Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5123

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.

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 § 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 

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 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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-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 

entrance to Flint Ridge Cave is about 30-

m (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 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-ofway 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). 

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 (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-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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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) 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 

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. 

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

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Public hearings; request for 

comments.

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.

• Federal e-Rulemaking: http://

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 

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; 985-879-

4871;

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; 409-744-

1500; 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