[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56596-56609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27188]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AE 86
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List
the Devils River Minnow as Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine the Devils
River minnow (Dionda diaboli) to be a threatened species under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The
Devils River minnow is a small fish with a known distribution limited
to three locations in Val Verde and Kinney counties, Texas, and one
drainage in Coahuila, Mexico. The species' range is significantly
reduced and fragmented due to habitat loss from dam construction,
spring dewatering, and other stream modifications. The numbers of
Devils River minnows collected during fish surveys over the past 25
years have declined; once one of the most abundant fish in the Devils
River, the minnow has now become one of the least abundant. The
species' decline in abundance in the Devils River may be attributed to
the effects of both habitat modification and possibly predation by
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), an introduced game fish.
We originally proposed to list the Devils River minnow as
endangered. However, since publication of the proposed rule, a
Conservation Agreement (Agreement) for the species has been signed and
specific milestones for conservation actions have been agreed to by us,
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), and the City of Del
Rio. We determine that the actions already accomplished under this
Agreement, have reduced the imminence of the threats to the species
sufficiently to justify a threatened designation. This action will
implement Federal protection provided by the Act for the Devils River
minnow. We determine that designation of critical habitat for the
Devils River minnow is not prudent.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of this rule is November 19, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Austin Ecological
Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas,
78758.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Allan, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, at the above address, telephone 512/490-0057, or facsimile
512/490-0974.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Devils River minnow (Dionda diaboli Hubbs and Brown) is
classified in the Cyprinidae (minnow) family. It was first collected
from Las Moras Creek, near Brackettville, Texas, on April 14, 1951. The
species was described by Hubbs and Brown (1956) from specimens
collected in the Devils River at Baker's Crossing (southern-most bridge
crossing of State Highway 163) in 1951. The species occurs with similar
minnows, such as the closely related manantial roundnose minnow (Dionda
argentosa) and is also related to the more common roundnose minnow
(Dionda episcopa). Devils River minnow is recognized as a distinct
species by the American Fisheries Society (Robins et al. 1991) based on
morphological characteristics (Hubbs and Brown 1956), genetic markers
(Mayden et al. 1992), and chromosome differences (Gold et al. 1992).
The Devils River minnow is a small fish, with adults reaching sizes
of 25-53 millimeters (mm) (1.0-2.1 inches (in.)) standard length. The
fish has a wedge-shaped caudal (near the tail) spot and pronounced
lateral stripe with double dashes extending through the eye to the
snout but not reaching the lower lip. The species has a narrow head
with prominent dark markings on scale pockets above the lateral line
that produce a cross-hatched appearance when viewed from the top (Hubbs
and Brown 1956).
Little information is available on life history characteristics,
feeding patterns, or reproductive behaviors of this species. However,
based on their extended intestinal tract, species of the genus Dionda
are considered to feed primarily on algae. Since Dionda episcopa, a
closely related species, are broadcast spawners with nonadhesive eggs
that sink to the substrate (Johnston and Page 1992), we believe Devils
River minnows are as well.
General habitat associations for Devils River minnow have been
described as channels of fast-flowing, spring-fed waters over gravel
substrates (Harrell 1978). Although the species is closely associated
with spring systems, it most often occurs where spring flow enters a
stream, rather than in the spring outflow itself (Hubbs and Garrett
1990). The species is adapted to the hydrologic variations inherent in
desert river systems (Harrell 1978), which are characterized by
extended droughts and extreme flash floods (USGS 1989).
The Devils River minnow is part of a unique fish fauna in west
Texas streams where a mixture of fishes occur, including Mexican
peripherals, local endemics, and widespread North American fishes
(Hubbs 1957). About half of the native fishes of the Chihuahuan Desert
of Mexico and Texas are considered by Hubbs as threatened (1990) and at
least four species have been documented to be extinct (Miller et al.
1989), primarily due to habitat destruction and introduced species.
The Devils River minnow is native to tributary streams of the Rio
Grande in Val Verde and Kinney counties, Texas, and Coahuila, Mexico.
The known historical range of the species is based on collections from
the 1950's and 1970's and includes the Devils River from Beaver Lake
downstream to near its confluence with the Rio Grande; San Felipe Creek
from the springs in the headwaters to springs in Del Rio; Sycamore
Creek; Las Moras Creek near
[[Page 56597]]
Brackettville; Rio San Carlos, Mexico; and the Rio Salado Drainage,
Mexico (Brown 1955; Hubbs and Brown 1956; Robinson 1959; Harrell 1978;
Smith and Miller 1986; Garrett et al., 1992). Despite numerous
collection efforts, the species has never been reported from the
mainstem Rio Grande, the Rio Conchos drainage, or tributary streams
other than those listed above. The range of the species prior to 1951
is unknown.
A comprehensive assessment of the distribution of Devils River
minnow in Texas was described by Garrett et al. (1992). This study
documented the presence of the species in 1989 at two sites on the
Devils River (Baker's Crossing and Dolan Springs), two sites on San
Felipe Creek, and one site on Sycamore Creek. None were collected in
samples from Las Moras Creek.
Garrett et al. (1992) found that Devils River minnow was very rare
throughout its range in 1989 compared to past collections. At 24
sampling locations within the historical range, a total of only 7
individuals were collected from 5 sites. In addition to declines in the
Devils River minnow populations, Garrett et al. (1992) also observed a
general shift in community structure toward fishes that tend to occupy
quiet water or pool habitat, conditions that are often limited in
flowing spring runs. The authors hypothesized that this shift was the
result of reduced stream flows from drought, exacerbated by human
modification of stream habitats, especially in Sycamore and Las Moras
creeks.
The most recent information from collections in 1997 and 1998
confirm the existence of Devils River minnow in only three locations in
Texas--two sites in small streams tributary to the Devils River
(Phillips Creek and Dolan Creek) and one site in San Felipe Creek in
Del Rio.
We are unaware of any published information on the status of the
Devils River minnow in Mexico. A review of museum records indicates
that the species may now occur in only one locality in Mexico.
Populations there appear to be very depressed (S. Contreras-Balderas,
University of Nuevo Leon, in litt. 1997) and face significant threats
from industrial and agricultural development (Contreras and Lozano
1994).
The region of Texas where the Devils River minnow occurs is semi-
arid, receiving an average of about 46 centimeters (cm) (18 in.) of
rainfall annually. Spring-fed streams of west Texas flow southerly
through rocky, limestone soils and shrubby vegetation characteristic of
the more arid western reaches of the Hill Country. The aquifer that
sustains spring flows within the range of the Devils River minnow is
the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. This major aquifer produces the
largest number of springs in Texas (Brune 1975). The contributing and
recharge area for springs on the Devils River and San Felipe Creek is
suspected to include a large area as far north as Sheffield in Pecos
County and Eldorado in Schleicher County, although the subsurface
hydrogeomorphology (underground water characteristics) of the region is
not well-defined (Brune 1981). The flow from springs fluctuates
considerably, depending on the amount of rainfall, recharge, and water
in storage in the aquifer. Conservation of the quality and quantity of
this groundwater supply is essential for the continued existence of the
Devils River minnow.
Areas where the Devils River minnow occurs are mostly in private
ownership. Exceptions include the Devils River State Natural Area
located north of Dolan Falls and managed by the TPWD (Baxter 1993), and
land adjoining portions of San Felipe Creek owned by the City of Del
Rio (population of about 38,000). One important private holding is the
Dolan Falls Preserve, in the middle portion of the Devils River, owned
by The Nature Conservancy (Baxter 1993). Primary land uses within the
watersheds supporting Devils River minnow are cattle, sheep, and goat
ranching. Generally, these areas are very remote with little human
development beyond that necessary to support ranching operations.
The Devils River minnow is currently listed as a threatened species
by the State of Texas, the Texas Organization for Endangered Species
(Hubbs et al. 1991), and the Endangered Species Committee of the
American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1989). The Devils River
minnow is listed as an endangered species in Mexico (NOM-ECOL-059).
The Agreement for Devils River minnow was signed by the Service,
the TPWD (in cooperation with local landowners), and the City of Del
Rio on September 2, 1998, to expedite conservation measures needed to
ensure the continued existence of the species. Preliminary drafts of
the Agreement were made available to local landowners for comment and a
draft version was also distributed at a public hearing on the proposal
to list the species. The Agreement includes a Conservation Strategy
(Strategy) to describe the specific procedures required for
conservation of the Devils River minnow. We carefully considered the
implementation to date of the conservation actions as described in the
Strategy and the effects of that implementation on removing threats to
the species when making the final listing determination for the Devils
River minnow. Following is a discussion of the conservation actions and
implementation that have occurred to date.
The ten conservation actions that are included in the Strategy and
their implementation status are:
(1) Determine the current status of the Devils River minnow and
monitor changes. This action was initiated in November 1997, (prior to
signing the Agreement) with sampling in the mainstem Devils River and
San Felipe Creek in Del Rio and continued with collections from Philips
Creek and Dolan Creek in May, 1998.
(2) Maintain genetically representative, captive populations of
Devils River minnow at two fish hatchery facilities for reintroduction,
and as insurance against extinction. This action has been initiated by
the TPWD by holding a small number of individuals of Devils River
minnow at a hatchery since November 1997. Those individuals produced an
unassisted reproductive effort in March 1999, in an artificial stream,
indicating that captive propagation is likely readily accomplished. We
agreed to assist in this action by providing an additional location to
develop captive propagation techniques for the species. We have secured
funding for our San Marcos National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center
to initiate this action in the very near future.
(3) Reintroduce Devils River minnows, reared in captive
populations, in order to reestablish populations in nature. This action
has not yet been implemented and depends on a number of other actions
being completed before reintroductions can be initiated.
(4) Continue and enhance protection of the San Felipe Creek
watershed. This action by the City of Del Rio to protect San Felipe
Creek has not yet been implemented. The City has committed to a concept
of conservation of the natural environment in any future development
plans within the riparian zone of the creek (Beth Eby, City Manager,
City of Del Rio, in litt. 1997). This action will be an ongoing effort
by the City for protection of this population of Devils River minnow.
(5) Provide technical assistance to landowners on riparian
protection and management. Not yet initiated.
(6) Review live bait harvest and selling practices in the Devils
River area to develop methods and take appropriate actions (for
example,
[[Page 56598]]
regulation, education) to prevent the further establishment of exotic
aquatic species within the historical range of Devils River minnow. Not
yet initiated.
(7) Document the abundance and ranges of exotic fish in the Devils
River, and San Felipe, Las Moras, and Sycamore creeks. Not yet
initiated.
(8) Obtain and analyze changes in flow data for the Devils River,
and San Felipe, Las Moras, and Sycamore creeks. Not yet initiated.
(9) With progeny of the captive population, use a simulated
environment to determine ecological and life history requirements of
the Devils River minnow. The TPWD has initiated this action through the
purchase and construction of the facilities necessary to do experiments
on the ecology of the species. Preliminary experiments have been
initiated.
(10) Determine predator/prey interactions between smallmouth bass
and the Devils River minnow through field studies. This action will
depend in part on the completion of a current study by Texas A&M
University and implementation of laboratory experiments discussed in
action number 9, above.
In February 1999, we requested confirmation from the TPWD and the
City of Del Rio of their commitment to implementation of the Agreement,
and clarified some specific milestones for accomplishing the goals of
the Agreement. The TPWD and the City concurred in writing to implement
key components of the Agreement within the next 2 years. The milestones
agreed to by the three parties include:
(1) Have healthy, genetically representative captive stocks of
Devils River minnow in at least two facilities. Each facility should
maintain two separate stocks, one from the Devils River and one from
San Felipe Creek.
(2) Conduct the first annual population monitoring for the Devils
River minnow throughout its historical range in the U.S.
(3) Conduct the first annual monitoring for the Devils River minnow
throughout its historical range and potential habitats in Mexico.
(4) Conduct the second annual population monitoring for the Devils
River minnow throughout its historical range in the U.S.
(5) Improve the status of the Devils River minnow in San Felipe
Creek at Del Rio and restore Devils River minnow populations in the
headwater springs area. This will be indicated by maintaining stable
population sizes of Devils River minnow at Del Rio and restoring
population sizes at least equal to those historically in the headwater
springs. In addition, implementation of conservation measures in San
Felipe Creek in Del Rio (such as a finalized policy by the City of Del
Rio for preservation of the San Felipe Creek watershed, development of
a San Felipe Creek floodplain restoration plan, completion of a water
conservation plan, and completion of a management plan for the golf
course) will be completed to reduce threats to the species there.
(6) Improve the status of the Devils River minnow in the Devils
River. This will be accomplished by establishing additional locations
of Devils River minnow, with population sizes at least equal to
historical levels (such as similar to those found by H.L. Harrell in
the 1970's). This will include further threat assessment and addressing
potential limiting factors in this system, particularly the effects of
smallmouth bass and changes in stream flows.
We concur with many of the public comments that supported this
cooperative approach. This listing does not preclude continuation of
cooperative efforts between parties to the Agreement or continuing
efforts to implement the Conservation Strategy. As stated in the
introduction of the Agreement, we believe that full implementation of
the Strategy may ultimately reduce the threats to the Devils River
minnow and allow a future review of the species' status. This could
result in a future delisting if threats are removed and the status of
the species significantly improves such that recovery has occurred.
Previous Federal Action
On August 15, 1978, we published a proposed rule (43 FR 36117) to
list the Devils River minnow as a threatened species and to designate
its critical habitat. On March 6, 1979, we published a notice (44 FR
12382) to withdraw the critical habitat portion of the proposal to meet
the new critical habitat requirements set forth in the Endangered
Species Act Amendments of 1978 (Public Law 95-632, 92 Stat. 3751). We
reproposed the designation of critical habitat for the Devils River
minnow on May 16, 1980 (45 FR 32348). A notice of public hearing was
published on July 9, 1980 (45 FR 46141), and the public hearing was
held on July 23, 1980, in Del Rio, Texas. The 1978 amendments to the
Act also required that all proposals over two years old be withdrawn.
We withdrew the listing and critical habitat proposals on September 30,
1980 (45 FR 64853), because the 2-year time limit on the proposed
listing had expired.
We included the Devils River minnow as a category 2 candidate
species in notices of review published December 30, 1982 (47 FR 38454),
September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958), and January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554).
Category 2 taxa were those that we believed may be eligible for
threatened or endangered status, but for which the available biological
information in our possession was insufficient to support listing the
species. However, new information obtained in 1989 (and later published
as Garrett et al. 1992) provided a basis for including the Devils River
minnow as a category 1 candidate in notices of review published
November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), and November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982).
Category 1 taxa were those for which we had substantial biological
information on hand to support proposing to list the species as
threatened or endangered.
As announced in a notice published in the February 28, 1996,
Federal Register (61 FR 7596), the designation of multiple categories
of candidates was discontinued, and only species for which we have
sufficient information to support listing are now recognized as
candidates. The Devils River minnow remained a candidate species in
notices of review published February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), and
September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398).
On March 27, 1998, we published a proposed rule to list the Devils
River minnow as endangered and invited public comment (63 FR 14885). On
May 14, 1998, we published a notice of public hearing on the proposal
(63 FR 26764), and a public hearing was subsequently held in Del Rio,
Texas, on May 28, 1998. On October 13, 1998, we published a notice
reopening the comment period on the proposed rule for an additional 30
days and announcing the availability of new information and the
Conservation Agreement (63 FR 54660).
The processing of this final rule conforms with our current listing
priority guidance published in the Federal Register on May 8, 1998 (63
FR 25503). The guidance calls for giving highest priority to handling
emergency situations (Tier 1) and second highest priority to resolving
the listing status of outstanding proposed listings, resolving the
conservation status of candidate species, processing petitions, and
delisting or reclassifications (Tier 2). The guidance assigns the
lowest priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed or final designations
of critical habitat. Processing of this final rule is a Tier 2 action.
[[Page 56599]]
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the March 27, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 14885), the May 14,
1998, public hearing notice (63 FR 26764), and the October 13, 1998,
notice reopening the comment period (63 FR 54660), we requested all
interested parties to submit factual reports or information that might
contribute to the development of a final rule. The original public
comment period extended 120 days from the date of the proposal and
closed on July 27, 1998. The comment period was reopened for an
additional 30 days on October 13, 1998, and closed on November 12,
1998. The second comment period was reopened to accept comments on the
proposal after the original comment period closed. Updated information
on the distribution and abundance of the species was provided by the
TPWD (G. Graham, TPWD, in litt. 1998). In addition, a Conservation
Agreement for the Devils River minnow among us, the TPWD, and the City
of Del Rio was signed on September 2, 1998.
We contacted numerous Federal and State agencies, county and
municipal governments, scientific organizations, and private
individuals to request comments on the proposal. Newspaper notices
inviting public comment and announcing the public hearing were
published between May 3 and May 12, 1998, in the Sanderson Times, Del
Rio News Herald, Odessa American, San Angelo Standard Times, Midland
Reporter-Telegram, Devils River News, and the Ozona Stockman.
The public hearing was held in Del Rio on May 28, 1998. About 50
people attended, and 18 made oral statements. We also received 13
written comments from the public and agency officials during both
comment periods. Four of the oral comments at the public hearing were
the same or similar to written comments submitted by the same parties.
One person submitted two comment letters. Therefore, comments were
received from 26 separate commenters on the proposal.
The following summary addresses the written and oral comments
received. These comments comprise a range of issues regarding the
proposal. Because multiple respondents offered similar comments in some
cases, those comments were combined. Of those commenters stating a
position, 11 clearly indicated opposition to the listing and another 8
implied that they were opposed. Seven commenters did not clearly state
a position. Ten commenters expressed support for the Conservation
Agreement. The comments and our responses are as follows:
Comment 1: There is a need for more information on the Devils River
minnow before a decision is made. The distribution and abundance of the
fish is likely larger than reported in the proposal, both in the U.S.
and Mexico.
Service Response: We agree that more can be learned about the
Devils River minnow and its conservation with additional research. The
Conservation Agreement has additional research and monitoring as key
components for benefitting the species (see the ``Background'' section
of this final rule). However, we must base the listing decision on the
best information available at this time. With the current data, we
conclude that the fish has declined over a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, based on the best available information, threatened
status for the Devils River minnow is warranted.
Comment 2: Numerous commenters requested that we accept the
Conservation Agreement among the Fish and Wildlife Service, TPWD, and
the City of Del Rio in lieu of listing the minnow. Many believed this
is a better approach to management of the Devils River minnow.
Service Response: We agree that cooperative, voluntary efforts to
conserve this species that remove or reduce threats that preclude the
need to list would be preferable to Federal listing. However, full
implementation of the conservation strategy activities that the
agreement calls for has not occurred. We signed the Conservation
Agreement so that conservation efforts could be quickly put in place to
reduce the risks to the species' survival. We have considered the
extent to which the conservation actions outlined in the Conservation
Agreement have been implemented and are likely to reduce threats to the
species, particularly in the near-term, in making this listing
determination. We strongly support the efforts of State and local
agencies taking active roles in the conservation of the Devils River
minnow, and we believe the Agreement and actions outlined in it have
the potential to benefit the species. The actions already accomplished
in the Conservation Agreement, as well as the agreed-upon schedule for
implementing the remaining actions, were considered in the decision to
list as threatened. We believe that the conservation agreement is an
important conservation tool. Even though full implementation has not
occurred and we determined that threats to the species still exist such
that listing is still warranted, the Conservation Agreement will be
useful in facilitating and expediting the recovery of the Devils River
minnow.
Comment 3: Some commenters requested the listing decision be
delayed to allow the Conservation Agreement time to be implemented.
Service Response: We are required by section 4 of the Act to
publish a final decision within one year of a proposed rule. We took
into account those actions of the Conservation Agreement that have been
implemented to date and the benefits expected from actions that will be
implemented in the near future. We determined that, within the
statutory time frames mandated by the Act, listing the Devils River
minnow as threatened at this time is the best course of action.
Comment 4: Several commenters stated a strong desire to not incur
additional Federal regulations over land and water use that would limit
private property rights.
Service Response: We do not foresee substantial impacts on private
property rights through the Devils River minnow. In the ``Available
Conservation Measures'' section of this final rule, we have outlined
some private activities that likely will and likely will not result in
take of the species under the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. We
are interested in working with landowners to develop cooperative
solutions to species conservation that avoid or minimize the need for
regulatory burdens on landowners.
Comment 5: Local and state governmental agencies could manage the
Devils River minnow better than the Federal government.
Service Response: Listing the species by the Federal government
does not preclude State and local management of the species. On the
contrary, we encourage State and local involvement in recovery of
endangered species. We believe that local actions are crucial to long-
term conservation of this species. We believe a cooperative approach by
all parties will provide an even greater benefit to the species, and we
offer any support where possible and needed.
Comment 6: No significant groundwater pumping has occurred in the
watershed since the 1960's.
Service Response: We took this comment into consideration in this
final rule (see discussion in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' section) and have modified the discussion of this topic.
Because of the lack of information on groundwater withdrawals, we do
not have substantial information showing the level of pumping in and
around the Devils River watershed. This prevents any correlation of
streamflow with groundwater withdrawals. However,
[[Page 56600]]
sources such as Dietz (1955) and Brune (1981) claim that groundwater
withdrawals have affected stream flows. We believe there is a potential
that groundwater pumping could adversely affect habitat of the Devils
River minnow.
Comment 7: There have not been any changes in stream flows in the
Devils River, and no data exist that suggest otherwise. In addition,
there has never been permanent stream flow in the reach from Beaver
Lake to Pecan Springs.
Service Response: The information used in evaluating historical
stream flow on the Devils River is from gage records collected by the
International Boundary and Water Commission at the gage near Del Rio
(1900-1957), the gage at Pafford Crossing (1960-1997), and the gage
near Juno (1925-1973). We did not locate any specific studies or
analysis of hydrology on the Devils River.
We reevaluated all existing and new information concerning the
presence of permanent flow between Pecan Springs and Beaver Lake on the
Devils River. The ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section
of this rule reflects the available information. One task included in
the Conservation Agreement is an analysis of the hydrology of the
Devils River and other streams supporting Devils River minnow to
determine if stream flows have declined over time.
Comment 8: No changes in grazing practices have occurred in recent
times. Instead, the land is actually in better condition today than in
previous times and the only changes have been an increase in the amount
of cedar and mesquite.
Service Response: We took this comment into consideration in this
final rule (see discussion in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' section) and have modified the discussion of this topic. The
proposed rule did not state that land use practices, such as grazing,
were known to be a major threat to the Devils River minnow. Instead we
cited Brune's (1981) statement that some land use practices, such as
overgrazing, that result in the loss of native rangeland grasses on the
watershed, could lead to increased runoff and decreased groundwater
recharge.
We do not have specific evidence that land use practices are a
significant reason for the current decline in the species' distribution
and abundance. However, Brune (1981) stated that if upland areas are
poorly managed, one long-term effect is an increased rate of rainfall
runoff and decreased rates of recharge to the groundwater.
Comment 9: One commenter stated that there have never been any
Devils River minnows collected from Beaver Lake or anywhere upstream of
Pecan Springs.
Service Response: In September 1973, and March 1974, H. Harrell
collected Devils River minnow in Beaver Lake. Voucher specimens are
deposited in the Strecker Museum, Baylor University. The 1973 sample
contains 14 specimens and the 1974 sample contains 13 specimens of
Devils River minnow.
Comment 10: The actual abundance of Devils River minnow is higher
than reported in the proposed rule. The recent collections of Devils
River minnow from Phillips Creek and Dolan Creek show they are
plentiful.
Service Response: The new information on the presence of the Devils
River minnow in Phillips and Dolan creeks is included in this final
rule. The number of fish in Phillips Creek taken in May 1998, indicated
a good population at this site at the time the collections were made.
The collections at Dolan Creek are important because the only other
collection of the species from this site was one specimen in 1989
(Garrett et al. 1992). The two locations in the Devils River drainage
are less than 20 river-km (13 river-mi) apart and are not sufficient to
alleviate the concern for the status of the species in the Devils River
or other portions of its range. The most recent information can only
confirm three locations of the species throughout its historical range
in the U.S. (these two in the Devils River and one at Del Rio in San
Felipe Creek). Although population numbers are important, the
determination to list a species is based on the five factors outlined
in section 4 of the Act and summarized in this final rule under the
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section.
Comment 11: Devils River minnows are rare in the Devils River
because of the introduction of smallmouth bass by TPWD.
Service Response: We agree that predation by smallmouth bass could
be a significant factor in the decline of Devils River minnow in the
Devils River. Identification of the significance of this threat is one
of the actions included in the Conservation Agreement (Conservation
Action #8).
Comment 12: It is illogical to expect the Devils River minnow
population in the Devils River to be reestablished to 1950-levels under
today's vastly changed circumstances, such as Amistad Dam.
Service Response: Destruction of the species' habitat, such as what
resulted from Amistad Dam, is one of the five factors we are required
to consider (See the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species''
section below) when deciding if a species is threatened or endangered.
However, when planning recovery, we do not expect to restore
populations of Devils River minnow to historical locations because some
habitat changes are not reversible. We do believe the Devils River
minnow can be protected from extinction through conservation of the
remaining ecosystems upon which the species depends. The past habitat
destruction only serves to heighten the need for protection and
enhancement of suitable habitats remaining for the Devils River minnow.
Comment 13: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
requested we remove their agency from the list of Federal agencies that
may have actions that require consultation under section 7 of the Act.
The NRCS indicated that none of their programs adversely affected the
minnow, but served to benefit the minnow by improving habitat.
Service Response: We support the NRCS in assisting landowners with
ranching practices that may benefit Devils River minnow habitat.
However, we left the NRCS as a potential agency for consultations
because the Act mandates that any Federal action that may affect a
listed species, even if that effect is beneficial, requires
consultation with us under section 7 of the Act. We included language
in this final rule (see Available Conservation Measures, below) to
explain the requirements of Federal agencies under section 7(a)(1) of
the Act.
Comment 14: The proposed rule does not indicate the Devils River
minnow is bred or hunted for commercial purposes, or that it moves in
interstate commerce. Therefore, the Service lacks authority under the
Act pursuant to the Commerce Clause of Article 1, section 8 of the
United States Constitution to regulate the Devils River minnow.
Service Response: A recent decision in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (National Association of
Homebuilders v. Babbitt, 130 F. 3d 1041, D.C. Cir. 1997) makes it clear
in its application of the test used in the United States Supreme Court
case, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), that regulation of
species limited to one State under the Act is within Congress' commerce
clause power. On June 22, 1998, the Supreme Court declined to accept an
appeal of this case (118 S. Ct. 2340 1998). Therefore, our application
of the Act to Devils River minnow, a fish endemic to only two counties
in the State of Texas, is constitutional. We
[[Page 56601]]
have authority under the Act to list the Devils River minnow as
threatened and direct its conservation and eventual recovery.
In addition to the reasons supporting the constitutionality of the
Act itself that were discussed in National Association of Homebuilders
v. Babbitt, the past, current, and potentially future use of Devils
River minnow habitat for agriculture and livestock production,
residential development and roads and highways are activities that
affect interstate commerce. The specimens of this species in museums
around the country directly traveled via the channels of interstate
commerce, as well as the scientists and others who have traveled
interstate to study or observe the species. Finally, international
commerce between the U.S. and Mexico, where the species also occurs,
may impact Devils River minnow habitat and is also under the authority
of Federal regulation.
Comment 15: The Service is intentionally making untrue,
nonscientific statements to serve a political agenda to list the Devils
River minnow.
Service Response: In both the proposed rule and this final rule we
conducted an objective evaluation of the scientific evidence available
to reach a decision on whether the Devils River minnow warrants listing
under the Act. Where additional information was submitted to us, we
have considered that new information as well. The information upon
which this decision is based has been peer reviewed by independent
experts outside the Service, as required by our 1994 Peer Review Policy
(see discussion below).
Peer Review
Service policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) requires that we solicit
review of listing actions from a minimum of three independent experts.
We sent copies of the proposed rule, supporting primary literature, and
other information to five independent specialists who have extensive
knowledge in the biology and ecology of Devils River minnow or other
native fishes. Four of these specialists are currently employed at
universities conducting research on fishes and one reviewer is a
retired fishery biologist from a state agency, currently serving as
Executive Secretary of a scientific society specializing in native
fishes of the southwestern U.S. Four peer reviewers responded to our
request.
All four reviewers indicated the proposal was consistent with the
information available in the scientific literature. Three of the
reviewers indicated that the proposal to list the Devils River minnow
was clearly supported by the scientific literature, emphasizing that
the factors cited in the proposal were real threats to the continued
existence of the species. One reviewer pointed out the lack of
intensive surveys to determine the exact status of the species as a
weakness in the available information. However, we believe that
sufficient surveys have been conducted to demonstrate a significant
range reduction for the Devils River minnow.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available, we determine that the Devils River minnow should be
classified as a threatened species. Procedures found at section 4(a)(1)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations implementing the
listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) were followed. A
species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due
to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These
factors and their application to the Devils River minnow (Dionda
diaboli) are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Devils River
The Devils River is the largest segment of the historical
documented range of the Devils River minnow. The Devils River from
Beaver Lake to its confluence with the Rio Grande is about 127 river-km
(79 river-mi) long. At least one-quarter of the total length of the
Devils River, from Big Satan Canyon to the Rio Grande, has been
permanently lost as potential habitat due to inundation behind Amistad
Dam.
One of the most significant losses of Devils River minnow habitat
occurred in the lower portion of the Devils River with the impoundment
of Amistad Reservoir in 1968. The river downstream of Big Satan Canyon
is often inundated by Amistad Reservoir and the river can be affected
farther upstream when the reservoir level is high. Backwaters from
Amistad Dam have inundated the natural stream habitats, transforming
the area from a river to a lake environment. The area is no longer
suitable for most native fishes, including Devils River minnow.
Before construction of Amistad Dam, two smaller dams (Devils Lake
and Wall Lake) were built in about the 1920's in the lower portion of
the stream. However, Devils River minnows were collected in 1953 and
1954 in the spring run habitat that remained. Amistad Reservoir,
however, inundated these springs, eliminating the natural environment
and suitable habitat for native fish. Also, the construction of the dam
created a physical barrier to fish movement that permanently separated
the Devils River population of the species from others, such as the
population in San Felipe Creek.
Habitat for the species may be affected by inconsistent spring
flows in the upstream portion of the Devils River, especially between
Pecan Springs and Beaver Lake (about 26 km, 16 mi). The only discharge
records in this portion of the river are from a gage near Juno, located
downstream of Pecan Springs (International Boundary and Water
Commission, unpublished data, in litt., 1997) that was discontinued in
1973 and has no records from 1949 to 1963. The available data from this
gage show an average base flow (based on the monthly median discharge)
in the range of about 1,982 to 2,832 liters per second (lps) (70 to 100
cubic feet per second (cfs)) from 1925 to 1949 and a range of about 991
to 1982 lps (35 to 70 cfs) from 1963 to 1973.
We based our assessment of the uppermost portion of the river on
published observational data. One of the earliest descriptions of the
Devils River is from Taylor (1904) who stated the river ``rises'' at
Pecan Springs. It is unclear from this account whether there was any
flow upstream of this spring system. However, Brune (1975 and 1981)
clearly states that the river once flowed from Beaver Lake, as did
other springs downstream from Beaver Lake such as Juno, Headwater,
Stein, and San Pedro springs, but has dried in recent times. Brune
(1975 and 1981) supports this by--(1) referencing an observation from
1916 that described the Beaver Lake area as a beautiful stream; (2)
providing flow data from Beaver Lake in 1925 at 45 lps (1.59 cfs) and
in 1939 at 0.38 lps (0.01 cfs); and, (3) recording no surface flow from
these springs in 1971 and 1976.
Harrell (1978) collected Devils River minnow from the Beaver Lake
area in 1973 and 1974 (specimens in Strecker Museum, Baylor
University). This indicates that there was sufficient surface flow in
the area during those years to support populations of the fish.
However, Harrell (1978) states that during the study period in 1974-75,
Pecan Springs was the uppermost flowing surface water connected to the
river. Harrell (1978) further states that the upper portion of the
Devils River (Beaver Lake to Baker's Crossing) has intermittent flow
characterized by
[[Page 56602]]
numerous rapids (citing Belisle and Josselet 1975).
The available information indicates that the flow of the Devils
River upstream of Pecan Springs is intermittent and is connected to
downstream surface flows only during wetter climatic conditions. The
Devils River minnow has been documented in these areas in the past and,
therefore, this reach is considered potential habitat for the species.
This habitat is likely also naturally intermittent and may not have
been continuously occupied by the fish during recent time.
Observations in 1954 and 1955 suggested a significant increase in
irrigation farming from groundwater wells in the area of Juno and the
headwaters of the Devils River (Dietz 1955). The result reported by
Dietz (1955) was the lowering of the groundwater to a level causing the
Devils River to cease flowing for a number of miles below Baker's
Crossing. The upper portion of the Devils River is likely the most
susceptible to declines in groundwater levels.
Brune (1981) states that agricultural land use practices
(specifically the decline of grasses from livestock grazing) both
within and north of the watershed of the Devils River may affect
aquifer levels and account for a lack of permanent flows from the
northern-most springs. Brune (1981) explains that the natural layer of
organic mulch that formerly functioned as a topsoil capable of
absorbing rainfall has been lost and replaced with barer soils that
enhance runoff and limit recharge.
Another cumulative factor may be the expansion of Ashe juniper
(Juniperus ashei) and Redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotti), both
commonly referred to as cedar. These two species have become abundant
on the rangeland watersheds of the Devils River due to a number of
natural and human factors (Smiens et al. 1997). The overabundance of
juniper has been cited as a factor that could affect rangeland
hydrology (Thurow and Hester 1997). However, definitive data are not
available to show that removal of juniper will produce increased
groundwater levels in Texas. Studies of juniper removal in other states
have not resulted in significant yields to groundwater or stream flows
(Thurow and Hester 1997).
Any decline of permanent discharge from springs is a significant
threat to Devils River minnow in the Devils River. This threat can be
the result of drought and/or human activities that withdraw groundwater
or significantly reduce recharge. The downstream portion of the Devils
River below Baker's Crossing continues to flow naturally and has been
referred to as one of the most pristine rivers in Texas. Because of
groundwater reservoirs that support the remaining spring systems, the
river maintains a substantial perennial flow in the range of 200 to 400
cfs at the inflow to Amistad Reservoir (unpublished data, International
Boundary and Water Commission, in litt. 1997).
When spring flows become seasonally intermittent, fish populations
are unable to use the stream to fulfill their life history
requirements. Declines in base flow of streams also affect fish
populations by reducing the total available habitat and thereby
intensifying competitive and predatory interactions. For Devils River
minnow, decreased stream flows could lead to a population decline due
to exclusion from preferred habitats and increased mortality from
predation.
The eighth action listed in the Conservation Strategy of the
Agreement requires the analysis of past changes in flows throughout the
range of the Devils River minnow. These studies will determine the
potential effects of flows on habitat for Devils River minnow.
Using relative abundance as an indicator, the Devils River minnow
has decreased in abundance in the Devils River over time. The Devils
River minnow was the fifth most abundant species of 18 species
collected in 1953 at Baker's Crossing (Brown 1955); the sixth most
abundant of 23 species in the river in 1974 (Harrell 1978); and one of
the least abundant of 16 species in 1989 (Garrett et al. 1992). Recent
information from Cantu and Winemiller (1997) indicates that the species
was still present in the Devils River at the confluence with Dolan
Falls in 1994, but only in low numbers (thirteenth most abundant of 27
species). The four collections by Cantu and Winemiller (1997) were
extensive surveys over 1 year at the one site near Dolan Falls. Even
with this increased effort, only 28 individuals of Devils River minnow,
out of 4,470 total fish, were documented. No voucher specimens were
maintained to verify these collections.
The decline in abundance within the Devils River can best be
documented from collections at the site at Baker's Crossing. Over 60
individuals were collected there in 1953, only one was collected in
1989, and none were collected in 1997.
No Devils River minnow were collected in November 1997, by the TPWD
from several locations on the Devils River from Pecan Springs
downstream to Finegan Springs, just above Dolan Falls (Gary Garrett,
TPWD, in litt. 1997). New information received after the proposed rule
from additional surveys in 1998 found populations of Devils River
minnow in Phillips Creek and Dolan Creek (Gary Graham, TPWD, in litt.
1998). Phillips Creek is a very small intermittent tributary to the
Devils River that enters from the east, south of Baker's Crossing. No
previous collections are recorded from Phillips Creek. Sampling in May
1998, resulted in the collection of about 142 individuals, or about 10
percent of the fishes collected, and was fourth most abundant of the
eleven species collected. Despite numerous collection efforts in Dolan
Creek, only one individual had previously been collected in this
tributary to the Devils River. Sampling in May 1998, resulted in the
collection of about 12 individuals.
The Conservation Agreement and subsequent commitments were designed
to monitor and improve populations of Devils River minnow in the Devils
River. By September 2000, we will establish more (than the two
currently known) locations of Devils River minnow in the Devils River
with population sizes at least equal to historical levels (such as that
found by H.L. Harrell in the 1970's). Threats will be assessed and
potential limiting factors in this system addressed, particularly the
effects of smallmouth bass and changes in stream flows.
San Felipe Creek
San Felipe Creek constitutes the second largest segment of
remaining habitat for Devils River minnow in Texas. Brune (1981) lists
San Felipe Springs (including ten separate spring sources) as one of
the four largest springs in Texas. Devils River minnow previously
occurred in two areas on this stream. The upper area is associated with
a series of springs, Head and Lowe springs, several miles upstream of
the City of Del Rio, and the lower area is associated with two large
springs in Del Rio.
In 1979, Devils River minnow made up about 2 percent of all
collections (total of 3,458 fish), and was the seventh most abundant of
16 species in the upper portion of San Felipe Creek. In 1989, no Devils
River minnow were collected from this site (Garrett et al. 1992). No
known collections have been made in this area since 1989. This area of
San Felipe Creek (upstream of Del Rio) is privately owned and no
information is available to discern why the populations of Devils River
minnow in this area have significantly declined. Garrett et al. (1992)
stated that reduced flow from these springs may have contributed to the
reduction in
[[Page 56603]]
abundance of Devils River minnow. Any further declines in spring flows
due to increased withdrawals could negatively affect the Devils River
minnow population in this location.
At San Felipe Springs in the City of Del Rio the fish was very rare
(less than 1 percent of 1,651 fish collected, and the tenth most
abundant of 12 species collected) in 1989 (Garrett et al. 1992). Data
from 1997 suggest that the Devils River minnow is common in the San
Felipe Springs and the urban section of the creek (about 50 individuals
were collected for captive study) (Gary Garrett, TPWD, in litt. 1997).
The San Felipe Springs are located within the City of Del Rio and
may be threatened with future habitat changes from continued urban
development. Brune (1981) shows data supporting that the springs have
increased their flow since the filling of Amistad Reservoir. The
Reservoir is thought to increase flows from San Felipe Springs because
the pool elevation of the reservoir is often higher than that of the
spring outlet. This situation places hydrostatic pressure on San Felipe
Springs through inundated spring openings within the reservoir (Brune
1981). According to Brune (1981), before the reservoir filled, the
springs flowed about 2000 lps (about 70 cfs). Since the reservoir
filled, flows at the springs have averaged 135 to 150 cfs (unpublished
data from International Boundary and Water Commission, in litt. 1997).
Both of these flow averages are after withdrawals of water by the City
of Del Rio for municipal use.
The City of Del Rio draws water directly from San Felipe Springs,
which are the sole source of the City's municipal water supply as well
as for Laughlin Air Force Base. During 1995 and 1996 the average water
use by the City varied seasonally from about 8 to 19 million gallons
per day (about 12 to 29 cfs). The expected population growth of Del Rio
is projected to be low, 0.5 to 1 percent annually (B. Eby, City of Del
Rio, pers. comm., 1997). The City is currently planning to upgrade
their water treatment facility and provide a maximum of 20 million
gallons per day (about 31 cfs) for municipal use (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Finding of No Significant Impact, in litt. 1998;
O.J. Valdez, Malcom Pirnie, Inc., pers. comm., 1999). This new
treatment plant and associated facilities will provide some water
conservation because the existing system of water distribution and
storage leaks significantly. With additional water conservation
measures in place to reduce per capita water use, the City could
decrease its water consumption from San Felipe Creek in the future.
Water quality and contamination are inherent threats to the
population in San Felipe Creek because of the urban setting. Recent
studies by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC;
1994) found elevated levels of nitrates, phosphates and orthophosphate
in San Felipe Creek, indicating potential water quality problems. Land
uses in the immediate area of the springs, such as runoff from the
municipal golf course, may be contributing to these conditions. Other
threats from catastrophic events such as contaminant spills could
adversely affect the species.
The stream channel of San Felipe Creek in Del Rio has been modified
to a limited extent for bank stabilization and public access. In some
areas these actions may have limited the available habitat for Devils
River minnow.
Based on the current abundance of the Devils River minnow in San
Felipe Creek, it appears that existing practices that could impact the
aquatic habitat are not yet serious enough to significantly reduce the
local population. Aquatic habitat conservation measures (such as water
use conservation and water quality protection) in this section of San
Felipe Creek could help ensure survival of the species there.
In August 1998, San Felipe Creek experienced a very large flood,
with flows estimated at over 100,000 cfs. This was the largest
estimated peak flow on record (previous high was about 69,500 cfs).
Although the Devils River minnow is adapted to withstand floods
(Harrell 1978), the effects of this event are unknown as no collections
have been made since the flood.
As part of the Conservation Agreement, by September 2000, we agreed
to improve the status of the Devils River minnow in San Felipe Creek by
maintaining stable populations at Del Rio and restoring Devils River
minnow in the headwater springs area at levels at least equal to
historical population sizes. In addition, a finalized policy by the
City of Del Rio for preservation of the San Felipe Creek watershed,
development of a San Felipe Creek floodplain restoration plan (as
response to the flood of August 1998), completion of a water
conservation plan, and completion of a management plan for the golf
course will reduce threats to the species.
Other actions that may aid in conserving the Devils River minnow
include reducing per capita water consumption, seeking alternative
sources of water, preserving water quality, educating the public on the
importance of the creek, and limiting population density adjacent to
the creek. In addition, the City has agreed to consider the needs of
the Devils River minnow and its habitat in the reconstruction of those
portions of the creek that were damaged in the August 1998 flooding.
These actions together will provide an opportunity to protect the
existing populations and expand the available habitat for Devils River
minnow in San Felipe Creek.
Sycamore Creek
Sycamore Creek constitutes a relatively small portion of the range
of the species. There is only one published account of Devils River
minnow in this stream from one site, at the State Highway 277 crossing
near the Rio Grande River (Garrett et al. 1992). Harrell (1980)
references the species' occurrence there from an unpublished collection
in the early 1970's (H. Harrell, pers. comm. 1997). Garrett et al.
(1992) found only one individual of Devils River minnow at this
location.
Sycamore Creek is an ungaged stream, and there is little
information available on habitat conditions. However, the Devils River
minnow in this stream is evidently very rare and faces increased risk
of extirpation because of the apparent small population size. Devils
River minnow in Sycamore Creek likely face potential threats from
drought and habitat modification (Garrett et al., 1992). The
Conservation Agreement is intended to restore Devils River minnow to
Sycamore Creek and/or Las Moras Creek by September 2000. This effort
will necessitate further assessment of limiting factors, threat
abatement, and landowner cooperation.
Las Moras Creek
Las Moras Creek represents the eastern extent of the range of the
species. Although the populations there may have been restricted to the
spring area in Brackettville, the number of fish in historical
collections was relatively large (54 individuals were collected in
1953) (Hubbs and Brown 1956). The natural spring system in
Brackettville that supports Las Moras Creek is the location of the
earliest collection of Devils River minnow. The species has not been
collected from these springs since the 1950's and is believed to be
extirpated from that stream, based on several sampling efforts in the
late 1970's and 1980's (Smith and Miller 1986; Hubbs et al. 1991;
Garrett et al. 1992).
Habitat for the Devils River minnow was lost when the spring was
altered by damming the outflow and removing streambank vegetation to
create a recreational swimming pool. Garrett et al. (1992) reported
that the creek
[[Page 56604]]
smelled of chlorine, indicating that the swimming pool may be
maintained with chlorination (a toxin to fish). Garrett et al. (1992)
also indicate that spring flow has been drastically reduced by drought
and diversion of water for human consumption. The springs apparently
ceased flowing in the 1960's and again in the 1980's (Garrett et al.
1992). This combination of habitat loss and alteration and the
resulting water quality problems appears to be the most likely cause
for the apparent extirpation of the species from Las Moras Creek. The
Conservation Agreement is intended to restore Devils River minnow to
Las Moras Creek and/or Sycamore Creek by September 2000. This effort
will necessitate further assessment of limiting factors, threat
abatement, and landowner cooperation.
Mexico
The only known historical locations of the Devils River minnow in
Mexico are in the Rio San Carlos and three upper streams of the Rio
Salado drainage. The Rio San Carlos is a small tributary of the Rio
Grande located 27 km (17 mi) south of Ciudad Acuna. Only a few
individuals have been collected from this location, once in 1968
(University of Michigan Museum specimens, unpublished data, 1997) and
again in 1974. The species has not been collected from this site since
1974 and its status there is unknown (S. Contreras-Balderas, University
of Nuevo Leon, in litt. 1997).
The population of Devils River minnow in the Rio Salado drainage of
northern Mexico represents a critical portion of the southern-most
extent of the range. The Rio Salado is a tributary of the Rio Grande
and is geographically distinct from the tributaries where the fish
occurs in Texas. Collections of the species are limited to the Rio
Sabinas, Rio San Juan, and Rio Alamo from about 8 km (5 mi) northwest
of Muzquiz to about 12 km (7 mi) west of Nueva Rosita (S. Contreras-
Balderas, University of Nuevo Leon, in litt. 1997). Therefore, the
known range of the species in the Rio Salado is about 30 km (20 mi).
The most recent collections of Devils River minnow (31 individuals)
from this area were in 1994 (S. Contreras-Balderas, University of Nuevo
Leon, in litt. 1997).
The Conservation Agreement includes the survey of Mexican streams
that could potentially contain populations of Devils River minnow by
September 2000. The likely condition of aquatic habitats in the Rio
Salado Drainage in Mexico is extremely poor. Contreras and Lozano
(1994) report that aquatic ecosystems in this region of Mexico face
significant threats due to groundwater and surface water withdrawals,
as well as air and water pollution. Watersheds in northern Mexico have
been heavily impacted by land uses and industrial development (S.
Contreras-Balderas, University of Nuevo Leon, in litt. 1997). The Rio
Sabinas, in particular, has been noted for decreasing flows; and spring
systems within Coahuila have been extensively exploited (Contreras and
Lozano 1994). Contreras-Balderas (1987) considered the Devils River
minnow in danger of extinction, and the species is currently listed by
the Mexican government as endangered.
Range-Wide
Habitat loss and modification throughout a significant portion of
the range of the Devils River minnow has resulted in both the
fragmentation and contraction of the range of the species. The previous
occurrences of known localities of Devils River minnow in Texas can be
grouped into nine geographic areas, primarily associated with spring
systems--five areas in the Devils River (lower Devils River, Dolan
Falls, Baker's Crossing, Pecan Springs, Juno to Beaver Lake); two areas
in San Felipe Creek (headwater springs and Del Rio); one area in
Sycamore Creek; and one area in Las Moras Creek.
Of these nine areas, the best available information confirms the
existence of Devils River minnow in only Phillips Creek downstream from
Baker's Crossing, Dolan Creek (about 20 km away from Phillips Creek),
and San Felipe Creek in Del Rio. The known existence of only three
localities, with one in an urban setting, makes the status of the
species in the U.S. tenuous. However, actions in the Conservation
Agreement implemented to date, plus future actions to be implemented
according to an agreed-upon schedule, leads us to determine that
threatened status is appropriate. Although detailed information is
limited regarding the status of the species in Mexico, its legal status
and degradation of aquatic habitats indicate it is endangered with
extinction in that country.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization is not considered a significant threat to the
Devils River minnow. However, there is a potential for impacts should
this species be harvested as a baitfish (either commercially or non-
commercially).
C. Disease or Predation
The Devils River minnow may be affected by the presence of
introduced fishes within its range. Of special concern is the threat of
predation by smallmouth bass, a game fish introduced to Amistad
Reservoir in about 1975. The smallmouth bass is native to eastern North
America but has been widely introduced as a sport fish to reservoirs
and streams outside its natural range. It is believed smallmouth bass
gained access to the upper portions of the Devils River (upstream of
Dolan Falls) in the early to mid-1980's (Gary Garrett, TPWD, pers.
comm. 1997). This species is now the dominant predator in the fish
community of the Devils River. The TPWD is currently managing the
Devils River as a trophy smallmouth bass fishery with size and catch
limits.
The Devils River minnow evolved in the presence of native fishes
that consume other fishes, such as channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). The Devils
River minnow has adapted to persist with these species. However,
smallmouth bass are not native, are aggressive predators, and are known
to impact other native fish communities (Taylor et al. 1984, Moyle
1994). The Devils River minnow is within the size class of small fishes
that are susceptible to predation by smallmouth bass. The scarcity of
Devils River minnow in the Devils River (where smallmouth bass are
prominent) and the abundance of Devils River minnow in San Felipe Creek
(where smallmouth bass are not known to occur) provides circumstantial
evidence of the likely impacts of this introduced predator. In
addition, the small creeks where the Devils River minnow were recently
found (Phillips and Dolan creeks) are also not known to contain
smallmouth bass. The establishment of smallmouth bass in San Felipe,
Phillips, or Dolan creeks is another potential threat to Devils River
minnow in those locations.
The tenth action in the Conservation Strategy includes a
determination of the interactions between smallmouth bass and Devils
River minnow. If results indicate that smallmouth bass are likely
having negative effects on Devils River minnow populations, actions
such as localized smallmouth bass removal efforts in conjunction with
reintroductions of Devils River minnow will be considered. Long-term
management of smallmouth bass in the Devils River will be addressed
through regulations on catch and size limits to reduce abundance and
modify population structures.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Devils River minnow is listed as a threatened species by the
State of
[[Page 56605]]
Texas. This provides some protection from collecting, as a permit is
required to collect listed species in Texas. However, there are no
State or local regulations to protect habitat for the conservation of
the species. In addition, no regulations exist to prevent unintentional
releases of exotic species by the baitfish industry and anglers.
Limited State regulations administered by the TNRCC serve to
protect in-stream flows for surface water rights and water quality for
wildlife and human uses. However, these regulations were not designed
to conserve habitat for native fishes and currently no minimum in-
stream flows are required on streams where Devils River minnow occur.
Surface water rights along the Rio Grande in Texas and its U.S.
tributaries are administered by the State of Texas. Groundwater
withdrawals that could be affecting stream flows within the range of
the Devils River minnow are unregulated. Texas courts have held that,
with few exceptions, landowners have the right to take all the water
that can be captured under their land (rule of capture). Therefore,
there is little opportunity to protect groundwater reserves within
existing regulations.
State Water Quality Standards, though primarily concerned with
protecting human health, may provide some protection to the Devils
River minnow and its habitat. However, the sensitivity of Devils River
minnow to any contaminants or water quality changes is unknown and
could require more stringent standards than used for human health. The
classification of the Devils River and San Felipe Creek under the Texas
Surface Water Quality Standards requires maintenance of existing water
quality. Sycamore and Las Moras creeks are not classified under these
standards.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Habitat loss throughout the range of the Devils River minnow has
reduced the number of known locations to as few as three. The Devils
River minnow is currently known to be common in only two locations,
Phillips Creek and San Felipe Creek in Del Rio. However, actions
identified in the Conservation Agreement that have been implemented to
date have reduced the threat of extinction of the Devils River minnow.
If Devils River minnow still occurs in other locations (such as
Sycamore Creek, headwaters of San Felipe Creek, and the Devils River),
the number of fish may be too small to constitute viable populations
(Caughley and Gunn 1996). Small populations can lead to genetic erosion
through inbreeding and are vulnerable to loss from random natural
events, including population fluctuations (Meffe 1986). The
Conservation Agreement is intended to improve population levels and
distribution of Devils River minnow throughout its range to reduce
these threats.
The construction of Amistad Dam has separated the two primary
populations of Devils River minnow in Texas (Devils River and San
Felipe Creek). This population fragmentation could have significant
conservation implications (Gilpin 1987). Determining and monitoring the
genetic structure of the different Devils River minnow populations will
be needed to ensure the necessary genetic variation within and among
populations is not lost (Meffe 1986; Minckley et al. 1991).
Recent collections in 1997 from San Felipe Creek revealed for the
first time the presence of armored catfish (Hypostomus sp.) (Gary
Garrett, TPWD, in litt. 1997). This fish is an exotic species that has
established a breeding population in the San Antonio River, Texas, and
was cited as potentially competing with other Dionda species due to its
food habitats (Hubbs et al. 1978). Although Dionda species are common
in spring runs in Central Texas, they are now absent from these
habitats in the San Antonio River, implying the potential displacement
by the armored catfish (R.J. Edwards, University of Texas-Pan American,
in litt. 1998). This could be a threat to Devils River minnow
populations in San Felipe Creek.
The future release (intentional or unintentional) of other fishes
into areas inhabited by Devils River minnow is another potential
threat. Live bait fish are commonly discarded into nearby waters by
anglers, resulting in introductions of non-native species. This
situation has occurred in many streams in the southwestern U.S. with
considerable impacts to the native fish community (Moyle 1994). In
addition, exotic fishes from aquariums could be introduced into local
waters. Currently, only a small number of introduced fishes occur
within the range of the Devils River minnow, but the potential for
unintentional introductions is high because of the number of anglers on
the Devils River and the urban setting of San Felipe Creek. Threats to
the populations of Devils River minnow from possible introduction and
establishment of non-native fishes include diseases, parasites,
competition for food and space, predation, and hybridization. The
Conservation Agreement has provisions for assessment and monitoring of
exotic fishes throughout the range of the Devils River minnow.
The overall decline in abundance of Devils River minnow could be
the result of several cumulative factors. For example, subtle changes
in stream flows could produce small shifts in habitat use that make the
species more vulnerable to competition and predation by native
predators and non-native smallmouth bass. In addition, long-term
drought could have an effect on the habitat of the species,
particularly when combined with impacts of human water use. This
species has adapted to historical natural climatic variations (such as
large floods and prolonged droughts). However, in conjunction with
other threats to the species (primarily existing habitat loss and
exotic predators), a drought could significantly increase the threat of
extinction. The use of water supplies for human needs (municipal or
agricultural) serves to worsen the effects of drought on the natural
environment.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by this species in determining to make this final rule.
Therefore, based on this evaluation, the most appropriate action is to
list the Devils River minnow as threatened. The species currently
inhabits a very limited range and the best scientific information
available indicates a significant decline in range and abundance of the
species.
Some new information was received since the proposal that suggested
habitat loss in the upper reaches of the Devils River may be less
severe than originally thought. This is because we originally
characterized the habitat as historically a continuous flowing stream,
when this upper reach may always have been intermittent; therefore, the
habitat may have never been more than marginal. In addition, the
discovery of two additional localities of Devils River minnow in
tributaries to the Devils River provided information that populations
are extant in the Devils River drainage. New information was also
provided showing the presence of an additional exotic species in San
Felipe Creek that presents a threat not mentioned in the proposed rule.
The Conservation Agreement involving us, the TPWD, and the City of
Del Rio provides commitments to work toward the recovery of the species
through implementing the 10 actions described in the Conservation
Strategy (see ``Background'' section of this rule). In addition, we
have received confirmation from both TPWD and the City of Del Rio of
their commitment to implement certain key actions of the
[[Page 56606]]
Agreement within the first two years of its signing. However, we can
still only confirm three localities where the species remains in the
U.S.; habitat loss has been considerable in the Devils River due to
Amistad Dam and in Las Moras Creek; and the Conservation Agreement has
not yet been fully implemented.
An endangered species is defined under the Act as one that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We have carefully examined the best
scientific and commercial information available, and determine that
threatened status is appropriate for the Devils River minnow.
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'' as defined in section 3(3) of the Act
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 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. Our regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)) 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 such threat
to the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not
be beneficial to the species. We find that the designation of critical
habitat for the Devils River minnow is not prudent due to lack of
benefit.
The section 7 prohibitions against adverse modification of critical
habitat apply to Federal actions only (see the ``Available Conservation
Measures'' section of this rule). The watersheds in the U.S. in which
the Devils River minnow occurs are almost entirely in private
ownership, and no significant Federal actions affecting the species'
habitat are likely to occur in the area. Therefore, the designation of
critical habitat would provide little, if any, benefit to the species
through section 7 of the Act.
In addition, any Federal action that would cause adverse
modification of critical habitat for the Devils River minnow likely
would also cause jeopardy for areas where the species is known to
occur. Under section 7, actions funded, authorized, and carried out by
Federal agencies may not jeopardize the continued existence of a
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. To ``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a
species is defined as an action that appreciably reduces the likelihood
of its survival and recovery (50 CFR part 402). ``Destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat'' is defined as an appreciable
reduction in the value of critical habitat for the survival and
recovery of a species. Common to both definitions is an appreciable
detrimental effect to both the survival and recovery of a listed
species. In biological terms and in consultation practice, the jeopardy
standard and the adverse modification standard are virtually identical
for areas occupied by the species.
For any listed species, an analysis to determine jeopardy under
section 7(a)(2) would consider impacts to the species resulting from
impacts to habitat. Therefore, an analysis to determine jeopardy would
include an analysis closely parallel to an analysis to determine
adverse modification of critical habitat. A Federal action that would
adversely modify the species' habitat would also jeopardize the species
(and vice versa). Specifically for the Devils River minnow, any
modification to suitable habitat within the species' range also will
substantially affect the species. Actions that may affect the habitat
of the Devils River minnow include, but are not limited to--(1)
Reduction of water flows from springs or streams, (2) Degradation of
water quality, (3) Alteration of shallow, fast-flowing stream areas
downstream from the outflow of springs, and (4) Construction of
structures that interfere with instream movement of fishes. Given the
imperiled status and narrow range of the Devils River minnow, it is
likely that any Federal action that would destroy or adversely modify
the species' critical habitat would also jeopardize its continued
existence.
Apart from section 7, the Act provides no additional protection to
lands designated as critical habitat. Designating critical habitat does
not create a park or preserve, and does not require or create a
management plan for the areas where the species occurs; does not
establish numerical population goals or prescribe specific management
actions (inside or outside of critical habitat); and does not have a
direct effect on areas not designated as critical habitat. A
designation of critical habitat that includes private lands would only
affect actions where a Federal nexus (such as Federal funding,
authorization, or permit) is present and would not confer any
substantial conservation benefit beyond that already provided through
section 7 consultation.
Because the Devils River minnow is predominantly found in streams
flowing through private lands, the cooperation of private landowners is
imperative to conserve the Devils River minnow. Designation of critical
habitat on private lands could result in a detriment to the species.
The regulatory effect of critical habitat designation is often
misunderstood by private landowners, particularly those whose property
boundaries are included within a general description of critical
habitat for a species. In the past, landowners have mistakenly believed
that critical habitat designation would prevent development and impose
restrictions on the use of their private property. In some cases,
landowners have believed that critical habitat designation is an
attempt by the government to confiscate their private property. This
misconception was evident from public comments received in 1980 on the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Devils River minnow.
Several citizens indicated they strongly believed that by designating
critical habitat, the Federal government would have the right to
trespass on private property, control private land management actions,
and even take ownership of private land for the species. As a result of
this misunderstanding, fear of critical habitat designation has
sometimes reduced private landowner cooperation in efforts to conserve
species listed in Texas. For example, fear resulting from talk of
possible designation of critical habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler
(Dendroica chrysoparia) reduced private landowner cooperation in the
management of the species. In addition, in the past landowners have
specifically denied access to study sites for Devils River minnow
(Hubbs and Garrett 1990, Garrett et al. 1992) due to fears of
regulation.
[[Page 56607]]
Critical habitat designation can sometimes serve to highlight areas
that may be in need of special management considerations or protection.
However, in the case of the Devils River minnow the TPWD and local
landowners are already aware of the areas in need of special management
considerations or protection. Because this species was previously
proposed for listing in 1978, and critical habitat proposed in 1980
(due to amendements to the Act both proposals were withdrawn on
September 30, 1980 (45 FR 64853)), the public has been aware of the
distribution of the species and need for conservation for over 20
years. Prior to and following publication of the 1998 proposed rule to
list the Devils River minnow (critical habitat was not prudent in the
1998 proposal (63 FR 14885)), we initiated an extensive public outreach
effort to inform and educate the general public and interested parties
within the range of the species. We sent out press releases to local
newspapers, contacted elected officials, Federal, State, and county
agencies, and interested parties, including private landowners. A
public hearing was held in 1998, with over 40 people from the local
public in attendance. The hearing included the sharing of information
on areas important to the species. In addition, over the last two
years, TPWD has participated in at least three meetings with affected
private landowners (more than 30 individuals in attendance at each
meeting) to inform them of the need for conservation of the species, as
part of the development of the Conservation Agreement with the State
and the City of Del Rio.
We have evaluated the potential notification and education benefit
offered by critical habitat designation and find that, for the Devils
River minnow, there would be no additional benefit over the outreach
associated with the proposal, current outreach for this final rule and
interagency coordination processes currently in place. Notification and
education can be conducted more effectively by working directly with
landowners and communities through the recovery implementation process
and, where a Federal nexus exists, through section 7 consultation and
coordination. Critical habitat designation for the Devils River minnow
would provide no additional notification or education benefit.
In summary, we have determined that the designation of critical
habitat for the Devils River minnow would not be beneficial to the
species. For the Devils River minnow, the section 7 consultation
process will produce a jeopardy analysis similar to an adverse
modification analysis for critical habitat. We have already provided
private landowners and State and Federal agencies with up-to-date
information on important areas for the Devils River minnow and we plan
to continue to do so. Finally, even if designation of critical habitat
for the Devils River minnow would provide some small, incremental
benefit to the species, that benefit is outweighed by the possible
reduction in landowner cooperation that would facilitate the management
and recovery of this species. Based on this analysis, we conclude that
designation of critical habitat for the Devils River minnow is not
prudent.
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 results in public awareness and
conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land
acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that recovery
actions be carried out for all listed species.
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 these
interagency cooperation provisions of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. 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 a species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat, if any has been designated. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Although few Federal agency actions are anticipated, examples of
those that may require consultation as described in the preceding
paragraph include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review and approval of
activities such as the construction of roads, bridges, and dredging
projects subject to section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344
et seq.) and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33
U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
authorization of discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. Other Federal agencies whose actions could require
consultation include the Department of Defense, NRCS, the Federal
Highways Administration, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
In addition, section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires all Federal
agencies to review the programs they administer and use these programs
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All Federal agencies, in
consultation with the Service, are to carry out programs for the
conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed
pursuant to section 4 of the Act.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.31, in part, make it
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, 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 threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are described in 50 CFR 17.22, 17.23, and 17.32. Such
permits are available for scientific purposes, for the enhancement or
propagation or survival of the species, or for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species,
there are also permits for zoological exhibition, educational purposes,
or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.
Information collections associated with these permits are approved
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned
Office of Management and Budget clearance number 1018-0094. For
additional information concerning these permits and associated
requirements, see 50 CFR 17.32.
It is our policy (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 the
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. We
[[Page 56608]]
believe that, based on the best available information, the following
actions will not likely result in a violation of section 9:
(1) Normal livestock grazing and other standard ranching practices,
such as improving rangeland native grass cover, that do not destroy or
degrade Devils River minnow habitat;
(2) Riparian restoration activities that improve the ecological
health of native riparian zones along streams and springs, as long as
construction activities do not impair Devils River minnow habitat;
(3) Recreational activities such as swimming, canoeing, and
fishing, as long as non-native fish or other exotic organisms are not
used as bait and released to the stream, and the activities are
conducted in such a way as to not damage habitat or negatively affect
water quality; and
(4) Actions that may affect Devils River minnow and are authorized,
funded or carried out by a Federal agency when the action is conducted
in accordance with an incidental take statement issued by us pursuant
to section 7 of the Act.
Activities we believe could potentially harm the Devils River
minnow and result in ``take'' include, but are not limited to:
(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species;
(2) Any activities that may result in destruction or significant
alteration of habitat occupied by Devils River minnow including, but
not limited to, the discharge of fill material, the diversion or
alteration of spring and stream flows or withdrawal of groundwater to
the point at which Devils River minnow are harmed, and the alteration
of the physical channels within the spring runs and stream segments
occupied by the species;
(3) Discharge or dumping of pollutants such as chemicals, silt,
household or industrial waste, or other material into the springs or
streams occupied by Devils River minnow or into areas that provide
access to the aquifer and where such discharge or dumping could affect
water quality in spring outflows;
(4) Herbicide, pesticide, or fertilizer application in or near the
springs and/or stream segments containing the species;
(5) Introduction of certain non-native species (fish, plants, and
other) into occupied habitat of the Devils River minnow or areas
connected to these habitats; and
(6) Actions that may affect Devils River minnow and are authorized,
funded or carried out by a Federal agency when the action is not
conducted in accordance with an incidental take statement issued by us
pursuant to section 7 of the Act.
In the descriptions of activities above, a violation of section 9
would occur if those activities occur to an extent that would result in
``take'' of Devils River minnow. Not all of the activities mentioned
above will result in violation of section 9 of the Act; only those
activities that result in ``take'' of Devils River minnow would be
considered violations of section 9. We recognize that a wide variety of
activities would not harm the species, even if undertaken in the
vicinity of the species' habitat. Questions regarding whether specific
activities would likely constitute a violation of section 9 should be
directed to the Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations
regarding listed wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits
may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2,
Division of Endangered Species, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico
87103-1306 (telephone 505-248-6920; facsimile 505-248-6788).
National Environmental Policy Act
We have 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 our reasons for
this determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 CFR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,
is available upon request from the Austin Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author: The primary author of this final rule is Nathan Allan, Fish
and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:
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. Amend section 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical
order under ``FISHES'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Minnow, Devils River............. Dionda diaboli...... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico Entire............. T 669 NA NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56609]]
Dated: September 30, 1999.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-27188 Filed 10-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P