[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64337-64340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31840]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC62


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of 
Public Comment Period on the Proposed Rule to List the Arkansas River 
Basin Population of the Arkansas River Shiner as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice reopening the public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On August 3, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service) proposed to list the Arkansas River basin population of the 
Arkansas (AR) River shiner (Notropis girardi) as an endangered species 
under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act)(59 FR 39532). Public comments were solicited, three public 
hearings were held, and the last comment period expired on February 3, 
1995 (60 FR 2070).
    The enactment of Pub. L. 104-6 in April 1995, and a series of 
continuing resolutions from October 1, 1995, through April 26, 1996, 
established a moratorium against issuing final listings or critical 
habitat designations. The Service's listing program was essentially 
shut down and listing program personnel were reassigned to other 
duties. When the moratorium was lifted, the Service published guidance 
for assigning relative priorities to listing actions conducted under 
section 4 of the Act during Fiscal Year 1997 (61 FR 64475).
    This species was proposed for endangered status in 1994. New 
information concerning the AR River shiner's status has since become 
available.
    This notice identifies possible issues the public should be aware 
of and provides the public opportunity to comment on these issues. All 
previous comments submitted in response to the August 3, 1994, 
proposal, including comments that were received after the expiration of 
the previous comment periods, will be entered into the public record 
for the AR River shiner.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by January 
5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials should be sent to: 
Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office, 222 South Houston, Suite 
A, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127-8909. Comments and materials received will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Collins at the above address 
(telephone 918/581-7458 ext. 230).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 3, 1994 (59 FR 39532), the Service proposed to list the 
Arkansas River basin population of the AR River shiner (Notropis 
girardi) as an endangered species under the authority of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The 
introduced population which occurs in the Pecos River basin is not 
under consideration for protection under the Act because it is not 
native to the area.
    Two public comment periods were established, with the last comment 
period expiring on February 3, 1995 (60 FR 2070). During the second 
comment period, the Service held three public hearings, one each in 
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The Service received 602 comments (letters 
and oral testimony) from 567 individuals or agencies, including a 
petition containing the names of 36 individuals. Contents of the 
written comments and oral statements obtained during the public 
hearings and comment periods were being evaluated at the time Public 
Law 104-6 was enacted.
    The enactment of Pub. L. 104-6 in April 1995, and a series of 
continuing resolutions from October 1, 1995, through April 26, 1996, 
established a moratorium against issuing final listings or critical 
habitat designations. Funding for the Service's listing program was 
severely reduced or eliminated and listing personnel were reassigned to 
other duties, essentially shutting down the listing program.
    On April 26, 1996, President Clinton approved the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 and exercised the authority granted under 
this Act to waive the listing moratorium. When the moratorium was 
lifted, the Service published guidance for assigning relative 
priorities to listing actions conducted under section 4 of the Act 
during Fiscal Year 1997 (61 FR 64475). Based on this priority system,

[[Page 64338]]

the listing of the Arkansas River basin population of the AR River 
shiner was assigned to Tier 2. Tier 2 includes processing of final 
decisions on pending proposed listings. The Service has determined that 
an additional comment period is needed to allow public comment on all 
relevant information that has arisen since the close of the last 
comment period for the AR River shiner.

Summary of Information Relevant to the Listing Decision

    The Service has received information indicating that populations of 
AR River shiners in the Canadian River upstream from Lake Meredith may 
be stable (and not declining as suggested in the proposed rule).

1. Effects of the Bureau of Reclamations's Lake Meredith Salinity 
Control Project

    In the proposed rule, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Bureau) 
Lake Meredith Salinity Control Project was identified as a significant, 
ongoing threat to the aggregations of AR River shiners that occur in 
the Canadian River between Ute Reservoir in New Mexico and Lake 
Meredith in Texas. Based on information available at the time of the 
proposed listing, the abundance of AR River shiners within this stream 
segment were believed to be declining and operation of the salinity 
control project would have resulted in significant reductions in stream 
flow, affecting habitat for the species within the Canadian River above 
Lake Meredith. New information (J.C. Williams, Canadian River Municipal 
Water Authority, in litt. 1997; Gene Wilde, Texas Tech University, in 
litt. 1997; Bureau 1995) does not support this assertion and the 
Service solicits questions and comments regarding this issue.

2. Influence of the High Plains Aquifer on Canadian River Stream Flows

    New information provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, State of 
Texas, and High Plains Underground Water Conservation District 
clarified the influence of the High Plains aquifer (Ogallala Aquifer) 
on Canadian River stream flows, particularly upstream of Lake Meredith. 
The High Plains aquifer in Texas underlies all or portions of 48 
counties of the Panhandle region. The aquifer is constricted in the 
vicinity of Randall and Potter counties, Texas, and this constriction 
is considered a subdivision boundary which divides the Southern High 
Plains from the Central High Plains regions (Dugan and Sharpe 1996). 
Groundwater in the Southern High Plains region moves in a southeasterly 
direction away from the Canadian River, based on the altitude of water 
levels within the aquifer (Peckham and Ashworth 1993). This region of 
the aquifer appears to have little influence, if any, over observed 
stream flows within the Canadian River in Texas.
    Upstream of the Hutchinson-Roberts County line, including Lake 
Meredith, the Canadian River stream bed is below the elevation of the 
High Plains aquifer (John Ashworth, Texas Water Development Board, in 
litt. 1995). Induced recharge of the High Plains aquifer by the 
Canadian River within this segment, caused by a lowering of the water 
table, is not likely to occur. The primary influence of the High Plains 
aquifer on stream flow within this reach would be predominantly through 
spring flow and similar emissions (e.g., natural discharge) where the 
water table intersects the land surface (Peckham and Ashworth 1993, 
Brune 1981, Texas State Board of Engineers 1938a, 1938b).
    The contribution of the High Plains aquifer to stream flows 
downstream of Lake Meredith, and the influence of groundwater pumping 
on observed stream flows, is difficult to determine with the existing 
information available to the Service. Considering the small amounts of 
springflow within this segment, reductions in such flows are not likely 
to have had a profound impact on stream flows or habitat for the AR 
River shiner. Any impact from a reduction or cessation of springflow is 
considerably less significant than the influence of Lake Meredith on 
current stream flows. The Service requests questions, comments, or any 
new information regarding the High Plains Aquifer. Information 
indicates that withdrawals from the High Plains aquifer may have 
affected stream flow within the Canadian River in Roberts and Hemphill 
counties, Texas, but the data necessary to confirm this assumption or 
determine the degree to which stream flows have been affected is 
lacking. Comments are sought on this particular issue, including any 
information that would clarify the influence of the High Plains aquifer 
on stream flows in this stream segment.

3. Susceptibility of Extant Populations to Catastrophic Events

    The proposed rule indicated that the Arkansas River basin 
population was essentially limited to one river system and was 
extremely susceptible to extinction from a single catastrophic event. 
In making this determination, the Service essentially discounted the 
small aggregations of AR River shiners occurring in the Cimarron River 
and considered the artificially isolated aggregations upstream of Lake 
Meredith vulnerable to the same singular catastrophic event. Likewise, 
the Service considered any AR River shiner aggregations in the Beaver/
North Canadian River to be the result of releases by commercial bait 
operators and such aggregations did not represent a naturally 
reproducing or self-sustaining population. Upon review of comments 
received during the comment periods, the Service has reassessed the 
significance of these factors in the status of the species.
    Lake Meredith is an effective artificial barrier to movement of 
stream fishes and does provide a small degree of protection to AR River 
shiner aggregations upstream of Lake Meredith from introductions of 
nonnative fishes that might occur downstream of the reservoir. 
Essentially two separate events would be required to affect both the 
upstream and downstream aggregations. Consequently, the Service 
acknowledges that a single catastrophic event, such as establishment of 
the non-native Red River shiners, would not necessarily affect existing 
aggregations of AR River shiners in the Canadian/South Canadian River 
system simultaneously. However, aggregations of AR River shiners 
upstream of Lake Meredith are less numerous than those in the remainder 
of the Canadian/South Canadian River system and the risk of extinction 
for the Arkansas River basin population would increase if Red River 
shiners became established downstream of Lake Meredith.
    Comments (from one individual) during the public comment period 
indicate that AR River shiners may still exist in the Beaver/North 
Canadian River near Turpin, Oklahoma. Likewise, AR River shiners may 
still occur in the Cimarron River. The Service recognizes that 
additional aggregations of AR River shiners may occur outside the 
Canadian/South Canadian River system. However, the viability of these 
aggregations is unknown and their present contribution to survival of 
the Arkansas River basin population is likely to be minimal considering 
the small size of these aggregations.
    The Service also did not adequately consider the importance of the 
Pecos River population to the survival of the Arkansas River basin 
population of the AR River shiner. The Pecos River population was 
accidentally established with individuals trans-located from the 
Arkansas River basin and could be used in conservation efforts 
following a severe drought within the Arkansas

[[Page 64339]]

River basin. While the Pecos River population is nonnative and not 
currently proposed for protection under the Act, this population 
essentially represents a refugia population that could be utilized in 
restoration efforts. The Service requests any additional information, 
questions, or comments regarding AR River shiner aggregations.

4. Status of Population Above Lake Meredith

    Recent (1995-96) data collected by Texas Tech University, supports 
the position of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) for the 
aggregations of AR River shiners upstream of Lake Meredith. At the time 
of the publication of the proposed rule, AR River shiner aggregations 
upstream of Lake Meredith were believed to be declining in abundance. 
However, current data may indicate otherwise. While the number of AR 
River shiners collected upstream of Lake Meredith has declined since 
the 1950's, the relative abundance of the AR River shiner in this 
stream segment has remained almost constant. Except for 1990 
collections, the relative abundance of AR River shiners within this 
stream segment has varied between 22 and 26 percent (Gene Wilde, Texas 
Tech University, in litt. 1997). The Service requests information on 
the aggregations of AR River shiners between Ute Reservoir and Lake 
Meredith.

5. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Service and the 
States of Texas and Oklahoma

    On March 7, 1997, the Service met with representatives from four of 
the five affected State fish and wildlife conservation agencies and the 
Bureau to discuss conservation of the Arkansas River basin population 
of the AR River shiner. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks was 
unable to send a representative to this meeting. The invited parties 
included those agencies with the responsibility, authority, and funding 
mechanisms to implement conservation actions for the AR River shiner.
    Following this meeting, the Service and the states of Texas and 
Oklahoma cooperated in drafting a MOU outlining actions the agencies 
should undertake to conserve the species. The purpose of the draft MOU 
is twofold--(1) to establish a general framework for cooperation among 
the signatory parties to conserve the Arkansas River basin population 
of the AR River shiner, and (2) to seek commitments from the signatory 
states that will provide conservation benefits to the shiner, thereby 
lessening the likelihood of extinction.
    The TPWD and the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife (ODWC) will 
accomplish the following actions under the MOU, to the extent that 
funding and authorities allow:
    (A) Work in partnership with the Service and other State fish and 
wildlife resource agencies to develop and implement a detailed 
conservation strategy to address known and possible future threats to 
the AR River shiner, and recovery opportunities; implementation of the 
conservation strategy will be initiated within 18 months from the 
effective date of this MOU.
    (B) Work in partnership with the Service to coordinate with other 
applicable State agencies and other stakeholders to develop adequate 
actions that eliminate or reduce threats to the AR River shiner and 
identify recovery actions for inclusion in the conservation strategy.
    (C) Work in partnership with the Service to develop and implement a 
systematic program to annually monitor the distribution and abundance 
of the AR River shiner and other nongame fishes within the Arkansas 
River Basin within each State (the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 
Navigation System is exempt).
    Likewise, the Service agreed to accomplish the following actions 
under the MOU, to the extent that funding and authorities allow:
    (A) Work in partnership with the ODWC, TPWD and other State fish 
and wildlife resource agencies in the development of a conservation 
strategy that involves appropriate stakeholders, including applicable 
Federal and State agencies, that identifies appropriate measures needed 
to eliminate or reduce threats to the AR River shiner and initiate 
recovery actions. The Service will coordinate the first meeting with 
future coordination responsibilities determined by consensus.
    (B) Seek to increase Endangered Species Act section 6 funds and 
assist in obtaining funds from other sources for states within the 
geographic range of the AR River shiner to assist in the conservation 
of this species as outlined in this MOU, the conservation strategy, and 
the recovery plan.
    (C) If the species is listed as threatened, work cooperatively with 
the State fish and wildlife resource agencies in promulgating a 4(d) 
rule under the Act that encompasses the conservation strategy and other 
management/recovery actions developed by the Service in partnership 
with the State fish and wildlife resource agencies.
    (D) Initiate delisting activities for the AR River shiner when 
protection under the Act is no longer warranted and the Service and 
State fish and wildlife resource agencies fulfill the obligations 
stipulated in the 4(d) rule, the conservation strategy, and recovery 
plan.
    The draft MOU also contains an appendix specific to Texas that 
reflects the unique nature of the threats and recovery opportunities 
available in that State and will serve to guide development of the 
conservation strategy for the AR River shiner. The Texas appendix 
contains these principles--
    (A) Conservation strategies will not restrict or regulate 
groundwater use of the High Plains Aquifer (formerly the Ogallala 
Aquifer) in Texas since, based on current knowledge, there is no 
hydrologic connection between groundwater resources of this aquifer and 
surface flows in the Canadian River in Texas. Conservation of the 
aquifer's water resources, however, is encouraged.
    (B) Conservation strategies will not require releases of water from 
Lake Meredith, except as might be voluntarily agreed to by controlling 
authorities in contributing to the conservation and recovery of the 
species and its habitat.
    (C) Existing (i.e., traditional, in the sense that they are 
ongoing) agricultural and land management activities as currently 
practiced adjacent to occupied AR River shiner habitat in Texas will 
not be adversely affected as part of developing and implementing 
conservation strategies, unless--(1) those practices are modified to 
adversely affect the species or its habitat, existing stream flow, or 
degradation of water quality; or (2) changes in those practices would 
benefit the species or its habitat, and are mutually agreed to by the 
landowner(s), TPWD, and the Service.
    The draft MOU will become effective upon signature of all parties, 
and will remain in force until modified or terminated. The MOU may be 
modified at any time during the period of performance by mutual consent 
of the signatory parties. If changes to an appendix are warranted, the 
respective State and the Service may make such changes. If a proposed 
change to an appendix would affect other signatory states, then all 
signatory parties must consent to the change. This MOU, as drafted, may 
be terminated at any time during the period of performance, upon 30 
days written notice, by any of the signatory parties.
    The TPWD and the ODWC signed the draft MOU in early May. The State 
of Kansas declined to enter into the MOU due to staff and fiscal 
constraints (Steve

[[Page 64340]]

Williams, Secretary, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, in litt. 
1997).
    Likewise, the State of New Mexico declined to enter into the MOU 
due to staff and fiscal constraints (Jerry A. Maracchini, Director, New 
Mexico Department of Game and Fish, in litt. 1997).

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service solicits written comments on information described in 
this notice. All previous comments and information submitted in 
response to earlier comment periods on this proposed action will be 
considered. Communications received during this comment period may lead 
to a final regulation that differs from that presented in this notice.

References Cited

Brune, G. 1981. Springs of Texas volume I. Branch-Smith, Inc. Fort 
Worth, TX
Dugan, J.T. and J.B. Sharpe. 1996. Water-level changes in the High 
Plains aquifer predevelopment to 1994. Water-Resources 
Investigations Report 95-4208. U.S. Geological Survey. Lincoln, NE.
Peckham, D.S. and J.B. Ashworth. 1993. The High Plains aquifer 
system of Texas, 1980 to 1990 overview and projections. Texas Water 
Development Board. Austin, TX 34 pp.
Texas State Board of Water Engineers. 1938a. Oldham County, Texas 
records of wells and springs, driller's logs, water analysis and map 
showing location of wells and springs. WPA Project 6017-5674. State 
Board of Water Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, and Univ. Texas 
Bureau of Industrial Chemistry. Austin, TX. 50 pp.
Texas State Board of Water Engineers. 1938b. Potter County, Texas 
records of wells, springs, and representative earthen tanks, 
driller's logs, water analysis and map showing location of wells. 
WPA Ground-water Survey Project 5674. State Board of Water 
Engineers, Univ. Texas Bureau of Industrial Chemistry, and U.S. 
Geological Survey. Austin, TX. 52 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1995. Final supplemental environmental 
assessment Lake Meredith Salinity Control Project Texas-New Mexico. 
Great Plains Region, Oklahoma-Texas Area Office. Oklahoma City, OK 
57 pp.

Author

    The primary author of this notice is Ken Collins, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES above).

Authority

    The authority for this action is 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544.

    Dated: November 24, 1997.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-31840 Filed 12-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P