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

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