[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67784-67789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27573]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2012-0054; 4500030113]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition to List the Heller Cave Springtail as Endangered or 
Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 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 the Heller Cave springtail as 
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) and to designate critical habitat. Based on our review, 
we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing this species may be warranted. 
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a 
review of the status of the species to determine if listing the Heller 
Cave springtail is warranted. To ensure that this status review is 
comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and 
other information regarding this species. Based on the status review, 
we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address 
whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

DATES: We request that we receive information on or before January 14, 
2013. The deadline for submitting an electronic comment using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section below) is 11:59 p.m. 
Eastern Time on this date. After January 14, 2013, you must submit 
information directly to the Division of Policy and Directives 
Management (see ADDRESSES section below). Please note that we might not 
be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the 
above requested date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search field, enter Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-
2012-0054, which is the docket number for this action. Then click on 
the Search button. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment 
Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2012-0054; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information 
section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Miller, Threatened and 
Endangered Species Chief, Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate 
Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; by telephone at 413-253-8615; or by 
facsimile at

[[Page 67785]]

413-253-8482. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are 
required to promptly initiate review of the status of the species 
(status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the 
best available scientific and commercial information, we request 
information on the Heller Cave springtail (Typhlogastrura helleri) from 
governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific 
community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek 
information on:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range including survey data and 
distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (3) Information related to the operation and status of the small, 
large, or both, non-coal mining project(s) and permit(s) associated 
with the ``Carlim Quarry'' or ``Catherine Properties-Heller Mine'' in 
Catherine Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. The owner or operator 
of this project may be known as Gulf Trading and Transport, Catherine 
Corporation, or General Trade Corporation.
    If, after the status review, we determine that listing the Heller 
Cave springtail is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see 
definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the Act, 
to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose 
to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and information 
on:
    (1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range 
currently occupied by the species;
    (2) Where these features are currently found;
    (3) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection;
    (4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species;'' and
    (5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for 
designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such 
habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action 
under consideration without providing supporting information, although 
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any 
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your information concerning this status review by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the 
Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this personal identifying information from 
public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do 
so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on 
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on 
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted 
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at 
the time of the petition's receipt. 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 the finding promptly in the Federal 
Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial 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 
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to 
promptly initiate a species status review, which we subsequently 
summarize in our 12-month finding.

Petition History

    On October 13, 2011, we received a petition dated October 13, 2011, 
from Mollie Matteson (petitioner), on behalf of the Center for 
Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Juniata Valley Audubon Society 
(JVAS), requesting that the Heller Cave springtail be listed as 
endangered and that critical habitat be designated under the Act 
(Petition). The petition clearly identified itself as such and included 
the requisite identification information for the petitioners, required 
at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a January 8, 2012, letter to the petitioner, we 
responded that we had received the petition sent to the Secretary of 
the Interior and that we would contact the petitioner when we completed 
review of the petition. On January 11, 2012, the petitioner sent 
additional information to supplement the October 13, 2011 petition. 
This finding addresses the supplemented petition.

Previous Federal Actions

    There are no previous Federal actions on the Heller Cave 
springtail.

Species Information

    The Heller Cave springtail is a small, wingless, cave-dwelling 
arthropod in the Family Hypogastruridae and Order Collembola. All 
Collembola have the common name of ``springtail'' because of their 
furcula, or ``jumping apparatus''

[[Page 67786]]

located underneath and at the end of the abdomen (Christiansen 1992, p. 
3). The Heller Cave springtail type specimen (individual used to 
formally describe the species) is 1.4 millimeters (mm) (0.06 inches 
(in)) long, but other specimens have ranged up to 2.1 mm (0.08 in) in 
length (Christiansen and Wang 2006, p. 89). The Heller Cave springtail 
is tan with five to six black eye spots on each side of its head and 
three thoracic (chest) segments (Christiansen and Wang 2006, pp. 92-
94). A more detailed species' description can be found in Christiansen 
and Wang (2006, pp. 92-94).
    The petitioner, citing the scientist who first described the 
species, asserts that the Heller Cave springtail is endemic to Heller 
Cave in Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania (Petition, p. 5; Christiansen 
and Wang 2006, p. 93). The type locality (location where the type 
specimen was collected), Heller Cave 5, is one of nine caves 
in a cave complex (Petition, p. 7) spanning the Blair-Huntingdon County 
line. The type specimen was collected within the cave on a pool surface 
(Christiansen and Wang 2006, p. 94). However, information in our files 
suggests that it may not be reasonable to automatically assume the 
species is solely endemic to Heller Cave. Discussion between Joseph 
Reznik, a springtail expert from the Carnegie Museum of Natural 
History, and Betsy Leppo, an invertebrate zoologist with the 
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP), indicates that there is 
uncertainty about previous assumptions regarding the species' aquatic 
nature and cave endemism (Leppo 2010, pp. 1-2). In an electronic mail 
message to PNHP staff, the springtail expert stated ``Many species of 
springtails that have been attributed to being cave endemics have been 
classified being endemic based on physical characteristics (i.e., loss 
of pigment, eyes, etc.), but many soil species also have these 
characteristics,'' and suggested that Heller Cave springtail surveys be 
conducted in the scree and talus environments outside of Heller Cave 
(Leppo 2010, p. 2). We are unaware of whether PNHP or Pennsylvania Game 
Commission (PGC) conducted further surveys for Heller Cave springtail 
outside of the species' type locality.
    We have no information about the Heller Cave springtail's habitat 
outside of the type locality, diet, reproduction, or population size. 
Inferring information from other springtails may not be fully reliable, 
as some of these characteristics within the Collembola Order vary 
widely. For example, Christiansen (1992, p. 2) states Collembola 
``occur almost everywhere from the tops of the tallest trees to the 
deepest soil strata where life occurs. They are in fact found 
everywhere life of any sort is found except the open ocean or below 
surface in bodies of freshwater.'' As for diet, some species eat plant 
material, others eat micro-organisms, and some exhibit cannibalistic 
traits and eat their own eggs (Christiansen 1992, p. 4; Bellenger et 
al. 1996, pp. 2-3). In general, Collembola exhibit sexual 
differentiation (male and female individuals), and reproduction occurs 
through the deposition and reception of spermatophores (sperm packets); 
eggs are laid; and molting occurs during growth (Christiansen 1992, pp. 
4-5). Christiansen and Wang (2006, p. 93) did collect both male and 
female individuals in Heller Cave 5. None of the readily 
available information sources indicate what a typical population size 
for Collembola species may be, and no typical population size is 
available specifically for the Heller Cave springtail.
    The species was formerly described by Christiansen and Wang (2006, 
entire). We do not have any information in our files that indicates 
controversy with the species' taxonomy; therefore, at this time we are 
recognizing the Heller Cave springtail as a valid species.

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species 
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual 
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no 
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If 
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may 
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat 
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the 
risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant 
listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the 
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The 
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the 
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of 
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall 
contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be 
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species 
may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding threats to the Heller Cave springtail, as presented in the 
petition and other information available in our files is substantial, 
thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our 
evaluation of this information is presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner states that a proposed limestone quarry in Blair 
County, Pennsylvania, would significantly modify or destroy the Heller 
Caves complex, the only known location of the Heller Cave springtail 
(Petition, p. 10). The petitioner states that in June 2010, ``* * * the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection [DEP], Bureau of 
Mining and Reclamation, issued a small non-coal mining permit to 
Catherine Properties, LLC, for a project at and around the Heller Caves 
site. This permit allows logging, road building, and removal of up to 
10,000 tons per year of rock and other surface materials (Pennsylvania 
DEP 2010a)'' (Petition, p. 10). The petitioner also states that ``even 
if a quarry does not completely obliterate a cave, it can cause 
significant harm to cave habitat in several ways,'' including 
structural damage; changes in temperature, humidity, water quality, and 
water quantity; and trampling of flora and fauna, littering, and 
introduction of foreign substances through increased human access 
(Petition, pp. 12-14). The petitioner asserts that these impacts are 
particularly problematic for cave

[[Page 67787]]

obligate species like the Heller Cave springtail (Petition, p. 12).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petitioner's assertion that the limestone quarry (i.e., mine) 
proposed for operation in Blair County, Pennsylvania, near the Heller 
Caves complex will remove a significant amount of rock, is corroborated 
by readily available information within the Service's files (Secor 
2006a, entire; Secor 2006b, entire; Service 2006, entire; Service 2009, 
entire; Stormer 2009, entire; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
2010, entire; Stormer 2010a, entire; Stormer 2010b, entire). The amount 
of total acreage of the proposed site varies from 5 to 187 acres (2 to 
76 hectares (ha)), and the acreage and potential location of 
disturbance varies from 5 to 7.4 acres (2 to 3 ha) inside or outside of 
the Heller Caves core area, depending upon the source of the 
information (Secor 2006a, p. 1; PADEP 2009, p. 1; Service 2009, p. 1; 
Stormer 2009, p. 1; USDA 2010, pp. 1, 4; Stormer 2010a, p. 1; Stormer 
2010b, p. 1; Turner 2010, p. 1; Petition, p. 11). We do not have 
readily available copies of the permit request from Gulf Trading and 
Transport (sometimes alternatively known as Catherine Properties or 
General Trade Corporation) including the scope of, and specific 
activities associated with, a small or large non-coal mining operation, 
the approved permit from PADEP, or PGC's comments on the proposed 
permit to be able to state the actual recorded site and disturbance 
acreages.
    We have limited information on the project's proposed impacts to 
the area. We only have project information regarding the potential 
size, county location, and land clearing (e.g., forestry) activities 
provided to us when we conducted three separate project analyses for 
potential impacts to the federally listed northeastern bulrush (Scirpus 
ancistrochaetus) (Service 2006, p. 2) and the Indiana bat (Myotis 
sodalis) (Service 2006, pp. 1-2; Service 2009, p. 1; Service 2010, pp. 
1-2). Indiana bats are not found in the Heller Caves complex (Western 
Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC) 2006, entire; Turner 2010, p. 1). The 
Service has jurisdiction over federally listed species, so our review 
and analyses were conducted within that jurisdictional constraint. We 
did not have information about, or recommendations for, either the 
eastern small-footed bat or the Heller Cave springtail during the 2006, 
2009, and 2010 project reviews.
    Because we do not have readily available, project-specific 
information about the proposed Heller Cave mine project beyond the 
potential project size, county location, and impacts to Indiana bat 
habitat from forestry clearing we used in the 2006, 2009, and 2010 
reviews, we cannot assess the accuracy of the petitioner's mining 
operation project details (Petition, pp. 10-12). If the petitioner's 
information is correct about blasting activities being a part of the 
small (or large) non-coal mining permit (Petition, p. 11), the 
potential effects of the blasting activity may impact the Heller Cave 
springtail. The Heller Caves complex is identified in a Blair County 
planning document as core habitat for eastern small-footed bat (Myotis 
leibii) winter hibernation (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC) 
2006, p. 46). The Heller Cave springtail co-occurs in the Heller Cave 
5 with the eastern small-footed bat. The Blair County planning 
document states ``Blasting or other activities that disrupt bedrock 
within the core areas may damage the structure of the cave, potentially 
making it unsuitable for the bats,'' and recommends ``blasting and 
other activities that will affect the bedrock should be avoided within 
this [core habit] area so as not to damage the cave in use as a 
hibernation site (WPC 2006, p. 47). Because the Heller Cave springtail 
co-occurs with the eastern small-footed bat, the potential negative 
impacts of blasting activities at or around the Heller Cave complex 
previously documented for the eastern small-footed bat may also have 
potential negative impacts to the Heller Cave springtail, particularly 
if the blasting activity causes damage to the structure of Heller Cave 
5 such that the cave collapses or facilitates changes in 
temperature, humidity, water quality, or water quantity. Therefore, we 
conclude that information in the petition and readily available in our 
files indicates that quarrying activities may be a threat to the Heller 
Cave springtail and its habitat.
    Summary of Factor A--In summary, information in the petition and 
readily available in our files indicates that the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range 
through impacts associated with limestone quarry operations may be a 
threat to the Heller Cave springtail.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner did not provide any information on overutilization 
of the Heller Cave springtail.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We have no information in our files to suggest overutilization may 
be a threat to the Heller Cave springtail.
    Summary of Factor B--In summary, information in the petition and 
readily available in our files does not indicate that overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes may be 
a threat to the Heller Cave springtail. However, whether this factor is 
a threat to the species will be further investigated during our 12-
month status review.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner did not provide any information on disease or 
predation of the Heller Cave springtail.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We have no information in our files to suggest disease or predation 
may be a threat to the Heller Cave springtail.
    Summary of Factor C--In summary, information in the petition and 
readily available in our files does not indicate that disease or 
predation may be a threat to the Heller Cave springtail. However, 
whether this factor is a threat to the species will be further 
investigated during our 12-month status review.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner makes three separate inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanism assertions. First, the petitioner asserts that the 
Heller Cave springtail has no protective status at the local, State, or 
Federal level and, therefore, current regulatory mechanisms are 
inadequate to protect it (Petition, p. 14). The petitioner further 
states that even if the Heller Cave springtail was State-listed or a 
species of concern, those protective statuses would likely provide 
inadequate protection. This assertion is based on the petitioner's 
assessment that the PADEP issued the small, non-coal mining permit 
despite the documented presence of the eastern small-footed bat,

[[Page 67788]]

a State-designated threatened species, in Heller Cave (Petition, p. 
15). Second, the petitioner asserts that recognition of the Heller 
Caves complex as a ``Biological Diversity Area'' and ``Important Bird 
Area'' is insufficient to regulate protection of the species (Petition, 
p. 15). Third, the petitioner asserts that the State's current 
environmental review and permitting process failed to protect the 
Heller Cave springtail (Petition, p. 16).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petitioner's first assertion is that the Heller Cave springtail 
is not a protected species under current regulatory mechanisms at the 
local, State, and Federal level, and therefore, those mechanisms are 
inadequate to protect the species (Petition, p. 14). The petitioner 
states that since there is a lack of regulatory recognition for the 
species ``no deliberate program for its conservation can or has been 
instituted'' (Petition, p. 15).
    The petitioner's second assertion is that recognition of the Heller 
Caves complex as a ``Biological Diversity Area'' and ``Important Bird 
Area'' is insufficient to regulate protection of the Heller Cave 
springtail (Petition, p. 15). A Biological Diversity Area (BDA) is 
defined as ``An area containing plants or animals of special concern at 
State or Federal levels, exemplary natural communities, or exceptional 
native diversity. BDAs include both the immediate habitat and 
surrounding lands important in the support of these special elements'' 
(WPC 2006, p. 6). The BDAs are used in conservation planning to 
``identify core areas that delineate essential habitat that cannot 
absorb significant levels of activity without substantial impact to the 
elements of concern'' (WPC 2006, p. 6). An Important Bird Area (IBA) is 
defined as ``a site that is part of a global network of places 
recognized for their outstanding value to bird conservation'' with 
application for conservation planning to maintain the areas for 
valuable bird habitat (WPC 2006, p. 6). The Heller Caves complex site 
is ranked as a BDA of high significance because it provides a ``winter 
hibernation site for bat colonies, including the state and global-
concern species eastern small-footed myotis'' (WPC 2006, p. xi). The 
BDA and IBA designations are nonregulatory community planning tools. 
The petitioner concedes that ``designation as a BDA confers no 
regulatory protection'' (Petition, p. 15).
    Third, the petitioner asserts that the State's current 
environmental review and permitting process failed to protect the 
Heller Cave springtail or its habitat (Petition, p. 16). The proposed 
Heller Cave limestone mine project overlaps the Heller Caves BDA. The 
Heller Caves BDA contains the eastern small-footed bat and the Heller 
Cave springtail (Petition, p. 16; WPA 2006, p. 46). The eastern small-
footed bat is a State-listed species and falls under the PGC's 
jurisdiction. The Heller Cave springtail is neither a federally or 
State-listed invertebrate nor a State species of concern (Shellenberger 
2010, p. 1; Leppo 2010, p. 1). Information in our files at the time of 
the petition's receipt indicates uncertainty as to whether the Heller 
Cave springtail is a true aquatic invertebrate and, therefore, falls 
under the PA Fish and Boat Commission's jurisdiction, or whether it is 
a terrestrial invertebrate and therefore falls under PNHP's 
jurisdiction (Leppo 2010, p. 1). The Service is unaware of which State 
agencies the PADEP contacted to review the mine project for impacts to 
the Heller Cave springtail.
    The PGC was contacted to review the project for possible impacts to 
the eastern small-footed bat (Petition, p. 11; Shellenberger 2010, p. 
1). According to the Petition (p. 15), the PGC recommended a ``Total 
Avoidance Area'' around Heller Cave because the proposed quarrying 
project is likely to disturb or destroy winter and summer bat habitat. 
The petitioner did not provide PGC's comments on the mining project to 
the Service as part of the Petition's references, and those comments 
are not readily available to the Service. We have no readily available 
information to confirm the Petition's assertion that the existing 
environmental review and mine permitting processes may be inadequate to 
protect the Heller Cave springtail or its habitat, through the 
surrogacy of the eastern small-footed bat. Based on review of the 
Petition's information, we conclude that the Petition indicates that 
the existing permit processes may be inadequate to protect the Heller 
Cave springtail.
    Summary of Factor D--In summary, information in the petition and 
readily available in our files indicates that inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms for (1) Factor A--the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat caused by the 
proposed limestone quarry or its mining operations; and (2) Factor E 
(see below)--other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence caused by mortality from the proposed limestone quarry's rock 
removal and blasting operations may be a threat to the Heller Cave 
springtail.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner states that three anthropogenic factors are threats 
to the Heller Cave springtail: (1) Direct mortality as a result of rock 
removal and blasting, (2) cave vandalism and direct human-caused 
mortality, and (3) climate change (Petition, pp. 16-17).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petitioner first asserts, with no supporting information, that 
the Heller Cave springtail is threatened from ``direct take'' (i.e., 
mortality) as a result of the proposed limestone quarry's rock removal 
and blasting operations (Petition, p. 16). Information in our files 
suggests that some of the proposed quarry activities may occur outside 
of the Heller Cave core area (Stormer, 2010a, p. 1; Turner, 2010, p. 1; 
Shellenberger 2010, p. 1). However, our information does not state how 
much of the quarry operations or what type (i.e., blasting vs. land 
clearing) of quarry operations may occur outside of the Heller Cave 
core area. If blasting and rock removal activities take place within 
the Heller Cave core area, including Heller Cave 5--the type 
locality for the Heller Cave springtail and hibernacula site of the 
eastern small-footed bat--those activities as described in the petition 
may impact the Heller Cave springtail (Petition, pp. 10-14). Blasting 
and rock removal activities may destabilize the cave site (WPC 2006, 
pp. 46). If the cave destabilizes to the point that collapsing material 
falls on the locations where the Heller Cave springtail specimens were 
collected, then direct mortality may occur. We conclude that direct 
mortality could occur from rock removal and blasting if those 
activities occur within or very near the Heller Caves complex.
    The petitioner further asserts that the Heller Cave springtail is 
threatened by cave vandalism and intentional human-caused mortality. 
The petitioner does not provide information to support this assertion, 
merely stating that ``it is possible that one or more attempts could be 
made to obliterate this unique species'' prior to protection under the 
Act (Petition, p. 17). We do not have any information in our files to 
indicate that this intentional harm may be a specific threat to the 
Heller Cave springtail. We are not aware of specific vandalism 
instances for eastern small-footed bat hibernacula in Pennsylvania or 
for the Heller Caves complex. Therefore, it is unlikely that the cave 
site itself may be

[[Page 67789]]

subjected to vandalism. However, we will fully investigate whether 
intentional cave disturbance or vandalism is a threat to the Heller 
Cave springtail and its habitat in our 12-month status review.
    The petitioner lastly asserts that ``climate change may be 
affecting the Heller Cave springtail at this time, or it may in the 
future'' (Petition, p. 17). The petitioner cites three documents in 
this section, only one of which can be assessed for accuracy. Of the 
other two, the Natural Resource Council 2006 citation does not relate 
to the information for which it is used as a citation. The Toomey and 
Nolan 2005 citation is not included in the petitioner's list of 
literature cited and consequently could not be quickly searched for or 
located. The petitioner did not include copies of the references. The 
petitioner's third citation is a Service (2011, p. 1) blog post about 
climate change and its impacts on Indiana bat conservation efforts, 
which includes a bat biologist quoted as saying ``Surface temperature 
is directly related to cave temperature, so climate change will 
inevitably affect the suitability of hibernacula'' (Petition, p. 17).
    We have general information in our files indicating that climate 
change is occurring. The Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, 
prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 
presents credible science on global climate change. The IPCC concludes 
that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by 
observations of increasing global average air and ocean temperatures, 
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level 
(IPCC 2007, p. 2). The warming trend is expected to continue as a 
result of a projected increase of global greenhouse gas emissions by 25 
to 90 percent from 2000 to 2030, which would be greater than the change 
observed during the 20th century (IPCC 2007, p. 7). Although there is 
some uncertainty regarding the mechanics of climate change and how much 
temperatures will change, the projected global average surface increase 
is estimated to range from 1.1 [deg]C to 6.4 [deg]C (2.0[emsp14][deg]F 
and 11.5 [deg]F) in 2090 to 2099 over the temperatures observed during 
the 19-year period of 1980 to 1999 (IPCC 2007, p. 8).
    We do not have any readily available information as of the 
petition's receipt that further refines the IPCC's (2007, entire) 
conclusions at regional or local scales to allow us to assess whether, 
or to what extent, the Heller Cave springtail may be impacted by 
climate change. The petitioner acknowledges that how regional climate 
change may impact the Heller Cave springtail is unknown (Petition, p. 
17) but suggests the Heller Cave springtail ``would be highly 
vulnerable to climate-related shifts in its physical environment'' 
because it is an ``extremely range-limited cave obligate'' species. As 
discussed above in the Species Information section, information in our 
files raises uncertainty as to whether the Heller Cave springtail may 
occur only within Heller Cave, and by extension whether the species is 
a cave obligate (Leppo 2010, p. 2). Because of the high levels of 
uncertainty in regional or local scale climate change impacts and the 
uncertainty of the Heller Cave springtail's cave endemism, we cannot 
reasonably state that climate change may be a threat to the species. 
However, we will fully investigate the potential effects of climate 
change on the Heller Cave springtail in our 12-month status review.
    Summary of Factor E--In summary, information in the petition and 
readily available in our files indicates that direct take as a result 
of the proposed limestone quarry's rock removal and blasting operations 
may be a threat to the Heller Cave springtail, but does not indicate 
that intentional take from cave disturbance and vandalism or from 
climate change may be a threat to the species.

Finding

    On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we determine that the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing the Heller Cave 
springtail throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding 
is based on information provided under factors A, D, and E. We 
determine that the information provided under factors B and C is not 
substantial.
    Because we have found that the petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing the Heller Cave springtail may be 
warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether 
listing the Heller Cave springtail under the Act is warranted.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Northeast Regional 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Northeast Regional Office.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 20, 2012.
Benjamin Tuggle,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-27573 Filed 11-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P