30990 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

first-round 2015 NUSA allowance review in response to this petition. requesting that we remove the allocations that will be made to new However, we ask the public to submit to endangered Bone Cave harvestman from units in that state, assuming there are no us any new information that becomes the Federal lists of endangered and corrections to the data, and (3) the available concerning the status of, or threatened species. The petition clearly quantity of allowances that would threats to, the Bone Cave harvestman or identified itself as a petition and remain in the 2015 NUSA for use in its habitat at any time. included the requisite identification second-round allocations to new units DATES: The finding announced in this information for the petitioners, as (or ultimately for allocation to existing document was made on June 1, 2015. required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). This units), again assuming there are no ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition are finding addresses the petition. corrections to the data. available in the docket associated with Objections should be strictly limited this notice at http:// Previous Federal Actions to the data and calculations upon which www.regulations.gov and at http:// The Bone Cave harvestman was the NUSA allowance allocations are fws.gov/southwest/es/austintexas/ or based and should be emailed to the originally listed as endangered on upon request from the Field Supervisor September 16, 1988 (53 FR 36029). In an address identified in ADDRESSES. of the Austin Ecological Services Field August 18, 1993, Federal Register Objections must include: (1) Precise Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, document (58 FR 43818), the Service identification of the specific data and/or Austin, TX 78758. calculations the commenter believes are gave the Bone Cave harvestman FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: inaccurate, (2) new proposed data and/ protection under the Act as a separate Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, or calculations upon which the species. It had previously been listed as Austin Ecological Services Field Office, commenter believes EPA should rely endangered as a part of the Bee Creek 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, instead to determine allowance TX 78758; by telephone at 512–490– Cave harvestman (Texella reddelli), allocations, and (3) the reasons why 0057; or by facsimile at 512–490–0974. which was subsequently re-classified EPA should rely on the commenter’s If you use a telecommunications device into two species, and this final rule set proposed data and/or calculations and for the deaf (TDD), please call the forth technical corrections to ensure that not the data referenced in this notice. Federal Information Relay Service the species continued to receive Authority: 40 CFR 97.411(b), 97.511(b), (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. protection under the Act. On March 14, 97.611(b), and 97.711(b). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1994, we published a 90-day finding (59 Dated: May 22, 2015. FR 11755) on a petition to delist the Background Reid P. Harvey, Bone Cave harvestman in which we Director, Clean Air Markets Division. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires found that the petition did not present [FR Doc. 2015–13031 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] that we make a finding on whether a substantial scientific or commercial petition to list, delist, or reclassify a BILLING CODE 6560–50–P information indicating that the species presents substantial scientific or petitioned action may have been commercial information indicating that warranted. A draft recovery plan was the petitioned action may be warranted. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR available for public review and We are to base this finding on comment on June 7, 1993, and a final Fish and Wildlife Service information provided in the petition, recovery plan was published on August supporting information submitted with 25, 1994 (Service 1994). On December 4, 50 CFR Part 17 the petition, and information otherwise 2009, we completed a 5-year review of available in our files. To the maximum the Bone Cave harvestman, which [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2015–0030; extent practicable, we are to make this FF09E42000 156 FXES11130900000] recommended that the species remain finding within 90 days of our receipt of listed as endangered (Service 2009). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the petition and publish our notice of and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a the finding promptly in the Federal Species Information Petition To Remove the Bone Cave Register. Our standard for substantial scientific For information on the biology and Harvestman (Texella reyesi) From the or commercial information within the life history of the Bone Cave List of Endangered and Threatened Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with harvestman, see the final rule listing Wildlife regard to a 90-day petition finding is this species (53 FR 36029), the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘that amount of information that would Endangered Karst Invertebrates Interior. lead a reasonable person to believe that Recovery Plan for Travis and ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition the measure proposed in the petition Williamson Counties (Service 1994), finding. may be warranted’’ (50 CFR and the 5-year Status Review for the 424.14(b)(1)). If we find that substantial Bone Cave Harvestman (Service 2009), SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and scientific or commercial information all posted at http://ecos.fws.gov/ Wildlife Service (Service), announce a was presented, we are required to speciesProfile/profile/ 90-day finding on a petition to remove promptly conduct a species status speciesProfile.action?spcode=J009. For the Bone Cave harvestman (Texella review, which we subsequently information on preserve design and reyesi) from the List of Endangered and summarize in a 12-month finding. management for karst invertebrate Threatened Wildlife under the species conservation, see the Karst Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Petition History Preserve Design Recommendations amended (Act). Based on our review, we On June 2, 2014, we received a find that the petition does not present petition from John Yearwood, Kathryn (Service 2012) and the Karst Preserve substantial scientific or commercial Heidemann, Charles and Cheryl Shell, Management and Monitoring information indicating that the the Walter Sidney Shell Management Recommendations (Service 2014) posted petitioned action may be warranted. Trust, the American Stewards of at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ _ _ Therefore, we are not initiating a status Liberty, and Steven W. Carothers AustinTexas/ESA Sp KarstInverts.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30991

Evaluation of Information for This In 2009, we conducted a 5-year status safety for a species to withstand Finding review of the Bone Cave harvestman catastrophic events (Service and NOAA Under section 3(16) of the Act, we (Service 2009). The purpose of a 5-year 2011, p. 76994) by decreasing the may consider for listing any species, status review is to evaluate whether or chance of any one event affecting the including subspecies, of fish, or not the species’ status has changed since entire species. Redundancy is about wildlife, or plants, and any distinct it was listed (or since the most recent 5- spreading risk and can be measured population segment (DPS) of any year review). Based on a 5-year review, through the duplication and distribution we recommend whether the species of resilient populations across the range species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that should be removed from the lists of of the species. interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. endangered and threatened species, be Representation is defined as 1532(16)). Such entities are listed under changed in status from endangered to conserving ‘‘some of everything’’ with the Act if we determine that they meet threatened, or be changed in status from regard to genetic and ecological the definition of an endangered or threatened to endangered. As part of the diversity to allow for future adaptation threatened species. 2009 Bone Cave harvestman review, we and maintenance of evolutionary Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) evaluated whether the species had met potential. Representation and the and its implementing regulations at 50 the recovery criteria laid out in the adaptive capabilities (Service and CFR 424 set forth the procedures for species’ recovery plan (Service 1994, NOAA 2011, p. 76994) of the Bone Cave adding a species to, or removing a pp. 86–89). harvestman are also important for long- species from, the lists of endangered Our recovery handbook (Service 2010) term viability. Because a species’ and threatened species. A species may points out that recovery criteria should genetic makeup is shaped through be determined to be an endangered or address the biodiversity principles of natural selection by the environments it threatened species due to one or more resiliency, redundancy, and has experienced (Shaffer and Stein of the five factors described in section representation (Schaffer and Stein 2000, p. 308), populations should be 4(a)(1) of the Act: 2000). protected in the array of different (A) The present or threatened Resiliency is defined as the ability of environments in which the invertebrate destruction, modification, or a species to persist through severe species occur as a strategy to ensure curtailment of its habitat or range; hardships or stochastic events (Tear et genetic representation, adaptive (B) Overutilization for commercial, al. 2005, p. 841). A variety of factors capability, and conservation of the recreational, scientific, or educational contribute to a species’ resiliency. These species. Generally, the more purposes; can include how sensitive the species is representation, or diversity, the species (C) Disease or predation; to disturbances or stressors in its has, the more it is capable of adapting (D) The inadequacy of existing environment, how often they reproduce to changes (natural or human caused) in regulatory mechanisms; or and how many young they have, and its environment. (E) Other natural or manmade factors their specific habitat needs. A species’ The recovery plan for the Bone Cave affecting its continued existence. resiliency can also be affected by the harvestman (Service 1994, pp. 86–88) We must consider these same five resiliency of individual populations and identifies criteria for reclassification factors in delisting a species. We may the number of populations and their (from endangered to threatened), but delist a species according to 50 CFR distribution across the landscape. does not include delisting criteria 424.11(d) if the best available scientific Protecting multiple populations and because we were uncertain about and commercial data indicate that the variation of a species across its range prospects for recovery and delisting of species is neither endangered nor may contribute to its resiliency, the species. These recovery criteria are threatened for the following reasons: especially if some populations or a way of measuring our progress toward (1) The species is extinct; habitats are more susceptible or better recovery. The recovery plan identifies (2) the species is recovered; or adapted to certain threats than others two criteria for reclassifying the species (3) the original data for classification (Service and NOAA 2011, p. 76994). from endangered to threatened: were in error. According to 50 CFR The ability of individuals from (1) Three karst fauna areas (if at least 424.11(d)(3), a species may be delisted populations to disperse and recolonize three exist) within each karst fauna when subsequent investigations ‘‘show an area that has been extirpated may region in its range are protected in that the best scientific and commercial also influence the species’ resiliency. As perpetuity. If fewer than three karst data available when the species was population size and habitat quality fauna areas exist within a given karst listed, or the interpretation of such data, increase, the population’s ability to fauna region, then all karst fauna areas were in error.’’ persist through periodic hardships also within that region should be protected. In making this 90-day finding, we increases. Healthy populations are more (2) Criterion (1) has been maintained evaluated whether the petition resilient and better able to withstand for at least 5 consecutive years with presented substantial information disturbances such as random assurances that these areas will remain indicating that the petitioned action fluctuations in birth rates (demographic protected in perpetuity. (delisting) may be warranted. stochasticity), and variation in rainfall There are six karst fauna regions in The petition did not assert that the and/or temperatures (environmental Travis and Williamson Counties that are Bone Cave harvestman is extinct, nor do stochasticity). known to contain the Bone Cave we have information in our files Redundancy is defined as ensuring a harvestman (Service 1994, p. 33): North indicating that the species is extinct. sufficient number of populations to Williamson, Georgetown, McNeil/ The petition asserted that new provide a margin of safety to reduce the Round Rock, Cedar Park, Jollyville information indicates that the original risk of losing a species or certain Plateau, and Central Austin. These data, or our interpretation of the data, representation (variation) within a regions are used as a way to facilitate used in the listing of this species were species due to catastrophic events or conservation of representation and in error. The petition also states that other threats. Redundancy is essential redundancy (as defined above) significant conservation has been put in for long-term viability (Shaffer and Stein throughout the species’ range. place since the species was listed, such 2000, pp. 307, 309–310; Groves et al. For the purposes of the recovery plan, that the species is recovered. 2002, p. 506). This provides a margin of a karst fauna area ‘‘is an area known to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 30992 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

support one or more locations of a listed representation of the breadth of its species and the ecosystems upon which species and is distinct in that it acts as genetic and ecological diversity to it depends. This method follows a a system that is separated from other conserve its adaptive capabilities precautionary approach, which provides karst fauna areas by geologic and (Schaffer and Stein 2000, p. 308). guidance to avert irreversible risk when hydrologic features and/or processes Adequate quality of habitat refers to facing uncertainty (Service 2012, that create barriers to the movement of (1) the condition and configuration of p. A–1). The best available scientific water, contaminants, and troglobitic preserved lands with respect to the information indicates that this species fauna’’ that live their entire lives known localities for the species and (2) cannot be reintroduced into existing underground (Service 1994, p. 76). Karst the ability of the species’ needs to be habitat. Life-history characteristics of fauna areas should be far enough apart met to sustain viable populations. Due this species indicate that it requires so that if a catastrophic event (for to the uncertainty in determining stable temperature and humidity (Barr example, contamination of the water population viability of the Bone Cave 1968, p. 47, Mitchell 1971, p. 250) and supply, flooding, disease) were to harvestman, the design of preserves for suggest that this species cannot be destroy one of the areas, that event its protection should be based on reintroduced because it cannot would not likely destroy any other area estimates and assumptions that favor a withstand surface climatic conditions. occupied by that species (Service 1994, high probability for recovery of this According to anecdotal reports p. 76). species and the ecosystems upon which provided to our field office, limited To be considered ‘‘protected,’’ a karst it depends as discussed below. efforts to maintain karst invertebrates in fauna area must be sufficiently large to The Endangered Karst Invertebrates a lab setting have been unsuccessful. maintain the integrity of the karst Recovery Plan for Travis and Additionally, captive propagation ecosystem on which the species Williamson Counties (Service 1994) techniques have not been developed for depends (Service 1994, p. 87). In calls for protecting karst fauna areas karst invertebrates and may be addition, these areas must also provide sufficiently large to maintain the challenging to develop because of their protection from threats such as red integrity of the karst ecosystem on specific adaptations to subterranean imported fire ants, habitat destruction, which the species depends. This focus environment. Further, the sample size and contaminants. on the ecosystem is consistent with the that would likely be needed to The overall recovery strategy for the purpose of the Act, which includes ‘‘to reintroduce a population into a new Bone Cave harvestman includes the provide a means whereby the ecosystem location cannot be obtained from perpetual protection and management of upon which endangered species and existing populations due to the cryptic an adequate quantity and quality of threatened species depend may be nature of this species and the fact that habitat (three karst fauna areas in each conserved.’’ Therefore, we recommend often only a few individuals are karst fauna regions) that spans the designing karst fauna area preserves to observed per cave survey. Therefore, an species’ geographic range and provides protect occupied karst feature(s) and attempt to re-establish a population after a high probability of the species’ associated mesocaverns (humanly it has been extirpated is not feasible at recovery and survival over the long impassable voids). For further guidance this time. In addition, if a preserve is term. Adequate quality (as discussed on how to provide for adequate quantity later found to be insufficient to support below) and quantity of habitat refers to and quality of habitat at specific the species due to surrounding both size and number of preserved karst invertebrate locations, we have developments being either too close or fauna areas that are sufficient for developed and refer to our Karst too dense, the potential for adequately supporting the karst invertebrates and Preserve Design Recommendations conserving the site is lost. the ecosystems upon which they (Service 2012). Because the Bone Cave harvestman depend (Service 2011, p. 16). The According to our preserve design has a relatively long life span and low recovery plan criteria call for three karst guidelines (Service 2012, p. 3–5), karst requirements for food, a decline in fauna areas (preserves) in each karst fauna area preserves should include the population size or even the complete fauna region. The size of karst fauna following: (1) Surface and subsurface extirpation of the population due to the area preserves should be large enough to drainage basins of at least one occupied influence of development or other ensure resiliency as discussed above cave or karst feature; (2) a minimum of threats may take years or even decades. and to protect the environmental 16 to 40 hectares (ha) (40 to 100 acres Observations of this species over several integrity of the karst ecosystems upon (ac)) of contiguous, unfragmented, years on a preserve that is too small for which the species depends. The number undisturbed land to maintain native perpetual species preservation may not of karst fauna area preserves called for plant and animal communities around allow detection of declines that are in the recovery criteria provides the feature and protect the subsurface actually occurring. If these observations redundancy for the species. A minimal karst community; (3) 105-meter (m) are used as evidence that a preserve size level of redundancy is essential to (345-feet (ft)) radius undisturbed area was adequate, then the potential for provide a margin of safety for the from each cave footprint for cave cricket long-term preservation of the species species to reduce the risk of losing the foraging (cave crickets are an important may be lost due to irreversible species or representation (variation) source of nutrient input to the karst development surrounding the preserve. within the species from catastrophic ecosystem) and to minimize deleterious Therefore, preserve sizes should be events or other threats (Shaffer and edge effects; and (4) preserves should be established with caution and be large Stein 2000 pp. 307, 309–310, Groves et free of pipelines, storage tanks, or other enough to account for the uncertainty in al. 2002, p. 506). The Bone Cave facilities (for example, water retention area requirements for a population. harvestman has significant geographic ponds) that could cause contamination. According to the petition there are variability across its range, and loss of In addition, due to the uncertainty in now more known occupied locations a significant number of locations in part determining population viability and identified; there were 6 confirmed caves of its range could result in loss of habitat requirements of the Bone Cave at listing, 60 confirmed caves at the time genetic and ecological diversity. The harvestman, the design of preserves for the recovery plan was drafted, and 168 conservation of multiple karst fauna its protection should be based on confirmed caves in 2009 when the 5- area preserves across the Bone Cave estimates and assumptions that favor a year status review was completed (53 harvestman’s range should provide high probability for recovery of the FR 36029, Service 1994, 2009). The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30993

petition also states that more locations long-term protection and survival of the potential loss of habitat due to are likely to be found. We acknowledge Bone Cave harvestman. development activities, which could there are more known locations since Of the five protected karst fauna areas result in filling in or collapsing of caves; the time those documents were that meet preserve design criteria, four alteration of drainage patterns; increase completed and the increase is likely an occur in the North Williamson County in flow of sediment, pesticides, increase in our knowledge, not a true Karst Fauna Region and one occurs in fertilizers, and urban run-off into caves; increase in the number of populations the Jollyville Plateau Karst Fauna and increase in human visitation and or range; however, species are listed Region. However, this species occurs in vandalism. under the Act based on threats and not six karst fauna regions, and four of these We also considered additional just the number of sites or size of the have no protected karst fauna areas that information on threats to the species range. are confirmed to meet preserve design when we developed the recovery plan In addition, the petition states that 94 recommendations. Therefore, the best for the species (Service 1994, pp. 59–65) karst preserve areas are currently available information indicates that the and when we conducted the 5-year providing significant conservation. criteria for reclassification from status review of the species (Service However, many of the existing protected endangered to threatened for this 2009, p. 2), in which we concluded that areas referenced in the petition are too species have not been met, nor has no change in the species’ status (that is, small to meet our preserve design adequate representation and reclassification to threatened or recommendations. As part of the 2009 redundancy (three karst fauna areas in delisting) was warranted. We also 5-year status review of the Bone Cave each karst fauna region) been protected reviewed available threat information in harvestman, we reviewed the status of throughout the species’ range, leaving our files and in a 1993 petition when we all of the known locations of the the species vulnerable to existing threats made our negative 90-day finding on harvestman (including 83 of the 94 including habitat destruction. that petition to de-list (59 FR 11755). The petition asserts that four mentioned in the petition) to assess The current petition asserts that additional locations are known since the whether the criteria from the recovery ‘‘Development activities on the surface time of the 5-year review. However, the plan to reclassify the species from may not result in the significant loss or endangered to threatened had been met petition does not provide adequate degradation of habitat for T. reyesi as for the Bone Cave harvestman. We information that would support whether originally thought’’ and suggests that considered the habitat size and these four additional locations are in a evidence of this is the species condition to evaluate whether the condition to meet preserve design persistence in caves surrounded by locations could meet the preserve recommendations. Based on information developed areas. Examples given in the design recommendations (a reflection of in our files, we are aware of one petition are Inner Space Caverns, Sun the potential to support a resilient additional cave since the 5-year review City caves, Weldon Cave, Three-Mile population) and then also looked at that may meet preserve design Cave, and Four-Mile Cave. However, the whether legally binding mechanisms recommendations in the North observation of the species in these were in place to provide protection of Williamson Karst Fauna Region; these sites over the long term (in however, it is privately owned, and we locations does not mean their perpetuity). are unsure about the property acreage populations at these locations are Of the locations known at the time of and if the site receives any type of thriving or can withstand the long-term the 5-year review, 21 areas appeared to protection or management. Regardless, impacts from development activities have the ability to meet the preserve the amount of protected karst fauna area that are expected to occur to karst design criteria. Our status review refers still falls short of the criteria for invertebrate populations in developed to 21 areas, while the petition indicates reclassification from endangered to areas as discussed in the listing rule, that the status review considered 28 threatened. recovery plan, and 5-year status review sites. This discrepancy is because the Further, we reviewed 83 of the 94 for the Bone Cave harvestman. petition considers each individual cave caves identified in the petition as Bone Cave harvestman populations location, while our status review receiving some level of protection in the may be declining or threatened even considered closely located caves to be 5-year review. Two of the caves that we though they are still observed at a part of the same karst fauna area. Of did not review (Cobbs Cavern and specific site. Information adequate to these 21 areas, 1 is no longer confirmed Whitney West Cave) are now in detect population trends for this species to have the species (Barker Ranch Cave confirmed karst fauna areas mentioned is not readily available and was not No. 1), and 5 are now protected karst above (Cobbs Cavern and Twin Springs), provided in the petition. This species fauna areas (Priscilla’s Well, Twin one (Pond Party Pit) is in the Beard has life-history strategies that include Springs, Cobbs Cavern, Karankawa, and Ranch Cave area discussed in the 5-year characteristics such as low metabolic Tooth Cave). review, and we have no locality and reproductive rates, long life spans, In addition, at most of the remaining information or taxonomic verifications and inherently low sample sizes, which locations (of the 21 areas) we are lacking for the remaining caves and this make it difficult to detect population information to confirm that they meet information was not provided in the response to possible impacts (Poulson the preserve design criteria (such as petition. and White 1969, p. 977, Howarth 1983, surface and subsurface drainage basins, The petition also asserts that threats p. 374). We indicated in the 1994 90-day tract acreage, exact locations of the cave, to the species are not as severe as petition finding (59 FR 11755) that more and management activities to protect originally thought. We evaluate that time was needed to detect if the species against threats, such as red imported fire information, below, in respect to the was declining; however, while more ants). Also, many of these areas do not five listing factors. time has passed, we are still lacking have a legally binding mechanism that Factor A: The present or threatened adequate data to conduct a trend ensures perpetual protection and destruction, modification, or analysis at most locations, given that it management. Hence, we are unsure curtailment of the species’ habitat or can take decades to detect population whether those areas have adequate range. In the 1988 listing rule (53 FR trends due to small sample sizes, the undeveloped acreage, management, or 36029), we stated that the primary threat difficulty surveying for the species, and protection mechanisms to ensure the to the Bone Cave harvestman was the their long life spans.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 30994 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

In addition, some of the threats from of the subsurface drainage basin invertebrates depend. As development development are due to the increased potentially being impacted by a school increases within the cave crickets’ probability of chance events occurring campus, this cave appears to meet our foraging area, there may be dramatic in the future, such as a contaminant preserve design recommendations but is shifts in the available food supply event like a pipeline leak, which exists not within a developed area, as asserted within the cave (Taylor et al. 2007, p. because more contamination sources are in the petition. Three-Mile Cave and 7). The leaf litter and other in the vicinity of species’ locations due Four-Mile Cave were also provided in decomposing material that make up to development. the petition as examples of developed most of the detritus from the surface The petition states that several Sun caves wherein the Bone Cave plant and animal community may also City caves are examples of areas where harvestman is known to occur. be reduced or altered, resulting in a the species can persist in developed According to the petition, surveys reduction of nutrient and energy flow areas. However, the petition failed to conducted by SWCA in 2008 and 2009 into the cave. A study by Taylor et al. provide data adequate to assess trends documented the Bone Cave harvestman (2007) compared caves in urbanized in the karst invertebrate populations at these locations. However, detailed areas that were impacted by since the development occurred. In survey data were not provided by the development to those in natural areas addition, we worked with the Sun City petitioners and were not in the SWCA and found that, even though a small developers when they designed the 2009 ‘‘Annual Report of Activities area within a largely urbanized project to develop strategies that we Involving Endangered Karst ecosystem may support a cave believed at the time would avoid or Invertebrates under Threatened and community where karst invertebrates minimize the possibility of ‘‘take’’ to Endangered Species Permit TE800611– are occasionally seen, these populations listed karst species. While we now 2.’’ are significantly lower than those found believe that most of the Sun City cave The petition also states that, since the in caves in more natural, less developed preserves are too small to meet our Bone Cave harvestman uses ecosystems, most likely as a result of preserve design recommendations for mesocaverns, it is protected from reduced nutrient input. Another study recovery and long-term survival (Service surface development activities because at Lakeline Cave in Travis County, 2012), we expect that the strategies and mesocaverns are ‘‘geologically Texas, was conducted in association measures put in place likely have protected.’’ We are unclear why the with the issuance of a habitat reduced the rate of impacts to the petition contends that mesocaverns are conservation plan and accompanying species. protected because mesocaverns are section 10(a)(1)(B) permit issued for The commercial cave known as Inner subject to rapid permeation of surface Lakeline Mall. That study is based on Space Caverns is another example the water (Cowan et al. 2007, p. 160), and data collected from 1992 through 2011, petition provided where the Bone Cave karst landscapes (including and it documented a significant decline harvestman continues to persist in a mesocaverns) are particularly during that 20-year timeframe in developed area. Although the Bone Cave susceptible to groundwater another endangered karst invertebrate, harvestman may be present at Inner contamination because water penetrates Rhadine persephone, and cave crickets Space Caverns, this does not ensure rapidly through bedrock conduits as development increased (ZARA 2012, their populations are robust and secure; providing little or no filtration (White pp. 8, 10, 12). Further, at Lakeline Mall they may still be declining, and are at 1988, p. 149). Cave, no more than three Bone Cave risk due to competition with surface- One of the major threats to the Bone harvestmen have been observed during dwelling invertebrates and other threats Cave harvestman is habitat loss due to any single survey (ZARA 2012, p. 11). associated with development such as increasing urbanization. The Bone Cave Also, no Bone Cave harvestmen were the potential for contamination. This harvestman is a troglobite, meaning it cave has an overgrowth of blue-green lives its entire life underground. Karst seen during 6 years (1993, 1999, 2001, algae growing near cave lights where the ecosystems are heavily reliant on 2006, 2009, and 2010) and 12 surveys in petition states that this species has been surface plant and animal communities Lakeline Mall Cave (ZARA 2012, p. 11). observed. This type of algae is known as for nutrient input. Available information in our files ‘‘lampenflora’’ and favors surface- Caves in central Texas that are supports our projection in the 1988 dwelling invertebrate species that can occupied by federally listed karst listing rule that development and out-compete karst invertebrate species invertebrates, such as the Bone Cave human population would continue to (Mulec and Kosi 2009, p. 109, Culver harvestman, receive energy (or increase within the range of the species. 1986, p. 438), such as the Bone Cave nutrients) primarily from (1) detritus The population of the City of Austin harvestman. The petition failed to (decomposing organic matter) that falls grew from 251,808 people in 1970 to provide any data adequate to assess or is washed into the caves and (2) 735,088 people in 2007 (City of Austin trends in the karst invertebrate energy brought into the caves by cave 2007). This represents a 192-percent population in relation to the time crickets (Ceuthophilus spp.) (Barr 1968, increase over the 37-year period. (duration and frequency) that they have p. 48; Reddell 1993, p. 2; Lavoie et al. Population projections from the Texas been exposed to the artificial lighting. 2007, p. 114; Taylor 2003, p. 3, 2004, p. State Data Center (2012, pp. 496–497), Additionally, part of the cave footprint 2, 2005, p. 97), which are found in most estimate that Travis County will occurs under a major interstate highway Texas caves (Reddell 1966, p. 33). Cave increase 94 percent in population from and train tracks, which both present a crickets forage widely in the surface 1,024,266 in 2010, to 1,990,820 in 2050. threat of a contaminant spill that could habitat surrounding the cave. Karst The Texas State Data Center also impact the species in the future. invertebrates feed on the cave cricket estimates an increase in human Weldon Cave was another example in eggs (Mitchell 1971, p. 251), feces (Barr population in Williamson County from the petition of a cave occupied by the 1968, pp. 51–53, Poulson et al. 1995, p. 422,679 in 2010, to 2,015,294 in 2050 Bone Cave harvestman within a 226), and directly on the crickets representing a 377-percent increase over developed area. Based on the best themselves (Elliott 1994, p. 15). a 40-year timeframe. All human available information in our files this Development within urbanized areas population projections from the Texas cave is surrounded by undeveloped can destroy or alter the surface plant State Data Center presented here are open space. Other than a small portion and animal communities on which karst under a high-growth scenario, which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30995

assumes that migration rates from 2000 Bexar County Karst Invertebrates harvestman locations that occur near to 2010 will continue through 2050 Recovery Plan (Service 2011, p. 12) and Georgetown salamander locations, so (Texas State Data Center and the Office in our Karst Preserve Management and any protection offered to the harvestman of the State Demographer 2012, p. 9). Monitoring Recommendations (Service would be limited. Further, it is not clear Urbanization and human population 2014, p. 3), which is applicable here as from the petition whether this growth and development were all central Texas endangered karst mechanism is voluntary or if it is identified as a threat in the original invertebrates have similar life-history regulatory or if it is currently in effect. 1988 listing rule and continue to characteristics, and one of the Bexar In addition, the petition did not provide represent a threat to the species. County invertebrates is in the same enough detail for us to evaluate all Factor B: Overutilization for genus (Texella) as the Bone Cave benefits this plan would provide to the commercial, recreational, scientific, or harvestman. In addition, red imported Bone Cave harvestman, and it appears educational purposes. In the 1988 fire ants have been found within and that participation in this plan is at least listing rule for the Bone Cave near many caves in central Texas and in part voluntary. harvestman, we did not identify any have been observed feeding on dead The petition states that the Texas threats under this factor. Likewise, the troglobites, cave crickets, and other Commission on Environmental Quality petition and our review of the species within caves (Elliott 1992, p. 13, (TCEQ) Edwards Rules provide information in our files did not identify 1994, p. 15, 2000, pp. 668, 768; Reddell protection to recharge features on the any threats under this factor. 1993, p. 10; Taylor et al. 2003, p. 3). Edwards Plateau and that this provides Factor C: Disease or predation. In the Factor D: The inadequacy of existing protection from pollution to the Bone 1988 listing rule, we stated that regulatory mechanisms. The 1988 Cave harvestman. In a discussion of increased human population increases listing rule states that ‘‘there are Factor D in the Bexar County Karst the threat of predation by and currently no laws that protect any of Invertebrates Recovery Plan (Service competition with exotic (non-native) these species or that indirectly address 2011, p. 13), we state that ‘‘the TCEQ and native surface-dwelling species, protection of their habitat.’’ water quality regulations do not provide such as sow bugs, cockroaches, and red While the petition did discuss some much protection to the species’ habitat imported fire ants. The petition states new ordinances that appear to have (see 65 FR 81419–81433 for more that ‘‘Recent studies suggest that fire been put in place since the time of information). For example, while some ants may not present as significant or as listing, we do not have enough TCEQ practices provide protection from lasting of a threat to the species as information to indicate whether or not water quality impacts, others, such as originally believed.’’ The information these State and local ordinances provide sealing cave entrances for water quality cited regarding red imported fire ants is enough protection from all threats to the reasons, can harm karst invertebrates.’’ identified in the petition as an article by Bone Cave harvestman. Sealing cave entrances can be harmful Porter and Savignano (1990), which we The petition states that ‘‘the by blocking off water (leading to drying) previously considered in our finding on regulatory landscape includes a number and nutrient input to the karst the 1993 petition, and another study by of measures contributing to the invertebrate habitat. In addition, not all Morrison (2002). The petition states that conservation of the species outside of of the caves and mesocaverns that the ‘‘a subsequent study by Morrison in the protections afforded by the Bone Cave harvestman occurs in are 2002 revisited the Porter and Savignano Endangered Species Act of 1973, as considered recharge features and, (1990) study area 12 years later and amended.’’ For example, they say that therefore, would not receive some of the replicated their study. protections offered though the City of water quality protection measures. Also, Morrison (2002, pp. 2341, 2343–2344) Austin are adequate to protect the not all locations of the Bone Cave found that arthropod communities had species in Austin, Texas. In the course harvestman are under the jurisdiction of rebounded to pre-RIFA [red imported of our work, we have reviewed these the Edwards Rules. fire ant]-invasion levels and that all regulations and understand that most Factor E: Other natural or manmade measures of native ant and other caves that are defined by the City of factors affecting the continued existence arthropod species’ diversity had Austin’s Environmental Criteria Manual of the species. In the 1988 listing rule, returned to pre-invasion levels. Red as a cave are provided a 46- to 91-m we stated that this species is extremely imported fire ants were still the most (150- to 300-ft) set-back area (City of vulnerable to losses because of its abundant ant species, but not nearly as Austin 2014, p. 13–3). However, a 46-m severely limited range and because of its abundant as during the initial red (150-ft) or 91-m (300-ft) set-back is not naturally limited ability to colonize new imported fire ants infestation. He adequate to meet our preserve design habitats. We also stated that the very concluded that the impacts to arthropod criteria, does not protect the cave cricket small size of the species habitat units communities by red imported fire ants foraging area, and potentially does not and the fragile nature of cave might be greatest during and shortly include the surface and subsurface ecosystems make them vulnerable to after the initial invasion, but long-term drainage basins. Further, it is not even isolated acts of vandalism. The impacts are likely not as significant as applicable across the range of the Bone petition states, ‘‘Inner Space Cavern once believed. However, we note that Cave harvestman because the species demonstrates that the species can Morrison (2002, p. 2342) also states that occurs in Travis and Williamson persist in caves with frequent human ‘‘it is quite likely that red imported fire Counties and the City of Austin does not visitation and may be more tolerant of ants did contribute directly or indirectly cover all of those counties. related habitat modification than to the disappearance or reduction in The petition states that the City of originally believed.’’ They also provide numbers of species’’ and that their study Georgetown Water Quality Management Three-Mile Cave and Four-Mile Cave as ‘‘should not be interpreted as an Plan for the Georgetown salamander examples of caves that have experienced indication that detrimental effects of will offer protection to the Bone Cave human use yet the species persists. The invasive ants will simply disappear harvestman. They state that this plan petition contends that, since the Bone with time.’’ In addition, this is not ‘‘new encourages the use of best management Cave harvestman exists in Inner Space information’’ as we have already practices to protect water quality at Caverns, human visitation is not a reviewed these articles and considered Georgetown salamander locations. threat. The petition also states that the information they provided in the However, there are few Bone Cave Three-mile and Four-mile Cave had

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 30996 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

graffiti from the 1890s, 1920s, and rainfall regimes may affect the since the 5-year status review and 7 for 1950s. Yet, no detailed information was harvestman in several ways, including which we lack locality information or provided to demonstrate if these caves directly either through flooding or taxonomic verifications) while working experienced continued human use. The indirectly by modifying their habitat or on previous documents (Service 2009, petition also indicates that Four-Mile nutrient availability. Changes in rainfall 2012) or on observations that lack a Cave was inaccessible to humans prior regimes could (1) alter the moisture large enough sample size to produce to 2009 due to boulders blocking the levels within the caves leaving them population trend information for the entrance. In addition, the petition drier between floods, which could lead Bone Cave harvestman. The petition provided no trend analysis for these to desiccation of the Bone Cave provided no trend analysis to indicate caves. As stated earlier, the observation harvestman and (2) affect the amount that this species can withstand the of the species in these locations does and timing of nutrients washed into a threats associated with development or not mean the populations at these cave, potentially resulting in longer climate change over the long term. locations have not been impacted (in a periods between nutrient input. These Based on our review and evaluation, we way that is short of extirpation) or can changes to drier and less suitable find that the petition does not present withstand the long-term impacts that are conditions in the caves will likely cause substantial scientific or commercial expected to occur to karst invertebrate the Bone Cave harvestman to retreat information indicating that delisting of populations in developed areas or from farther into mesocaverns and away from the Bone Cave harvestman may be human visitation. nutrients that are thought to be located warranted due to recovery, extinction, In the species 5-year status review in larger cave passages (Howarth 1987, or error in the original scientific data at (Service 2009, p. 18) we said, ‘‘Although pp. 5–7), causing individuals to spend the time the species was classified or in climate change was not identified as a more energy trying to acquire nutrients our interpretation of the data. However, threat to T. reyesi in the original listing in an already stressed environment. In much progress has been made toward document or in the recovery plan, the addition, caves in arid regions have recovery in the North Williamson and species’ dependence on stable been shown to have smaller invertebrate Jollyville Plateau Karst Fauna Regions. temperatures and humidity levels opens populations and diversity due to less We encourage interested parties to the possibility of climatic change moisture and nutrient availability continue to gather data and implement impacting this species. Therefore, while (George Veni, National Cave and Karst conservation actions across the range of it appears reasonable to assume that T. Research Institute, pers. comm. 2010). the Bone Cave harvestman that will reyesi may be affected, we lack Since the Bone Cave harvestman is also further assist with the conservation of sufficient certainty to know how climate sensitive to these habitat parameters, it this species. If you wish to provide change will affect this species.’’ is reasonable to predict that climate information regarding the Bone Cave The petitioners state that ‘‘the use of change could affect its populations in a harvestman, you may submit your small voids or ‘mesocaverns’ within the similar manner despite the presence of information or materials to the Field geologic formations known to support mesocaverns. Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services occupied caves mitigates the potential Further, stochastic (random) events Field Office (see ADDRESSES) at any threat of climate change.’’ We from either environmental factors (for time. acknowledge that mesocaverns may example, severe weather) or provide some protection from demographic factors (which come from References Cited fluctuations in temperature and the chance events of birth and death of humidity that may be induced by individuals) exacerbate threats to the A complete list of references cited is climate change. However, the presence species because of its small population available on the Internet at http:// of mesocaverns alone will likely not be size (Melbourne and Hastings 2008, p. www.regulations.gov and upon request sufficient to ameliorate all of the effects 100). The risk of extinction for any from the Austin Ecological Services that climate change may pose to this species is known to be highly inversely Field Office (see FOR FURTHER species. Karst invertebrates depend on correlated with population size (Pimm INFORMATION CONTACT). stable temperatures and high humidity et al. 1988, pp. 774–775, O’Grady et al. Authors (Barr 1968, p. 47, Mitchell 1971, p. 250). 2004, pp. 516, 518). In other words, the The temperatures in caves are typically smaller the population the greater the The primary authors of this notice are the average annual temperature of the overall risk of extinction. Therefore, staff members of the Austin Ecological surface habitat and vary much less than threats to the Bone Cave harvestman are Services Office. the surface environment (Howarth 1983, exacerbated by its small population size, Authority p. 372, Dunlap 1995, p. 76). If average which makes it more vulnerable to surface temperatures increase, this existing threats. The authority for this action is the could result in increased in-cave Finding Endangered Species Act of 1973, as temperatures, which could affect the amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Bone Cave harvestman. We have reviewed the petition and Increased and/or more severe storms also evaluated readily available, related Dated: May 21, 2015. as well as prolonged periods of high information in our files. The petitioners Gary Frazer, temperatures and drought between have based their assessment that the Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife rainfall events associated with predicted species can thrive in developed areas on Service. climate change effects may also impact information that we have already [FR Doc. 2015–13136 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] the cave environment. Changes in reviewed (except in 4 caves discovered BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS