[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 26, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81419-81433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-32809]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF33
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List
Nine Bexar County, Texas Invertebrate Species as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
nine cave-dwelling invertebrates from Bexar County, Texas, to be
endangered species under the authority of 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
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 final rule as the nine
invertebrates) are known from karst topography (limestone formations
containing caves, sinks, fractures 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 septic effluent, sewer leaks, run-off, pesticides, and other
sources; predation by and competition with nonnative fire ants; and
vandalism. This action will implement Federal protection provided by
the Act for these species. We based our decision on the best available
information, including that received during public comment on the
proposal to list these species.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this rule is December 26, 2000
(see EFFECTIVE DATE section under below).
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Austin Ecological
Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas
78758.
[[Page 81420]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alisa Shull, Supervisory Fish and
Wildlife Biologist, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (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. In 1992, Gertsch described
these species. 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 (capable of surviving in only
one environment) karst or cave-dwelling species (troglobites) of local
distribution in karst terrain in Bexar County, Texas. ``Karst'' is a
type of terrain in which the rock is dissolved by water so that much of
the drainage occurs into the subsurface rather than as runoff. The
subsurface drainage leads to passages or other openings within the
underground rock formations. Some of the features that develop in karst
areas include cave openings, holes in rocks, cracks, fissures, and
sinkholes.
Habitat required by the nine karst invertebrate species consists of
underground, honeycomb limestone that maintains high humidity and
stable temperatures. The surface environment of karst areas is also an
integral part of the habitat needed by the animals inhabiting the
underground areas. Openings to the surface allow energy and nutrients,
in the form of leaf litter, surface insects, other animals, and animal
droppings to enter the underground ecosystem. Mammal feces provide a
medium for the growth of fungi and, subsequently, localized population
blooms of several species of tiny, hopping insects. These insects
reproduce rapidly on rich food sources and may become prey for some
predatory cave invertebrates (Service 1994). While the life habits of
the nine invertebrates are not well known, the species probably prey on
the eggs, larvae, or adults of other cave invertebrates.
We funded a status survey (Veni 1994a; Reddell 1993) of all nine
species through a grant to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(TPWD) under section 6 of the Act. 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 biologists believed likely to contain
species of concern. Researchers described all 77 caves, to some extent,
before the status survey was conducted and some 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 (on an evolutionary time scale) 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 regions) within Bexar County. The karst 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 regions are geological or geographical
features that may represent obstructions to troglobite movement (on a
geologic time scale) which has 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 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, the species of
which could not be positively identified, is highly likely to be T.
cokendolpheri (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 region on
private property. We do not have reliable information on the collection
from the third cave. The collector of the specimen declined to give us
a specific site collection record, but we believe it is located on
private property.
Rhadine exilis is known from 35 caves in north and northwest Bexar
County. Twenty-one are located on Department of Defense (DOD) land in
the Stone Oak karst region. The remainder are distributed among the
Helotes, UTSA, and Stone Oak karst regions, while one location lies in
the Government Canyon region. One of the non-DOD sites 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 35 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 regions-- Helotes, UTSA, Stone Oak, Culebra
Anticline, and Government Canyon. Scientists have delineated three
subspecies (Rhadine infernalis ewersi, Rhadine infernalis infernalis,
Rhadine infernalis ssp.), and described and named two of these in
scientific literature (Barr 1960, Barr and Lawrence 1960). In a recent
report, scientists characterized the third subspecies as distinct, but
not named (Reddell 1998). Only three caves, all on DOD land, contain
the subspecies Rhadine infernalis ewersi. 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 unnamed subspecies.
Cicurina venii is known from only one cave, which is located on
private property in the Culebra Anticline karst region. The species was
collected in 1980 and 1983, but the cave itself was not initially
described until 1988
[[Page 81421]]
(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, 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 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, Madla's cave spider, is known from six caves. One
cave is within the Government Canyon karst region in Government Canyon
State Natural Area, one is on DOD land, three are located in the
Helotes karst region on private property, and one is located on private
property in the UTSA karst region.
Biologists have found Cicurina vespera, the vesper cave spider, in
two caves. One cave 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 this latter cave have not been
revealed to us, but we believe it is located on private property.
Neoleptoneta microps is known only from the Government Canyon karst
region, from two caves within Government Canyon State Natural Area.
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 are expected to face the same
threats as the known occurrences of these species. The 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 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. This 90-day finding resulted
in the requirement under the Act that we review the status of the
species and, within 12 months of receipt of the petition, issue a
finding as to whether the petitioned action is warranted (12-month
finding).
We added eight of the nine invertebrates to the Animal Notice of
Review as category 2 candidate species in the Federal Register on
November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). We intended to include Rhadine exilis
in the notice of review, but an oversight occurred and it did not
appear in the published notice. Category 2 candidates, a classification
since discontinued, 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.
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. This
precluded completion of the 12-month finding for these species in that
Fiscal Year.
The 12-month petition finding and publication of the proposed rule
were again precluded by higher priority activities under the listing
priority guidance for fiscal year 1997, finalized December 5, 1996 (61
CFR 64475). 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 the 12-month finding. This 12-month finding resulted
in a proposal to list the 9 invertebrates as endangered, which we
published in the Federal Register on December 30, 1998 (63 FR 71855).
The processing of this final rule conforms with our current Listing
Priority Guidance, published in the Federal Register on October 22,
1999 (64 FR 57114). Priority 1 (highest priority) is processing
emergency listing rules for any species determined to face a
significant and imminent risk to its well-being. Priority 2 is
processing final determinations on proposed additions to the lists of
endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Priority 3 is processing
new proposals to add species to the lists. The processing of
administrative petition findings (petitions filed under section 4 of
the Act) is the fourth priority. This final rule is a Priority 2
action. We updated this rule to reflect any changes in information
concerning distribution, status, and threats since the publication of
the proposed rule.
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
continued working with interested parties to develop a conservation
strategy and agreement. The issues that needed to be addressed in a
conservation agreement related primarily to determining the needs for
the species' conservation, responsibility and commitment for
implementation and funding, and the amount of time required to
implement the conservation measures. In January 1999, we provided a
handout titled ``Criteria and Measures for Long-term Conservation of
Karst Invertebrates in Bexar Co., TX,'' to the coalition as a guide for
conservation of species-inhabited caves. However, actions required to
address the above issues and to reach this goal have not yet occurred.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the December 30, 1998, proposed rule and associated
notifications, we requested that all interested parties submit factual
reports or information that might contribute to the development of a
final rule. We originally scheduled the comment period to close on
April 29, 1999, but we extended it to May 31, 1999 (64 FR 16890). We
contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, county governments,
scientific organizations, and other interested parties and requested
that they comment. We requested comments on the proposed rule and
literature cited from nine scientific experts. We received no comments
from those nine. We
[[Page 81422]]
published a newspaper notice in the San Antonio Express News on
December 30, 1998, in which we invited general public comment. We
received 38 comment letters through the mail.
Alan Glen, of Drenner and Stuart, and San Antonio Water System
requested a public hearing. We published a notice of the public hearing
in the Federal Register (64 FR 16890) and gave written notice to those
on our mailing list for this topic. We held the public hearing in San
Antonio at Lee High School on April 29, 1999; a court reporter made a
verbatim transcript of the hearing testimony. Approximately 75 people
attended. Of the 22 oral commenters, 8 also submitted written comment
letters at the public hearing.
We updated the final rule to reflect comments and information we
received during the comment period. We address both the written and
oral comments in the following summary. These comments addressed a
range of issues regarding the proposal. Because multiple respondents
offered similar comments in some cases, we combined those comments in
the following summary. Of the 60 comments (some commenters commented
more than once) we received from the public hearing and through the
mail, 5 directly opposed the listing, 27 supported continued efforts on
the conservation agreement to preclude the need to list, 6 both
directly opposed the listing and supported continued efforts on the
conservation agreement, 19 supported the listing, and 3 were neutral.
In this summary, we do not address comments that are not related to the
listing decision, such as comments on habitat conservation plans (HCPs)
or recovery planning.
Issue 1. So little is known about the species that the Service has
not even defined habitat for the invertebrates beyond cave openings.
Our Response: We took this comment into consideration in this final
rule and included more detailed habitat descriptions (see the
Background section under Supplementary Information). The Available
Conservation Measures portion of this final rule discusses criteria for
habitat preservation and preserve design. Under section 4(b)(1) of the
Act, we must make our listing decision on the best scientific and
commercial information available. We believe that substantial evidence
exists to support a listing determination for these species, but also
recognize that additional research is important to assist in making
sound management recommendations.
Issue 2: These nine invertebrates are insignificant to mankind.
Our Response: We are responsible for protecting species in danger
of extinction and ecosystems on which they depend. The Act recognizes
the importance of all species to properly functioning ecosystems and
requires us to base listing decisions on the best scientific
information available. Based on best available scientific information,
we determined that the Bexar County invertebrates are in danger of
extinction and warrant protection as endangered species.
Issue 3: It is inaccurate to describe these species as troglobitic
without surveys conducted outside of the caves in the surrounding leaf
litter. Evidence in support of additional habitats for these species
includes the lack of collected specimens of pupae or larvae from within
the caves, few records of some species from caves, and closely related
species (including some with troglobitic features) known to exist in
non-cave environments.
Our Response: The scientific literature, published by species
experts and cited in this final rule, describe the nine Bexar County
karst invertebrates as troglobitic. There has been no information
submitted to us to indicate otherwise. As for lack of collections of
pupae and larvae in caves, we have no evidence discounting the
occurrence of reproduction and initial life phases in the humanly
inaccessible recesses of caves. Barr (1974) states that there are
significantly more caves than entrances, and that approximately ninety
percent of them are closed off from human access.
Issue 4: Six of the nine species have common names that are not
registered with the Entomological Society of America or the American
Arachnological Society, and may not be accurate descriptors for those
species.
Our Response: The official name for these species is the scientific
name; we list them by their scientific name. The common names we used
in this rule are for ease of reference for the general public. We
understand that they are not officially registered common names. If the
process to register common names is completed in the future, we will
refer to those common names, but the listing of these species will not
be affected. Until such time we will continue to use the names listed
in this document.
Issue 5: It is believed Batrisodes venyivi is restricted to the
Helotes karst region, based on past collections. ``In Texas, each
obligate cave species of [this beetle family] has been restricted to
small geographic areas, and each is found in only a small number of
closely situated caves.''
Our Response: In the ``Background'' section, we refer to three
locations for this species; two are located in the Helotes karst region
on private property. We do not have reliable information on the
location of the third cave. The collector of the specimen declined to
give us a specific site collection record, but we believe it is located
on private property.
Issue 6: How can the threats be so imminent when so many caves are
owned by governmental entities?
Our Response: We understand that for some of these species a
significant number of locations are owned by governmental entities.
Many of the government-owned sites have some limited protection, but
fire ants are still a threat. Human activities facilitate movement of
certain predators, such as fire ants, into an area. Both Camp Bullis
and Government Canyon State Natural Area are increasingly being
surrounded by development which provides habitat (construction areas,
lawns, roadways, and landscaped areas) from which fire ants can
disperse. The relative accessibility of the shallow caves in Bexar
County leaves them especially vulnerable to invasion by nonnative
species. Without continuously implemented management plans in place,
this threat is still imminent.
Issue 7: Continued efforts toward developing a conservation
agreement to preclude the need to list the species was desired. Many
were disappointed that efforts to develop a conservation agreement were
terminated in 1998 and the Service continued with publishing the
proposed rule.
Our Response: Please see our discussion under the Previous Federal
Action portion of this final rule. We agree that cooperative, voluntary
efforts to conserve these species that remove or reduce threats would
be an alternative to Federal listing if sufficient conservation
measures were implemented so that the species were no longer in danger
of extinction. Since 1994, we have been working with a coalition of
interested parties to develop a conservation strategy and agreement.
While, we acknowledge that some progress toward conservation of these
species has been made by this coalition, actions required to address
the above issues and to reach this goal have not yet occurred.
Issue 8: With regard to evidence of threats, some believe that in
the time it has taken the proposed rule to be published there has been
habitat loss and no protection for the species. Others believe that all
of the known locations of the nine invertebrate species have been left
undisturbed throughout the
[[Page 81423]]
entire process, indicating a lack of evidence for perceived habitat-
destruction threats. Additionally, the Service has not provided any
evidence of contamination, predation on these species, and adverse
effects from impervious (resistant to seepage of water) cover, closing
of caves, and vandalism.
Our Response: During the comment period, we received San Antonio
Water System (SAWS) documentation that recharge features were sealed
since the petition was filed to preserve water quality and avoid
contamination of the aquifer. The Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission (TNRCC), the State agency responsible for water quality and
filling karst features, does not require that any invertebrate surveys
be done in assessing karst features and, therefore, may approve the
filling of the feature even when the species may be present. We believe
that habitat-destruction is a viable threat when sealing of features
occurs without investigations for invertebrates.
In the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this
rule, we cite examples of other threats and their negative effects. We
believe that these threats still exist. We included additional examples
of contamination on caves under Factor A. Throughout the world there
are many documented cases describing the effects of contamination on
caves (IUCN 1997). Under Factor C, we also included additional
information and citations regarding fire ants and their effects on the
species and their habitat. In addition, as indicated in the
``Background'' section of this final rule, some of the known
invertebrate locations suffered degradation prior to the petition to
list them.
In addition, even where existing caves have not been filled or
polluted, development that encroaches on the area around the cave
entrance can significantly degrade the surface habitat, decreasing the
potential for long-term persistence of the population of karst
invertebrates in that cave. According to data provided by SWCA, Inc.,
ten of the known locations for these species have less than 10.1
hectares (ha) (25 acres (ac)) of undeveloped area remaining surrounding
the caves and several of these have as little as 0.4 to 2 ha (1 to 5
ac). In February 2000, Service personnel observed construction within
30 meters (m) (100 feet (ft))of 2 known locations of Rhadine exilis,
which is currently reducing the potential for preservation around these
sites. We believe that such small areas of native, surface habitat are
not sufficient for sustainable support of karst invertebrate
populations.
Issue 9: How can fire ants be a predator on the nine invertebrates
when Veni et al. (1995) found fire ants in different zones, or physical
divisions within the cave, than the invertebrates during a survey at
Camp Bullis, and Porter and Savignano (1990) found that crickets and
roaches increased in the presence of fire ants?
Our Response: Veni (pers. comm. 1999) has since done additional
work at Camp Bullis and believes the reduced observations of fire ants
are due to low population numbers on the property as a result of
minimal ground disturbance. Elliott (in litt 1993-1997) found several
instances, in two caves in the Austin area, when fire ants and
troglobites were located within the same zones. Reddell (1993, in litt)
documented observations of fire ant predation on three species of
troglobites and on cave crickets. Even if fire ants did not prey on the
nine invertebrates, heavy predation on cave crickets would reduce
available food for the nine invertebrates. As for Porter's and
Savignano's (1990) findings, the crickets that increased in abundance
with fire ants were ground crickets (Gryllidae: Nemobiinae), not cave
crickets (Ceuthophilus sp.), which are the species critical for
nutrient input for the nine karst invertebrate species. Only very few
species, including the ground cricket, the roach, and a beetle that is
symbiotic with the imported fire ants, increased in abundance in
infested areas. However, even when including the increase in these few
species, the total abundance of arthropods (excluding fire ants) in
infested areas was 75 percent less than uninfested areas. In addition,
fire ant infestation reduced biodiversity; there were 40 percent fewer
species in infested areas.
Issue 10: Some commenters believe the existing regulations of the
TNRCC, City of San Antonio (City), and SAWS, the primary water and
wastewater purveyor in Bexar County, are adequate to protect the
species and their habitat, while other commenters believed they are
inadequate.
Our Response: Our analysis of the adequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms found that additional measures are needed to protect these
species from extinction. Although certain rules and regulations provide
some protection, they do not alleviate all of the identified threats.
We reviewed current programs and regulations of the TNRCC, the City,
and SAWS. The purpose of the existing regulations is to protect water
quality and the regulations are not adequate to fully protect the
species from all threats. For further information please see Factor D
in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this
final rule.
Issue 11: SAWS initiated a Land Acquisition Program that is
currently purchasing land in the karst regions. Certainly, this ongoing
program serves to provide substantial protection to these species and
their habitat.
Our Response: The focus of this program is preservation of lands
for water quality in the Edward's Aquifer and not for caves containing
the species. This program may have potential to contribute to species
conservation. However, we have no information that indicates SAWS has
located and/or preserved caves supporting the nine invertebrates.
Issue 12: Even if the perceived threats did have an impact on the
species, the decision to list as endangered will not prevent future
negative effects from occurring.
Our Response: Please see our discussion under the Available
Conservation Measures section of this final rule. The Act provides
numerous conservation mechanisms for listed species.
Issue 13: Some believe the listing is primarily for stopping
development over the Edwards Aquifer and not for the species
themselves. Others believe that protection of the species and their
habitat will provide ancillary benefits by protecting their sole-source
water supply.
Our Response: We are obligated under the Act to address the status
of species in relation to the five factors discussed under the Summary
of Factors Affecting the Species section of this final rule. Other
benefits or effects of listing cannot be considered in our
determination whether to list a species.
Issue 14: The proposed rule does not indicate the nine karst
invertebrates are bred or hunted for commercial purposes, or that they
move in interstate commerce. The nine karst invertebrates are
intrastate species having no effect in commerce and, therefore, are
beyond Congress' authority to regulate. Thus, the Service lacks
authority under the Act pursuant to the Commerce Clause of Article 1,
Section 8 of the United States Constitution to regulate the nine
proposed karst invertebrates.
Our Response: A decision in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia circuit (National Association of Homebuilders
v. Babbitt, 130 F. 3d 1041, D.C. Cir. 1997) makes it clear in its
application of the test used in the United States Supreme Court case,
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), that regulation of species
[[Page 81424]]
limited to one State under the Act is within Congress' commerce clause
power. On June 22, 1998, the Supreme Court declined to review this case
(118 S. Ct. 2340 1998). Therefore, our application of the Act to the
nine karst invertebrates, currently known to be endemic to only one
county in the State of Texas, is constitutional.
Issue 15: Listing the nine karst invertebrates as endangered will
add additional costs and delays to urban development projects.
Our Response: While economic effects and related concerns cannot be
considered in listing decisions, such factors are considered in
recovering listed species. In a Federal Register notice published July
1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce
established an interagency policy to minimize social and economic
impacts consistent with timely recovery of listed species. Thus, it is
our desire that any recovery actions associated with these nine
invertebrates minimize adverse social and economic impacts to the
extent practicable.
In addition, we have been encouraging voluntary consideration of
these invertebrates in development planning for several years. We
believe early coordination can avoid unnecessary increases in costs or
delays for construction-related activities in areas containing the
listed species. We encourage Federal or State agencies, private
developers, and others to contact us during early phases of project
design so that the necessary measures to minimize or avoid impacts to
listed species can be incorporated into development projects as early
as possible. We are committed to working with landowners and others to
develop cooperative solutions to species conservation that avoid or
minimize the need for regulatory burdens on landowners.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available, we determined that nine Bexar County karst invertebrates
should be classified as endangered species. We followed procedures
found at section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations implementing the
listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424). 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 their habitat or range. The ranges of the nine
invertebrates are limited to limestone karst strata in the northern
portion of Bexar County, which includes a portion of northern San
Antonio, Texas. Their historical ranges are unknown, but were likely
similar to their present ranges with the exception of caves that have
been destroyed or suffered adverse impacts due to the factors discussed
in the proposed rule and this final rule.
The proximity of the caves and karst features inhabited by these
species to the City of San Antonio makes them vulnerable to negative
impacts 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)
estimated 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 that
considerable development has occurred and is expected to continue in
the San Antonio area in general and in the karst 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, 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. A City of San Antonio Department
of Planning (2000) map shows that growth of San Antonio from 1971 to
1999 has been primarily to the northwest. 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 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
population 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) showed 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. That report also indicated that the majority of the growth
(about 81 percent, as measured by new electrical connections) occurred
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 continued to be the fastest growing areas in the county.
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.
Population growth in Texas and Bexar County is expected to continue
at a rapid rate. The Texas Water Development Board (1997) estimated
that the current Texas human population size is 19 million; it is
expected it to nearly double in the next 50 years, reaching over 36
million residents in the year 2050. Bexar County alone experienced an
estimated 1.3% population increase between 1998 and 1999, with a 1999
population estimate of 1.37 million (US Census Bureau 2000). Estimates
from the Texas State Data Center and the Center for Demographic and
Socioeconomic Research and Education (2000) indicate that the total
population size in Bexar County from the year 2000 to the year 2030
would increase anywhere from 17.2% (assuming no net migration) to 56.9%
(assuming migration rates are consistent with those observed between
1990 and 1998), with population sizes of 1.54 million to 2.25 million
people by the year 2030.
[[Page 81425]]
Plotting cave locations on 1993 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 either has no agricultural exemption or includes areas
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.
Table 1.--Numbers of Karst Features Containing the Nine Invertebrates by Land Use
[1993 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 2 Unknown Ttl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhadine exilis.............................. 2 1 3 1 2 21 DOD 1 GCSNA 1 Co. ROW 4 35
Rhadine infernalis.......................... 25
R. i. ewersi................................ 3 DOD
R. i. infernalis............................ 2 6 2 4 GCSNA 1 Church 1
R. i. new species........................... 2 1 3
Batrisodes venyivi.......................... 1 1 3 1 3
Texella cokendolpheri....................... 1 1
Cicurina baronia............................ 1 1
Cicurina madla.............................. 1 2 1 1 DOD 1 GCSNA 6
Cicurina venii.............................. 1 1
Cicurina vespera............................ 1 GCSNA 1
Neoleptoneta microps........................ 2 GCSNA 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1 in county road right-of-way and 1 across the street from residential neighborhood
2 DOD = Department of Defense; GCSNA = Government Canyon State Natural Area; Co.ROW = county road right-of-way
3 Exact location unknown
Ranchland is land with an existing agricultural exemption. These
areas may be vulnerable to fire ant infestations, siltation due to
overgrazing, or to chemicals such as pesticides.
Tax 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. Five caves in TPWD's Government Canyon State Natural
Area contain a total of five of the nine invertebrates (Reddell 1993).
The TPWD will likely protect habitat at these sites; however, fire ants
are present in some of the caves and throughout the property (see
discussion under Factor C, below). Thus, the invertebrate species
within those caves are at risk because methods of controlling fire ants
are only partially effective. To date, there is no management or
maintenance plan in place that adequately reduces these threats to the
species.
A total of 23 caves containing the species are located on Federal
property at the Camp Bullis Training Site. Twenty caves contain only
Rhadine exilis, two caves contain only Rhadine infernalis, and one cave
contains both Rhadine species and Cicurina madla. Efforts are underway
through the Department of Defense's Legacy program to inventory karst
features within the recharge zone on Camp Bullis and to determine
adequate areas for protection of biologically and/or hydrologically
significant karst features. While the habitat on DOD lands is fairly
secure, complete protection of the species in these features may
require additional steps, such as control of fire ants, cave gates, and
long-term management. Currently DOD is drafting a management plan, but
until the plan is completed and implemented these threats may not be
adequately reduced.
A number of the caves containing the nine invertebrates occur
within the recharge zone for the Edwards Aquifer. The Edwards
Underground Water District (1993) presented 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. Since karst systems are affected by both surface and subsurface
drainage, it is necessary to protect these areas to avoid infiltration
of contaminants. In a study of small invertebrates that live in
underground spaces too small to allow human access (interstitial
spaces), Danielopol (1981) found with increased infiltration of
pollution into the interstitial spaces, the invertebrates were replaced
by surface species. He concluded that the ratio between surface and
interstitial species is proportional to pollution.
The Texas Water Commission (TWC), now part of the 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
[[Page 81426]]
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. The TNRCC (1994) summarizes
information on groundwater contamination and lists contaminant spills
on a county-by-county basis as reported by the 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 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 animals 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 cave
crickets, bats, racoons, and other small mammals) and by means of
organic matter that washes or falls into the caves. In deeper reaches
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).
Culver (1986) discusses several documented threats to caves, and
indicates that the covering or closing of caves greatly affects
nutrient input because major food sources for troglobites come in
through cave entrances. Many caves extend beyond humanly accessible
points, thereby restricting our knowledge of other access points not
readily noticeable from the surface. 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.
Disposal of household and other wastes may attract fire ants or other
surface-dwelling species harmful to the karst ecosystem.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. 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. 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. 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
certain 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 the nine invertebrates especially vulnerable to
invasion by nonnative species.
Nonnative 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 ten cave-
inhabiting species he has observed being preyed upon by fire ants.
Although none of the species covered in this final 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. It is reasonable to expect
that the nine Bexar County invertebrates are similiarly affected in
areas where fire ants are present.
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
listed 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. Elliott (1994) found fire ants
competing intensively with cave crickets during foraging; since cave
crickets transport nutrients from outside to inside the caves, this
will probably lead to the eventual decline of cave communities. Porter
and Savignano (1990) found arthropod species richness and abundance was
lower in fire ant-infested areas compared to uninfested areas.
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).
[[Page 81427]]
Consequently, fire ant infestations could be worse than reflected by
the status survey. The rate of infestation is expected to be similar
for the rest of the 57 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 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. 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 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. Furthermore, TPWD's
regulations do not contain provisions for protecting habitat of any
listed species.
The TNRCC regulations may give some degree of protection to
significant aquifer recharge features, but may apply to only a few of
the caves in which the nine invertebrates are found since the majority
do not meet TNRCC's definition of ``sensitive feature''. TNRCC defines
a sensitive feature as a ``permeable geologic or manmade feature
located on the recharge zone or transition zone where: (A) A potential
for hydrologic interconnectedness between the surface and the Edwards
Aquifer exists, and (B) rapid infiltration to the subsurface may
occur.''
The TNRCC regulations are designed to protect the water quality of
the Edwards Aquifer. This is typically accomplished by prohibiting
certain activities (for example, locating waste disposal wells or
concentrated animal feed lots on the recharge zone), filing a Water
Pollution Abatement Plan, and through the use of Best Management
Practices. Complying with TNRCC regulations may also entail the capping
(concrete sealing) of some features to prevent contaminated water from
entering the aquifer. Such alteration or blocking of natural drainage
patterns could result in drying of the subterranean habitat and a
reduction in nutrient input into the karst feature. Karst features
supporting the nine invertebrates may also be exempted from TNRCC
regulations because a number are not found in either the recharge or
transition zone.
The City of San Antonio regulates development and impervious cover
within the recharge area of the Edwards Aquifer through Ordinance
#81491, made effective January 23, 1995. This Ordinance limits types of
development and impervious cover within the city limits, the
extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the recharge zone. 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. Development setbacks provided
for in the Ordinance range from 18.3 to 30.5 m (60 to 100 ft). These
setback distances translate into buffer areas of 0.13 to 0.37 ha (0.33
to 0.92 ac). Setbacks from recharge features required by the Ordinance
may not always be adequate to protect entire hydrogeological areas that
provide surface and subsurface moisture to the karst habitat and
surface communities that provide nutrient input into the cave. We
believe that the amount of surface habitat needed for perpetual
sustainability of the karst ecosystem is on the order of 40 ha (100 ac)
based upon such factors as foraging distances of cave crickets; minimum
viable population sizes of the dominant, native plant species; and the
distance of edge effects on both the floral and faunal communities. In
addition, 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. Many
of the caves known to have the nine invertebrates lie outside the
recharge zone.
The Ordinance classifies property into three categories. Category 1
is any property having already filed official documents; such as
development plats, water or sewer contracts, water pollution abatement
plans, or zoning changes, or having a valid permit with the City prior
to the effective date of the Ordinance. The Ordinance does not apply to
these properties, allowing up to 100 percent impervious cover. Category
2 properties are those not already designated as Category 1 and that
lie within the corporate limits of the City of San Antonio. This
category allows 30 percent, 50 percent, and 65 percent impervious
cover, respectively, for single-family residential, multi-family, and
commercial development. Category 3 property is not within Category 1 or
2, but is within the extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City
of San Antonio and within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Impervious
cover is limited to 15 percent on Category 3 property. In an update by
SAWS on January 14, 1998, they noted that from January 23, 1995 to the
end of 1997, 29.25 percent (9,695 ha (23,958 ac)) of development within
the recharge zone was redesignated from Category 2 or 3 to Category 1.
As San Antonio grows and extends the corporate limits, impervious cover
limits for non-developed land will increase with those extensions.
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.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued
existence. Just as human activities may facilitate movement of fire
ants into an area (see discussion under Factor C, above), competitors
such as cockroaches and sow bugs can also be introduced into cave
ecosystems in association with human activity. Native and nonnative
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 that provide nutrient input to karst ecosystems. Fire ants can
be considered both predators and competitors (see discussion under
Factor C, above).
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 or increase the numbers of competitors and/or
[[Page 81428]]
predators (including nonnative 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 that vandalism contributed to the degradation of
several caves that contain one or more of the nine invertebrates.
We carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by these species in determining to make this rule final. 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 these species are endangered
because of the high degree and immediacy of threats and their limited
ranges.
Effective Date
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find good cause to make
this rule effective immediately. Because of the extremely isolated
nature of the populations of these species, the corresponding
negligible possibility for recolonization of destroyed habitat, and our
knowledge that permanent destruction of habitat quality for at least
two caves, in which some of these invertebrates live, is imminent, the
protection provided by the Act is granted to the nine invertebrates in
Bexar County immediately upon publication of this final rule. We
believe that habitat destruction would temporarily intensify if the
final rule does not become effective until 30 days after rule
publication. Through consultations for other threatened and endangered
species, we are currently aware of numerous developments in the range
of the nine invertebrates.
Several in-progress developments have known karst features on the
property, but it is unknown whether these features support any of the
nine invertebrates. By making this rule effective immediately,
developers may experience temporary delays in order to conduct any
needed surveys for karst features and for the nine invertebrates, and
to determine how their projects may proceed in compliance with the Act.
However, the majority of these developments would experience these
delays regardless of the effective date. Making the rule effective
immediately upon publication may prevent the destruction of a number of
significant but as yet unknown locations for these species and speed
the recovery of the species.
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
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. ``Conservation'' as defined in the Act means the use of all
methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at
which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time the species is
listed. The 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.
In the proposed rule, we indicated that designation of critical
habitat was not prudent for the nine invertebrates because the
publication of precise species locations and maps and descriptions of
critical habitat in the Federal Register would make the nine
invertebrates more vulnerable to incidents of vandalism through
increased recreational visits to their cave habitat and through
purposeful destruction of the caves. We also indicated that designation
of critical habitat was not prudent because it would not provide any
additional benefit beyond that provided through listing as endangered.
In the last few years, a series of court decisions have overturned
a number of our determinations that designation of critical habitat for
other species would not be prudent (for example, Natural Resources
Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F. 3d 1121 (9th
Cir. 1997); Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp. 2d
1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)). Based on the standards applied in those
judicial opinions, we have reexamined the question of whether critical
habitat for the nine invertebrates would be prudent.
We examined the available evidence for the nine invertebrates and
did not find specific evidence of collection or trade of these or any
similarly situated species. There have been instances of vandalism to
caves due to recreational cave use. By designating critical habitat in
a manner that does not identify specific cave locations, the threat of
vandalism by recreational visits to the cave or purposeful destruction
by unknown parties should not be increased.
In the absence of a finding that critical habitat would
demonstrably increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits
to critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted.
In the case of these species, there may be some benefits to designation
of critical habitat. Critical habitat also identifies areas that may
require special management considerations or protection, and may
provide protection to areas where significant threats to the species
have been identified. Critical habitat receives protection from
destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under
section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on
Federal actions that are likely to result in the adverse modification
or destruction of proposed critical habitat. Aside from the protection
that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other
forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult
with the Service to ensure that any action they carry out, authorize,
or fund does not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally
listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical
habitat. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR part 402) define
``jeopardize the continuing existence of'' (a species) and
``destruction or adverse modification of'' (critical habitat) in very
similar terms. To jeopardize the continuing existence of a species
means to engage in an action ``that reasonably would be expected,
directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both
the survival and recovery of a listed species by reducing the
reproduction, numbers, or distribution
[[Page 81429]]
of that species.'' Destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat means a ``direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild.'' Both definitions describe
an action that would result in an appreciable detrimental effect to
both the survival and recovery of a listed species.
A critical habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by
these species would usually result in the same outcome under section 7
consultation as if the critical habitat had not been designated because
an action that destroys or adversely modifies such critical habitat
would also be likely to result in jeopardy for these species. However,
there may be a few instances where section 7 consultation would be
triggered only if critical habitat is designated, such as areas where
the primary constituent elements of critical habitat are present but
adequate surveys have not yet been conducted to find any of the nine
invertebrates. Because the nine species are small, inconspicuous, and
reclusive, and their population levels are low, surveys may have been
inadequate to detect them based on insufficient number of surveys,
insufficient effort in surveying, inappropriate climatic conditions for
surveying, or other factors. It is common that no individuals are seen
in surveys of caves where they are known to be present.
Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation
activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the
physical and biological features essential for the conservation of that
species. Designation of critical habitat alerts the public as well as
land-managing agencies to the importance of these areas.
We find that critical habitat designation is prudent for the nine
invertebrates due to the increased benefits to the species described
above. We find that these benefits are not outweighed by potential
increased threats of designating critical habitat.
The Final Listing Priority Guidance for FY 2000 (64 FR 57114)
states that we will undertake critical habitat determinations and
designations during FY 2000 as allowed by our funding allocation for
that year. As explained in detail in the Listing Priority Guidance, our
listing budget is currently insufficient to allow us to immediately
complete all of the listing actions required by the Act. Listing these
nine invertebrate species without designation of critical habitat will
allow us to concentrate our limited resources on higher-priority
listing actions, while allowing us to invoke protections needed for the
conservation of the nine invertebrates without further delay. We will
propose designation of critical habitat in the future at such time when
our available resources and priorities allow.
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 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 consultation as
described in the preceding paragraphs include operations at Camp Bullis
Military Reservation; Environmental Protection Agency authorization,
registration, and regulation of pesticides and of discharges under the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) such as Construction General
Permits and any applicable National Pollution Discharge and Elimination
System permits; 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; 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 the 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 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 hardship
exemption permits.
To obtain a copy of regulations regarding listed wildlife or to ask
about prohibitions and permits, contact the Legal Instruments Examiner,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, P. O.
Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306 (telephone 505/248-6920; facsimile
505/248-6788).
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 are destroyed. Protection of the
ecosystems that support the nine invertebrates requires 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;
[[Page 81430]]
preventing or controlling invasion of nonnative species such as fire
ants; maintaining of a healthy ecosystem surrounding the karst
features; and other actions as deemed necessary.
Protecting the karst features inhabited by the nine invertebrates
entails protecting sufficient natural 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.
Water quality is also an important factor in the 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 nonnative species (such as fire ants) that may compete with
and/or prey upon the listed species and other karst fauna (Service
1994). Soil disturbance, introduction of nursery plants and sod
containing fire ants, dumping of garbage (a potential food source), and
installation of electrical equipment (fire ants appear to be attracted
to electrical fields) 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.
Veni 1994(a) 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 (see map 1). The five
zones reflect the likelihood of finding a karst feature that will
provide habitat for endemic invertebrates as follows:
Zone 1: Areas known to contain one or more of the nine
invertebrates;
Zone 2: Areas having a high probability of suitable habitat for the
invertebrates;
Zone 3: Areas that probably do not contain the invertebrates;
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 the invertebrates.
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.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 81431]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26DE00.011
The likelihood that activities in zones 1-4 will result in take of
listed invertebrates is related to the likelihood of species
occurrence, which in turn is related to the likelihood of karst
features being present and may require specialized knowledge and
familiarity with caves, geology of karst areas, and local geology to
determine. The following paragraphs outline steps suggested to avoid
the possibility of taking karst invertebrates for properties that lie
entirely or partially within zones 1, 2, 3, or 4. If a property is in
zone 5, then no precautions to avoid taking these species should be
necessary.
In zone 1 or 2, a survey by a qualified geologist or geohydrologist
to search for karst features is recommended. In zones 3 and 4, where
the presence of karst features is possible, but less likely, we
recommend that landowners visually inspect their property for obvious
karst features, noticeable sinks, or caves. If the inspection reveals
no karst features, and no subterranean voids are encountered during
subsequent activities, then no further precautions should be necessary.
However, if an inspection reveals caves, noticeable sinks, or karst
features on the property, and/or caves, karst features, or subterranean
voids are discovered during the course of any activity carried out on
the property, the features should be examined by a qualified biologist,
who has a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific
permit, for the presence of the listed karst invertebrates. If karst
invertebrates are found, contact us for additional advice and
information on how to avoid
[[Page 81432]]
taking the species or, if taking cannot be avoided, the process for
obtaining incidental take authorization (see ADDRESSES).
If property is adjacent to a known occupied cave and within
geohydrologically sensitive zones of influence on that cave, then
activities discussed below could lead to take of species on that
adjacent property. If you are in or adjacent to zone 1 karst,
consultation with us is advisable to determine if you are adjacent to a
known occupied cave or within geohydrologically sensitive zones of
influence on that cave.
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
the life histories 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 must only be done by
qualified individuals who are permitted by the Fish and Wildlife
Service to conduct such surveys.
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. This may include, but is not limited to, such activities
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; removal or
disturbance of native surface vegetation; increasing impervious cover
within the surface or subsurface drainage areas of the cave or karst
feature; and 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, or
otherwise negatively altering the movement of nutrients into the cave
or karst feature;
(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 or that affect surface plant and
animal communities that support karst ecosystems;
(5) Pesticide or fertilizer application in or near karst features
containing the nine invertebrates or areas that drain into these karst
features or that affect surface plant and animal communities that
support karst ecosystems. Careful use of pesticides in the vicinity of
karst features may be necessary in some instances to control nonnative
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; and
(7) Activities that attract or increase access for fire ants,
cockroaches, or other invasive predators or competitors to caves or
karst features (for example, dumping of garbage in or around caves or
karst features).
We believe that, based on the best available information, the
following actions will not result in take, provided such activities do
not result in any of the situations described above:
(1) Construction activities in non-karstic areas;
(2) Maintenance of existing roads (this does not include widening);
(3) Recreational activities on the surface, including camping,
hiking, and hunting; and,
(4) Chemical-free maintenance of established lawns and other
landscaping features, including mowing, pruning, seeding, removing dead
trees, and planting trees and shrubs that are free of fire ants,
particularly using native plant species.
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 (following Service-recommended methods); construction/
disturbance setbacks from caves; and avoidance of the use of chemical
pesticides or fertilizers, surface topography alteration, and trenching
within specific areas.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain new or revised information collection
for which Office of Management and Budget approval is required under
the Paperwork Reduction Act. Information collections associated with
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) is covered by an existing OMB
approval, and is assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0094. The Service may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We determined that we do not need to prepare Environmental
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 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).
References Cited
A complete list of references we cited in this rule is available
upon request from the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this final rule is Christina Longacre, Fish
and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:
[[Page 81433]]
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. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following to the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under
``ARACHNIDS'' and ``INSECTS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
------------------------------------------------------------------ Historic range Status When Critical Special
Common name Scientific name listed habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
INSECTS............................... ....................... .......................
* * * * * * *
Beetle, [no common name].............. Rhadine exilis........... U.S.A. (TX).............. E 706 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Beetle, [no common name].............. Rhadine infernalis....... U.S.A. (TX).............. E 706 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Beetle, Helotes mold.................. Batrisodes venyivi....... U.S.A. (TX).............. E 706 NA NA
* * * * * * *
ARACHNIDS.............................
* * * * * * *
Harvestman, Robber Baron Cave......... Texella cokendolpheri.... U.S.A. (TX).............. E 706 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Spider, Government Canyon cave........ Neoleptoneta microps..... U.S.A. (TX).............. E 706 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Spider, [no common name].............. Cicurina venii........... U.S.A. (TX).............. E 706 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Spider, Madla's cave.................. Cicurina madla........... U.S.A. (TX).............. E 706 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Spider, Robber Baron cave............. Cicurina baronia......... U.S.A. (TX).............. E 706 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Spider, vesper cave................... Cicurina vespera......... U.S.A. (TX).............. E 706 NA NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: December 19, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 00-32809 Filed 12-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P