[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