Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List a Karst Meshweaver, Cicurina cueva, 5123-5128 [05-1765]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Dated: January 10, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 05–1698 Filed 1–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List a Karst Meshweaver,
Cicurina cueva, as an Endangered
Species
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Notice of 90-day petition
finding and initiation of status review.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list a
karst meshweaver (spider), Cicurina
cueva (no common name), under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) with critical habitat. We
find that the petition presented
substantial scientific and commercial
data indicating that listing Cicurina
cueva may be warranted. Therefore, we
are initiating a status review to
determine if listing the species is
warranted. To ensure that the status
review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial
information regarding this species.
The administrative finding
announced in this document was made
on January 26, 2005. To be considered
in the 12-month finding for this
petition, comments and information
should be submitted to us by May 15,
2005.
DATES:
Data, information,
comments, or questions concerning this
petition and our finding should be
submitted to the Field Supervisor,
Austin Ecological Services Office, 10711
Burnet Rd., Suite 200, Austin, Texas,
78758. The petition, supporting data,
and comments will be available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the
above address.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Pine, Supervisor, Austin
Ecological Services Field Office
(telephone 512–490–0057 and facsimile
512–490–0974).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:57 Jan 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
Public Information Solicited
When we make a finding that
substantial information exists to
indicate that listing a species may be
warranted, we are required to promptly
commence a review of the status of the
species. To ensure that the status review
is complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial
data, we are soliciting information on
Cicurina cueva. We request any
additional information, comments, and
suggestions from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning the
status of Cicurina cueva. We are seeking
information regarding the species’
historic and current status and
distribution, biology and ecology,
ongoing conservation measures for the
species and its habitat, and threats to
the species and its habitat.
If you wish to comment or provide
information, you may submit your
comments and materials concerning this
finding to the Field Supervisor (see
ADDRESSES section above). Our practice
is to make comments and materials
provided, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for
public review during regular business
hours. Respondents may request that we
withhold a respondent’s identity, to the
extent allowable by law. If you wish us
to withhold your name or address, you
must state this request prominently at
the beginning of your submission.
However, we will not consider
anonymous comments. To the extent
consistent with applicable law, we will
make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will
be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that
we make a finding on whether a petition
to list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial data indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on all
information available to us at the time
we make the finding. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition, and publish our notice of
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5123
this finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial
information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of
information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we
find that substantial information was
presented, we are required to promptly
commence a review of the status of the
species, if one has not already been
initiated, under our internal candidate
assessment process.
In making this finding, we relied on
information provided by the petitioners
and evaluated that information in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). This
finding summarizes information
included in the petition and information
available to us at the time of the petition
review. Our process of coming to a 90day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of
the Act and § 424.14(b) of our
regulations is limited to a determination
of whether the information in the
petition meets the ‘‘substantial
information’’ threshold.
We do not conduct additional
research at this point, nor do we subject
the petition to rigorous critical review.
Rather, as the Act and regulations
direct, in coming to a 90-day finding, we
accept the petitioner’s sources and
characterizations of the information
unless we have specific information to
the contrary.
Our finding considers whether the
petition states a reasonable case for
listing on its face. Thus, our finding
expresses no view as to the ultimate
issue of whether the species should be
listed. We reach a conclusion on that
issue only after a more thorough review
of the species’ status. In that review,
which will take approximately 9 more
months, we will perform a rigorous,
critical analysis of the best available
scientific and commercial data, not just
the information in the petition. We will
ensure that the data used to make our
determination as to the status of the
species is consistent with the Act and
Information Quality Act.
On July 8, 2003, we received a
petition requesting that we list Cicurina
cueva (no common name) as an
endangered species with critical habitat.
The petition, submitted by the Save Our
Springs Alliance (SOSA), Save Barton
Creek Association, and Austin Regional
Group of the Sierra Club, was clearly
identified as a petition for a rule, and
contained the names, signatures, and
addresses of people representing the
requesting parties. Included in the
petition was supporting information
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
5124
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
regarding the species’ taxonomy and
ecology, historic and current
distribution, present status, and
potential causes of decline. We
acknowledged the receipt of the petition
in a letter to Mr. Colin Clark and Dr.
Mark Kirkpatrick, dated September 22,
2003. In this letter, we also advised the
petitioners that because of staff and
budget limitations, we had developed a
Listing Priority Guidance document that
was published in the Federal Register
on October 22, 1999 (64 FR 57114). In
that guidance, processing of petitions is
classified as a ‘‘Priority 4’’ activity,
behind emergency listing (Priority 1),
processing final decisions on proposed
listing (Priority 2), and resolving the
status of candidate species (Priority 3).
We also stated in that letter that we did
not have funds available to process a
petition finding for Cicurina cueva.
On December 22, 2003, SOSA sent us
a Notice of Intent to sue for violating the
Act by failing to make a timely 90-day
finding on the petition to list Cicurina
cueva. On May 25, 2004, SOSA filed a
complaint against the Secretary of the
Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for failure to make a 90-day
petition finding under section 4 of the
Act for Cicurina cueva. In our response
to Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment on October 15, 2004, we
informed the court that, based on
current funding and workload
projections, we believed that we could
complete a 90-day finding by January
20, 2005, and if we determined that the
90-day finding was that the petition
provided substantial scientific and
commercial data, we could make a 12month warranted or not warranted
finding by December 8, 2005. This
notice constitutes our 90-day finding on
whether the petition provided
substantial information indicating that
listing Cicurina cueva may be
warranted.
Species Information
Cicurina cueva is a member of the
family Dictynidae, and a member of the
subgenus Cicurella that was first
described by Gertsch (1992). Members
of this subgenus are mostly small forms
derived from eight-eyed spiders that are
progressively losing or have lost their
eyes (Gertsch 1992). The majority of the
eyeless Cicurina are known only from
the Edwards Plateau region in central
Texas and are obligate karst-dwelling
species referred to as troglobites.
Troglobites are animals restricted to the
subterranean environment and which
typically exhibit morphological
adaptations to their cave environments,
such as elongated appendages and loss
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:57 Jan 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
or reduction of eyes and pigment (Veni
1995).
Gertsch (1992) described Cicurina
cueva using adult female specimens
collected from Cave X, Travis County,
Texas, in 1962 by Bell and Woolsey.
Adults are 5.4 millimeters (mm) (0.2
inches (in.)) long and unpigmented.
Positive identification of this species
currently requires examination of adult
female specimens, which are
distinguishable from other adult female
eyeless Cicurina spiders by their
reproductive organs (Gertsch 1992).
This eyeless, troglobitic spider is
believed to only inhabit caves or other
geological features in rocks known as
karst. Troglobites are species that are
restricted to the subterranean
environment and which usually exhibit
morphological adaptations to that
environment, for example elongated
appendages and loss or reduction of
eyes and pigment. The term ‘‘karst’’
refers to a type of terrain that is formed
by the slow dissolution of calcium
carbonate from limestone bedrock by
mildly acidic groundwater. This process
creates numerous cave openings, cracks,
fissures, fractures, and sinkholes, and
the bedrock resembles a honeycomb.
The primary habitat requirements of
troglobitic invertebrate species, such as
Cicurina cueva include: (1)
Subterranean spaces in karst rocks with
stable temperatures, high humidity
(near saturation), and suitable substrates
(for example, spaces between and
underneath rocks suitable for foraging
and sheltering) (Barr 1968; Mitchell
1971a); and (2) a healthy surface
community of native plants and animals
that provide nutrient input and, in the
case of native plants, act to buffer the
karst ecosystem from adverse effects (for
example, invasions of nonnative
species, contaminants, and fluctuations
in temperature and humidity)
(Biological Advisory Team 1990; Veni
1988; Elliott 1994a; Helf, in litt. 2002;
and Porter et al. 1988).
Troglobites require stable
temperatures and constant, high
humidity (Barr 1968; Mitchell 1971)
because they are vulnerable to
desiccation in drier habitats (Howarth
1983), or cannot detect and cope with
more extreme temperatures (Mitchell
1971). Temperatures in caves typically
remain at the average annual surface
temperature, with little variation
(Howarth 1983; Dunlap 1995). Relative
humidity is typically near 100 percent
in caves that support troglobitic
invertebrates (Elliott and Reddell 1989).
During temperature extremes,
troglobites may retreat into small
interstitial spaces (human-inaccessible)
connected to a cave, where the physical
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
environment provides the required
humidity and temperature levels
(Howarth 1983), and may spend the
majority of their time in such retreats,
only leaving them to forage in the larger
cave passages (Howarth 1987).
Spiders in caves act as predators
(Gertsch 1992). Cicurina sp. has been
seen preying on immature Speodesmus
sp. millipedes (Reddell 1994). Since
sunlight is either absent or present in
extremely low levels in caves, most
karst ecosystems depend on nutrients
derived from the surface either by
organic material brought in by animals,
washed in, or deposited through root
masses or through feces, eggs, and
carcasses of trogloxenes (species that
regularly inhabit caves for refuge, but
return to the surface to feed) and
troglophiles (species that may complete
their life cycle in the cave, but may also
be found on the surface) (Barr 1968;
Poulson and White 1969; Howarth 1983;
Culver 1986). Primary sources of
nutrients in cave ecosystems include
leaf litter, cave crickets, small mammals,
and other vertebrates that defecate or
die in the cave.
The conservation of troglobitic
species depends on a viable karst
ecosystem that protects the cave
entrance and footprint, the surface and
subsurface drainage basins associated
with the cave, interstitial spaces or
conduits associated with the cave, and
a viable surface animal and plant
community for nutrient input. Surface
vegetation acts as a buffer for the
subsurface environment against drastic
changes in the temperature and
moisture regime and serves to filter
pollutants before they enter the karst
system (Biological Advisory Team 1990;
Veni 1988). In some cases, healthy
native plant communities also help
control certain exotic species (such as
fire ants) (Porter et al. 1988) that may
compete with or prey upon the listed
species and other species (such as cave
crickets) that are important nutrient
contributors (Elliott 1994a; Helf, in litt.
2002). Population sizes of troglobitic
invertebrates are typically low, with
most species known from only a few
specimens (Culver et al. 2000), making
them difficult to detect in the cave and
making it very difficult to determine
trends in population size. Cicurina
cueva is currently known from two
caves in southern Travis County, Texas:
Cave X and Flint Ridge Cave.
Flint Ridge Cave is located on
property owned by the City of Austin at
the southern edge of Travis County,
Texas, in the recharge zone of the
Barton Springs segment of the Edwards
Aquifer. It is the fifth longest and
second deepest cave documented in
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Travis County (Russell 1996). The cave
has a surveyed length of 316.4-meters
(m) (1,038-feet (ft)) (Jenkins and Russell
1999) and depth of 47-m (154-ft)
(Russell 1996). Cave X is located on the
site of the Regents School in southwest
Austin, Texas.
While currently known from two
caves, the species may occur in other
caves in southern Travis County.
According to James Reddell, Texas
Memorial Museum (in litt. Service files,
August 12, 2003) immature, blind
Cicurina sp. have been collected from
Blowing Sink, Driskill Cave, Cave Y,
and Irelands’ Cave, and these species
may be C. cueva. However, he states that
these specimens could also be one of
two other blind Cicurina species found
in the area and that a taxonomic review
of these populations in south Austin is
necessary to determine the status and
range of blind Cicurina sp. in southern
Travis County.
Dr. Marshall Hedin at San Diego State
University is currently under contract
with the Service to develop genetic
assessment techniques for definitive
species-level identification of immature
specimens of blind Cicurina spiders in
Travis County, Texas. Cooperative
efforts are also underway by various
parties to collect Cicurina specimens
from various locations in an attempt to
find additional locations of Cicurina
cueva.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Under section 4(a) of the Act, we may
list a species on the basis of any of the
five factors, as follows: Factor (A) the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; Factor (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; Factor (C) disease or
predation; Factor (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and
Factor (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
The petition contends that factors A, C,
D, and E are applicable to Cicurina
cueva (see below). A brief discussion of
how each of the listing factors applies
to Cicurina cueva follows.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Cicurina cueva is currently known to
exist in two caves, Cave X and Flint
Ridge Cave, located in southern Travis
County. The petition cites Reddell
(1994) as indicating that all troglobitic
species with a limited distribution in
the area from the greater Austin area to
San Antonio are highly likely to be
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:57 Jan 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
endangered. The petition also refers to
‘‘many precedents for giving endangered
species listing to species with similar
biology (and facing similar threats to
extinction) in the Austin area.’’ As
discussed in the final rules listing seven
karst invertebrate species as endangered
in Travis and Williamson Counties,
Texas, and nine in Bexar County, Texas,
the continuing expansion of the human
population in karst terrain constitutes
the primary threat to karst species in
Central Texas through: (1) Destruction
or deterioration of habitat by
construction; (2) filling of caves and
karst features and loss of permeable
cover; (3) contamination from septic
effluent, sewer leaks, runoff, pesticides,
and other sources; (4) exotic species,
especially nonnative fire ants
(Solenopsis invicta); and (5) vandalism
(USFWS 1994; 2000).
Flint Ridge Cave is located on the
approximately 100-ha (300-ac) Tabor
Tract, purchased by the City of Austin
under the Proposition 2 watershed
protection program. The cave is
hydrologically significant, draining a
relatively large area of runoff into the
Edwards Aquifer (Veni 2000).
The petition states that the proposed
construction and operation of State
Highway (SH) 45 South threatens the
survival of Cicurina cueva. The petition
describes possible roadway impacts
from increased sedimentation, blasting,
petrochemical contamination, and
herbicide and pesticide use for right-of
way maintenance. The petition also
refers to another case where habitat for
the endangered cave spider
Neoleptoneta myopica may be
threatened by the cave’s proximity to a
new highway (Elliot and Reddell 1989).
In a letter to the Service dated August
6, 2003, the Texas Department of
Transportation (Texas DOT) stated they
have ‘‘never considered blasting for this
project, it is not necessary and will not
be allowed.’’
The petition states that Flint Ridge
Cave is being negatively affected by SH
45 South prior to highway construction.
It states that during pre-construction
activities for SH 45 South, a contractor
for the Texas DOT excavated a soil
sampling pit within 30.5-m (100-ft) of
the entrance to Flint Ridge Cave on City
of Austin property against the expressed
wishes of the City (cited in the petition
as William Conrad, pers. comm., 2003).
In 1998, Travis County acquired an
easement on the Tabor Tract as right-ofway for the construction and operation
of SH 45 South, which will connect two
major roadways, Interstate 35 and
MOPAC. While the exact alignment of
the roadway within the acquired rightof-way has not yet been determined, the
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5125
entrance to Flint Ridge Cave is about 30m (100-ft) down-gradient of the right-ofway, which also overlies a portion of the
cave’s footprint (Mike Walker, Texas
DOT, pers. comm. August 6, 2003). A
significant portion of the cave’s
extensive surface drainage area is
bisected by the right-of-way for the
proposed SH 45 South project. Veni
(2000) delineated an approximately 16ha (40-ac) surface drainage area
associated with the cave. However,
recent field surveys by the City of
Austin indicate that the surface drainage
area associated with Flint Ridge Cave
could be approximately 22-ha (54-ac)
(Nico Hauwert, City of Austin, pers.
comm., August 13, 2003). The right-ofway also overlies an approximately 6.9ha (17-ac) subsurface drainage basin
associated with the cave as estimated by
Veni (2000).
The petition indicates that there are
no ‘‘best management practices’’ that
could be proposed for use that would be
100 percent efficient at removing all
contaminants and state that
‘‘contamination of cave sediments is
inevitable, and leaks or spills will be an
ever present risk.’’ Information in our
files indicates that any runoff not
diverted away from the cave or which
leaks or spills past diversion structures
has the possibility of introducing
potentially significant levels of
contaminations that may harm the
quality of groundwater in the Edwards
Aquifer and the Flint Ridge Cave
ecosystem (Veni 2000). The petition
further states that ‘‘best management
practices’’ alter the hydrological regime
of their drainage basins, so the delicate
balance of humidity and moisture in the
cave would be threatened.’’ The petition
indicates that because cave-adapted
species require high humidity,
alteration of the hydrologic regime may
result in decreased humidity in the cave
which may impact these species,
including Cicurina cueva.
The petition also describes possible
threats to Cicurina cueva in Cave X. The
petition states that the Regent’s School
has submitted a development plan to
the City of Austin for construction of
buildings, expansion of a parking lot,
and expansion of a water quality pond.
It further states that the habitat in Cave
X may presently be degraded and may
face further degradation due to the
minimal buffer between the cave
entrance and existing development, a
road that goes over the cave, and plans
for further development. There is a
fence about 18-m (20-yards) from the
gated cave entrance between the
Regents’ School property and a
residential subdivision (cited in petition
as Russell, pers. comm., 2003).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
5126
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
However, information in our files
indicates that in November 1999, as part
of an agreement with the City of Austin
to protect recharge to the Edwards
Aquifer, the Regents School established
two legally-recorded setbacks associated
with the cave, an approximately 0.61-ha
(1.5-ac) area around the cave entrance
and an approximately 1-ha (3-ac) area
containing the majority of the cave’s
footprint. As noted in factor D below,
the agreement between the City of
Austin and the Regents School was
implemented primarily for the
protection of the federally-listed Barton
Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum),
which is dependent on the Edwards
Aquifer, and may not adequately protect
the integrity of the cave environment for
long-term conservation of Cicurina
cueva and other rare troglobitic species.
The setback areas do not include the
extent of the surface drainage area
associated with Cave X. The extent of
the groundwater (subsurface) drainage
basin associated with the cave has not
been determined, and, therefore, it is
uncertain whether or not it is contained
within the set-back areas. Both set-back
areas are adjacent to existing
development and are separated by a
one-lane paved road that overlies a
portion of the cave footprint. According
to the legally-recorded restrictive
covenant for the property, this road is
only accessible to emergency vehicles
and water quality pond maintenance
crews. Cave crickets have been found
foraging within 50-m (164-ft) of and up
to 95-m (311-ft) from caves and other
karst features in Central Texas (Elliott
1994; Steve Taylor, Illinois Natural
History Survey, pers. comm., 2002). The
foraging area around the cave entrance
has been largely reduced to the 0.61-ha
(1.5-ac) set-back area, which is adjacent
to a subdivision on one side and a onelane road on the other. The lot lines of
this subdivision lie less than 10-m (40ft) from the cave entrance. A portion of
this 10-m (33-ft) area also serves as a
utility easement developed with utility
poles, and water and wastewater lines.
The 1-ha (3-ac) setback area allows for
a larger foraging area for cave crickets
accessing the cave through other karst
features. The school’s future plans
include construction of four (the
petition said three) new buildings, all
located adjacent to one of the cave’s two
setback areas (September 5, 2003,
meeting notes in Service’s files).
Information in our files indicates that
surface drainage to Cave X is generally
toward the southeast, with some
drainage coming from the Travis County
Subdivision (Nico Hauwert, City of
Austin, pers. comm., August 13, 2003).
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:57 Jan 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
The natural drainage pattern may have
been altered due to the construction of
the road, which was constructed at a
higher elevation than the cave entrance
and the construction of the subdivision
(Nico Hauwert and Mark Sanders, City
of Austin, pers. comm., August 13,
2003).
Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition did not provide any
information pertaining to Factor B.
Information in our files indicates this
species is of little interest in the insect
trade or to amateur collectors. They are
collected occasionally by scientists
conducting studies of cave fauna. The
City of Austin, who owns and manages
Flint Ridge Cave, limits the access into
the cave to research personnel. The
Regents School, which owns and
manages Cave X, occasionally allows
fire department personnel to access the
cave to conduct cave rescue training.
Access for recreational caving and
educational purposes is prohibited in
both Flint Ridge Cave and Cave X.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
The petition identifies imported fire
ants (Solenopsis invicta) as a threat to
Cicurina cueva. The petition says this
fire ant, which was introduced to the
southeastern United States from Brazil,
started colonizing karst areas of Central
Texas in the late 1980s (Elliot 1993).
Invasion of imported fire ants causes
devastating and long-lasting impacts on
arthropod species and threatens their
biodiversity (Porter and Savignano
1990). Increases in imported fire ants
have lead to 40% reduction in
arthropod species in some instances.
Imported fire ants will consume a wide
variety of plants and animals (Vinson
and Sorensen 1986).
Information in our files indicates that,
in addition to preying on cave
invertebrate species, including cave
crickets, fire ants may compete with
cave crickets for food (Elliott 1994; Helf
in litt. 2002). Helf (in litt. 2002) states
that competition for food between fire
ants and cave crickets (Ceuthophilus
secretus) may be a more important
interaction between these species than
predation. The presence of fire ants in
and around karst areas could have a
drastic detrimental effect on the karst
ecosystem through loss of or reduction
in both surface and subsurface species
that are critical links in the food chain.
The invasion of fire ants is known to be
aided by ‘‘any disturbance that clears a
site of heavy vegetation and disrupts the
native ant community’’ (Porter et al.
1988).
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The petition indicates that proposed
SH 45 South would result in invasion of
fire ants into habitat of Cicurina cueva
in Flint Ridge Cave because
construction of SH 45 South will disturb
soil and vegetation near the entrance to
the cave, creating conditions that favor
fire ant invasion. The petition also states
that after construction, State Highway
45 South and its shoulders and right-ofway will contribute to fire ant habitat
because the land is disturbed and there
is a steady supply of food from litter
thrown from cars and insects killed by
cars.
The petition also says existence of a
residential subdivision and a school
near Cave X increases the probability of
fire ant invasion because fire ants are
attracted by disturbance of natural
vegetation, food debris, trash, and
electrical lines, and that cave setbacks at
Cave X on the Regents School site are
insufficient to stop fire ant infestation.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition states ‘‘existing rules and
regulations enacted by the City of
Austin, Travis County, and the State of
Texas are inadequate to protect Cicurina
cueva. State guidelines allow for
plugging or filling of caves and karst
features, which can significantly alter
and disturb drainage and recharge
patterns that affect temperature,
humidity, and food webs of cave
ecosystems.’’ The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (formerly Texas
Natural Resources Conservation
Commission) does not require surveys
for invertebrate species in karst
assessments. The petition states that
‘‘Hundreds of potential karst features
have been identified in the right-of-way
for State Highway 45 South, including
Flint Ridge Cave’s drainage basin. Many
of these karst features will be paved
over, possibly blocking recharge to Flint
Ridge Cave.’’
An Incidental Take Permit issued
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act was issued to the City of Austin and
Travis County on May 2, 1996. Both
Cave X and Flint Ridge Cave are listed
on the permit and the associated
Balcones Canyonlands Conservation
Plan (BCCP) as caves containing species
of concern, including Circurina cueva (a
covered species under this permit).
Under the permit, the City of Austin and
Travis County are required to acquire
and manage Cave X and Flint Ridge
Cave, or implement formal management
agreements adequate to preserve the
environmental integrity of these caves,
to get authorization for incidental take
of this species in other caves if this
species is federally-listed in the future.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
However, in their 2000, 2001, and 2002
annual permit reports, the City of
Austin/Travis County recognize that
many buffer areas associated with caves
currently ‘‘protected’’ under the BCCP
are not large enough to adequately
protect the caves and do not have
adequate buffer areas surrounding the
caves to meet species needs, as
indicated by information assembled by
the Service in 2001 (Travis County and
City of Austin 2000; 2001; 2002). Take
of this species is not prohibited since
the species is not listed.
The petition cites the 2000 BCCP
Annual Report as saying the status of
Cave X is described as ‘‘unknown, new
agreement not working smoothly yet.’’
The petition also says that per the Texas
Cave Management Association, the
agreement is inadequate to protect the
cave (cited in petition as Julie Jenkins,
pers. comm., 2003). The 2001 BCCP
Annual Report states that because
species of concern, such as Cicurina
cueva, are not federally listed as
endangered, many of the caves
supporting species of concern are
severely threatened.
In addition to the information in the
petition, information in our files
indicates the City of Austin entered into
an agreement with the Regents School
in November 1999, establishing two
legally recorded setbacks associated
with Cave X: an approximately 0.61-ha
(1.5-ac) area around the cave entrance
and an approximately 1-ha (3-ac) area
containing the majority of the cave’s
footprint. Under the agreement, the
Regents School was allowed to
construct an approximately one-lane
paved road accessible only to
emergency vehicles and water quality
pond maintenance crews over a portion
of the cave’s footprint. The setback areas
do not include the extent of the surface
drainage area associated with Cave X.
The extent of the groundwater
(subsurface) drainage basin associated
with the cave has not been determined,
and, therefore, it is uncertain whether or
not it is contained within the set-back
areas.
Under the agreement, the Regents
School is responsible for monthly
inspections of the setback areas, which
includes looking for evidence of
tampering or vandalism, removing any
accumulated trash or debris, or presence
of potentially toxic materials. They are
also responsible for vegetation
management and biannual fire ant
control. The Regents School gated the
cave and fenced a small area around the
cave entrance to protect it from
unauthorized trespassing and
vandalism, but no additional
management activities have been
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:57 Jan 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
conducted to date (Charles Evans,
Headmaster, Regents School, pers.
comm., August 15, 2003). The
agreement between the City of Austin
and the Regents School was
implemented primarily for the
protection of the federally-listed Barton
Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum),
which is dependent on the Edwards
Aquifer, and may not adequately protect
the integrity of the cave environment for
long-term conservation of Cicurina
cueva and other rare troglobitic species.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
The petition contends that the
following three features of this species
make it vulnerable to extinction: (1) The
narrowly limited distribution and small
population size of Cicurina cueva make
it more vulnerable to alteration of
habitat, loss of prey species, and failure
of reproduction; (2) the dissected and
extremely faulted geology of the
Balcones Fault Zone makes travel
between caves infeasible, therefore
dispersal opportunities and habitat
selection are not available to this
species, resulting in small isolated
populations; and, (3) the species is
reliant on stable environmental
conditions. The petition points out that
troglobites have developed in unique
cave ecosystems and require high
humidity and stable temperatures
(Service 1994), and the petition further
states that ‘‘Troglobites evolved over
millions of years in secluded, stable
habitats.’’
Information in our files also indicates
that many caves in the Austin
metropolitan area have been subject to
vandalism and trash dumping. Cave X is
protected by an animal-friendly cave
gate. The cave entrance area is also
enclosed within a 1.8-m (6-ft) chainlinked security fence. The City of Austin
has gated the entrance to Flint Ridge
Cave (Dr. Kevin Thuesen, pers. comm.
to Service, 2004). The City of Austin’s
Tabor Tract, where Flint Ridge Cave is
located, is protected by five-strand
barbed-wire fencing and ‘‘No
Trespassing’’ signs.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition, the
literature cited in the petition, and
information in our files. On the basis of
our review, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that
listing Cicurina cueva may be
warranted.
The petition also requested that we
emergency list Cicurina cueva. We have
reviewed the available information to
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5127
determine if the existing and foreseeable
threats pose immediate and urgent risks
to the species’ continued existence.
According to our Endangered Species
Listing Handbook (March 1994),
‘‘Expected losses during the normal
listing process that would risk the
continued existence of the entire listed
species are grounds for an emergency
rule. The purpose of the emergency rule
provision of the Act is to prevent
species from becoming extinct by
affording them immediate protection
while the normal rulemaking
procedures are being followed.’’ At this
time, we are working with the property
owners of the two known locations to
determine what conservation measures
are needed to protect the species at their
sites. Texas DOT and the Regents
School have indicated an interest in
avoiding or minimizing impacts to the
species. Texas DOT is working on a redesign of the project to a six-lane rather
than a four-lane highway and expects to
submit a Biological Evaluation to the
Service in October or November 2005
(Mike Walker, pers. comm. to the
Service, 2004). In comments handdelivered to the Service on August 6,
2003, Texas DOT said ‘‘it is not possible
to award any construction contracts
until all coordination with resource
agencies, including the [Service], has
been completed.’’ The Regents School of
Austin owns Cave X, and they are
working on a management plan and a
conservation agreement to provide
conservation measures that would
protect Cicurina cueva on their
property.
Based on the willingness of these two
parties to work with us to identify
conservation measures that will provide
for the long-term survival of the species
at the two known sites and the project
schedule provided to us by Texas DOT,
we believe the available information
indicates that an emergency listing
action is not necessary at this time. This
decision is based on our understanding
of the immediacy of potential threats to
Cicurina cueva at its two known
locations. However, if at any time we
determine that emergency listing of
Cicurina cueva is warranted, we will
seek to initiate the appropriate
protective measures.
The petitioners also requested that
critical habitat be designated for this
species. We always consider the need
for critical habitat designation when
listing species. If we determine in our
12-month finding that listing Cicurina
cueva is warranted, we will address the
designation of critical habitat in the
subsequent proposed rule.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
5128
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available upon request from
the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES
section above).
Author
The primary authors of this document
are staff at the Austin Ecological
Services Office (see ADDRESSES section
above).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: January 26, 2005.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05–1765 Filed 1–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[I.D. 012405B]
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council; Public Hearings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Public hearings; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council (Council) will
hold a series of public hearings to
receive public comments on
‘‘Amendment Number 13 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Shrimp
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
Waters with Environmental Assessment,
Regulatory Impact Review, and
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis.’’
DATES: Written comments must be
received by the Council on or before
March 4, 2005. The meetings will be
held in February 2005 (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific
dates and times).
ADDRESSES: The hearings will be held in
Alabama, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific
locations).
Comments may be submitted by any
of the following methods:
• E-mail:
gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:27 Jan 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
• Federal e-Rulemaking: https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Mail: Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council, 3018 U.S.
Highway 301, North, Suite 1000,
Tampa, FL 33619.
Copies of Amendment 13 to the
Shrimp FMP can be obtained from the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Leard, Deputy Executive
Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council; telephone: (813)
228–2815.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council
(Council) will hold a series of public
hearings to receive public comments on
‘‘Amendment Number 13 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Shrimp
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
Waters with Environmental Assessment,
Regulatory Impact Review, and
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis.’’
Amendment 13 contains alternatives to
(1) establish a separate vessel permit for
the royal red shrimp fishery or an
endorsement to the existing federal
shrimp vessel permit (Action 1); (2)
define MSY, OY, the overfishing
threshold, and the overfished condition
for royal red and penaeid shrimp stocks
in the Gulf (Actions 2 through 7); (3)
establish bycatch reporting
methodologies and improve collection
of shrimping effort data in the EEZ
through the use of logbooks, electronic
logbooks, and observers (Action 8); (4)
require completion of a Gulf Shrimp
Vessel and Gear Characterization Form
by at least a subset of shrimp vessel
permit holders (Action 9); (5) establish
a moratorium on the issuance of
commercial shrimp vessel permits
(Action 10); and (6) require reporting
and certification of landings during a
moratorium (Action 11). For each
action, a ‘‘No Action’’ alternative may
also be considered. The Council is
soliciting public comment on
alternatives under each of these
potential actions, and for other
alternatives, that should be considered
by the Council. The Council is soliciting
public comment on these issues through
the public hearings, by mail and by email; and must be received by the
Council on or before March 4, 2005.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council is one of the eight
regional fishery management councils
that were established by the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976. The Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
prepares fishery management plans that
are designed to manage fishery
resources in the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.
Hearing Dates, Times, and Locations
The hearings will begin at 7 p.m. and
end no later than 10 p.m. on the
following dates and at the locations
specified below:
Monday, February 14, 2005, Holiday
Inn I–10, 5465 Highway 90 West,
Mobile, AL 36619; 866-436-4329;
Tuesday, February 15, 2005,
Mississippi Department of Marine
Resources, 1141 Bayview Drive, Biloxi,
MS 39530; 228-374-5000;
Tuesday, February 15, 2005,
DoubleTree Grand Key Resort, 3990
South Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West,
FL 33040; 888-310-1540;
Wednesday, February 16, 2005, LSU
Agricultural Center Extension Office,
1105 West Port Street, Abbeville, LA
70510; 337-898-4335;
Thursday, February 17, 2005, Ramada
Inn Houma, 1400 West Tunnel
Boulevard, Houma, LA 70360; 985-8794871;
Thursday, February 17, 2005,
DoubleTree Guest Suites Tampa Bay,
3050 North Rocky Point Drive, Tampa,
FL 33607; 813-888-8800;
Monday, February 21, 2005,
Brownsville Events Center, 1 Events
Center Boulevard, Brownsville, TX
78526; 956-554-0700;
Tuesday, February 22, 2005, Palacios
Rec Center, 2401 Perryman, Palacios,
TX 77465; 361-972-2387;
Wednesday, February 23, 2005, San
Luis Resort, 5222 Seawall Boulevard,
Galveston Island, TX 77651; 409-7441500; and
Thursday, February 24, 2005, New
Orleans Airport Ramada Inn & Suites,
110 James Drive East, St. Rose, LA
70087; 504-466-1355.
Special Accommodations
The hearings are open to the public
and are physically accessible to people
with disabilities. Requests for sign
language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
Dawn Aring at the Council office (see
ADDRESSES) by February 7, 2005.
Dated: January 27, 2005.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–1800 Filed 1–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5123-5128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1765]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List a Karst Meshweaver, Cicurina cueva, as an Endangered
Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list a karst meshweaver (spider),
Cicurina cueva (no common name), under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act) with critical habitat. We find that the petition
presented substantial scientific and commercial data indicating that
listing Cicurina cueva may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a
status review to determine if listing the species is warranted. To
ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial information regarding this species.
DATES: The administrative finding announced in this document was made
on January 26, 2005. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this
petition, comments and information should be submitted to us by May 15,
2005.
ADDRESSES: Data, information, comments, or questions concerning this
petition and our finding should be submitted to the Field Supervisor,
Austin Ecological Services Office, 10711 Burnet Rd., Suite 200, Austin,
Texas, 78758. The petition, supporting data, and comments will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pine, Supervisor, Austin
Ecological Services Field Office (telephone 512-490-0057 and facsimile
512-490-0974).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Information Solicited
When we make a finding that substantial information exists to
indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to
promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that
the status review is complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on
Cicurina cueva. We request any additional information, comments, and
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties
concerning the status of Cicurina cueva. We are seeking information
regarding the species' historic and current status and distribution,
biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species and
its habitat, and threats to the species and its habitat.
If you wish to comment or provide information, you may submit your
comments and materials concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor
(see ADDRESSES section above). Our practice is to make comments and
materials provided, including names and home addresses of respondents,
available for public review during regular business hours. Respondents
may request that we withhold a respondent's identity, to the extent
allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you
must state this request prominently at the beginning of your
submission. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the
extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions
from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments
and materials received will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial data indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on all
information available to us at the time we make the finding. To the
maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days
of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding
promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species, if one has not already been initiated, under our internal
candidate assessment process.
In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the
petitioners and evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR
424.14(b). This finding summarizes information included in the petition
and information available to us at the time of the petition review. Our
process of coming to a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act and Sec. 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a
determination of whether the information in the petition meets the
``substantial information'' threshold.
We do not conduct additional research at this point, nor do we
subject the petition to rigorous critical review. Rather, as the Act
and regulations direct, in coming to a 90-day finding, we accept the
petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information unless we
have specific information to the contrary.
Our finding considers whether the petition states a reasonable case
for listing on its face. Thus, our finding expresses no view as to the
ultimate issue of whether the species should be listed. We reach a
conclusion on that issue only after a more thorough review of the
species' status. In that review, which will take approximately 9 more
months, we will perform a rigorous, critical analysis of the best
available scientific and commercial data, not just the information in
the petition. We will ensure that the data used to make our
determination as to the status of the species is consistent with the
Act and Information Quality Act.
On July 8, 2003, we received a petition requesting that we list
Cicurina cueva (no common name) as an endangered species with critical
habitat. The petition, submitted by the Save Our Springs Alliance
(SOSA), Save Barton Creek Association, and Austin Regional Group of the
Sierra Club, was clearly identified as a petition for a rule, and
contained the names, signatures, and addresses of people representing
the requesting parties. Included in the petition was supporting
information
[[Page 5124]]
regarding the species' taxonomy and ecology, historic and current
distribution, present status, and potential causes of decline. We
acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to Mr. Colin Clark
and Dr. Mark Kirkpatrick, dated September 22, 2003. In this letter, we
also advised the petitioners that because of staff and budget
limitations, we had developed a Listing Priority Guidance document that
was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1999 (64 FR
57114). In that guidance, processing of petitions is classified as a
``Priority 4'' activity, behind emergency listing (Priority 1),
processing final decisions on proposed listing (Priority 2), and
resolving the status of candidate species (Priority 3). We also stated
in that letter that we did not have funds available to process a
petition finding for Cicurina cueva.
On December 22, 2003, SOSA sent us a Notice of Intent to sue for
violating the Act by failing to make a timely 90-day finding on the
petition to list Cicurina cueva. On May 25, 2004, SOSA filed a
complaint against the Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for failure to make a 90-day petition finding under
section 4 of the Act for Cicurina cueva. In our response to Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment on October 15, 2004, we informed the court
that, based on current funding and workload projections, we believed
that we could complete a 90-day finding by January 20, 2005, and if we
determined that the 90-day finding was that the petition provided
substantial scientific and commercial data, we could make a 12-month
warranted or not warranted finding by December 8, 2005. This notice
constitutes our 90-day finding on whether the petition provided
substantial information indicating that listing Cicurina cueva may be
warranted.
Species Information
Cicurina cueva is a member of the family Dictynidae, and a member
of the subgenus Cicurella that was first described by Gertsch (1992).
Members of this subgenus are mostly small forms derived from eight-eyed
spiders that are progressively losing or have lost their eyes (Gertsch
1992). The majority of the eyeless Cicurina are known only from the
Edwards Plateau region in central Texas and are obligate karst-dwelling
species referred to as troglobites. Troglobites are animals restricted
to the subterranean environment and which typically exhibit
morphological adaptations to their cave environments, such as elongated
appendages and loss or reduction of eyes and pigment (Veni 1995).
Gertsch (1992) described Cicurina cueva using adult female
specimens collected from Cave X, Travis County, Texas, in 1962 by Bell
and Woolsey. Adults are 5.4 millimeters (mm) (0.2 inches (in.)) long
and unpigmented. Positive identification of this species currently
requires examination of adult female specimens, which are
distinguishable from other adult female eyeless Cicurina spiders by
their reproductive organs (Gertsch 1992).
This eyeless, troglobitic spider is believed to only inhabit caves
or other geological features in rocks known as karst. Troglobites are
species that are restricted to the subterranean environment and which
usually exhibit morphological adaptations to that environment, for
example elongated appendages and loss or reduction of eyes and pigment.
The term ``karst'' refers to a type of terrain that is formed by the
slow dissolution of calcium carbonate from limestone bedrock by mildly
acidic groundwater. This process creates numerous cave openings,
cracks, fissures, fractures, and sinkholes, and the bedrock resembles a
honeycomb.
The primary habitat requirements of troglobitic invertebrate
species, such as Cicurina cueva include: (1) Subterranean spaces in
karst rocks with stable temperatures, high humidity (near saturation),
and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and underneath
rocks suitable for foraging and sheltering) (Barr 1968; Mitchell
1971a); and (2) a healthy surface community of native plants and
animals that provide nutrient input and, in the case of native plants,
act to buffer the karst ecosystem from adverse effects (for example,
invasions of nonnative species, contaminants, and fluctuations in
temperature and humidity) (Biological Advisory Team 1990; Veni 1988;
Elliott 1994a; Helf, in litt. 2002; and Porter et al. 1988).
Troglobites require stable temperatures and constant, high humidity
(Barr 1968; Mitchell 1971) because they are vulnerable to desiccation
in drier habitats (Howarth 1983), or cannot detect and cope with more
extreme temperatures (Mitchell 1971). Temperatures in caves typically
remain at the average annual surface temperature, with little variation
(Howarth 1983; Dunlap 1995). Relative humidity is typically near 100
percent in caves that support troglobitic invertebrates (Elliott and
Reddell 1989). During temperature extremes, troglobites may retreat
into small interstitial spaces (human-inaccessible) connected to a
cave, where the physical environment provides the required humidity and
temperature levels (Howarth 1983), and may spend the majority of their
time in such retreats, only leaving them to forage in the larger cave
passages (Howarth 1987).
Spiders in caves act as predators (Gertsch 1992). Cicurina sp. has
been seen preying on immature Speodesmus sp. millipedes (Reddell 1994).
Since sunlight is either absent or present in extremely low levels in
caves, most karst ecosystems depend on nutrients derived from the
surface either by organic material brought in by animals, washed in, or
deposited through root masses or through feces, eggs, and carcasses of
trogloxenes (species that regularly inhabit caves for refuge, but
return to the surface to feed) and troglophiles (species that may
complete their life cycle in the cave, but may also be found on the
surface) (Barr 1968; Poulson and White 1969; Howarth 1983; Culver
1986). Primary sources of nutrients in cave ecosystems include leaf
litter, cave crickets, small mammals, and other vertebrates that
defecate or die in the cave.
The conservation of troglobitic species depends on a viable karst
ecosystem that protects the cave entrance and footprint, the surface
and subsurface drainage basins associated with the cave, interstitial
spaces or conduits associated with the cave, and a viable surface
animal and plant community for nutrient input. Surface vegetation acts
as a buffer for the subsurface environment against drastic changes in
the temperature and moisture regime and serves to filter pollutants
before they enter the karst system (Biological Advisory Team 1990; Veni
1988). In some cases, healthy native plant communities also help
control certain exotic species (such as fire ants) (Porter et al. 1988)
that may compete with or prey upon the listed species and other species
(such as cave crickets) that are important nutrient contributors
(Elliott 1994a; Helf, in litt. 2002). Population sizes of troglobitic
invertebrates are typically low, with most species known from only a
few specimens (Culver et al. 2000), making them difficult to detect in
the cave and making it very difficult to determine trends in population
size. Cicurina cueva is currently known from two caves in southern
Travis County, Texas: Cave X and Flint Ridge Cave.
Flint Ridge Cave is located on property owned by the City of Austin
at the southern edge of Travis County, Texas, in the recharge zone of
the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer. It is the fifth
longest and second deepest cave documented in
[[Page 5125]]
Travis County (Russell 1996). The cave has a surveyed length of 316.4-
meters (m) (1,038-feet (ft)) (Jenkins and Russell 1999) and depth of
47-m (154-ft) (Russell 1996). Cave X is located on the site of the
Regents School in southwest Austin, Texas.
While currently known from two caves, the species may occur in
other caves in southern Travis County. According to James Reddell,
Texas Memorial Museum (in litt. Service files, August 12, 2003)
immature, blind Cicurina sp. have been collected from Blowing Sink,
Driskill Cave, Cave Y, and Irelands' Cave, and these species may be C.
cueva. However, he states that these specimens could also be one of two
other blind Cicurina species found in the area and that a taxonomic
review of these populations in south Austin is necessary to determine
the status and range of blind Cicurina sp. in southern Travis County.
Dr. Marshall Hedin at San Diego State University is currently under
contract with the Service to develop genetic assessment techniques for
definitive species-level identification of immature specimens of blind
Cicurina spiders in Travis County, Texas. Cooperative efforts are also
underway by various parties to collect Cicurina specimens from various
locations in an attempt to find additional locations of Cicurina cueva.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Under section 4(a) of the Act, we may list a species on the basis
of any of the five factors, as follows: Factor (A) the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; Factor (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; Factor (C) disease or predation;
Factor (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and Factor
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
The petition contends that factors A, C, D, and E are applicable to
Cicurina cueva (see below). A brief discussion of how each of the
listing factors applies to Cicurina cueva follows.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Cicurina cueva is currently known to exist in two caves, Cave X and
Flint Ridge Cave, located in southern Travis County. The petition cites
Reddell (1994) as indicating that all troglobitic species with a
limited distribution in the area from the greater Austin area to San
Antonio are highly likely to be endangered. The petition also refers to
``many precedents for giving endangered species listing to species with
similar biology (and facing similar threats to extinction) in the
Austin area.'' As discussed in the final rules listing seven karst
invertebrate species as endangered in Travis and Williamson Counties,
Texas, and nine in Bexar County, Texas, the continuing expansion of the
human population in karst terrain constitutes the primary threat to
karst species in Central Texas through: (1) Destruction or
deterioration of habitat by construction; (2) filling of caves and
karst features and loss of permeable cover; (3) contamination from
septic effluent, sewer leaks, runoff, pesticides, and other sources;
(4) exotic species, especially nonnative fire ants (Solenopsis
invicta); and (5) vandalism (USFWS 1994; 2000).
Flint Ridge Cave is located on the approximately 100-ha (300-ac)
Tabor Tract, purchased by the City of Austin under the Proposition 2
watershed protection program. The cave is hydrologically significant,
draining a relatively large area of runoff into the Edwards Aquifer
(Veni 2000).
The petition states that the proposed construction and operation of
State Highway (SH) 45 South threatens the survival of Cicurina cueva.
The petition describes possible roadway impacts from increased
sedimentation, blasting, petrochemical contamination, and herbicide and
pesticide use for right-of way maintenance. The petition also refers to
another case where habitat for the endangered cave spider Neoleptoneta
myopica may be threatened by the cave's proximity to a new highway
(Elliot and Reddell 1989). In a letter to the Service dated August 6,
2003, the Texas Department of Transportation (Texas DOT) stated they
have ``never considered blasting for this project, it is not necessary
and will not be allowed.''
The petition states that Flint Ridge Cave is being negatively
affected by SH 45 South prior to highway construction. It states that
during pre-construction activities for SH 45 South, a contractor for
the Texas DOT excavated a soil sampling pit within 30.5-m (100-ft) of
the entrance to Flint Ridge Cave on City of Austin property against the
expressed wishes of the City (cited in the petition as William Conrad,
pers. comm., 2003).
In 1998, Travis County acquired an easement on the Tabor Tract as
right-of-way for the construction and operation of SH 45 South, which
will connect two major roadways, Interstate 35 and MOPAC. While the
exact alignment of the roadway within the acquired right-of-way has not
yet been determined, the entrance to Flint Ridge Cave is about 30-m
(100-ft) down-gradient of the right-of-way, which also overlies a
portion of the cave's footprint (Mike Walker, Texas DOT, pers. comm.
August 6, 2003). A significant portion of the cave's extensive surface
drainage area is bisected by the right-of-way for the proposed SH 45
South project. Veni (2000) delineated an approximately 16-ha (40-ac)
surface drainage area associated with the cave. However, recent field
surveys by the City of Austin indicate that the surface drainage area
associated with Flint Ridge Cave could be approximately 22-ha (54-ac)
(Nico Hauwert, City of Austin, pers. comm., August 13, 2003). The
right-of-way also overlies an approximately 6.9-ha (17-ac) subsurface
drainage basin associated with the cave as estimated by Veni (2000).
The petition indicates that there are no ``best management
practices'' that could be proposed for use that would be 100 percent
efficient at removing all contaminants and state that ``contamination
of cave sediments is inevitable, and leaks or spills will be an ever
present risk.'' Information in our files indicates that any runoff not
diverted away from the cave or which leaks or spills past diversion
structures has the possibility of introducing potentially significant
levels of contaminations that may harm the quality of groundwater in
the Edwards Aquifer and the Flint Ridge Cave ecosystem (Veni 2000). The
petition further states that ``best management practices'' alter the
hydrological regime of their drainage basins, so the delicate balance
of humidity and moisture in the cave would be threatened.'' The
petition indicates that because cave-adapted species require high
humidity, alteration of the hydrologic regime may result in decreased
humidity in the cave which may impact these species, including Cicurina
cueva.
The petition also describes possible threats to Cicurina cueva in
Cave X. The petition states that the Regent's School has submitted a
development plan to the City of Austin for construction of buildings,
expansion of a parking lot, and expansion of a water quality pond. It
further states that the habitat in Cave X may presently be degraded and
may face further degradation due to the minimal buffer between the cave
entrance and existing development, a road that goes over the cave, and
plans for further development. There is a fence about 18-m (20-yards)
from the gated cave entrance between the Regents' School property and a
residential subdivision (cited in petition as Russell, pers. comm.,
2003).
[[Page 5126]]
However, information in our files indicates that in November 1999,
as part of an agreement with the City of Austin to protect recharge to
the Edwards Aquifer, the Regents School established two legally-
recorded setbacks associated with the cave, an approximately 0.61-ha
(1.5-ac) area around the cave entrance and an approximately 1-ha (3-ac)
area containing the majority of the cave's footprint. As noted in
factor D below, the agreement between the City of Austin and the
Regents School was implemented primarily for the protection of the
federally-listed Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum), which is
dependent on the Edwards Aquifer, and may not adequately protect the
integrity of the cave environment for long-term conservation of
Cicurina cueva and other rare troglobitic species. The setback areas do
not include the extent of the surface drainage area associated with
Cave X. The extent of the groundwater (subsurface) drainage basin
associated with the cave has not been determined, and, therefore, it is
uncertain whether or not it is contained within the set-back areas.
Both set-back areas are adjacent to existing development and are
separated by a one-lane paved road that overlies a portion of the cave
footprint. According to the legally-recorded restrictive covenant for
the property, this road is only accessible to emergency vehicles and
water quality pond maintenance crews. Cave crickets have been found
foraging within 50-m (164-ft) of and up to 95-m (311-ft) from caves and
other karst features in Central Texas (Elliott 1994; Steve Taylor,
Illinois Natural History Survey, pers. comm., 2002). The foraging area
around the cave entrance has been largely reduced to the 0.61-ha (1.5-
ac) set-back area, which is adjacent to a subdivision on one side and a
one-lane road on the other. The lot lines of this subdivision lie less
than 10-m (40-ft) from the cave entrance. A portion of this 10-m (33-
ft) area also serves as a utility easement developed with utility
poles, and water and wastewater lines. The 1-ha (3-ac) setback area
allows for a larger foraging area for cave crickets accessing the cave
through other karst features. The school's future plans include
construction of four (the petition said three) new buildings, all
located adjacent to one of the cave's two setback areas (September 5,
2003, meeting notes in Service's files).
Information in our files indicates that surface drainage to Cave X
is generally toward the southeast, with some drainage coming from the
Travis County Subdivision (Nico Hauwert, City of Austin, pers. comm.,
August 13, 2003). The natural drainage pattern may have been altered
due to the construction of the road, which was constructed at a higher
elevation than the cave entrance and the construction of the
subdivision (Nico Hauwert and Mark Sanders, City of Austin, pers.
comm., August 13, 2003).
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition did not provide any information pertaining to Factor
B. Information in our files indicates this species is of little
interest in the insect trade or to amateur collectors. They are
collected occasionally by scientists conducting studies of cave fauna.
The City of Austin, who owns and manages Flint Ridge Cave, limits the
access into the cave to research personnel. The Regents School, which
owns and manages Cave X, occasionally allows fire department personnel
to access the cave to conduct cave rescue training. Access for
recreational caving and educational purposes is prohibited in both
Flint Ridge Cave and Cave X.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
The petition identifies imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) as
a threat to Cicurina cueva. The petition says this fire ant, which was
introduced to the southeastern United States from Brazil, started
colonizing karst areas of Central Texas in the late 1980s (Elliot
1993). Invasion of imported fire ants causes devastating and long-
lasting impacts on arthropod species and threatens their biodiversity
(Porter and Savignano 1990). Increases in imported fire ants have lead
to 40% reduction in arthropod species in some instances. Imported fire
ants will consume a wide variety of plants and animals (Vinson and
Sorensen 1986).
Information in our files indicates that, in addition to preying on
cave invertebrate species, including cave crickets, fire ants may
compete with cave crickets for food (Elliott 1994; Helf in litt. 2002).
Helf (in litt. 2002) states that competition for food between fire ants
and cave crickets (Ceuthophilus secretus) may be a more important
interaction between these species than predation. The presence of fire
ants in and around karst areas could have a drastic detrimental effect
on the karst ecosystem through loss of or reduction in both surface and
subsurface species that are critical links in the food chain. The
invasion of fire ants is known to be aided by ``any disturbance that
clears a site of heavy vegetation and disrupts the native ant
community'' (Porter et al. 1988).
The petition indicates that proposed SH 45 South would result in
invasion of fire ants into habitat of Cicurina cueva in Flint Ridge
Cave because construction of SH 45 South will disturb soil and
vegetation near the entrance to the cave, creating conditions that
favor fire ant invasion. The petition also states that after
construction, State Highway 45 South and its shoulders and right-of-way
will contribute to fire ant habitat because the land is disturbed and
there is a steady supply of food from litter thrown from cars and
insects killed by cars.
The petition also says existence of a residential subdivision and a
school near Cave X increases the probability of fire ant invasion
because fire ants are attracted by disturbance of natural vegetation,
food debris, trash, and electrical lines, and that cave setbacks at
Cave X on the Regents School site are insufficient to stop fire ant
infestation.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition states ``existing rules and regulations enacted by the
City of Austin, Travis County, and the State of Texas are inadequate to
protect Cicurina cueva. State guidelines allow for plugging or filling
of caves and karst features, which can significantly alter and disturb
drainage and recharge patterns that affect temperature, humidity, and
food webs of cave ecosystems.'' The Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (formerly Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission) does
not require surveys for invertebrate species in karst assessments. The
petition states that ``Hundreds of potential karst features have been
identified in the right-of-way for State Highway 45 South, including
Flint Ridge Cave's drainage basin. Many of these karst features will be
paved over, possibly blocking recharge to Flint Ridge Cave.''
An Incidental Take Permit issued pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Act was issued to the City of Austin and Travis County on May 2,
1996. Both Cave X and Flint Ridge Cave are listed on the permit and the
associated Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan (BCCP) as caves
containing species of concern, including Circurina cueva (a covered
species under this permit). Under the permit, the City of Austin and
Travis County are required to acquire and manage Cave X and Flint Ridge
Cave, or implement formal management agreements adequate to preserve
the environmental integrity of these caves, to get authorization for
incidental take of this species in other caves if this species is
federally-listed in the future.
[[Page 5127]]
However, in their 2000, 2001, and 2002 annual permit reports, the City
of Austin/Travis County recognize that many buffer areas associated
with caves currently ``protected'' under the BCCP are not large enough
to adequately protect the caves and do not have adequate buffer areas
surrounding the caves to meet species needs, as indicated by
information assembled by the Service in 2001 (Travis County and City of
Austin 2000; 2001; 2002). Take of this species is not prohibited since
the species is not listed.
The petition cites the 2000 BCCP Annual Report as saying the status
of Cave X is described as ``unknown, new agreement not working smoothly
yet.'' The petition also says that per the Texas Cave Management
Association, the agreement is inadequate to protect the cave (cited in
petition as Julie Jenkins, pers. comm., 2003). The 2001 BCCP Annual
Report states that because species of concern, such as Cicurina cueva,
are not federally listed as endangered, many of the caves supporting
species of concern are severely threatened.
In addition to the information in the petition, information in our
files indicates the City of Austin entered into an agreement with the
Regents School in November 1999, establishing two legally recorded
setbacks associated with Cave X: an approximately 0.61-ha (1.5-ac) area
around the cave entrance and an approximately 1-ha (3-ac) area
containing the majority of the cave's footprint. Under the agreement,
the Regents School was allowed to construct an approximately one-lane
paved road accessible only to emergency vehicles and water quality pond
maintenance crews over a portion of the cave's footprint. The setback
areas do not include the extent of the surface drainage area associated
with Cave X. The extent of the groundwater (subsurface) drainage basin
associated with the cave has not been determined, and, therefore, it is
uncertain whether or not it is contained within the set-back areas.
Under the agreement, the Regents School is responsible for monthly
inspections of the setback areas, which includes looking for evidence
of tampering or vandalism, removing any accumulated trash or debris, or
presence of potentially toxic materials. They are also responsible for
vegetation management and biannual fire ant control. The Regents School
gated the cave and fenced a small area around the cave entrance to
protect it from unauthorized trespassing and vandalism, but no
additional management activities have been conducted to date (Charles
Evans, Headmaster, Regents School, pers. comm., August 15, 2003). The
agreement between the City of Austin and the Regents School was
implemented primarily for the protection of the federally-listed Barton
Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum), which is dependent on the Edwards
Aquifer, and may not adequately protect the integrity of the cave
environment for long-term conservation of Cicurina cueva and other rare
troglobitic species.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
The petition contends that the following three features of this
species make it vulnerable to extinction: (1) The narrowly limited
distribution and small population size of Cicurina cueva make it more
vulnerable to alteration of habitat, loss of prey species, and failure
of reproduction; (2) the dissected and extremely faulted geology of the
Balcones Fault Zone makes travel between caves infeasible, therefore
dispersal opportunities and habitat selection are not available to this
species, resulting in small isolated populations; and, (3) the species
is reliant on stable environmental conditions. The petition points out
that troglobites have developed in unique cave ecosystems and require
high humidity and stable temperatures (Service 1994), and the petition
further states that ``Troglobites evolved over millions of years in
secluded, stable habitats.''
Information in our files also indicates that many caves in the
Austin metropolitan area have been subject to vandalism and trash
dumping. Cave X is protected by an animal-friendly cave gate. The cave
entrance area is also enclosed within a 1.8-m (6-ft) chain-linked
security fence. The City of Austin has gated the entrance to Flint
Ridge Cave (Dr. Kevin Thuesen, pers. comm. to Service, 2004). The City
of Austin's Tabor Tract, where Flint Ridge Cave is located, is
protected by five-strand barbed-wire fencing and ``No Trespassing''
signs.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the
petition, and information in our files. On the basis of our review, we
find that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that listing Cicurina cueva may be warranted.
The petition also requested that we emergency list Cicurina cueva.
We have reviewed the available information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats pose immediate and urgent risks to the species'
continued existence. According to our Endangered Species Listing
Handbook (March 1994), ``Expected losses during the normal listing
process that would risk the continued existence of the entire listed
species are grounds for an emergency rule. The purpose of the emergency
rule provision of the Act is to prevent species from becoming extinct
by affording them immediate protection while the normal rulemaking
procedures are being followed.'' At this time, we are working with the
property owners of the two known locations to determine what
conservation measures are needed to protect the species at their sites.
Texas DOT and the Regents School have indicated an interest in avoiding
or minimizing impacts to the species. Texas DOT is working on a re-
design of the project to a six-lane rather than a four-lane highway and
expects to submit a Biological Evaluation to the Service in October or
November 2005 (Mike Walker, pers. comm. to the Service, 2004). In
comments hand-delivered to the Service on August 6, 2003, Texas DOT
said ``it is not possible to award any construction contracts until all
coordination with resource agencies, including the [Service], has been
completed.'' The Regents School of Austin owns Cave X, and they are
working on a management plan and a conservation agreement to provide
conservation measures that would protect Cicurina cueva on their
property.
Based on the willingness of these two parties to work with us to
identify conservation measures that will provide for the long-term
survival of the species at the two known sites and the project schedule
provided to us by Texas DOT, we believe the available information
indicates that an emergency listing action is not necessary at this
time. This decision is based on our understanding of the immediacy of
potential threats to Cicurina cueva at its two known locations.
However, if at any time we determine that emergency listing of Cicurina
cueva is warranted, we will seek to initiate the appropriate protective
measures.
The petitioners also requested that critical habitat be designated
for this species. We always consider the need for critical habitat
designation when listing species. If we determine in our 12-month
finding that listing Cicurina cueva is warranted, we will address the
designation of critical habitat in the subsequent proposed rule.
[[Page 5128]]
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section above).
Author
The primary authors of this document are staff at the Austin
Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: January 26, 2005.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-1765 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P