Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Warton's Cave Meshweaver as Endangered or Threatened, 47413-47415 [2014-19089]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
§ 1149.66 How does the authority head
dispose of an appeal?
Section 3805 of title 31, United States
Code, authorizes Judicial review by the
appropriate United States District Court
of any final NEA decision by the
authority head imposing penalties or
assessments under this part. To obtain
judicial review, you must file a petition
with the appropriate court in a timely
manner. (See paragraphs (a) through (e)
of 31 U.S.C. 3805 for a description of
how judicial review is authorized.)
(b) The Attorney General is
responsible for judicial enforcement of
civil penalties or assessments imposed.
He/she has exclusive authority to
compromise or settle any penalty or
assessment during the pendency of any
action to collect penalties or
assessments under 31 U.S.C. 3806.
(c) Penalties or assessments imposed
by a final decision may be recovered in
a civil action brought by the Attorney
General.
(1) The district courts of the United
States have jurisdiction of such civil
actions.
(2) The United States Court of Federal
Claims has jurisdiction of any civil
action to recover any penalty or
assessment if the cause of action is
asserted by the government as a
counterclaim in a matter pending in
such court.
(3) Civil actions may be joined and
consolidated with or asserted as a
counterclaim, cross-claim, or set off by
the government in any other civil action
which includes you and the government
as parties.
(4) Defenses raised at the hearing, or
that could have been raised, may not be
raised as a defense in the civil action.
Determination of liability and of the
amounts of penalties and assessments
must not be subject to review.
§ 1149.69 Can the administrative
complaint be settled voluntarily?
(a) Parties may make offers of
compromise or settlement at any time.
Any compromise or settlement must be
in writing.
(b) The reviewing official has the
exclusive authority to compromise or
settle the case anytime after the date on
which the reviewing official is
permitted to issue a complaint and
before the ALJ issues an initial decision.
(c) The authority head has exclusive
authority to compromise or settle the
case anytime after the date of the ALJ’s
initial decision until the initiation of
any judicial review or any action to
collect the penalties and assessments.
(d) The Attorney General has
exclusive authority to compromise or
settle a case once any judicial review or
any action to recover penalties and
assessments is initiated.
(e) The investigating official may
recommend settlement terms to the
reviewing official, the authority head, or
the Attorney General, as appropriate.
§ 1149.71
offset?
The amount of any penalty or
assessment which has become final, or
for which a judgment has been entered,
or any amount agreed upon in a
compromise or settlement, may be
collected by administrative offset,
except that an administrative offset may
not be made under this subsection
against a refund of an overpayment of
Federal taxes, then or later owing by the
United States to you.
(a) The authority head may affirm,
reduce, reverse, compromise, remand,
or settle any penalty or assessment
imposed by the ALJ in the initial
decision or reconsideration decision.
(b) The authority head will promptly
serve each party to the appeal and the
ALJ with a copy of his or her decision.
This decision must contain a statement
describing the right of any person,
against whom a penalty or assessment
has been made, to seek judicial review.
§ 1149.67
appeal?
Who represents the NEA on an
The authority head will designate the
NEA’s representative in the event of an
appeal.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 1149.68 What judicial review is
available?
§ 1149.70 How are civil penalties and
assessments collected?
(a) Civil actions to recover penalties
or assessments must commence within
3 years after the date of a final decision
determining your liability.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Aug 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
§ 1149.72
Is there a right to administrative
What happens to collections?
All amounts collected pursuant to this
part must be deposited as miscellaneous
receipts in the Treasury of the United
States.
§ 1149.73 What if the investigation
indicates criminal misconduct or a violation
of the False Claims Act?
(a) Investigating officials may:
(1) Refer allegations of criminal
misconduct or a violation of the False
Claims Act directly to the Department of
Justice for prosecution and/or civil
action, as appropriate;
(2) Defer or postpone a report or
referral to the reviewing official to avoid
interference with a criminal or civil
investigation, prosecution or litigation;
or
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47413
(3) Issue subpoenas under any other
statutory authority.
(b) Nothing in this part limits the
requirement that NEA employees report
suspected false or fraudulent conduct,
claims or statements, and violations of
criminal law to the NEA Office of
Inspector General or to the Attorney
General.
§ 1149.74
rights?
How does the NEA protect your
These procedures separate the
functions of the investigating official,
reviewing official, and the ALJ, each of
whom report to a separate
organizational authority. Except for
purposes of settlement, or as a witness
or a representative in public
proceedings, no investigating official,
reviewing official, or NEA employee or
agent who helps investigate, prepare, or
present a case may (in such case, or a
factually related case) participate in the
initial decision or the review of the
initial decision by the authority head.
This separation of functions and
organization is designed to assure the
independence and impartiality of each
government official during every stage
of the proceeding. The representative for
the NEA may be employed in the offices
of either the investigating official or the
reviewing official.
Dated: July 30, 2014.
India J. Pinkney,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014–19034 Filed 8–12–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2014–0026;
4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List the Warton’s Cave
Meshweaver as Endangered or
Threatened
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list the Warton’s
cave meshweaver (Cicurina wartoni) as
an endangered or threatened species
and to designate critical habitat under
the Endangered Species Act (Act) of
1973, as amended. After a review of the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
47414
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
best available scientific information, we
find that C. wartoni is not a distinct
species. Therefore, we find that C.
wartoni is not a listable entity under the
Act and does not warrant listing as an
endangered or threatened species. As a
result, we are removing this species
from the candidate list. However, we
ask the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available at
any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on August 13,
2014.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R2–ES–2014–0026. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological
Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet
Road, Suite #200, Austin, TX 78758.
Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above
street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin
Ecological Services Field Office, 10711
Burnet Road, Suite #200, Austin, TX
78758; telephone 512–490–0057;
facsimile 512–490–0974. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act (Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
requires that, for any petition to revise
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that
contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing the
species may be warranted, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) make a
finding within 12 months of the date of
receipt of the petition. In this finding,
we determine that the petitioned action
is: (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or
(3) warranted, but the immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing
the petitioned action is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine
whether species are endangered or
threatened, and expeditious progress is
being made to add or remove qualified
species from the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that we treat a petition for
which the requested action is found to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Aug 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
be warranted but precluded as though
resubmitted on the date of such finding,
that is, requiring a subsequent finding to
be made within 12 months. We must
publish these 12-month findings in the
Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
The Service identified Cicurina
wartoni as a candidate for listing in the
November 15, 1994, Animal Candidate
Review for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened Species (59 FR 58982).
Candidate species are species for which
we have sufficient information on file to
support a proposal to list as an
endangered or threatened species, but
for which preparation and publication
of a proposal are precluded by higher
priority listing actions. Cicurina wartoni
was included in subsequent annual
Candidate Notices of Reviews through
2013 (59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994;
61 FR 7596, February 28, 1996; 62 FR
49397, September 19, 1997; 64 FR
57534, October 25, 1999; 66 FR 54807,
October 30, 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13,
2002; 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR
24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756,
September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034,
December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176,
December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804,
November 9, 2009; and 75 FR 69222,
November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370,
October 26, 2011; November 21, 2012,
77 FR 69994; and November 22, 2013,
78 FR 70104).
On May 11, 2004, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity requesting that Cicurina
wartoni be listed as an endangered or
threatened species and that critical
habitat be designated under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such
and included the requisite identification
information required at 50 CFR
424.14(a). Even though we already
determined the species met the
definition of a candidate species, we are
required to address petitions and make
the appropriate findings. We made a
positive 90-day finding that the petition
presented substantial information
indicating that listing may be warranted,
and we subsequently made a positive
12-month finding (70 FR 24869 at
24907, May 11, 2005) indicating that
listing was warranted, but was
precluded by higher priority listing
actions, including court-approved
settlements, court-ordered and statutory
deadlines for petition findings and
listing determinations, emergency
listing determinations, and responses to
litigation that continue to preclude the
proposed and final listing rules for this
species. The May 11, 2004, petition was
consolidated with several other cases
filed by the Center for Biological
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Diversity or WildEarth Guardians
relating to petition finding deadlines. A
multi-district litigation settlement
agreement with these cases was
approved by the court on September 9,
2011, in In re Endangered Species Act
Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–
377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C.
May 10, 2011). This not-warranted 12month finding fulfills that requirement
of the multi-district litigation settlement
agreement for C. wartoni.
Species Information
This section summarizes the
information we evaluated to determine
that Cicurina wartoni is not a species or
subspecies and cannot be listed as such
under the Act, and that, therefore, it
must be removed from the candidate
list. Several entities of spiders
referenced in this finding do not have
common names. Consequently, we are
using Latin names in this finding for the
purposes of clarity in the genetics and
taxonomy discussions. However, the use
of the Latin name, C. wartoni, is not
meant to imply that it is a valid species,
but only used for clarity.
Cicurina wartoni is an eyeless, caveendemic spider known only from a
single geographic location, a privately
owned, shallow cave known as Pickle
Pit, in Travis County, Texas (Gertsch
1992). It is in the family Dictynidae
(meshweavers), genus Cicurina, and
subgenus Cicurella. Cicurina derived
from surface-dwelling ancestors with
eight eyes (typically), and are mostly
smaller than their ancestors and are
progressively losing or have lost their
eyes (Gertsch 1992, pp. 75–76, 79, 97).
Cicurina wartoni was first collected
from Pickle Pit in Travis County, Texas,
in 1990 by James Reddell, Marcelino
Reyes, and Lee Sherrod and described
by Gertsch (1992, p. 101). Gertsch
recognized the species as distinct based
on the epigynal (female reproductive
organs used for identifying the species)
morphology of a single adult female
specimen. Paquin and Hedin (2004, pp.
3,239–3,240) conducted genetic studies
on three other species of cave-dwelling,
blind Cicurina meshweavers occurring
in southern Travis and northern Hays
Counties, Texas, to develop genetic
assessment techniques for species-level
identification of immature specimens of
blind Cicurina spiders. At the time, the
owners of Pickle Pit did not grant access
to the researchers; consequently,
specimens from this location could not
be included in that study.
´ ´
Paquin and Duperre (2009, p. 55)
examined a voucher specimen (an
animal preserved for scientific use) from
Pickle Pit at the American Museum of
Natural History and, in greater detail
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
than previously done, redescribed the
morphology of the specimen (e.g.,
carapace (body) length, leg length, etc.)
and reillustrated the epigynum (female
reproductive organs used for identifying
the species). Based on this more
detailed comparison, Paquin and
´ ´
Duperre (2009, p. 55) suggested that C.
wartoni should be synonymized with or
considered part of C. buwata (no
´ ´
common name). Paquin and Duperre
(2009, p. 55) also suggested that C.
reddelli (no common name) and C.
travisae (no common name) should be
synonymized with C. buwata because
there are only minor variations in the
epigynum of these species and they
occur in close proximity to one another
´ ´
(Paquin and Duperre 2009, pp. 99, 101).
Access to Pickle Pit was granted on
November 22, 2011, March 26, 2012,
and April 26, 2013. During those site
visits, three immature blind Cicurina
specimens were collected. Hedin (2014,
entire) reevaluated the taxonomic status
of Cicurina wartoni. Hedin (2014, pp. 2,
3, 5–6, 8, 12) employed several rigorous
analytical methods (genetic and
morphological) to test species limits.
Hedin (2014, entire) analyzed multiple
genes (one mitochondrial gene and eight
nuclear genes) and the reproductive
morphology. This study compared
specimens from Pickle Pit to specimens
from 27 regional caves, plus a handful
of samples from outside the region of
interest. Based on this analysis, Hedin
(2014, pp. 7–8) found that C. wartoni is
not a distinct species. Rather, Hedin
(pp. 8–9) recommends that C. wartoni,
C. travisae, and C. reddelli should all be
considered a single taxonomic entity
until formal taxonomic changes can be
published.
We requested a peer review of Hedin
(2014) from five individuals with
expertise in arachnology, genetics, or
cave ecology to assess whether the
conclusions were scientifically sound.
We received three responses, which all
supported the conclusions of Hedin
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Aug 12, 2014
Jkt 232001
(2014). In addition, we conducted
internal Service review by our
Conservation Genetics Laboratory, who
supported the conclusions of Hedin
(2014).
Evaluation of Listable Entity
Under the Act, the term ‘‘species’’
includes ‘‘any subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature’’ (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)).
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, the taxonomic entity that
was known as Cicurina wartoni is not a
distinct species (Hedin 2014, pp. 7–8).
Therefore, we conclude that C. wartoni
does not meet the definition of a species
under section 3(16) of the Act.
Additionally, invertebrates are
precluded by statute from distinct
population segment consideration.
Therefore, we conclude that the
petitioned entity does not constitute a
listable entity and cannot be listed
under the Act.
Finding
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for
any petition to revise the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants that contains substantial
scientific or commercial information
that listing the species may be
warranted, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of receipt of the
petition. In this finding, we determine
that the petitioned action is: (1) Not
warranted, (2) warranted, or (3)
warranted, but the immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether
species are endangered or threatened,
and expeditious progress is being made
to add or remove qualified species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
47415
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
the Act, a species is defined as
including any subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532).
Based on the best scientific and
commercial information available,
Cicurina wartoni does not meet the
definition of a ‘‘species’’ and is,
therefore, not a listable entity under the
Act because Cicurina wartoni is not
itself a valid species or subspecies. As
an invertebrate, C. wartoni cannot be
considered under the Act’s distinct
population segment provisions.
Therefore, we find C. wartoni is not a
valid taxonomic entity and does not
meet the definition of a species or
subspecies under the Act, and further
does not warrant listing under the Act.
As a result, we are removing this species
from the candidate list.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R2–ES–2014–0026 and upon
request from the Austin Ecological
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
staff members of the Austin Ecological
Services Field Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: July 24, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–19089 Filed 8–12–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47413-47415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19089]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0026; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Warton's Cave Meshweaver as Endangered or
Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list the Warton's cave meshweaver (Cicurina
wartoni) as an endangered or threatened species and to designate
critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as
amended. After a review of the
[[Page 47414]]
best available scientific information, we find that C. wartoni is not a
distinct species. Therefore, we find that C. wartoni is not a listable
entity under the Act and does not warrant listing as an endangered or
threatened species. As a result, we are removing this species from the
candidate list. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 13,
2014.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2014-0026. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office,
10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758. Please submit
any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office,
10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512-
490-0057; facsimile 512-490-0974. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act, 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains
substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the
species may be warranted, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition.
In this finding, we determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not
warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Previous Federal Actions
The Service identified Cicurina wartoni as a candidate for listing
in the November 15, 1994, Animal Candidate Review for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species (59 FR 58982). Candidate species are
species for which we have sufficient information on file to support a
proposal to list as an endangered or threatened species, but for which
preparation and publication of a proposal are precluded by higher
priority listing actions. Cicurina wartoni was included in subsequent
annual Candidate Notices of Reviews through 2013 (59 FR 58982, November
15, 1994; 61 FR 7596, February 28, 1996; 62 FR 49397, September 19,
1997; 64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999; 66 FR 54807, October 30, 2001; 67
FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May 11,
2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007;
73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; and 75
FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; November
21, 2012, 77 FR 69994; and November 22, 2013, 78 FR 70104).
On May 11, 2004, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity requesting that Cicurina wartoni be listed as an
endangered or threatened species and that critical habitat be
designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as
such and included the requisite identification information required at
50 CFR 424.14(a). Even though we already determined the species met the
definition of a candidate species, we are required to address petitions
and make the appropriate findings. We made a positive 90-day finding
that the petition presented substantial information indicating that
listing may be warranted, and we subsequently made a positive 12-month
finding (70 FR 24869 at 24907, May 11, 2005) indicating that listing
was warranted, but was precluded by higher priority listing actions,
including court-approved settlements, court-ordered and statutory
deadlines for petition findings and listing determinations, emergency
listing determinations, and responses to litigation that continue to
preclude the proposed and final listing rules for this species. The May
11, 2004, petition was consolidated with several other cases filed by
the Center for Biological Diversity or WildEarth Guardians relating to
petition finding deadlines. A multi-district litigation settlement
agreement with these cases was approved by the court on September 9,
2011, in In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation,
No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011). This not-
warranted 12-month finding fulfills that requirement of the multi-
district litigation settlement agreement for C. wartoni.
Species Information
This section summarizes the information we evaluated to determine
that Cicurina wartoni is not a species or subspecies and cannot be
listed as such under the Act, and that, therefore, it must be removed
from the candidate list. Several entities of spiders referenced in this
finding do not have common names. Consequently, we are using Latin
names in this finding for the purposes of clarity in the genetics and
taxonomy discussions. However, the use of the Latin name, C. wartoni,
is not meant to imply that it is a valid species, but only used for
clarity.
Cicurina wartoni is an eyeless, cave-endemic spider known only from
a single geographic location, a privately owned, shallow cave known as
Pickle Pit, in Travis County, Texas (Gertsch 1992). It is in the family
Dictynidae (meshweavers), genus Cicurina, and subgenus Cicurella.
Cicurina derived from surface-dwelling ancestors with eight eyes
(typically), and are mostly smaller than their ancestors and are
progressively losing or have lost their eyes (Gertsch 1992, pp. 75-76,
79, 97). Cicurina wartoni was first collected from Pickle Pit in Travis
County, Texas, in 1990 by James Reddell, Marcelino Reyes, and Lee
Sherrod and described by Gertsch (1992, p. 101). Gertsch recognized the
species as distinct based on the epigynal (female reproductive organs
used for identifying the species) morphology of a single adult female
specimen. Paquin and Hedin (2004, pp. 3,239-3,240) conducted genetic
studies on three other species of cave-dwelling, blind Cicurina
meshweavers occurring in southern Travis and northern Hays Counties,
Texas, to develop genetic assessment techniques for species-level
identification of immature specimens of blind Cicurina spiders. At the
time, the owners of Pickle Pit did not grant access to the researchers;
consequently, specimens from this location could not be included in
that study.
Paquin and Dup[eacute]rr[eacute] (2009, p. 55) examined a voucher
specimen (an animal preserved for scientific use) from Pickle Pit at
the American Museum of Natural History and, in greater detail
[[Page 47415]]
than previously done, redescribed the morphology of the specimen (e.g.,
carapace (body) length, leg length, etc.) and reillustrated the
epigynum (female reproductive organs used for identifying the species).
Based on this more detailed comparison, Paquin and
Dup[eacute]rr[eacute] (2009, p. 55) suggested that C. wartoni should be
synonymized with or considered part of C. buwata (no common name).
Paquin and Dup[eacute]rr[eacute] (2009, p. 55) also suggested that C.
reddelli (no common name) and C. travisae (no common name) should be
synonymized with C. buwata because there are only minor variations in
the epigynum of these species and they occur in close proximity to one
another (Paquin and Dup[eacute]rr[eacute] 2009, pp. 99, 101).
Access to Pickle Pit was granted on November 22, 2011, March 26,
2012, and April 26, 2013. During those site visits, three immature
blind Cicurina specimens were collected. Hedin (2014, entire)
reevaluated the taxonomic status of Cicurina wartoni. Hedin (2014, pp.
2, 3, 5-6, 8, 12) employed several rigorous analytical methods (genetic
and morphological) to test species limits. Hedin (2014, entire)
analyzed multiple genes (one mitochondrial gene and eight nuclear
genes) and the reproductive morphology. This study compared specimens
from Pickle Pit to specimens from 27 regional caves, plus a handful of
samples from outside the region of interest. Based on this analysis,
Hedin (2014, pp. 7-8) found that C. wartoni is not a distinct species.
Rather, Hedin (pp. 8-9) recommends that C. wartoni, C. travisae, and C.
reddelli should all be considered a single taxonomic entity until
formal taxonomic changes can be published.
We requested a peer review of Hedin (2014) from five individuals
with expertise in arachnology, genetics, or cave ecology to assess
whether the conclusions were scientifically sound. We received three
responses, which all supported the conclusions of Hedin (2014). In
addition, we conducted internal Service review by our Conservation
Genetics Laboratory, who supported the conclusions of Hedin (2014).
Evaluation of Listable Entity
Under the Act, the term ``species'' includes ``any subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature''
(16 U.S.C. 1532(16)).
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, the taxonomic entity that was known as Cicurina wartoni is
not a distinct species (Hedin 2014, pp. 7-8). Therefore, we conclude
that C. wartoni does not meet the definition of a species under section
3(16) of the Act. Additionally, invertebrates are precluded by statute
from distinct population segment consideration. Therefore, we conclude
that the petitioned entity does not constitute a listable entity and
cannot be listed under the Act.
Finding
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition.
In this finding, we determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not
warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Under the Act, a species is defined as including
any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
Cicurina wartoni does not meet the definition of a ``species'' and is,
therefore, not a listable entity under the Act because Cicurina wartoni
is not itself a valid species or subspecies. As an invertebrate, C.
wartoni cannot be considered under the Act's distinct population
segment provisions. Therefore, we find C. wartoni is not a valid
taxonomic entity and does not meet the definition of a species or
subspecies under the Act, and further does not warrant listing under
the Act. As a result, we are removing this species from the candidate
list.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2014-0026 and
upon request from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Austin
Ecological Services Field Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 24, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19089 Filed 8-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
