[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71855-71867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34410]



[[Page 71855]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF33


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal to List 
Nine Bexar County, Texas Invertebrate Species as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list nine cave-
dwelling invertebrates from Bexar County, Texas as endangered species 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Rhadine 
exilis (no common name) and Rhadine infernalis (no common name) are 
small, essentially eyeless ground beetles. Batrisodes venyivi (Helotes 
mold beetle) is a small, eyeless mold beetle. Texella cokendolpheri 
(Robber Baron Cave harvestman) is a small, eyeless harvestman (daddy-
longlegs). Cicurina baronia (Robber Baron cave spider), Cicurina madla 
(Madla's cave spider), Cicurina venii (no common name), Cicurina 
vespera (vesper cave spider), and Neoleptoneta microps (Government 
Canyon cave spider) are all small eyeless, or essentially eyeless, 
spiders. These species (referred to in this proposed rule as the ``nine 
invertebrates'' are known from karst features (limestone formations 
containing caves, sinks, and fissures) in north and northwest Bexar 
County. Threats to the species and their habitat include destruction 
and/or deterioration of habitat by construction; filling of caves and 
karst features and loss of permeable cover; contamination from such 
things as septic effluent, sewer leaks, run-off, and pesticides; 
predation by and competition with non-native fire ants; and vandalism. 
This proposal also constitutes our 12-month finding on a petition to 
list these nine invertebrates. This proposal, if made final, would 
implement Federal protection provided by the Act for these species.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by April 
29, 1999. Public hearing requests must be received by February 16, 
1999.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and materials concerning this proposal to the 
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hartland Bank 
Building, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758. Comments 
and materials received will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alisa Shull, Supervisory Fish and 
Wildlife Biologist (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 512/490-0057; 
facsimile 512/490-0974).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis were first collected in 1959 
and described by Barr and Lawrence (1960) as Agonum exile and Agonum 
infernale, respectively. Barr (1974) assigned the species to the genus 
Rhadine. Batrisodes venyivi was first collected in 1984 and described 
by Chandler (1992). Texella cokendolpheri was first collected in 1982 
and described in Ubick and Briggs (1992). Cicurina baronia, Cicurina 
madla, Cicurina venii, and Cicurina vespera were first collected in 
1969, 1963, 1980, and 1965, respectively. They were all described by 
Gertsch (1992). Neoleptoneta microps was first collected in 1965 and 
described by Gertsch (1974) as Leptoneta microps. The species was 
reassigned to Neoleptoneta following Brignoli (1977) and Platnick 
(1986).
    These nine invertebrates are obligate cave-dwelling species 
(troglobites) of local distribution in caves in Bexar County, Texas. 
The life habits of the species are not well known. They probably prey 
on the eggs, larvae, or adults of other cave invertebrates.
    We funded a status survey (Veni 1994a; Redell 1993) of all nine 
species through a grant under section 6 of the Act to the Texas Parks 
and Wildlife Department (TPWD). Researchers obtained landowner 
permission to study and assess threats to 41 caves in north and 
northwest Bexar County, Texas. Landowners denied permission to access 
an additional 36 caves that were believed likely to contain species of 
concern. All 77 caves had been described to some extent before the 
status survey was conducted. Four were already known to contain at 
least one of the nine invertebrates.
    During the status survey, the researchers made a collection of the 
invertebrate fauna at each cave studied, assessed the condition of the 
cave environment and threats to the species, and collected geological 
data. They used this information to prepare two reports. One report 
discusses the overall karst geography in the San Antonio region and the 
potential geologic and geographic barriers to karst invertebrate 
migration and limits to their distribution (Veni 1994a). The other 
report (Reddell 1993) details the fauna of each cave visited during the 
study and presents information obtained from invertebrate collections.
    Veni's (1994a) report delineates six karst areas (hereafter 
referred to as karst fauna regions) within Bexar County. The karst 
fauna regions he discusses are Stone Oak, UTSA (University of Texas at 
San Antonio), Helotes, Government Canyon, Culebra Anticline, and Alamo 
Heights. The boundaries of these karst fauna regions are geological or 
geographical features that may represent obstructions to troglobite 
movement (on an evolutionary time scale) that have resulted in the 
present-day distribution of endemic (restricted in distribution) karst 
invertebrates in the San Antonio region.
    The harvestman Texella cokendolpheri, Robber Baron Cave harvestman, 
is known only from Robber Baron cave in the Alamo Heights karst fauna 
region on private property. The cave entrance has been donated to the 
Texas Cave Management Association (George Veni, Veni & Associates, 
pers. comm. 1995), which will likely be interested in protection and 
improvement of the cave habitat. However, this cave is relatively 
large, and the land over and around the cave is heavily urbanized. The 
cave has also been subject to extensive commercial and recreational use 
(Veni 1988). No confirmed specimens of T. cokendolpheri were collected 
during the 1993 status survey, but one Texella harvestman collected at 
Robber Baron Cave since completion of the status survey is highly 
likely to be this species (James Reddell, Texas Memorial Museum, and 
Dr. Darrell Ubick, California Academy of Sciences, pers. comm. 1995).
    Batrisodes venyivi, the Helotes mold beetle, is known from only 
three caves in the vicinity of Helotes, Texas, northwest of San 
Antonio. Two of these caves are located in the Helotes karst fauna 
region on private property. The owner of one of the caves within the 
Helotes karst fauna region has denied access in recent years, so 
Batrisodes venyivi's status there is unknown. However, the cave is 
known to have been heavily infested with fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) 
in the past (Reddell 1993). The owner of the second cave is very 
interested in protecting the cave and the unique species inside. 
However, fire ants are also present in the second locality. The 
collector of the specimen from the third cave has declined to give us a 
specific site collection record, but this cave may be located in the 
UTSA karst fauna region and likely lies on private property (James 
Reddell, pers. comm. 1997).

[[Page 71856]]

    Rhadine exilis is known from 33 caves in north and northwest Bexar 
County. Nineteen are located on Department of Defense (DOD) land. The 
remainder are distributed among the Helotes, UTSA, and Stone Oak karst 
fauna regions, while one location lies in the Government Canyon region. 
One is located in a county road right-of-way, one is located in a 
state-owned natural area, and the remainder are located on private 
property. Ongoing efforts by the DOD to locate and inventory karst 
features on Camp Bullis and to document the karst fauna communities in 
caves on Camp Bullis resulted in discovery of 18 of the 33 caves 
mentioned above (Veni 1994b; James Reddell, pers. comm. 1997).
    Rhadine infernalis is known from 25 caves. This species occurs in 
five of the six karst fauna regions--Helotes, UTSA, Stone Oak, Culebra 
Anticline, and Government Canyon. Three subspecies have been delineated 
so far (Rhadine infernalis ewersi, Rhadine infernalis infernalis, 
Rhadine infernalis ssp.). Two of these have been described and named in 
scientific literature (Barr 1960, Barr and Lawrence 1960). The third 
has recently been characterized as a distinct subspecies, but not 
named, in a report (Reddell 1998). Only three caves contain the 
subspecies Rhadine infernalis ewersi and all are located on DOD land. 
Sixteen caves contain the subspecies Rhadine infernalis infernalis and 
lie in the Government Canyon, Helotes, UTSA, and Stone Oak regions. Six 
caves in the Culebra Anticline region contain the Rhadine infernalis 
ssp.
    Cicurina venii is known from only one cave located on private 
property in the Culebra Anticline karst fauna region. The species was 
collected in 1980 and 1983, but the cave itself was not initially 
described until 1988 (Reddell 1993). The cave entrance was filled 
during construction of a home in 1990. Without excavation, it is 
difficult to determine what effect this incident had on the species; 
however, there may still be some nutrient input, including that from a 
reported small side passage.
    Cicurina baronia, the Robber Baron cave spider, is known only from 
Robber Baron Cave in the Alamo Heights karst fauna region. Although the 
cave entrance is owned and operated by the Texas Cave Management 
Association, it is located in a heavily urbanized area.
    Cicurina madla, the Madla's cave spider, is known from five caves. 
One cave is within the Government Canyon karst fauna region in 
Government Canyon State Natural Area, three are located in the Helotes 
karst fauna region on private property, and one is located on private 
property in the UTSA karst fauna region.
    Cicurina vespera, the vesper cave spider, has been found in only 
two caves. One is Government Canyon Bat Cave in the Government Canyon 
State Natural Area, and the other is a cave 5 miles northeast of 
Helotes, the location and name of which has not been revealed to us.
    Neoleptoneta microps is known only from the Government Canyon karst 
fauna area from two caves within Government Canyon State Natural Area.
    Threats to these species and their habitats include destruction 
and/or deterioration of habitat by commercial, residential, and road 
construction; filling of caves, and loss of permeable cover; potential 
contamination from such things as septic effluent, sewer leaks, run-
off, and pesticides; predation by and competition with non-native fire 
ants; and vandalism.
    In the course of conducting the 1993 status survey, Veni contacted 
landowners and requested access to as many caves as possible that were 
believed to be potential habitat for the nine invertebrates. It is 
possible that these species occur in some of the caves that could not 
be visited and that new locations of the nine invertebrates will be 
discovered in the future. Although these new discoveries may increase 
the number of locations where the species are found, they are expected 
to fall within the same general range and expected to face the same 
threats as the known occurrences of these species. The proposed listing 
of these species is not based on a demonstrable decline in the number 
of individuals or the number of known locations of each species, but 
rather on reliable evidence that each of these species is subject to 
threats to its continued existence throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.

Previous Federal Action

    On January 16, 1992, we received a petition dated January 9, 1992, 
to add the nine invertebrates to the List of Threatened and Endangered 
Wildlife. Patricia K. Cunningham of the Helotes Creek Association and 
individuals representing the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation 
Coalition, the Texas Speleological Association, the Alamo Group of the 
Sierra Club, and the Texas Cave Management Association submitted the 
petition. On December 1, 1993, we announced in the Federal Register (58 
FR 63328) a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial 
information that listing may be warranted. We received over 200 letters 
from citizens, businesses, and elected officials in response to the 90-
day finding. Most of the comments were similar in form, opposed the 
listing, and requested that we delay making a 12-month finding until 
the results of status surveys conducted under section 6 of the Act were 
made available. Some commenters raised questions and issues regarding 
the status of the nine invertebrates and the validity of the science on 
which we based the 90-day finding. We considered these comments and 
information in preparing this proposed rule.
    Eight of the nine invertebrates were added to the Animal Notice of 
Review as category 2 candidate species in the Federal Register on 
November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). Rhadine exilis was presented with the 
other eight species in February of 1994 to be added to the November 15, 
1994, notice of review, but an oversight occurred and it did not 
appear. Category 2 candidates were those taxa for which we had data 
indicating that listing was possibly appropriate, but for which we 
lacked substantial data on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support proposed listing rules. Beginning with our combined plant and 
animal notice of review published in the Federal Register on February 
28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of multiple 
categories of candidates and only taxa meeting the definition of former 
category 1 candidates are now recognized as candidates for listing 
purposes. Category 1 candidates were defined as those taxa for which we 
had sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support proposed listing rules. Although the nine invertebrates were 
not included in the February 28, 1996, notice of review (61 FR 7596) or 
in the following September 19, 1997, notice of review (62 FR 49398), we 
have now obtained additional information that supports a proposal to 
list these species.
    The endangered species listing program was disrupted by a listing 
moratorium (Public Law 104-6, April 10, 1995) and rescission of listing 
program funding in Fiscal Year 1996. The moratorium was lifted and 
listing program funding restored on April 26, 1996. On May 16, 1996 (61 
CFR 24722), we issued guidance for priorities in restarting the listing 
program that included four tiers. New proposed listings and petition 
findings fell under tier three, the second-lowest priority.
    The petition finding and publication of the proposed rule was 
precluded by the listing priority guidance for fiscal year 1997, 
finalized December 5, 1996 (61 CFR 64475). In the 1997 guidance, we 
determined that, given limited

[[Page 71857]]

resources, highest priority would be processing emergency listing 
rules. Second priority would be processing final determinations on 
proposed additions to the list. Processing administrative findings on 
petitions and processing new proposals to add species to the lists were 
again a tier three priority.
    With the publication of listing priority guidance for Fiscal Years 
1998 and 1999 on May 8, 1998 (63 CFR 25502), we returned to a more 
balanced listing program. Processing administrative findings on 
petitions to add species to the lists became a tier two priority, and 
we resumed work on this petition finding.
    In 1994, we began discussions with a coalition of landowners, 
developers, and other interested parties about creating a conservation 
agreement that might preclude the need for listing these species. We 
have been working since then with interested parties to develop a 
conservation strategy and agreement. However, all the measures 
necessary to accomplish this goal have not yet been agreed to. These 
issues relate primarily to determining what is needed for species 
conservation, responsibility and commitment for implementation and 
funding, and the amount of time required to implement the conservation 
measures. If these issues are resolved before a final listing decision 
is made, the final listing decision may differ from that proposed here 
for some or all of these species.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act and regulations (50 CFR 
Part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act 
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. 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 nine invertebrates are as follows:
    A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range. The range of the nine 
invertebrates is limited to limestone karst strata in the northern 
portion of Bexar County, which includes a portion of northern San 
Antonio, Texas. Their historical range is unknown, but is expected to 
have been similar to the present range with the understanding that some 
caves within the species' range have been destroyed and other caves 
have suffered adverse impacts due to the factors discussed in this 
proposed rule.
    The proximity of the caves and karst features inhabited by these 
species to the City of San Antonio makes them vulnerable to being 
filled, capped, destroyed, or otherwise negatively impacted as a result 
of continuing expansion of the San Antonio metropolitan area. 
Destruction of caves in Bexar County and throughout central Texas is 
common (Elliott 1990, Veni 1991). Veni (1991) estimates that about 26 
percent of known caves in Bexar County have been destroyed through 
filling with dirt, rocks, concrete, or other materials; capping or 
covering by roads or buildings; and blasting by construction and 
quarrying operations.
    Several sources of information from 1991 to 1997 illustrate the 
considerable development that has occurred and is expected to continue 
in the San Antonio area in general and the karst faunal regions in 
particular. For example, a report prepared by the City of San Antonio 
(1991) indicates that 69 percent of the increase in human population 
that occurred in Bexar County between 1980 and 1990 occurred in the 
northwest and northeast quadrants, which is where the nine 
invertebrates occur. The report describes this period as characterized 
by ``tremendous growth'' in the residential sector with significant 
increases also occurring in non-residential growth. During the 1980s 
Bexar County saw a 26 percent increase in the single family housing 
market (88 percent of which occurred in the northwest and northeast 
quadrants), a 46 percent increase in the multi-family housing market, 
and an approximate 150 percent increase in square feet availability of 
non-residential space (City of San Antonio 1991).
    Overall, the northwest and northeast quadrants of Bexar County 
contain 69 percent of the county's population and 73 percent of the 
available housing (City of San Antonio 1991). From 1980-1990, changes 
in population for the specific census tracts where the nine 
invertebrates occur (census tracts numbering in the 1200s, 1700s, 
1800s, and 1900s) range from a 2.4 percent decrease (tract 1208, Alamo 
Heights) to a 201 percent increase (tract 1720, Culebra Anticline 
area). For the 1200, 1700, 1800, and 1900 census tracts the average 
increase has been 35.4 percent, 13.1 percent, 54.3 percent, and 24.1 
percent, respectively. The majority of the increase in development and 
population during that period occurred during the early 1980s with a 
drastic decline by 1989.
    A report by the City of San Antonio (1993) shows a steady increase 
in building permit activity, number of plats approved, number of acres 
and lots platted, and new electrical connections during the period from 
1990-1992. This may indicate a growing economy and a subsequent 
increase in growth and development. This report also indicates that the 
majority of the growth (about 81 percent, as measured by new electrical 
connections) is occurring in the northwest and northeast quadrants.
    The recent revitalization of the real estate market and the 
construction industry has intensified the threat to the nine 
invertebrates. A review of new electrical connections for all Bexar 
County census tracts from 1990-1996 (San Antonio Planning Department 
1997) reveals that tracts within the northwest and northeast quadrants 
of the city continue to be the fastest growing areas in the county in 
the present decade. Census tracts numbering in the 1200s, 1700s, 1800s, 
and 1900s accounted for 21 percent, 10 percent, 31 percent, and 21 
percent, respectively, of the new electrical connections in the county 
from 1990 to 1996 (San Antonio Planning Department 1997). Further 
review of the data reveals that the majority of the fastest growing 
sub-tracts are located in karst areas.
    Plotting cave locations on land use maps prepared by the Bexar 
County Appraisal District for northwest Bexar County and the Edwards 
Aquifer recharge zone shows that most of the privately owned caves lie 
on land classified as one of the following: single family residential, 
vacant platted, vacant mixed-use, tax exempt, or ranchland (Table 1). 
Land classified as single family residential is currently occupied by 
single family dwellings. Land classified as vacant platted is mostly 
interspersed with or surrounded by single family residential areas and, 
since plats have been approved, can be developed at any time. Vacant 
mixed-use land is land with no agricultural exemption or where rollback 
taxes have been paid in preparation for a change in land use. Caves 
located on single family residential, vacant platted, or vacant mixed-
use land are most vulnerable to negative impacts related to 
development. Ranchland is land with an existing agricultural exemption 
and may be vulnerable to fire ant infestations, siltation due to 
overgrazing, or to chemicals such as pesticides. Exempt land is 
government-owned or otherwise tax exempt, and is owned primarily by 
Federal, State, and local governments or church groups. These caves may 
be subject to any of the threats associated with other land-use types, 
depending on the landowner and current land use practices. The DOD has 
indicated an interest in conserving caves located on its property and 
is currently

[[Page 71858]]

inventorying its cave resources. The TPWD, owners of Government Canyon 
State Natural Area, should provide habitat protection for caves on 
their property; however, fire ants are present in some of the caves and 
throughout the property.

                Table 1.--Numbers of Karst Features Containing the Nine Invertebrates by Land Use
 [Land use according to Bexar County Appraisal District maps for northwest Bexar County and the Edwards Aquifer
                                                 recharge zone]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Single-     Vacant     Vacant
            Species                family    platted   mixed-use  Ranchland    Tax exempt    Unknown     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhadine exilis.................          2          1          3      \1\ 2  19 DOD                 4         33
                                                                             1
                                                                             GCSNA
                                                                             1 Co.
                                                                             ROW \2\
Rhadine infernalis.............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .............  .........         25
    R. I. ewersi...............  .........  .........  .........  .........  3 DOD          .........  .........
    R. I. infernalis...........          2  .........          6          2  4                      1  .........
                                                                             GCSNA 1
                                                                              Church
    R. I. new species..........          2  .........          1          3  .............  .........  .........
    Batrisodes venyivi.........          1      \3\ 1  .........          1  .............  .........          3
    Texella cokendolpheri......          1  .........  .........  .........  .............  .........          1
    Cicurina baronia...........          1  .........  .........  .........  .............  .........          1
    Cicurina madla.............          1  .........          2          1  1              .........          5
                                                                             GCSNA
    Cicurina venii.............          1  .........  .........  .........  .............  .........          1
    Cicurina vespera...........  .........  .........  .........  .........  1                      1          2
                                                                             GCSNA
    Neoleptoneta microps.......  .........  .........  .........  .........  2              .........         2
                                                                             GCSNA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1 in county road right-of-way and 1 across the street from residential neighborhood.
\2\ Dept. of Defense, Government Canyon Statral Area, county road right-of-way.
\3\ Exact location unknown.

    A number of the caves containing the nine invertebrates occur 
within the recharge zone for the Edwards Aquifer. The Edwards 
Underground Water District (1993) presents data suggesting that the 
Edwards Aquifer recharge zone in northwest Bexar County is ``poised for 
explosive development as the economy rebounds.'' Spills, leaking 
storage tanks, and other sources of surface and groundwater pollution 
can harm cave and karst communities as pollutants pass through the 
karst. The Texas Water Commission (TWC), now part of the Texas Natural 
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), reported that in 1988 within 
the San Antonio segment of the Edwards Aquifer 28 oil and chemical 
spills occurred in Bexar County. This represented the greatest number 
of land-based spills in central Texas that affect surface and/or 
groundwater (TWC 1989). As of July 1988, Bexar County had between 26 
and 50 confirmed leaking underground storage tanks (TWC 1989), placing 
it second among central Texas counties in the number of confirmed 
underground storage tank leaks. The TWC estimates that, on average, 
every leaking underground storage tank will leak about 500 gallons per 
year of contaminants before the leak is detected. These tanks are 
considered one of the most significant sources of groundwater 
contamination in the State (TWC 1989).
    Increasing urbanization in Bexar County will increase the risk that 
leaks and spills may harm karst ecosystems. TNRCC (1994) summarizes 
information on groundwater contamination and lists contaminant spills 
on a county-by-county basis as reported by TNRCC, the Texas Department 
of Agriculture, the Railroad Commission of Texas, the Texas Alliance of 
Groundwater Districts, and the Interagency Pesticide Database. Table 1 
in TNRCC (1994) lists 350 groundwater contamination cases that have 
occurred in Bexar County within the past 2 decades. The majority of 
these cases involve spills or leaks of petroleum products, and many of 
them remain unresolved at present.
    While a number of the cave entrances concerned may not be in 
imminent danger from development at the entrance site, cave 
environments can be negatively impacted by runoff, chemical spills, 
sewer leaks, pesticide use, and septic effluent associated with 
development on nearby properties within the karst zone. Many of these 
caves are situated within the porous limestone that forms the Edwards 
Aquifer and are susceptible to contamination originating on properties 
containing the cave entrances, as well as on properties that lie above 
and adjacent to subterranean reaches of the caves.
    Attributes of cave environments that are conducive to occupation by 
karst invertebrates include a relatively constant high humidity, stable 
temperature, and some energy input (Howarth 1983; Holsinger 1988; 
Elliott and Reddell 1989). Nutrient availability and moisture are 
critical limiting factors for karst fauna occupying terrestrial cave 
environments (Barr 1968). Adaptations to the high relative humidity and 
low nutrient availability typical of caves are common among troglobites 
(Howarth 1983; Mitchell 1967; Barr 1968) and the nine invertebrates 
exhibit many of these adaptations (Barr 1960; Barr 1974; Gertsch 1974). 
Nearly all food energy in caves must be imported from the exterior 
(Holsinger 1988).
    Energy enters areas near the cave entrance via species that move 
between the surface and the cave, including bats, and by means of 
organic matter that washes into the caves. In deeper reaches

[[Page 71859]]

of the cave, primary input of energy is through water containing 
dissolved organic matter percolating through the karst vertically 
through fissures and solution features (Howarth 1983; Holsinger 1988; 
Elliott and Reddell 1989). Rapid urbanization in northern Bexar County 
would likely result in a dramatic increase in impermeable cover in 
areas surrounding many of the caves. An increase in impermeable cover 
could result in decreased percolation of water into the caves via the 
karst and have a detrimental effect on the moisture regime and nutrient 
input critical to karst-dwelling species.
    Several of the caves containing the nine invertebrates have been 
subject to vandalism, trash dumping, and other threats that may be 
associated with visitation by humans. Excessive visitation by humans 
can result in habitat disturbance or loss of habitat due to soil 
compaction or changes in atmospheric conditions as well as direct 
mortality of invertebrates. Vandalism may result in the destruction or 
deterioration of the karst ecosystem. Dumping of trash (such as 
alkaline batteries) can lead to contamination of the karst ecosystems 
while disposal of household and other wastes may attract fire ants or 
other surface-dwelling species harmful to the karst ecosystem.
    Comments we received suggest that trash and debris left in caves 
can benefit the nine invertebrates by providing supplemental nutrients 
to the cave ecosystem. While the nine invertebrates need some input of 
nutrients into the underground environment, the impacts associated with 
trash dumping in caves are more likely to be negative. Caves and karst 
features are low-nutrient environments, and many obligate karst-
dwelling organisms have evolved adaptations to this unique environment 
(Mitchell 1967; Barr 1968; Howarth 1983). Over the long term, excess 
artificial input of nutrients into the karst ecosystem would more 
likely benefit predators and competitors of the nine invertebrates (see 
factor C of this section) and upset the natural balance in the karst 
ecosystem.
    Commenters have also stated that, since the nine invertebrates 
continue to exist in caves where there is a history of dumping, 
vandalism, or invasion by fire ants (see factor C of this section), 
these activities must not pose a threat to the species. Karst 
invertebrates occur in low numbers and are difficult to study. 
Consequently, detecting small, gradual changes in the populations of 
karst invertebrates is difficult. While little quantitative data are 
available on the direct effects of trash dumping, vandalism, fire ants, 
sealing, and other disturbances on the nine invertebrates, there is 
substantial evidence indicating that the threats discussed herein are 
real, significant, and ongoing. Reddell (invertebrate biologist, in 
litt. 1993) and Elliott (cave and karst ecologist, in litt. 1993) both 
cite examples in which trash dumping, vandalism, and over-visitation 
have resulted in decreased observations of karst invertebrates in 
affected areas in caves in Travis and Williamson counties. Furthermore, 
we believe that using extirpation (extinction of a population) as the 
only measure of threats would significantly compromise the ability to 
provide for long-term conservation of these species. The earlier that 
threats are identified, the greater the likelihood that species can be 
conserved.
    B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. One commenter stated that the only ``documented 
cause of death'' for karst invertebrates is scientific collecting, and 
that collecting invertebrates involves major disruption of their 
habitat. While it is true that positive identification of karst 
invertebrates usually requires collection and permanent preservation of 
individual specimens, the number of individuals taken for this purpose 
is small and such collections are made infrequently. We do not believe 
that collection of a few individuals has significantly reduced their 
numbers. Habitat disturbance resulting from searching for species is 
relatively minor when done by experienced collectors, and usually 
involves turning over rocks on the cave floor, which are then returned 
to their previous positions. Thus, we do not consider scientific 
collecting to be a threat at this time. Further, if the species are 
listed, a scientific collecting permit will be required and excess 
collection will not be permitted.
    Commenters have also suggested that enlarging cave openings to 
allow biologists access to sample for karst invertebrates could change 
the internal cave environment and harm the species. The Service agrees 
that, in some instances, creation or significant enlargement of cave 
openings could alter the environment of caves. Where changes in the 
cave environment are expected to result, the Service recommends 
returning the opening to its previous natural condition with natural 
dirt and rock fill or installing an appropriate cave gate designed to 
provide suitable conditions in the cave and protect the internal 
environment.
    These species are of little interest in the insect trade or to 
amateur collectors. They are collected only occasionally by scientists 
conducting studies of cave fauna. Consequently, any threat from 
overutilization of these species for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes is insignificant at this time.
    C. Disease or predation. Human activities facilitate movement of 
predators such as fire ants into an area. Construction areas, lawns, 
roadways, and landscaped areas provide habitat from which these species 
can disperse. The relative accessibility of the shallow caves in Bexar 
County leaves them especially vulnerable to invasion by non-native 
species.
    Non-native fire ants are a major threat to the nine invertebrates. 
Fire ants are voracious predators and there is evidence that overall 
arthropod diversity drops in their presence (Vinson and Sorensen 1986, 
Porter and Savignano 1990). Reddell (in litt. 1993) lists at least nine 
cave-inhabiting species he has observed being preyed upon by fire ants. 
Although none of the petitioned species covered in this proposed rule 
are the species he observed being preyed upon, several of those 
observed are closely related to the nine invertebrates or to endangered 
karst invertebrates in Travis and Williamson counties, Texas.
    Elliott (1992) cites other examples of predation and notes that 
fire ant activity has increased dramatically in central Texas since 
1989. Even in the unlikely event that fire ants do not affect the 
proposed species directly, their presence in and around caves could 
have a drastic detrimental effect on the cave ecosystem through loss of 
species, inside the cave and out, that provide nutrient input and 
critical links in the food chain.
    Of 36 caves Veni and Reddell visited while conducting a status 
survey for the nine invertebrates, fire ants were found in 26 caves 
(Reddell 1993). The 1993 status survey revealed that of 24 caves 
confirmed to contain one or more of the nine invertebrates, at least 15 
had fire ant infestations at the time the study was conducted (Reddell 
1993). Most of the collections for the status survey were done between 
April and June of 1993 at a time during that year when fire ants had 
likely not reached peak densities (Reddell, pers. comm. 1995). 
Consequently, fire ant infestations could be worse than reflected by 
the status survey, and the rate of infestation is expected to be 
similar for the rest of the 56 caves known to contain one or more of 
the nine invertebrates.
    Controlling fire ants once they have invaded a cave and its 
vicinity is difficult. Chemical control methods have some 
effectiveness, but the effect

[[Page 71860]]

of these agents on non-target species is unclear. Consequently, use of 
chemicals to control fire ants in and close to caves is not currently 
advisable. At present, we recommend only boiling water treatment for 
control of fire ant colonies near caves inhabited by endangered karst 
invertebrates in Travis and Williamson counties. This method is labor 
intensive and only moderately effective. Carefully controlled chemical 
treatment may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Although control 
methods are available, the burden of carrying out such practices in 
areas occupied by these proposed species is not a designated or 
mandated duty of any agency, organization, or individual. This type of 
control will likely be needed indefinitely or until a long term method 
of fire ant control is developed.
    D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Invertebrates 
are not included on the TPWD list of threatened and endangered species 
and are provided no protection by the State; nor do TPWD's regulations 
contain provisions for protecting habitat of any listed species. The 
TNRCC regulations may give some degree of protection to significant 
aquifer recharge features, but would apply to only a few of the caves 
in question since the majority do not contribute significantly to 
recharge. In addition, setbacks from recharge features required by the 
TNRCC may not always be adequate to protect entire hydrogeological 
areas and surface communities that provide nutrient input into the 
cave. The TNRCC also approves capping (concrete sealing) of certain 
sinkholes and other karst features in an effort to prevent contaminated 
water from entering the aquifer. Such alteration or blocking of natural 
drainage patterns could result in drying of the habitat and a reduction 
in nutrient input into the karst feature.
    The City of San Antonio regulates development and impervious 
(resistant to seepage of water) cover within the recharge area of the 
Edwards Aquifer. The plan provides limits on types of development that 
can occur within the recharge zone and limits on impervious cover. This 
ordinance requires, in part, identification of critical environmental 
features and may provide some protection for caves and karst features 
that provide recharge to the Edwards Aquifer. However, most of the 
caves known to contain the nine invertebrates are relatively small and 
do not provide significant recharge, so it is uncertain how these caves 
would be considered under the ordinance. In addition, many of the caves 
known to have the nine invertebrates lie outside the recharge zone. 
Finally, development plans filed prior to passage of the ordinance are 
grandfathered and are not required to comply with the new restrictions.
    We are not aware of other regulations that will specifically 
address the protection of the karst features that serve as habitat for 
these invertebrate species. At present, adequate, long term 
conservation of the karst fauna is not assured in any of the caves 
containing one or more of the nine invertebrates. Five caves located in 
Government Canyon State Natural Area contain a total of five of the 
nine invertebrates. The TPWD will likely protect habitat at these 
sites; however, fire ants are present in some of the caves and 
throughout the property. Thus, the invertebrate species within those 
caves are at risk because effective methods of controlling fire ants 
are not known.
    A total of 21 caves containing the proposed species are located on 
Federal property at the Camp Bullis Training Site. Eighteen caves 
contain only Rhadine exilis, two caves contain only Rhadine infernalis 
and one cave contains both Rhadine species. Efforts are underway 
through the Department of Defense's Legacy program to inventory karst 
features within the recharge zone on Camp Bullis, and these efforts may 
result in protection of biologically or hydrologically significant 
karst features. However, complete protection of the species in these 
features may require control of fire ants.
    E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence. Just as human activities may facilitate movement of fire 
ants into an area (see factor C of this section), competitors such as 
cockroaches and sow bugs can also be introduced into cave ecosystems in 
association with human activity. Native and non-native species may 
increase and compete with the nine invertebrates directly by consuming 
the same foods and using the same habitats; or they may compete 
indirectly by using resources needed by species, such as cave crickets 
(Ceuthophilus spp.), that provide nutrient input to karst ecosystems. 
Fire ants can be considered both predators and competitors (see factor 
C of this section).
    Possible impacts from human entry into caves for recreational 
purposes include habitat disturbance or loss due to soil compaction or 
changes in atmospheric conditions; abandonment of the cave by animals, 
including bats, that inhabit caves but must return to the surface for 
food or other necessities, and in so-doing provide nutrient input to 
the cave ecosystem; and direct mortality of karst fauna. These impacts 
may be reduced or avoided depending on the caving skills and caution of 
the person(s) entering the cave.
    Vandalism is also a threat to karst ecosystems and can contribute 
to an alteration of the cave ecosystem through soil compaction, 
temperature changes, and contamination from household chemicals such as 
insecticides (Reddell 1993). Additionally, disturbance of habitat and 
introduction of excess nutrients, such as garbage, may facilitate the 
establishment of or increase the numbers of competitors and/or 
predators (including non-native species) as discussed above. Certain 
caves have frequently been used for parties and other unauthorized 
activities. Trash dumping has occurred in numerous Bexar County caves. 
Reddell (1993) noted in several caves that contain one or more of the 
nine invertebrates that vandalism has contributed to the degradation of 
the cave.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
faced by these species in determining to propose this rule. Based on 
this evaluation, the preferred action is to list Rhadine exilis, 
Rhadine infernalis, Batrisodes venyivi, Texella cokendolpheri, Cicurina 
baronia, Cicurina madla, Cicurina venii, Cicurina vespera, and 
Neoleptoneta microps as endangered.
    The Act defines an endangered species 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 in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. We believe that endangered is the appropriate 
status for these species because of the high degree and immediacy of 
threats faced by and limited range of these species.
    If the provisions of this rule become final, the karst fauna 
regions delineated by Veni (1994a) will likely constitute recovery 
units for the species. The recovery criteria for these species will 
likely call for, among other things, the preservation of at least three 
karst fauna areas per karst fauna region, as outlined for endangered 
karst invertebrates in Travis and Williamson counties, Texas. These 
criteria are discussed in the Recovery Plan for Endangered Karst 
Invertebrates in Travis and Williamson Counties, Texas (USFWS 1994). 
These recovery criteria were designed to protect populations of the 
species far enough apart to guard against catastrophic loss of all 
populations within a region and to preserve genetic diversity across 
each species' range.

[[Page 71861]]

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and 
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing 
under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 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)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent 
when one or both of the following situations exist--(1) The species is 
threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of 
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to 
the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be 
beneficial to the species. We find that designation of critical habitat 
is not prudent for the nine invertebrates due to increased threat of 
taking and lack of benefit.
    The publication of precise species locations and maps and 
descriptions of critical habitat in the Federal Register, as required 
in a proposal to designate critical habitat, would make the nine 
invertebrates more vulnerable to incidents of vandalism. Vandalism of 
caves and unauthorized entry have been documented, and are a known 
threat to the species (see factor A of the Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species section). Also, these species cave habitats are located at 
the edge of a growing urban area. The expanding human population 
increases the risk that publicizing cave and species locations would 
increase the likelihood of vandalism of the nine invertebrates' cave 
habitats.
    Critical habitat receives consideration under section 7 of the Act 
with regard to actions carried out, authorized, or funded by a Federal 
agency (see ``Available Conservation Measures'' section). As such, 
designation of critical habitat may affect activities on Federal lands 
and may affect activities on non-Federal lands where such a Federal 
nexus exists. Under section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies are required 
to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence 
of a species or result in destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. However, both jeopardizing the continued existence of 
a species and adverse modification of critical habitat have similar 
standards and thus similar thresholds for violation of section 7 of the 
Act. In fact, biological opinions that conclude that a Federal agency 
action is likely to adversely modify critical habitat but not 
jeopardize the species for which the critical habitat has been 
designated are extremely rare. Because the nine invertebrates have 
extremely limited distributions, and because new potentially suitable 
habitats cannot be constructed (and are not created by nature except in 
geological time frames), any activity which would cause adverse 
modification of critical habitat would also likely cause jeopardy to 
the species.
    In addition, a primary threat to the nine invertebrates on Federal 
lands is predation by and competition with fire ants. Because the 
threat posed by fire ants would not necessarily be subject to section 7 
consultation, designation of critical habitat would not result in 
reduction of this threat.
    Most (35 of 56) of the caves supporting the nine invertebrates are 
on non-Federal lands, and many of the activities likely to cause 
adverse modification of these caves (modification of surrounding 
vegetation and/or drainage patterns, contamination from septic effluent 
and run-off, predation by and competition with fire ants, and 
vandalism) do not involve a Federal nexus. The designation of critical 
habitat on non-Federal lands would not provide any benefit in reducing 
the threats from these activities. Activities that cause take of the 
species, however, would be prohibited under section 9 of the Act.
    The designation of critical habitat for the purpose of informing 
Federal agencies and landowners of the known locations of the nine 
invertebrates is not necessary because we can inform Federal agencies 
and landowners through other means. We will notify all appropriate 
Federal agencies and landowners of the importance of protecting the 
caves these species occupy through our standard notification 
procedures. Thus, recognition of important areas for conservation of 
the species can be accomplished without designating critical habitat.
    For these reasons, we believe that the increased threat of 
vandalism through disclosure of cave locations as required in a 
proposal to designate critical habitat outweighs the benefits provided 
by such designation, and that, therefore, the designation of critical 
habitat for the nine invertebrates 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 encourages and results in 
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. The protection required 
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are 
discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with us 
on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed 
subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into formal consultation with us.
    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 us, are to carry out programs for the conservation of 
endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 
of the Act.
    Examples of Federal agency actions that may require conference and/
or consultation as described in the preceding paragraphs include 
operations at military facilities in the San Antonio area (specifically 
Camp Bullis Military Reservation), Environmental Protection Agency 
authorization of discharges and

[[Page 71862]]

registration and regulation of pesticides; Federal Highway 
Administration and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) involvement in such 
projects as road and bridge construction and maintenance; other Corps 
projects subject to section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 
et seq.); and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
activities, funding, and authorizations.
    The Act and implementing regulations set forth a series of general 
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife. The 
prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make it illegal for 
any person subject to jurisdiction of the United States 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 our agents and agents of State conservation 
agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered or threatened wildlife under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits for endangered wildlife 
are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits are available for 
scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or survival of the species, 
and/or for incidental take in the course of otherwise lawful 
activities. Because these species are not in trade, we do not expect 
requests for such permits.
    Send requests for copies of regulations regarding listed wildlife 
and inquiries about prohibitions and permits to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Region 2, Endangered Species Listing Coordinator, 500 
Gold Avenue SW Room 4012, Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306 (telephone 505/
248-6655; facsimile 505/248-6922).
    We recognize that some landowners have expressed willingness to 
work with us to protect the nine invertebrates and that land management 
strategies that benefit the species and provide clear guidelines for 
land use in the vicinity of occupied caves can be developed. We intend 
to work with landowners in developing management plans and conservation 
agreements for these species.
    The karst features inhabited by these species and the ecosystems on 
which they depend have developed slowly over millions of years and 
cannot be recreated once they have been destroyed. Protection of the 
ecosystems that support the nine invertebrates will require maintaining 
moist, humid conditions and stable temperatures in the air-filled 
voids; maintaining an adequate nutrient supply; preventing 
contamination of the water entering the ecosystem; preventing or 
controlling invasion of non-native species such as fire ants; and other 
actions as deemed necessary.
    Protecting the karst features inhabited by the nine invertebrates 
will entail protecting sufficient surface and subsurface area 
surrounding the karst features to maintain the integrity of the karst 
ecosystem. Due to the paucity of light and limited capability for 
photosynthesis, karst ecosystems are almost entirely dependent upon 
surface plant and animal communities for nutrient and energy input. 
Karst ecosystems receive nutrients from the surface in the form of leaf 
litter and other organic debris that have washed or fallen into the 
caves, from tree and other vascular plant roots, or through the feces, 
eggs, or dead bodies of other species, for example, cave crickets, 
bats, and raccoons.
    A healthy ecosystem surrounding the karst features is important to 
conservation of the nine invertebrates. Certain animal species, such as 
cave crickets, daddy-longlegs, raccoons, skunks, and other small 
mammals, appear to use many caves and karst features, provided there is 
sufficient area on the surface with habitat to support these species 
and the cave entrances are not blocked. Recent research indicates cave 
crickets may forage more than 50 meters from cave entrances (W.R. 
Elliott, Texas Memorial Museum, pers. comm. 1993).
    Cave crickets are an especially important component of the cave 
ecosystem, because many invertebrates are known to feed on their eggs, 
nymphs, feces, and dead bodies. Cave crickets typically roost and lay 
eggs in caves during the day, then emerge at night to feed. They are 
general predators and scavengers, but the exact food preferences of 
Ceuthophilus species in Texas are still unclear. The daddy-longlegs 
harvestman (Leibunum townsendii), which is abundant in many caves, may 
similarly introduce nutrients into the cave ecosystem. Raccoons, bats, 
and other small mammals are also ecologically important in many cave 
communities because their feces provide a rich medium for the growth of 
fungi and, subsequently, localized population blooms of several species 
of tiny, hopping insects that reproduce rapidly on rich food sources 
and may become prey for some predatory troglobites.
    Water quality is also an important factor in conservation of karst 
invertebrates. Caves and karst features are susceptible to pollution 
from contaminated water entering the ground because karst has little 
capacity for purification. Transmission of groundwater flows in karst 
is comparatively rapid and provides little opportunity for natural 
filtering or other purifying effects (IUCN 1997). The area that has the 
greatest potential to contribute water-borne contaminants into the 
karst ecosystem is the surface and subsurface drainage basin that 
supplies water to the ecosystem. Certain activities within this 
hydrologically sensitive area, such as application of pesticides and 
fertilizers, leakage from sewer lines, and urban runoff, could 
contaminate the karst ecosystem. The potential for contaminants to 
travel through karst systems may be increased in some areas relative to 
others due to local geologic features. Areas surrounding the karst 
features providing habitat for the nine invertebrates should be 
maintained so as to minimize the possibility of introducing 
contaminants into the karst ecosystem.
    In addition to providing nutrients to the karst ecosystem, the 
surface plant community also serves to buffer the karst ecosystem 
against changes in temperature and moisture regimes, pollutants 
entering from the surface (Biological Advisory Team 1990, Veni & 
Associates 1988), and other factors such as sedimentation resulting 
from soil erosion. Protecting native vegetation may also help control 
certain non-native species (such as fire ants) that may compete with 
and/or prey upon the listed species and other karst fauna. Soil 
disturbance, introduction of nursery plants and sod containing fire 
ants, garbage (potential food source), and electrical equipment are 
some of the factors contributing to fire ant infestations.
    It is our policy (July 1, 1994; 59 FR 34272) to identify to the 
maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed those 
activities that would or would not likely 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 emphasize that this action is a 
proposed listing and that the guidelines presented herein are for use 
in the event that the listing becomes final. Should the species be 
listed, the discussion and outline presented here should assist 
landowners and managers

[[Page 71863]]

in avoiding a violation of section 9 of the Act.
    The guidelines below for determining whether or not an activity is 
likely to result in take of listed invertebrates are based on karst 
zone maps prepared by Veni (1994a; see Map 1). These maps show general 
zones of karst occurrence and do not show specific locations of cave 
invertebrates. Thus, we believe they provide useful general information 
without risk of increasing the threat of vandalism to karst features.
    Veni (1994a) defines five karst zones in the San Antonio area based 
on geology, distribution of known caves, distribution of cave fauna, 
and primary factors that determine the presence, size, shape and extent 
of caves with respect to cave development. The five zones reflect the 
likelihood of finding a karst feature that will provide habitat for 
endemic invertebrates are as follows:
    Zone 1--Areas known to contain the proposed endemic cave fauna;
    Zone 2--Areas having a high probability of suitable habitat for 
proposed or other endemic cave fauna;
    Zone 3--Areas that probably do not contain proposed or endemic cave 
fauna;
    Zone 4--Areas that require further research but are generally 
equivalent to zone 3, although they may include sections that could be 
classified as zone 2 or zone 5; and
    Zone 5--Areas that do not contain proposed or endemic cave fauna.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 71864]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.058



BILLING CODE: 4310-55-C

[[Page 71865]]

    Veni (1994a) includes detailed discussion of the geologic makeup of 
these karst zones. Map 1 simplifies Veni's karst zone maps to show 
where actions may or may not be likely to take karst invertebrates. 
Zones 1 and 2 are combined in the shaded areas, zones 3 and 4 are 
combined in the hatched areas, and the remaining area falls in zone 5. 
Zone 5 does not have karst-forming strata and the nine invertebrates 
are not expected to occur in these areas.
    The likelihood that an activity in zones 1-4 will result in take of 
listed invertebrates is directly related to the likelihood of species 
occurrence and may require specialized knowledge and familiarity with 
caves, geology of karst areas, and local geology. Persons qualified to 
identify and evaluate the significance of karst features may include 
professional geologists or hydrogeologists, biological consultants 
familiar with cave and karst ecosystems, and other similarly 
knowledgeable persons. Property owners should take care in conducting 
karst surveys or selecting a person to conduct a karst survey so as to 
obtain the most accurate information possible and to avoid doing any 
damage to a karst feature or the karst ecosystem during the survey.
    Collection and identification of karst invertebrates requires 
specialized knowledge and familiarity with cave biology and ecology and 
life history of karst invertebrates. Identification of some specimens 
will require microscopic examination and expert taxonomic assistance. 
Persons qualified to search for karst invertebrates and make 
preliminary identifications of specimens should also be able to 
evaluate various karst features' suitability as habitat for the 
species. Extreme care must be taken when surveying for invertebrates in 
karst ecosystems, and these invertebrate surveys should not be 
undertaken by an amateur. If this proposed rule is finalized, 
individuals wishing to collect the nine invertebrates will be required 
to obtain a scientific permit from us and submit all specimens 
collected to a museum for evaluation and preservation.
    We believe that, based on the best available information, 
activities in zones 1-4 that could potentially result in take include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Collecting or handling of the species;
    (2) Surface or subsurface activities that may directly result in 
destruction or alteration of species' habitat (such as trenching for 
installation of utility or sewer lines, excavation, etc.);
    (3) Alteration of the topography within the surface or subsurface 
drainage area or other alterations to any cave or karst feature 
providing habitat for the species that results in changes to the cave 
environment (such as filling cave entrances or otherwise reducing 
airflow which limits oxygen availability; increasing airflow that 
results in drying; altering natural drainage patterns with the result 
of changing the amount of water entering the cave or karst feature; 
increasing impervious cover within the surface or subsurface drainage 
areas of the cave or karst feature; altering the entrance or opening of 
the cave or karst feature in a way that would disrupt movements of 
raccoons, opossums, cave crickets, or other animals that provide 
nutrient input; etc.);
    (4) Discharge or dumping of chemicals, silt, pollutants, household 
or industrial waste, or other harmful material into karst features or 
areas that drain into karst features;
    (5) Pesticide or fertilizer application in or near karst features 
containing the nine invertebrates or areas that drain into these karst 
features. Careful use of pesticides in the vicinity of karst features 
may be necessary in some instances to control non-native fire ants. 
Guidelines for controlling fire ants in the vicinity of karst features 
are available from us (see ADDRESSES section);
    (6) Activities within caves that lead to soil compaction, changes 
in atmospheric conditions, abandonment of the cave by bats or other 
fauna, or direct mortality of the species.
    (7) Activities that attract fire ants or cockroaches to caves or 
karst features (e.g., dumping of garbage into caves or karst features).
    Activities that we believe will not result in a violation of 
section 9, provided such activities do not result in any of the 
situations described above, include:
    (1) Activities authorized under sections 7 or 10 of the Act.
    (2) Construction activities in non-karstic areas;
    (3) Maintenance of existing roads;
    (4) Recreational activities on the surface, including camping, 
hiking, and hunting;
    (5) Maintenance of established lawns and other landscaping 
features, including mowing, pruning, seeding, removing dead trees, and 
planting trees and shrubs, particularly using native plant species;
    (6) Legal use of pesticides in areas that do not drain into karst 
features.
    We welcome the involvement of landowners in conservation efforts 
for the nine invertebrates. Conservation measures for these species may 
include careful fire ant control in the vicinity of occupied karst 
features; construction/disturbance setbacks from caves; and avoidance 
of the use of chemical pesticides or fertilizers, surface topography 
alteration, and trenching within specific areas.

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threat (or lack thereof) to these species;
    (2) The location of any additional populations of these species and 
the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be 
critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;
    (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of these species;
    (4) Current or planned activities in the San Antonio area and their 
possible impacts on these species;
    (5) Existing local, State, or Federal regulations that provide 
protection for these species and/or the caves and karst features that 
provide habitat for the species; and
    (6) Appropriateness of using the karst regions outlined in Veni 
(1994a, Figure 1) as recovery units in the event the species are 
listed.
    We will submit the available scientific data and information to 
appropriate, independent specialists for review. We will summarize the 
opinions of these reviewers in the final decision document. In making a 
final decision, we will take into consideration the comments and any 
additional information we receive, and such communications may lead to 
a final determination that differs from this proposal.
    The Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if 
requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of 
publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests must 
be made in writing and addressed to the Field Supervisor, U.S Fish and 
Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).

Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this rule easier to understand including answers

[[Page 71866]]

to the following: (1) Are the requirements of the rule clear? (2) Is 
the discussion of the rule in the Supplementary Information section of 
the preamble helpful in understanding the rule? (3) What else could we 
do to make the rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments on making this rule easier to 
understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the 
Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. You may 
also e-mail the comments to this address: E[email protected].

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. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information other 
than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget 
clearance number 1018-0094. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid control number. For additional 
information concerning permit and associated requirements for 
endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.22.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited herein, as well as others, is 
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, U.S. 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.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR 
part 17 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. In Sec. 17.11(h) add the following to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under ``ARACHNIDS'' and 
``INSECTS:''


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Species
---------------------------------------------------------------------      Historic range            Status        When listed    Critical     Special
             Common name                      Scientific name                                                                     habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Arachnids
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                    *                  *
Harvestman, Robber Baron Cave........  Texella cokendolpheri........  U.S.A. (TX)............  E                   ...........           NA           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Spider, Government Canyon cave.......  Neoleptoneta microps.........  U.S.A. (TX)............  E                   ...........           NA           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Spider, [no common name].............  Cicurina venii...............  U.S.A. (TX)............  E                   ...........           NA           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Spider, Madla's cave.................  Cicurina madla...............  U.S.A. (TX)............  E                   ...........           NA           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Spider, Robber Baron cave............  Circurina baronia............  U.S.A. (TX)............  E                   ...........           NA           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Spider, vesper cave..................  Cicurina vespera.............  U.S.A. (TX)............  E                   ...........           NA           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
               Insects
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Beetle, [no common name].............  Rhadine exilis...............  U.S.A. (TX)............  E                   ...........           NA           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Beetle, [no common name].............  Rhadine infernalis...........  U.S.A. (TX)............  E                   ...........           NA           NA
 
 

[[Page 71867]]

 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Beetle, Helotes mold.................  Batrisodes venyivi...........  U.S.A. (TX)............  E                   ...........           NA           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 18, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-34410 Filed 12-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P