DOCSLIB.ORG

Corel Ventura

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Corel Ventura Principles and Practice for Design of Cave Preserve Management and Monitoring Plans for Invertebrate Species of Concern, San Antonio, Texas Kemble White SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants. 1712 Rio Grande Austin, Texas 78701-1124 (512) 476-0891 email: [email protected] Kenneth J. Kingsley SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants. 343 South Scott Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 325-9194 email: [email protected] Abstract Karst areas around San Antonio, Texas contain over 300 known caves, some of which contain invertebrate animal species that are unique to the area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have proposed nine invertebrate species as Endangered Species. Concerned landowners and local agencies, hoping to obviate listing (which would be economically costly and an impediment to use of private property), have formed a coalition to protect, preserve, and manage caves known to have the species. Preserve Manage- ment and Monitoring Plans have been prepared for several caves based on guidelines promulgated by Fish and Wildlife Service and evaluation of conditions at each site. Important factors include protection of surface and sub-surface drainage areas, preservation of adequate foraging areas for trogloxenes, reduction of disruptive human access, control of non-native fire ants, and periodic monitoring to evaluate conditions and populations of species of concern. This paper will discuss the principles for design of Monitoring Plans and their practical application at one specific site. Introduction the petition; and Rhadine infernalis, another beetle, with two described subspecies: R. infer- In 1991, nine species of invertebrates known nalis infernalis, known from two caves, and R. only from caves in Bexar County, Texas, were infernalis ewersi, known only from one cave, petitioned for listing as Endangered Species and specimens that could not be identified to under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The subspecies, described as “hybrids,” known taxa include: four apparently different species from at least seven other caves. of blind spider Cicurina baronia, Cicurina The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published madla, Cicurina venii, and Cicurina vespera, a proposed rule to list the species as Endan- each known from only one cave at the time the gered on December 30, 1998. Threats consid- petition to list the species was submitted; ered to be potentially endangering these Neoleptoneta microps, a spider known from species are listed in the Proposed Rule as: one cave; Texella cokendolpheri, a harvestman destruction and/or deterioration of habitat by known from one cave for certain and tenta- commercial, residential, and road construc- tively from another; Batrisodes venyivi, a bee- tion; filling of caves; loss of permeable cover; tle known only from one cave, Rhadine exilis, potential contamination from such things as a beetle, known from four sites at the time of septic effluent, sewer leaks, runoff, and pesti- 1999 National Cave and Karst Management Symposium 203 White & Kingsley cides; predation by and competition with non- important, and has laid down the requirement native fire ants; and vandalism. that they be considered in determining the Subsequent to the petition, additional re- adequacy of protection of the species. For pur- search has found that some of the species are poses of determining adequacy of protection, much more widely distributed and abundant the Fish and Wildlife Service requires that for than had been known previously. No new lo- all species that are known from at least three cations were found for Cicurina baronia, caves in one or more karst regions, protection Cicurina venii, or Texella cokendolpheri. of at least three Invertebrate Conservation Ar- Cicurina vespera has been found in one new eas within each region is necessary. The Fish location, as have Neoleptoneta microps, and and Wildlife Service has not determined the Batrisodes venyivi. Texella cokendolpheri has appropriate course of action for those species not been positively identified in its previously known from fewer than three caves, except to known habitat and may be extinct. No docu- require thorough surveys for additional loca- mented records of this species are known since tions. 1985. Cicurina madla has been found in four An Invertebrate Conservation Area is de- new locations. Both of the Rhadine species fined by the Fish and Wildlife Service as: “an were found to be more widespread than pre- area known to support one or more locations viously thought, with many newly discovered of a species and is distinct in that it acts as a sites for each species. The number of caves system that is separated from other karst from which each species is currently known is: fauna areas by geologic and hydrologic fea- Rhadine exilis: 31 caves; Rhadine infernalis: tures and/or processes that create barriers to 22 caves, with three putative subspecies; Ba- the movement of water, contaminants, and trisodes venyivi: two caves; Cicurina madla: troglobitic fauna.” five caves; Cicurina baronia: one cave; This includes one or more caves and the Cicurina venii: one cave; Cicurina vespera: surrounding areas that may provide surface two caves, and Neoleptoneta microps: two and subsurface drainage, as well as surface caves. The species are currently known from a foraging areas for trogloxenes. combined total of at least 56 caves. To protect an Invertebrate Conservation Most of the land in the area is privately Area, Fish and Wildlife Service specifies cer- owned, and many landowners have plans for tain general considerations that must be development of their properties. Coopera- taken into account. The first step is to define tion of the landowners is essential for the the area to be protected so that it provides for protection of the species and the cave and maintenance of adequate levels of all ecosys- karst environments in which they are found. tem components necessary for survival of the In a series of meetings with landowners and species of concern, and for adequate protec- local agencies, Fish and Wildlife Service tion against definable threats. This is neces- agreed that if the long-term conservation of sarily unique for each cave, and must be the nine species could be assured, then the evaluated by examination of conditions listing proposal would be withdrawn. Spe- above and below ground. cific criteria were issued by Fish and Wildlife Service for protection of caves and Inverte- Important Factors brate Conservation Areas. These were based on the Recovery Plan for Endangered Karst Fish and Wildlife Service defined the follow- Invertebrates in Travis and Williamson Coun- ing as important factors for creating preserves: ties, Texas. This paper describes the criteria “To be considered ‘protected,’ a karst fauna and suggests specific ways that they can be area should contain a large enough expanse of implemented to create Preserve Management contiguous karst and surface area to maintain and Monitoring Plans. the integrity of the karst ecosystem on which each species depends. The size and configura- Fish and Wildlife Service Criteria tion of each karst fauna area should be ade- quate to maintain moist, humid conditions, air The karst areas of Bexar County have been flow, and stable temperatures in the air-filled divided into six regions, based on geology. At voids; maintain an adequate nutrient supply; one time it was thought that these regions prevent contamination of surface and ground- might be related to the distribution of the spe- water entering the ecosystem; prevent or con- cies, but this has not been consistently sup- trol the invasion of exotic species, such as fire ported by new records of distribution. ants; and allow for movement of the karst fauna However, the Fish and Wildlife Service consid- and nutrients through the interstitium be- ers these regions to be valid and biologically tween karst features.” 204 1999 National Cave and Karst Management Symposium White & Kingsley For each preserve designed, and for which a having a hydrogeologist examine the cave and Management Plan is to be created, all of these surrounding area and make his or her best factors must be examined, and provisions approximation on the parameters of the sur- made for them. face and subsurface drainage. Factors relevant to this determination may include but are not Protection of Surface and limited to regional dip, influences of fractures Subsurface Drainage Areas and faulting, and proximity to potentially re- lated karst features. Often, some portion of The first principle of cave preserve design is these may extend beyond the property owned to protect the entrance and the surface area by or available to the conservation entity creat- above the maximum footprint of the cave from ing the preserve. In practice, with local land all forms of disturbance and potential contami- values exceeding seven dollars per square foot, nation by human-generated chemical or bio- economy calls for making the preserve size as logical contaminants. Under conditions small as possible, while still maintaining a func- designed to eliminate all conceivable threats to tioning ecosystem and reducing the potential the petitioned species, no matter how remote for contaminants entering the cave. This may in probability of occurrence and regardless of call for acquiring additional property, develop- cost or impact on human land use decisions, ing cooperative agreements with neighbors, or preserves would be large areas of undisturbed limiting the area draining into the cave by cre- wilderness. With that level of protection as its ating berms around a suitable surface drainage implicit objective, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife area. In the San Antonio area, strict local regu- Service has issued a guideline on karst species lations prohibit contamination of the aquifer, preserve size for the Travis and Williamson and greatly reduce the likelihood that any cave County species: habitats would be contaminated. “In general, land bounded by the contour interval at the cave floor is the area within Preservation of Trogloxene which contaminants moving over the surface Foraging Areas or through the karst could move toward the cave.
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]
  • Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    1 Justin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561) Jaclyn Lopez (CA Bar No. 258589) 2 Center for Biological Diversity 351 California Street, Suite 600 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 436-9682 4 Fax: (415) 436-9683 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Collette L. Adkins Giese (MN Bar No. 035059X)* Center for Biological Diversity 8640 Coral Sea Street Northeast 7 Minneapolis, MN 55449-5600 Tel: (651) 955-3821 8 Fax: (415) 436-9683 [email protected] 9 Michael W. Graf (CA Bar No. 136172) 10 Law Offices 227 Behrens Street 11 El Cerrito, CA 94530 Tel: (510) 525-7222 12 Fax: (510) 525-1208 [email protected] 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and 14 Pesticide Action Network North America *Seeking admission pro hac vice 15 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 19 20 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL ) 21 DIVERSITY, a non-profit organization; and ) Case No.__________________ PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK ) 22 NORTH AMERICA, a non-profit ) organization; ) 23 ) Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 24 ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. ) 25 ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) 26 AGENCY; and LISA JACKSON, ) Administrator, U.S. EPA; ) 27 ) Defendants. ) 28 _____________________________________ ) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 1 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This action challenges the failure of Defendants Environmental Protection Agency and 3 Lisa Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, (collectively “EPA”) to consult with the 4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) 5 (collectively “Service”) pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C.
    [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]
  • Reprint Covers
    TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM Speleological Monographs, Number 7 Studies on the CAVE AND ENDOGEAN FAUNA of North America Part V Edited by James C. Cokendolpher and James R. Reddell TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM SPELEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS, NUMBER 7 STUDIES ON THE CAVE AND ENDOGEAN FAUNA OF NORTH AMERICA, PART V Edited by James C. Cokendolpher Invertebrate Zoology, Natural Science Research Laboratory Museum of Texas Tech University, 3301 4th Street Lubbock, Texas 79409 U.S.A. Email: [email protected] and James R. Reddell Texas Natural Science Center The University of Texas at Austin, PRC 176, 10100 Burnet Austin, Texas 78758 U.S.A. Email: [email protected] March 2009 TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM and the TEXAS NATURAL SCIENCE CENTER THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78705 Copyright 2009 by the Texas Natural Science Center The University of Texas at Austin All rights rereserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including electronic storage and retrival systems, except by explict, prior written permission of the publisher Printed in the United States of America Cover, The first troglobitic weevil in North America, Lymantes Illustration by Nadine Dupérré Layout and design by James C. Cokendolpher Printed by the Texas Natural Science Center, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas PREFACE This is the fifth volume in a series devoted to the cavernicole and endogean fauna of the Americas. Previous volumes have been limited to North and Central America. Most of the species described herein are from Texas and Mexico, but one new troglophilic spider is from Colorado (U.S.A.) and a remarkable new eyeless endogean scorpion is described from Colombia, South America.
    [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]
  • Rbxieticanjuscum
    RbXietican1ovitatesJuscum PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10024 NUMBER 2539 APRIL 24, I974 Revision of Rhadine LeConte (Coleoptera, Carabidae) I. The subterranea Group BY THOMAS C. BARR, JR.1 ABSTRACT The subterranea group of Rhadine LeConte includes 11 species, five of which are regarded as polytypic. The group is restricted to limestone caves in central Texas, and all its species are troglobites. Species and subspecies treated are: subterranea subterranea (Van Dyke), new status; subterranea mitchelli, new subspecies; russelli, new species; noctivaga, new species; austinica, new species; speca speca (Barr), new status; speca gentilis, new subspecies; speca crinicollis, new subspecies; exilis (Barr and Lawrence); persephone, new species; tenebrosa tenebrosa (Barr), new status; tenebrosa mckenziei, new subspecies; insolita, new species; infernalis infernalis (Barr and Lawrence); infernalis ewersi (Barr); koepkei koepkei (Barr), new status; koepkei privata, new subspecies. Keys are provided for determining (a) species groups of Rhadine and (b) species and subspecies of the subterranea group. Rhadine LeConte includes approximately 60 species, all but three of which occur from the Great Plains westward to California and south to Oaxaca, Mexico. Members of this exclusively North American genus inhabit caves, cellars, mammal burrows, and crevices in rock piles. Eleven species are microphthalmous, cave obligate (troglobitic) forms found in the Balcones escarpment region of central Texas. These constitute an 1 Research Associate, Department of Entomology, the American Museum of Natural History; Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington. ISSN 0003-0082 2 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 2539 apparently monophyletic assemblage, the subterranea group, which is the subject of the present paper.
    [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]
  • Federally Listed and Proposed Species Occurring
    Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Wildlife Resources Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Federally Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area Scientific Name Federal Other Status* State Where Group Common Name (Synonym) Status* (State) Present Amphibians Houston toad Anaxyrus houstonensis E SE (TX) TX Amphibians Salado salamander Eurycea chisholmensis T TX Amphibians San Marcos salamander E. nana T ST (TX) TX Amphibians Georgetown salamander E. naufragia T TX Amphibians Texas blind salamander E. rathbuni E SE (TX) TX Amphibians Barton Springs salamander E. sosorum E SE (TX) TX Amphibians Jollyville salamander E. tonkawae T TX Amphibians Austin blind salamander E. waterlooensis E SE (TX) TX Birds Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii C BCC OK, TX Birds Rufa red knot Calidris canutus rufa T TX Birds Piping plover C. melodus T ST (OK, TX, OK, KS, TX NE) Birds Mountain plover C. montanus C ST (NE), BCC, OK, KS SINC (KS) Birds Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus T BCC TX occidentails Birds Golden-cheeked warbler Dendroica chrysoparia E SE (TX) TX Birds Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E SE (TX), BCC TX Birds Northern aplomado falcon Falco femoralis E SE (TX) TX septentrionalis Birds Whooping crane Grus americana E SE (OK, TX, OK, KS, TX NE) Birds Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis E SE (TX, NE) KS, TX Birds Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E SE (TX), REA OK, TX Birds Least tern (proposed for Sterna antillarum E SE (KS), BCC KS delisting) Birds Interior least tern (proposed for S. antillarum athalassos E SE (KS, TX, OK, KS, TX delisting) NE), BCC Birds Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida T ST (TX) TX Birds Attwater’s greater prairie Tympanuchus cupido E SE (TX) TX chicken attwateri Birds Black-capped vireo1 Vireo atricapilla E SE (TX) OK, KS, TX Fishes Ozark cavefish Amblyopsis rosae T OK Fishes Leon Springs pupfish Cyprinodon bovinus E SE (TX) TX Fishes Comanche Springs pupfish C.
    [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]