2001 Federal Register, 66 FR 50340; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

[Federal Register: October 3, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50340-50350]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03oc01-17]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF89

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status
for the Ohlone Tiger Beetle (Cicindela ohlone)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973,
as amended, for the Ohlone tiger beetle (Cicindela ohlone). This
species is endemic to Santa Cruz County, California, and is threatened
by habitat fragmentation and destruction due to urban development,
habitat degradation from invasion of nonnative vegetation, and
vulnerability to local extirpations from random natural events. This
final rule extends the Federal protection and recovery provisions of
the Act to this species.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 3, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola
Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colleen Sculley, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address
(telephone 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Ohlone tiger beetle (Cicindela ohlone) is a member of the
Coleopteran family Cicindelidae (tiger beetles), which includes over
2,000 species worldwide and over 100 species in the United States
(Pearson and Cassola 1992). Tiger beetles are day-active, predatory
insects that prey on small arthropods. Because many tiger beetles often
feed on insect species that are injurious to man and crops, they are
regarded as beneficial (Pearson and Cassola 1992; Nagano 1982). Adult
tiger beetles are medium-sized, elongate beetles that can have a
brilliant metallic green, blue, red, and yellow coloration highlighted
by stripes and spots. Alternatively, they can be brown, black or dull
colored (Knisley and Shultz 1997). Adults are ferocious, swift, and
agile predators that seize small prey with powerful sickle-shaped jaws.
Tiger beetle larvae are also predatory. They live in small vertical
or slanting burrows from which they lunge at and seize passing
invertebrate prey (Essig 1926; Essig 1942; Pearson 1988). The larva
grasps the prey with its strong mandibles (mouthparts) and pulls it
into the burrow; once inside the burrow, the larva will feed on the
captured prey (Essig 1942; Pearson 1988). Tiger beetles share similar
larval body forms throughout the world (Pearson and Cassola 1992). The
larvae, either white, yellowish, or dusky in coloration, are grub-like
and fossorial (subterranean), with a hook-like appendage on the fifth
abdominal segment that anchors the larvae inside their burrows.
Tiger beetle larvae undergo three instars (larval development
stages). This period can take 1 to 4 years, but a 2-year period is the
most common (Pearson 1988). After mating, the tiger beetle female
excavates a hole in the soil and oviposits (lays) a single egg (Pearson
1988; Kaulbars and Freitag 1993; Grey Hayes, pers. comm. 1998). Females
of many species of Cicindela are extremely specific in choice of soil
type for oviposition (egg laying) (Pearson 1988). It is not known at
this time how many eggs the Ohlone tiger beetle female lays, but other
species of Cicindela are known to lay between 1 and 126 eggs per female
(C. Barry Knisley, Randolph-Macon College, in litt. 2000). After the
larva emerges from the egg and becomes hardened, it enlarges the
chamber that contained the egg into a tunnel (Pearson 1988). Before
pupation (transformation process from larva to adult), the third instar
larva will plug the burrow entrance and dig a chamber. After pupation
in this chamber, the adult tiger beetle will dig out of the soil and
emerge. Reproduction may either begin soon after emergence or be
delayed (Pearson 1988).
Tiger beetles are a well-studied taxonomic group with a large body
of scientific literature; the journal Cicindela is devoted exclusively
to tiger beetles. Scientists have studied the diversity and ecological
specialization of tiger beetles, and amateur collectors have long been
attracted by their bright coloration and swift movements. Tiger beetle
species occur in many different habitats, including riparian habitats,
beaches, dunes, woodlands, grasslands, and other open areas (Pearson
1988; Knisley and Hill 1992). A common habitat component appears to be
open sunny areas for hunting and thermoregulation (an adaptive behavior
to use sunlight or shade to regulate body temperature) (Knisley et al.
1990; Knisley and Hill 1992). Individual species of tiger beetle are
generally highly habitat-specific because of oviposition and larval
sensitivity to soil moisture, composition, and temperature (Pearson
1988; Pearson and Cassola 1992; Kaulbars and Freitag 1993).
The Ohlone tiger beetle is endemic to Santa Cruz County,
California, where it is known only from coastal terraces supporting
remnant patches of native grassland habitat. Specimens of this species
were first collected northwest of the City of Santa Cruz, California,
in 1987, and were first described in 1993 (Freitag et al. 1993). Both
male and female specimens have been collected.
The adult Ohlone tiger beetle is a relatively small beetle
measuring 9.5 to 12.5 millimeters (mm) (0.37 to 0.49 inches (in)) long.
The adults have large, prominent eyes and metallic green elytra
(leathery forewings) with small light spots (Freitag et al. 1993).
Their legs are long, slender, and coppery-green. Freitag et al. (1993)
describe features that distinguish this species from closely related
species of Cicindela purpurea and other purpurea group taxa.
Two principal distinguishing features of the Ohlone tiger beetle
are its early seasonal adult activity period and its disjunct
distribution. While other tiger beetle species, such as Cicindela
purpurea, are active during spring, summer, or early fall (Nagano 1982;
Freitag et al. 1993), the Ohlone tiger beetle is active from late
January to early April (Freitag et al. 1993). The Ohlone tiger beetle
is the southernmost of purpurea group species in the Pacific Coast
region; its distribution is allopatric (geographically separated) to
those of similar species (Freitag et al. 1993).
Ohlone tiger beetle larvae are currently undescribed. However,
tiger beetle burrows, measuring 4 to 6 mm in diameter (0.16 to 0.23
in), were found in the same habitat areas where adult Ohlone tiger
beetles were collected (David Kavanaugh, California Academy of
Sciences, pers. comm. 1997; Vince Cheap, in litt. 1997). The surface
openings of these burrows are circular and flat with no dirt piles or
mounds surrounding the circumference (Kim

[[Page 50341]]

Touneh, Service, pers. obs. 1997). These burrows are similar to larval
burrows belonging to other tiger beetle species. Larvae and inactive
adults have been excavated from these burrows, and the inactive adults
collected from these burrows were fully mature and easily identified as
Ohlone tiger beetles (D. Kavanaugh, pers. comm. 1997; V. Cheap, in
litt. 1997). Based on these collections, Kavanaugh (pers. comm. 1997)
concluded that the larvae found in these burrows were Ohlone tiger
beetle larvae. Further investigations of these recently collected
larvae are being conducted to scientifically characterize and document
the morphology of the Ohlone tiger beetle larvae (D. Kavanaugh, pers.
comm. 1997).
Ohlone tiger beetles are found in association with coastal terrace
prairies, which are often characterized by the presence of California
oatgrass (Danthonia californica) and purple needlegrass (Stipa
pulchra). The substrate is shallow, pale, poorly drained clay or sandy
clay soil that bakes to a hard crust by summer, after winter and spring
rains cease (Freitag et al. 1993). Ohlone tiger beetle habitat is
associated with either Watsonville loam or Bonnydoon soil types in
Santa Cruz County. Soil core analyses were conducted for three of the
sites known to be occupied by the Ohlone tiger beetle; the soil types
for these three sites were determined to be either Watsonville loam or
Bonnydoon (Richard Casale and Ken Oster, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, pers. comm. 1997).
Adult Ohlone tiger beetles are found more often on level or nearly
level slopes along trails (e.g., foot paths, dirt roads, and bicycle
paths) that are adjacent to or near remnant patches of native grassland
on coastal terraces. Adults will also utilize barren areas among low or
sparse vegetation within the grassland. Ohlone tiger beetles require
these open areas for construction of larval burrows, thermoregulation,
and foraging (C.B. Knisley, in litt. 2000; Colleen Sculley, Service,
pers. obs. 2000). The density of larval burrows decreases with
increasing vegetation cover (G. Hayes, in litt. 1997). When disturbed,
adults will fly to more densely vegetated areas (Freitag et al. 1993;
Richard Arnold, consultant, pers. comm. 1995). Oviposition by females
and subsequent larval development also occur in this coastal prairie
habitat (i.e., open areas among native vegetation) (D. Kavanaugh, pers.
comm. 1997; V. Cheap, in litt. 1997).
The historic range of the Ohlone tiger beetle cannot be precisely
assessed because the species was only recently discovered, and no
historic specimens or records are available. The earliest specimen
recorded was collected from a site northwest of the City of Santa Cruz
in 1987 (Freitag et al. 1993). Based on available information on
topography, substrates, soils, and vegetation, it is likely that
suitable habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle was more extensive and
continuous prior to the increase in urban development and agriculture.
Historically, potentially suitable habitat may have extended from
southwestern San Mateo County to northwestern Monterey County,
California (Freitag et al. 1993). However, we have no evidence or data
indicating that this species occurred beyond the present known occupied
areas of Santa Cruz County. Currently, the extent of potentially
suitable habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle is estimated at 81 to 121
hectares (ha) (200 to 300 acres (ac)) in Santa Cruz County, California
(Freitag et al. 1993).
The available data indicate a restricted range and limited
distribution of the Ohlone tiger beetle. This finding is supported by
the following considerations. First, many tiger beetle species are
known to be restricted to specific habitats (Pearson 1988; Knisley and
Hill 1992; Pearson and Cassola 1992), such as the open native grassland
occupied by the Ohlone tiger beetle. Second, tiger beetles are widely
collected and well-studied, yet no historic specimens were found in the
extensive collections of the California Academy of Sciences, the
University of California, Berkeley or the University of California,
Davis (Freitag et al. 1993; D. Kavanaugh, pers. comm. 2000). The Ohlone
tiger beetle's specialized habitat and restricted range may account for
the absence of collection records prior to 1987. Because Cicindela is a
very popular insect genus to collect (Chris Nagano, Service, pers.
comm. 1993), and because entomologists commonly collect out of season
and out of known ranges in order to find temporally and spatially
outlying specimens, we expect more specimens would have been collected
if the Ohlone tiger beetle were more widespread and common.
Three researchers conducted surveys that assess the current
distribution and status of the Ohlone tiger beetle. Between 1990 and
1994, a researcher surveyed 14 sites with native grassland habitat from
southwestern San Mateo County to southern Santa Cruz County for Ohlone
tiger beetles. Six additional locations supporting nonnative
grasslands, but which appeared otherwise suitable, were also surveyed.
Surveys were conducted from February to April, when Ohlone tiger
beetles are active. This work documented the presence of the Ohlone
tiger beetle from sites located northwest of the City of Soquel, within
the City of Scotts Valley, west of the City of Santa Cruz, and
northwest of the City of Santa Cruz (Randall Morgan, in litt. 1994).
A second researcher surveyed for populations of Ohlone tiger
beetles in coastal grasslands from southern San Mateo County to
northern Monterey County during the adult activity period in 1995.
Researchers visited sites repeatedly through the Ohlone tiger beetle's
season of activity. Results of these surveys confirmed the presence of
Ohlone tiger beetles in the 4 geographic areas identified previously
and identified a new site northwest of the City of Santa Cruz that was
occupied by the Ohlone tiger beetle (G. Hayes, in litt. 1997).
A local consultant conducted additional surveys for the Ohlone
tiger beetle between 1994 and 2000 in approximately 22 locations on
private lands that were not surveyed during 1990 to 1995. These surveys
all occurred within the County of Santa Cruz in the vicinity of the
communities of Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz, Davenport, Soquel, Capitola,
and Aptos (R. Arnold, pers. comm. 2000). In 2000, the surveyor found
one new site occupied by adults of the Ohlone tiger beetle and a second
site with potential larval burrows. Both sites are located west of the
City of Santa Cruz in close proximity to other sites known to be
occupied by the Ohlone tiger beetle.
In total, we are aware of 60 sites that have been surveyed for the
Ohlone tiger beetle in Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and Monterey counties.
Based on the results of these survey efforts and the above
considerations, we conclude that the Ohlone tiger beetle is restricted
to remnant patches of native grassland on coastal terraces in the mid-
county portion of coastal Santa Cruz County, California.
The proposed rule described five locations inhabited by the Ohlone
tiger beetle. At the time of the proposed rule, the available data
indicated that Ohlone tiger beetles were isolated geographically in
each of these locations, and thus they were considered distinct
populations. Since the publication of the proposed rule, we have
received new information about additional areas occupied by the Ohlone
tiger beetle. Furthermore, we have conducted a more extensive review of
potential habitat linking these populations. Based on this new
information, we believe there is evidence indicating that genetic

[[Page 50342]]

exchange may occur between several known locations of Ohlone tiger
beetles defined in the proposed rule as distinct populations. Until
data on the dispersal capability and genetic relatedness among Ohlone
tiger beetles from varying locations are available, we cannot
conclusively delineate populations of the Ohlone tiger beetle.
Therefore, we will refer to Ohlone tiger beetles from the geographic
areas where they occur and not as distinct populations.
The Ohlone tiger beetle is known from 4 narrow geographic areas
within the County of Santa Cruz: northwest of the City of Soquel,
within the City of Scotts Valley, west of the City of Santa Cruz, and
northwest of the City of Santa Cruz. The Ohlone tiger beetle is known
from 11 properties within these 4 areas. The abundance of individuals
in each of these areas is unknown. However, the Ohlone tiger beetle is
known to occur on less than 2 ha (5 ac) of land in each of these 4
areas (G. Hayes, pers. comm. 1995; C. Sculley pers. obs. 1999, 2000).
All of these known locations of the Ohlone tiger are on coastal
terraces that support remnant stands of native grassland. These 4 areas
are described below:
The Ohlone tiger beetle occupies one parcel of private property
northwest of the City of Soquel at 60 to 90 meters (m) (200 to 295 feet
(ft)) elevation.
The beetle is known from one parcel of private property within the
City of Scotts Valley at 210 m (690 ft) elevation. Potential burrows of
the Ohlone tiger beetle were detected on a second parcel in the City of
Scotts Valley in 1997 (Biotic Resources Group 1999), but adults were
not detected at this site during surveys in 2000 (Dana Bland, pers.
comm. 2000). The presence of the species at this second site is
uncertain.
The Ohlone tiger beetle is known from five parcels located west of
the City of Santa Cruz at 110 m (360 ft) elevation. One parcel is owned
by the City of Santa Cruz, and the University of California, Santa Cruz
(University) owns a second parcel. The third and fourth parcels are
under private ownership. Potential burrows of the Ohlone tiger beetle
have been found on a fifth property that is under private ownership;
surveys for adults necessary to confirm the presence of the Ohlone
tiger beetle have not been conducted at this site. All five of these
properties are contiguous. Potential habitat for the Ohlone tiger
beetle may link some of these areas occupied currently by the Ohlone
tiger beetle (C. Sculley, pers. obs. 2000). We are uncertain if there
is gene flow between these different parcels.
Ohlone tiger beetles are located northwest of the City of Santa
Cruz between 110 m (360 ft) and 340 m (1,115 ft) elevation on
properties owned by the University, the California Department of Parks
and Recreation (CDPR), and the City of Santa Cruz (Freitag et al. 1993;
R. Morgan, in litt. 1994; G. Hayes, in litt. 1997). These properties
are contiguous as well, although Ohlone tiger beetles may be isolated
on each property because habitat for the beetle is not continuous
between parcels. Adult Ohlone tiger beetles were detected on the parcel
owned by CDPR in 1997 (G. Hayes, in litt. 1999); however, no adults
were detected in surveys conducted in 2000 (George Gray, CDPR, pers.
comm. 2000). The status of the species on this parcel is uncertain.

Previous Federal Action

On February 18, 1993, we received a petition from Randall Morgan of
Soquel, California, requesting that we add the Ohlone tiger beetle to
the list of threatened and endangered species pursuant to the Act. The
petition contained information indicating that the Ohlone tiger beetle
has a limited distribution and specialized habitat requirements and was
threatened by proposed development projects and recreational
activities. Our 90-day petition finding, published in the Federal
Register on January 27, 1994 (59 FR 3330), determined that substantial
information was presented in the petition indicating that listing may
be warranted. Our 12-month petition finding, published on March 1,
1996, in the Federal Register (61 FR 8014), concluded that listing was
not warranted due to the lack of life history information and survey
data to conclusively determine that the beetle is restricted to the
described habitat.
On April 30, 1997, we received a second petition from Grey Hayes of
Santa Cruz, California, to emergency-list the Ohlone tiger beetle as an
endangered species under the Act. The petition specified endangered
status because of the beetle's limited distribution and threats from
proposed development projects, invasion of nonnative plants, and
recreational activities. Based on the information provided by the
petitioner, and additional information gathered since the first
petition in 1993, we determined that emergency-listing the Ohlone tiger
beetle was not required but that listing of this species as endangered
is warranted. Therefore, in our most recent Notice of Review, published
on October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57534), we included the Ohlone tiger beetle
as a candidate species. Candidate species are those species for which
listing is warranted but precluded by other pending listing actions, in
accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act. On February 11,
2000, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 6952)
to list the Ohlone tiger beetle as endangered. We have updated this
final rule to reflect new information concerning changes in
distribution, status, and threats since publication of the proposed
rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the February 11, 2000, proposed rule, we requested interested
parties to submit factual reports or information that might contribute
to the development of a final listing decision. We contacted
appropriate Federal agencies, State agencies, county and city
governments, scientists, and other interested parties to request
information and comments. We solicited independent review of the
proposed rule by three peer reviewers. We published newspaper notices
in the Santa Cruz Sentinel and San Jose Mercury News on February 17,
2000, and March 4, 2000, respectively. The comment period closed on
April 11, 2000. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing
during the comment period.
During the comment period, we received 19 comment letters,
including 3 letters from peer reviewers. Fifteen commenters supported
the proposal, one provided neutral comments, and three were opposed to
the proposal. Several commenters provided additional information that,
with other clarifications, has been incorporated into the sections
titled ``Background'' and ``Summary of Factors'' of this final rule.
Comments of a similar nature or point regarding the proposed rule
have been grouped into issues and are discussed below.
Issue 1: One commenter questioned whether the Ohlone tiger beetle
is actually a distinct species of tiger beetle rather than an already-
identified subspecies of tiger beetle. The commenter further suggested
that the authors of the scientific paper that described this species
(Freitag et al. 1993) raised this possibility as well. Finally, the
commenter expressed concern that a ``taxonomic differentiation'' of the
Ohlone tiger beetle has not been conducted using ``currently available
testing methods.''
Our Response: In general, we recognize taxonomic determinations
that are published in peer-reviewed journals and are accepted by the

[[Page 50343]]

scientific community. The description of the Ohlone tiger beetle was
published in the Coleopterists' Bulletin, a peer-reviewed scientific
journal (Freitag et al. 1993). The authors of this publication noted
that at first they thought the specimens from Santa Cruz County might
have represented an unusual form of a species of tiger beetle described
previously. After careful examination, the authors detected differences
between the external form and structure and the genitalia of males and
females of adult Ohlone tiger beetles and other closely related species
of tiger beetles. They determined that these differences ``were at
least as great'' as typically found between closely related, but
distinct species. They described the species based on distinguishing
morphological characteristics, geographical and habitat distribution,
life history, and phylogenetic relationships. Thus, the authors
determined that the Ohlone tiger beetle is a new and distinct species
of tiger beetle.
None of the peer reviewers, all of whom specialize in the study of
tiger beetles, questioned the validity of this finding. We received no
comments from other tiger beetle experts expressing concern or
uncertainty about the validity of the Ohlone tiger beetle being a
distinct species.
We are uncertain what the commenter considers to be ``currently
available testing methods.'' Therefore, we cannot comment on whether
these methods have been conducted. However, we have concluded that the
analyses conducted by Freitag et al. (1993) are adequate to conclude
that the Ohlone tiger beetle is a distinct species, based on
comparative morphological evidence, and that this analysis has been
validly published (published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal),
and accepted by the scientific community.
Issue 2: Several commenters questioned the level of survey effort
that was conducted to determine the range, distribution, and frequency
of occurrence of the Ohlone tiger beetle. One commenter asked whether
surveys have been conducted on all sites with suitable habitat and
whether the surveys were conducted at the appropriate time of year.
Another commenter requested that independent studies be conducted to
determine if the habitat is as restricted as proclaimed.
Our Response: The final rule describes the extent of surveys that
have been conducted for the Ohlone tiger beetle at the present time.
All of these surveys, unless otherwise noted, were conducted by
qualified field biologists during the proper time of year and time of
day (i.e., on warm, sunny days during the months of February to April)
when adult Ohlone tiger beetles could reasonably be expected to be
active, evident, and identifiable. Surveys were conducted using
systematic field techniques and were well documented.
Survey locations included grasslands in San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and
Monterey counties. At least 60 sites have been surveyed, and Ohlone
tiger beetles have been found on 11 properties in 4 narrow geographic
areas in Santa Cruz County. Many of the sites surveyed by Randall
Morgan between 1990 and 1994, and Grey Hayes in 1995, were lands under
public ownership. Most of the sites surveyed by Dr. Richard Arnold
between 1994 and 2000 were under private ownership.
As a result of private landowners restricting access and volunteer
surveyors having time limitations, not all sites that may provide
potential habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle have been surveyed. We
acknowledge that undiscovered sites occupied by the Ohlone tiger beetle
may exist, most likely on private land. We also recognize that there is
a high potential that these sites are subject to the same threats that
face other privately owned parcels that support the Ohlone tiger
beetle. Given the extremely limited distribution of the species at the
present time, discovery of several additional locations of the Ohlone
tiger beetle would not likely alter the endangered status of the
species overall. All of the peer reviewers acknowledged the extreme
rarity of the Ohlone tiger beetle and supported listing this species as
endangered.
Issue 3: One commenter questioned why the Ohlone tiger beetles
found in a preserve owned and managed by the City of Santa Cruz were
not found during surveys conducted between 1990 and 1994, but were
located during surveys in 1995.
Our Response: We asked this question of Randall Morgan, who
conducted the surveys during 1990 to 1994. Mr. Morgan re-examined his
collections and determined that he did in fact collect a single Ohlone
tiger beetle from the preserve in 1994. Mr. Morgan collected this
Ohlone tiger beetle in the same vicinity where Ohlone tiger beetles
were discovered in 1995 (R. Morgan, pers. comm. 2000).
Issue 4: One commenter questioned what additional information on
the Ohlone tiger beetle we received after the publication of the 12-
month finding in 1996 (61 FR 8014), in which we determined that listing
of the Ohlone tiger beetle was not warranted because data were
inadequate for us to determine that the Ohlone tiger beetle was
restricted to the described habitat. Specifically, the commenter noted
that the proposed rule to list the species (65 FR 6952) cited only the
survey work that had been conducted between 1990 and 1995, which
preceded the publication of this 12-month finding.
Our Response: On January 23, 1997, we received a letter from Grey
Hayes that described the results of his surveys for Ohlone tiger
beetles that had been conducted in 1995. We were not aware that these
surveys had been conducted until we received Mr. Hayes' letter 9 months
after the publication of the 12-month finding. Mr. Hayes surveyed 21
sites that represented a variety of grassland and oak woodland habitats
in Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Mateo counties. The results of these
surveys indicated that the Ohlone tiger beetle was found only in
association with soil types specific to the central coast of
California. Furthermore, the surveys showed that Ohlone tiger beetles
are found only in or adjacent to coastal terrace prairie, a type of
grassland that exists on less than 809 ha (2,000 ac).
Furthermore, we reviewed the scientific literature on tiger beetles
and determined that tiger beetle species are commonly restricted to
very specific habitat types (Pearson 1988; Knisley and Hill 1992;
Pearson and Cassola 1992). Based on this information, we concluded that
adequate information existed to determine conclusively that the Ohlone
tiger beetle is restricted to a narrow habitat type within Santa Cruz
County.
Issue 5: One commenter questioned whether we can logically infer
from two relatively limited surveys that the Ohlone tiger beetle is
``restricted to remnant patches of native grasslands on coastal terrace
prairie in the mid-county portion of coastal Santa Cruz County.'' The
commenter further stated that there was insufficient information to
support the Service's conclusion that the Ohlone tiger beetle is in
danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range.
Our Response: This final rule is based on the best available
information and science and clearly describes how we determined the
current range and habitat requirements of the Ohlone tiger beetle, and
how we concluded that the species is in danger of extinction throughout
a significant portion of its range. Please refer to the ``Background''
and ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' sections.
Issue 6: One commenter questioned how many, and which, insect
collections had been searched for specimens of the Ohlone tiger beetle.

[[Page 50344]]

The commenter noted that he or she had spoken with a tiger beetle
expert in Texas who had specimens of the Ohlone tiger beetle collected
from 29 years ago, and that the expert knew of additional specimens of
the species collected in the early 1930s and 1940s.
Our Response: While preparing the manuscript to describe the Ohlone
tiger beetle, Dr. David Kavanaugh of the California Academy of Sciences
searched the entomological collections of the California Academy of
Science, the University of California, Davis, and the University of
California, Berkeley. These three institutions were searched because
they held the largest collections of tiger beetles within the vicinity
of Santa Cruz County, and were the most likely depositories of Ohlone
tiger beetles collected from that area. Furthermore, the California
Academy of Sciences holds the collection of Norman C. Rumpp, which
includes one of the largest collections of tiger beetles in the world.
Ohlone tiger beetles were not found in these collections.
As an expert on the genus Cicindela, Dr. Kavanaugh has reviewed
collections of this genus located throughout the United States. He has
never encountered the Ohlone tiger beetle (D. Kavanaugh, pers. comm.
2000). Cicindela is a very popular genus of insects to collect. No
specimens were found in the three largest collections located in the
closest proximity to Santa Cruz County, and Dr. Kavanaugh has never
seen or heard of additional specimens of the Ohlone tiger beetle in
other collections. Therefore, he concluded that it was unlikely that
specimens would be found in additional private or public collections.
We concurred with this conclusion.
We contacted Mr. William D. Sumlin, the tiger beetle specialist
from Texas referred to by the commenter, and asked him about historic
collections of the Ohlone tiger beetle. Mr. Sumlin stated that he had
specimens of a male and female of the Ohlone tiger beetle that were
collected in March 1994. This specimen was collected from a known
occurrence of the Ohlone tiger beetle.
Mr. Sumlin also stated that he was not aware of any Ohlone tiger
beetles collected during the 1930s and 1940s. Rather, he recalled
having a conversation with another tiger beetle expert who mentioned
that specimens of Ohlone tiger beetles may be located in a collection
in California. The specimens were thought to be misidentified and
located in a tray of specimens of another species of tiger beetle.
Unfortunately, Mr. Sumlin did not recall the identity of the person who
had told him this information, whose collection the specimens were in,
or where the collection was located (W.D. Sumlin, in litt. 2000).
With so little information, we cannot verify the existence of the
specimens in question. We acknowledge that other collectors may have
specimens of the Ohlone tiger beetle; however, we assume that most of
these collections were made after the species was described in 1993 and
are from sites known to be occupied by the beetle.
Issue 7: One commenter questioned whether the absence of Ohlone
tiger beetles from collections could be explained by reasons other than
the species is extremely rare.
Our Response: We cannot offer any alternative hypotheses as to why
the species is absent from collections. Because Cicindela is a very
popular genus of insects to collect, and because entomologists commonly
collect out of season and out of known ranges in order to find
temporally and spatially outlying specimens, we would expect more
specimens to have been collected if the Ohlone tiger beetle were more
abundant and distributed more widely.
Issue 8: One commenter states that ``the Service seems to suggest
that additional field surveys are not warranted because the Ohlone
tiger beetle has not been found in any of the collections of local
hobbyists, and that it was only first sited in 1997.'' The commenter
noted that the Act allows the Service 1 year from the date on which a
proposed rule is noticed before a decision to list or not list is made,
with the option to extend this period for up to 6 months for purposes
of soliciting additional data. The commenter suggested that we should
use the full 18 months to conduct additional surveys for the Ohlone
tiger beetle throughout all potential habitat.
Our Response: Ohlone tiger beetles were first collected in 1987,
not 1997, as stated by the commenter. The proposed rule did not state
that additional field surveys for the Ohlone tiger beetle are not
warranted. We advocate conducting more surveys to expand our knowledge
of the range, distribution, life history, and habitat requirements of
the Ohlone tiger beetle. However, we have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding such
knowledge and the past, present, and future threats faced by the Ohlone
tiger beetle. Based on this information, we conclude that the Ohlone
tiger beetle is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (section 3(6) of the Act) and, therefore, meets
the Act's definition of endangered.
Issue 9: One commenter questioned why we have chosen to list the
Ohlone tiger beetle, when there are 2,000 different subspecies of tiger
beetles, many with restricted populations, that we have ``rightfully
shown no inclination to list.''
Our Response: The determination to list a species as federally
endangered or threatened is based upon the evaluation of current and
future threats to the species from the five factors listed in section
4(a) of the Act. Based on our analyses of threats facing the Ohlone
tiger beetle, we believe that the Ohlone tiger beetle is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(section 3(6) of the Act) and, therefore, meets the Act's definition of
endangered. We have listed other species of tiger beetles in the past,
and we will continue to list species that meet the criteria for
threatened or endangered as defined in the Act.
Issue 10: Several commenters suggested that the listing of the
Ohlone tiger beetle was occurring in order to restrict the use of
private property, and questioned why the Ohlone tiger beetle has only
been located in sites that are ``politically sensitive.''
Our Response: The Act requires us to base our listing decisions on
the best scientific and commercial information available, without
regard to the effects, including political or economic, of listing.
Surveys for the Ohlone tiger beetle have occurred at sites that were
nearly equally divided between private and public ownership throughout
Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties. Locations of surveys
conducted by Morgan and Hayes between 1990 and 1995 were reportedly
chosen based on the habitat characteristics present at each site; no
emphasis was known to be given to sites that were considered
``politically sensitive'' to the community. Arnold's surveys between
1994 and 2000 were conducted largely on private lands at the request of
the landowners.
Issue 11: One commenter expressed concern about the effects of road
construction on habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle. The commenter
provided numerous citations for scientific papers that document and
quantify the effects of roads on environmentally sensitive areas.
Our Response: We appreciate the information provided by the
commenter. We consider construction of roads to be an aspect of urban
development that can fragment and degrade habitat for the Ohlone tiger
beetle.
Issue 12: One commenter questioned why the proposed rule does not
mention

[[Page 50345]]

population size based on counts of adults or larval burrows of the
Ohlone tiger beetle.
Our Response: At the present time, surveys to estimate sizes of
populations of the Ohlone tiger beetle have not been conducted. We
recognize that population estimates may provide insight into the status
of the species. However, abundance of insect species can fluctuate
substantially from year to year. Furthermore, some insect species may
be abundant in localized populations yet susceptible to extirpation by
a single event. For these reasons, estimates of abundance are not
adequate in determining whether a species is endangered or threatened.
Rather, we based our determination to list the Ohlone tiger beetle as
federally endangered upon the evaluation of the current and future
threats to the species from the five factors listed in section 4(a) of
the Act.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited the expert opinions of three independent
specialists regarding the biological and ecological information about
the Ohlone tiger beetle contained in the proposed rule. The purpose of
such review is to ensure that listing decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis, including input
from appropriate experts and specialists. Two of the reviewers
supported the listing of the species, but provided no substantive
comments that require addressing. The third reviewer both supported the
listing of the species and provided technical corrections on material
contained in the sections titled ``Background'' and ``Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species.''

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available, we determine that the Ohlone tiger beetle should be
classified as an endangered species. We followed procedures found at
section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424)
implementing the listing provisions of the Act. A species may be
determined to be endangered or threatened due to one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors, and their
application to the Ohlone tiger beetle, are as follows:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range. Loss of habitat is the principal
threat to insect species worldwide because of their close associations
with, and dependence on, specific habitats (Pyle et al. 1981). The
effects of habitat destruction and modification on tiger beetle species
have been documented by Knisley and Hill (1992) and Nagano (1982). The
Ohlone tiger beetle is restricted to remnant patches of native
grassland on coastal terraces where low and sparse vegetation provide
space for foraging, reproduction, and thermoregulation, and support a
prey base of other invertebrate species. The poorly drained clay or
sandy clay substrate of the coastal terraces provides the soil
moisture, composition, and temperature conditions necessary for
oviposition and larval development (Pearson 1988; Kaulbars and Freitag
1993).
The habitat of the Ohlone tiger beetle is threatened with
destruction resulting from urban development or with modification by
invasive nonnative vegetation on all of the sites on which it occurs.
Disturbance of the substrate, and removal or elimination of vegetation
by urban development, kills or injures individuals and precludes others
from feeding, sheltering, or reproducing. Historically, potentially
suitable habitat is believed to have extended from southwestern San
Mateo County to northwestern Monterey County, California (Freitag et
al. 1993). Most of this habitat has been modified or destroyed by human
actions such as urbanization and agriculture (Freitag et al. 1993).
About 6,060 to 8,080 ha (15,000 to 20,000 ac) of native grassland
remain in Santa Cruz County, but not more than 81 to 121 ha (200 to 300
ac) contain the proper combination of substrate, slope, and exposure
(bare areas between patches of grasses) to be considered suitable
habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle (Freitag et al. 1993). Nearly all
of this suitable habitat is located within or adjacent to urbanized
areas in the coastal mid-county area of Santa Cruz. Much of the City of
Santa Cruz and its adjacent towns were built on these marine terrace
grassland habitats (Freitag et al. 1993). Within suitable habitat, the
beetle occupies only sparsely vegetated areas and bare areas, which are
artifacts of trails, grazing, or other disturbance activities.
The property occupied by the Ohlone tiger beetle located northwest
of the City of Soquel is threatened by a proposed 21-lot residential
development. The preferred alternative of the proposed project would
completely extirpate the Ohlone tiger beetle population by eliminating
all of the known occupied habitat and most of the extant grassland
habitat found on this site. One alternative in the final environmental
impact report for the project proposes that the majority of suitable
habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle be set-aside and managed to reduce
nonnative vegetation and enhance habitat quality. Since the publication
of the proposed rule, the owner of this parcel has submitted design
changes to the County of Santa Cruz. We are not certain how these
design changes will impact the habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle on
the site. The County is currently preparing an expanded initial study
to incorporate these changes. Once completed, the initial study will be
available to the public for review and comment (Kim Tschantz, County of
Santa Cruz, pers. comm. 1999, 2000).
The site occupied by the Ohlone tiger beetle located in the City of
Scotts Valley was proposed for development of 233 residential homes and
an open park containing two ballfields (Impact Sciences 1998). This
proposed development was voted down in a public referendum in 1999,
halting the development of this property for the present time. The
landowner is now considering alternative development plans. The most
recent proposal by the developer includes donating the area inhabited
by the Ohlone tiger beetle to the City of Scotts Valley for use as a
park. The City has expressed interest in developing this area into
baseball fields (Laura Kuhn, City of Scotts Valley, pers. comm. 2000).
The future of this site is undetermined at this time.
Even if the occupied habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle was
avoided in the development of houses and ballfields, activities
occurring on adjacent lands could lead to potential disturbance, such
as pesticide drift, soil erosion, and vegetation alteration. In
addition, the increased isolation would make the population more
vulnerable to random extinction (see Factor E of this section).
Adult Ohlone tiger beetles have been observed on 4 properties, and
potential burrows have been observed on a fifth property, west of the
City of Santa Cruz (C. Sculley, pers. obs. 2000; R. Arnold, pers. comm.
2000). All of the properties are contiguous. The potential for
destruction threatens the habitat of the Ohlone tiger beetle on 4 of
these properties.
The current landowners of one of these 4 parcels plan to build a
single-family dwelling on the site. Although building plans are still
being developed, the driveway will most likely be sited in, or directly
adjacent to, occupied habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle (C. Sculley,
pers. obs. 2000).
In September 1998, property owners of a second parcel west of the
City of

[[Page 50346]]

Santa Cruz tilled up a large percentage of an area occupied by the
Ohlone tiger beetle in preparation for converting use of the land from
livestock grazing to a vineyard (G. Hayes, pers. comm. 1998). The
effects of this action on the Ohlone tiger beetle are not known,
although potential burrows of the Ohlone tiger beetle were detected on
the property in July 2000 (C. Sculley, pers. obs. 2000).
Potential burrows of the Ohlone tiger beetle were found in the
spring of 2000 on a third parcel west of the City of Santa Cruz (R.
Arnold, pers. comm. 2000). The owner of this parcel plans to build a
single-family home on the site. The County of Santa Cruz has not yet
reviewed the potential effects of the project on the Ohlone tiger
beetle (Paia Levine, County of Santa Cruz, pers. comm. 2000).
The fourth parcel is owned by the University and is presently
undeveloped, and no development is currently planned for the parcel.
However, portions of the parcel, including areas occupied by the Ohlone
tiger beetle, could be developed in the future as the University
expands its existing campus (University of California 1992).
The fifth parcel is protected from urban development. In the spring
of 1999, the City of Santa Cruz purchased this property, and it will be
managed as open space by the City. The State of California will hold a
conservation easement on the land. A management plan will be developed
by the City of Santa Cruz, and the Ohlone tiger beetle will be
considered in the plan. At the present time, the site is closed to
public use except for officially escorted hikes (Susan Harris, City of
Santa Cruz, pers. comm. 1999).
The habitat occupied by the Ohlone tiger beetle northwest of the
City of Santa Cruz occurs on three parcels under ownership of CDPR, the
University, and the City of Santa Cruz. The CDPR wants to construct an
entrance road and parking area for vehicles and open existing trails to
recreationists. The entrance road would be developed over a portion of
habitat that was occupied by Ohlone tiger beetles in 1995 (G. Hayes, in
litt. 1999). The vehicle parking area would be constructed adjacent to
this habitat. In the public works plan for this site, CDPR established
a policy that road maintenance or other activities will be scheduled to
minimize impacts on burrows, larval habitat, foraging activities, or
other aspects of the population (CDPR 1997). CDPR conducted additional
surveys in 2000 to determine the current distribution of the Ohlone
tiger beetle on the parcel that it owns. No adult Ohlone tiger beetles
or larval burrows were detected during these surveys (G. Gray, CDPR
pers. comm. 2000). Additional surveys need to be conducted to determine
if Ohlone tiger beetles have been extirpated from this site.
Property adjacent to the CDPR land is managed by the University. A
two-lane road bisects the lands that are owned by CDPR and the
University that are occupied by the Ohlone tiger beetle. Although some
development is possible within the University lands, no development
projects are anticipated at this time (Graham Bice, University of
California, pers. comm. 1995; G. Hayes, pers. comm. 1997). The Ohlone
tiger beetle also is found in a preserve owned and managed by the City
of Santa Cruz. At this time, no plans are in place that would destroy
or alter the Ohlone tiger beetle habitat within this preserve (S.
Harris, pers. comm. 1999).
Areas that may once have been suitable for Ohlone tiger beetles
have been converted to nonnative grasslands, or have been developed
because the firm, level substrate of the coastal terraces afforded good
building sites with scenic views of the Pacific Ocean. For the same
reasons that other terraces have already been developed, remaining
areas of suitable habitat are under high development pressure.
In addition to the development threats to the Ohlone tiger beetle,
the invasion of nonnative vegetation threatens the already reduced
extent of suitable habitat for this species. The Ohlone tiger beetle is
threatened by habitat degradation due to the invasion of nonnative
plant species into the coastal prairie in every location where it
occurs, including areas that are protected from development. Nonnative
vegetation (e.g., French broom (Cytisus monspessulanus), velvet grass
(Holcus spp.), filaree (Erodium spp.), and Eucalyptus spp.) and forest
vegetation are encroaching into grassland habitats and out-competing
native grassland vegetation (R. Morgan, in litt. 1992; G. Hayes, in
litt. 1997; C. Sculley, pers. obs. 1999, 2000). These nonnative plants
are aggressive invaders that convert sunny grasslands required by
Ohlone tiger beetles to habitat dominated by a shady overstory. Without
these sunny areas, the Ohlone tiger beetle cannot forage, and oviposit.
In addition to shading these areas used by the beetle, the nonnative
vegetation fills in the open spaces among the low or sparse vegetation
creating an unsuitable densely vegetated habitat.
Nonnative vegetation may also affect the numbers and diversity of
the beetle's prey, predators, and parasites (see Factor C of this
section). Increased vegetation encroachment is the primary factor
attributed to the extirpation of several populations of other Cicindela
species (e.g., C. abdominalis and C. debilis) (Knisley and Hill 1992).
Without management efforts to reduce and control vegetation
encroachment by nonnative species, the Ohlone tiger beetle will likely
decline and may become extirpated in all of the locations where the
species is known presently.
Several agencies are attempting to slow the rate of vegetation
encroachment into habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle. At one location
northwest of the City of Santa Cruz, the City is attempting to maintain
the species' habitat by mowing parts of it to provide bare ground, and
closing trails occupied by the Ohlone tiger beetle to bicycles (S.
Harris, pers. comm. 1999).
The University conducts controlled burns in habitat for the Ohlone
tiger beetle on its property northwest of the City of Santa Cruz. These
burns are conducted for fire-training exercises and to restore native
vegetation to this grassland (California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection, in litt. 2000). Grazing occurs on several parcels of
land located west of the City of Santa Cruz which are occupied by the
Ohlone tiger beetle. Grazing regimes, when conducted with the
appropriate timing, frequency, and intensity, can effectively maintain
native species of grasses and herbs in grasslands (G. Hayes, pers.
comm. 2000). Monitoring to determine the effects of these actions on
the Ohlone tiger beetle has not occurred. Therefore, we are unable to
determine if the Ohlone tiger beetle has benefited from these actions.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. Unrestricted collecting is considered a threat to
the species. Tiger beetle specimens are highly sought by amateur
collectors (C. Nagano, pers. comm. 1993), and members of the genus
Cicindela may be the subject of more intense collecting and study than
any other single insect genus. In light of the recent discovery of the
Ohlone tiger beetle, and concerns regarding its continued existence,
the desirability of this species to private collectors may increase,
leading to increased collection of specimens. The original petitioner
for the Ohlone tiger beetle has been contacted by several people from
such places as France, Wisconsin, and California, looking for Ohlone
tiger beetle specimens they can add to their private collections, as
well as those asking where the colonies are located and indicating they
want to collect the species at those locations (R. Morgan,

[[Page 50347]]

pers. comm. 1998). We are aware of at least one individual who
collected specimens of the Ohlone tiger beetle from the type locality
after the species was described in a scientific journal (W.D. Sumlin,
in litt. 2000). Listing this species as endangered will likely increase
its attractiveness to private collectors. Removal of even a few females
from a small population could reduce the persistence of the population
over time (C. Knisley, in litt. 2000).
The Ohlone tiger beetle is not likely to be used as a model
organism for general research projects because it is a rare and limited
species. It may be the subject of studies intended to improve
understanding of the species' ecology and to improve management
strategies for its conservation. Although such studies would directly
benefit the recovery of the Ohlone tiger beetle, they may contribute
cumulatively to other threats to the species.
C. Disease or Predation. No diseases are known to threaten the
Ohlone tiger beetle. However, the Ohlone tiger beetle may be affected
by any of several predators and parasites known to prey upon, and
afflict, other tiger beetle species. In general, parasites are
considered to be more detrimental than predators to populations of
tiger beetles (Nagano 1982; Pearson 1988). Known tiger beetle parasites
include ant-like wasps of the family Typhiidae, especially the genera
Mathoca, Karlissa, and Pterombrus, and the Bombyliid flies of the genus
Anthrax (Nagano 1982; Pearson 1988). These insect parasites are
distributed worldwide and specialize on tiger beetle larvae. Some
species of tiger beetles from Arizona sustain larval parasitism rates
of 20 to 60 percent (C. Knisley in litt. 2000).
Known tiger beetle predators include birds, shrews (Soricidae),
raccoons (Procyon lotor), lizards (Lacertilia), toads (Bufonidae), ants
(Formicidae), robber flies (Asilidae), and dragonflies (Anisoptera)
(Lavigne 1972; Nagano 1982; Pearson 1988).
Predators and parasites play important roles in the natural
dynamics of populations and ecosystems. The effects of predation and
parasitism may pose substantial threats to Ohlone tiger beetle
populations already affected by other factors, especially limited
distribution and small, isolated populations. At this time, the
magnitude of predation and parasitism on the Ohlone tiger beetle is not
known.
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Regulatory
mechanisms currently in effect do not provide adequate protection for
the Ohlone tiger beetle and its habitat. Federal agencies are not
legally required to consider and manage for species of concern.
At the State and local levels, regulatory mechanisms are also
inadequate. The California Endangered Species Act does not allow for
the listing of invertebrate species. State and local agencies may
consider the Ohlone tiger beetle when evaluating certain activities for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
local zoning regulations. If an activity is identified as having a
significant impact on this species, mitigation measures may be required
by State and local regulatory agencies to offset these impacts.
However, CEQA and local regulations do not provide specific protection
measures to ensure the continued existence of the Ohlone tiger beetle.
In addition, CEQA provisions for ``Statements of Overriding
Considerations'' can allow projects to proceed despite unmitigated
adverse impacts.
Ohlone tiger beetle habitat occurs on properties owned by the
University, the CDPR, and the City of Santa Cruz. The University does
not have a management plan that specifically protects the Ohlone tiger
beetle or its habitat (G. Hayes, pers. comm. 1997). The CDPR has an
existing Public Works Plan that calls for surveys to verify the
occupied habitat boundary of the Ohlone tiger beetle and proposes to
minimize the impacts of disturbance to the Ohlone tiger beetle during
road maintenance and other scheduled activities in the plan (G. Gray,
CDPR, pers. comm. 1997). However, a local citizen has expressed concern
that surveys and minimization measures are not being adequately carried
out (G. Hayes, in litt. 1999). For the site northwest of Santa Cruz,
the City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation Department's Proposed
Master Plan for the preserve proposes increased usage of existing
trails, but identifies the Ohlone tiger beetle and its habitat as
sensitive resources. The proposed master plan includes a management
program for Ohlone tiger beetle habitat; however, implementation of any
management actions will depend on future funding (S. Harris, pers.
comm. 1999). For the site west of the City of Santa Cruz and owned by
the City, a management plan will be developed since this property has
been purchased as open space. The property is officially closed to
public use except for officially escorted hikes. However, this area is
not regularly patrolled, and enforcement may not be adequate to protect
the species.
Because the Ohlone tiger beetle is not listed at the State or
Federal levels, no regulations or regulatory mechanisms exist that
prohibit importing, exporting, sale, or trade of the species.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. The populations of the Ohlone tiger beetle are isolated and
restricted to relatively small patches of habitat. A direct correlation
exists between increased extinction rates with the reduction of
available habitat area and increased distances between small
populations (Gilpin 1987). This conservation biology model suggests
that the isolated populations of the Ohlone tiger beetle may be more
vulnerable to local extinction from random genetic and demographic
events or environmental catastrophes. Effects of small habitat patches
and isolated populations on other species of tiger beetles have been
documented. In the eastern United States, several populations of
Cicindela dorsalis that numbered less than 200 individuals became
extinct at sites where no obvious change in habitat occurred. These
extinctions were presumably due to factors related to small population
sizes (C. Knisely, in litt. 2000).
Although some species of tiger beetles are known to disperse over
sizable distances (Pearson 1988), species from the purpurea group of
the genus Cicindela typically do not disperse widely, usually 12 to 18
m (40 to 60 ft) (David Pearson, Arizona State University, pers. comm.
1997). The dispersal capabilities of Ohlone tiger beetles are unknown;
however, because the Ohlone tiger beetle belongs to the purpurea group,
its dispersal distance is most likely short. Assuming individuals to be
capable of dispersing distances comparable to those between
populations, the likelihood of successful emigration or colonization is
greatly reduced by the small size of suitable habitat patches and the
unavailability of even marginal habitat among the extensive urban
development in the region.
Some recreational uses of Ohlone tiger beetle habitat (i.e., off-
highway vehicular use or mountain biking) may pose a threat to the
Ohlone tiger beetles. The beetles require open ground to maneuver, take
prey, and lay eggs. They use the hard-packed bicycle trails for
foraging, thermoregulation, and laying their eggs (R. Morgan, pers.
comm. 1998). Bicycle traffic on a trail through the University site has
been observed to result in the crushing of several individual beetles
(R. Morgan, in litt. 1993). Similar mortality has been observed in the
species' habitat west of the City of Santa Cruz (R. Morgan, in litt.
1993) and may occur in other Ohlone tiger beetle populations. Also,

[[Page 50348]]

bicycle and foot traffic could potentially collapse larval tunnels and
crush the larvae. The significance of such mortality for population
viability is not known at this time, but is considered a potential
threat to the Ohlone tiger beetle, particularly if bicycle traffic
through the habitat increases. Heavy vehicular traffic in areas with
extensive use of public trails, such as on lands owned by the
University, the City of Santa Cruz, and CDPR, may also create soil
compaction and rutting, damaging potential oviposition sites.
Populations of another tiger beetle species found in the northeastern
United States, Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis, were extirpated in several
localities that were subjected to heavy recreational use (i.e., heavy
pedestrian foot traffic and vehicular use) but survived at other sites
that had received little or no recreational disturbance (Knisley and
Hill 1992).
Pesticides could pose a threat to the Ohlone tiger beetle. The
effects of insecticides on other tiger beetle species are referenced by
Nagano (1982). Local land owners may use pesticides to control targeted
invertebrate species around their homes and gardens. These pesticides
may drift aerially or be transported by water runoff into Ohlone tiger
beetle habitat where they may kill nontargeted organisms including the
Ohlone tiger beetle or its prey species. As urban development increases
near or in Ohlone tiger beetle habitat, negative impacts from
pesticides may become more frequent. The significance of pesticide
effects is not known at this time, but they are recognized as a
substantial potential threat to the species.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by the Ohlone tiger beetle in developing this final rule. Threats
to the Ohlone tiger beetle, including habitat fragmentation and
destruction due to urban development, habitat degradation due to
invasion of nonnative vegetation, vulnerability to random local
extirpations, and potential threats due to collection, pesticides, and
recreational use of habitat, imperil the continued existence of this
species. Much of the habitat of this species is suitable for
development and is unprotected from these threats. The Ohlone tiger
beetle is known from only 11 properties in 4 narrow geographic areas of
Santa Cruz County. This species is in danger of extinction ``throughout
all or a significant portion of its range'' (section 3(6) of the Act)
and, therefore, meets the Act's definition of endangered. Because of
the high potential for these threats, if realized, to result in the
extinction of the Ohlone tiger beetle, the preferred action is to list
this species as endangered.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as-(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 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
geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in
accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures
necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at
which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, we 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 the 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 prudent for the Ohlone tiger beetle.
Due to the small number of populations of the Ohlone tiger beetle,
and the popularity of tiger beetle collecting, this species is
vulnerable to unrestricted collection, vandalism, or other disturbance.
However, there is no evidence that designation of critical habitat is
likely to increase this threat. In the case of this species,
designation of critical habitat may provide some benefits. The record
shows that certain physical and biological features where the Ohlone
tiger beetle is located are essential to the conservation of the
species. The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the
section 7 requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any
action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. While a
critical habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by this
species would not be likely to change the section 7 consultation
outcome because an action that destroys or adversely modifies such
critical habitat would also be likely to result in jeopardy to the
species, in certain instances, section 7 consultation might be
triggered only if critical habitat is designated. Examples could
include unoccupied habitat or occupied habitat that may become
unoccupied in the future. Designating critical habitat may also provide
some educational or informational benefits. Therefore, we find that
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Ohlone tiger beetle.
However, our budget for listing activities is currently
insufficient to allow us to immediately complete all of the listing
actions required by the Act. Listing the Ohlone tiger beetle without
designation of critical habitat will allow us to concentrate our
limited resources on other listing actions that must be addressed,
while allowing us to invoke protections needed for the conservation of
this species without further delay. This is consistent with section
4(b)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, which states that final listing decisions may
be issued without critical habitat designations when it is essential
that such determinations be promptly published. We will prepare a
critical habitat designation in the future at such time when our
available resources and priorities allow.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for protection, and prohibitions against certain
activities. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
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) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species

[[Page 50349]]

proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification
of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently,
section 7(a)(2) of the Act 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 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.
We are not aware of any specific federal actions within the habitat
of the Ohlone tiger beetle. If any Federal agency were to fund or issue
permits for a project that may affect the Ohlone tiger beetle, that
agency would be required to consult with us. Possible nexuses include
the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of
Commerce's Small Business Administration for funding, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for permits authorized under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
Listing the Ohlone tiger beetle as endangered will provide for the
development of a recovery plan. Such a plan will bring together
Federal, State, and local efforts for the beetle's conservation. The
plan will establish a framework for agencies to coordinate activities
and cooperate with each other in conservation efforts. The plan will
set recovery priorities, assign responsibilities, and estimate costs of
various tasks necessary to achieve conservation and survival of this
species. Additionally, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, we will be
able to grant funds to affected States for management actions promoting
the protection and recovery of this species.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export, ship in
interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered
wildlife species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to our agents and State conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. For
endangered species, such permits are available for scientific purposes,
to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for
incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
Our policy, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34272), is to identify, to the maximum extent practicable, those
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9
of the Act at the time of listing. The intent of this policy is to
increase public awareness of the effect of this listing on proposed and
ongoing activities within the species' range.
We believe that, based on the best available information, the
following actions are not likely to result in a violation of section 9,
provided these activities are carried out in accordance with existing
regulations and permit requirements:
(1) Possession, delivery, or movement, including interstate
transport and import into or export from the United States, involving
no commercial activity, of dead specimens of this taxon that were
collected prior to the date of publication in the Federal Register of a
final regulation adding this taxon to the list of endangered species;
and
(2) Activities conducted in accordance with reasonable and prudent
measures identified by us in a biological opinion issued pursuant to
section 7 of the Act, and activities authorized under section 10 of the
Act.
We believe that the following actions could result in a violation
of section 9; however, possible violations are not limited to these
actions alone:
(1) Collection of specimens of this taxon for private possession or
deposition in an institutional collection;
(2) Sale or purchase of specimens of this taxon, except for
properly documented antique specimens of this taxon at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(3) Release of biological control agents that attack any life stage
of this taxon;
(4) Destruction or alteration of occupied habitat of the Ohlone
tiger beetle (e.g., excavating, compacting, grading, discing, or
removing soil);
(5) Recreational use of occupied habitat of the Ohlone tiger beetle
(e.g., off-highway vehicular use, horse riding, mountain biking, or
hiking); and
(6) Management of vegetation (e.g., burning, grazing, or mowing).
Questions regarding whether specific activities risk violating
section 9 should be directed to our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations on
listed plants and animals, and general inquiries regarding prohibitions
and permits, may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ecological Services, Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue,
Portland, Oregon, 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-2063; facsimile 503/
231-6243).

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 Act. 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 permits and associated requirements for
endangered wildlife species, see 50 CFR 17.22.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this final rule is Colleen Sculley, Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 805/644-
1766).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

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.

[[Page 50350]]

2. Amend section 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical
order under INSECTS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------------------------ population
where When Critical Special
Historic range endangered Status listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name or
threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * * * *
INSECTS

* * * * * * * * *
Beetle, Ohlone tiger..................... Cicindela ohlone (CA)....... U.S.A. (CA) NA E 713 NA NA

* * * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: September 21, 2001.
Marshall P. Jones Jr.,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 01-24647 Filed 10-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P