required for the water to reach the 1993), which will result in increased on the south and east by a ‘‘bad water’’ springs may lessen the threat from that demand for water from the aquifer. line across which the groundwater area. As aquifer levels decrease, 29540 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 107 / Monday, June 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules however, dilution of contaminants Bank Springs, although the temporary and San Marcos Springs would not moving through the aquifer may also increase in discharge seen after storm necessarily be sufficient to maintain decrease. events indicates a local recharge flow at Hueco and Fern Bank Springs, The TWC reported that in 1988 within component (Barr 1993). which lie at higher elevations. the San Antonio segment of the B. Overutilization for commercial, Although creation of the Edwards Edwards Aquifer, Bexar, Hays, and recreational, scientific or educational Aquifer Authority and development of Comal counties had the greatest number purposes. No threat from overutilization regulations for limiting withdrawal of of land-based oil and chemical spills in of these species is known to exist. groundwater from the Edwards Aquifer central Texas that affect surface and/or C. Disease or predation. While is a positive step toward protecting the groundwater with 28, 6, and 4 spills, individuals of these three species may Comal and San Marcos spring respectively (TWC 1989). As of July, be preyed upon by various predatory ecosystems, creation of the Authority is 1988, Bexar County had between 26 and insects or fishes, no information currently a matter in litigation regarding 50 confirmed leaking underground indicates that this is a substantial threat compliance with the Voting Rights Act. storage tanks, Hays County had between to any of the three species. It is uncertain if or when the Authority 6 and 10, and Comal County had D. The inadequacy of existing will be empowered to enforce the between 2 and 5 (TWC 1989), putting regulatory mechanisms. Invertebrates pumping limits dictated by the these counties among the top five are not included on the Texas Parks and legislation, and thus whether it will be counties in central Texas for confirmed Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) list of able to protect these aquatic underground storage tank leaks. The threatened and endangered species and invertebrates and other threatened and TWC estimates that, on average, every are provided no protection by the State. endangered species dependent upon leaking underground storage tank will Nor do the TPWD regulations contain water from the aquifer. leak about 500 gallons per year of provisions for protecting habitat of any The major regulations affecting water contaminants before the leak is listed species. quality in the San Antonio segment of detected. These tanks are considered Traditionally, the State of Texas has the Edwards Aquifer are the Edwards one of the most significant sources of had no authority to regulate withdrawal Rules (31 Texas Administrative Code, groundwater contamination in the State of groundwater from an aquifer. In Chapter 313), promulgated and enforced (TWC 1989). response to a lawsuit filed against the by the TWC (recently renamed as the A TWC project, using the DRASTIC Service by the Sierra Club (Sierra Club Texas Natural Resource Conservation methodology/tool (Aller, et al. 1987) v. Babbitt, formerly Sierra Club v. Commission). The Edwards Rules classified Texas aquifers statewide Lujan), the Texas State Legislature regulate construction-related activities according to their pollution potential. passed a bill (S.B. 1477) authorizing the on the recharge zone that may ‘‘alter or The Edwards Aquifer (Balcones Fault creation of the Edwards Aquifer disturb the topographic, geologic, or Zone—Austin and San Antonio Authority (Authority) and granting the existing recharge characteristics of the Regions) was ranked among the highest Authority the power to regulate site’’ as well as any other activity in pollution potential of all major Texas groundwater withdrawal from the ‘‘which may pose a potential for aquifers (TWC 1989). The project’s Edwards Aquifer. The bill recommends contaminating the Edwards Aquifer.’’ objective was to identify areas sensitive limiting groundwater withdrawal from The Edwards Rules regulate to groundwater pollution from a the aquifer to 450,000 acre-feet per year construction activities through review of contaminated land surface. The project initially, then reducing it to 400,000 Water Pollution Abatement Plans modelled both point source and non- acre-feet per year by January 1, 2008, (WPAPs). The WPAPs do not require point source types of contamination. based on a model developed by the site-specific water quality performance The area of particular concern is the TWC. One stated goal of the bill is to standards for developments over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and its provide continuous minimum recharge zone nor do they address land watershed. The TWC (1989) also springflow of at least 100 cfs at Comal use or impervious cover limitations. The reviewed and reported on the risk to and San Marcos Springs by the year WPAPs do not regulate activities in the Texas aquifers from sanitary landfills, 2012 to protect species that are aquifer contributing zone and, as yet, hazardous waste disposal facilities, designated as threatened or endangered the Edwards Rules do not include a industrial waste and sewage disposal under Federal or State law. However, comprehensive plan to address the wells, commercial feedlots, and some researchers have maintained that, effects of cumulative impacts on water graveyards. even with such pumping limits, flow at quality in the aquifer (Edwards The DRASTIC methodology may Comal Springs will drop below 100 cfs, Underground Water District 1993). underestimate the importance of faults and the springs will likely go dry for E. Other natural or manmade factors and fractures, which affect the extended periods in time of severe affecting its continued existence. The movement of groundwater and drought and probably during minor effect of droughts in south central Texas pollutants. Faults and fractures may act droughts (McKinney and Watkins 1993). will be much more severe than as conduits and/or barriers to The bill creating the Authority gives previously was the case, due to the large groundwater flow and, in the vicinity of consideration in setting minimum increase in groundwater withdrawals springs, could facilitate movement of springflow requirements only to those (Wanakule 1990). These species’ very contaminants. The Comal Springs fault species protected under Federal or State limited habitat is likely to be lost facilitates the movement of groundwater law. These invertebrates would receive through drying or decreased volume of (and potentially pollutants) towards no consideration under the current plan springflow during minor or severe Comal Springs. Hueco Springs has a until they are listed. In addition, Comal drought. large local recharge component (Brune and San Marcos Springs are the lowest At present, competition is not known 1981) and may be more susceptible to elevation springs in which these to be a significant threat to these contamination via polluted runoff than invertebrates are found, and species. However, two exotic snail Comal or San Marcos Springs. Little maintaining flow at Fern Bank and species, Thiara granifera and Thiara information is available on the relative Hueco Springs is not a stated goal of the tuberculata are common in the spring contribution of groundwater and local water withdrawal limitations. Efforts to runs and, as grazers, may compete for recharge to the water emerging at Fern maintain minimum springflow at Comal food. Another exotic, the giant ramshorn Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 107 / Monday, June 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 29541 snail (Marisa cornuarietis), is present in beyond the benefits provided by listing occupied by the species. Designation of two of the spring runs and may colonize and the subsequent evaluation of critical habitat for these species would the other runs at low flow levels or activities under section 7 of the Act for therefore not be prudent. through transfer by humans. possible jeopardy. In the Service’s Available Conservation Measures The Service has carefully assessed the section 7 regulations at 50 CFR Part 402, best scientific and commercial the definition of ‘‘jeopardize the Conservation measures provided to information available regarding the past, continued existence of’’ includes ‘‘to species listed as endangered or present, and future threats faced by reduce appreciably the likelihood of threatened under the Endangered these species in determining to propose both the survival and recovery of the Species Act include recognition, this rule. Based on this evaluation the listed species,’’ and ‘‘adverse recovery actions, requirements for preferred action is to list the Peck’s cave modification’’ is defined as ‘‘a direct or Federal protection, and prohibitions amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), Comal indirect alteration that appreciably against certain practices. Recognition Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis diminishes the value of critical habitat through listing encourages and results comalensis), and Comal Springs dryopid for both the survival and recovery of a in conservation actions by Federal, beetle as endangered. listed species.’’ Because these species State, and private agencies, groups, and individuals. The Endangered Species Critical Habitat are endemic to such highly localized areas, actions that apparently diminish Act provides for cooperation with the Critical habitat is defined by Section water quality and quantity at the springs States and requires that recovery actions 3 of the Act as— (i) the specific areas would be fully evaluated for their effects be carried out for all listed species. The within the geographical area occupied on the three species through analysis of protection required of Federal agencies by a species, at the time it is listed in whether the actions would be likely to and the prohibitions against taking and accordance with the Act, on which are jeopardize their continued existence. harm are discussed, in part, below. found those physical or biological Conservation and management of the Any action that would appreciably features (I) essential to the conservation Peck’s cave amphipod, Comal Springs diminish the value, in quality or of the species and (II) that may require riffle beetle, and Comal Springs dryopid quantity, of spring flows on which they special management considerations or beetle are likely to involve protection depend would also reduce appreciably protection; and (ii) specific areas and conservation of the Edwards the likelihood of survival and recovery outside the geographical area occupied Aquifer and spring flow at Comal of the three species. The analysis for by a species at the time it is listed, upon Springs, Hueco Springs, San Marcos possible jeopardy applied to these a determination that such areas are Springs, and Fern Bank Springs. It is species would therefore be identical to essential for the conservation of the also anticipated that listing will the section 7 analysis for determining species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use encourage research on critical aspects of of all methods and procedures needed adverse modification or destruction of the species’ population biology. to bring the species to the point at critical habitat; no distinction between Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, which listing under the Act is no longer jeopardy and adverse modification for requires Federal agencies to evaluate necessary. activities impacting the springs on their actions with respect to any species Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as which these species depend can be that is proposed or listed as endangered amended, and implementing regulations made at this time. Application of or threatened and with respect to its (50 CFR 424.12) require that to the section 7 relative to critical habitat critical habitat, if any is being maximum extent prudent and would therefore not add measurable designated. Regulations implementing determinable, the Secretary designate protection to these species beyond what this interagency cooperation provision critical habitat at the time a species is is achievable through review for of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part determined to be endangered or jeopardy. 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal threatened. The Service finds that Designation of the springs and their agencies to confer informally with the designation of critical habitat is not immediate environment as critical Service on any action that is likely to prudent for Peck’s cave amphipod, the habitat would actually be detrimental to jeopardize the continued existence of a Comal Springs riffle beetle, and the conservation efforts for these species proposed species. If a species is listed Comal Springs dryopid beetle at this because it would promote the subsequently, Section 7(a)(2) requires time. Service regulations (50 CFR misconception that the springs are the Federal agencies to ensure that activities 424.12(a)(1) state that designation of only areas important to their they authorize, fund, or carry out are not critical habitat is not prudent when one conservation. Conservation efforts for likely to jeopardize the continued or both of the following situations these species must address a wide existence of such species or to destroy exist— (1) The species is threatened by variety of federally funded or authorized or adversely modify its critical habitat. taking or other human activity, and activities (summarized in the ‘‘Available If a Federal action may affect a listed identification of critical habitat can be Conservation Measures’’ section of this species or its critical habitat, the expected to increase the degree of threat proposed rule) that affect the quality responsible Federal agency must enter to the species, or (2) such designation of and quantity of water available to these into formal consultation with the critical habitat would not be beneficial species through effects on the recharge Service. Federal actions that could affect to the species. sources and aquifer that supply water to the Peck’s cave amphipod, Comal The Service finds that designation of their habitats. Nearly all of these Springs riffle beetle, and/or Comal critical habitat for these three species activities will occur beyond the Springs dryopid beetle include the would not be prudent because it would immediate vicinity of the springs, and funding, authorization, and not provide a conservation benefit to some will occur many miles away. implementation of projects that would them, and would actually be Designation of the springs as critical reduce the quantity or quality of water detrimental by suggesting a habitat would be misleading in within the San Antonio segment of the misleadingly restricted view of their implying to Federal agencies whose Edwards Aquifer or otherwise conservation needs. activities may affect these species that significantly affect the outlets or water Designation of critical habitat would the Service’s concern is limited only to output of Comal Springs in New not be beneficial to these species activities taking place at the springs Braunfels, Texas; San Marcos Springs in 29542 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 107 / Monday, June 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules

San Marcos, Texas; Hueco Springs in could potentially harm the Comal (3) Additional information concerning Comal County, Texas; and Fern Bank invertebrates and result in ‘‘take’’ the ranges, distributions, and Springs in Hays County, Texas. include, but are not limited to— population sizes of these species; Examples of these types of activities (1) Collecting or handling of the (4) Current or planned activities in the include projects that would involve species; subject area and their possible impacts withdrawal of water from the aquifer; (2) Activities that may result in on these species; and permits for municipal wastewater destruction or alteration of the species’ Final promulgation of the regulations discharge; agricultural irrigation; use of habitat (including, but not limited to on these species will take into pesticides and herbicides; withdrawal of water from the aquifer to consideration the comments and any Environmental Protection Agency the point at which habitat becomes additional information received by the National Pollutant Discharge unsuitable for the species, alteration of Service, and such communications may Elimination System permits; section 18 the physical habitat within the spring lead to a final regulation that differs exemptions under the Federal runs, or physical alteration of the spring from this proposal. Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide orifices or of the subsurface pathways The Endangered Species Act provides Act; and Corps of Engineers permits for providing water to the springs); for a public hearing on this proposal, if stream crossings. (3) Discharge or dumping of requested. Requests must be received The Act and implementing chemicals, silt, pollutants, household or within 45 days of the date of publication regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set industrial waste, or other material into of the proposal. Such requests must be forth a series of general prohibitions and the springs or into areas that provide made in writing and addressed to State exceptions that apply to all endangered access to the aquifer and where such Administrator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, discharge or dumping could affect water Service (see ADDRESSES section). make it illegal for any person subject to quality; or National Environmental Policy Act the jurisdiction of the United States to (4) Herbicide, pesticide, or fertilizer take (includes harass, harm, pursue, application in or near springs The Fish and Wildlife Service has hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collect; containing the species or areas that determined that an Environmental or to attempt any of these), import or drain into the aquifer. Careful use of Assessment, as defined under the export, ship in interstate commerce in pesticides in the vicinity of the springs authority of the National Environmental the course of a commercial activity, or may be necessary in some instances. Policy Act of 1969, need not be sell or offer for sale in interstate or The Service believes that a wide prepared in connection with regulations foreign commerce any listed species. It variety of activities would not harm adopted pursuant to Section 4(a) of the is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, these species if undertaken in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as carry, transport, or ship any wildlife vicinity of their habitats and thus would amended. A notice outlining the that has been taken illegally. Certain not constitute taking. In general, any Service’s reasons for this determination exceptions apply to agents of the activity in the contributing, recharge, or was published in the Federal Register Service and State conservation agencies. artesian zones of the Edwards aquifer on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Permits may be issued to carry out that would not have potential for References Cited otherwise prohibited activities cumulative or acute/catastrophic involving endangered wildlife species decrease in water quality within the Aller, L., T. Bennett, J.H. Lehr, R.J. Petty, and under certain circumstances. aquifer and would not involve use of G. Hackett. 1987. DRASTIC: a standardized Regulations governing permits are at 50 water from the aquifer should not harm system for evaluating groundwater CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits are pollution potential using hydrogeologic these species. Inquiries concerning the settings. U.S. Environmental Protection available for scientific purposes, to possible effects of specific activities Agency. EPA/600/2–87/035. 622 pp. enhance the propagation or survival of should be directed to the Service’s Barr, C.B. 1993. Survey for two Edwards the species, and/or for incidental take in Texas State Office (see ADDRESSES, Aquifer invertebrates: Comal Springs connection with otherwise lawful above). dryopid beetle Stygoparnus comalensis activities. It is anticipated that few trade Barr and Spangler (Coleoptera: Dryopidae) permits would ever be sought or issued Public Comments Solicited and Peck’s cave amphipod Stygobromus because these species are not known to The Service intends that any final pecki Holsinger (Amphipoda: be in trade. action resulting from this proposal will Crangonyctidae). Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 70 pp. It is the policy of the Service (59 FR be as accurate and as effective as Barr, C.B., and P.J. Spangler. 1992. A new 34272) to identify to the maximum possible. Therefore, comments or genus and species of stygobiontic dryopid extent practicable at the time a species suggestions from the public, other beetle, Stygoparnus comalensis is listed or proposed to be listed those concerned governmental agencies, the (Coleoptera: Dryopidae), from Comal activities that would or would not scientific community, industry, or any Springs, Texas. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. constitute a violation of section 9 of the other interested party concerning this 105(1):40–54. Act. The intent of this policy is to proposed rule are hereby solicited. Bosse, L.S., D.W. Tuff, and H.P. Brown. 1988. increase public awareness of the effect A new species of Heterelmis from Texas Comments are particularly sought (Coleoptera: Elmidae). Southwestern of a listing on proposed and ongoing concerning: Naturalist 33(2):199–203. activities within a species’ range. The (1) Biological, commercial trade, or Brown, H.P., and C.B. Barr. 1988. First report Service emphasizes that this action is a relevant data concerning any threat (or of stygobiontic (subterranean) riffle beetles proposed listing, and that the guidelines lack thereof) to Peck’s cave amphipod, in North America. Program abstract for presented herein are for use in the event the Comal Springs riffle beetle, and April 22, 1988, meeting of Southwestern that the listing becomes final. Should Comal Springs dryopid beetle; Association of Naturalists. 5 pp. the listing become final, the discussion (2) The location of any additional Brune, G. 1981. Springs of Texas, Volume 1. and outline presented here should assist populations of these species and the Branch-Smith Inc., Ft. Worth, Texas. Chapman, R.F., 1982. The Insects: Structure landowners and managers in avoiding reasons why any habitat should or and Function. Harvard University Press, violation of section 9 of the Act. The should not be determined to be critical Cambridge, MA. 919 pp. Service believes that, based on the best habitat as provided by Section 4 of the Edwards Underground Water District. 1989. available information, activities that Act; Compilation of hydrologic data for the Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 107 / Monday, June 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 29543

Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio area, Texas, McKinney, D.C., and D.W. Watkins, Jr. 1993. recordkeeping requirements, 1988, with 1934–88 summary: Bulletin 48, Management of the Edwards Aquifer: A Transportation. 157 pp. critical assessment. Technical Report Edwards Underground Water District. 1992a. CRWR 244. Center for Research in Water Proposed Regulations Promulgation Report of the technical data review panel Resources, Bureau of Engineering on the water resources of the south central Research. University of Texas at Austin. 94 PART 17Ð[AMENDED] Texas region. 307 pp. pp. Edwards Underground Water District. 1992b. Technical Advisory Panel. 1990. Technical Accordingly, the Service hereby Investigation of the fresh/saline water factors in Edwards Aquifer use and proposes to amend part 17, subchapter interface in the Edwards Aquifer in New management. Prepared for Special B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Braunfels and San Marcos, Texas. Report Committee on the Edwards Aquifer. 57 pp. Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 92–02. 18 pp. Texas Water Commission. 1989. Ground- Edwards Underground Water District. 1993. water quality of Texas—an overview of 1. The authority citation for Part 17 Urban Development on the Edwards natural and man-affected conditions. continues to read as follows: Aquifer Recharge Zone. Report 93–09. 40 Austin, Texas. 197 pp. and 3 plates. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. pp. Wanakule, N. 1990. Stochastic drought 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority. 1988. analysis of the Edwards Aquifer. Edwards 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. The Edwards Aquifer: Underground River Aquifer Research and Data Center No. R1– of Texas. Guadalupe-Blanco River 90, San Marcos, Texas. 32 pp. 2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by Authority, Seguin, Texas. 63 pp. Authors: The primary authors of this rule adding the following, in alphabetical Holsinger, J.R. 1967. Systematics, speciation, order under Crustaceans and Insects, and distribution of the subterranean are Ruth Stanford and Alisa Shull (see ADDRESSES respectively, to the List of Endangered amphipod genus Stygonectes section) and George Drewry, (Gammaridae). Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 259:1– Division of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Threatened Wildlife to read as 176. and Wildlife Service, 452 ARLSQ, follows: Longley, G. 1991. Status and trends of the Washington DC 20240. § 17.11 Endangered and threatened Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer in List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 the San Antonio Region. pp. 4–18 In: wildlife. Proceedings of South Texas Irrigation Endangered and threatened species, * * * * * Conference. Guy Fipps, ed. 146 pp. Exports, Imports, Reporting and (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

******* CRUSTACEANS:

******* Amphipod, Stygobromus U.S.A. (TX) ...... NA ...... E ...... NA NA Peck's cave. (=Stygonectes) pecki.

******* INSECTS: Beetle, Comal Stygoparnus U.S.A. (TX) ...... NA ...... E ...... NA NA Springs comalensis. dryopid.

******* Beetle, Comal Heterelmis U.S.A. (TX) ...... NA ...... E ...... NA NA Springs riffle. comalensis.

Dated: May 23, 1995. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ACTION: Proposed rule; request for Mollie H. Beattie, comments. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration SUMMARY: [FR Doc. 95–13457 Filed 6–1–95; 8:45 am] NMFS proposes to change the total allowable catch (TAC) for the BILLING CODE 4310±55±P 50 CFR Part 630 Atlantic swordfish fishery in accordance with the framework procedure of the [Docket No. 950522139±5139±01; I.D. regulations. This rule proposes a 042495B] reduction of the directed-fishery TAC to 1,365 metric tons (mt) dressed weight RIN 0648±AH75 for each of two semiannual periods, each of which would be divided into a Atlantic Swordfish Fishery; 1995 drift gillnet quota of 27 mt and a Quotas longline and harpoon quota of 1,338 mt. The amount of the semi-annual longline AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries and harpoon quota allowed to be landed Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and would be 1,225 mt—the semi-annual Atmospheric Administration, quota amount less 113 mt, the estimated Commerce. weight of undersized swordfish that