[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17156-17231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-7735]



[[Page 17155]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Seven Bexar County, Texas, Invertebrate Species; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 2003 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 17156]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AI47


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Seven Bexar County, TX, Invertebrate Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for seven endangered invertebrate species found in 
Bexar County, Texas, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). The critical habitat designation totals approximately 
431 hectares (1,063 acres) in 22 units. Section 7 of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with the Service, that 
actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 4 
of the Act requires us to consider economic and other impacts when 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We solicited data 
and comments from the public on all aspects of the proposed rule, 
including data on economic and other impacts of the designation. As a 
result of comments and information received, we are not designating 
critical habitat as originally proposed for two species that occur 
entirely on State-owned lands that are subject to a conservation plan.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on May 8, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available 
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 
the Austin Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pine, Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, at the above 
address (telephone 512/490-0057; facsimile 512/490-0974).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The seven species for which we are designating critical habitat in 
this rulemaking inhabit caves or other features known as karst. 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.
    As a result of climatic changes beginning two million years ago and 
lasting until ten thousand years ago, invertebrate species colonized 
caves and other subterranean voids (Barr 1968; Mitchell and Reddell 
1971; Elliott and Reddell 1989). Species that dwell exclusively in 
caves and other subterranean voids are referred to as ``troglobites.'' 
Through faulting and canyon downcutting, the karst terrain colonized by 
these species along the Balcones Fault Zone (a zone approximately 25 
kilometers (km) in width, extending from the northeast corner of Bexar 
County to the western edge of the County) became increasingly 
dissected, creating ``islands'' of karst and barriers to dispersal. 
These ``islands'' isolated troglobitic populations from each other, 
probably resulting in further speciation.
    The following nine Bexar County, Texas, troglobitic invertebrate 
species were listed as endangered on December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419): 
spider (no common name) (Cicurina venii), Robber Baron Cave harvestman 
(Texella cokendolpheri), vesper cave spider (Cicurina vespera), 
Government Canyon cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps), Madla's cave 
spider (Cicurina madla), Robber Baron cave spider (Cicurina baronia), 
beetle (no common name) (Rhadine exilis), beetle (no common name) 
(Rhadine infernalis), and Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi). 
These are karst dwelling species of local distribution in north and 
northwest Bexar County. They spend their entire lives underground.
    Since publication of the listing final rule, the common names for 
the following six arachnid species have been changed as a result of a 
meeting of the Committee on Common Names of Arachnids of the American 
Arachnological Society in 2000. Accordingly, we are changing the common 
names of the species currently in the list of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) as Robber Baron Cave harvestman, Robber Baron 
cave spider, Madla's cave spider, vesper cave spider, Government Canyon 
cave spider, and one with no common name (Cicurina venii) to 
Cokendolpher cave harvestman, Robber Baron Cave meshweaver, Madla Cave 
meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver, Government Canyon 
Bat Cave spider, and Braken Bat Cave meshweaver, respectively.
    Individuals of the listed species are small, ranging in length from 
1 millimeter (0.039 inch (in)) to 1 centimeter (0.39 in). They are 
eyeless, or essentially eyeless, and most lack pigment. Low quantities 
of food in caves have caused adaptations in these species, including 
low metabolism, long legs for efficient movement, and loss of eyes, 
possibly as an energy-saving trade-off (Howarth 1983). Survival may be 
possible from months to years with little or no food (Howarth 1983). 
Adult Cicurina spiders have survived in captivity without food for 
about 4 months (James Cokendolpher, Museum of Texas Tech University, 
pers. comm. 2002).
    Although little is known about the life history of listed Texas 
troglobitic invertebrates, they are believed to live for longer than 1 
year. This belief is based, in part, on the amount of time some 
juveniles have been kept in captivity without maturing (Veni and 
Associates 1999; James Reddell, Texas Memorial Museum, pers. comm. 
2000). For example, James Cokendolpher (Museum of Texas Tech 
University, pers. comm. 2002) maintained a juvenile troglobitic 
Cicurina spider from May 1999 through April 2002. Reproductive rates of 
troglobites are typically low (Poulson and White 1969; Howarth 1983). 
According to surveys conducted by Culver (1986), Elliott (1994a), and 
Hopper (2000), population sizes of troglobitic invertebrates are 
typically small, with most species known from only a few specimens 
(Culver et al. 2000).
    As described below, the primary habitat requirements of these 
species include: (1) Subterranean spaces in karst with stable 
temperatures, high humidities (near saturation), and suitable 
substrates (for example, spaces between and underneath rocks suitable 
for foraging and sheltering); 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). These karst invertebrates 
require stable temperatures and constant, high humidity (Barr 1968; 
Mitchell 1971a) because they are vulnerable to desiccation in drier 
habitats (Howarth 1983) or cannot detect or cope with more extreme 
temperatures (Mitchell 1971a). Temperatures in caves typically remain 
at the average annual surface temperature, with little variation

[[Page 17157]]

(Howarth 1983; Dunlap 1995). Relative humidity is typically near 100 
percent in caves that support troglobitic invertebrates (Elliott and 
Reddell 1989). During temperature extremes, the listed species 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). These species may spend 
the majority of their time in such retreats, only leaving them to 
forage in the larger cave passages (Howarth 1987).
    Since sunlight is absent or present in extremely low levels in 
caves, most karst ecosystems depend on nutrients derived from the 
surface either directly (organic material brought in by animals, washed 
in, or deposited through root masses) or indirectly 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 include leaf litter, 
cave crickets, small mammals, and other vertebrates that defecate or 
die in the cave.
    As described in our final rule to list the nine species (65 FR 
81419), the continuing expansion of the human population in karst 
terrain constitutes the primary threat to the species 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.

Karst in Bexar County

    The northern portion of Bexar County is located on the Edwards 
Plateau, a broad, flat expanse of Cretaceous carbonate rock that ranges 
in elevation from 335.5 meters (m) (1,100 feet (ft)) to 579.5 m (1,900 
ft) (Veni 1988; Soil Conservation Service 1962). This portion of the 
Plateau is dissected by numerous small streams and is drained by Cibolo 
Creek and Balcones Creek. To the southeast of the Plateau lies the 
Balcones Fault Zone, a 25-km-wide fault zone that extends from the 
northeast corner of the County to the western County line. The many 
streams and karst features of this zone recharge the Edwards Aquifer.
    The principal, cave-containing rock units of the Edwards Plateau 
are the upper Glen Rose Formation, Edwards Limestone, Austin Chalk, and 
Pecan Gap Chalk (Veni 1988). The Edwards Limestone accounts for one-
third of the cavernous rock in Bexar County and contains 60 percent of 
the caves, making it the most cavernous unit in the County. The Austin 
Chalk outcrop is second to the Edwards in total number of caves. In 
Bexar County, the outcrop of the upper member of the Glen Rose 
Formation accounts for approximately one-third of the cavernous rock, 
but only 12.5 percent of Bexar County caves (Veni 1988). In Bexar 
County, the Pecan Gap Chalk, while generally not cavernous, has a 
greater than expected density of caves and passages (Veni 1988).
    Veni (1994) delineated six karst areas within Bexar County. The 
regions were named after places within their boundaries. These karst 
fauna regions are bounded by geological or geographical features that 
may represent obstructions to the movement (on a geologic time scale) 
of troglobites, which has resulted in the present-day distribution of 
endemic (restricted to a given region) karst invertebrates in the Bexar 
County area.
    These areas have been delineated by Veni (1994) into five zones 
that reflect the likelihood of finding a karst feature that will 
provide habitat for the endangered Bexar County invertebrates based on 
geology, distribution of known caves, distribution of cave fauna, and 
primary factors that determine the presence, size, shape, and extent of 
caves with respect to cave development. These five zones are defined 
as:
    Zone 1: Areas known to contain one or more of the nine endangered 
karst invertebrates;
    Zone 2: Areas having a high probability of suitable habitat for the 
invertebrates;
    Zone 3: Areas that probably do not contain the invertebrates;
    Zone 4: Areas that require further research but are generally 
equivalent to zone 3, although they may include sections that could be 
classified as zone 2 or zone 5; and
    Zone 5: Areas that do not contain the invertebrates.
    Under contract with the Service, Veni (2002) re-evaluated and, 
where applicable, redrew the boundaries of each karst zone originally 
delineated in Veni (1994). Revisions were based on current geologic 
mapping, further studies of cave and karst development, and the most 
current information available on the distribution of listed and 
nonlisted cave-adapted species (Veni 2002).

Endangered Karst Invertebrate Distribution

    As of December 2002, 475 caves were known to occur in Bexar County, 
some of which have been biologically surveyed for listed species (Veni 
2002). At least 97 of the 475 caves were sealed or destroyed before 
they could be biologically surveyed (Veni 2002). Not all of the 
remaining caves in Bexar County have been adequately surveyed for 
invertebrates. It is likely that some of these caves will be found to 
contain one or more of the listed species. When the species were listed 
as endangered in December 2000, the Service knew of 57 occupied caves. 
When critical habitat was proposed in Bexar County in August 2002, we 
knew of 69 occupied caves. We now know of 74 caves containing one or 
more of the listed species in Bexar County (Table 1). The following 
species status descriptions are based on information available to us as 
of December 23, 2002.
Braken Bat Cave Meshweaver
    The Braken Bat Cave meshweaver, Cicurina venii (Araneae: 
Dictynidae), was first collected on November 22, 1980, by G. Veni and 
described by Gertsch (1992). Braken Bat Cave remains the only location 
known to contain this species (Table 1).
Cokendolpher Cave Harvestman
    The Cokendolpher cave harvestman, Texella cokendolpheri 
(Opilionida: Phalangodidae), was collected in 1982 and described by 
Ubick and Briggs (1992). This species, along with the Robber Baron Cave 
meshweaver, is only known from Robber Baron Cave (Table 1).
Government Canyon Bat Cave Meshweaver
    The Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver, Cicurina vespera 
(Araneae: Dictynidae), was first collected on August 11, 1965, by J. 
Reddell and J. Fish (Reddell 1993), and described by Gertsch (1992). 
The species is currently known from Government Canyon Bat Cave in 
Government Canyon State Natural Area and an unnamed cave referred to as 
``5 miles northeast of Helotes.'' However, the specimen collected from 
the latter cave has been tentatively identified as a new species 
(Cokendolpher, in press).
Government Canyon Bat Cave Spider
    The Government Canyon Bat Cave spider, Neoleptoneta microps 
(Araneae: Leptonetidae), was first collected on August 11, 1965, by J. 
Reddell and J. Fish (Reddell 1993). The species was originally 
described by Gertsch (1974)

[[Page 17158]]

as Leptoneta microps and later reassigned to Neoleptoneta following 
Brignoli (1977) and Platnick (1986). The species is known from 2 caves 
in Government Canyon State Natural Area (Table 1).
Madla Cave Meshweaver
    The Madla Cave meshweaver, Cicurina madla (Araneae: Dictynidae), 
was first collected on October 4, 1963, by J. Reddell and D. McKenzie 
(Reddell 1993) and described by Gertsch (1992). The Madla Cave 
meshweaver has been found in eight caves (Table 1).
    The Service is aware of 11 additional caves from which immature, 
eyeless troglobitic Cicurina spiders have been collected (SWCA 2000). 
Eight of these are in caves that have other listed species and are 
either included in critical habitat areas or areas that are not 
included in the designation due to the provision of adequate special 
management. The remaining three are in caves where authorization for 
take of C. madla was granted to La Cantera under a section 10(a)(1)(B) 
permit. These three caves have been, or will be, heavily impacted and 
are, therefore, not expected to contribute to the species recovery.
Robber Baron Cave Meshweaver
    The Robber Baron Cave meshweaver, Cicurina baronia (Araneae: 
Dictynidae), was first collected in Robber Baron Cave February 28, 
1969, by R. Bartholomew (Reddell 1993) and described by Gertsch (1992). 
The Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (a spider) is only known from Robber 
Baron Cave (Table 1).
Beetle (No Common Name) Rhadine exilis
    The beetle Rhadine exilis (Coleoptera: Carabidae) was first 
collected in 1959. The species was described by Barr and Lawrence 
(1960) as Agonum exile and later assigned to the genus Rhadine (Barr 
1974). The species is currently known to have been found in 47 caves 
(Table 1).
Beetle (No Common Name) Rhadine infernalis
    Rhadine infernalis (Coleoptera: Carabidae) was first collected in 
1959. The species was initially described by Barr and Lawrence (1960) 
as Agonum infernale, but later assigned to the genus Rhadine (Barr 
1974). Scientists have recognized three subspecies (Rhadine infernalis 
ewersi, Rhadine infernalis infernalis, Rhadine infernalis new 
subspecies) (Barr 1974; Barr and Lawrence 1960; Reddell 1998), all of 
which are included as protected under the Federal listing of the full 
species as endangered. A total of 35 caves are known to contain Rhadine 
infernalis (Table 1).
    Rhadine infernalis ewersi is known from 3 caves. Rhadine infernalis 
infernalis is known from 19 caves. The unnamed new subspecies (Rhadine 
infernalis new subspecies) was known from 6 caves at the time of the 
proposed rule designating critical habitat. During the public comment 
period, we received confirmation that R. infernalis collected from 
Obvious Little Cave has been identified as R. infernalis new 
subspecies. An additional 5 caves were identified in the proposed rule 
as containing Rhadine infernalis that have not yet been identified at 
the subspecies level. During the public comment period, we received 
survey information confirming the presence of R. infernalis in 
Continental Cave (Table 1). According to Veni (2002), specimens from 
these caves are probably R. infernalis infernalis, but have either not 
yet been fully identified or not reported.
Helotes Mold Beetle
    The Helotes mold beetle, Batrisodes venyivi (Coleoptera: 
Pselaphidae), was first collected in 1984 and described by Chandler 
(1992). The species is currently known from six caves (Table 1). The 
location of one of the caves, referred to as ``unnamed cave \1/2\ mile 
north of Helotes,'' is unknown. The original record for this cave is 
from Barr's (1974) description of Rhadine exilis. Because the number of 
caves in the general area is large, the location of this cave cannot be 
positively identified (George Veni, George Veni & Associates, pers. 
comm. 2002). However, this cave may not be a separate location after 
all, but may be an existing cave listed by the collector under the 
alternative name ``5 miles NE of Helotes.'' The cave referred to as ``5 
miles NE of Helotes,'' also has an unknown location.

Table 1.--Caves Known as of December 23, 2002, To Contain One or More of
  the Nine Bexar County, Texas, Karst Invertebrates Federally Listed as
                               Endangered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Species ( of caves)                  Cave name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (C. venii)    Braken Bat Cave.
 (1).
Cokendolpher cave harvestman (Texella    Robber Baron Cave.
 cokendolpheri) (1).
Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver    Government Canyon Bat Cave.
 (C. vespera) (1).
Government Canyon Bat Cave spider        Government Canyon Bat Cave,
 (Neoleptoneta microps) (2).              Surprise Sink.
Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla)   Christmas Cave, Madla's Cave,
 (8).                                     Madla's Drop Cave, Helotes
                                          Blowhole, Headquarters Cave,
                                          Hills and Dales Pit, Robber's
                                          Cave, Lost Pothole.
Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (C.         Robber Baron Cave
 baronia) (1).
Beetle (no common name) (Rhadine         40 mm Cave, B-52 Cave,
 exilis) (47).                            Backhole, Black Cat Cave,
                                          Boneyard Pit, Bunny Hole,
                                          Cross the Creek Cave, Dos
                                          Viboras Cave, Eagles Nest
                                          Cave, Hairy Tooth Cave,
                                          Headquarters Cave, Hilger
                                          Hole, Hold Me Back Cave,
                                          Hornet's Last Laugh Pit,
                                          Isocow Cave, Kick Start Cave,
                                          MARS Pit, MARS Shaft, Pain in
                                          the Glass Cave, Platypus Pit,
                                          Poor Boy Baculum Cave, Ragin'
                                          Cajun Cave, Root Canal Cave,
                                          Root Toupee Cave, Springtail
                                          Crevice, Strange Little Cave,
                                          Up the Creek Cave.
                                         Christmas Cave, Helotes
                                          Blowhole, Helotes Hilltop
                                          Cave, Logan's Cave, unnamed
                                          cave \1/2\ mile N. of Helotes.
                                         Creek Bank Cave, Government
                                          Canyon Bat Cave, Lithic Ridge
                                          Cave, Pig Cave, San Antonio
                                          Ranch Pit, Tight Cave.
                                         Hills and Dales Pit, John
                                          Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3,
                                          Kamikazi Cricket Cave, La
                                          Cantera Cave No. 1, La Cantera
                                          Cave No. 2, Mastodon Pit,
                                          Robber's Cave, Three Fingers
                                          Cave, Young Cave No. 1.
Beetle (no common name) R. infernalis    Canyon Ranch Pit, Continental
 (6) (subspecies not indicated--          Cave, Fat Man's Nightmare
 probably R. infernalis infernalis but    Cave, Pig Cave, San Antonio
 individual specimens are either not      Ranch Pit, Scenic Overlook
 fully identified or reported (Veni       Cave.
 2002)).

[[Page 17159]]

 
R. infernalis ewersi (3)...............  Flying Buzzworm Cave,
                                          Headquarters Cave, Low
                                          Priority Cave.
R. infernalis new subspecies (7).......  Caracol Creek Coon Cave, Game
                                          Pasture Cave No. 1, Isopit,
                                          King Toad Cave, Obvious Little
                                          Cave, Stevens Ranch Trash Hole
                                          Cave, Wurzbach Bat Cave.
R. infernalis infernalis (19)..........  Bone Pile Cave, Dancing Rattler
                                          Cave, Government Canyon Bat
                                          Cave, Hackberry Sink, Lithic
                                          Ridge Cave, Surprise Sink,
                                          Christmas Cave, Helotes
                                          Blowhole, Logan's Cave,
                                          Madla's Cave, Madla's Drop
                                          Cave, Crownridge Canyon Cave,
                                          Genesis Cave, John Wagner
                                          Ranch Cave No. 3, Kamikazi
                                          Cricket Cave, Mattke Cave,
                                          Robber's Cave, Scorpion Cave,
                                          Three Fingers Cave.
Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes          San Antonio Ranch Pit, Scenic
 venyivi) (6).                            Overlook Cave, Christmas Cave,
                                          unnamed cave \1/2\ mile N of
                                          Helotes, Helotes Hilltop Cave,
                                          unnamed cave 5 miles NE of
                                          Helotes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Animal Community

Cave Crickets

    Cave crickets are a critical source of nutrient input for karst 
ecosystems (Barr 1968; Reddell 1993). Cave crickets in the genus 
Ceuthophilus occur in most caves in Texas (Reddell 1966). Being 
sensitive to temperature extremes and drying, cave crickets forage on 
the surface at night and roost in the cave during the day. Cave 
crickets lay their eggs in the cave, providing food for a variety of 
karst species (Mitchell 1971b). Some karst species also feed on cave 
cricket feces (Barr 1968; Poulson et al. 1995) and on adults and nymphs 
directly (Cokendolpher, in press; Elliott 1994a). Cave crickets are 
scavengers or detritivores, feeding on dead insects, carrion, and some 
fruits, but not on foliage (Elliott 1994a).
    Elliott (2000) studied the community ecology of three caves in 
protected areas of varying size in northwest Travis and Williamson 
Counties, Texas, from 1993 to 1999. The three caves are in areas 
protected as mitigation for two listed species found in Lakeline Cave 
during the development of Lakeline Mall. Lakeline Cave is located on a 
0.9 hectares (ha) (2.3 acres (ac)) protected area and is surrounded by 
parking lots and a shopping center. Temples of Thor Cave and Testudo 
Tube are within much larger tracts of undeveloped land, being located 
on 42.5 ha (105 ac), and 10.5 ha (26 ac) of protected areas, 
respectively. During the monitoring study (1993-1999), the number of 
cave crickets drastically declined in Lakeline Cave, while they 
increased slightly or decreased moderately in the other two caves. 
Elliott (2000) concluded that drought, fire ants, and a decrease in 
racoon visitation caused the decline of the cave crickets. These 
results are consistent with reports of declines and extinctions of 
several invertebrates and small mammals (resulting from lower 
survivorship, higher emigration, and/or lower immigration) from habitat 
patches ranging in size from 2 to 7 ha (5 to 17 ac) (Mader 1984; 
Tscharntke 1992; Keith et al. 1993; Lindenmayer and Possingham 1995; 
Hill et al. 1996).
    Elliott (1994a) evaluated cave cricket foraging within 50 m (164 
ft) of cave entrances at his study sites and found crickets to the end 
of the 50 m sampling distance. On a few occasions he observed cave 
crickets beyond his sampling sites, and on one occasion he set a trap 
60 m (197 ft) from the entrance and found one large adult. Elliott 
(1994a) concluded that the ``largest adults probably are capable of 
traveling far beyond 60 m from the entrance,'' but he did not have the 
data necessary to establish how far they go. During recent cave cricket 
surveys conducted for an ongoing project in central Texas, an adult 
cave cricket was found foraging 95 m (311 ft) from the study cave 
(Steve Taylor, Illinois Natural History Survey, pers. comm. 2002).
    As trogloxenes, cave cricket populations are dependent on the 
patchy distribution of karst voids. Therefore, cave cricket populations 
may have a metapopulation (subpopulations that interact via the 
dispersal of individuals from one subpopulation to others) or a source-
sink population structure, and it may be important to protect multiple 
karst features that support cave crickets in a karst ecosystem (Helf et 
al. 1995). Metapopulation dynamics require movement among patches, and 
persistence requires interacting patches that undergo local extinctions 
and establishment of new subpopulations in areas previously devoid of 
individuals (Hanski 1999). ``Source'' populations are those that occur 
``in a high-quality habitat in which birth rate generally exceeds the 
death rate and the excess individuals leave as emigrants.'' ``Sink'' 
populations are those that occur ``in a low-quality habitat in which 
the birth rate is generally lower than the death rate and population 
density is maintained by immigrants from source populations (Meffe et 
al. 1997). Because cave crickets are a key source of nutrient input for 
karst ecosystems, conserving adequate areas between karst patches in a 
manner that allows for movement of individuals among cave cricket 
populations is likely an important factor in long-term maintenance for 
karst ecosystems.
    Subsurface karst areas may also be important to allow movement 
among cave cricket populations through the subsurface environment 
associated with continuous limestone blocks. For example, Caccone and 
Sbordoni (1987) studied nine species of North American cave crickets 
(genera Eukadenoecus and Hadenoecus) from sites in North Carolina, 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and 
Alabama. Seven of the species were obligate cave-dwelling species that 
emerged at night to feed. Through genetic analyses of the cave-dwelling 
species, they found that species or groups of populations inhabiting 
areas where the limestone is continuous and highly fissured are 
genetically less differentiated than are populations occurring in 
regions where the limestone distribution is more fragmented, indicating 
more exchange of individuals in areas of continuous karst.
    Helf et al. (1995) suggested that populations of an eastern species 
of cave cricket (Hadenoecus subterraneus) may be at risk because they 
do not recover quickly after events such as drought, floods, and 
temperature extremes that preclude or diminish foraging opportunities. 
These cave cricket populations may have source-sink population 
dynamics, with some

[[Page 17160]]

karst features acting as sources and the majority of karst features 
acting as sinks, but Helf et al. (1995) recommends that ``even sink 
populations should be protected because their emigrants can ``rescue'' 
source populations that experience local decimation.'' These studies 
suggest that it is important to protect the geological features that 
connect caves and maintain habitat corridors among caves.

Other Surface Animals

    Many central Texas caves with endangered invertebrate species are 
frequented by mammals and several species of reptiles and amphibians 
(Reddell 1967). Although there are no studies establishing the role of 
mammals in central Texas cave ecology, the presence of a large amount 
of animal materials (such as scat, nesting materials, and dead bodies) 
indicates they are probably important. An important source of nutrients 
for the cave species may be the fungus, microbes, and/or other 
troglophiles and troglobites that grow or feed on feces (Elliott 1994b; 
Gounot 1994).
    For predatory troglobites (such as the listed Bexar County 
invertebrates), invertebrates that accidently occur in the caves may 
also be an important nutrient source (Hopper 2000). Documented 
accidental species include snails, earthworms, terrestrial isopods 
(commonly known as pillbugs or potato bugs), scorpions, spiders, mites, 
collembola (primitive wingless insects that are commonly known as 
springtails), thysanura (commonly known as bristletails and 
silverfish), harvestmen (commonly known as daddy-long-legs), ants, 
leafhoppers, thrips, beetles, weevils, moths, and flies (Reddell 1965; 
1966; 1999).

Vegetation Community

    Surface vegetation is an important element of the karst habitat for 
several reasons, including its role in providing nutrients from: (1) 
Direct flow of plant material into the karst with water; (2) habitat 
and food sources provided for the animal communities that contribute 
nutrients to the karst ecosystem (such as cave crickets, small mammals, 
and other vertebrates); and possibly, (3) roots that extend into 
subsurface areas. Surface vegetation also 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).
    Tree roots have been found to provide a major energy source in 
shallow lava tubes and limestone caves in Hawaii (Howarth 1981). 
Jackson et al. (1999) investigated rooting depth in 21 caves on the 
Edwards Plateau to assess the belowground vegetational community 
structure and the functional importance of roots. They observed roots 
penetrating up to 25 m (82 ft) into the interior of 20 of the caves, 
with roots of 6 tree species common to the plateau penetrating to below 
5 m (16.4 ft).
    Along with providing directly and indirectly nutrients to the karst 
ecosystem, a healthy vegetative community may also help control the 
spread of exotic species. The red imported fire ant (Solenopsis 
invicta) is an aggressive predator, which has had a devastating and 
long-lasting impact on native ant populations and other arthropod 
communities (Vinson and Sorenson 1986; Porter and Savignano 1990) and 
is a threat to the karst invertebrates (Elliott 1994b; USFWS 1994). 
Fire ants have been observed building nests both within and near cave 
entrances, as well as foraging in caves, especially during the summer. 
Shallow caves inhabited by listed karst invertebrates are especially 
vulnerable to invasion by fire ants and other exotic species. In 
addition to preying on cave invertebrate species, including cave 
crickets, fire ants may compete with cave crickets for food (Elliott 
1994a; 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 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 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). Porter et al. (1991) state that 
control of fire ants in areas greater than 5 ha (12 ac) may be more 
effective than in smaller areas since multiple queen fire ant colonies 
reproduce primarily by ``budding,'' where queens and workers branch off 
from the main colony and form new sister colonies. Maintaining large, 
undisturbed areas of native vegetation may also help sustain the native 
ant communities (Porter et al. 1988; 1991).
    Listed species, and their associated prey items, have adapted to 
native vegetation, with its associated nutrients, surface foliage, and 
subsurface roots. Before 1860, Bexar County native vegetation consisted 
of an approximate equal mix of areas with woody and grassland plants 
(Del Weniger 1988). In more recent times, exotic species have often 
replaced native plants. The effects on listed invertebrates of 
replacement of native with exotic vegetation have not been reported.

Woodland-Grassland Community

    Because of the various roles played by surface vegetation in 
maintaining the cave and karst ecosystem, including the listed karst 
invertebrate species that are part of the ecosystem, we examined the 
best available scientific information to estimate the surface 
vegetation needed to support ecosystem processes. The woodland-
grassland mosaic community typical of the Edwards Plateau is a patchy 
environment composed of many different plant species. Van Auken et al. 
(1980) studied the woody vegetation of the Edwards and Glen Rose 
formations in the southern Edwards Plateau in Bexar, Bandera, and 
Medina counties. They encountered a total of 24 species of plants on 
the Edwards or Glen Rose geologic formations, two of the principal, 
cave-containing rock units of the Edwards Plateau.
    To maintain natural vegetation communities over the long term, 
enough individuals of each plant species must be present for successful 
reproduction. The number of reproductive individuals necessary to 
maintain a viable or self-reproducing plant population is influenced by 
needs for satisfactory germination (Menges 1995), genetic variation 
(Bazzaz 1983; Menges 1995; Young 1995), and pollination (Groom 1998; 
Jennersten 1995; Bigger 1999). Pavlik (1996) stated that long-lived, 
self-fertilizing, woody plants with high fecundity would be expected to 
have minimum viable population sizes in the range of 50-250 
reproductive individuals. Fifty reproductive individuals is a 
reasonable minimum figure for one of the dominant species of the 
community (Juniperous ashei) based on reproductive profiles (Van Auken 
et al. 1979; Van Auken et al. 1980; Van Auken et al. 1981). This figure 
would likely be an underestimate for other woody species present in 
central Texas woodlands, however, because these other species are more 
sensitive to environmental changes and do not meet several of the life-
history criteria needed for the lowest minimal viable population size. 
Although these species may require population sizes at

[[Page 17161]]

the higher end of range (that is, nearer 250 individuals) suggested by 
Pavlik (1996) to be viable, we do not have the data to support that 
contention. Therefore, on the basis of our review of information 
available to us, and after soliciting input from a botanist with 
expertise in the Edwards Plateau (Dr. Kathryn Kennedy, Center for Plant 
Conservation, pers. comm. 2002), we consider a minimum viable 
population size for individual plant species composing a typical oak/
juniper woodland found in central Texas to be 80 individuals per 
species. This estimate is based on a habitat type that, as a whole, is 
fairly mature, and on knowledge that the species are relatively long-
lived and reproductively successful.
    On the basis of an analysis of recorded densities, corrected for 
nonreproductive individuals, we then calculated the area needed to 
support 80 mature reproductive individuals per species for the 24 
species reported by Van Auken et al. (1980). Based on our calculations, 
the four highest area requirements to maintain at least 80 mature 
individuals were for species that occur at lower densities. These 
included 80 ha (198 ac) for Condalia hookeri, and approximately 32 ha 
(79 ac) for each of Ptelea trifoliata, Ungnadia speciosa, and Bumelia 
lanuginosa. Our calculations indicate that the area needed to maintain 
the 7 species with the highest average dominance values (Juniperus 
ashei, Quercus fusiformis, Quercus texana, Acacia greggii, Rhus virens, 
Berberis trifoliata, and Ulmus crassifolia) is approximately 13 ha (33 
ac). This number would maintain 80 reproductive individuals for 15 of 
the 24 species. Nine of the species are rarer in the community and all 
have importance values of less than 1.0. The area needed to maintain 
these nine species ranges from approximately 20 to 80 ha (49 to 198 
ac), with 7 of them in the 26 ha to 32 ha (65 to 79 ac) range.
    Most literature found for Central Texas native grasslands was 
descriptive and not quantitative in its treatment of species 
composition and dispersion. No literature was located that provided 
grassland species area curves or quantitative species density tables 
for the Central Texas area. Two papers by Lynch (1962, 1971) examined 
species on an 8-acre tract over time, with 123 species, but a high 
species turnover. High species turnover can be indicative of a habitat 
area which is too small; however, pre- and post-drought conditions may 
also have affected this situation. Robertson et al. (1997), in a 
slightly more mesic grassland habitat, found that a 4 ha (10 ac) site 
captured most of the species diversity (100 species) present even in 
much larger patches, although it does not address population sizes and 
persistence in isolation, and an increase to a 6 ha (14 ac) tract 
increased species representation to 140. One paper on a grassland in a 
more westerly and drier location in Central Texas recorded 157 taxa in 
a 16 ha (40 ac) exclosure studied between 1948 and the mid-1970's 
(Smeins and Merrill 1976).
    Primary recruitment of new individuals of grass species in 
grasslands is from seedling establishment. Many grass species use wind 
to disperse their seeds and dispersal distances may be small. The 
process of expansion through rhizomes (underground stems) is slow and 
clonal, which reduces genetic variability. Seed dispersal, soil 
texture, and suitable soil moisture profiles at critical times are 
important factors for maintaining viability (Coffin et al. 1993).
    As described above, we have reviewed the available information 
concerning grasslands and grassland species in Central Texas. The 
information is of a relatively general nature, and we did not find 
specific information addressing the role that grasslands or grass 
species might play in contributing, directly or indirectly, to karst 
ecosystems. While grassland communities and species may be important to 
maintaining the karst community, we lack adequate information to 
credibly estimate surface habitat patch size requirements for grass 
species in relation to karst ecosystems.
    The presence of surface vegetation communities is important for 
maintaining the humid conditions, stable temperatures, and natural 
airflow in cave and karst environments. Vegetation also plays an 
important role in water quality. Since soil depth is shallow over the 
limestone plateau, water collects as sheet flow on the surface 
following rain and enters the subsurface environment through cave 
openings, fractures, and solutionally-enlarged bedding planes. This 
direct, rapid transport of water through the karst allows for little or 
no purification (Veni 1988), allowing contaminants and sediments to 
enter directly into the subsurface environment. As a result, karst 
features and karst dependent invertebrates are vulnerable to the 
adverse effects of pollution from contaminated ground and surface 
water. Maintaining stable environmental conditions and protecting 
groundwater quality and quantity requires managing a healthy vegetation 
community to avoid threats from surface and subsurface drainage to the 
karst environment needed by the karst dependent species. This includes 
not only the cave entrances accessible to humans, but also sinks, 
depressions, fractures, and fissures, which may serve as subsurface 
conduits into caves and other subsurface spaces used by the 
invertebrates.

Buffer Areas

    To maintain a viable vegetative community, including woodland and 
grassland species, a buffer area is needed to shield the core habitat 
from impacts associated with edge effects or disturbance from adjacent 
urban development (Lovejoy et al. 1986; Yahner 1988). In this context, 
edge effects refer to the adverse changes to natural communities 
(primarily from increases in invasive species and pollutants, and 
changes in microclimates) from nearby areas that have been modified for 
human development.
    The changes caused by edge effects can occur rapidly. For example, 
vegetation 2 m (6.6 ft) from a newly created edge can be altered within 
days (Lovejoy et al. 1986). Edges may allow invasive plant species to 
gain a foothold where the native vegetation had previously prevented 
their spread (Saunders et al. 1990; Kotanen et al. 1998; Suarez et al. 
1998; Meiners and Steward 1999). When plant species composition is 
altered as a result of an edge effect, changes also occur in the 
surface animal communities (Lovejoy and Oren 1981; Harris 1984; Mader 
1984; Thompson 1985; Lovejoy et al. 1986; Yahner 1988; Fajer et al. 
1989; Kindvall 1992; Tscharntke 1992; Keith et al. 1993; Hanski 1995; 
Lindenmayer and Possingham 1995; Bowers et al. 1996; Hill et al. 1996; 
Kozlov 1996; Kuussaari et al. 1996; Turner 1996; Mankin and Warner 
1997; Burke and Nol 1998; Didham 1998; Suarez et al. 1998; Crist and 
Ahern 1999; Kindvall 1999). Changes in plant and animal species 
composition as a result of edge effects may unnaturally change the 
nutrient cycling processes required to support cave and karst ecosystem 
dynamics. To minimize edge effects, the core area must have a 
sufficient buffer area.
    One recommendation for protecting forested areas from edge effects 
that are in proximity to clear-cut areas is use of the ``three tree 
height'' approach (Harris 1984) for estimating the width of the buffer 
area needed. We used this general rule to estimate the width of buffer 
areas needed to protect the habitat core areas. The average height of 
native mature trees in the Edwards woodland association in Texas ranges 
from 3 to 9

[[Page 17162]]

m (10 to 30 ft) (Van Auken et al. 1979). Applying the ``three tree 
height'' general rule, and using the average value of 6.6 m for tree 
height, we estimated that a buffer width of at least 20 m (66 ft) is 
needed around a core habitat area to protect the vegetative community 
from edge effects. Based on this rule, 7 acres is necessary to protect 
a 33-acre core area. We recognize that the ``three tree height'' 
approach described by Harris (1984) was based on the distance that 
effects of storm events (``wind-throw'') from a surrounding clear-cut 
``edge'' will penetrate into an old-growth forest stand. Since the 
effects of edge on woodland/grass land mosaic communities have not been 
well studied, the ``three tree height'' recommendation is considered to 
be the best available peer-reviewed science to protect woodland areas 
from edge effects (Dr. Kathryn Kennedy, Center for Plant Conservation, 
pers. comm. 2003). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is also in 
general agreement about the need for some type of buffer as a means of 
addressing edge effects, but currently has not specific recommendations 
on appropriate size for such a buffer ( John Herron, Texas Parks and 
Wildlife Department, pers. comm. 2003).
    Animal communities also should be buffered from impacts associated 
with edge effects or disturbance from adjacent urban development. Edges 
can act as a barrier to dispersal of birds and mammals (Yahner 1988; 
Hansson 1998). Invertebrate species are affected by edges. Mader et al. 
(1990) found that carabid beetles and lycosid spiders avoided crossing 
unpaved roads that were even smaller than 3 m (9 ft) wide. Saunders et 
al. (1990) suggested that as little as 100 m (328 ft) of agricultural 
fields may be a complete barrier to dispersal for invertebrates and 
some species of birds. In general, for animal communities, species need 
buffers of 50 to 100 m (164 to 328 ft) or greater to ameliorate edge 
effects (Lovejoy et al. 1986; Wilcove et al. 1986; Laurance 1991; 
Laurance and Yensen 1991; Kapos et al. 1993; Andren 1995; Reed et al. 
1996; Burke and Nol 1998; Didham 1998; Suarez et al. 1998).
    Nonnative fire ants are known to be harmful to many species of 
invertebrates and vertebrates. In coastal southern California, Suarez 
et al. (1998) found that densities of the exotic Argentine ant 
(Linepithema humile), which has similar life history and ecological 
requirements to the red imported fire ant (Dr. Richard Patrock, 
University of Texas at Austin, pers. comm. 2003), are greatest near 
disturbed areas. Native ant communities tended to be more abundant in 
native vegetation and less abundant in disturbed areas. Based on the 
association of the Argentine ant and distance to the nearest edge in 
urban areas, core areas may only be effective at maintaining natural 
populations of native ants when there is a buffer area of at least 200 
m (656 ft) (Suarez et al. 1998).
    Information on the area needed to maintain populations of animal 
species, including cave crickets, found in Central Texas is lacking. As 
discussed above, animal communities should be buffered by areas of 50 
to 100 m (164 to 328 ft) or greater to ameliorate edge effects, and by 
areas of 200 m (656 ft) to buffer against the effects of fire ants. 
From this data, we determined that a buffer of 100 m (328 ft), in 
addition to the 50 m (164 ft) cave cricket foraging area, would, at a 
minimum, protect the cave cricket foraging area from the effects of 
edge and nonnative species invasions.

Fragmentation

    Haskell (2000) examined the effect of habitat fragmentation by 
unpaved roads through otherwise contiguous forest in the southern 
Appalachian Mountains and found reduced soil macroinvertebrate species 
abundance up to 100 m (328 ft) from the road and declines in faunal 
richness up to 15 m (50 ft) from the road. Haskell (2000) pointed out 
that ``these changes may have additional consequences for the 
functioning of the forest ecosystem and the biological diversity found 
within this system. The macroinvertebrate fauna of the leaf litter 
plays a pivotal role in the ability of the soil to process energy and 
nutrients.'' Haskell further points out that these changes may in turn 
affect the distribution and abundance of other organisms, particularly 
plants. Changes in abundance in litter dwelling macroinvertebrates may 
also affect ground-foraging vertebrate fauna (Haskell 2000).
    Invertebrate biomass per unit area has been found to be less in 
small fragmented habitats, which may result in reduced food available 
for cave crickets. Burke and Nol (1998), working in southern Ontario, 
Canada, found a greater biomass of leaf litter invertebrates in large 
(=20 ha (49 ac)) than in smaller forested areas. Zanette et 
al. (2000) in New South Wales, Australia, reported that the biomass of 
ground dwelling invertebrates was 1.6 times greater in large 
( 400 ha (988 ac)) than in smaller ([sim]55 ha (136 ac)) 
forested areas.

Dispersal

    The ability of individuals to move between preferred habitat 
patches is essential for colonization and population viability (Eber 
and Brandl 1996; Fahrig and Merriam 1994; Hill et al. 1996; Kattan et 
al. 1994; Kindvall 1999; Kozlov 1996; Kuussaari et al. 1996; Turner 
1996). Patch shapes allowing connection with the highest number of 
neighboring patches increase the likelihood that a neighboring patch 
will be occupied (Fahrig and Merriam 1994; Kindvall 1999; Kuussaari et 
al. 1996; Tiebout and Anderson 1997). If movement among populations is 
restricted and a population is isolated, the habitat patch size must be 
large enough to ensure that the population can survive (Fahrig and 
Merriam 1994).
    It is likely that many cave systems are connected throughout the 
subsurface geologic formation even though this may not be readily 
apparent from surface observations. The extent to which listed species 
use interstitial spaces and passages is not known. Troglobitic species 
may retreat into these small interstitial spaces where the physical 
environment is more stable (Howarth 1983) and may spend the majority of 
their time in such retreats, only leaving them during temporary forays 
into the larger cave passages to forage (Howarth 1987). During several 
karst invertebrate surveys conducted in Bexar County caves, Service 
biologists have observed that troglobites, including listed species, 
were not found when temperature and humidity in the cave was low. Upon 
returning to the same cave once environmental conditions returned to 
optimal, the listed species and other troglobites were observed.
    Small voids (inaccessible to humans) and interstitial spaces can 
also provide subsurface corridors for movement of listed species and 
cave crickets between and among caves and karst features. Cores drilled 
around and between occupied caves have led to discovery of additional 
void space that was hydrologically, but not physically connected to the 
humanly-accessible portion of an occupied cave. Listed species were 
found in this void space.

Summary

    The conservation of the endangered karst invertebrates depends on a 
self-sustaining karst ecosystem; surface and subsurface drainage basins 
to maintain adequate levels of moisture; and a viable surface animal 
and plant community for nutrient input and protection of the subsurface 
from adverse impacts. The area needed to conserve such an

[[Page 17163]]

ecosystem includes a core area buffered from the impacts associated 
with fragmentation, isolation, edge effects, and other factors that may 
threaten ecosystem stability. Depending on the size and shape of these 
core habitat areas or patches, in order to remain viable, they may also 
require connections to other habitat patches.

Previous Federal Action

    On January 16, 1992, we received a petition submitted by 
representatives of the Helotes Creek Association, the Balcones 
Canyonlands Conservation Coalition, the Texas Speleological 
Association, the Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, and the Texas Cave 
Management Association to add the nine invertebrates to the List of 
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. On December 1, 1993, we announced 
in the Federal Register (58 FR 63328) a 90-day finding that the 
petition presented substantial information that listing may be 
warranted.
    On November 15, 1994, we added eight of the nine invertebrates to 
the Animal Notice of Review as category 2 candidate species in the 
Federal Register (59 FR 58982). We intended to include Rhadine exilis 
in the notice of review, but an oversight occurred and it did not 
appear in the published notice. Category 2 candidates, a classification 
since discontinued, were those taxa for which we had data indicating 
that listing was possibly appropriate, but for which we lacked 
substantial data on biological vulnerability and threats to support 
proposed listing rules.
    On December 30, 1998, we published a proposed rule to list the nine 
Bexar County karst invertebrates as endangered (63 FR 71855). 
Incorporating comments and new information received during the public 
comment period on the proposed rule, we published a final rule to list 
the nine Bexar County karst invertebrate species as endangered in the 
Federal Register on December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419).
    In the proposed rule for listing these species, we indicated that 
designation of critical habitat was not prudent for the nine 
invertebrates because the publication of precise species locations and 
maps and descriptions of critical habitat in the Federal Register would 
make the nine species more vulnerable to incidents of vandalism through 
increased recreational visits to their cave habitat and through 
purposeful destruction of the caves. We also indicated that designation 
of critical habitat was not prudent because it would not provide any 
additional benefits beyond those provided through listing the species 
as endangered.
    Based on recent court decisions (for example, Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F. 3d 1121 (9th 
Cir. 1997); Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp. 2d 
1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)) and the standards applied in those judicial 
opinions, we reexamined the question of whether critical habitat for 
the nine invertebrates would be prudent. After reexamining the 
available evidence for the nine invertebrates, we did not find specific 
evidence of collection or trade of these or any similarly situated 
species. Consequently, in our final rule listing the species, we found 
that ``by designating critical habitat in a manner that does not 
identify specific cave locations, the threat of vandalism by 
recreational visits to the cave or purposeful destruction by unknown 
parties should not be increased'' (65 FR 81419). Therefore, our final 
rule to list the species as endangered also included our determination 
that critical habitat designation was prudent as we did not find 
specific evidence of increased vandalism, and we found there may be 
some educational or informational benefit to designating critical 
habitat. Thus, we found that the benefits of designating critical 
habitat for the nine karst invertebrate species outweighed the benefits 
of not designating critical habitat.
    The Final Listing Priority Guidance for FY 2000 (64 FR 57114) 
stated that we would undertake critical habitat determinations and 
designations during FY 2000 as allowed by our funding allocation for 
that year. As explained in detail in the Listing Priority Guidance, our 
listing budget was insufficient to allow us to immediately complete all 
of the listing actions required by the Act during FY 2000. We stated 
that we would propose designation of critical habitat in the future at 
such time when our available resources and priorities allowed.
    On November 1, 2000, the Center for Biological Diversity (Center) 
filed a complaint against the Service alleging that the Service 
exceeded its 1-year deadline to publish a final rule to list and to 
designate critical habitat for the nine Bexar County cave 
invertebrates. Subsequent to the Service publishing the final rule to 
list these nine species as endangered on December 26, 2000, the Center 
agreed to dismiss its claim regarding the listing of the species. Under 
the terms of a settlement reached between the Center and the Service, 
the Service agreed to submit to the Federal Register for publication a 
proposed critical habitat determination on or by June 30, 2002, and a 
final determination on or by January 25, 2003. Sixty-day extensions on 
the deadlines to submit both the proposed and final critical habitat 
determinations to the Federal Register for publication were approved by 
the court, and the new deadlines became August 31, 2002, and March 26, 
2003, for the proposed and final rules, respectively.
    On February 28, 2002, we mailed letters to the Texas Parks and 
Wildlife Department and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation 
Commission informing them that we were in the process of designating 
critical habitat for the nine Bexar County karst invertebrates. We 
requested any additional available information on the listed species, 
including biology; life history; habitat requirements; distribution, 
including geologic controls to species distribution; current threats; 
and management activities, current or in the foreseeable future. The 
letters contained a current list of Bexar County caves known to contain 
listed species, a map showing the general distribution of these species 
within each Karst Fauna Region, and a list of the references pertaining 
to these species and their distribution as we know it. We requested 
their review and comments on our current information and asked their 
assistance in providing any additional available information.
    We also mailed approximately 300 pre-proposal letters to interested 
parties and cave biologists on March 20, 2002, informing them that we 
were in the process of designating critical habitat for the 9 listed 
karst invertebrates. The letters contained a copy of the final rule to 
list these Bexar County invertebrate species as endangered, a map 
showing the general distribution of these species, a list of literature 
about these species and their habitats, and a brief summary with 
questions and answers on critical habitat. We requested comments on: 
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to 
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including 
whether the benefits of excluding areas will outweigh the benefits of 
including areas; (2) land use practices and current or planned 
activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on possible 
critical habitat; (3) any foreseeable economic or other impacts 
resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, and 
particularly any impacts on small entities or families; and (4) 
economic and other benefits associated with designating critical 
habitat for the Bexar County karst invertebrates.
    On August 27, 2002, we proposed that 25 units encompassing a total 
of approximately 3,857 ha (9,516 ac) in

[[Page 17164]]

Bexar County, Texas, be designated as critical habitat for the nine 
karst invertebrates (67 FR 55064). The comment period for the proposed 
rule was originally scheduled to close on November 25, 2002, but was 
extended until December 23, 2002 (67 FR 70203), to allow for a 30-day 
comment period on the draft economic analysis. Thus, we accepted 
comments on the proposed rule and the economic analysis until December 
23, 2002.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the August 27, 2002, proposed rule, we requested all interested 
parties to submit comments or information concerning the designation of 
critical habitat for the nine endangered Bexar County invertebrates (67 
FR 55064). During the comment period, we held a public hearing in San 
Antonio on October 30, 2002. We published a newspaper notice inviting 
public comment and announcing the public hearing in the San Antonio 
Express-News. A transcript of the hearing is available for inspection 
(see ADDRESSES section). The comment period was originally scheduled to 
close on November 25, 2002.
    On November 21, 2002, we announced the availability of the draft 
economic analysis and requested comments on it and the proposal during 
an extension of the comment period until December 23, 2002 (67 FR 
70203). We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, county 
governments, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment. We also provided notification of these 
documents through email, telephone calls, letters, and news releases 
faxed and/or mailed to affected elected officials, media outlets, local 
jurisdictions, and interest groups. For the notice of the proposed 
rule, we mailed over 1,500 letters to interested parties. Later we sent 
over 1,200 post cards notifying interested parties of the availability 
of the draft economic analysis and the extension of the comment period. 
The number of parties on the mailing list fell as we deleted out-of-
date and duplicate addresses. We also published all of the associated 
documents on the Service's regional Internet site following their 
release.
    We solicited 11 independent experts who are familiar with these 
species and the karst ecosystem to peer-review the proposed critical 
habitat designation. Only one of the peer reviewers submitted comments, 
generally in support of the proposed designation (see ``Peer Review'' 
section below). We also received a total of 42 written comments, and 3 
oral comments at the public hearing. Of those comments indicating a 
preference, 10 supported the critical habitat designation and 13 
indicated opposition to designation. Many commenters did not express 
opposition to the designation, but did express opposition to specific 
areas being included. We reviewed all comments received for substantive 
issues and new data regarding critical habitat and the draft economic 
analysis. Here, we address all comments on both documents received 
during the comment periods, as well as public hearing testimony. We 
have grouped similar comments and addressed them in the following 
summary.

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology for Size of Critical 
Habitat Units

    (1) Comment: The Service should designate smaller areas for 
critical habitat units, including: (1) Surface and subsurface drainage 
areas; (2) cave cricket foraging areas; and (3) dominant and 
subdominant woody species, rather than uncommon plant species. The 
Service focused its methodology on surface plant communities, but 
little information exists relating particular vegetation communities to 
the subsurface habitat of the listed species.
    Our Response: We believe it is well documented that surface flora 
and fauna communities are an essential energy source for fauna, 
including the nine endangered invertebrates, in the karst environment. 
The areas needed to support dominant, subdominant, and ``other woody 
species'' common to the Edwards Plateau were included in our proposal 
to incorporate key components of the native vegetative community that 
contribute directly to nutrient input, and which also support the 
animal community that is another source of nutrient input to karst 
areas. We do not have data from vegetation surveys conducted around 
occupied caves to determine the importance of rarer plant species. 
Therefore, in this final designation we have reduced the size of all of 
the critical habitat units based on the amount of area that we believe, 
based on the best available information, is needed to support at least 
15 of 24 species of vegetation on the Edwards Plateau, including the 
seven species with the highest dominance values, but not the rarer 
plant species (see ``Criteria Used to Delineate Critical Habitat'' 
section below for further explanation).
    (2) Comment: The Service should designate larger areas for the 
critical habitat units to: (1) Include all or most of Karst Zone 1; (2) 
all or portions of Karst Zone 2; (3) reduce fragmentation of habitat; 
(4) consider subsurface karst voids between known caves that may 
provide habitat for the species; (5) provide better protection against 
pollution; and (6) provide dispersal corridors for cave crickets.
    Our Response: We agree that it is likely that all of these concerns 
have the potential to affect the conservation of the endangered karst 
invertebrates. Much of the biology and ecology of these karst-adapted 
listed species is not well understood. Critical habitat was delineated 
to encompass areas on which are found those components of the karst 
ecosystem for which sufficient information exists to determine that 
they are essential to the conservation of the listed species.
    We recognize that areas outside of the boundaries of critical 
habitat may be important for the karst invertebrates for purposes such 
as providing habitat in interstitial karst voids (beyond the known 
caves), additional sources of nutrients, or dispersal corridors. 
However, we did not have sufficient data when we proposed critical 
habitat, nor were any data provided during the comment period, that 
would allow us to adequately assess the importance to occupied caves of 
other areas of Karst Zones 1 or 2, karst voids between known caves, 
larger buffers, or areas that are needed for dispersal corridors for 
cave crickets. For instance, members of the Technical Subcommittee of 
the Karst Invertebrate Recovery Team, who are experts on the species 
and the karst ecosystems, agree that it is likely the invertebrates 
spend considerable time, perhaps the majority of time, in the human-
inaccessible karst voids (interstitial spaces) associated with the cave 
(Steve Taylor, Technical Subcommittee chair, pers. comm. 2002). 
However, the distance that these invertebrates go from the cave into 
the surrounding karst is unknown. Since protection of the surface and 
subsurface drainage areas associated with each occupied cave is 
important to buffer the cave from pollutants, these drainage areas were 
included, where possible, in the critical habitat designation. 
Additional scientific discovery may show that larger areas are needed 
for long-term conservation, and we will continue to incorporate such 
information into planning and implementing various conservation 
activities for these species. Given the best available information, we 
believe the specific areas designated in this rule contain one or more 
of the physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and meet the definition of critical habitat 
as provided in section 3 of the Act.

[[Page 17165]]

    (3) Comment: The proposed rule did not show that designating 
critical habitat was essential to conservation of the species or 
requires special management.
    Our Response: Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as 
``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed * * *, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) which may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon a determination * 
* * that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.'' Regulations (50 CFR 424.12) direct us to ``focus on the 
principal biological or physical constituent elements within the 
defined area that are essential to the conservation of the species.'' 
Conservation is defined in the Act, section 3, as ``the use of all 
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered 
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.'' We believe the 
proposed rule demonstrated that the primary constituent elements we 
recognized are essential to the conservation of the species. The areas 
we are designating all contain one or more of such features.
    The caves and the associated karst are essential to the 
conservation of the species because the invertebrates live, feed, and 
reproduce in the caves and the associated karst structures. The 
subsurface drainage area is essential to provide the environmental 
conditions in the cave that are requirements for the species. The 
surface drainage area helps maintain the environmental conditions and 
helps maintain an energy flow into the underground karst system. The 
surface vegetation is a direct source of energy through plant materials 
entering the karst system, and the surface vegetation also supports 
animals (such as cave crickets) that process the plant materials and 
then leave the resulting nutrients in the cave. Cave crickets are 
likely one of the most important sources of nutrients that support the 
endangered karst invertebrates. We believe this final rule documents 
that the areas designated meet the definition of critical habitat in 
that they contain one or more of the physical and biological features 
that are essential to the conservation of the endangered karst 
invertebrates. We also have carefully reviewed whether such areas may 
require special management considerations or protection, as called for 
under the definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)A)(i) of the 
Act. On the basis of our evaluation of certain areas already covered by 
conservation plans and thus already have special management 
considerations or protection, we did not include some areas in this 
final designation. (See ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation 
Plans'' section, below.)
    (4) Comment: Because critical habitat must contain those physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, 
with the term ``conservation'' being considered synonymous with 
recovery, it appears that the same criteria used by the Service to 
delineate critical habitat must be incorporated into recovery plans for 
the Bexar County karst invertebrates. The commenter also hypothesized 
that the recovery of the Bexar County invertebrates will require 
establishment of a certain number of caves within adequate preserves 
that meet the parameters described in the proposed rule for critical 
habitat designation. Although a recovery plan has not yet been 
developed for these species, some of the areas proposed as critical 
habitat do not appear as if they will meet likely future recovery 
criteria for these species.
    Our Response: We recognize that our designation of critical habitat 
may not include all the habitat areas that might eventually be 
determined to be necessary for the conservation of the listed karst 
invertebrates. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not 
signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not 
be recommended for attention as part of a recovery plan. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best information 
available at the time of designation will not control the direction and 
substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts, particularly if new 
information available to these planning efforts calls for a different 
outcome. We also note that as provided for under section 4(a)(3) of the 
Act, we can revise our designation of critical habitat in the future if 
it is appropriate to do so.
    Designation of critical habitat does not establish recovery 
criteria; that is one of the purposes of a recovery plan. Pursuant to 
section 4(f)(1) of the Act, the Service develops and implements plans, 
referred to as recovery plans, for the conservation and survival of 
listed species. As defined in section 3 of the Act, ``conservation'' 
means ``the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to 
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at 
which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer 
necessary.'' A key purpose of a recovery plan is to recognize the 
threats to the listed species and propose methods for removing or 
minimizing the threats.
    A Recovery Team, including stakeholders, currently is working with 
the Service to prepare a draft recovery plan for these species. While 
the Team has discussed recovery criteria, no draft plan has been 
developed. When a plan is developed, the public's review and comments 
will be solicited before a final plan is adopted by the Service. We 
cannot currently say how many or which areas will be identified in the 
recovery plan as being important for the conservation the species.
    (5) Comment: The Service's recommendation for the size of the 
critical habitat units appears to be based on the study of a single 
cave (Lakeline Cave in Williamson County, Texas) that may not be 
representative of the other karst features.
    Our Response: The recommended size for critical habitat units is 
not based on the results of the Lakeline Cave cricket study. The 
Service used the Lakeline study as one source of information that 
suggests small areas of native vegetation, surrounded by urban 
development, are not adequate to sustain the cave cricket population, 
which is believed to be a key to the ecology of karst invertebrates and 
a primary source of cave nutrients. Our designation is based on the use 
of the best scientific data available regarding the physical and 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and the identification of specific areas where such features 
are found.
    (6) Comment: The size of the area needed to support native plant 
communities is based on the need for the plants to support each other, 
not one karst ecosystem. Therefore, no reason exists that multiple 
cave/karst ecosystems cannot occur within the boundaries of one 
critical habitat unit, as long as the actual areas providing nutrients 
to each cave are encompassed.
    Our Response: We agree that the approach taken in the proposed rule 
of providing adequate surface plant communities for the karst ecosystem 
does not necessarily require more surface area to support multiple 
caves in close proximity. In the final rule, we revised our methods for 
delineating critical habitat to include multiple caves within the same 
smaller surface area, where appropriate. For each cave, we overlaid the 
areas needed to include the surface and subsurface drainages, cave 
cricket foraging area, and the vegetative surface community (see 
``Critical Habitat'' section).

[[Page 17166]]

    (7) Comment: The Service should consider only designating the cave 
cricket foraging area plus a buffer area, or about 5.34 ac, as critical 
habitat around each cave.
    Our Response: We agree that the immediate area around an occupied 
cave is very important for cave cricket foraging and other reasons, and 
that this area should be included in the critical habitat designation. 
However, there are additional physical and biological features that we 
have identified as essential to the conservation of the species, 
consistent with the definition of critical habitat in section 3 of the 
Act. The area recommended by the commenter would not adequately provide 
for the features and related primary constituent elements that we have 
identified as being essential to the conservation of these species (see 
``Critical Habitat'' and ``Primary Constituent Elements'' sections, 
below).
    (8) Comment: Based on the Testudo Tube Cave example in Williamson 
County, 31 acres (26-acre preserve plus a buffer area) may be an 
adequate area for critical habitat units.
    Our Response: Testudo Tube Cave Preserve in Williamson County, 
Texas, is surrounded by several hundred acres of undeveloped land and 
is adjacent to an even larger preserved area of several thousand acres, 
resulting in an effective ``preserve'' size of much larger than 31 
acres. We will be interested in long-term studies of the Testudo Tube 
Cave Preserve that may provide additional information about the 
adequacy of the size of the preserve. We note also that designating 
critical habitat does not establish a preserve (see ``Critical 
Habitat'' section).
    (9) Comment: Boundaries of the critical habitat units are arbitrary 
and not properly defined. The boundaries should be based on biology and 
not roads and surface features.
    Our Response: While the general size of the critical habitat unit 
boundaries are based on primary constituent elements needed by the 
species, in the proposed rule we did use roads and other surface 
features to make it easy for the public to identify the boundaries. In 
the changes to the boundaries in this final rule, we did not use 
surface features, but instead used specific coordinates to describe the 
boundaries. This allowed us to base boundaries mainly on biological, 
hydrological, and geological considerations, thereby delineating 
critical habitat areas more precisely.
    (10) Comment: Critical habitat needs to be defined to include three 
new caves that have been discovered to contain listed species since the 
proposed rule was published.
    Our Response: Of the three caves that were discovered to contain 
listed species since the proposed rule was published, two (Hackberry 
Sink and Dancing Rattler Cave) are located in Government Canyon State 
Natural Area. We have determined that the management for the caves and 
the species in the Natural Area provides adequate special management 
considerations for the primary constituent elements, and consequently 
units within the Natural Area that we proposed for designation are not 
included in this final rule. (See the ``Lands Covered Under Existing 
Conservation Plans'' section for further details.) One cave (Crownridge 
Canyon Cave) is in a new location, but was not included in this final 
determination because there would have been no opportunity for public 
comment had we included the area in critical habitat. Under our 
rulemaking procedures and the Administrative Procedure Act, we would 
first need to propose the area for designation and seek public review 
and comment on such a proposal before a designation would be possible. 
Because of the court-approved settlement agreement that set a deadline 
for finalizing this rule, we did not have enough time to republish a 
proposed rule that might have included the Crownridge Canyon Cave in 
the critical habitat designation. We note that the listed species in 
Crownridge Canyon Cave do occur in other caves within the critical 
habitat designation. Although we are not able to consider including 
Crownridge Canyon Cave in this designation of critical habitat, we 
believe the cave and the associated karst ecosystem to be important to 
the conservation of the species. Because the cave is known to be 
occupied, it will be covered by applicable provisions under sections 7 
(requiring Federal agencies to consult under the ``jeopardy 
standard''), 9, and 10 of the Act.
    (11) Comment: The Service ignored the potential for the species to 
occur in void spaces within the bedrock lying between caves.
    Our Response: We agree that the species occur within, and use, 
subsurface voids in karst rock and areas between occupied caves, and we 
indicated this in the proposed rule for critical habitat. However, we 
do not have data to quantify such areas. Using the best available data, 
we designated critical habitat to incorporate the specific areas on 
which are found the primary constituent elements of a karst ecosystem 
in the vicinity of caves known to be occupied by the endangered 
species.
    (12) Comment: How can a cave located within an area lacking a 
healthy surface plant community contain an intact subsurface 
environment?
    Our Response: The surface vegetative community has been 
significantly altered by urbanization in some of the designated 
critical habitat units. Since the caves still contain the endangered 
species, we believe that the areas have maintained the primary 
constituent elements related to the karst subsurface environment and 
surface and subsurface drainages. We recognize that intensive 
management of the remaining surface habitat may be needed to compensate 
for lack of natural plant and animal communities on the surface.

Issue 2: Data Quality

    (13) Comment: The available data used in the proposed rule is not 
adequate to support this critical habitat designation. There seems to 
be a particular lack of data on species biology, ecology, and 
distribution of the species and information on which to base the unit 
boundaries and areas.
    Our Response: As per section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are required to 
designate critical habitat ``on the basis of the best scientific data 
available,'' and we believe our designation meets that requirement. In 
general, the biology and ecology of the karst-adapted species are not 
well understood. Consequently, the criteria we used to delineate 
critical habitat, and the areas we delineated, were based on components 
of the karst ecosystem for which sufficient information exists to 
determine their importance to the listed species, and for which 
specific areas can be identified and mapped. The ``Information 
Sources'' and ``Criteria Used to Designate Critical Habitat'' sections 
below provide additional information regarding the basis for our 
designation.
    (14) Comment: The number of Bexar County caves and those containing 
listed species should be updated to the latest available information. 
Will the Service designate critical habitat for new locations of the 
listed species that will be discovered subsequent to publication of the 
final rule for critical habitat designation?
    Our Response: We fully agree that our knowledge of the caves in 
Bexar County that are known to provide habitat for endangered karst 
invertebrates should be as current as possible. This knowledge will 
help the Service evaluate the threats to the species, the status of the 
species, and plan for their conservation. We recognize that additional 
caves are likely to be found

[[Page 17167]]

in the future that have endangered karst invertebrates and may not be 
within the areas currently designated as critical habitat.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act provides that subsequent to the 
designation of critical habitat, we ``may, from time-to-time thereafter 
as appropriate, revise such designation.'' Any new caves discovered to 
contain the listed species may be important to the conservation of the 
species, and we will consider them for potential future revisions of 
this designation, provided the available science at the time supports 
the designation. This would require the same procedures for public 
comment and full economic analysis as this final rule has followed. We 
note also that new areas found to be occupied by the endangered species 
and not included in this designation of critical habitat may be 
considered and included in the recovery plan being prepared for these 
species. Also, the species at those new locations will receive 
protection under sections 7 (pursuant to requirements for Federal 
agencies related to the ``jeopardy'' standard), 9, and 10 of the Act, 
regardless of whether the area is designated as critical habitat.
    (15) Comment: Restricted access to private property limits the 
knowledge of other caves that may contain endangered karst 
invertebrates.
    Our Response: The help of private property owners will be essential 
for the recovery of these endangered karst invertebrates. Any surveys 
for caves or cave invertebrates on private property are completely 
voluntary and at the discretion of the landowner. We appreciate the 
cooperation the Service has received from many landowners in Bexar 
County who allowed geologists and biologists access. We want to 
continue to build positive, voluntary relationships with private 
landowners for the conservation of listed species.
    (16) Comment: Does critical habitat designation comply with the 
Federal Data Quality Act and Service Information Quality Guidelines?
    Our Response: The U.S. Department of the Interior, of which the 
Fish and Wildlife Service is part, issued guidelines regarding data 
quality, in response to the passage of Public Law 106-554, referenced 
by the commenter. These guidelines, Information Quality Guidelines 
Pursuant to Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act For Fiscal Year 2001, became effective October 1, 
2002. The Service's rulemaking procedure, inclusive of this designation 
of critical habitat, includes a comprehensive public comment process 
and imposes a legal obligation on us to respond to comments on the 
proposed action. These procedural safeguards can ensure a thorough 
response to comments on quality of information. The thorough 
consideration required by this process generally meets the needs of the 
request for correction of information process, under the Federal Data 
Quality Act and Service Information Quality Guidelines. In the case of 
rulemakings and other public comment procedures, where we disseminate a 
study analysis or other information prior to the final rulemaking, 
requests for correction are considered prior to the final action. The 
commenter did not specifically identify how the draft economic analysis 
or proposed rule might not meet the criteria that the guidelines 
require. Regardless, we believe that this process used the best and 
most reliable scientific and commercial data available regarding the 
designation and meets the criteria of the data quality guidelines.
    (17) Comment: The proposed rule states that of about 400 caves 
known in Bexar County, only 57 contain the listed species. Have the 
other 343 caves been surveyed?
    Our Response: The final rule has been updated to reflect the best 
available information on the total number of caves known from Bexar 
County (475 caves as of December 2002). Seventy four caves are 
currently known to contain listed species. Not all of the known caves 
in Bexar County have been adequately surveyed for invertebrates. It is 
likely that some of these caves will be found to contain one or more of 
the listed species. We also expect more caves to be discovered as 
additional surveys are completed.

Issue 3: Site-Specific Comments

    (18) Comment: Many individual landowners commented that their 
property should be excluded from the critical habitat because it did 
not contain either the caves with the species or the primary 
constituent elements necessary for critical habitat. Several units have 
already been significantly disturbed from urban development and others 
are planned for development.
    Response: The specific properties of most of the individual 
landowners who expressed these concerns have been either removed from 
the critical habitat designation, or the amount of their property 
included in the designation is now significantly reduced. This is a 
result of the reduction in area designated in all of the units based on 
the updated criteria used in the final rule to determine the areas for 
critical habitat (refer to the ``Methods'' and the ``Criteria Used to 
Identify Critical Habitat'' sections of the final rule for the specific 
changes). All of the revised critical habitat units designated in this 
final rule contain one or more of the primary constituent elements 
essential for the conservation of these endangered species. 
Conservation of some species may be dependent, in part, on habitat 
restoration activities in some areas that have been disturbed. Such 
activities may include, but are not limited to, restoration of native 
vegetation, control of invasive species, and the installation of berms 
to protect the cave opening from pollutants.
    (19) Comment: The groundwater drainage basins for Black Cat Cave 
and Logan's Cave (Units 13 and 17, respectively) extend beyond the 
boundaries of their proposed critical habitat areas. These units should 
be expanded to include the appropriate drainage basins. The surface 
water drainage area for Springtail Crevice Cave (Unit 21) extends more 
than 6 km outside of its proposed critical habitat area. All, or at 
least a significantly greater percentage, of the lower drainage area 
within about 2 km of the cave should be included within the critical 
habitat area to better protect the cave from degradation of water 
quality due to urbanization.
    Our Response: The subsurface drainage areas associated with the 
caves from units 13 and 17, and the surface drainage area for the cave 
in Unit 21, were delineated after the proposed rule was published (Veni 
2002). These drainage areas extend outside of the boundaries of the 
proposed critical habitat boundaries. These areas were not included in 
this final determination because they were not identified in the 
proposed rule and, therefore, were not available for public comment. 
Although not included in the critical habitat designation, minimizing 
future impacts to the subsurface and surface drainage areas associated 
with these caves will likely be important for the conservation of the 
listed species in these caves. We have emphasized the importance of 
these areas in this final rule (see ``Critical Habitat Unit 
Descriptions'' section).
    (20) Comment: The boundaries of Unit 20 are arbitrary, and 160 ha 
(395 ac) are not required to protect the species in Robber Baron Cave.
    Our Response: The boundaries of Unit 20 have been redrawn based on 
the cave footprint and the subsurface drainage area of the cave and 
reduced to include 23 ha (57 ac). The amount of Zone 1 area included in 
the critical habitat designation was also reduced due to a lack of 
information on the importance of this area to the listed species within 
the cave. We also reduced the area included

[[Page 17168]]

in the critical habitat by using coordinate data to describe the 
boundaries, rather than roads as used in the proposed rule.
    (21) Comment: Several commenters requested that certain units be 
excluded because there are other caves with critical habitat, located 
in the same karst fauna region and containing the same listed species, 
whose surface habitat is in a more natural and less degraded state. 
Therefore, the Service should omit those units with degraded surface 
habitat, because they will not be required for conservation of these 
species.
    Our Response: As discussed above, all of the specific areas being 
designated contain one or more physical or biological features and 
primary constituent elements that are essential for the conservation of 
these endangered species and meet the definition of critical habitat as 
provided in section 3 of the Act. While some of the designated areas 
may not be in optimal condition, they are the only known locations for 
these species. Some of the areas may need intensive special management 
to restore or maintain some of the conditions important to these 
species. Conservation efforts involving the designated areas and other 
areas, including efforts taken to implement a recovery plan when one is 
adopted, will be dependent on the voluntary cooperation of landowners. 
This may include, but is not limited to, the cooperation of landowners 
who may voluntarily allow restoration efforts on their lands.
    (22) Comment: Unit 1e should be divided into multiple smaller units 
for critical habitat.
    Our Response: We agree and the final designation divides Unit 1e, 
previously 341 ha (842 ac), into three smaller Units 1e1, 1e2, and 1e3 
for a total area of 50 ha (124 ac) (see Table 2 below).
    (23) Comment: How can the Service designate critical habitat for 
Unit 19 and Genesis Cave when the urban development on the site has 
already resulted in take of the species in the cave? If the unit was 
designated based on the alleged existence of intact subsurface 
environment, then why are the vegetation buffer zones necessary?
    Our Response: We determined that area designated as Unit 19 
maintains the biological and physical features essential to the 
conservation of the species and supports one or more of the primary 
constituent elements. Thus it warrants inclusion in the final critical 
habitat designation regardless of whether ``take'' (as defined in 
Section 9 of the Act) of listed species in Unit 19 has already 
occurred. Critical habitat for Units 19 and 20 is designated only for 
the subsurface environment due to the significant surface degradation 
that has already occurred. We acknowledge that intense management will 
likely be needed in both of these units for conservation of the 
species. Identifying areas that contain features essential to the 
conservation of the species and that may require special management 
considerations or protection is a primary purpose of designating 
critical habitat.
    (24) Comment: The Service should address how intensive management 
will provide nutrients and water to listed species in caves in heavily 
urbanized areas, such as units 12 and 19. The Service should also 
identify who should be responsible for this management, since critical 
habitat designation does not mandate special management or require 
removal of existing structures.
    Our Response: Under the definition of critical habitat, all of the 
areas being designated may require special management. Caves in heavily 
urbanized areas, such as those within Units 12, 19, and 20, may need 
more intensive management for conservation of the species than some of 
the other units. We anticipate that the recovery plan for these species 
will address the specific management strategies recommended for long-
term conservation of these species. This designation does not in any 
way require landowners to undertake any particular management actions 
for the designated critical habitat or the listed species. As part of 
the recovery process, we anticipate working cooperatively with 
landowners and other partners to provide the management needed for 
conservation.
    (25) Comment: The proposed rule did not clearly indicate that 
surface disturbances within Units 19 and 20 would not have the 
potential to adversely modify sub-surface critical habitat and would 
not be regulated under Section 7. Similarly, what is the regulatory 
distinction between units with both primary constituent elements and 
those units with only one of the primary constituent elements.
    Our Response: For critical habitat Units 19 and 20, we designated 
the subsurface area only as critical habitat, because of the level of 
disturbance that already has altered the surface habitat. Under section 
7 of the Act, Federal agencies are required to insure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existed of a listed species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. An action authorized, funded, or carried out by a 
Federal agency involving the surface of the land is subject to the 
consultation requirement of section 7, and related regulations at 50 
CFR 402, if such action may affect a listed species or its designated 
critical habitat. The aspect of a consultation involving critical 
habitat would address the potential effects of a proposed Federal 
action on the primary constituent elements in the area covered by the 
consultation. For additional information about consultations and the 
potential Federal activities that could destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat see the ``Section 7 Consultation'' section, below.
    (26) Comment: Unit 12 should be deleted because the areas around 
Hairy Tooth and Ragin' Cajun caves are effectively protected. Big 
Springs Ltd., has established preserves around each cave and has 
developed a management plan for Hairy Tooth Cave and is considering a 
management plan for Ragin' Cajun Cave. Also, Unit 9 should be deleted 
or much reduced to exclude areas under a karst management plan by the 
University of Texas at San Antonio.
    Our Response: In order to consider not including an area that is 
the subject of a management plan, we first evaluate the plan. Key 
factors we evaluate include whether the plan or agreement is legally 
binding, the status of implementation of the plan, whether the plan 
specifies the management needed to ensure that primary constituent 
elements are appropriately protected and, if needed, improved. Along 
with meeting other criteria, the plan also must include a timely 
schedule for implementation and outline the probability that the 
funding source or other resources necessary to implement the management 
will be available. The management plan for Hairy Tooth Cave (Unit 12), 
which we received after the close of the comment period, did not meet 
the above criteria. A management plan for Ragin' Cajun Cave was not 
provided to us.
    The University of Texas at San Antonio submitted a draft karst 
management plan for consideration with respect to Unit 9. This draft 
plan represents a very positive step for conservation of the listed 
karst invertebrate species. However, without a final plan, we could not 
make a determination that the area is receiving adequate special 
management, in accordance with the criteria described above. (See the 
``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans'' for additional 
information on our process.) Therefore, Unit 9 is part of the final 
designation, although its size has been reduced (for other reasons) 
from the

[[Page 17169]]

proposed amount of 71 ha (175 ac) to 16 ha (40 ac) in this final rule. 
The procedures for submitting management plans for possible exclusion 
of specific areas were clearly described in the proposed rule.

Issue 4: Economic Issues

    (27) Comment: The draft economic analysis understates the economic 
impact from the critical habitat designation because it failed to 
adequately consider effects from: (1) Greater amounts of technical 
assistance and administrative tasks than estimated; (2) greater numbers 
of informal and formal section 7 consultations than estimated because 
of a vast understatement of Federal involvement in private projects; 
(3) increased difficulty in obtaining state and/or county approval for 
development; (4) project modifications and delays for planned 
developments; (5) development of biological assessments; (6) reduced 
property values; and (7) increased mitigation costs. Generally, the 
baseline approach used in the draft economic analysis underestimates 
the impacts to all development activities, whether or not Federal 
involvement is presumed.
    Our Response: Minor modifications were made in the final economic 
analysis of the proposed rule to reflect increased technical assistance 
in one unit and to the cost of technical assistance related to Clean 
Water Act activities. We believe the estimates of formal and informal 
consultations in the final economic analysis reflect numbers that can 
be reasonably anticipated. We do not anticipate any increased 
difficulty in obtaining State or county approvals for development. 
While uncertainties about the impacts of the critical habitat 
designation and the perception that the designation will impose land 
use restrictions could temporarily foster this result, this effect is 
likely to be temporary in nature as the uncertainties and perceptions 
dissipate or become clarified over time.
    We do not believe that critical habitat designation will impose 
additional project modifications and delays for projects, including 
preparation of biological assessments. Additional requirements 
associated with critical habitat designation apply solely to Federal 
actions, and since this designation only involves occupied habitat, 
then the section 7 requirements would have to be met pursuant to 
consideration of ``jeopardy standard'' regardless of the presence of 
critical habitat. We do not believe that the designation of critical 
habitat, when occupied by the listed species, should have any real 
effect on property value, because it only applies to those activities 
that involve a Federal action. However, we do recognize that there can 
be a perceived effect which could adversely affect property values. We 
will, through outreach and education, do all we can to correct this 
perception.
    We believe mitigation costs associated with critical habitat 
designation were accurately estimated in the final economic analysis. 
The anticipated number of HCPs was increased from five to eight, and 
the cost of purchasing and managing mitigation lands due to the 
development of HCPs was estimated. The analysis used standard methods 
for analyzing the economic impacts. These methods have been used in 
past designations throughout the United States and have generally been 
found to be sufficient.
    (28) Comment: The draft economic analysis is clearly prepared to 
show that minimal effects will be felt by the designation and should be 
rejected because it does not take an objective view of the matter under 
consideration. The information sources referenced do not include any 
discussions with private landowners.
    Our Response: The analysis used standard methods for analyzing 
economic impacts. These methods have been used in past designations 
throughout the United States and have generally been found to be 
sufficient. Also, the final economic analysis of the proposed rule 
considers information gathered from interviews with individual property 
owners who submitted comments on the draft analysis.
    (29) Comment: The level of predicted consultations appears to be 
based on the assumption that only commercial, as opposed to 
residential, development would trigger consultations, and the only 
anticipated Federal nexus for development was a party seeking an HCP.
    Our Response: We apologize if the assumptions were not clear. We 
have clarified the assumptions in the final economic analysis.
    (30) Comment: The draft economic analysis discounts entirely 
broader regional impacts, focusing only on the costs of consultation. 
The setting aside of land and delaying and increasing the costs of a 
variety of projects and activities will undoubtedly have a broader 
impact. In its draft economic analysis for the Kauai Cave wolf spider, 
the Service considered some of these broader economic impacts and 
determined that the impact of designating less than half the acreage 
proposed in Bexar County could be as high as $1.9 million. This 
difference in estimated costs is attributable to differences in 
methodology.
    Our Response: We want to stress that the designation of critical 
habitat does not ``set aside'' land and does not create parks or 
preserves. We believe the economic analysis fairly estimated the costs 
of critical habitat designation in Bexar County (see our response to 
Comment 27). The final economic analysis of the proposed rule clarifies 
the methods used.
    (31) Comment: Many landowners commented that their individual 
properties were of high economic value and the designation of critical 
habitat would substantially impact the future value and development 
potential of their properties. For this reason, the economic impact on 
individual property owners, in at least some instances, should outweigh 
the biological benefits of the designation of critical habitat.
    Our Response: The regulatory requirements involving critical 
habitat apply only to those actions authorized, funded, or carried out 
by a Federal agency. We do recognize, however, that there can be a 
perceived effect which could influence property values, but believe any 
such effect is likely to be temporary in nature as the uncertainties 
and perceptions dissipate or become clarified over time. We will, 
through outreach and education, do all we can to correct this 
perception. We believe that the economic analysis appropriately 
considered the potential economic impacts of the proposed designation. 
Further, reductions in the amount of critical habitat in this final 
designation have resulted in a significant decrease in the amount of 
private land being designated.
    (32) Comment: The draft economic analysis evaluates the effect of 
the total section 7 costs for individual units and then spreads those 
costs over the entire population of Bexar County. If these costs are 
attributed to the individual landowners in a single unit they would 
have a much greater impact. For instance, there are eight landowners in 
Unit 16, and the economic analysis is defective unless it measures the 
effects on those individual landowners.
    Our Response: The analysis uses standard methods for analyzing the 
economic impacts of designating the areas included in our proposed 
rulemaking. These methods have been used in past designations 
throughout the United States and have generally been found to be 
sufficient. Time constraints prevented us from applying economic costs 
to individual property owners. We note also that the size of each unit 
designated is substantially reduced from what we proposed,

[[Page 17170]]

resulting from consideration of comments received and refinements in 
our methodology for identifying and mapping areas that meet the Act's 
definition of critical habitat. For instance, for Unit 16 our proposal 
included 61 ha (152 ac), whereas our final designation for that unit is 
16 ha (40 acres).
    (33) Comment: The draft economic analysis states that all of the 
critical habitat is over the Edwards Aquifer and then states which 
units are over the recharge zone. It isn't clear that only the units 
over the recharge zone get the protection measures that are listed. If 
the analysis assumed that all of the units get the same level of 
Edwards Aquifer protection, reevaluation of the numbers may be 
warranted.
    Our Response: The draft economic analysis credited the protections 
only to those units in the recharge zone. We hope this point is 
adequately clarified in the final economic analysis of the proposed 
rule.
    (34) Comment: For Unit 9, the draft economic analysis estimates 
only one technical assistance effort is anticipated and that no project 
modifications are anticipated. One request for assistance has already 
occurred, and probably one or two more will be required. In addition, a 
considerable amount of modification to University of Texas--San 
Antonio's plans in Unit 9 will have to occur to be in compliance with 
the proposed designation of critical habitat.
    Our Response: The Service agrees that the effort was underestimated 
and corrections in the final economic analysis of the proposed rule 
have been made to reflect this. The Service agrees that if the proposed 
activities involve a Federal action, then modification of the proposed 
action may be needed. However, since this designation only involves 
occupied habitat, then the section 7 consultation requirements would 
have to be met (for the ``jeopardy standard'') regardless of the 
designation of critical habitat, and based on our experience in other 
situations, the outcome of such consultation is likely to be unchanged 
when it includes critical habitat.
    (35) Comment: The estimates in Exhibit 4-4, page 44 (of the draft 
economic analysis) for anticipated costs to the Service, third parties, 
and the action agency do not cover the costs to date or future costs 
for UTSA in Unit 9, which are expected to be substantial.
    Our Response: The final economic analysis of the proposed rule has 
been modified to incorporate expected costs to UTSA that would result 
from section 7 consultation related to development.
    (36) Comment: The draft economic analysis does not adequately 
address the tremendous economic benefits of designating critical 
habitat, for example, the benefits to water supply protection for area 
residents.
    Our Response: The value of economic benefits are difficult to 
estimate. The potential benefits of designating critical habitat are 
described subjectively in section 5 of the final economic analysis of 
the proposed rule.
    (37) Comment: Landowners for Unit 12 provided specific value data 
to show a higher economic impact of the designation than provided in 
the economic analysis.
    Our Response: The economic analysis includes consideration of a 
potential HCP for private development within this unit. Thus the 
comment is not inconsistent with the assumptions of the analysis. We do 
not expect costs to be greater than those represented by the 
formulation and implementation of the expected HCP.

Issue 5: Other Issues and Comments

    (38) Comment: One commenter requested additional time so that the 
taxonomic description of a new subspecies of Rhadine infernalis can be 
completed.
    Our Response: The Service is required to designate critical habitat 
for the Bexar County invertebrates within the time frame specified in 
the court settlement agreement. We have used the best scientific data 
available in making this designation.
    (39) Comment: The City of San Antonio should be provided more exact 
cave locations for planning and protection of habitat, and to avoid 
inadvertent damage by the City.
    Our Response: The Service and the City of San Antonio regularly 
exchange information for conservation of listed species. We understand 
that legally, the City may not be able to keep the cave locations 
confidential if we provided them, and having the locations generally 
known would pose an unacceptable risk of vandalism to the caves. Anyone 
may contact the Service for technical assistance to ensure their 
activities are consistent with conservation of these species. Helping 
make the public aware of the sensitive areas inhabited by these species 
is one of the most significant benefits of this designation. In 
addition to these critical habitat units, there are likely other 
localities where these species occur, of which we are not aware, or 
have not yet been discovered. Although they are not included in this 
designation, they are likely to be important for conservation of the 
species and should be considered in planning land management and 
development activities. We look forward to working with the City, and 
other partners, for management of their lands for the mutual benefit of 
the City's citizens and the conservation of the listed species.
    (40) Comment: The Service should change the name of the Alamo 
Heights Karst Fauna Region so the public is not misled to believe the 
City of Alamo Heights is in critical habitat.
    Our Response: The name of the Karst Fauna Region was taken from a 
report by George Veni and Associates (1994), which delineates separate 
geological regions in the San Antonio area. We recognize that the City 
of Alamo Heights is not within any of the units designated as critical 
habitat and regret any confusion the name of the faunal region might 
have caused. We have not used the Karst Faunal Region names in this 
final rule.
    (41) Comment: Does critical habitat designation comply with 
Environmental Justice laws?
    Our Response: Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations, requires that each Federal agency make achieving 
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. We do not believe 
that the designation of critical habitat for endangered and threatened 
species results in any changes to human health or environmental effects 
on surrounding human populations, regardless of their socioeconomic 
characterization. As such, we do not believe that Executive Order 12898 
applies to critical habitat designations.
    (42) Comment: The required public notice to interested parties was 
not satisfied because numerous mailings were returned because of 
invalid zip codes.
    Our Response: We made the best effort to notify all individual 
landowners involved directly. We sent the letters announcing the 
proposed rule and requesting comments to over 1,500 interested parties. 
Of those, about 200 were returned because of out-of-date addresses. We 
attempted to update addresses and remove duplicate addresses. We 
followed this mailing with over 1,200 postcards announcing the 
availability of the draft economic analysis and extension of the 
comment period. We regret that some of the attempts to contact 
interested parties

[[Page 17171]]

through the mail were unsuccessful. In addition to those efforts, the 
required public notices were published in the local newspaper. We also 
issued a news release, and there was coverage in the local newspaper 
and in other news media. Consequently, we believe we satisfactorily met 
the requirements for public notice to interested parties.
    (43) Comment: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and 
the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted karst management plans for 
Government Canyon State Natural Area (GCSNA) and Camp Bullis, 
respectively, during the public comment period and requested that their 
properties be excluded from the final critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: We reviewed the management plans submitted for both 
Camp Bullis and GCSNA. On the basis of our evaluation of these plans, 
we determined that they provide adequate special management and have 
not included the areas involved in the final designation of critical 
habitat. (See ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans'' 
section for more information.)

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited independent opinions from knowledgeable 
individuals with expertise in one or several fields, including 
familiarity with the species, familiarity with the geographic region in 
which the species occurs, and familiarity with the principles of 
conservation biology. Only one of the eleven peer reviewers requested 
to review the proposed rule submitted comments. Overall the peer 
reviewer found the proposed rule to be an ``excellent, comprehensive 
document.'' The following specific comments were provided by the peer 
reviewer.
    (44) Comment: The 36 ha (90 ac) zone of vegetation surrounding each 
known cave or cave complex should be adequate to preserve foraging 
habitat for cave crickets.
    Our Response: In this final rule we have significantly reduced the 
areas around occupied caves that are included in the critical habitat 
designation. However, in most cases, the critical habitat boundaries 
were drawn to include a 50 m (164 ft) area plus a buffer, and best 
available information indicates that most cave crickets forage within 
50 m (164 ft) of cave entrances (see ``Background'' section for 
additional information).
    (45) Comment: The reviewer stated that habitat requirements 
described in the proposed rule seemed fine; however, the reviewer 
expressed concern that active management may be required to maintain 
natural surface habitat for the benefit of the subsurface environment. 
The reviewer also expressed concern about the encroachment of red 
imported fire ants and the impacts of predation on and competition with 
cave crickets and asked if there is a provision for dealing with this 
threat in the critical habitat units.
    Our Response: We recognize the impact that fire ants likely have on 
listed karst invertebrates and the need for intense management to 
control this threat. The designation of critical habitat recognizes 
that these areas may need special management, however, the designation 
does not require any particular land management activities. Specific 
actions for management recommendations will likely be included in the 
future recovery plan for these species. We will work with landowners on 
a case-by-case basis to assist in land management provisions to protect 
the karst environment that supports the listed Bexar County 
invertebrates.
    (46) Comment: There are no dispersal corridors between these 
habitat units to provide opportunities for movement of individuals 
between cave cricket populations.
    Our Response: We know that dispersal corridors are likely important 
for the long-term maintenance of cave cricket populations (see 
Background section for discussion). However, we lack the necessary 
information to adequately quantify the specific locations of such 
corridors and therefore have not included them in this critical habitat 
designation.
    (47) Comment: The commenter recommends deleting the reference in 
the ``Background'' section to a study concerning Ceuthophilu 
gracilipes, another species of cave crickets, because it is not 
appropriate in the context in which it was used.
    Our Response: We deleted this reference, which had been included in 
our proposed designation, and updated the ``Background'' section of 
this final rule as suggested.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    On the basis of public comments, we reviewed our methodology for 
determining the extent of critical habitat designation for the Bexar 
County karst invertebrates. Consequently, we refined the boundaries of 
our original proposed critical habitat units for this final designation 
and clarified our description of the methodology and rationale used in 
defining the critical habitat boundaries. Overall, these changes 
resulted in designating 431 ha (1,063 ac) in 22 units as critical 
habitat, as compared to our proposed designation of 3,857 ha (9,516 ac) 
in 25 units. Table 2 provides a unit-by-unit list of the changes in 
this final rule, which are summarized below.
    In the proposed rule, we delineated critical habitat boundaries on 
the basis of the following criteria: Known occupied caves; the cave 
footprint; surface/subsurface drainage areas associated with the 
occupied cave; the cave cricket foraging area plus a buffer; the 
contiguous karst deposit associated with the occupied cave; and a 
minimum of 36 ha (90 ac), where possible, to support dominant, 
subdominant, and rare plant species. In the final rule, we revised 
several of these criteria. We reduced the minimum area needed to 
support surface vegetation from 36 ha (90 ac) to 16 ha (40 ac), which 
is the minimum area we determined is needed to support 15 of the 24 
plant species common to the Edwards Plateau, including the 7 species 
with the highest dominance values, as listed in Van Auken et al. 
(1980). We did not include an estimated area to support nine of the 
rarer plant species in our consideration of this minimum area, because 
of a lack of definitive information on the importance of such species 
to the functioning of the karst ecosystem. These nine species all have 
importance values of less than 1.0 and needed an area of approximately 
20 to 80 ha (49 to 198 ac) to maintain their populations. We also 
reduced the criterion for the amount of contiguous karst deposit 
surrounding occupied caves. In the proposed rule, we delineated the 
unit boundaries to maximize the amount of contiguous karst deposit we 
estimated was necessary to provide for subsurface movement of listed 
species between and around occupied caves. However, because of lack of 
data allowing us to quantify the extent of subsurface karst needed to 
maintain populations of these species, in the final rule we delineated 
the boundaries to maximize the amount of subsurface karst deposit 
underlying the cave footprint, drainage areas, cave cricket foraging 
area plus buffer, and 16 ha (40 ac) vegetation area only. As a result 
of these revisions, the size of most units was reduced significantly 
(Table 2). (See ``Criteria Used to Designate Critical Habitat'' section 
for additional details.)
    In addition to the changes in criteria, we also completely removed 
six units that had been proposed for designation (Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 
10, and 11) from the final designation. Units 1a-1d were

[[Page 17172]]

located on the Government Canyon State Natural Area (GCSNA) and the 
majority of Unit 10 and all of Unit 11 were located on Department of 
Defense land at Camp Bullis. We did not include these six units in the 
final designation because we determined that the conservation plans for 
these areas provide adequate special management and protection, such 
that the areas do not meet the definition of critical habitat under 
section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. We also excluded these areas from 
designation based on section 4(b)(2). (See ``Lands Covered Under 
Existing Conservation Plans'' section.) Two of the nine species, the 
Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver and the Government Canyon Bat 
Cave spider, occur only in caves on the GCSNA. As a result of not 
including in the final designation the four units originally proposed 
on the GCSNA, no critical habitat is being designated for these two 
species.
    As a result of applying our revisions of the criteria used to 
delineate the unit boundaries (as described above) we separated two 
units identified in the proposed rule into separate, smaller units in 
this final rule. Specifically, Unit 1e as described in the proposed 
rule has been separated into three smaller units (Units 1e1, 1e2, and 
1e3), and we separated Unit 8 into Units 8a and 8b. Removing six units, 
separating Unit 1e into three smaller units and Unit 8 into two smaller 
units resulted in a net change of three fewer units in this final rule 
as compared to the proposed rule.

   Table 2.--Changes in Unit Number and Unit Area Between Proposed and
  Final Rules Designating Critical Habitat for Seven of the Nine Bexar
                       County Karst Invertebrates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Proposed rule                         Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total area of
                              Total area of      Unit     unit  hectares
      Unit          unit  hectares       (ha); acres
                            (ha); acres (ac)                   (ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a........................  76 ha; 188 ac...  1a         Government
1b........................  47 ha; 116 ac...  1b          Canyon State
                                                          Natural Area--
                                                          excluded from
                                                          critical
                                                          habitat.
1c........................  47 ha; 116 ac...  1c         ...............
1d........................  47 ha; 116 ac...  1d         ...............
1e........................  341 ha; 842 ac..  1e1        15 ha; 38 ac.
                                              1e2        16 ha; 40 ac.
                                              1e3        19 ha; 46 ac.
2.........................  99 ha; 245 ac...  2          37 ha; 92 ac.
3.........................  63 ha; 154 ac...  3          17 ha; 41 ac.
4.........................  63; ha; 154 ac..  4          16 ha; 40 ac.
5.........................  47 ha; 116 ac...  5          16 ha; 40 ac.
6.........................  45 ha; 111 ac...  6          16 ha; 40 ac.
7.........................  50 ha; 123 ac...  7          16 ha; 40 ac.
8.........................  174 ha; 428 ac..  8a         16 ha; 40 ac.
                                              8b         28 ha; 69 ac.
9.........................  71 ha; 175 ac...  9          16 ha; 40 ac.
10........................  367 ha; 906 ac..  10         Camp Bullis--
                                                          excluded from
                                                          critical
                                                          habitat.
11........................  1,273 ha; 3,143   11         Camp Bullis--
                             ac.                          excluded from
                                                          critical
                                                          habitat.
12........................  105 ha; 258 ac..  12         21 ha; 51 ac.
13........................  51 ha; 125 ac...  13         16 ha; 40 ac.
14........................  173 ha; 426 ac..  14         26 ha; 64 ac.
15........................  195 ha; 481 ac..  15         34 ha; 85 ac.
16........................  61 ha; 152 ac...  16         16 ha; 40 ac.
17........................  48 ha; 118 ac...  17         16 ha; 40 ac.
18........................  40 ha; 100 ac...  18         16 ha; 40 ac.
19........................  59 ha; 146 ac...  19         5 ha; 12 ac.
20........................  160 ha; 395 ac..  20         23 ha; 57 ac.
21........................  155 ha; 382 ac..  21         27 ha; 68 ac.
---------------------------
Totals: 25 units; 3,857 ha; (1) 22 units; 431 ha; 1,063
                             ac.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as--(i) 
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, 
at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) which may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. ``Conservation,'' as defined by section 3(3) of the Act, 
means the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to 
bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point that measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies shall, in 
consultation with the Service, insure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Section 7 also requires conferences 
on Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Aside from the added 
protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not 
provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical 
habitats. Consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply to 
activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve a 
Federal nexus (i.e., Federal funding or authorization), and 
consequently critical habitat designation does not afford any 
additional regulatory protection or result in additional regulatory 
requirements under the Act in those circumstances. (See ``Effects of 
Critical Habitat

[[Page 17173]]

Designation'' for further discussion of consultations under section 7 
of the Act.)
    Critical habitat provides nonregulatory benefits to the species by 
informing the public and private sectors of areas that are important 
for species conservation, and where such conservation actions would be 
most effective. Designation of critical habitat can help focus 
conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that 
contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the 
conservation of that species, and can alert the public and land-
managing agencies to the importance of those areas. Critical habitat 
also identifies areas that may require special management 
considerations or protection, and may help provide protection to areas 
where significant threats to the species have been identified, by 
helping people avoid causing accidental damage to such areas.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must 
be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical habitat 
designations identify, to the extent known and using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide 
essential life cycle needs of the species (such as areas on which are 
found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 
424.12(b)). Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that, ``Except in those 
circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not 
include the entire geographical area which can be occupied'' by the 
listed species. In addition, our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(e)) state 
that ``The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside 
the geographic area presently occupied by the species only when a 
designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure 
the conservation of the species.''
    Section 4 (b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into 
consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of 
specifying any particular areas as critical habitat. We may exclude 
areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, 
provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
    Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 
Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), provides criteria, 
establishes procedures, and provides guidance to ensure that decisions 
made by the Service represent the best scientific and commercial data 
available. It requires that our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial 
data available, use primary and original sources of information as the 
basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When 
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of 
information should, at a minimum, be the listing rule for the species. 
Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan (if 
available), articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, and biological assessments or other unpublished reports, and 
discussion with experts.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of what we know at the time of designation. Since much of the 
cave-forming rock is located on private property in areas that have not 
been adequately surveyed, additional populations for some of these 
species are likely to exist and may be discovered over time. We 
recognize that our designation of critical habitat for these species 
may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be 
determined to be necessary for the conservation of the species. For 
these reasons, this critical habitat designation should not be 
interpreted to mean that habitat outside the designation is unimportant 
or may not be required for conservation of the species. Critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning and recovery efforts if 
new information available to these efforts calls for a different 
outcome.
    Habitat of the listed species that is not included in this critical 
habitat designation will continue to be subject to conservation actions 
implemented by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, which 
directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out 
programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. 
Habitat outside the designation also will continue to receive 
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, which requires each Federal agency to insure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out 
is not likely to ``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a listed 
species. To achieve this objective, action agencies must consult with 
us whenever a Federal action ``may affect'' a listed species. This 
requirement applies regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated, and Federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases.
    The applicability of the section 9 section take prohibition is not 
altered by the designation of critical habitat. Section 9 makes it 
unlawful for any person to ``take'' (defined broadly in section 3 as 
``harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct'') a listed 
wildlife species. Under section 10(a) of the Act, the Service may issue 
a permit to a non-Federal entity authorizing ``take'' if certain 
conditions are met. These conditions include a finding by the Service 
that such take is incidental to otherwise legal conduct, and that the 
take ``will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and 
recovery of the species in the wild.'' The issuance criteria for such 
take permits also require applicants to minimize and mitigate the 
effects of their permitted actions, to the maximum extent practicable.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50 
CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas to designate as critical 
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management consideration or protection. As described in our 
regulations, these features include, but are not limited to, the 
following:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring, and 
generally;
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) further direct that, when 
considering the designation of critical habitat, we are to focus on the 
principal biological or physical constituent elements within the 
defined area that are essential to the conservation of the species, and 
we are to list known primary constituent elements with the critical 
habitat description. Our regulations describe known primary constituent 
elements in terms that are more specific than the

[[Page 17174]]

description of physical and biological features. Specifically, our 
regulations state that primary constituent elements may include, but 
are not limited to, the following: Roost sites, nesting grounds, 
spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water 
quality or quantity, host species of plant pollinator, geological 
formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types.
    Using the best scientific information available to us, we have 
determined that the primary constituent elements required by the karst 
invertebrates consist of: (1) The physical features of karst-forming 
rock containing subterranean spaces with stable temperatures, high 
humidities (near saturation) and suitable substrates (for example, 
spaces between and underneath rocks suitable for foraging and 
sheltering); and (2) the biological features of a healthy surface 
community of native plants (for example, juniper-oak woodland) and 
animals (for example, cave crickets) living in and near the karst 
feature that provide nutrient input and buffer the karst ecosystem from 
adverse effects (from, for example, nonnative species invasions, 
contaminants, and fluctuations in temperature and humidity).

Information Sources

    As required by the Act and regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR 
424.12, respectively), we used the best scientific information 
available to determine critical habitat areas that contain the physical 
and biological features and primary constituent elements that are 
essential for the conservation of the karst invertebrate species. This 
information included: (1) Peer-reviewed scientific publications; (2) 
the final listing rule for the nine Bexar County karst invertebrate 
species (65 FR 81419); (3) unpublished field data, survey reports, 
notes, and communications from qualified biologists or experts; (4) 
published descriptions of the regional geology (Soil Conservation 
Service 1962; Veni 1988, 1994, 2002); and (5) recent digital 
orthophotographs (March 2001) and parcel maps (generated in early 2002) 
obtained from the Bexar County Appraisal District to determine the 
current status of habitat surrounding the known occupied caves.
    In the proposed rule, we referred to Veni's 1994 karst zone maps to 
ensure that the majority of the lands within each proposed unit 
overlaid a contiguous deposit of karst-bearing rock either known to 
contain the listed species (Zone 1) and/or having a high probability of 
suitable habitat for the listed species (Zone 2) to maintain subsurface 
connectivity for species movement throughout the contiguous karst 
deposit. Recognizing that a significant amount of additional 
information has become available, either as a result of the discovery 
of new caves containing the listed species, or additional biological 
surveys conducted in previously mapped caves and/or as a result of the 
release of information not available at the time of the 1994 report, we 
contracted with George Veni & Associates to re-evaluate and, where 
necessary, redraw the boundaries of the Bexar County karst zones. The 
resulting report (Veni 2002) also estimated the surface and subsurface 
drainage areas associated with each occupied cave in Bexar County with 
the exception of several caves which occur on cliffs and several for 
which sufficient information was not available. We received the report 
during the public comment period and used the information to ensure 
that each unit overlaid a contiguous deposit of karst-bearing rock and 
that the estimated drainage basins associated with each occupied cave 
were, where possible, designated as critical habitat. Contiguous 
deposits of karst-bearing rock associated with occupied caves 
subterranean spaces were included to protect subsurface voids believed 
to maintain populations of the listed species and provide for species 
movement. The drainage basins associated with occupied caves were 
included in order to protect the quantity and quality of water entering 
the karst ecosystem which, in turn, maintains stable temperatures and 
high humidities required by the listed species and protects the system 
from contamination.
    Information on the status and location of occupied caves was 
obtained from presence/absence survey reports submitted during project 
consultations conducted with the Service under section 7 of the Act, 
annual reports on research and conservation activities conducted under 
a section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific permit, section 6 species status 
reports, and literature published in peer reviewed journals. Survey 
reports and scientific permit annual reports typically contained cave 
location information in the form of a cave location indicated on a U.S. 
Geological Survey topographic maps and/or UTM coordinates, and a map of 
the cave footprint.
    To improve the accuracy of our cave location information, we 
submitted a request to the Texas Speleological Survey (TSS) for any 
available digital location data (UTM coordinates) for Bexar County 
caves known to contain one or more of the nine endangered species. TSS 
is a non-profit corporation established in 1961 to collect, organize, 
and maintain information on Texas caves and karst for scientific, 
educational, and conservation purposes, and to support safe and 
responsible cave exploration, and is affiliated with the Texas Memorial 
Museum, the Texas Speleological Association, and the National 
Speleological Society. TSS provided the majority of the digital 
location data, and reviewed and confirmed our location data for caves 
where no digital information was available. The precision of the 
locations for which digital location data were available ranges from 1 
m to 10 m (3ft to 33 ft) and data documented on topographic maps was 
estimated to be accurate to within 10 m to 20 m (33 ft to 66 ft). This 
variability in precision was taken into account when delineating unit 
boundaries. We further agreed that any requests for such information 
would be directed to TSS as owners of the data. The precise location of 
the caves within each unit is not specified on the critical habitat 
maps in order to protect these caves from potential vandalism and to 
protect private landowners from potential increases in trespassing.

Criteria Used To Delineate Critical Habitat

    Using the best scientific data available (as summarized in the 
``Background'' section), we developed the following criteria to 
identify and delineate lands for designation as critical habitat: caves 
known to be occupied by one or more of the listed karst invertebrate 
species; the cave footprint; the surface and subsurface drainage areas 
associated with each cave, to the extent possible; a 150 m (492 ft) 
area around each cave to encompass the cave cricket foraging area of 50 
m (164 ft) on the surface, measured from the cave entrance(s) and a 100 
m (328 ft) area around the cave cricket foraging area to buffer the 
animal community, including cave crickets, against the effects of urban 
edges and red imported fire ant invasion; and, where possible, a 
minimum of 16 ha (40 ac) around each cave or cave cluster. This minimum 
16 ha core area consists of a minimum 13 ha (33 ac) needed to support 
at least 15 of 24 species of the vegetative community commonly found on 
the Edwards Plateau, plus a 3 ha (7 ac) area to buffer the vegetative 
community against edge effects associated with urban disturbances. This 
surface area also acts to incorporate areas of contiguous karst deposit 
around an occupied cave, which likely contains the listed species that 
occupy the cave.

[[Page 17175]]

    In several instances (Units 2, 13, and 21), the surface or 
subsurface drainage basin associated with the occupied cave, as defined 
by Veni (2002), extends outside of the area originally designated in 
the proposed rule and therefore was not included in the final rule (see 
``Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions'' section). Also, in several 
instances (Units 1e1, 3, 6, 8b, and 17), the cave, cave footprint, and 
portions of the cave cricket foraging area plus buffer, the drainage 
basins, and the 16-ha (40-ac) vegetative area are located on lands 
protected under the La Cantera HCP which were not included in the 
designation (see ``Unit Description'' and Lands Covered Under Existing 
Conservation Plans'' sections). The critical habitat area encompassing 
Robber Baron Cave (Unit 20) includes both the known and estimated 
extent of the cave's footprint. This cave is a complex maze cave 
consisting of approximately 1.51 km (0.94 mi) of passages known within 
a square area approximately 100 m (328 ft) on each side (Veni 1988). 
Prior to the extensive development that has occurred in the area, the 
cave's footprint was estimated to extend at least 100 m (328 ft) 
farther east to a water well, 600 m (1,969 ft) southwest to a now-
sealed, extensive maze cave and about 1.2 km (0.75 mi) to the southwest 
to another well (Veni 1988). Exploration and mapping of these possible 
passages is continuing under the direction of the Texas Cave Management 
Association, which owns the cave entrance.

Critical Habitat Delineation

    Lands designated as critical habitat for the seven endangered karst 
invertebrates occur in 22 separate units, with a total area of 
approximately 431 ha (1,063 ac). The lands within the critical habitat 
units are under private, city, and State ownership. Table 3 lists the 
known occupied caves, the total critical habitat unit area, land 
ownership, and the listed species that occur within each designated 
unit. Table 4 shows the listed species and the critical habitat unit(s) 
where they occur.
    Each critical habitat unit contains one or more of the primary 
constituent elements needed by the karst invertebrate species. The 
``Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions'' section (below) provides a 
description of lands within each unit and a description of how unit 
boundaries were delineated.
    Areas within the boundaries of mapped units that have existing 
human-constructed, above-ground, impervious structures do not contain 
the primary constituent elements and are not considered to be critical 
habitat. Such features and structures include, but are not limited to, 
buildings and paved roads. However, subsurface areas under these 
structures are considered to be critical habitat since subterranean 
spaces containing these species or transmitting moisture and nutrients 
through the karst ecosystem extend, in some cases, underneath these 
existing human-constructed structures. Landscaped areas associated with 
existing human-constructed structures also are also not considered 
critical habitat because they do not contain the primary constituent 
elements. Although not considered to be critical habitat, these 
landscaped areas may provide some foraging area for cave crickets and 
other trogloxenes which are an important source of nutrients to the 
karst ecosystem.

 Table 3.--Known Occupied Caves, Land Ownership and Listed Species That Occur Within Each Critical Habitat Unit
                  Designated for One or More of the Endangered Bexar County Karst Invertebrates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Known occupied caves in                                               Listed species in
         Unit                     unit             Total area of unit        Ownership               unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1e1..................  Pig Cave.................  15 ha (38 ac).......  Private, city......  Rhadine exilis
                       San Antonio Ranch Pit....                                             R. infernalis
                                                                                             Batrisodes venyivi
1e2..................  Continental Cave.........  16 ha (40 ac).......  City...............  R. infernalis
1e3..................  Creek Bank Cave..........  19 ha (46 ac).......  Private, city......  R. exilis
                       Tight Cave...............
2....................  Logan's Cave.............  37 ha (92 ac).......  Private............  Cicurina madla
                       Madla's Drop Cave........                                             R. exilis
                                                                                             R. infernalis
3....................  Helotes Blowhole *.......  17 ha (41 ac).......  Private............  C. madla
                       Helotes Hilltop Cave *...                                             R. exilis
                                                                                             R. infernalis
                                                                                             B. venyivi
4....................  Kamikazi Cricket Cave....  16 ha (40 ac).......  Private............  R. exilis
                                                                                             R. infernalis
5....................  Christmas Cave...........  16 ha (40 ac).......  Private............  C. madla
                                                                                             R. exilis
                                                                                             R. infernalis
                                                                                             B. venyivi
6....................  John Wagner Ranch........  16 ha (40 ac).......  Private, city......  R. exilis
                       Cave No. 3 *.............                                             R. infernalis
7....................  Young Cave No. 1.........  16 ha (40 ac).......  Private............  R. exilis
8a...................  Three Fingers Cave.......  16 ha (40 ac).......  Private............  R. exilis
                                                                                             R. infernalis
8b...................  Hills and Dales Pit *....  28 ha (69 ac).......  Private, city......  C. madla
                       Robber's Cave............                                             R. infernalis
                                                                                             R. exilis
9....................  Mastodon Pit.............  16 ha (40 ac).......  State..............  R. exilis
12...................  Hairy Tooth Cave.........  21 ha (51 ac).......  Private............  R. exilis
                       Ragin' Cajun Cave........
13...................  Black Cat Cave...........  16 ha (40 ac).......  Private............  R. exilis
14...................  Game Pasture Cave No. 1..  26 ha (64 ac).......  Private............  R. infernalis
                       King Toad Cave...........
                       Stevens Ranch Trash Hole
                        Cave.
15...................  Braken Bat Cave..........  34 ha (85 ac).......  Private............  Cicurina venii
                       Isopit...................                                             R. infernalis

[[Page 17176]]

 
                       Obvious Little Cave......                                             ...................
                       Wurzbach Bat Cave........
16...................  Caracol Creek Coon Cave..  16 ha (40 ac).......  Private............  R. infernalis
17...................  Madla's Cave *...........  16 ha (40 ac).......  Private............  C. madla
                                                                                             R. infernalis
18...................  Mattke Cave..............  16 ha (40 ac).......  Private............  R. infernalis
                       Scorpion Cave............
19...................  Genesis Cave.............  5 ha (12 ac)........  Private............  R. infernalis
20...................  Robber Baron Cave........  23 ha (57 ac).......  Private............  Texella
                                                                                              cokendolpheri
                                                                                             Cicurina baronia
21...................  Hornet's Last Laugh Pit..  27 ha (68 ac).......  City, Private......  R. exilis
                       Kick Start Cave..........
                       Springtail Crevice.......
    Totals
----------------------==================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates caves and associated lands protected by management under La Cantera's Section 10 permit; these are
  not included in this designation or in the area figures.


 Table 4.--List of the Nine Endangered Bexar County Karst Invertebrates
         and the Critical Habitat Units Within Which They Occur
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Critical habitat unit(s) of
               Species name                          occurrence
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina        15
 venii).
Cokendolpher cave harvestman (Texella       20
 cokendolpheri).
Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver       No critical habitat
 (Cicurina vespera).                         designated.
Government Canyon Bat Cave spider           No critical habitat
 (Neoleptoneta microps).                     designated.
Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla)....  2, 3, 5, 8b, 17
Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (Cicurina      20
 baronia).
Beetle (Rhadine exilis)...................  1e1, 1e3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
                                             8a, 8b, 9, 12, 13, 21
Beetle (Rhadine infernalis)...............  1e1, 1e2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8a,
                                             8b, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi)..  1e1, 3, 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 74 caves known to contain one or more of the listed species, 
43 were not included in the critical habitat designation. These 43 
caves, and the reasons they were not designated, are described in the 
following summary.
    Two caves, referred to as ``unnamed cave \1/2\ mile N of Helotes'' 
and ``5 miles NE of Helotes,'' were not included in the proposed or 
final designation because their precise locations are unknown.
    One cave, Crownridge Canyon Cave, was confirmed as a new location 
for one of the listed species during the public comment period. This 
cave was not included in this final determination because deadlines 
negotiated under the court-ordered settlement did not allow us to re-
propose critical habitat, and thus there was not opportunity for the 
public to comment on its inclusion. Although we cannot include 
Crownridge Canyon Cave in this designation of critical habitat, we 
consider the cave and the associated karst ecosystem to be important to 
the conservation of the species. Because the cave is known to be 
occupied, it will receive protection under sections 7 (under the 
``jeopardy standard'' standard), 9, and 10 of the Act.
    Of the ten occupied caves associated with the La Cantera HCP, none 
were included in the proposed designation, and we have not included 
them in the final designation of critical habitat. We authorized two 
caves for take of C. madla under La Cantera's section 10(a)(1)(B) 
permit associated with the HCP. These two caves were heavily impacted 
as a result of authorized take and are not expected to contribute to 
the species' recovery. The other eight caves associated with the La 
Cantera HCP are protected within five karst management areas that will 
be perpetually managed and monitored in accordance with the 
conservation needs of the species. In most cases, these karst 
management areas were not considered adequate as stand alone preserves. 
Therefore, where appropriate, we included lands surrounding these 
occupied caves and associated management areas as part of the 
designation of critical habitat, as these lands provide physical and 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species. These areas include: Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare 
Cave, and Scenic Overlook Cave and the surrounding approximately 30 ha 
(75 ac); Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves and the surrounding 
approximately 10 ha (25 ac); John Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3 and the 
surrounding approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac); Hills and Dales Pit and the 
surrounding approximately 28 ha (70 ac); and Madla's Cave and the 
surrounding approximately 2 ha (5 ac). These eight caves and their 
associated karst management areas are being protected under the HCP, 
and we have not included them in this critical habitat designation (see 
``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans'' section). Because 
of their geographic relationship to the rest of the critical habitat 
unit, it was difficult to show some of these areas in our mapping 
process. Thus, although some of these areas occur within the mapped 
area, they are not included in a legal sense through language in the 
final determination.
    We did not include seven occupied caves in the Government Canyon 
State Natural Area (GCSNA), which is owned by the Texas Parks and 
Wildlife Department (TPWD), and 23 occupied caves on the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) Camp Bullis, in this critical habitat designation. Five 
of these caves were known to be occupied at the time of the proposed 
rule and were included in the proposed rule. The presence of listed 
species in the other two caves was confirmed by TPWD during the public 
comment period. During the public comment period, the Service received

[[Page 17177]]

and approved karst management plans submitted by each agency. These 
plans commit TPWD and DOD to long-term management and monitoring 
strategies that for the listed species and their habitat on their 
respective lands. The ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation 
Plans'' section explains the reasons why we did not include these areas 
in this designation of critical habitat.

Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions

    Unless otherwise indicated in the unit descriptions below, each 
unit encompasses the following components: one or more occupied caves; 
the footprint of each cave; a 150 m (492 ft) area around the cave to 
encompass the cave cricket foraging area (50 m (164 ft)) and a buffer 
of 100 m (328 ft) against the effects of urban edges and red imported 
fire ant invasion; the surface and subsurface drainage areas associated 
with each cave as estimated in Veni (2002), to the extent possible; 
and, where possible, a minimum of 16 ha (40 ac) of surface vegetation 
encompassing each cave or cave cluster. Also, where possible, each unit 
was delineated to include contiguous deposits of Zone 1 karst-bearing 
rock as defined by Veni (2002) underlying the cave cricket foraging 
area plus buffer, the drainage areas, and the vegetative area.
    As explained previously (see ``Critical Habitat Delineation'' 
section), some of the units include human-constructed, aboveground, 
impervious structures (e.g., buildings, paved roads) that do not 
contain the primary constituent elements and are not considered to be 
critical habitat. They are included within the mapped unit because 
subsurface areas under these structures are considered to be critical 
habitat, since subterranean spaces containing the karst species, or 
transmitting moisture and nutrients through the karst ecosystem, extend 
underneath these existing human-constructed structures. Within the 
units, landscaped areas associated with existing human-constructed 
structures also are not considered to be critical habitat because they 
do not contain the primary constituent elements, although they may 
provide some foraging area for cave crickets and other trogloxenes that 
are an important source of nutrients to the karst ecosystem.
    Critical habitat boundaries are described as the area bounded by 
coordinates provided as geographic longitude and latitude coordinate 
pairs (e.g., -98.7612682, 29.4363049), referenced to North American 
Horizontal Datum 1983 (NAD 83). Coordinates were derived from 2001 
digital orthophotographs obtained from the Bexar County Appraisal 
District. A description of each unit designated, including the current 
status of the lands in and around the unit, is presented below.

Unit 1e1

    Unit 1e1 contains two occupied caves (Table 3). The surface of the 
unit consists primarily of undeveloped land. The majority of the unit 
is privately owned, with a small portion occurring on the City of San 
Antonio's Iron Horse Canyon tract, which was purchased under the 
Proposition 3 program. Proposition 3 is the Parks Development and 
Expansion Venue Project passed by San Antonio voters in 2000 for 
preservation of undeveloped Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone lands. This 
unit is surrounded by undeveloped, privately owned land, including the 
City of San Antonio's Iron Horse Canyon tract and the La Cantera Canyon 
Ranch karst management area, which is being managed in perpetuity for 
the conservation of the species under a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. 
(See ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans'' section.) This 
unit contains all of the components described above, with the exception 
of a portion of the groundwater drainage area and cave cricket foraging 
area and buffer associated with San Antonio Ranch Pit extends onto La 
Cantera's Canyon Ranch karst management area, which is being managed 
for the conservation of the listed karst invertebrates.

Unit 1e2

    Unit 1e2 contains one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of the 
unit consists primarily of undeveloped lands with a few small roads. 
The entire unit occurs on the City of San Antonio's Iron Horse Canyon 
property. This unit contains all of the components described above.

Unit 1e3

    Unit 1e3 contains two occupied caves (Table 3). The surface of the 
unit consists of undeveloped land with several small roads. The 
majority of the land is privately owned with a portion of the unit 
occurring on the City of San Antonio's Iron Horse Canyon property. This 
unit is surrounded by undeveloped, privately owned land, the City of 
San Antonio's Iron Horse Canyon property, and TPWD's Government Canyon 
State Natural Area. This unit contains all of the components described 
above, with the exception of a portion of the 21 ha (51 ac) subsurface 
drainage area shared by both caves that occurs on TPWD's Government 
Canyon State Natural Area, which we did not include in the designation 
(see ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans'' section).

Unit 2

    Two occupied caves occur within this Unit 2 (Table 3). The surface 
of Unit 2 consists of large, privatelyowned tracts, which appear to be 
primarily undeveloped with the exception of several small buildings and 
two or three small roads. The unit is surrounded by primarily 
undeveloped privately owned land. This unit contains all of the 
components described above, with the exception of a small portion of 
the 80-acre subsurface drainage basin associated with these caves that 
extends outside of the western boundary of this unit. This area was not 
included in this final determination because it was not identified in 
the proposed rule and therefore was not available for public comment. 
Although not included in the critical habitat area, minimizing impacts 
to the subsurface drainage area associated with these caves may be 
important for the conservation of the species in that cave.

Unit 3

    Unit 3 consists of large tracts of primarily undeveloped privately 
owned land. La Cantera's Helotes Blowhole/Helotes Hilltop karst 
management area (approximately 10 ha (25 ac)) occurs entirely within 
this unit and contains two occupied caves (Table 3). This management 
area was acquired by La Cantera under their Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, 
which requires that these caves and the surrounding lands be managed in 
perpetuity for the conservation of the species. We did not include 
these caves and associated management areas in the designation of 
critical habitat (see ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation 
Plans'' section). This unit was delineated to encompass the portion of 
the cave cricket foraging area plus buffer, the 16 ha (40 ac) 
vegetation area, and the subsurface drainage basin shared by the 
occupied caves that extends outside of the area protected under the La 
Cantera HCP. The majority of the unit overlies a contiguous deposit of 
Zone 1 karst-bearing rock and a small portion of Zone 3 as defined in 
Veni (2002), which underlies part of the cave cricket foraging area and 
buffer.

Unit 4

    Unit 4 includes one occupied cave (Table 3). Lands surrounding Unit 
4 consist of relatively large undeveloped tracts with some subdivided 
residential tracts that appear to be partially developed. The majority 
of the unit

[[Page 17178]]

overlies a contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-bearing rock with a small 
portion of Zone 3, which underlies part of the cave cricket foraging 
area and associated buffer areas. This unit contains all of the 
components described above.

Unit 5

    Unit 5 contains one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of Unit 5 
consists of a large tract of privately owned, undeveloped land and 
several smaller tracts developed with homes and an associated 
residential road. The unit is bordered to the north and northwest by 
large tracts of undeveloped land and bordered on the remaining sides by 
smaller tracts with some residential development. This unit contains 
all of the components described above. The majority of the unit 
overlies a contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-bearing rock, with a 
small portion of Zone3, which underlies part of the cave cricket 
foraging area and associated buffer area.

Unit 6

    La Cantera's John Wagner Ranch Cave 3 karst management 
area is within this unit, and contains one occupied cave (Table 3). 
This cave, and approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac) surrounding the cave, were 
acquired by La Cantera under their section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. The 
permit requires that the cave and the surrounding lands be managed in 
perpetuity for the conservation of the species. We did not include this 
cave, and the associated lands being managed under the permit, in this 
designation of critical habitat (see ``Lands Covered Under Existing 
Conservation Plans'' section). The surface of Unit 6 consists of 
several subdivided, large-lot tracts with homes and their associated 
roads and a large, undeveloped tract to the north owned by the City of 
San Antonio as part of the Thrift tract, which was purchased under the 
Proposition 3 program. The unit is surrounded on most of three sides by 
the City-owned Thrift tract and is adjacent to large-lot residential 
development to the south and southwest. This unit was delineated to 
encompass the portion of the cave cricket foraging area plus buffer, 
the subsurface drainage basin, and 16 ha (40 ac) vegetation area that 
extends outside of the area protected under the La Cantera HCP. The 
majority of Unit 6 overlies a contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-
bearing rock with a small portion of Zone 3, which underlies part of 
the cave cricket foraging area and associated buffer area.

Unit 7

    Unit 7 contains one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of Unit 7 
consists of relatively large, privately owned, undeveloped tracts with 
a few residential roads. The unit is surrounded by large, primarily 
undeveloped, privately-owned land. This unit contains all of the 
components described above.

Unit 8a

    Unit 8a contains one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of Unit 
8a consists of large tracts of undeveloped land with a few small roads. 
About half of the unit is privately-owned. The other half lies within 
the City of San Antonio's Medallion tract, which was purchased under 
the Proposition 3 program. The unit is surrounded by undeveloped, 
privately owned lands and the City's Medallion property. This unit 
contains all of the components described above.

Unit 8b

    Unit 8b contains two occupied caves (Table 3). The surface consists 
of large, primarily undeveloped tracts. A large portion of this unit 
occurs on the City of San Antonio's Medallion property, which was 
purchased under the Proposition 3 program. This unit also contains a 
portion of La Cantera's Hills and Dales Pit karst management area, 
which contains Hills and Dales Pit, one of the two occupied caves 
within the unit (Table 3). Hills and Dales Pit and 28 ha (70 ac) 
surrounding the cave were acquired by La Cantera under a section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit, which requires that the cave and the surrounding 
lands be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the species. We 
did not include this cave and associated lands in this designation of 
critical habitat (see ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation 
Plans'' section). This unit was delineated to encompass the portion of 
the 33-acre surface drainage basin and cave cricket foraging area plus 
buffer associated with Hills and Dales Pit that extends outside of the 
28-ha management area protected under the La Cantera HCP, as well as 
all of the components associated with Robber's Cave as described above.

Unit 9

    Unit 9 contains one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of the 
unit consists of a large tract of undeveloped land owned by the 
University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). The unit is bordered to the 
north by Loop 1604, a major highway, to the west by the UTSA campus, 
and to the south and east by currently undeveloped land. A portion of 
the unit overlies a contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-bearing rock 
with the remainder being defined as Zone 2. This unit contains all of 
the components described above.

Unit 12

    Unit 12 contains two occupied caves (Table 3). The unit is 
surrounded by residential development. Within the unit, there are 
multiple residential lots surrounding a tract of undeveloped land. The 
lots appear to be partially developed. Several residential roads and 
one major roadway occur within the unit. As explained above, these 
human-constructed features are not considered critical habitat, but 
subsurface areas under these structures are part of the designation of 
critical habitat. This unit contains all of the components described 
above.

Unit 13

    Unit 13 includes one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of the 
unit consists primarily of large privately owned tracts with some 
residential development. Bulverde Road, a major roadway, bisects the 
western portion of the unit. Unit 13 is bordered by dense residential 
development to the northwest and large-lot residential development to 
the northeast. The lands to the south, southeast, and southwest consist 
of large, primarily undeveloped tracts. This unit contains all of the 
components described above, with the exception of a portion of the 
subsurface drainage area, which extends outside of the western boundary 
of the unit underneath an area of existing residential development. 
This drainage area was not included in this final determination because 
it was not identified in the proposed rule and therefore was not 
available for public comment, and because of the legal settlement 
agreement to complete this designation by a specific deadline, we did 
not have time to republish the critical habitat proposal to include 
this area and allow public comment on it. Although this area is not 
included in the critical habitat area, minimizing impacts to the 
subsurface drainage area associated with Black Cat Cave may be 
important for the conservation of the species in that cave.

Unit 14

    Unit 14 contains three occupied caves (Table 3). The surface of the 
unit consists of several large privately owned, undeveloped tracts and 
is surrounded by large tracts of currently undeveloped land. This unit 
contains all of the components described above.

[[Page 17179]]

Unit 15

    Unit 15 contains four occupied caves (Table 3). The unit occurs 
within and is surrounded by large-lot residential development. This 
unit contains all of the components described above.

Unit 16

    Unit 16 includes one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of this 
unit consists of several large privately owned, undeveloped tracts. The 
unit is surrounded on three sides by privatelyowned undeveloped land. 
Loop 1604, a major roadway, goes through the eastern part of the unit 
and lies above the eastern portion of the subsurface drainage area 
associated with the cave. This unit contains all of the components 
described above.

Unit 17

    Unit 17 consists of several large privately owned undeveloped 
tracts with a few small roads and is surrounded by privately owned 
undeveloped land. La Cantera's Madla's Cave management area occurs 
within this unit and contains the one occupied cave in the unit (Table 
3). This cave and the approximately 2 ha (5 ac) surrounding the cave is 
under a conservation easement acquired by La Cantera under a section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit, which requires that this cave and the surrounding 
lands be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the species. We 
did not include this cave, as well as the the associated lands covered 
by the permit, in the designation of critical habitat (see ``Lands 
Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans'' section). This unit was 
delineated to encompass the portions of the cave cricket foraging area 
plus buffer and 16 ha (40-ac) vegetative area that extend outside of 
the management area protected under the La Cantera HCP. The majority of 
the unit overlies a contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-bearing rock 
with a small portion of Zone 3, which underlies part of the cave 
cricket foraging area and associated buffer area.

Unit 18

    Unit 18 includes two occupied caves (Table 3). The surface of this 
unit consists of large privately owned undeveloped tracts and several 
smaller residential lots developed with homes. Unit 18 is surrounded on 
three sides by residential and commercial development and on the fourth 
side by a large undeveloped tract. This unit contains all of the 
components described above. The majority of the unit overlies a 
contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-bearing rock and a small portion of 
Zone 3 as defined in Veni (2002), which underlies part of the cave 
cricket foraging area and buffer.

Unit 19

    This unit contains one cave (Table 3). Genesis Cave is one of only 
two locations currently known to contain Rhadine infernalis infernalis 
(Table 1) and is therefore particularly important for the conservation 
of the species. Genesis Cave is the deepest explored cave in Bexar 
County, extending below the water table, and has been mapped down to 78 
m (256 ft) (Veni 1988).
    The majority of the land within this unit has been developed for 
residential and/or commercial uses. As a result of the extensive 
existing development within this unit, the surface vegetation has been 
reduced and degraded and only small vegetated areas remain. Therefore, 
this unit does not contain the primary constituent element of a healthy 
surface plant community and was delineated to encompass the cave, its 
footprint, the surface and subsurface drainage area, and a portion of 
the cave cricket foraging area with potential for being restored to 
native vegetation. The cave is surrounded by approximately 2 acres of 
undeveloped land, which is adjacent to several small parcels of 
undeveloped land. We believe that these areas, by themselves, are not 
sufficient to maintain a healthy plant community and that intensive 
management will likely be needed to provide nutrients and water to the 
listed species in this cave. However, these small undeveloped areas 
surrounding the cave may provide foraging area for crickets inhabiting 
Genesis Cave and should be managed to benefit the species.

Unit 20

    This unit contains one occupied cave (Table 3). Robber Baron Cave 
is the only known location for two of the nine listed species (Table 1) 
and because the cave is located within an area that is geologically 
isolated from other karst areas in the San Antonio region, these two 
species are not likely to occur outside this area (Veni 1994). 
Therefore, this cave is particularly important for the conservation of 
these species. Robber Baron Cave is by far the longest cave in Bexar 
County consisting of approximately 1.51 km (0.94 mi) of passages known 
within a square area approximately 100 m (328 ft) on each side (Veni 
1988). Prior to the extensive development that has occurred in the 
area, the cave's footprint was estimated to extend at least 100 m (328 
ft) farther east to a water well, 600 m (1,969 ft) southwest to a now-
sealed extensive maze cave, and about 1.2 km (0.75 mi) to the southwest 
to another well (Veni 1988). The estimated footprint of the cave now 
extends underneath numerous residential and commercial developments. 
The Texas Cave Management Association (TCMA) now owns and manages the 
cave entrance and about 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) surrounding the opening. TCMA, 
in cooperation with the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife 
Program, is currently working to replace the existing cave gate, which 
consists of a concrete bunker created to deter access, with a new gate 
that will facilitate exchange of air and nutrients into the cave as 
well as restrict access. TCMA also plans to restore the grounds 
immediately surrounding Robber Baron Cave to a more natural state and 
repair the perimeter fence to regulate access.
    The majority of the surface land within this unit has been 
developed for residential and/or commercial uses. As a result of the 
extensive existing development within this unit, the surface vegetation 
has been reduced and degraded and only small vegetated areas remain. 
Therefore, this unit does not contain the primary constituent element 
of a healthy surface plant community. The unit was designated to 
encompass the cave; the cave footprint, both the known and estimated 
extent; and the surface and subsurface drainage area. Vegetation 
surrounding the cave entrance consists primarily of nonnative species 
used for residential landscaping. Intensive management will likely be 
needed to provide nutrients and water to the listed species in this 
cave.

Unit 21

    Unit 21 contains three occupied caves (Table 3). The majority of 
this unit occurs within the City of San Antonio's Stone Oak property, 
purchased under the Proposition 3 program. Several residential lots 
also occur within the unit boundaries. This unit contains all of the 
components described above, with the exception of the majority of the 
over 5,600-ac surface drainage area associated with Springtail Crevice 
Cave as defined by Veni (2002). This drainage area was not included in 
this final determination because it was not identified in the proposed 
rule and therefore was not available for public comment, and because of 
time deadlines associated with the legal settlement agreement to 
complete this designation, we did not have time to republish the 
critical habitat proposal to include this area and allow public comment 
on it. Although not included in the critical habitat area, minimizing 
impacts to the surface drainage area associated with this cave may be 
important for the conservation of the species in that cave.

[[Page 17180]]

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a list species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 
In our regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse 
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably 
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and 
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not 
limited to alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or 
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to 
be critical.'' However, in a March 15, 2001, decision of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434), the Court found our 
definition of destruction or adverse modification to be invalid. In 
response to this decision, we are reviewing the regulatory definition 
of adverse modification in relation to the conservation of the species.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate 
their actions with respect to any species that is listed as endangered 
or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is 
designated. Activities on Federal lands that may affect the listed 
karst invertebrates or their designated critical habitat will require 
section 7 consultation with the Service. Federal agencies also must 
consult with the Service under section 7 with regard to actions they 
authorize (permit) or fund that occur on private, State, or other non-
Federal lands if the action may affect listed species or designated 
critical habitat. Actions authorized, funded, or implemented by Federal 
agencies that affect listed species outside their designated critical 
habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. 
Federal actions that do not affect the species or designated critical 
habitat, as well as actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally 
funded or permitted, will not require section 7 consultation. 
Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the 
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer on 
any action likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species 
proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification 
of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide conservation 
recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may 
be caused by the proposed action. The conservation recommendations are 
advisory. We may issue a formal conference report, if requested by the 
Federal action agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion 
that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was 
listed or critical habitat was designated. We may adopt the formal 
conference report as the biological opinion when the species is listed 
or critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or 
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 
402.10(d)).
    If we issue a biological opinion, resulting from a section 7 
consultation, concluding that a Federal action is likely to result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we also 
would provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action, if any 
are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives are defined at 50 
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during formal consultation 
that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of the 
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 
economically and technologically feasible, and that we believe would 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions under certain 
circumstances, including instances where critical habitat is 
subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law. 
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of 
consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been 
completed if those actions may affect designated critical habitat.
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect any of the nine karst 
invertebrates or the designated critical habitat will require 
consultation under section 7 of the Act. Activities on private, State, 
or other non-Federal lands that involve a Federal action such a permit 
(e.g., a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 
of the Clean Water Act or a Construction General permit from the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency), or Federal funding (e.g., from the 
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, or Housing and Urban Development) also will continue to be 
subject to the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions that do 
not affect listed species or critical habitat, as well as actions on 
non-Federal lands that are not federally funded or permitted, do not 
require section 7 consultation.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to evaluate briefly in any 
proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat those 
activities which, if undertaken, may adversely modify such habitat or 
that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat include 
those that alter the primary constituent elements to an extent that the 
value of critical habitat for the conservation of any of the seven 
karst invertebrates is appreciably reduced. These activities may occur 
outside the designated critical habitat and still result in destruction 
or adverse modification; for example, activities in the drainage area 
or locations adjacent to the critical habitat that impacts the karst 
environment within the designated critical habitat. Activities that may 
directly or indirectly adversely affect critical habitat for these 
karst invertebrates include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Removing, thinning, or destroying perennial surface vegetation, 
with the exception of landscaping associated with existing human-
constructed, above-ground, impervious structures, occurring in any 
critical habitat unit, whether by burning, mechanical, chemical, or 
other means (for example, wood cutting, grading, overgrazing, 
construction, road building, pipelines, mining, herbicide application);
    (2) Alteration of the surface topography or subsurface geology 
within any critical habitat unit that results in significant disruption 
of ecosystem processes that sustain the cave environment. This may 
include, but is not limited to, such activities as filling cave 
entrances or otherwise reducing airflow, which limits oxygen 
availability; modifying cave entrances, or creating new entrances that 
increase airflow and result in drying; altering natural drainage 
patterns (surface or subsurface) in a manner that alters the amount of 
water entering the cave or karst feature; removal or disturbance of 
native surface vegetation that may alter the quality or quantity of 
water entering the karst environment; soil disturbance that results in 
increased sedimentation in the karst environment; increasing impervious 
cover that may decrease water quantity entering the karst

[[Page 17181]]

environment within any critical habitat unit (e.g., paving over a 
vegetated area); and altering the entrance or opening of the cave or 
karst feature in a way that would disrupt movements of raccoons, 
opossums, cave crickets, or other animals that provide nutrient input; 
or otherwise negatively altering the movement of nutrients into the 
cave or karst feature;
    (3) Discharge or dumping of chemicals, silt, pollutants, household 
or industrial waste, or other harmful material into or near critical 
habitat units that may affect surface plant and animal communities or 
that affects the subsurface karst ecosystem.
    (4) Pesticide or fertilizer application in or near critical habitat 
units that drain into these karst features or that affect surface plant 
and animal communities that support karst ecosystems. Careful use of 
pesticides in the vicinity of karst features may be necessary in some 
instances to control nonnative fire ants. Guidelines for controlling 
fire ants in the vicinity of karst features are available from us (see 
ADDRESSES section);
    (5) Activities within caves that lead to soil compaction, changes 
in atmospheric conditions, or abandonment of the cave by bats or other 
fauna;
    (6) Activities that attract or increase access for fire ants, 
cockroaches, or other invasive predators, competitors, or potential 
vectors for diseases or parasites into caves or karst features within 
the critical habitat units (e.g., dumping of garbage in or around caves 
or karst features); and
    (7) Release of certain biological control organisms within or 
adjacent to critical habitat areas. Biological control organisms 
include, but are not limited to, predaceous or parastoid (i.e., an 
organism that lays its eggs in the body of another animal) vertebrates 
or invertebrates, fungi, bacteria, or other natural or bioengineered 
organisms.
    Not all of the identified activities will necessarily result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. They indicate, 
however, the potential types of activities that will require section 7 
consultation in the future and, therefore, that may be affected by the 
designation of critical habitat. To properly portray the effects of 
critical habitat designation, we must compare the section 7 
requirements for actions that may affect critical habitat with the 
requirements for actions that may affect a listed species. All of the 
areas designated as critical habitat are known to contain one or more 
caves occupied by one or more of the listed karst invertebrates. 
Therefore, all of the actions described above as potentially adversely 
modifying critical habitat are also likely to adversely affect the 
listed species. Federal agencies already are required to consult with 
us on activities in areas where the species may be affected to ensure 
that the actions of the agency are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. Therefore, we do not expect that 
this designation of critical habitat will result in a regulatory burden 
above that already in place because of the presence of the listed 
species.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities would 
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, please contact 
Robert T. Pine, Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Requests for copies of 
the regulations on listed wildlife and plants, and inquiries about 
prohibitions and permits, should be directed to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act Section 10 Program (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans

    The first portion of the definition of critical habitat in section 
3(5)(A) of the Act states that critical habitat means: ``(i) The 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at 
the time it is listed * * * on which are found those physical or 
biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species 
and (II) which may require special management considerations or 
protection.'' As part of our process of developing a critical habitat 
designation, we evaluate existing management plans to determine whether 
an area may require special management or protection and thus qualifies 
as critical habitat. The Service believes that special management or 
protection is not required if an area is covered by a legally operative 
plan that addresses the maintenance and improvement of essential 
habitat elements and that provides for the long-term conservation of 
the species.
    We consider a current plan to provide adequate special management 
or protection if it meets three criteria: (1) The plan is complete and 
provides a conservation benefit to the species (i.e., the plan must 
maintain or provide for an increase in the species' population, or the 
enhancement or restoration of its habitat within the area covered by 
the plan); (2) the plan provides assurances that the conservation 
management strategies and actions will be implemented (i.e., those 
responsible for implementing the plan are capable of accomplishing the 
objectives, and have an implementation schedule or adequate funding for 
implementing the management plan); and (3) the plan provides assurances 
the conservation strategies and measures will be effective (i.e., it 
identifies biological goals, has provisions for reporting progress, and 
is of a duration sufficient to implement the plan and achieve the 
plan's goals and objectives).
    When we assess the likelihood of whether the special management and 
protection will be implemented, we consider whether: (1) A management 
plan or agreement exists that specifies the special management actions 
being implemented or to be implemented; (2) there is a timely schedule 
for implementation; (3) there is a high probability that the funding 
source(s) or other resources necessary to implement the special 
management will be available; and (4) the party(ies) have the authority 
and long-term commitment to the agreement or plan to implement the 
special management and provide the protection, as demonstrated, for 
example, by a legal instrument providing enduring protection and 
special management of the areas that contain the primary constituent 
elements.
    When we evaluate whether an action is likely to be effective, we 
consider whether: (1) The plan specifically addresses the special 
management needs, with respect to the conservation and enhancement, 
where possible, of the primary constituent elements; (2) actions 
similar to those being proposed or used as special management and 
protection have been successfully used in the past; (3) there are 
provisions for monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of the 
special management and protection; and (4) adaptive management 
principles have been incorporated into the plan.
    If an area provides physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species, and also is covered by a plan that 
meets these criteria described above, then such an area does not 
constitute critical habitat as defined by section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act 
because the primary constituent elements found there are not in need of 
special management.
    With the ``may require special management or protection'' clause, 
Congress determined that certain areas should not be included in a 
designation despite the fact that they contain features essential to 
the conservation of the species. However, it has been suggested that 
the need for any management of physical or biological features, 
regardless of whether that

[[Page 17182]]

management is in place, qualifies an area as meeting this part of the 
definition of critical habitat. This interpretation ignores the 
question of whether the special management or protections are or are 
not required. Under this interpretation, any area on which an action 
needs to be taken to provide special management consideration or 
protection for a species constitutes critical habitat for that species. 
We believe that this interpretation of section 3(5)(A)(i) is incorrect 
because it essentially reads the special management clause out of the 
definition. Thus, under this interpretation, critical habitat would 
include all areas within the range of the species on which are found 
features essential to the conservation of the species, notwithstanding 
the additional requirement in the language of the Act. In contrast, our 
interpretation of the language, as described above, gives independent 
meaning to the special management clause because there will be some 
areas with features essential to the conservation of the species that 
will not require special management because they already have such 
management.

La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan

    Section 10(a) of the Act authorizes the Service to issue to non-
Federal entities a permit for the incidental take of endangered or 
threatened species. This permit allows a non-Federal landowner to 
proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but 
results in the incidental taking of a listed species (i.e., take that 
is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an 
otherwise lawful activity). The Act specifies that an application for 
an incidental take permit must be accompanied by a conservation plan. A 
permit may not be issued unless the conservation plan submitted to the 
Service meets certain requirements, as provided in section 10(a)(2)(A) 
of the Act. For example, the conservation plan must specify what steps 
the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate such impacts, and the 
funding that will be available to implement such steps. After an 
opportunity for public comment on the conservation plan, the Service 
may issue the permit provided we determine that certain conditions, as 
specified in section 10(a)(2)(B), are met. For instance, the Service 
must find that the taking will be incidental, and the taking will not 
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the 
species in the wild.
    In our proposed rule for designating critical habitat for the karst 
invertebrates, we considered the lands covered by the La Cantera 
Habitat Conservation Plan. (A notice of availability for the HCP was 
published on July 2, 2001, opening a 30-day period for public comment. 
The section 10 permit was issued on October 31, 2001.) The goals of the 
HCP are to minimize and mitigate for the potential negative effects of 
constructing and operating commercial, light industrial, recreational, 
and residential development near and adjacent to currently occupied 
habitat of the endangered karst invertebrates, and to contribute to 
conservation of the covered species and other listed and non-listed 
cave or karst fauna. To accomplish these goals, the plan requires the 
following special management and protection:
    [sbull] Routine inspections will be conducted and will include, but 
may not be limited to: Signs of vandalism and unauthorized entry; 
damage to cave gates, fencing, and/or signs; damage to vegetation; 
presence of fire ants or other nonnative species; dumping; and any 
other conditions that could affect the listed species or the karst 
ecosystem. Native vegetation will be maintained or improved within the 
karst management area. A baseline survey will be conducted and repeated 
every 10 years thereafter.
    [sbull] A fire ant control and treatment program will be 
implemented. Boiling water will be used within 50 m of the cave 
footprint. Boiling water and/or chemical bait will be used between 50 
and 150 m. Baits may be ``broadcast'' more than 150 m from a cave 
footprint according to protocols outlined in the HCP. The control and 
monitoring of fire ants will occur at least twice a year over the 
entire karst management area. Documentation of mounds will also occur 
during routine inspections. An increase in treatment will occur if 
mounds exceed stated numbers in the HCP.
    [sbull] Cave security fences will be installed around all caves 
according to specifications outlined in the HCP, and some caves will 
have cave gates installed. Signs will be placed along all fences to 
further minimize the potential for vandalism and unauthorized access to 
the management areas. These areas will have officially designated 
points of access or entry. Entry gates will remain locked at all times 
when unattended. Cave security fences and their signs and cave gates 
will be maintained and routinely inspected; barbed-wire fences will be 
inspected at least every 6 months. Necessary repairs to fencing, gates, 
and signs will be initiated within one week if any of these are found 
to have incurred damage.
    [sbull] In addition, the plan requires the control of impacts from 
increasing population densities of white-tailed deer and other mammals 
on surface plant and animal communities. Cattle, other domestic and/or 
exotic livestock, and pets will not be allowed in the karst management 
areas unless approved by the Service. No fertilizers, herbicides, or 
pesticides will be used within the management areas unless approved by 
the Service. No new roads, new utilities, or other development, 
including stormwater or wastewater lines, treatment ponds, structures 
or other facilities, are allowed within the karst management area 
boundaries unless allowed for under the HCP or approved by the Service. 
Motorized vehicles will be prohibited from the management areas at all 
times, unless utilized to facilitate operation, monitoring, and 
maintenance. No public access, including hiking, biking, and horseback 
riding, will be allowed unless approved by the Service. Karst 
management and monitoring plans will be developed for each management 
area and will include monitoring of the baseline conditions (biological 
and physical conditions of the area prior to the other scheduled 
activities), surface and subsurface animal species, and surface 
vegetation, as well as measurement of cave and surface climates.
    [sbull] An adaptive management strategy will be used in the 
implementation of the plan. On the basis of this strategy, if 
monitoring or other information indicates that the goals or 
requirements of the HCP are not being met, then adjustments will be 
made as outlined in the HCP.
    As explained in the proposed rule (67 FR 55064), based on our 
evaluation of the adequacy of special management considerations and 
protection provided by the La Cantera HCP, and in light of the 
definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we did 
not include the five karst management areas established by La Cantera 
as part of the proposed designation of critical habitat. These areas 
were established as a requirement of their section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, 
which is titled ``Environmental Assessment and Habitat Conservation 
Plan for Issuance of an Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) 
Permit for the Incidental Take of Two Troglobitic Ground Beetles 
(Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis) and Madia Cave Meshweaver 
(Cicurina madia) During the Construction and Operation of Commercial 
Development on the Approximately 1,000-Acre La Cantera Property, San 
Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, dated October 11, 2001.'' These five 
karst management areas

[[Page 17183]]

include: (1) Canyon Ranch (including Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's 
Nightmare Cave, and Scenic Overlook Cave and the surrounding 
approximately 30 ha (75 ac) within critical habitat Unit 1e, as 
proposed; (2) Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves and the 
surrounding approximately 10 ha (25 ac), within Unit 3 as proposed; (3) 
John Wagner Cave No. 3 and the surrounding approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac), 
within Unit 6 as proposed; (4) Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding 
approximately 28 ha (70 ac), within Unit 8 as proposed; and (5) Madla's 
Cave and the surrounding approximately 2 ha (5 ac), within Unit 17 as 
proposed.
    We believe that the La Cantera HCP meets the three criteria used by 
the Service to determine if a plan provides adequate special management 
or protection to a listed species. First, the HCP provides a 
conservation benefit to the species through the protection of eight 
caves, each occupied by one or more of the three listed species covered 
under the HCP. The various management actions (e.g., installation of 
security fences, controls on numerous potential human impacts, fire ant 
control and treatment program) will provide conservation benefits. 
Second, the HCP provides assurance that the conservation management 
strategies and actions will be implemented. These caves and associated 
management areas are protected, in perpetuity, by appropriate legal 
mechanisms, and will be managed, in perpetuity. The HCP provides 
assurances that the conservation strategies and actions will be 
implemented by outlining a schedule of management and monitoring 
activities to be conducted at each karst management area. Also, based 
on our review of available information, estimates, and budgets, La 
Cantera committed to provide funding for all management, monitoring, 
repair, and adaptive management actions described in the HCP up to an 
aggregate of $38,032 per year, as adjusted for inflation. Third, to 
provide assurances that the conservation strategies and measures will 
be effective, the HCP was developed on the basis of the best available 
information, and La Cantera is required to conduct periodic surveys of 
the cave environment, as well as the surface plant and animal community 
to determine the status of these environments and the need for adaptive 
management. If monitoring or other information indicates that the goals 
or requirements of the HCP are not being met, then adjustments will be 
made as appropriate. La Cantera is required to submit a report of all 
management and monitoring activities conducted each year to the Service 
annually.
    For the reasons described above, the five karst management areas 
established by La Cantera and being provided for under their HCP are 
not included in this designation of critical habitat because they are 
receiving adequate special management considerations and protection, 
and therefore do not meet the definition of critical habitat as stated 
in section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

Camp Bullis Conservation Plan for Karst Species

    During the comment period for the proposed designation of critical 
habitat, the U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Sam Houston submitted a 
``Management Plan for the Conservation of Rare and Endangered Karst 
Species, Camp Bullis, Bexar and Comal Counties, Texas,'' for the 23 
caves on Department of Defense (DOD) property that are known to contain 
listed karst species. These 23 caves were included within Units 10 and 
11 of the proposed designation of critical habitat. The Camp Bullis 
conservation plan calls for the following special management 
considerations and protection:
    [sbull] The Army will identify karst management areas (KMAs) and 
determine the appropriate size and shape of each KMA necessary to 
incorporate the biological and physical components needed for the 
conservation of the species (e.g., cave footprint, surface and 
subsurface drainage areas associated with the occupied cave, cave 
cricket foraging area, surface plant and animal community). The KMAs 
will be preserved in perpetuity within the limits possible through the 
authority of Camp Bullis and its operational and mission requirements. 
The Plan stipulates that should Camp Bullis ever be transferred in 
whole or in part, local Army officials will request that the Secretary 
of the Army, or other appropriate authority, review and incorporate 
provisions from this management plan into the property disposal 
procedures in order to transfer responsibility for appropriate 
management of any former Camp Bullis karst management areas to all 
subsequent owners by deed recordation or other binding instrument.
    [sbull] Fire ants will be controlled. Only boiling water will be 
used up to 50 m from a cave's footprint, chemical fire ant bait or 
boiling water, if feasible, will be used between 50 and 150 m, and 
``broadcasting'' of bait may be used at distances greater than 150 m. 
Pesticide and fertilizer use will be prohibited within KMAs unless 
specifically authorized. Special management will protect important 
sources of nutrients for KMAs, prevent siltation and/or entry of other 
contaminants into KMAs, dprevent vandalism, dumping of trash, and 
unauthorized entry into caves. Certain caves may require cave gates 
and/or security fences.
    [sbull] In addition, the Army will: (1) Continue conducting karst 
and biospeleological surveys; (2) complete hydrogeologic studies on 
KMAs; (3) continue studies on the ecology of karst species; (4) develop 
educational programs to raise awareness and encourage protection of 
karst ecosystems by Camp Bullis personnel and the public; (5) monitor 
all KMAs to determine success or failure of management actions; and (6) 
document all fauna and flora encountered during monitoring. Monitoring 
will occur every 1-3 years based on changes in the extent that Camp 
Bullis uses areas in or around the cave.
    [sbull] Finally, only native xeriscape plants will be used to 
landscape for new construction within 150 m of a KMA. Two of the caves 
are near the boundary of Camp Bullis. We intend to form a partnership 
with Camp Bullis and the private landowners to gain their support for 
protecting the habitat that is on private lands near these caves.
    In addition to the activities outlined in their plan, Camp Bullis 
began conducting surveys for cave and karst features and karst fauna in 
1993 and plans to complete karst surveys of the entire approximately 
28,000-acre installation in 2003. Camp Bullis submitted a draft karst 
management plan to us in 1999 and has been implementing measures to 
conserve listed karst invertebrate species since then. These measures 
include, but are not limited to, control of red-imported fire ants, 
control of unauthorized access through cave gating, and limiting 
training activities in areas around occupied caves. The 2002 karst 
management plan, received and approved by the Service during the 
comment period, includes these and additional measures to conserve the 
listed species and their ecosystems on Camp Bullis.
    Based on our evaluation of the Camp Bullis conservation plan for 
the karst invertebrates, we find that it provides adequate special 
management considerations and protection for the species occurring 
within Units 10 and 11 that were proposed for designation as critical 
habitat. We believe that Camp Bullis' karst management plan (Plan) 
meets the three criteria used by the Service to determine if a plan 
provides adequate special management or protection to a listed species. 
The Plan

[[Page 17184]]

provides a conservation benefit to the species through the protection 
of twenty-three caves occurring on Camp Bullis. Each cave is occupied 
by one or more of the listed species. Under the terms of a memorandum 
of understanding (MOU) signed by Camp Bullis and the Service on 
December 20, 2002, Camp Bullis agreed to protect, manage and monitor 
caves containing listed species as specified in the Plan within the 
limits possible through the authority of Camp Bullis and its 
operational and mission requirements. The Plan stipulates that should 
Camp Bullis ever be transferred in whole or in part, local Army 
officials will request that the Secretary of the Army, or other 
appropriate authority, review and incorporate provisions from this 
management plan into the property disposal procedures in order to 
transfer responsibility for appropriate management of any former Camp 
Bullis karst management areas to all subsequent owners by deed 
recordation or other binding instrument. The Plan provides assurances 
that the conservation strategies and actions will be implemented by 
outlining a schedule of management and monitoring activities to be 
conducted at each occupied cave. The Plan also stipulates that funding 
for the management actions will be programmed in the Environmental 
Project Requirements database which is submitted annually. To provide 
assurances that the conservation strategies and measures will be 
effective, Camp Bullis has agreed to conduct periodic surveys of the 
cave environment, as well as the surface plant and animal community to 
determine the status of these environments and the need for adaptive 
management. If monitoring or other information indicates that the goals 
or requirements of the Plan are not being met, then adjustments will be 
made as appropriate. Under the Plan, Camp Bullis is required to submit 
a report of all management and monitoring activities conducted each 
year to the Service annually.
    For the reasons described above, we have not included the Camp 
Bullis lands in proposed Units 10 and 11 in this final designation of 
critical habitat because these areas do not meet the definition of 
critical habitat as stated in section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

Government Canyon State Natural Area Conservation Plan

    During the comment period for the proposed rule, Texas Parks and 
Wildlife Department (TPW) submitted the ``Karst Management and 
Maintenance Plan for Government Canyon State Natural Area, Bexar 
County, Texas.'' Government Canyon State Natural Area (GCSNA) was 
designated as a state natural area in 1993. As of 2002, GCSNA includes 
a total of 8,199 acres. As a designated natural area, GCSNA's mission 
is to protect the outstanding natural attributes found on the property, 
including caves inhabited by the listed karst invertebrates. Surveys 
for cave and karst features and cave fauna have been ongoing at GCSNA 
since 1994. To protect the listed karst invertebrates, GCSNA began 
treating for fire ants around the occupied caves in 1999 and has 
continued to implement this and other conservation measures benefitting 
the listed species and their ecosystem. Such on-going measures include, 
but are not limited to, ongoing surveys for cave and karst features and 
cave fauna, control of fire ants, and control of unauthorized access. 
As described in the following paragraphs, the 2002 karst management 
plan, received and approved by the Service during the comment period, 
includes these and additional measures to conserve the listed species 
and their ecosystems on GCSNA.
    TPWD committed to limiting human use to a trail system and 12 
primitive campsites on the portions of the property overlying the 
Edwards Aquifer. At least two surveys a year for fire ant mounds around 
cave openings will be conducted with fire ant mound densities being 
recorded within 50 m of cave entrances. Searches for fire ant mounds 
also will be made during routine maintenance inspections. Control will 
be conducted twice a year, with an increase in frequency if more than 
80 mounds are located within 50 m of a cave entrance. Boiling water 
will be used to control fire ants within 50 m of the footprint of any 
cave. Boiling water or chemical baits will be used between 50 and 100 m 
from the footprint. Baits may be ``broadcast'' in areas greater than 
150 m, and the bait use protocol is outlined in the management plan.
    Wildfire fighting will, to the fullest extent practical, avoid 
direct or indirect impacts to caves. Pesticide and herbicide use will 
be prohibited unless expressly agreed to by all partners involved in 
the special management. Monthly monitoring and inspections of all 
endangered species caves will occur. Data collection will include: 
evidence of vandalism, evidence of vegetation damage due to off-trail 
use, condition of the cave gate and/or security fence, evidence of 
feral hogs and/or white tailed deer, presence of fire ants, and results 
of recent fire ant treatments. Cave cricket counts will be performed 
yearly at all caves. Through photographic documentation, changes in 
vegetation structure and composition around caves will be monitored. 
Volunteers holding valid scientific research and recovery permits for 
karst invertebrates will assist in monitoring listed and unlisted 
species. An annual report of activities will be submitted by October 
31st of each calendar year.
    Based on our evaluation of the Karst Management and Maintenance 
Plan for Government Canyon State Natural Area, we find that it provides 
adequate special management considerations and protection for Units 1a, 
1b, 1c, and 1d that were proposed for designation as critical habitat. 
We believe that TPWD's karst management plan submitted for GCSNA meets 
the three criteria used by the Service to determine if a plan provides 
adequate special management or protection to a listed species. The Plan 
provides a conservation benefit to the species through the protection 
of seven caves, each occupied by one or more of the listed species. As 
a designated natural area, GCSNA's mission is to protect the 
outstanding natural attributes found on the property, including caves 
inhabited by the listed karst invertebrates. The property will be 
protected in perpetuity and used in a sustainable manner for scientific 
research, education, aesthetic enjoyment, and appropriate public use, 
not detrimental to the primary purposes for which the property was 
acquired. The Plan provides assurances that the conservation strategies 
and actions will be implemented by outlining a schedule of management 
and monitoring activities to be conducted at each occupied cave. 
Surveys for cave and karst features and cave fauna have been ongoing at 
GCSNA since 1994. The Plan also stipulates that funding for the 
management actions will be programmed into GCSNA's operating budget 
annually. To provide assurances that the conservation strategies and 
measures will be effective, TPWD has agreed to conduct periodic surveys 
of the cave environment, as well as the surface plant and animal 
community to determine the status of these environments and the need 
for adaptive management. If monitoring or other information indicates 
that the goals or requirements of the Plan are not being met, then 
adjustments will be made as appropriate. Under the Plan, TPWD is 
required to submit a report of all management and monitoring activities 
conducted each year at GCSNA to the Service annually. Therefore, we are 
not including these units in this final designation of critical habitat 
because

[[Page 17185]]

these areas do not meet the definition of critical habitat as stated in 
section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)

    As described above, based on our evaluation of the adequacy of 
special management and protection that is provided in current 
management plans involving the karst invertebrates, and in accordance 
with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not included the areas 
covered by the La Cantera HCP, or Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 10 and 11 as 
proposed, in this final designation of critical habitat. To the extent 
that special management considerations and protection may be required 
for these areas, and they therefore qualify as critical habitat 
according to section 3(5)(A)(i), they are properly excluded from 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, based on the following 
analysis.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and 
to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a 
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions 
outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We 
cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such exclusion 
will result in the extinction of the species concerned. We believe 
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act applies to the areas 
encompassed in the special management and protection plans for the La 
Cantera HCP, GCSNA, and Camp Bullis.

La Cantera HCP

    The principal benefit of any designated critical habitat is that 
Federal activities that may affect the habitat require consultation 
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Consultation is designed to ensure 
that adequate protection is provided to avoid adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat resulting from an action authorized, 
funded, or carried out by a Federal agency. Where HCPs are in place and 
lands are covered by a section 10(a)(1)B) permit, our experience has 
shown that any benefit of designation of such lands as critical habitat 
is small to none when the areas concerned are occupied by the species, 
because the occupied areas already are subject to section 7 
consultation based on the ``jeopardy standard.'' Permitted HCPs are 
designed to ensure the long-term survival of listed species within the 
area covered by the permit. Under an HCP, an areas that might be 
designated as critical habitat already will be protected in reserves 
and other conservation lands by the terms of the HCP and its 
implementation agreements. The HCP and implementation agreements 
include management measures and protections for conservation lands that 
are crafted to protect, restore, and enhance their value as habitat for 
covered species.
    In addition, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit issued by us as a result 
of an HCP application must itself undergo consultation. While this 
consultation may not look specifically at the issue of the likelihood 
of adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat, it will 
look at the very similar concept of jeopardy to the listed species in 
the plan area. Since HCPs address land use within the plan boundaries, 
habitat issues within the plan boundaries will have been thoroughly 
addressed in the HCP and the consultation on the HCP.
    The development and implementation of HCPs provide other important 
conservation benefits, including the development of biological 
information to guide conservation efforts and assist in species 
recovery and the creation of innovative solutions to conserve species 
while allowing for development. The educational benefits of critical 
habitat, including informing the public of areas that are important for 
the long-term survival and conservation of the species, are essentially 
the same as those that would occur from the public notice and comment 
procedures required to establish an HCP, as well as the public 
participation that occurs in the development of many HCPs. For these 
reasons we believe that designation of critical habitat has little or 
no benefit in areas covered by HCPs.
    The benefits of excluding HCPs from designation as critical habitat 
are significant. Benefits of excluding HCPs include relieving 
landowners, communities, and counties of any additional minor 
regulatory review that might be imposed by critical habitat. Many HCPs 
take considerable time--sometimes years--to develop and, upon 
completion, become the basis for regional conservation plans that are 
consistent with the conservation of covered species. Many of these 
plans benefit many species, both listed and unlisted. Imposing an 
additional regulatory review after HCP completion may jeopardize 
conservation efforts and partnerships in many areas and could be viewed 
as a disincentive to those developing HCPs. Excluding HCPs provides us 
with an opportunity to streamline regulatory compliance and confirms 
regulatory assurances for HCP participants.
    Another benefit of excluding HCPs is that exclusion encourages the 
continued development of partnerships with HCP participants, including 
States, local governments, conservation organizations, and private 
landowners, that together can implement conservation actions that we 
would be unable to accomplish alone. By excluding areas covered by HCPs 
from critical habitat designation, we preserve these partnerships, and, 
we believe, set the stage for more effective conservation actions in 
the future.
    Specifically, for the lands covered by the La Cantera HCP, in a 
letter dated April 18, 2002, Mr. Alan Glen, representing the La Cantera 
Development Company, noted the following. ``The significant mitigation 
measures and conservation benefits provided by the La Cantera HCP would 
likely not have been realized through a section 7 consultation. As a 
result, it is highly unlikely that the inclusion of the areas covered 
by the HCP in a designation of critical habitat would provide any 
benefit for the listed species. In contrast, the benefits of excluding 
the La Cantera HCP from the designation are expected to be significant 
for many of the same reasons identified in the Quino analysis set forth 
above. La Cantera and the Service worked together for years to produce 
the first HCP covering any of the listed Bexar County invertebrate 
species, and as the Service has acknowledged, the result is a model 
that can be followed throughout the region. The imposition of even a 
minor regulatory burden that will not yield substantial benefits for 
the species may hinder the orderly and effective implementation of the 
La Cantera HCP and, perhaps more importantly, discourage similar 
efforts to conserve the listed species by other parties in the 
future.''
    We have weighed the small benefit, if any, of including the lands 
in the HCP against the benefits of exclusion, which include the benefit 
of relieving both the property owners and the Service of the extra time 
and funds associated with the additional layer of approvals and 
regulation, including reinitiation of the intra-Service section 7 
consultation, together with the encouragement of conservation 
partnerships. We have determined that the benefit of excluding the land 
covered by the La Cantera HCP from designation as critical habitat 
outweighs the benefits of including the areas, so we have excluded them 
from designation on the basis of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

[[Page 17186]]

Government Canyon State Natural Area and Camp Bullis

    The benefits of designating as critical habitat the State-owned 
GCSNA lands in proposed Units 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d, and the DOD-owned 
Camp Bullis lands in proposed Units 10 and 11, are small to none. As 
previously stated, the listed species and their habitat on both Camp 
Bullis and the GCSNA already are being managed and protected under 
Service-approved karst management plans. These management plans provide 
long-term conservation benefits to the listed species on these 
properties. The only additional protection for the primary constituent 
elements that could occur on GCSNA would be the requirement for Federal 
agencies to consult on any action they permit, fund, or carry out, that 
may affect designated critical habitat, were it designated, on the 
State-owned lands. However, all of the caves on the Natural Area that 
could have been included in the designation are known to be inhabited 
by one or more species of the endangered karst invertebrates. 
Therefore, the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard for Federal agency 
actions already is in place and Federal agencies are required to 
consult with the Service on any action that may affect a listed 
species. Since take of the species would almost certainly be a result 
of harm to the habitat, no added section 7(a)(2) protections would be 
provided by designation of critical habitat in this situation.
    Also, the primary purpose for GCSNA is for the protection and 
stewardship of outstanding natural attributes of statewide significance 
under Policy, TAC 59.61-59.64. Given this stated purpose, it is highly 
unlikely that the State would allow any federally funded or permitted 
project that would harm the habitats associated with the caves on the 
Natural Area. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that section 7(a)(2) 
consultation would ever be required. Also, GCSNA's karst management 
plan stipulates that TPWD intends to coordinate with the Service on any 
activities on GCSNA that may impact listed species or their habitat. 
Further, in the unlikely event that the State should ever propose an 
action that lacks Federal agency involvement and that might result in 
incidental take of the listed karst invertebrates on the Natural Area, 
an incidental take permit would be required under section 10(a)(1)(B) 
of the Act. Section 10(a)(1)(B) requires that the applicant minimize 
and mitigate, to the maximum extent practical, the impacts to listed 
species. While the Service would have to complete an intra-Service 
section 7(a)(2) consultation to ensure that issuing the permit did not 
jeopardize the listed species or adversely modify critical habitat, 
were it designated, it is highly unlikely that the designation of 
critical habitat on the Natural Area would add any measures that would 
increase the minimization and mitigation of harm to the habitat.
    Camp Bullis' mission is to provide field training and support for 
military activities in south Texas. The mission requirements demand the 
presence of large tracts of undeveloped land for training operations. 
The management plan discussed above represents the cumulative efforts 
of Camp Bullis to eliminate, mitigate, and prevent harm to the 
federally and state-listed karst species. Camp Bullis has an approved 
and signed Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP). This 
INRMP provides yet another layer of protection for the natural 
resources on Camp Bullis. The INRMP includes specific goals for 
managing the karst resources on Camp Bullis to ensure protection and 
enhance understanding. This includes: (1) Management of water resources 
on Camp Bullis, including wetlands, that protects the Edwards Aquifer 
Recharge Zone; (2) supporting research to measure the relationship 
between species diversity and the amount of water flowing into the 
recharge zones; and (3) continuing to support work done by the U.S. 
Geological Survey. Given these layers of protection for the habitats 
associated with the occupied caves, inclusion of Camp Bullis lands in 
this designation of critical habitat would have little or no benefit to 
the listed karst species.
    The benefits of excluding areas within GCSNA and Camp Bullis from 
designation are significant. If special management and protection plans 
were not implemented as called for the in the GCSNA conservation plan, 
the State would be required to complete section 10(a)(1)(B) habitat 
conservation planning for any action that might result in incidental 
take of the listed species. In the case of Camp Bullis, section 7(a)(2) 
consultation would be needed on any action likely to result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 
However, since both areas are implementing special management and 
protection plans that preclude take of listed species and harm to the 
associated habitat, no HCPs or consultations are needed. Completion of 
section 10(a)(1)(B) permits can require extensive lengths of time, in 
some cases, years and thousands of hours. Likewise, completion of 
formal section 7(a)(2) biological opinions may require completion of 
biological assessments that can require extensive lengths of time and 
thousands of hours to complete. Both processes may require the 
employment of consultants. Thus, by having special management and 
protection plans in place that preclude actions that might harm species 
and associated habitat, there is a great savings, in terms of both 
money and time, and a great benefit, to the Service, the State, and the 
DOD.
    In the situations of GCSNA and Camp Bullis, the State and the DOD 
assumed the additional cost of putting in place and implementing 
special management for endangered species in their resource management 
plans. The special management far exceeds the protections that would be 
afforded by designation of critical habitat. If these areas were 
included in the critical habitat designation, the cooperative 
partnership that motivated these two agencies to assume the cost and 
work would be damaged. Since the added special management and 
protection measures for endangered karst invertebrates on the part of 
the State is voluntary, the designation could result in an adverse 
change to the cooperative partnership with the Service and changes to 
future management and protection. The primary constituent elements and 
species will greatly benefit from the implementation of these plans.
    We believe recovery of listed species is best accomplished through 
partnerships and voluntary actions. If areas that are subject to 
adequate management plans are not excluded from designations of 
critical habitat, there will be a chilling effect on other potential 
partners. There is a great incentive to not having Federal regulations 
encumbering non-Federal land. It is likely that many potential partners 
will not assume the cost and work associated with implementing 
voluntary special management and protection if critical habitat is 
designated regardless of their efforts. As a result, listed species and 
their habitat will not have the benefits of voluntary special 
management. We believe that the benefits of excluding these areas 
already under special management as a result of voluntary action by the 
landowners greatly outweighs the benefits of including such areas as 
part of critical habitat. We believe that excluding these areas is 
beneficial to these and other species.
    In the case of Camp Bullis, there also are national security 
benefits from exclusion of Units 10 and 11 from critical habitat 
designation which exceed any benefits from including these areas. In a 
prior consultation under section 7 of the Act, the Service

[[Page 17187]]

found: ``All available land at Camp Bullis is being used for training 
for the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Reserve components, San Antonio 
police, FBI, U.S. Marshals and Academy Health Sciences.'' Training 
includes search and rescue, escape and evasion, survival, mechanized 
infantry maneuvers, urban warfare tactics, reconnaissance in enemy 
territory, parachute operations and combat assault landing, air base 
ground protection and low-level helicopter assault and maneuvering. An 
average of over 36,000 Army and other services' medical personnel 
undergo field medical training at Camp Bullis, and total military 
training use averages over 720,000 person-days annually.
    The space and facilities for this training at Camp Bullis cannot 
readily be duplicated elsewhere. The benefits of avoiding adverse 
impacts to the U.S. Army's mission if training were delayed due to the 
need to reinitiate section 7 consultation as a result of concerns for 
irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to 
the agency's action (section 7(d)) exceed the benefits of designation 
of proposed Units 10 and 11 as critical habitat.
    Based on section 4(b)(2) and the consideration of the information 
described above, we find that the benefits of excluding the areas 
covered by the La Cantera HCP, proposed Units 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d of the 
GCSNA lands, and proposed Units 10 and 11 on Camp Bullis, greatly 
exceed the limited benefits of including these areas in the designation 
of critical habitat. Benefits of exclusion include implementation of 
special management and protection plans that provide protection and 
management far in excess of any protection afforded by the Act through 
designation of critical habitat, by encouraging the formation of 
partnerships that will be the key to recovery of the species, by 
reducing the time and money that would have been needed to complete 
regulatory processes under sections 7(a)(2) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 
and by ensuring that the U.S. Army's role in protecting the Nation is 
not impaired.
    We may exclude areas from the critical habitat designation unless 
the Secretary determines, ``based on the best scientific and commercial 
data available, that the failure to designate such areas as critical 
habitat will result in extinction of the species concerned.'' Here, we 
have determined that the exclusion of the La Cantera HCP, GCSNA, and 
Camp Bullis lands will not result in the extinction of the species. 
First, activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal 
agencies in these areas that may affect the listed karst invertebrates 
will still require consultation under section 7 of the Act, based on 
the requirement that Federal agencies ensure that such activities are 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. 
This requirement applies even without critical habitat designation on 
these lands. Second, these three entities have committed to protecting 
and managing these endangered species in accordance with their special 
management plans and natural resource management objectives. In short, 
they have committed to greater conservation measures on these areas 
than would be available through the designation of critical habitat. 
With these natural resource measures, we have concluded that these 
exclusions from critical habitat will not result in the extinction of 
these karst invertebrates.
    We have determined that, with the exceptions noted above, for the 
rest of the areas included in the designation of critical habitat in 
this final rule, the benefits of exclusion do not outweigh the benefits 
of critical habitat designation. As part of this determination, we 
conducted an economic analysis of the proposed rule designating 
critical habitat for these species.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and 
that we consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating 
a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude any area from 
designation as critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits 
of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such an area as 
critical habitat, unless we determine, on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate 
such area will result in the extinction of the species concerned. 
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat designation, 
we completed a draft economic analysis to estimate the potential 
economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was made 
available to the public for review on November 21, 2002 (67 FR 70203) 
and we accepted comments on the proposed rule and the draft economic 
analysis of it until December 23, 2002.
    In making our final critical habitat designation, we utilized the 
economic analysis and our analysis of other relevant impacts, and 
considered all comments and information submitted during the public 
hearing and comment period. No areas proposed as critical habitat were 
excluded or modified because of economic impacts. This analysis first 
identifies land use activities within or in the vicinity of those areas 
being proposed for critical habitat that are likely to be affected by 
section 7 of the Act. To do this, the analysis evaluates a ``without 
section 7'' scenario and compares it to a ``with section 7'' scenario. 
The ``without section 7'' scenario constitutes the baseline of this 
analysis. It represents the level of protection currently afforded the 
species under the Act, absent section 7 protective measures, which 
includes other Federal, State, and local laws. The ``with section 7'' 
scenario identifies land-use activities likely to involve a Federal 
nexus that may affect the species or its designated critical habitat, 
which accordingly have the potential to be subject to future 
consultations under section 7 of the Act.
    Upon identifying section 7 impacts, the analysis proceeds to 
consider the subset of impacts that can be attributed exclusively to 
the critical habitat designation. To do this, the analysis adopts a 
``with and without critical habitat approach.'' This approach is used 
to determine those effects found in the upper-bound estimate that may 
be attributed solely to the proposed designation of critical habitat. 
Specifically, the ``with and without critical habitat'' approach 
considers section 7 impacts that will likely be associated with the 
implementation of the jeopardy provision of section 7 and those that 
will likely be associated with the implementation of the adverse 
modification provision of section 7. In many cases, impacts associated 
with the jeopardy standard remain unaffected by the designation of 
critical habitat and thus would not normally be considered an effect of 
a critical habitat rulemaking. The subset of section 7 impacts likely 
to be affected solely by the designation of critical habitat represents 
the lower-bound estimate of this analysis.
    This analysis estimates that, over 10 years, 10 formal 
consultations and 22 informal consultations will occur on projects with 
the potential to affect the proposed critical habitat area. As 
mentioned, most of the future section 7 consultations associated with 
the area proposed as critical habitat are likely to address private 
landowner HCPs and participation in Partners for Fish and Wildlife. In 
addition, the Service expects to provide technical assistance to 
parties on 431 occasions.
    The economic impact associated with section 7 consultations for the 
invertebrates is anticipated to be approximately $33.4 million over the 
next 10 years, $23.4 million when

[[Page 17188]]

discounted to present value using a rate of 7 percent. Approximately 87 
percent of these total costs are expected to result specifically from 
designation of critical habitat while the remainder are coextensive 
with the listing of these species. While a range of activities may be 
affected by designation of critical habitat for the species, 
approximately 85 percent of the total designation costs are expected to 
stem from private landowner Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) intended 
to mitigate impacts from development of private lands within critical 
habitat. HCP impacts result from administrative costs associated with 
the section 7 consultation process and related project modifications. 
Remaining costs are expected to stem from review of management plans 
(e.g., within Government Canyon State Natural Area and Camp Bullis), 
review of Clean Water Act permits, and participation in Partners for 
Fish and Wildlife projects on private lands.
    A copy of the final economic analysis and supporting documents are 
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting 
the Austin Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) has determined that this is a significant regulatory 
action because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. As required 
by the Executive Order, we provided a copy of the rule, which describes 
the need for this action and how the designation meets that need, and 
the economic analysis, which assesses the costs and benefits of this 
critical habitat designation, to OMB for review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a 
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of 
an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require 
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for 
certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA also amended the RFA to 
require a certification statement. We are hereby certifying that this 
final critical habitat designation for seven Bexar County invertebrates 
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of 
small entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
    The economic analysis determined whether this critical habitat 
designation potentially affects a ``substantial number'' of small 
entities in counties supporting critical habitat areas. It also 
quantifies the probable number of small businesses likely to experience 
a ``significant effect.'' SBREFA does not explicitly define either 
``substantial number'' or ``significant economic impact.'' 
Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of small 
entities is affected by this designation, the economic analysis 
considers the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted 
in the area. Similarly, this analysis considers the relative cost of 
compliance on the revenues/profit margins of small entities in 
determining whether or not entities incur a ``significant economic 
impact.'' Only small entities that are expected to be directly affected 
by the designation are considered in this portion of the analysis. This 
approach is consistent with several judicial opinions related to the 
scope of the RFA, including Mid-Tex Electric Co-op., Inc. v. F.E.R.C., 
773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) and American Trucking Associations, Inc. 
v. U.S. E.P.A., 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
    The economic analysis examines the total estimated section 7 costs, 
including those impacts that may be ``attributable coextensively'' with 
the listing of the species. This results in a conservative estimate 
(i.e., more likely to overstate impacts than understate them), because 
it utilizes the upper bound impact estimate.
    Small entities include small organizations, such as independent 
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including 
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 
50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential impacts to 
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of 
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical 
small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small 
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within 
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development, 
grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting, etc.). In 
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also 
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some 
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so 
will not be affected by critical habitat designation. We apply the 
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine 
if certification is appropriate.
    The economic analysis identifies land use activities within our 
proposed critical habitat designation for the seven invertebrate 
species that are expected to be affected by section 7 of the Act. The 
following land use activities were identified as being potentially 
impacted by section 7 (i.e., requiring consultations or associated 
project modifications) under the ``with section 7'' scenario: Private 
residential and commercial development; issuance of National Pollution 
Discharge Elimination System permits by Texas Natural Resource 
Conservation Commission (TNRCC); development of Karst Management Plan 
for Camp Bullis; roadway expansions by Texas DOT; Campus expansion of 
UTSA; and Partners for Fish and Wildlife conservation projects on 
private lands.
    Of the projects that are potentially affected by section 7 
consultation for the invertebrates, Camp Bullis occurs exclusively on 
Federal lands and does not have third party/small entity involvement 
(i.e., only the Federal action agency and the Service are expected to 
be involved). In addition, under Small Business Administration (SBA) 
guidelines, State governments are considered independent sovereigns, 
not small governments. As such, TNRCC,

[[Page 17189]]

Texas DOT, and UTSA are not considered ``small entities.''
    Of the projects potentially impacted by section 7, some do not 
involve any project modifications. Specifically, Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife conservation projects on private lands are not expected to 
involve any project modifications. The greatest share of the costs 
associated with the section 7 consultation process stem from project 
modifications, as compared to the consultation itself. Indeed, costs 
associated with the consultation itself are relatively minor, with 
third-party costs estimated to range from $1,200 to $6,900 per 
consultation. Therefore, Partners for Fish and Wildlife conservation 
projects are unlikely to be significantly affected by consultations 
because these do not involve costly project modifications.
    Several developers were identified as having activities with a 
Federal nexus and therefore are potentially affected by section 7 
implementation for the nine invertebrates for which we proposed 
critical habitat designation. Six landowners are expected to complete 
HCPs for single- or multi-family homes or commercial development on 
their lands. These developers would each bear costs associated with the 
consultation and any related project modification for the HCP.
    The SBA defines small development businesses as having less than 
$28.5 million in average annual receipts (also referred to as sales or 
revenues). The following steps were taken as part of the economic 
analysis to estimate number of small businesses affected: Estimate the 
number of businesses within the study area affected by section 7 
implementation annually (assumed to be equal to the number of annual 
consultations); calculate the percent of businesses in the affected 
industry that are likely to be small; calculate the number of affected 
small businesses in the affected industry; calculate the percent of 
small businesses likely to be affected by critical habitat. Using these 
steps, the economic assessment done for the Bexar County Invertebrate 
Species Critical Habitat designation indicates that a total annual 
percentage of about 1 percent of small businesses would bear a 
significant cost in industry.
    In summary, of the projects potentially impacted by section 7 
implementation, some are excluded from consideration because they are 
on Federal or State lands, and some do not involve any project 
modifications. Specifically, Partners for Fish and Wildlife 
conservation projects on private lands are not expected to involve any 
project modifications. The greatest share of the costs associated with 
the consultation process stem from project modifications (as opposed to 
the consultation itself). Indeed, costs associated with the 
consultation itself are relatively minor, with third-party costs 
estimated to range from $1,200 to $6,900 per consultation. Therefore, 
small entities are unlikely to be significantly affected by 
consultations as these consultations do not involve costly project 
modifications. Additionally, because the costs associated with 
designating critical habitat for the seven invertebrates are likely to 
be significant for an total percentage of about one small business per 
year in the affected industries in the study area, this analysis 
concludes that a significant economic impact on a significant number of 
small entities will not result from the designation of critical habitat 
for the nine invertebrates. This would be true even if all of the 
effects of section 7 consultation on these activities were attributed 
solely to the critical habitat designation.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is 
a significant action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use since the 
majority of the lands being designated as critical habitat occur on 
privately owned lands that are primarily developed for agricultural and 
residential uses, and not for energy production or distribution. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.):
    1. On the basis of information contained in the economic analysis, 
we determine that this rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' 
affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not 
required. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that 
any of their actions involving Federal funding or authorization must 
not destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat or take the 
species under section 9 of the Act.
    2. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year (i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act).

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights,'' 
March 18, 1988; 53 FR 8859), we have analyzed the potential takings 
implications of the designation of critical habitat for the seven karst 
invertebrates. The takings implications assessment concludes that this 
final rule does not pose significant takings implications. A copy of 
this assessment can be obtained by contacting the Austin Ecological 
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    On the basis of the above assessment, we find that this final rule 
designating critical habitat for the seven karst invertebrates does not 
pose significant takings implications.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat in 
areas currently occupied by the seven endangered karst invertebrates 
would have little incremental impact on State and local governments and 
their activities. The designations may have some benefit to these 
governments in that the areas essential to the conservation of these 
species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements 
of the habitat necessary to the survival of the species are identified. 
While this designation does not alter where and what federally 
sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local governments 
in long-range planning.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (February 7, 1996; 61 FR 
4729), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule would 
not unduly burden the judicial system and would meet the requirements 
of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We designate critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The rule uses 
standard coordinates that are geographic longitude and latitude, 
decimal degree coordinate pairs, referenced to North American 
Horizontal Datum 1983 (NAD 83), and identifies the primary constituent 
elements within the designated areas to assist the public in 
understanding the

[[Page 17190]]

habitat needs of the seven karst invertebrates.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is required. 
Information collections associated with Endangered Species permits are 
covered by an existing OMB approval, which is assigned control number 
1018-0094 and which expires on July 31, 2004. An agency may not conduct 
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information, unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or an 
Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act as 
amended. A notice outlining our reason for this determination was 
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 
This proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we 
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with 
recognized Federal Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. The 
designation of critical habitat for the seven karst invertebrates does 
not contain any Tribal lands or lands that we have identified as 
impacting Tribal trust resources.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is 
available, upon request, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

    This rule was prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife, as set forth below:
0
a. By revising the entries for Beetle, Helotes mold; Beetle [no common 
name] (Rhadine exilis); and Beetle [no common name] (Rhadine 
infernalis) under ``INSECTS'' to read as follows;
0
b. By removing the entries for Harvestman, Robber Baron Cave; Spider, 
Government Canyon Cave; Spider, Madla's Cave; Spider [no common name] 
(Cicurina venii); Spider, Robber Baron Cave; and Spider, vesper cave; 
and
0
c. By adding entries for Harvestman, Cokendolpher cave; Meshweaver, 
Braken Bat Cave; Meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cave; Meshweaver, 
Madla Cave; Meshweaver, Robber Baron Cave; and Spider, Government 
Canyon Bat Cave under ``ARACHNIDS'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                 Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population
                                                                                  where                                                        Special
                                                            Historic range      endangered       Status      When listed   Critical habitat     rules
           Common name                Scientific name                               or
                                                                                threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
             INSECTS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Beetle, Helotes mold.............  Batrisodes venyivi..  U.S.A. (TX).........           NA  E                        706  17.95(i)                    NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Beetle, [no common name].........  Rhadine exilis......  U.S.A. (TX).........           NA  E                        706  17.95(i)                    NA
Beetle, [no common name].........  Rhadine infernalis..  U.S.A. (TX).........           NA  E                        706  17.95(i)                    NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
            ARACHNIDS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Harvestman, Cokendolpher cave....  Texella               U.S.A. (TX).........           NA  E                        706  17.95(g)                    NA
                                    cokendolpheri.
Meshweaver, Braken Bat Cave......  Circurina venii.....  U.S.A. (TX).........           NA  E                        706  17.95(g)                    NA
Meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat  Circurina vespera...  U.S.A. (TX).........           NA  E                        706  NA                          NA
 Cave.
Meshweaver, Madla Cave...........  Cicurina madla......  U.S.A. (TX).........           NA  E                        706  17.95(g)                    NA

[[Page 17191]]

 
Meshweaver, Robber Baron Cave....  Cicurina baronia....  U.S.A. (TX).........           NA  E                        706  17.95(g)                    NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Spider, Government Canyon Bat      Neoleptoneta microps  U.S.A. (TX).........           NA  E                        706  NA                          NA
 Cave.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95 by adding, in the same alphabetical order as these 
species occur in Sec.  17.11(h):
0
a. In paragraph (g), critical habitat for the Cokendolpher cave 
harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri);
0
b. In paragraph (g), critical habitat for the Braken Bat Cave 
meshweaver (Cicurina venii);
0
c. In paragraph (g), critical habitat for the Madla Cave meshweaver 
(Cicurina madla);
0
d. In paragraph (g), critical habitat for the Robber Baron Cave 
meshweaver (Cicurina baronia);
0
e. In paragraph (i), critical habitat for the Helotes mold beetle 
(Batrisodes venyivi).
0
f. In paragraph (i), critical habitat for the beetle (no common name) 
(Rhadine exilis); and
0
g. In paragraph (i), critical habitat for the beetle (no common name), 
(Rhadine infernalis).


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (g) Arachnids.
    Cokendolpher cave harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri)
    (1) Critical habitat for the Cokendolpher cave harvestman occurs in 
Unit 20 as described below and depicted on Map 1 (index map) and Map 2 
below. All coordinates are geographic longitude and latitude, decimal 
degree coordinate pairs, referenced to North American Horizontal Datum 
1983. Coordinates were derived from 2001 digital orthophotographs.
    (2) Map 1--Index map of critical habitat units for karst 
invertebrate species in Bexar County, Texas--follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 17192]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    (3) The primary constituent elements include:
    (i) The physical features of karst-forming rock containing 
subterranean spaces with stable temperatures, high humidities (near 
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and 
underneath rocks suitable for foraging and sheltering); and
    (ii) The biological features of a healthy surface community of 
native plants (for example, juniper-oak woodland) and animals (for 
example, cave crickets) surrounding the karst feature that provide 
nutrient input and buffer the karst ecosystem from adverse effects 
(from, for example, nonnative species invasions, contaminants, and 
fluctuations in temperature and humidity).
    (4) Existing human-constructed, above-ground, impervious structures 
do not contain the primary constituent elements and are not considered 
to be critical habitat. Such features and structures include, but are 
not limited to, buildings and paved roads. However, subsurface areas 
under these structures are considered to be critical habitat since 
subterranean spaces containing these species and/or transmitting 
moisture and nutrients through the karst ecosystem extend, in some 
cases, underneath these existing human-constructed structures. 
Landscaped areas associated with existing human-constructed structures 
also are not considered critical habitat.
    (5) Unit 20 (23 ha (57 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.4582897, 29.5087489; -98.4575517, 
29.5091199; -98.4561171, 29.5091615; -98.4553228, 29.5088978; -
98.4552343, 29.5082394; -98.4563160, 29.5073726; -98.4571671, 
29.5071204; -98.4586325, 29.5063688; -98.4606616, 29.5044311; -
98.4637341, 29.5006275; -98.4649997, 29.4990919; -98.4656642, 
29.4986719; -98.4660631, 29.4991019; -98.4658881, 29.4995898; -
98.4646589, 29.5017013; -98.4639396, 29.5027162; -98.4616730, 
29.5055952; -98.4595256, 29.5073856; -98.4591719, 29.5077488; -
98.4582897, 29.5087489.
    (6) Map 2--Unit 20 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 17193]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.001

    Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina venii)
    (1) Critical habitat for the Braken Bat Cave meshweaver in Bexar 
County, Texas, occurs in Unit 15 as described below and depicted on Map 
3 below.

[[Page 17194]]

Unit 15 also is depicted on Map 1 (index map) provided in the entry for 
Cokendolpher cave harvestman in this paragraph (g). The primary 
constituent elements and statements regarding existing structures and 
associated landscaping, as described in the entry for Cokendolpher cave 
harvestman in this paragraph (g), are identical for this species.
    (2) Unit 15 (34 ha (85 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.7631005, 29.4388531; -98.7600316, 
29.4394009; -98.7598094, 29.4392533; -98.7587180, 29.4382984; -
98.7558932, 29.4384257; -98.7556537, 29.4383265; -98.7547983, 
29.4359982; -98.7550418, 29.4352415; -98.7555963, 29.4347910; -
98.7573878, 29.4337784; -98.7580646, 29.4338220; -98.7586605, 
29.4340159; -98.7612682, 29.4363049; -98.7623440, 29.4362183; -
98.7633120, 29.4363085; -98.7638206, 29.4366668; -98.7641806, 
29.4371861; -98.7641397, 29.4377268; -98.7639175, 29.4385170; -
98.7631005, 29.4388531.
    (3) Map 3--Unit 15 follows:

[[Page 17195]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.002

    Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla)
    (1) Critical habitat for the Madla Cave meshweaver in Bexar County, 
Texas, occurs in Units 2, 3, 5, 8b, and 17 as described below and 
depicted on Maps

[[Page 17196]]

4 through 7 below. These units also are depicted on Map 1 (index map) 
provided in the entry for Cokendolpher cave harvestman in this 
paragraph (g). The primary constituent elements and statements 
regarding existing structures and associated landscaping, as described 
in the entry for Cokendolpher cave harvestman in this paragraph (g), 
are identical for this species.
    (2) Four caves and their associated karst management areas 
established under the La Cantera section 10(a)(1)(B) permit are within 
the boundaries of units but are not designated as critical habitat. 
These include Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves and the 
surrounding approximately 10 ha (25 ac) (within Unit 3); Hills and 
Dales Pit and the surrounding approximately 28 ha (70 ac) (within Unit 
8b); and Madla Cave and the surrounding 2 ha (5 ac) (within Unit 17).
    (3) Unit 2 (37 ha (92 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.7233687, 29.6171088; -98.7232109, 
29.6176729; -98.7226506, 29.6187073; -98.7223227, 29.6191855; -
98.7219946, 29.6195016; -98.7215653, 29.6198980; -98.7214108, 
29.6206847; -98.7175298, 29.6206847; -98.7174011, 29.6219810; -
98.7170539, 29.6225993; -98.7162170, 29.6229506; -98.7153881, 
29.6229101; -98.7147133, 29.6225995; -98.7143375, 29.6220053; -
98.7142667, 29.6214953; -98.7144462, 29.6206782; -98.7144750, 
29.6170924; -98.7145361, 29.6170162; -98.7165027, 29.6170258; -
98.7163850, 29.6174867; -98.7177246, 29.6172351; -98.7177252, 
29.6170317; -98.7211420, 29.6170764; -98.7233687, 29.6171088.
    (4) Map 4--Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 17197]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.003

    (5) Unit 3 (17 ha (41 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6924522, 29.5880654; -98.6884953, 
29.5878232; -98.6883750, 29.5869448; -98.6879295, 29.5850798; -
98.6894469, 29.5850833; -98.6906186,

[[Page 17198]]

29.5841182; -98.6929315, 29.5855036; -98.6936461, 29.5865268; -
98.6931713, 29.5875652; -98.6924522, 29.5880654.
    (6) Map 5--Unit 3 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.004
    

[[Page 17199]]


    (7) Unit 5 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6935478, 29.6136095; -98.6890212, 
29.6135990; -98.6890205, 29.6111931; -98.6891305, 29.6109546; -
98.6896239, 29.6104067; -98.6903350, 29.6101696; -98.6935582, 
29.6101663; -98.6935478, 29.6136095.
    (8) Map 6--Unit 5 (which also depicts Unit 17) follows:

[[Page 17200]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.005

    (9) Unit 8b (28 ha (69 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6429582, 29.5992695; -98.6395799, 
29.6005152; -98.6381868, 29.6000556; -98.6378758, 29.5991778; -
98.6383595, 29.5973398; -98.6370868,

[[Page 17201]]

29.5969511; -98.6383585, 29.5959854; -98.6384179, 29.5941526; -
98.6395017, 29.5934820; -98.6411044, 29.5935108; -98.6417193, 
29.5949384; -98.6417849, 29.5965421; -98.6429721, 29.5983417; -
98.6429582, 29.5992695.
    (10) Map 7--Unit 8b (which also depicts Unit 8a) follows:

[[Page 17202]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.006

    (11) Unit 17 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6986633, 29.6061189; -98.6978901, 
29.6064178; -98.6968967, 29.6060042; -98.6955470, 29.6059909; -
98.6944214, 29.6056088; -98.6944325,

[[Page 17203]]

29.6018959; -98.6967798, 29.6018910; -98.6967762, 29.6031320; -
98.6986774, 29.6031773; -98.6986633, 29.6061189.
    (12) For a map of unit 17, refer to Map 6--Unit 5 in paragraph (8) 
of this entry.

Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (Cicurina baronia)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Robber Baron Cave meshweaver in Bexar 
County, Texas, occurs in Unit 20 as provided in the critical habitat 
unit description and depicted on Map 1 and Map 2 in the entry for 
Cokendolpher cave harvestman in this paragraph (g). The primary 
constituent elements and statements regarding existing structures and 
associated landscaping, as described in the entry for Cokendolpher cave 
harvestman in this paragraph (g), are identical for this species.
* * * * *
    (i) Insects.
* * * * *
    Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi)
    (1) Critical habitat for the Helotes mold beetle occurs in Units 
1e1, 3, and 5 as described below and depicted on Map 1 (index map) and 
Maps 2 through 4 below. All coordinates are geographic longitude and 
latitude, decimal degree coordinate pairs, referenced to North American 
Horizontal Datum 1983. Coordinates were derived from 2001 digital 
orthophotographs.
    (2) Map 1--Index map of critical habitat units for karst 
invertebrate species in Bexar County, Texas--follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.007

    (3) The primary constituent elements include:
    (i) The physical features of karst-forming rock containing 
subterranean spaces with stable temperatures, high humidities (near 
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and 
underneath rocks suitable for foraging and sheltering); and
    (ii) The biological features of a healthy surface community of 
native plants (for example, juniper-oak woodland) and animals (for 
example, cave crickets) surrounding the karst feature that provide 
nutrient input and buffer the karst ecosystem from adverse effects 
(from, for example, nonnative species invasions, contaminants, and 
fluctuations in temperature and humidity).
    (4) Existing human-constructed, above ground, impervious structures 
do not contain the primary constituent elements and are not considered 
to be critical habitat. Such features and structures include, but are 
not limited to, buildings and paved roads. However, subsurface areas 
under these structures

[[Page 17204]]

are considered to be critical habitat since subterranean spaces 
containing these species and/or transmitting moisture and nutrients 
through the karst ecosystem extend, in some cases, underneath these 
existing human-constructed structures. Landscaped areas associated with 
existing human-constructed structures are also not considered critical 
habitat.
    (5) Two caves, Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves, and 
their associated approximately 10 ha (25 ac) karst management area 
established under the La Cantera section 10 permit, are within the 
boundaries of Unit 3 but are not designated as critical habitat.
    (6) Unit 1e1 (15 ha (38 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.7273522, 29.5853221; -98.7276682, 
29.5844887; -98.7282285, 29.5840393; -98.7289978, 29.5838347; -
98.7296876, 29.5839736; -98.7302983, 29.5843184; -98.7305603, 
29.5848409; -98.7317069, 29.5879827; -98.7287776, 29.5890153; -
98.7285230, 29.5883695; -98.7273522, 29.5853221.
    (7) Map 2--Unit 1e1 (which also depicts Units 1e2 and 1e3) follows:

[[Page 17205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.008

    (8) Unit 3 (17 ha (41 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6924522, 29.5880654; -98.6884953, 
29.5878232; -98.6883750, 29.5869448; -98.6879295, 29.5850798; -
98.6894469, 29.5850833; -98.6906186,

[[Page 17206]]

29.5841182; -98.6929315, 29.5855036; -98.6936461, 29.5865268; -
98.6931713, 29.5875652; -98.6924522, 29.5880654.
    (9) Map 3--Unit 3 (which also depicts Units 4 and 18) follows:

[[Page 17207]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.009

    (10) Unit 5 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6935478, 29.6136095; -98.6890212, 
29.6135990; -98.6890205, 29.6111931; -98.6891305, 29.6109546; -
98.6896239, 29.6104067; -98.6903350,

[[Page 17208]]

29.6101696; -98.6935582, 29.6101663; -98.6935478, 29.6136095.
    (11) Map 4--Unit 5 (which also depicts Unit 17) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.010
    

[[Page 17209]]


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Beetle (no common name) (Rhadine exilis)
    (1) Critical habitat for the beetle Rhadine exilis in Bexar County, 
Texas, occurs in Units 1e1, 3, and 5 as provided in the critical 
habitat unit descriptions and depicted on Maps 1 through 4 in the entry 
for Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i). Critical habitat for 
this species also occurs in Units 1e3 and 4 as described below and 
depicted on Maps 2 and 3 in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i). In addition, critical habitat for this species occurs in 
Units 2, 6, 7, 8a, 8b, 9, 12, 13, and 21 as described below and 
depicted on Maps 5 through 12 below. The primary constituent elements 
and statements regarding existing structures and associated 
landscaping, as described in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i), are identical for this species.
    (2) Four caves and their associated karst management areas 
established under the La Cantera section 10(a)(1)(B) permit are within 
the boundaries of units but are not designated as critical habitat. 
These include Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves and the 
surrounding approximately 10 ha (25 ac) (within Unit 3); John Wagner 
Ranch Cave No. 3 and the surrounding approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac) 
(within Unit 6); and Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding 
approximately 28 ha (70 ac) (within Unit 8b).
    (3) Unit 1e3 (19 ha (46 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.7330644, 29.5808303; -98.7317429, 
29.5817323; -98.7300245, 29.5817484; -98.7287834, 29.5808858; -
98.7278797, 29.5794152; -98.7277522, 29.5779929; -98.7299554, 
29.5788393; -98.7305067, 29.5770049; -98.7316838, 29.5770266; -
98.7331986, 29.5789722; -98.7332119, 29.5796238; -98.7330644, 
29.5808303.
    (4) A map of Unit 1e3 is provided in Map 2 of the entry for Helotes 
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (5) Unit 2 (37 ha (92 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.7233687, 29.6171088; -98.7232109, 
29.6176729; -98.7226506, 29.6187073; -98.7223227, 29.6191855; -
98.7219946, 29.6195016; -98.7215653, 29.6198980; -98.7214108, 
29.6206847; -98.7175298, 29.6206847; -98.7174011, 29.6219810; -
98.7170539, 29.6225993; -98.7162170, 29.6229506; -98.7153881, 
29.6229101; -98.7147133, 29.6225995; -98.7143375, 29.6220053; -
98.7142667, 29.6214953; -98.7144462, 29.6206782; -98.7144750, 
29.6170924; -98.7145361, 29.6170162; -98.7165027, 29.6170258; -
98.7163850, 29.6174867; -98.7177246, 29.6172351; -98.7177252, 
29.6170317; -98.7211420, 29.6170764; -98.7233687, 29.6171088.
    (6) Map 5--Unit 2 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 17210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.011

    (7) Unit 4 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6867019, 29.5907363; -98.6858306, 
29.5913949; -98.6821967, 29.5933020; -98.6821915, 29.5888925; -
98.6838368, 29.5884340; -98.6861597,

[[Page 17211]]

29.5888524; -98.6867424, 29.5898281; -98.6867019, 29.5907363.
    (8) A map of Unit 4 is provided in Map 3 of the entry for Helotes 
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (9) Unit 6 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6754738, 29.6114940; -98.6754991, 
29.6076989; -98.6783407, 29.6077443; -98.6790700, 29.6080113; -
98.6795845, 29.6087581; -98.6796498, 29.6115041; -98.6754738, 
29.6114940.
    (10) Map 6--Unit 6 follows:

[[Page 17212]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.012

    (11) Unit 7 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6713696, 29.6269338; -98.6713466, 
29.6298459; -98.6696115, 29.6299251; -98.6688040, 29.6303752;

[[Page 17213]]

-98.6666183, 29.6303712; -98.6666569, 29.6269341; -98.6713696, 
29.6269338.
    (12) Map 7--Unit 7 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.013
    

[[Page 17214]]


    (13) Unit 8a (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6467402, 29.6026321; -98.6447253, 
29.6024097; -98.6447648, 29.5992959; -98.6494110, 29.5993090; -
98.6494384, 29.6013452; -98.6489127, 29.6023010; -98.6482203, 
29.6027779; -98.6476087, 29.6028598; -98.6467402, 29.6026321.
    (14) Unit 8b (28 ha (69 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6429582, 29.5992695; -98.6395799, 
29.6005152; -98.6381868, 29.6000556; -98.6378758, 29.5991778; -
98.6383595, 29.5973398; -98.6370868, 29.5969511; -98.6383585, 
29.5959854; -98.6384179, 29.5941526; -98.6395017, 29.5934820; -
98.6411044, 29.5935108; -98.6417193, 29.5949384; -98.6417849, 
29.5965421; -98.6429721, 29.5983417; -98.6429582, 29.5992695.
    (15) Map 8--Units 8a and 8b follows:

[[Page 17215]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.014

    (16) Unit 9 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.6166421, 29.5881679; -98.6097995, 
29.5889549; -98.6094772, 29.5865751; -98.6141408, 29.5862370;

[[Page 17216]]

-98.6158210, 29.5862418; -98.6165749, 29.5871541; -98.6166421, 
29.5881679.
    (17) Map 9--Unit 9 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.015
    

[[Page 17217]]


    (18) Unit 12 (21 ha (51 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.4631439, 29.6393535; -98.4620337, 
29.6395912; -98.4610270, 29.6393230; -98.4604275, 29.6383078; -
98.4601340, 29.6376003; -98.4602053, 29.6369053; -98.4599272, 
29.6355399; -98.4604201, 29.6346170; -98.4608048, 29.6344781; -
98.4611518, 29.6336481; -98.4621637, 29.6330425; -98.4636173, 
29.6333332; -98.4641049, 29.6342973; -98.4640055, 29.6350951; -
98.4634444, 29.6356360; -98.4627791, 29.6368420; -98.4635574, 
29.6374176; -98.4637899, 29.6381796; -98.4637898, 29.6382043; -
98.4631439, 29.6393535.
    (19) Map 10--Unit 12 follows:

[[Page 17218]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.016

    (20) Unit 13 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.4218888, 29.6404393; -98.4212080, 
29.6405040; -98.4208242, 29.6372953; -98.4239377, 29.6367357; -
98.4241724, 29.6382709; -98.4250182,

[[Page 17219]]

29.6383670; -98.4255670, 29.6386096; -98.4260182, 29.6390832; -
98.4257350, 29.6392361; -98.4260492, 29.6397945; -98.4250314, 
29.6403527; -98.4246243, 29.6411168; -98.4229768, 29.6409069; -
98.4218888, 29.6404393.
    (21) Map 11--Unit 13 follows:

[[Page 17220]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.017

    (22) Unit 21 (27 ha (68 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.4716469, 29.6499842; -98.4730641, 
29.6507507; -98.4730857, 29.6517491; -98.4715209, 29.6547384; -
98.4726672, 29.6552447; -98.4728036,

[[Page 17221]]

29.6567962; -98.4712860, 29.6577112; -98.4695532, 29.6569100; -
98.4696535, 29.6556282; -98.4692815, 29.6535131; -98.4685518, 
29.6532365; -98.4678845, 29.6527093; -98.4677417, 29.6516106; -
98.4683879, 29.6507722; -98.4716469, 29.6499842.
    (23) Map 12--Unit 21 follows:

[[Page 17222]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.018

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    Beetle (no common name) (Rhadine infernalis)
    (1) Critical habitat for the beetle Rhadine infernalis in Bexar 
County,

[[Page 17223]]

Texas, occurs in Units 1e1, 3 and 5 as provided in the critical habitat 
unit descriptions and depicted on Maps 1 through 4 in the entry for 
Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i). This species also occurs in 
the following units: Unit 1e2 as described below and depicted on Map 2 
in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i); Units 2, 6, 
8a, and 8b as described in the text and depicted on Maps 5, 6, and 8 in 
the entry for beetle (Rhadine exilis) in this paragraph (i); Unit 4 as 
provided in the critical habitat descriptions for beetle (Rhadine 
exilis) and depicted on Map 3 in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in 
this paragraph (i); Units 17 and 18 described below and depicted on 
Maps 3 and 4 found in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i); and Units 14, 15, 16, and 19 as described below and 
depicted on Maps 13 through 16 below. The primary constituent elements 
and statements regarding existing structures and associated 
landscaping, as described in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i), are identical for this species.
    (2) Five caves and their associated karst management areas 
established under the La Cantera section 10(a)(1)(B) permit are within 
the boundaries of units but are not designated as critical habitat 
designation. These include Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves 
and the surrounding approximately 10 ha (25 ac) (within Unit 3); John 
Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3 and the surrounding approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac) 
(within Unit 6); and Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding 
approximately 28 ha (70 ac) (within Unit 8b); and Madla Cave and the 
surrounding 2 ha (5 ac) (within Unit 17).
    (3) Unit 1e2 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.7238284, 29.5847161; -98.7201061, 
29.5861352; -98.7189558, 29.5844029; -98.7194474, 29.5832652; -
98.7230107, 29.5818492; -98.7245095, 29.5824623; -98.7247550, 
29.5841155; -98.7238284, 29.5847161.
    (4) A map of unit 1e2 is provided in Map 2 of the entry for Helotes 
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (5) Unit 14 (26 ha (64 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.7863612, 29.4495294; -98.7869725, 
29.4489471; -98.7875551, 29.4486522; -98.7883435, 29.4486781; -
98.7889905, 29.4489913; -98.7918932, 29.4524710; -98.7918632, 
29.4533747; -98.7904052, 29.4548676; -98.7899060, 29.4556966; -
98.7887880, 29.4561713; -98.7872743, 29.4556964; -98.7870331, 
29.4543351; -98.7888385, 29.4523567; -98.7868531, 29.4511085; -
98.7863591, 29.4505317; -98.7863612, 29.4495294.
    (6) Map 13--Unit 14 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 17224]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.019

    (7) Unit 15 (34 ha (85 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.7631005, 29.4388531; -98.7600316, 
29.4394009; -98.7598094, 29.4392533; -98.7587180, 29.4382984; -
98.7558932, 29.4384257; -98.7556537,

[[Page 17225]]

29.4383265; -98.7547983, 29.4359982; -98.7550418, 29.4352415; -
98.7555963, 29.4347910; -98.7573878, 29.4337784; -98.7580646, 
29.4338220; -98.7586605, 29.4340159; -98.7612682, 29.4363049; -
98.7623440, 29.4362183; -98.7633120, 29.4363085; -98.7638206, 
29.4366668; -98.7641806, 29.4371861; -98.7641397, 29.4377268; -
98.7639175, 29.4385170; -98.7631005, 29.4388531.
    (8) Map 14--Unit 15 follows:

[[Page 17226]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.020

    (9) Unit 16 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: -98.7154218, 29.4533018; -98.7153995, 
29.4573801; -98.7119857, 29.4573751; -98.7119610, 29.4558232; -
98.7111540, 29.4557860; -98.7106973,

[[Page 17227]]

29.4556731; -98.7105899, 29.4554235; -98.7105693, 29.4552002; -
98.7107385, 29.4550044; -98.7110558, 29.4549040; -98.7119873, 
29.4548136; -98.7119764, 29.4532848; -98.7154218, 29.4533018.
    (10) Map 15--Unit 16 follows:

[[Page 17228]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.021

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    (11) Unit 17 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: --98.6986633, 29.6061189; --98.6978901, 
29.6064178;

[[Page 17229]]

--98.6968967, 29.6060042; --98.6955470, 29.6059909; --98.6944214, 
29.6056088; --98.6944325, 29.6018959; --98.6967798, 29.6018910; --
98.6967762, 29.6031320; --98.6986774, 29.6031773; --98.6986633, 
29.6061189.
    (12) A map of Unit 17 is provided in Map 4 in the entry for Helotes 
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (13) Unit 18 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: --98.6879353, 29.5840278; --98.6871403, 
29.5838597; --98.6859450, 29.5845069; --98.6838609, 29.5817508; --
98.6870156, 29.5791593; --98.6889591, 29.5810380; --98.6883743, 
29.5818521; --98.6879353, 29.5840278.
    (14) A map of Unit 18 is provided in Map 3 in the entry for Helotes 
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (15) Unit 19 (5 ha (12 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the 
following coordinates: --98.4945129, 29.6147150; --98.4940750, 
29.6145674; --98.4938755, 29.6141954; --98.4939880, 29.6138063; --
98.4942787, 29.6135970; --98.4952809, 29.6135500; --98.4956056, 
29.6133414; --98.4963069, 29.6130155; --98.4967699, 29.6130881; --
98.4966492, 29.6123219; --98.4973783, 29.6125657; --98.4978516, 
29.6131158; --98.4974600, 29.6135445; --98.4971077, 29.6136897; --
98.4970745, 29.6140495; --98.4968571, 29.6142911; --98.4962556, 
29.6145285; --98.4954870, 29.6146791; --98.4945129, 29.6147150.
    (16) Map 16--Unit 19 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 17230]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.022


[[Page 17231]]


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *

    Dated: March 26, 2003.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-7735 Filed 4-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P