DOCSLIB.ORG

Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Bexar County, Texas, Invertebrate Species; Final Rule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Bexar County, Texas, Invertebrate Species; Final Rule Tuesday, April 8, 2003 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Bexar County, Texas, Invertebrate Species; Final Rule VerDate Jan<31>2003 18:50 Apr 07, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08APR2.SGM 08APR2 17156 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 2003 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ‘‘karst’’ refers to a type of terrain that is Cave spider, and Braken Bat Cave formed by the slow dissolution of meshweaver, respectively. Fish and Wildlife Service calcium carbonate from limestone Individuals of the listed species are bedrock by mildly acidic groundwater. small, ranging in length from 1 50 CFR Part 17 This process creates numerous cave millimeter (0.039 inch (in)) to 1 RIN 1018–AI47 openings, cracks, fissures, fractures, and centimeter (0.39 in). They are eyeless, or sinkholes, and the bedrock resembles a essentially eyeless, and most lack Endangered and Threatened Wildlife honeycomb. pigment. Low quantities of food in caves and Plants; Designation of Critical As a result of climatic changes have caused adaptations in these Habitat for Seven Bexar County, TX, beginning two million years ago and species, including low metabolism, long Invertebrate Species lasting until ten thousand years ago, legs for efficient movement, and loss of invertebrate species colonized caves and eyes, possibly as an energy-saving trade- AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, other subterranean voids (Barr 1968; off (Howarth 1983). Survival may be Interior. Mitchell and Reddell 1971; Elliott and possible from months to years with little ACTION: Final rule. Reddell 1989). Species that dwell or no food (Howarth 1983). Adult exclusively in caves and other Cicurina spiders have survived in SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and subterranean voids are referred to as captivity without food for about 4 Wildlife Service (Service), designate ‘‘troglobites.’’ Through faulting and months (James Cokendolpher, Museum critical habitat for seven endangered canyon downcutting, the karst terrain of Texas Tech University, pers. comm. invertebrate species found in Bexar colonized by these species along the 2002). County, Texas, pursuant to the Balcones Fault Zone (a zone Although little is known about the life Endangered Species Act of 1973, as approximately 25 kilometers (km) in history of listed Texas troglobitic amended (Act). The critical habitat width, extending from the northeast invertebrates, they are believed to live designation totals approximately 431 corner of Bexar County to the western for longer than 1 year. This belief is hectares (1,063 acres) in 22 units. edge of the County) became increasingly based, in part, on the amount of time Section 7 of the Act requires Federal dissected, creating ‘‘islands’’ of karst some juveniles have been kept in agencies to ensure, in consultation with and barriers to dispersal. These captivity without maturing (Veni and the Service, that actions they authorize, ‘‘islands’’ isolated troglobitic Associates 1999; James Reddell, Texas fund, or carry out are not likely to result populations from each other, probably Memorial Museum, pers. comm. 2000). in the destruction or adverse resulting in further speciation. For example, James Cokendolpher modification of critical habitat. Section The following nine Bexar County, (Museum of Texas Tech University, 4 of the Act requires us to consider Texas, troglobitic invertebrate species pers. comm. 2002) maintained a economic and other impacts when were listed as endangered on December juvenile troglobitic Cicurina spider from specifying any particular area as critical 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419): spider (no May 1999 through April 2002. habitat. We solicited data and comments common name) (Cicurina venii), Robber Reproductive rates of troglobites are from the public on all aspects of the Baron Cave harvestman (Texella typically low (Poulson and White 1969; proposed rule, including data on cokendolpheri), vesper cave spider Howarth 1983). According to surveys economic and other impacts of the (Cicurina vespera), Government Canyon conducted by Culver (1986), Elliott designation. As a result of comments cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps), (1994a), and Hopper (2000), population and information received, we are not Madla’s cave spider (Cicurina madla), sizes of troglobitic invertebrates are designating critical habitat as originally Robber Baron cave spider (Cicurina typically small, with most species proposed for two species that occur baronia), beetle (no common name) known from only a few specimens entirely on State-owned lands that are (Rhadine exilis), beetle (no common (Culver et al. 2000). subject to a conservation plan. name) (Rhadine infernalis), and Helotes As described below, the primary habitat requirements of these species DATES: This rule becomes effective on mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi). These May 8, 2003. are karst dwelling species of local include: (1) Subterranean spaces in karst distribution in north and northwest with stable temperatures, high ADDRESSES: Comments and materials Bexar County. They spend their entire humidities (near saturation), and received, as well as supporting lives underground. suitable substrates (for example, spaces documentation used in the preparation Since publication of the listing final between and underneath rocks suitable of this final rule, are available for public rule, the common names for the for foraging and sheltering); and (2) a inspection, by appointment, during following six arachnid species have healthy surface community of native normal business hours at the Austin been changed as a result of a meeting of plants and animals that provide nutrient Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. the Committee on Common Names of input and, in the case of native plants, Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Arachnids of the American act to buffer the karst ecosystem from Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758. Arachnological Society in 2000. adverse effects (for example, invasions FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Accordingly, we are changing the of nonnative species, contaminants, and Robert Pine, Supervisor, U.S. Fish and common names of the species currently fluctuations in temperature and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological in the list of Endangered and humidity). These karst invertebrates Services Field Office, at the above Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) as require stable temperatures and address (telephone 512/490–0057; Robber Baron Cave harvestman, Robber constant, high humidity (Barr 1968; facsimile 512/490–0974). Baron cave spider, Madla’s cave spider, Mitchell 1971a) because they are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: vesper cave spider, Government Canyon vulnerable to desiccation in drier cave spider, and one with no common habitats (Howarth 1983) or cannot Background name (Cicurina venii) to Cokendolpher detect or cope with more extreme The seven species for which we are cave harvestman, Robber Baron Cave temperatures (Mitchell 1971a). designating critical habitat in this meshweaver, Madla Cave meshweaver, Temperatures in caves typically remain rulemaking inhabit caves or other Government Canyon Bat Cave at the average annual surface features known as karst. The term meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat temperature, with little variation VerDate Jan<31>2003 18:50 Apr 07, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08APR2.SGM 08APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 17157 (Howarth 1983; Dunlap 1995). Relative Gap Chalk (Veni 1988). The Edwards Endangered Karst Invertebrate humidity is typically near 100 percent Limestone accounts for one-third of the Distribution in caves that support troglobitic cavernous rock in Bexar County and As of December 2002, 475 caves were invertebrates (Elliott and Reddell 1989). contains 60 percent of the caves, making known to occur in Bexar County, some During temperature extremes, the listed it the most cavernous unit in the of which have been biologically species may retreat into small County. The Austin Chalk outcrop is surveyed for listed species (Veni 2002). interstitial spaces (human-inaccessible) second to the Edwards in total number At least 97 of the 475 caves were sealed connected to a cave, where the physical of caves. In Bexar County, the outcrop or destroyed before they could be environment provides the required of the upper member of the Glen Rose biologically surveyed (Veni 2002). Not humidity and temperature levels Formation accounts for approximately all of the remaining caves in Bexar (Howarth 1983). These species may one-third of the cavernous rock, but County have been adequately surveyed spend the majority of their time in such only 12.5 percent of Bexar County caves for invertebrates. It is likely that some retreats, only leaving them to forage in (Veni 1988). In Bexar County, the Pecan of these caves will be found to contain the larger cave passages (Howarth 1987). Gap Chalk, while generally not one or more of the listed species. When Since sunlight is absent or present in cavernous, has a greater than expected the species were listed as endangered in extremely low levels in caves, most density of caves and passages (Veni December 2000, the Service knew of 57 karst ecosystems depend on nutrients 1988). occupied caves. When critical habitat derived from the surface either directly Veni (1994) delineated six karst areas was proposed in Bexar County
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan
    Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan March 2008 Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan BEXAR COUNTY KARST INVERTEBRATES DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico March 2008 Approved: ___DRAFT_______________________________________ Regional Director, Southwest Region Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concur: __DRAFT____________________________________________ Executive Director Date Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ii Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that the best available science indicates are necessary to recover or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), but are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only. Identification of an action to be implemented by any private or public party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act (U.S.C. 1341) or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after the plan has been signed by the Regional Director as approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • Karst Invertebrates Taxonomy
    Endangered Karst Invertebrate Taxonomy of Central Texas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Rd. Suite #200 Austin, TX 78758 Original date: July 28, 2011 Revised on: April 4, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ENDANGERED KARST INVERTEBRATE TAXONOMY ................................................. 1 2.1 Batrisodes texanus (Coffin Cave mold beetle) ......................................................................... 2 2.2 Batrisodes venyivi (Helotes mold beetle) .................................................................................. 3 2.3 Cicurina baronia (Robber Baron Cave meshweaver) ............................................................... 4 2.4 Cicurina madla (Madla Cave meshweaver) .............................................................................. 5 2.5 Cicurina venii (Braken Bat Cave meshweaver) ........................................................................ 6 2.6 Cicurina vespera (Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver) ............................................. 7 2.7 Neoleptoneta microps (Government Canyon Bat Cave spider) ................................................ 8 2.8 Neoleptoneta myopica (Tooth Cave spider) .............................................................................. 9 2.9 Rhadine exilis (no common name) .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Araneae (Spider) Photos
    Araneae (Spider) Photos Araneae (Spiders) About Information on: Spider Photos of Links to WWW Spiders Spiders of North America Relationships Spider Groups Spider Resources -- An Identification Manual About Spiders As in the other arachnid orders, appendage specialization is very important in the evolution of spiders. In spiders the five pairs of appendages of the prosoma (one of the two main body sections) that follow the chelicerae are the pedipalps followed by four pairs of walking legs. The pedipalps are modified to serve as mating organs by mature male spiders. These modifications are often very complicated and differences in their structure are important characteristics used by araneologists in the classification of spiders. Pedipalps in female spiders are structurally much simpler and are used for sensing, manipulating food and sometimes in locomotion. It is relatively easy to tell mature or nearly mature males from female spiders (at least in most groups) by looking at the pedipalps -- in females they look like functional but small legs while in males the ends tend to be enlarged, often greatly so. In young spiders these differences are not evident. There are also appendages on the opisthosoma (the rear body section, the one with no walking legs) the best known being the spinnerets. In the first spiders there were four pairs of spinnerets. Living spiders may have four e.g., (liphistiomorph spiders) or three pairs (e.g., mygalomorph and ecribellate araneomorphs) or three paris of spinnerets and a silk spinning plate called a cribellum (the earliest and many extant araneomorph spiders). Spinnerets' history as appendages is suggested in part by their being projections away from the opisthosoma and the fact that they may retain muscles for movement Much of the success of spiders traces directly to their extensive use of silk and poison.
    [Show full text]
  • Meso-Mammal Cave Use and North American Porcupine
    MESO-MAMMAL CAVE USE AND NORTH AMERICAN PORCUPINE HABITAT USE IN CENTRAL TEXAS A Dissertation by ANDREA ELISA MONTALVO Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Roel R. Lopez Committee Members, Nova J. Silvy Susan M. Cooper Rusty A. Feagin Head of Department, Michael P. Masser May 2017 Major Subject: Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Copyright 2017 Andrea Elisa Montalvo ABSTRACT Meso-mammals are frequent cave visitors whose role in cave ecology is poorly understood. Understanding meso-mammal cave use is essential because caves are often managed for United States federally endangered, cave-obligate arthropods. My objectives for this study were to quantify annual meso-mammal cave visitation, determine behaviors of meso-mammals while in the caves, to develop multinomial regression to determine which variables best differentiate caves use by each species, and to determine how North American porcupines incorporate caves into their home range and habitat use. North American porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) were the most common cave visitor (64%), followed by raccoons (Procyon lotor; 14%) and Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana; 10%). These results are noteworthy because central Texas caves were historically associated with raccoons and the additional nutrient inputs of North American porcupines could facilitate replacement of cave-obligate species by more competitive, or predatory, terrestrial species. Videos recorded in cave passages showed North American porcupines used caves for denning and grooming, while Virginia opossums used caves for feeding. The strongest multinomial model showed that, compared to North American porcupine, raccoons and Virginia opossums had greater odds of using caves with gates (2.36, 4.10, respectively) and pit entrances (6.11, 2.23, respectively).
    [Show full text]
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for Nine Bexar County, Texas, Invertebrate Species; Proposed Rule
    Tuesday, August 27, 2002 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Nine Bexar County, Texas, Invertebrate Species; Proposed Rule VerDate Aug<23>2002 14:34 Aug 26, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27AUP2.SGM 27AUP2 55064 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2002 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR You may also hand-deliver written movement, and loss of eyes, possibly as comments to our U.S. Fish and Wildlife an energy-saving trade-off (Howarth Fish and Wildlife Service Service’s Austin Ecological Services 1983). They may be able to survive from Field Office at the address given above. months to years existing on little or no 50 CFR Part 17 You may view comments and food (Howarth 1983). Adult Cicurina materials received, as well as supporting spiders have survived in captivity RIN 1018–AI47 documentation used in the preparation without food for about 4 months (James Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of this proposed rule, by appointment, Cokendolpher, pers. comm., 2002). and Plants; Designation of Critical during normal business hours in the While the life span of listed Texas Habitat for Nine Bexar County, Texas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Austin troglobitic invertebrates is unknown, Invertebrate Species Ecological Services Field Office at the they are believed to live more than a above address. year based, in part, on the amount of AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill time some juveniles have been kept in Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Final November 13, 2015 Bowman Project No
    FINAL FINAL NOVEMBER 13, 2015 BOWMAN PROJECT NO. 005520-01-001 SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN PREPARED FOR COUNTY OF BEXAR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 233 N. PECOS, SUITE 420 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78207 PREPARED BY BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP, LTD. 3101 BEE CAVE ROAD, SUITE 100 AUSTIN, TX 78746 WITH JACKSON WALKER LLP ZARA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC WENDELL DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES M.E. ALLISON & ASSOCIATES FINAL SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN BOWMAN © 2015 PROJECT NO. 005520-01-001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHAT IS THE SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN? The Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan (“SEP-HCP” or the “Plan”) is a way for Bexar County and the City of San Antonio (the “Permittees”) to assist with compliance of the Endangered Species Act. These compliance issues threaten the economic growth of the greater San Antonio region. The purposes of the SEP-HCP are to: (1) Promote regional conservation; (2) Provide support for Camp Bullis; (3) Involve local stakeholders in conservation planning; (4) Streamline endangered species permitting; (5) Implement locally appropriate and cost-effective permitting and conservation strategies; and (6) Leverage available resources. Upon approval of the SEP-HCP by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”), a 30-year Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) would be issued. The Permit would authorize a limited amount of “incidental taking” of nine federally listed endangered species (the “Covered Species”) within the jurisdictions of Bexar County and the City of San Antonio. In return, the SEP-HCP will promote the conservation of the Covered Species and related natural resources in Bexar County and other counties of the Southern Edwards Plateau.
    [Show full text]
  • SEP-HCP Conservation Plan
    FINAL FINAL NOVEMBER 13, 2015 BOWMAN PROJECT NO. 005520-01-001 SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN PREPARED FOR COUNTY OF BEXAR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 233 N. PECOS, SUITE 420 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78207 PREPARED BY BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP, LTD. 3101 BEE CAVE ROAD, SUITE 100 AUSTIN, TX 78746 WITH JACKSON WALKER LLP ZARA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC WENDELL DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES M.E. ALLISON & ASSOCIATES FINAL SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN BOWMAN © 2015 PROJECT NO. 005520-01-001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHAT IS THE SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN? The Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan (“SEP-HCP” or the “Plan”) is a way for Bexar County and the City of San Antonio (the “Permittees”) to assist with compliance of the Endangered Species Act. These compliance issues threaten the economic growth of the greater San Antonio region. The purposes of the SEP-HCP are to: (1) Promote regional conservation; (2) Provide support for Camp Bullis; (3) Involve local stakeholders in conservation planning; (4) Streamline endangered species permitting; (5) Implement locally appropriate and cost-effective permitting and conservation strategies; and (6) Leverage available resources. Upon approval of the SEP-HCP by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”), a 30-year Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) would be issued. The Permit would authorize a limited amount of “incidental taking” of nine federally listed endangered species (the “Covered Species”) within the jurisdictions of Bexar County and the City of San Antonio. In return, the SEP-HCP will promote the conservation of the Covered Species and related natural resources in Bexar County and other counties of the Southern Edwards Plateau.
    [Show full text]
  • USFWS Section 10(A)(1)(A) Scientific Permit Requirements for Conducting Presence/Absence Surveys for Endangered Karst Invertebrates in Central Texas
    DRAFT USFWS Section 10(a)(1)(A) Karst Invertebrate Survey Requirements March 11, 2004 USFWS Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit Requirements for Conducting Presence/Absence Surveys for Endangered Karst Invertebrates in Central Texas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas (512) 490-0057 This document outlines the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) process for conducting presence/absence surveys for federally-listed endangered terrestrial karst invertebrate species (herein referred to as “karst invertebrates”) in Travis, Williamson, and Bexar counties, Texas, under a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended. See Table 1 for a list of endangered karst invertebrates (53 FR 36029-36033; 65 FR 81419-81433) in these three counties. Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits, also referred to as recovery, enhancement of survival, or scientific permits, allow for “take” of listed species that may or will occur while conducting research to further the recovery of a listed species (see When a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit is Needed below). This document outlines methods to be used, information to be included in final reports, and minimum qualifications for personnel conducting presence/absence surveys for endangered karst invertebrates under a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. The objective of this document is to identify survey methods that will produce sound scientific information upon which to base decisions and actions for the conservation of these endangered species. Using consistent survey methodology will also allow for greater comparison and analysis of results, and thereby increase our understanding of these species and their habitat requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Prothioconazole Section 3 New Use on Soybeans and Sugar Beets
    TEXT SEARCHABLE DOCUMENT UNITED STfiTES EN\'IRON31EKTAL PROTECTION BCIENCV WASffllNGTC$K Xl,G., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTlClDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 113961 DP Barcode: 3299251337791 Date: December 17,2007 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Ecological Risk Assessment for the Prothioconazole Section 3 New Use on Soybeans and Sugar Beets TO: Tony Kish, Product Manager Bryant Crow, Team Leader Fungicide Branch Registration Division (7505P) FROM: Anita Pease, Senior Biologist .i.- Ik/t7idi Marietta Echeverria, Risk Assessment Process Lead I Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) REVIEWED - 4 BY: Melissa Panger, Ph.D., Biologist L----,.---* -4I? -il--#+ Environmental Risk Branch IV L~''ck' '- " Environmental Fate and Effects Division (750713) APPROVED BY: Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has reviewed the proposed label for the use of prothioconazole (JAU64746; 2-(2-(1-chlorocylocpropyl)-3-(2- chlorophenyl)-2-hydroxy-propyl)-2,4-dihydro(l,2,4)-triazol-3-thion;CAS#: 178928-70- 6; PC Code: 113961), and its end-use product PROLINE@480SC (41.0 % a.i.) fungicide on soybeans and sugar beets. The results of this screening-level risk assessment indicate that the proposed new uses of prothioconazole on soybeans and sugar beets have the potential for direct adverse effects on listed and non-listed estuarinelmarine non-molluskan invertebrates, listed freshwater vascular plants, listed and non-listed freshwater and saltwater non-vascular plants, listed and non-listed mammals (chronic), and listed semi-aquatic dicot plants. 1. Executive Summary EFED has completed a review of the Section 3 new use request for the use of prothioconazole (JAU64746; 2-(2-(1-chlorocylocpropyl)-3-(2-chlorophenyl)-2-hydroxy- propyl)-2,4-dihydro(1,2,4)-triazol-3-thion;CAS#: 178928-70-6; PC Code: 113961), and its end-use product PROLINE@ 480SC (41.0 % a.i.) fungicide on soybeans and sugar beets.
    [Show full text]
  • San Antonio Water Systems Micron and Water Resources Integration Program Habitat Conservation Plan – Permit TE-36242C (Consultation No
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 (512) 490-0057 FAX (512) 490-0974 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Region 2, and Albuquerque, New Mexico Through: Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 2, and Albuquerque, New Mexico From: Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, and Austin, Texas Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion for the San Antonio Water Systems Micron and Water Resources Integration Program Habitat Conservation Plan – Permit TE-36242C (Consultation No. 2016-F-0640) Enclosed is the biological and conference opinion for San Antonio Water System’s (SAWS) Micron and Water Resources Integration Program (WRIP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects to five federally listed endangered species and one non-listed species from construction of water pipelines. These species include the endangered: Rhadine exilis (no common name), R. infernalis (no common name), Madla’s Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla), Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (C. baronia), and Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (C. venii); and the non-listed C. loftini (no common name) The biological and conference opinion is based on the SAWS Micron and WRIP HCP and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Environmental Assessment prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, both dated November 2017; discussions with species experts; published and un-published literature available on the species of concern and related impacts; and other sources of information available to the Service. A complete administrative record of this consultation is available at the Austin Ecological Service Field Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Prospects for Using DNA Barcoding to Identify Spiders in Species-Rich Genera
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 16: 27-46Prospects (2009) for using DNA barcoding to identify spiders in species-rich genera 27 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.16.239 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.pensoftonline.net/zookeys Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Prospects for using DNA barcoding to identify spiders in species-rich genera Emily A. Robinson, Gergin A. Blagoev, Paul D.N. Hebert, Sarah J. Adamowicz Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario, Canada Corresponding author: Gergin A. Blagoev ([email protected]) Academic editor: Pavel Stoev | Received 1 June 2009 | Accepted 15 July 2009 | Published 29 July 2009 Citation: Robinson EA, Blagoev GA, Hebert PDN, Adamowicz SJ (2009) Prospects for using DNA barcoding to iden- tify spiders in species-rich genera. In: Stoev P, Dunlop J, Lazarov S (Eds) A life caught in a spider's web. Papers in arach- nology in honour of Christo Deltshev. ZooKeys 16: 27-46. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.16.239 Abstract While previous research has indicated the utility of DNA barcoding in identifying spider species sampled from a localized region, the eff ectiveness of this method over a broader geographic scale and with denser taxon sampling has not yet been extensively considered. Using both new and published data from 1801 individuals belonging to 361 morphospecies, this study examined intra- and interspecifi c divergences for 19 genera that were each represented by at least 10 morphospecies. We particularly focused on increasing species-level sampling in order to better characterize levels of interspecifi c divergence within species-rich genera and to examine the prevalence of a “barcode gap” (discontinuity between intra- and interspecifi c di- vergences).
    [Show full text]