[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9872-9937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3038]



[[Page 9871]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 35

February 22, 2011

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 Nine Bexar County, Texas, Invertebrates; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 9872]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2010-0091; MO 92210-0-009]
RIN 1018-AX11


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Nine Bexar County, Texas, Invertebrates

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
revise critical habitat designation for the Rhadine exilis (ground 
beetle, no common name); Rhadine infernalis (ground beetle, no common 
name); Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi); Cokendolpher Cave 
harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri); Robber Baron Cave meshweaver 
(Cicurina baronia); Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla); and Braken 
Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina venii) under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (Act). We also propose to designate critical 
habitat for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina 
vespera) and Government Canyon Bat Cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps). 
These species are collectively known as the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates. In total, we are proposing approximately 6,906 acres 
(ac) (2,795 hectares (ha)) as critical habitat for these invertebrates. 
The proposed critical habitat is located in Bexar County, Texas.

DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before 
April 25, 2011. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section by April 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R2-
ES-2010-0091.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2010-0091; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 
10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; by telephone at 512-
490-0057 x248; or by facsimile at 512-490-0974. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

    This document consists of: (1) A proposed rule to revise designated 
critical habitat for the Rhadine exilis (ground beetle, no common 
name); Rhadine infernalis (ground beetle, no common name); Helotes mold 
beetle (Batrisodes venyivi); Cokendolpher Cave harvestman (Texella 
cokendolpheri); Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (Cicurina baronia); Madla 
Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla); and Braken Bat Cave meshweaver 
(Cicurina venii); and (2) A proposed rule to designate critical habitat 
for Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina vespera) and 
Government Canyon Bat Cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps).
    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or other interested parties concerning 
this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including whether there 
are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can 
be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that 
increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the 
designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
     The amount and distribution of any of the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates' habitat;
     What areas occupied at the time of listing and that 
contain features essential to the conservation of the species should be 
included in the designation and why;
     Special management considerations or protections that the 
features essential to the conservation of the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates identified in this proposal may require, including 
managing for the potential effects of climate change;
     What areas not occupied at the time of listing are 
essential for the conservation of the species and why; and
     Site-specific information on subsurface geologic barriers 
to movement of the species or lack thereof.
     The taxonomy and status of the ground beetle previously 
identified as Rhadine exilis in Black Cat Cave (proposed Unit 13) and 
the value of the cave and unit for conservation of the species.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small 
entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas 
that exhibit these impacts.
    (5) Information on whether the benefit of an exclusion of any 
particular area outweighs the benefit of inclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular for those management plans covering 
specified lands used as mitigation under the La Cantera Habitat 
Conservation Plan (HCP) and lands on which impacts to the species have 
been authorized under that HCP. Copies of the La Cantera HCP are 
available from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    (6) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on any of the nine Bexar County invertebrates and the 
critical habitat areas we are proposing.
    (7) Information related to our 90-day finding on the July 8, 2010, 
petition to remove critical habitat Unit 13 from designation (see 
Previous Federal Actions below).
    (8) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
accept

[[Page 9873]]

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the 
ADDRESSES section. We will post your entire comment--including your 
personal identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You 
may request at the top of your document that we withhold personal 
information such as your street address, phone number, or e-mail 
address from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will 
be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation and revised designation of critical habitat in this 
proposed rule. For more information on the Rhadine exilis (ground 
beetle, no common name), Rhadine infernalis (ground beetle, no common 
name), Helotes mold beetle, Cokendolpher Cave harvestman, Robber Baron 
Cave meshweaver, Madla Cave meshweaver, Braken Bat Cave meshweaver, 
Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver, and Government Canyon Bat Cave 
spider, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal 
Register on December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419), the proposed critical 
habitat designation published August 27, 2002 (67 FR 55063), and the 
final critical habitat designation published April 8, 2003 (68 FR 
17155).
    The nine species for which we are proposing to designate critical 
habitat or to revise critical habitat are collectively known as the 
nine Bexar County invertebrates, and they 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 Swiss cheese. All of these species are 
subterranean-dwelling, non-aquatic species of local distribution in 
north and northwest Bexar County, Texas. They spend their entire lives 
underground, but surface features are very important as they provide 
links to drainage into the caves. The following information relates to 
the designation for all nine species.
    Individuals comprising the nine Bexar County invertebrates are 
small, ranging in length from 0.04 inch (in) (1 millimeter (mm)) to 0.4 
in (1 centimeter (cm)). They are eyeless, or essentially eyeless, and 
most lack pigment or coloration. Adaptations to cave life may include 
adjustments to the low quantities of food, including low metabolism; 
long legs for efficient movement; and loss of eyes, possibly as an 
energy-saving trade-off (Howarth 1983, pp. 374-376). These 
invertebrates may be able to survive from months to years existing on 
little or no food (Howarth 1983, p. 375). Average life spans of the 
listed Bexar County invertebrates in central Texas are unknown, but are 
likely multiple years for some species (Cicurina spp.), based on 
observations of juveniles kept in captivity (Veni and Associates 1999, 
p. 165). Reproductive rates of troglobites (small, cave-dwelling 
animals that have adapted to their dark surroundings), such as these 
nine invertebrates, are typically very low (Poulson and White 1969, p. 
977; Howarth 1983, p. 375).
    Based on surveys conducted by Krejca and Weckerly (2007, pp. 286-
288), Culver (1986, p. 429), Elliott (1994a, p. 15), and Hopper (2000, 
p. 459), population sizes of troglobitic invertebrates in humanly-
accessible karst features are typically low, with most species known 
from only a few specimens (Culver et al. 2000, p. 2350). While very 
little is known about the ecology of the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates, they are known to be top predators in their ecosystem 
(Service 2008, p. 1.4-5) and are dependent on the stability of their 
prey base that make up the lower trophic levels of the karst ecosystem 
(Taylor et al. 2004, p. 28).
    Because sunlight is absent or only present in extremely low levels 
in caves, most karst ecosystems depend on nutrients derived from the 
surface (organic material brought in by animals, washed in, or 
deposited through root masses), or imported through the 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, pp. 47-48; Poulson and White 1969, pp. 971-
972; Howarth 1983, pp. 376-377; Culver 1986, p. 429). Primary sources 
of nutrients include leaf litter, cave crickets (Ceuthophilus spp.), 
small mammals, and other vertebrates that defecate or die in the cave. 
While the life habits of the nine invertebrates are not well known, the 
species probably prey on the eggs, larvae, or adults of other cave 
invertebrates, such as cave crickets (Mitchell 1971b, p. 250).

Subsurface Environment

    The nine Bexar County invertebrates require stable temperatures and 
constant, high humidity (Barr 1968, p. 47; Mitchell 1971b, p. 250). 
They have lost the adaptations needed to prevent desiccation in drier 
habitats (Howarth 1983, p. 368) and the ability to detect or cope with 
more extreme temperatures (Mitchell 1971a, pp. 300-301). Temperatures 
in caves are typically the average annual surface temperature with 
little variation (Howarth 1983, p. 373; Dunlap 1995, p. 76). Relative 
humidity is typically near 100 percent in caves that support 
troglobitic invertebrates (Elliott and Reddell 1989, p. 6; Zara 2010, 
pp. 9-10).
    Microhabitat is an important component of features occupied by the 
nine Bexar County karst invertebrates and has been quantified for three 
of the listed species that occur on Camp Bullis, R. exilis, R. 
infernalis, and Madla Cave meshweaver (Zara and Veni 2009, pp. 499-
505). In observations made in 13 caves, R. exilis was seldom found near 
an entrance (11 out of 147 instances), occasionally found further from 
the cave entrance in the twilight zone (typified by very little light 
and more stable humidity and temperatures than the entrance area) (44 
out of 147 instances), and more often found deeper in the caves' dark 
zones (typified by total darkness, stable humidity and temperature) (91 
out of 147 instances). The recorded microhabitats (53 instances) 
occupied by R. exilis were varied, with about 66 percent of them on top 
of the substrate and 34 percent under rocks or on the undersides of 
rocks or other materials (Zara and Veni 2009, pp. 497, 503).
    From measurements made in three caves, R. infernalis was found in 
the entrance (6 out of 23 instances) and twilight zone (10 out of 23 
instances) more often that the dark zone (7 out of 23 instances). The 
species was found under rocks 85 percent of the time (Zara and Veni 
2009, pp. 504-505).
    From 75 observations made in 2 caves, Madla Cave meshweavers were 
found 3 times in the twilight and 72 times in the dark. The species was 
always found among loose rocks or mud balls. In 117 of the 135 
instances where location in respect to substrate was recorded, they 
were underneath or on the underside of rocks. The other times they were 
on top of rocks (Zara and Veni 2009, pp. 506-512).
    During temperature extremes, the nine Bexar County invertebrates 
may retreat into small, human-inaccessible,

[[Page 9874]]

interstitial spaces (mesocaverns), where the physical environment is 
more conducive to their humidity and temperature preferences (Howarth 
1983, p. 372). These species may spend the majority of their time in 
interstitial spaces, only leaving them to forage in the larger cave 
passages (Howarth 1987, p. 377). Krejca and Weckerly (2007, p. 287) 
recommended 14 surveys to determine the presence of R. exilis (one of 
the nine Bexar County invertebrates) in a cave. Krejca and Weckerly 
(2007, pp. 287-288) hypothesized that when the species are not detected 
during surveys the invertebrates are in mesocaverns. Therefore, the 
mesocaverns should be considered a priority for conservation (Krejca 
and Weckerly 2007, pp. 287-288).
    Connectivity of mesocaverns with larger features is needed to 
maintain gene flow through karst habitat, serve as a conduit for 
recolonization of features in the future if current habitat becomes 
unsuitable, provide refuge during times of extreme temperatures and low 
humidity, and allow for adaptive management of the species as new 
information becomes available. The Draft Bexar County Invertebrates 
Recovery Plan recommended good connectivity with mesocaverns for 
population dynamics of troglobites as a goal for maintaining a healthy 
karst ecosystem (Service 2008, p. B-1), but did not specify the area 
needed, because so little is known about the life-history requirements 
of these invertebrates.
    The extent to which the species use mesocaverns between or around 
caves is not fully known. White (2006, pp. 76-78) studied the 
distribution of Bexar County karst invertebrates in detail and found 
that Hilger Hole, Eagle's Nest, Root Canal, and several other caves 
within and adjacent to Camp Bullis likely functioned as a single 
habitat patch, and the species had common genetic signatures between 
caves. The farthest distance between the entrances of these caves is 
about 1.5 miles (mi) (2.4 kilometers (km)). However, the area around 
Camp Bullis is different from many of the other Bexar County caves. All 
of the Camp Bullis area caves were formed within the damage zone of a 
fault where interconnected mesocaverns and entrance-less caves occur. 
Because the area is a faults zone, there are long distances of 
connectivity between mesocaverns. In another part of Bexar County, two 
caves (Robber's Cave and Hills and Dales Pit) have entrances about 0.3 
mi (0.5 km) apart, have high similarity (although not identical) 
genetics of Madla Cave meshweavers (White 2006, pp. 97-99), and have 
mesocaverns that are connected (White, SWCA, pers. comm., 2010). Many 
of the caves where the nine Bexar County invertebrates occur are 
interconnected with mesocaverns, and some caves have no entrances.
    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 1,100 feet (ft) (335 meters (m)) to 1,900 ft (580 m) 
(Veni 1988, p. 11; Soil Conservation Service 1966, p. 1). This portion 
of the Edwards Plateau is dissected by numerous small streams. To the 
southeast of the Edwards Plateau lies the Balcones Fault Zone, a 16-mi 
(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, p. 24). The Edwards Limestone accounts for 
one-third of the cavernous rock in Bexar County, and contains 60 
percent of the caves. 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, p. 15). In Bexar County, the Pecan Gap Chalk, while 
generally not cavernous, has a greater than expected density of caves 
and passages (Veni 1988, p. 24).
    Veni (1994, pp. 68-76) delineated six karst areas (karst fauna 
regions (KFRs)) within Bexar County: Stone Oak, UTSA (University of 
Texas at San Antonio), Helotes, Government Canyon, Culebra Anticline, 
and Alamo Heights (Figure 1). These KFRs 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. The basis for these 
divisions is the lack of continuity between caves that may form 
complete barriers or significant restrictions to migration of 
troglobites over modern or geologic time scales. These discontinuities 
are defined based on characteristics that affect cave development 
combined with the geologic history of the area.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9875]]

    Figure 1. Karst Fauna Regions and Karst Zones in Bexar County, 
Texas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    The KFRs were analyzed using the current range of 19 troglobitic 
species, including the 9 Bexar County invertebrates (Veni 1994, pp. 72-
73). The KFRs are important because they are used to establish recovery 
criteria for individual species in the Draft Bexar County Karst 
Invertebrate Recovery Plan. To meet those criteria, specified numbers 
of preserves of a given quality

[[Page 9876]]

must be protected within each KFR in which they occur.
    Also, the six KFRs were delineated by Veni (2003, pp. 10-18) into 
five zones that reflect the likelihood of finding a karst feature that 
will provide habitat for the endangered 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. As described by Veni (2003, pp. 
10-18), these five zones are defined as:
    Zone 1: Areas known to contain one or more of the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates (areas where species are present).
    Zone 2: Areas having a high probability of suitable habitat for the 
invertebrates (areas that may contain one or more invertebrates, but 
have not been fully surveyed).
    Zone 3: Areas that probably do not contain the invertebrates 
(because there is very little suitable karst habitat).
    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 5 (areas where less is known about the karst 
structure than with Zone 3).
    Zone 5: Areas that do not contain the Bexar County invertebrates 
(areas with units of rock that do not contain karst habitat).

Surface Environment

Animal Community

Cave Crickets

    Cave crickets are a critical source of nutrient input for karst 
ecosystems (Barr 1968, p. 48; Reddell 1993, p. 2). Cave crickets in the 
genus Ceuthophilus occur in most caves in Texas (Reddell 1966, pp. 32-
34). Sensitive to temperature extremes and dry environments, cave 
crickets forage on the surface at night and roost underground during 
the day. Taylor et al. (2005, p. 103) found that cave crickets lay 
their eggs in the cave, providing food for a variety of karst species 
(Mitchell 1971b, p. 250). Some karst species also feed on cave cricket 
feces (Barr 1968, p. 51; Poulson et al. 1995, p. 226), and on adults 
and juveniles directly (Elliott 1994a, p. 16). Cave crickets are 
scavengers or detritivores (animals that feed on decomposing organic 
matter), feeding on dead insects, carrion, and some fruits, but not on 
foliage (Elliott 1994a, p. 16; Taylor et al. 2004, p. 29).
    Elliott (1994a, p. 8) evaluated cave cricket foraging within 164 ft 
(50 m) of cave entrances. In a more recent study, Taylor et al. (2005, 
p. 97) found that cave crickets foraged much farther, up to 344 ft (105 
m) from a cave entrance.

Other Surface Animals

    Many central Texas caves with endangered invertebrate species are 
frequented by mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (Reddell 1967, p. 184). 
Although there are no studies documenting 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 sources of nutrients. In particular, 
important sources of nutrients for the cave species may be the fungus, 
microbes, and other troglophiles and troglobites that grow or feed on 
animal feces (Elliott 1994b, p. 16; Gounot 1994, p. 204).
    For predatory troglobites (such as the nine Bexar County karst 
invertebrates), invertebrates that accidently occur in the caves may 
also be an important nutrient source (Hopper 2000, p. 2349). 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, 
pp. 146-179; 1966, pp. 27-29; 1999, pp. 40-41).
    The imported red fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) (fire ant) 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, p. 17; Porter and Savignano 1990, p. 2095) 
and is a threat to the nine Bexar County invertebrates (Elliott 1994b, 
p. 15; Service 1994, pp. 63-64). 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 the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates make them especially vulnerable to invasion by 
fire ants and other exotic species. Fire ants have been observed 
preying on several cave species (Elliott 1994b, p. 15). Karst fauna 
that are most vulnerable to fire ant predation are the eggs, nymphs, 
and slower-moving adults (James Reddell, Texas Memorial Museum, pers. 
comm., 2006). 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. Besides direct predation, fire ants threaten listed 
invertebrates by reducing the nutrient input carried in by cave 
crickets and other trogloxenes. Because fire ants are voracious, they 
can out-compete crickets for food resources (Taylor et al. 2003, pp. 
109-110), leading to a reduction in overall productivity in the caves.
    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, p. 916). Porter et al. (1991, p. 873) 
state that control of fire ants in areas greater than 12 ac (5 ha) may 
be more effective than in smaller areas, because 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, p. 916; 1991, 
p. 869).
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 (3) roots that extend into subsurface 
areas. Surface vegetation also acts as a buffer for the subsurface 
environment against drastic changes in temperature and moisture, and 
serves to filter pollutants before they enter the karst system 
(Biological Advisory Team 1990, p. 38). In some cases, healthy native 
plant communities also help control certain exotic species (such as 
fire ants) (Porter et al. 1988, p. 916) that may compete with or prey 
upon the listed species and other species (such as cave crickets) that 
are important nutrient contributors (Elliott 1994a, pp. 95-96; Lavoie 
et al. 2007, p. 126).
    Tree roots may provide a major energy source in shallow caves 
(Howarth 1983, p. 373). Jackson et al. (1999, p. 11387) investigated 
rooting depth in 21 caves on the Edwards Plateau to assess the below-
ground vegetational community structure and the functional importance 
of roots. They observed roots of plateau live oak (Quercus fusiformis) 
penetrating up to 82 ft (25 m) into the interior of one of the caves. 
The roots of five other tree species, post oak (Q. sinuata), cedar elm 
(Ulmus crassifolia), American elm (U. americana), sugar hackberry 
(Celtis laevigata), and Ashe juniper (Juniperus asheii), penetrated to

[[Page 9877]]

below 16 ft (5 m) into caves. These are all common species in the 
plateau. Most of the caves in Bexar County are less than 20 ft (6 m) 
deep, so roots have the potential to penetrate many of them.
    Karst ecosystems are heavily reliant on surface plant and animal 
communities to maintain nutrient flows, reduce sedimentation, and 
resist exotic and invasive species. As the surface around a cave 
entrance becomes developed, native plant communities are often replaced 
with impermeable cover or exotic plants from nurseries. The abundance 
and diversity of native animals may decline due to decreased food and 
habitat combined with increased competition and predation from urban, 
exotic, and pet species. As native surface plant and animal communities 
are destroyed, food and habitat once available to trogloxenes 
decreases. It is unknown whether exotic species could contribute the 
same quantity and quality of nutrients to the karst ecosystem.

Woodland-Grassland Community

    Because of the various roles played by surface vegetation in 
maintaining the cave and karst ecosystem, including the nine Bexar 
County 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, p. 23) 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, p. 123), genetic 
variation (Bazzaz 1983, pp. 267-268; Menges 1995, p. 123; Young 1995, 
pp. 154-155), and pollination (Groom 1998, p. 487; Jennersten 1995, p. 
130; Bigger 1999, p. 239). Pavlik (1996, p. 136) 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 to 
250 reproductive individuals. Fifty reproductive individuals is a 
reasonable minimum figure for one of the dominant species of the 
community, Ashe juniper, based on reproductive profiles (Van Auken et 
al. 1979, p. 170; Van Auken et al. 1980, pp. 30-31; Van Auken et al. 
1981, pp. 1251-1253). This figure would likely be an underestimate for 
other woody species present in central Texas woodlands, because other 
woody 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 other woody species may require 
population sizes at the higher end of the range (near 250 individuals) 
to be viable, as suggested by Pavlik (1996, p. 136), 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.
    Based on an analysis of recorded densities, corrected for non-
reproductive 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, p. 23). We determined that the 4 
highest area requirements to maintain at least 80 mature individuals 
were for species that occur at lower densities. These included 198 ac 
(80 ha) for brasil (Condalia hookeri), and approximately 80 ac (32 ha) 
for each of hoptree (Ptelea trifoliata), Mexican buckeye (Ungnadia 
speciosa), and chittamwood (Bumelia lanuginosa). Our calculations 
indicate that the area needed to maintain the seven species with the 
highest average dominance values, Ashe juniper, Texas live oak, Texas 
red oak (Quercus texana), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), evergreen 
sumac (Rhus virens), agarita (Mahonias trifoliata), and cedar elm 
(Ulmus crassifolia), is approximately 33 ac (13 ha). An area of 33 ac 
(13 ha) would maintain 80 reproductive individuals for 15 of the 24 
species. The area needed to maintain the nine rarest plant species 
ranges from approximately 49 to 198 ac (20 to 80 ha) with 7 of species 
in the 65 to 80 ac (26 ha to 32 ha) range.
    The Bexar County Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan used a minimum 
viable population size of 80 individuals of the top 15 to 20 woodland 
species and recommended 80 ac (32 ha) of woodland habitat for 
establishing a high-quality preserve that maintains a diverse community 
of woody vegetation for at least 100 years (Service 2008, pp. B-9 to B-
11).
    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, p. 679; 1971, p. 
890) examined grassland species on an 8-ac (3.2-ha) tract over time 
with 123 species and 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. In a 
slightly more mesic grassland habitat, Robertson et al. (1997, p. 65) 
found that a 10-ac (4-ha) site captured most of the grassland species 
diversity (100 species) present, although it does not address 
population sizes and persistence in isolation, and an increase to a 14-
ac (6-ha) tract increased species representation to 140. Another paper 
on a grassland in a more westerly and drier location in central Texas 
recorded 157 taxa in a 40-ac (16-ha) enclosure between 1948 and the 
mid-1970s (Smeins et al. 1976, pp. 24-25).
    The Draft Bexar County Invertebrates Recovery Plan recommends that 
10 ac (4 ha) of total grassland area within a woodland-grassland mosaic 
is needed in the preserves. This figure was derived by adding a 2 ac 
(0.8 ha) margin to the 8 ac (3 ha) tract (see previous paragraph) with 
typical species diversity based on Lynch's (1962, p. 679; 1971, p. 890) 
studies to provide additional area that would aid community stability 
if the high species turnover there was not due to regional drought 
influences alone.
Edge Effects
    To maintain a viable vegetative community, including woodland and 
grassland species, an undisturbed area is needed to shield the core 
habitat from impacts associated with edge effects or disturbance from 
adjacent urban development (Lovejoy et al. 1986, p. 284; Yahner 1988, 
pp. 333-334). In this context, edge effects refer to the adverse 
changes to natural communities (primarily from increases in invasive 
species and pollutants, and changes in

[[Page 9878]]

microclimates) from nearby areas that have been modified for human 
development.
    The changes caused by edge effects can occur rapidly. For example, 
vegetation 6.6 ft (2 m) from a newly created edge can be altered within 
days (Lovejoy et al. 1986, pp. 258-259). Edges may allow invasive plant 
species to gain a foothold where the native vegetation had previously 
prevented their spread (Saunders et al. 1991, p. 23; Kotanen et al. 
1998, p. 669; Suarez et al. 1998, pp. 2041-2042; Meiners and Steward 
1999, p. 261). 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, p. 11; Harris 1984, pp. 72, 74; Mader 1984, p. 
90; Thompson 1985, pp. 526-527; Lovejoy et al. 1986, pp. 283-284; 
Yahner 1988, p. 335; Fajer et al. 1989, p. 1199; Kindvall and Ahlen 
1992, pp. 523, 528; Tscharntke 1992, pp. 534-535; Hanski 1995, p. 204; 
Lindenmayer and Possingham 1995, p. 236; Bowers et al. 1996 p. 188; 
Hill et al. 1996, p. 726; Kozlov 1996, pp. 99-100, 102; Kuussaari et 
al. 1996, pp. 791, 798; Turner 1996, p. 204; Mankin and Warner 1997, 
pp. 140-142; Burke and Nol 1998, p. 96; Didham 1998, p. 404; Suarez et 
al. 1998, p. 2041; Crist and Ahern 1999, p. 687; Kindvall 1999, p. 
181). Changes in plant and animal species composition because of edge 
effects may unnaturally change the nutrient cycling processes required 
to support cave and karst ecosystem dynamics. To minimize edge effects, 
the area needed to support a native plant and animal community must 
have a sufficient perimeter area to protect it.
    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, p. 110) for estimating the width of the 
perimeter area needed. We used this general rule to estimate the width 
of perimeter areas needed to protect the habitat areas. The average 
height of native mature trees in the Edwards woodland association in 
Texas ranges from 10 to 30 ft (3 to 9 m) (Van Auken et al. 1979, p. 
177). Applying the ``three tree height'' general rule, and using the 
average value of 21.6 ft (6.6 m) for tree height, we estimated that a 
perimeter width of at least 66 ft (20 m) is needed around a core 
habitat area to protect the vegetative community from edge effects. 
Based on this rule, 10 ac (4 ha) is necessary to protect a 79-ac (32-
ha) circular core area. We recognize that the ``three tree height'' 
approach described by Harris (1984, pp. 110-111) 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. Although the effects of edge on woodland/grassland mosaic 
communities have not been well studied, we believe that the ``three 
trees height'' recommendation is the best available peer-reviewed 
science to protect woodland areas from edge effects (Dr. Kathryn 
Kennedy, Center for Plant Conservation, pers. comm., 2003).
    Animal communities also should be protected 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, p. 
336; Hansson 1998, p. 55). Invertebrate species are affected by edges. 
Mader et al. (1990, p. 214) found that carabid beetles and lycosid 
spiders avoided crossing unpaved roads that were even smaller than 9 ft 
(3 m) wide. Saunders et al. (1990, p. 23) suggested that as little as 
330 ft (100 m) 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 164 to 330 ft (50 to 100 m) 
or greater to ameliorate edge effects (Lovejoy et al. 1986, p. 263; 
Wilcove et al. 1986, pp. 249-250; Laurance 1991, p. 206; Laurance and 
Yensen 1991, pp. 78-79; Kapos et al. 1993, p. 425; Andren 1995, p. 237; 
Reed et al. 1996, p. 1102; Burke and Nol 1998, p. 96; Didham 1998, p. 
397; Suarez et al. 1998, p. 2047).
    Nonnative fire ants are known to be harmful to many species of 
invertebrates and vertebrates. In coastal southern California, Suarez 
et al. (1998, p. 2041) 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 660 
ft (200 m) (Suarez et al. 1998, pp. 2050, 2052).
    We do not have site-specific information on the area needed to 
maintain populations of animal species, including cave crickets, found 
in central Texas. Therefore, we are relying on information from other 
areas. Based on that information, animal communities should be 
protected by areas of 164 to 330 ft (50 to 100 m) or greater to 
ameliorate edge effects, and by areas of 660 ft (200 m) to protect 
against the effects of fire ants. From this data, we determined that a 
distance of 330 ft (100 m), in addition to the 344-ft (105-m) cave 
cricket foraging area, would be the minimum needed to protect the cave 
cricket foraging area from the effects of edge and nonnative species 
invasions.
Dispersal
    The ability of individuals to move between preferred habitat 
patches is essential for colonization and population viability (Eber 
and Brandl 1996, p. 621; Fahrig and Merriam 1994, p. 52; Hill et al. 
1996, pp. 725-726; Kattan et al. 1994, pp. 139, 143; Kindvall 1999, p. 
172; Kozlov 1996, pp. 95-96; Kuussaari et al. 1996, p. 791; Turner 
1996, p. 205). 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, p. 53; Kindvall 1999, p. 
172; Kuussaari et al. 1996, p. 791; Tiebout and Anderson 1997, p. 620). 
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, p. 54).
Summary
    The conservation of the endangered Bexar County karst invertebrates 
depends on a self-sustaining karst ecosystem, surface and subsurface 
drainage basins to maintain adequate quantity and quality 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 ecosystem includes a minimum core area of 100 ac (40 
ha) of healthy, native woodland-grassland mosaic comprised of 80 ac (32 
ha) of woodland, 10-ac (4-ha) of grassland, and a 10-ac (4-ha) buffer 
to protect against edge effects. The 100-ac (40-ha) core area should 
encompass the surface and subsurface drainage basins of the occupied 
feature, the 344-ft (105-m) cave cricket foraging distance from the 
entrance to the cave, and a 330-ft (100-m) distance from the cave 
cricket area to protect against edge effects.

Listed Bexar County Invertebrates' Distribution

    By 2000, about 400 caves were known from Bexar County (SWCA 2000). 
Of the 400 caves, 57 were known to contain 1 or more of the 9 Bexar 
County invertebrates at the time the species

[[Page 9879]]

were listed in 2000 (65 FR 81419; December 26, 2000). Currently, we are 
aware of 89 caves in Bexar County that contain 1 or more of the 9 Bexar 
County invertebrates (Table 1).

  Table 1--Caves Known To Contain One or More of the Nine Listed Bexar
                       County Karst Invertebrates
 [We include subspecies in this table in order to show genetic diversity
                                by cave]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species ( of caves)          Cave name            Karst fauna
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhadine exilis (51).........  40 mm Cave *.............  Stone Oak.
                              B-52 Cave *..............
                              Backhole *...............
                              Banzai Mud Dauber Cave *.
                              Black Cat Cave...........
                              Blanco Cave..............
                              Boneyard Pit *...........
                              Bunny Hole *.............
                              Constant Sorrow Cave *...
                              Cross the Creek Cave *...
                              Dos Viboras Cave *.......
                              Eagle's 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 *.
                              Peace Pipe 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.
                              Helotes Blowhole.........
                              Helotes Hilltop Cave.....
                              Logan's Cave.............
                              unnamed cave \1/2\ mile
                               N. of Helotes.
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Creek Bank Cave..........  Government
                                                          Canyon.
                              Government Canyon Bat
                               Cave.
                              Lithic Ridge Cave........
                              Pig Cave.................
                              San Antonio Ranch Pit....
                              Tight Cave...............
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Hills and Dales Pit......  UTSA.
                              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.........
                             -------------------------------------------
R. infernalis ewersi (3)....  Flying Buzzworm Cave *...  Stone Oak.
                              Headquarters Cave *......
                              Low Priority Cave *......
                             -------------------------------------------
R. infernalis new subspecies  Braken Bat Cave..........  Culebra
 (9).                         Caracol Creek Coon Cave..   Anticline.
                              Game Pasture Cave No. 1..
                              Isopit...................
                              King Toad Cave...........
                              Max and Roberts Cave.....
                              Obvious Little Cave......
                              Stevens Ranch Trash Hole
                               Cave.

[[Page 9880]]

 
                              Wurzbach Bat Cave........
                             -------------------------------------------
R. infernalis infernalis      Bone Pile Cave...........  Government
 (28).                        10 K Cave................   Canyon.
                              Canyon Ranch Pit.........
                              Continental Park Cave....
                              Dancing Rattler Cave.....
                              Fat Man's Nightmare Cave.
                              Government Canyon Bat
                               Cave.
                              Hackberry Sink...........
                              Lithic Ridge Cave........
                              Pig Cave.................
                              San Antonio Ranch Pit....
                              Scenic Overlook Cave.....
                              Sure Sink................
                              Surprise Sink............
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Christmas Cave...........  Helotes.
                              Helotes Blowhole.........
                              Logan's Cave.............
                              Madla's Cave.............
                              Madla's Drop Cave........
                              Sir Doug's Cave..........
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Genesis Cave.............  Stone Oak.
                             -------------------------------------------
                              John Wagner Ranch Cave     UTSA.
                               No. 3.
                              Kamikazi Cricket Cave....
                              Mattke Cave..............
                              Robber's Cave............
                              Scorpion Cave............
                              Three Fingers Cave.......
                              Crownridge Canyon Cave...
                             -------------------------------------------
Helotes mold beetle (8).....  San Antonio Ranch Pit....  Government
                              Scenic Overlook Cave.....   Canyon.
                              Tight Cave...............
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Christmas Cave...........  Helotes.
                              Helotes Hilltop Cave.....
                              Unnamed Cave \1/2\ mile N
                               of Helotes.
                              Unnamed Cave \1/2\ mile
                               NE of Helotes.
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Unnamed Cave 5 miles NE    UTSA.
                               of Helotes.
                             -------------------------------------------
Cokendolpher Cave harvestman  Robber Baron Cave........  Alamo Heights.
 (1).
                             -------------------------------------------
Robber Baron Cave meshweaver  Robber Baron Cave          Alamo Heights.
 (2).                          meshweaver (2).
                              OB3......................
                             -------------------------------------------
Madla Cave meshweaver (20)..  Christmas Cave...........  Helotes.
                              Madla's Cave.............
                              Madla's Drop Cave........
                              Helotes Blowhole.........
                              Helotes Hilltop Cave.....
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Headquarters Cave *......  Stone Oak.
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Breathless Cave..........  UTSA.
                              Feature No. 50...........
                              Hills and Dales Pit......
                              John Wagner Ranch Cave
                               No. 3.
                              La Cantera Cave No. 1....
                              Robber's Cave............
                              Unnamed Cave Helotes Area
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Fat Man's Nightmare Cave.  Government
                                                          Canyon.
                              Lithic Ridge Cave........
                              Lost Pothole.............

[[Page 9881]]

 
                              Pig Cave.................
                              San Antonio Ranch Pit....
                              Scenic Overlook Cave.....
                              Surprise Sink............
                             -------------------------------------------
Braken Bat Cave.............  Braken Bat Cave..........  Culebra
                                                          Anticline.
                             -------------------------------------------
Government Canyon...........  Government Canyon Bat      Government.
                               Cave.
                             -------------------------------------------
Government Canyon...........  Government Canyon Bat      Government.
                               Cave.
                              Surprise Sink............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Cave located on Camp Bullis.

Previous Federal Actions

    We published a proposed rule to list the nine Bexar County karst 
invertebrate species as endangered in the Federal Register on December 
30, 1998 (63 FR 71855). On November 1, 2000, the Center for Biological 
Diversity filed a complaint against the Service alleging that we 
exceeded our 1-year obligation to publish a final listing rule and make 
a determination whether to designate critical habitat for the nine 
Bexar County karst invertebrates. We published a final listing rule on 
December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419). In the final listing rule, we 
determined that critical habitat designation was prudent. On August 27, 
2002, we proposed that 25 units encompassing approximately 9,516 ac 
(3,857 ha) in Bexar County, Texas, be designated as critical habitat 
for the 9 karst invertebrates (67 FR 55063). The final critical habitat 
rule, designating approximately 1,063 ac (431 ha) in 22 units, was 
published on April 8, 2003 (68 FR 17155).
    On July 17, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens 
Alliance for Smart Expansion, and Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas 
provided us with a 60-day notice of intent to sue on the final critical 
habitat rule. On January 14, 2009, the plaintiffs (CBD v. FWS, case 
number 1:09-cv-00031-LY) filed suit in Federal Court (Western District 
of Texas) alleging that the Service failed to use the best available 
science and incorrectly made exclusions according to sections 3(5)(A) 
and 4(b)(2) of the Act. On December 18, 2009, the parties filed a 
settlement agreement where we agreed to submit a revised proposed 
critical habitat determination for publication in the Federal Register 
on or before February 7, 2011, and a final revised determination by 
February 7, 2012. This proposed rule is published in accordance with 
that agreement.
    On July 8, 2010, we received a petition from Capital Foresight 
Limited Partnership to revise designated critical habitat for Rhadine 
exilis by removing Unit 13. The petitioner alleges that the original 
specimens collected from Black Cat Cave were never positively 
identified as R. exilis, another species of Rhadine with a slender body 
form similar to R. exilis occurs in a cave a short distance from Black 
Cat Cave that is likely connected by mesocaverns, and that two species 
of Rhadine with similar body forms have never been documented to occur 
in the same location. In addition, the petitioner asserts that drinking 
water is leaking into Black Cat Cave and that the habitat has been 
highly degraded by the Bulverde Road rending the area no longer 
suitable for conservation of the species. In reference to the 
petitioner's claims, more information is needed for us to make a 
determination. Information in our files indicates that a species expert 
has identified the original specimen collected from Black Cat Cave as 
R. exilis (T. Barr, pers. comm., 2010). At this time, we find that the 
petitioner presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that revising critical habitat for R. exilis may be 
warranted, but more information is needed. Therefore, with the 
publication of this rule, we are initiating a review to determine if 
revising critical habitat for R. exilis is warranted. For this proposed 
critical habitat rule, we believe that Unit 13 continues to meet the 
definition of critical habitat as discussed in the Criteria Used to 
Identify Critical Habitat section below. Thus, Unit 13 continues to be 
part of this proposed critical habitat rule, but changes may be made in 
the final rule based upon new information. This document constitutes 
our 90-day finding on the petitioned action. We request public comment 
on this finding. We will issue a 12-month finding on the petition in 
conjunction with the final critical habitat rule for the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates, which will address whether the petitioned action 
is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the

[[Page 9882]]

prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, or 
authorizing actions likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires consultation 
on Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of 
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such 
designation does not allow the government or public to access private 
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, 
recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a 
landowner seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization for 
an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the 
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply, but even in 
the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, Federal 
action agency's and the applicant's obligation is not to restore or 
recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent 
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
must contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may 
require special management considerations or protection. Critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide 
essential life cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found the 
physical and biological features laid out in the appropriate quantity 
and spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species). Under the 
Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate critical habitat 
in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the 
time it is listed only when we determine that those areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species and that designation limited to 
those areas occupied at the time of listing would be inadequate to 
ensure the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality 
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide 
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific 
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to 
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for 
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and 
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for 
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated 
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their 
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic 
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most 
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al. 
2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas 
in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more 
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying 
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 
1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of 
severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et 
al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).
    Furthermore, we recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be 
required for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, but are outside the critical habitat 
designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions we 
implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas that support 
populations are also subject to the regulatory protections afforded by 
the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of 
the best available scientific information at the time of the agency 
action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species 
outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in 
jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 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, HCPs, or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical and Biological Features

    In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
and the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within 
the geographical area occupied at the time of listing to propose as 
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species that may require special 
management considerations or protection. These include, but are not 
limited to:
    (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, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical and biological features required 
for the nine Bexar County invertebrates from studies of these species' 
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    The nine Bexar County invertebrates are terrestrial troglobites 
that require underground passages with stable temperatures (Howarth 
1983, p. 373; Dunlap 1995, p. 76) and constant, high humidity (Barr 
1968, p. 47; Mitchell 1971a, p. 250). In addition to the larger cave 
passages that are accessible by humans where the species are collected, 
the species also need mesocaverns (tiny voids that are connected to 
larger cave passages) (Howarth 1983, p. 371), which

[[Page 9883]]

provide additional habitat to sustain viable populations for the 
species (White 2006, pp. 100-101). During temperature extremes, small 
mesocavernous spaces connected to caves may have more favorable 
humidity and temperature levels than the cave (Howarth 1983, p. 371). 
However, the abundance of food may be less in mesocaverns than in the 
larger cave passages. Therefore, the nine Bexar County invertebrates 
may spend the majority of their time in mesocaverns, only leaving 
during temporary forays into the larger cave passages to forage 
(Howarth 1987, p. 377). Based on the information above, we identify 
karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces (caves and connected 
mesocaverns) with stable temperatures, high humidities (near 
saturation), and suitable substrates (spaces between and underneath 
rocks for foraging and sheltering) to be a physical and biological 
feature needed by these species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

Surface Water

    The nine Bexar County invertebrates need clean water that is free 
of pollutants to maintain stable humidity and temperatures. In order to 
maintain stable humidity, the amount of clean water varies depending on 
the size of the drainage basin, caves, and mesocaverns. Water enters 
the karst ecosystem through surface and subsurface drainage basins. 
Well-developed pathways, such as cave openings and fractures, rapidly 
transport water through the karst with little or no purification. Caves 
are susceptible to pollution from contaminated water entering the 
ground because karst has little capacity for self-purification. The 
route that has the greatest potential to carry water-borne contaminants 
into the karst ecosystem is through the drainage basins that supply 
water to the ecosystem. Because cave fauna require material washed in 
through entrances (including humanly inaccessible cracks), and because 
they require generally high humidity, it is critical to have drainage 
basins with unpolluted water. The surface drainage basin consists of 
the cave entrance and other surface input sources, such as neighboring 
sinkholes and soil percolation. The subsurface or groundwater drainage 
basin includes mesocaverns, subterranean streams, and sinkholes that 
have a connection to the surface, even though the groundwater drainage 
basin is not always observable from the surface. It is also important 
to note that the surface and subsurface drainage basins do not 
necessarily overlap. They may be of different size and direction (Veni 
2003, pp. 7-8).
    In conclusion, we identify clean surface water that flows into the 
karst features to be a physical and biological feature needed by these 
species. Sources may include runoff that flows into the caves' 
entrances or associated features through sinkholes or fractures, and 
through-ground flows via fractures, conduits, and passages.
Surface Plant and Animal Community
    Areas around and over caves occupied by the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates need healthy surface plant and animal communities (see 
discussion in Background). Surface vegetation provides nutrients that 
support trogloxene and accidental species and provides nutrients 
through leaf litter and root masses that grow directly into caves 
(Howarth 1983, p. 373; Jackson et al. 1999, p. 11387). Because listed 
troglobites are at the top of their food chain (Service 2008, p. 4.1-
5), habitat changes that affect their food sources (including plants 
and cave crickets) can affect troglobites (Culver et al. 2000, p. 395). 
Surface vegetation also protects the subsurface environment against 
drastic changes in the temperature and moisture regime. It serves to 
filter pollutants (to a limited degree) before they enter the karst 
system and protects against nonnative species invasions (Biological 
Advisory Team 1990, p. 38). Surface invertebrates provide food for 
trogloxenes, such as cave crickets, bats, toads, and frogs. Other 
animals wash or accidentally stumble into caves and are food sources 
for cave-limited species. A healthy native arthropod community may 
better stave off fire ants, a threat to the karst ecosystem (Porter et 
al. 1988, p. 914).
    As discussed in the background section, cave crickets are an 
important source of nutrient input for karst ecosystems (Barr 1968, p. 
48; Reddell 1993, p. 2). The cave crickets forage on the surface at 
night and roost in the cave during the day. Cave crickets provide food 
for karst species, which feed on their eggs, young, and feces (Mitchell 
1971b, p. 250; Barr 1968, pp. 51-53; Poulson et al. 1995, p. 26).
    Many of the vertebrate species that occasionally use caves bring in 
a significant amount of energy in the form of scat, nesting material, 
and carcasses. Natural quantities of all of these components are an 
important part of a functioning ecosystem. Therefore, based on the 
information above, we identify a healthy surface community of native 
plants (juniper-oak woodland) and animals (cave crickets) living in and 
near the karst feature that provides nutrient input and protects the 
karst ecosystem from adverse effects (nonnative species invasions, 
contaminants, and fluctuations in temperature and humidity), as being a 
necessary biological feature.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Nine Bexar County Invertebrates

    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the nine Bexar County invertebrates in areas occupied 
at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent 
elements (PCEs). We consider primary constituent elements to be the 
elements of physical and biological features that, when laid out in the 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' 
life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life 
history, biology, and ecology of these species and the habitat 
requirements for sustaining the essential life-history functions of the 
species, we have determined that the nine Bexar County invertebrates' 
PCEs are:
    (1) Karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces (caves and 
connected mesocaverns) with stable temperatures, high humidities (near 
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and 
underneath rocks for foraging and sheltering);
    (2) Surface water free of pollutants that flows into the karst 
features. Sources may include surface runoff that flows directly into 
the caves' entrances, or water that flows through associated features, 
such as sinkholes and fractures known to connect to the karst features, 
or water that flows through the connected subsurface drainage area and 
subsequently into caves and passages; and
    (3) A healthy surface community of native plants (for example, 
juniper-oak woodland) and animals (for example, cave crickets) living 
near the karst feature that provides nutrient input and protects the 
karst ecosystem from adverse effects (for example, from nonnative 
species invasions, contaminants, and fluctuations in temperature and 
humidity).

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within

[[Page 9884]]

the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing 
contain features that are essential to the conservation of the species 
and that may require special management considerations or protection. 
The following information provides discussion of the threats to 
essential features and the special management considerations and 
protections needed to alleviate those threats.
    The Bexar County human population is projected to increase 13.8 
percent from 2010 to 2020, and 45.2 percent by 2050 (San Antonio 
Planning Department 2005, p. 1). Most of the threats to the PCEs are 
the result of this continued rapid population growth and associated 
urbanization. Threats include: Filling and collapsing of caves; 
alteration of drainage patterns, causing decreased water infiltration 
and karst drying or increased flooding; removal of native vegetation 
and replacement with impervious cover and nonnative plants; reducing 
nutrient input; changes in temperature; decreasing humidity; habitat 
contamination from human activities in the surface and subsurface 
drainage basins of caves and in adjacent karst areas; increased human 
visitation resulting in alteration of the cave habitat and direct 
mortality of listed species; and infestation by fire ants, a predator 
and competitor that can cause direct predation on and competition with 
trogloxenes like cave crickets, ultimately reducing nutrient input into 
the cave.
    Veni (1994, p. 23) estimated in 1991 that about 26 percent of known 
caves in Bexar County had been destroyed through filling, capping, 
covering with roads and buildings, or blasting by construction and 
quarrying operations. Further loss undoubtedly has occurred since that 
report and will likely continue unless appropriate controls are 
implemented. Construction and development activities that may not 
destroy an entrance can still result in collapses of the cave ceiling 
or other adverse effects on the karst environment. On ranch land or in 
rural areas, it is not uncommon to use caves as trash dumps (Culver 
1986, p. 434; Reddell 1993, p. 2) or to cover the entrances to prevent 
livestock from falling in (Elliott 2000, pp. 374-375). These activities 
can be detrimental to the karst ecosystem by causing direct destruction 
of habitat or altering the natural passage of organisms, water, 
detritus, and other organic matter into a cave. Quarrying of limestone 
and road base material is a widespread activity that can remove 
vegetation and destroy karst habitat. A number of occupied caves in 
Bexar County have been severely impacted in the past, and an 
examination of recent aerial photography reveals recent impacts to 
karst habitat in the vicinity of those areas.
    Cave organisms are adapted to live in a narrow range of temperature 
and humidity. To sustain these conditions, both natural surface and 
subsurface flow of water and nutrients should be maintained. Decreases 
in water flow or infiltration can result in excessive drying and may 
slow decomposition, while increases can cause flooding that drowns air-
breathing species and carries away available nutrients. Alterations to 
surface topography, including decreasing or increasing soil depth or 
adding nonnative fill, can change the nutrient flow into the cave and 
affect the cave community (Howarth 1983, p. 381). Changes in the amount 
of impermeable cover, collection of water in devices like storm sewers, 
increased erosion and sedimentation, and irrigation and sprinkler 
systems can affect water flow to caves. Altering the quantity of water, 
its organic content, the timing and extent of flood pulses, or droughts 
may negatively impact the listed species.
    Karst ecosystems are heavily reliant on surface plant and animal 
communities to maintain nutrient flows, reduce sedimentation, and 
resist exotic and invasive species. As the surface around a cave 
entrance or over the associated karst ecosystem is developed, native 
plant communities are often replaced with impermeable cover or exotic 
plants from nurseries. The abundance and diversity of native animals 
may decline due to decreased food and habitat, combined with increased 
competition and predation from urban, exotic, and pet species. As 
native surface plant and animal communities are destroyed, food and 
habitat once available to trogloxenes decreases. Destruction of native 
plant communities can lead to increased erosion that causes 
sedimentation within caves. It is necessary to maintain the native 
woodland and grassland communities; therefore, a perimeter area is 
needed to shield the core vegetation habitat from impacts associated 
with edge effects or disturbance from adjacent urban development 
(Lovejoy et al. 1986, p. 284; Yahner 1988, pp. 333-334). Effects from 
such impacts can include increases in invasive species and pollutants, 
and changes in microclimates, which can adversely affect the listed 
species by impacting nutrient cycling processes important in cave/karst 
dynamics.
    Much of the habitat occupied by the Bexar County invertebrates is 
particularly sensitive to groundwater contamination because little or 
no filtration occurs, and water penetrates rapidly through bedrock 
conduits (White 1988, p. 149). The ranges of these species are becoming 
increasingly urbanized, and, thereby, they are becoming more 
susceptible to contaminants including sewage, oil, fertilizers, 
pesticides, herbicides, seepage from landfills, pipeline leaks, or 
leaks in storage structures and retaining ponds. Activities on the 
surface, such as disposing of toxic chemicals or motor oil, can 
contaminate caves (White 1988, p. 388). Materials like cleaning agents, 
industrial chemicals, and heavy metals can also easily infiltrate 
subterranean ecosystems. Contamination of karst habitat can also occur 
from air pollutants and improper disposal of litter, motor oil, 
batteries, or other household products in or near caves (White 1988, 
pp. 399-400).
    Continued urbanization will increase the likelihood that karst 
ecosystems are polluted by contamination from leaks and spills, which 
often have occurred in Bexar County. The Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality (TCEQ 2010, pp. TCEQ-5 to TCEQ-8) summarized 
information on groundwater contamination reported by a number of 
agencies, and listed 109 groundwater contamination cases that occurred 
in Bexar County between 1980 and 2000, the majority of them spills or 
leaks of petroleum products. Groundwater contamination poses a threat 
to entire karst ecosystems and is particularly difficult to manage 
because pollutants can originate far from the sensitive karst site and 
flow rapidly through the subsurface (White 1988, pp. 387-388).
    Fire ants are a pervasive, nonnative ant species originally 
introduced to the United States from South America over 50 years ago, 
and are an aggressive predator and competitor that has spread across 
the southern United States. They often replace native species, and 
evidence shows that overall arthropod diversity, as well as species 
richness and abundance, decreases in infested areas. Fire ants pose a 
major threat to the listed invertebrates in Bexar County through direct 
predation and competition with native species (such as cave crickets) 
for food resources. This threat is exacerbated by edge effects 
associated with the soil disturbance and disruption to native 
communities that accompany urbanization (refer to previous detailed 
discussion in Background).
    Maintaining native vegetation communities greater than 12 ac (5 ha) 
may help sustain native ant populations and further deter fire ant 
infestations

[[Page 9885]]

(Porter et al. 1988, p. 914; 1991, p. 869). On Camp Bullis Military 
Reservation, in Bexar and Comal Counties, Texas, caves are located in 
large expanses of undeveloped land. Although there is some ground 
disturbance in portions of the area, caves on Camp Bullis had less fire 
ant infestation compared to caves in more urbanized areas even prior to 
beginning a fire ant treatment regime (Veni and Associates 1999, p. 
55). In addition, Suarez et al. (1998, p. 2041) found that protection 
of a core area zone at least 330 ft (100 m) wide helps to reduce the 
severity of fire ant infestations.
    Karst invertebrates in central Texas are especially susceptible to 
fire ant predation because most caves are relatively short and shallow. 
The hot dry weather may also encourage fire ants to move into caves 
during summer months, and cold weather may cause them to seek refuge or 
prey in the caves during the winter. Fire ants have been found within 
and near many caves in central Texas and have been observed feeding on 
dead troglobites, cave crickets, and other species within caves 
(Elliott 1992, p. 13; 1994, p. 15; 2000, pp. 668, 678; Reddell 1993a, 
p. 10; Taylor et al. 2003, p. 3). Besides direct predation, fire ants 
threaten listed invertebrates by reducing the nutrient input that fuels 
the karst ecosystem. Taylor et al. (2003, p. 3) found that cave 
crickets often arrived before fire ants at baits placed above ground at 
night, but the arrival of fire ants corresponded to the departure of 
cave crickets, indicating competition for at least some food resources. 
Of 36 caves visited during status surveys for the 9 Bexar County karst 
invertebrates, fire ants were found in 26 of them (Reddell 1993a, p. 
32).
    In summary, threats to the nine Bexar County invertebrates include 
clearing of vegetation for commercial or residential development, road 
building, quarrying, or other purposes. Infestation by nonnative 
vegetation causes adverse changes in the plant and animal community and 
possibly in the moisture availability. An increase in fire ants can 
occur with development and cause competition with and predation on 
other invertebrates in the karst ecosystem. In addition, filling cave 
features for construction, ranching, or other purposes can adversely 
affect the listed invertebrate species by reducing nutrient input, 
reducing small mammal access, and changing moisture regimes. Excavation 
for construction or operation of quarries can directly destroy karst 
features occupied by any of the nine Bexar County invertebrates, 
including the mesocaverns they use. Examples of management that would 
alleviate these threats include: (1) Protecting native vegetation 
around occupied karst features and overlying connected mesocaverns, 
cave cricket foraging areas, surface and subsurface drainage basins, 
temperature and humidity in karst features and mesocaverns; (2) 
protecting subsurface karst habitat around the cave footprint to allow 
movement of karst invertebrates through mesocaverns; (3) controlling 
fire ants around cave features and within the cave cricket foraging 
area; (4) preventing unauthorized access to karst features by 
installing fencing and cave gates; and (5) keeping the immediate areas 
surrounding cave features free from sources of contamination.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
and commercial data available in determining areas within the 
geographical area occupied at the time of listing that contain the 
features essential to the conservation of the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates, and areas outside of the geographical area occupied at 
the time of listing that are essential for the conservation of the nine 
Bexar County invertebrates. We relied on information in presence/
absence survey reports submitted during project consultations with the 
Service, annual reports on research and recovery activities conducted 
under a section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific permit, annual 10(a)(1)(B) HCP 
reports, section 6 species status reports, and literature published in 
peer-reviewed journals. We also used information from the proposed (67 
FR 55063; August 27, 2002) and final (68 FR 17155; April 8, 2003) 
critical habitat rules, draft recovery plan (Service 2008), and other 
information in our files. We are not currently proposing any areas 
outside the geographical area presently occupied by the species because 
occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of the species.
    Critical habitat units were delineated by creating approximate 
areas for the units by screen-digitizing polygons (map units) using 
ArcMap (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.). We defined the 
boundaries of each unit based on the criteria below:
    (1) We identified all areas known to be occupied by the species. We 
used verified identifications of specimens by recognized species 
experts. In the case of Madla Cave meshweaver, we also used genetic 
identification (Paquin and Hedin 2004, p. 3244).
    (2) We included the cave footprint with the surface and subsurface 
drainage areas of the cave, where known.
    (3) We included the cave cricket foraging area that is a 344-ft 
(105-m) circle around the cave entrance (Taylor et al. 2005, p. 97), 
plus an additional 330-ft (100-m) distance to protect against edge 
effects from invasive species (Lovejoy et al. 1986, p. 263; Wilcove et 
al. 1986, pp. 249-250; Laurance 1991, p. 206; Laurance and Yensen 1991, 
pp. 78-79; Kapos et al. 1993, p. 425; Andren 1995, p. 237; Reed et al. 
1996, p. 1102; Burke and Nol 1998, p. 96; Didham 1998, p. 397; Suarez 
et al. 1998, p. 2047).
    (4) We included contiguous geological formations of Karst Zone 1 
(areas known to contain one or more of the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates) to protect mesocaverns likely connected to the caves to 
a distance of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) from the cave entrance (Kemble White, 
SWCA, pers. comm., 2010; White 2006, pp. 97-99).
    (5) We also included native vegetation of an area of at least 100 
ac (40 ha) needed to support the diversity of native plant species 
normally found in the Edwards Plateau communities and in their normal 
abundance (Service 2008, pp. B-9 to B-12). This number was derived for 
woodlands by examining studies of Van Auken et al. (1979, p. 170), Van 
Auken et al. (1980, pp. 30-31), Van Auken et al. (1981, pp. 1251-1253), 
and analysis by Dr. Kathryn Kennedy (Center for Plant Conservation, 
pers. comm. 2002), and Lynch (1962, p. 679; 1971, p. 890). Critical 
Habitat Units 10a, 10b, 11a through d, and 24 have areas less than 100 
ac (40 ha) being proposed for critical habitat, but these units still 
meet the criterion of having at least 100 ac (40 ha) of native 
vegetation surrounding the karst ecosystems. We reduced these proposed 
critical habitat units in size because some of their surface area is 
being exempted based on the Camp Bullis Military Reservation Integrated 
Natural Resources Management Plan (see Exemptions section below).
    Using the distances between caves whose mesocaverns are likely 
connected as a guide, we analyzed distance from a cave through which 
karst invertebrates are likely to move through mesocaverns in Bexar 
County as part of this critical habitat proposed rule. We examined the 
information on the area around Camp Bullis and found it was not 
representative of many Bexar County caves, because of the unique 
geological conditions there. All of the Camp Bullis area caves were 
formed within the damage zone of a fault where

[[Page 9886]]

interconnected mesocaverns and entrance-less caves occur. Because the 
area is a fault zone, there are long distances of connectivity between 
mesocaverns. Rather than using the greater distance karst invertebrates 
are likely to move, we found 0.3 mi (0.5 km) to be a more realistic 
distance over which karst invertebrates potentially move through 
mesocaverns in Bexar County. We selected 0.3 mi (0.5 km) because of the 
connection distance of the mesocaverns of Robbers Cave and Hills and 
Dales Pit, which are located in another part of Bexar County, similar 
genetics between meshweavers in the caves, and the lack of faulting or 
other geological anomalies between them. We believe 0.3 mi (0.5 km) is 
a reasonable distance limit that karst invertebrates could move through 
mesocaverns. Although the genetics of the species in the caves are not 
identical, this represents the best available information we have. The 
0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance was in Karst Zone 1, and the caves do not have 
geologic barriers to movement between them. Based on the best available 
information, we believe it is an appropriate distance to represent 
potential use of mesocaverns by the nine Bexar County invertebrates.
    An area with a 0.3-mi (0.5-km) radius is equal to 179 ac (72 ha). 
We used this 179-ac (72-ha) area around cave locations with known 
occurrences as a guide for mapping the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the nine Bexar County invertebrates. 
We designated all of Karst Zone 1 within the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) radius of 
the cave. In units where we needed additional surface habitat to reach 
the 100-ac (40-ha) target for native vegetation, we included adjacent 
surface habitat over Karst Zone 1 surface habitat. If native vegetation 
was not available in a Karst Zone 1 area, we used other Karst Zones to 
reach the target surface acreage. In units that are all Karst Zone 1 
and are fully vegetated, the 179-ac (73-ha) area of native vegetation 
derived using the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) radius circle around cave entrances 
is included. In units with high levels of surface impact or with only a 
small amount of Karst Zone 1, we went outside the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) 
radius around cave locations to include at least 100 ac (40 ha) of 
vegetation.
    When the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance around individual cave entrances 
in Karst Zone 1 (areas known to contain one or more of the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates) or the expanded vegetation community overlapped, 
we included caves in the same unit. We did not include area for cave 
cricket foraging if it was on the other side of an urban edge like a 
major roadway because such edges act as barriers to cricket movement.
    In this proposed critical habitat for the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates, we selected areas based on the best scientific data 
available that possess those physical and biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species and that may require special 
management considerations or protection. We identified critical habitat 
units that are known to be occupied based on one or more surveys that 
resulted in the collection of a specimen from the karst feature and 
verification of species by a taxonomic expert. Even though the nine 
Bexar County invertebrates spend their entire lives underground, we 
included specific surface features when identifying critical habitat 
units because they are important drainage links into the caves and 
because surface habitat is needed to support the plant and animal 
communities upon which the invertebrates depend. Because some of the 
rarer species are difficult to collect, and it may take many attempts 
to collect even more common species, we included all locations with 
historic records of species occupancy, regardless of date. In the case 
of the Madla Cave meshweaver, in addition to morphological 
identifications, we used genetic identification of specimens to verify 
known locations (Paquin and Hedin 2004, p. 3244). We determined the 
units based on the presence of one or more of the defined PCEs and the 
kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated with those occurrences. 
Some of the units contain the appropriate quantity and distribution of 
PCEs to support the life cycle stages we have determined as essential 
to the conservation of the species. Other units or portions of units 
contain only a portion of the PCEs. We did this because the PCEs that 
are present can support the listed species, even though not all PCEs 
are present. For example, surface habitat without a healthy plant and 
animal community can continue to support listed invertebrates below the 
surface, and clean water from modified surface areas can provide the 
humidity needed by the listed invertebrates.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries within this 
proposed rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas 
such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures 
which lack the surface PCEs for the nine Bexar County invertebrates. 
However, we included some developed areas even though such lands lack 
the surface PCEs for the nine Bexar County invertebrates. We included 
these developed lands because they contain the subsurface PCEs needed 
by the invertebrates, such as karst-forming rock containing 
subterranean spaces. The scale of the maps we prepared under the 
parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may 
not reflect the exclusion of developed lands that did not contain 
subsurface PCEs. Any such lands that do not contain subsurface PCEs 
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps 
of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule 
and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if 
the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action 
involving these lands that do not contain subsurface PCEs would not 
trigger section 7 consultations with respect to critical habitat and 
the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action 
would affect the PCEs in the adjacent critical habitat.
    We are proposing for designation as critical habitat units that we 
believe were occupied at the time of listing and which contain one or 
more PCEs to support life-history functions essential for the 
conservation of the species. For some units, we did not know at the 
time of listing that these areas were occupied because surveys had not 
yet been conducted or the species had not yet been found in previous 
surveys. These sites not known to be occupied at the time of listing 
are being proposed for critical habitat because they are essential for 
the conservation of the species. We are not including any unoccupied 
areas in this rule. In addition, units are proposed for designation 
based on sufficient PCEs being present to support any of the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates' life processes. Some units contain all PCEs and 
support multiple life processes. Some units contain only a portion of 
the PCEs necessary to support one or more of the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates' particular use of that habitat.

Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat

    The areas identified in this proposed rule constitute a proposed 
revision of the areas we designated as critical habitat for the seven 
Bexar County invertebrates on April 8, 2003 (68 FR 17155). The 
significant differences between the 2003 rule and this proposal are:
    (1) This proposed rule, which is based partly on new occupancy 
information since we originally proposed critical habitat (Service 
2008, pp. D-4-D-12; J. Krejca, Zara Environmental Consultants,

[[Page 9887]]

pers. comm., 2010; K. White, SWCA Environmental Consultants, pers. 
comm. 2010), includes 35 units, totaling 6,906 ac (2,795 ha), with 13 
units that were not previously designated. This proposed rule results 
in an increase of 5,843 ac (2,365 ha) from the currently designated 
critical habitat (1,063 ac in 22 units). Seven new units are being 
proposed around Camp Bullis. We are also proposing four new units that 
were previously excluded on Government Canyon State Natural Area 
(GCSNA).
    (2) Areas where the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver and the 
Government Canyon Bat Cave spider occur on the GCSNA were previously 
excluded from the 2003 final critical habitat designation (68 FR 17155; 
April 8, 2003). In the 2003 designation, we determined that these areas 
did not meet the definition of critical habitat found in section 
3(5)(A)(i) of the Act because the conservation plans for the caves on 
GCSNA provided adequate management and protection to the level that the 
area did not require special management. However, the Courts have 
invalidated this approach. In Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton 
(240 F.Supp.2d 1090 (D. Ariz. 2003)), the Court stated the actual 
presence of a management plan shows that special management is needed. 
Accordingly, we have reassessed whether these areas meet the definition 
of critical habitat in light of the Court's ruling. We have determined 
these areas meet the definition of critical habitat and have included 
them in this proposal (see Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 
section below).
    (3) This proposal critical habitat rule includes a larger 
subterranean area around each occupied feature than the previous final 
rule (68 FR 17155; April 8, 2003). In this proposed rule, we use a 
distance of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) from occupied features in Karst Zone 1 as a 
criterion to delineate critical habitat. We base this distance on the 
karst geology and species genetics of Bexar County karst invertebrates 
(White 2006, pp. 76-78) and have better information available today 
(see Subsurface Environment above). In the 2003 final rule (68 FR 
17155; April 8, 2003), we did not use a similar criterion, but stated 
that the distance that these invertebrates go from the cave into the 
surrounding karst is unknown.
    (4) We increased the cave cricket foraging area from 164 ft (50 m) 
in the 2003 final rule (68 FR 17155; April 8, 2003) to 344 ft (105 m) 
in this proposed rule based on the Taylor et al. (2005, p. 97) study. 
In addition, we increased the minimum vegetation area in each unit from 
40 ac (16 ha) to 100 ac (40 ha) based on the Draft Bexar County Karst 
Invertebrate Recovery Plan (2008, p. B-7). We use a combination of 
woodland, grassland, and a buffer area to protect against edge effects 
in this proposed rule.
    (5) We are proposing as critical habitat all occupied sites for the 
nine Bexar County invertebrates except those that meet the criteria for 
exemption, as all of these sites are essential to the conservation of 
the species.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing 35 units as critical habitat for the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates. For comparison, we numbered the units so that 
they are as consistent as possible with the previous proposed and final 
critical habitat rules. However, there are 13 additional units. Most 
additional units were assigned the next highest number, but those 
adjacent to Camp Bullis were assigned alphanumeric designations. For 
example, 10a and 10b were assigned to show their relationship to the 
previously proposed habitat on Camp Bullis. The critical habitat areas 
described below constitute our current best assessment of areas that 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates. All units we are proposing for the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates were occupied at the time of listing and are still 
currently occupied. Table 2 lists the proposed units, occupied caves, 
unit ownership, and listed species in each unit.

  Table 2--Unit number, names of known occupied caves, unit size, land ownership, and listed species that occur
                                   within each proposed critical habitat unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Known occupied      Size of unit in     Land owner-ship    Listed species in
              Unit                   caves in unit     acres (hectares)          type                unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a..............................  Bone Pile Cave....  238 ac (96 ha)....  State.............  R. infernalis.
                                  Surprise Sink.....                                          C. madla.
1b..............................  Government Canyon.  178 ac (72 ha)....  State.............  C. vespera.
                                   Bat Cave.........                                          N. microps.
                                                                                              R. exilis..
                                                                                              R. infernalis.
1c..............................  Lost Pothole......  178 ac (72 ha)....  State.............  C. madla.
1d..............................  Dancing Rattler     349 ac (141 ha)...  State.............  C. madla.
                                   Cave.                                                      R. exilis.
                                  Lithic Ridge Cave.                                          R. infernalis.
                                  Hackberry Sink....
1e..............................  Canyon Ranch Pit *  690 ac (279 ha)...  State.............  R. infernalis.
                                  Continental Park                        City..............  R. exilis.
                                   Cave.                                  Private...........  B. venyivi.
                                  Creek Bank Cave...                                          C. madla.
                                  Fat Man's
                                   Nightmare Cave*.
                                  Pig Cave..........
                                  San Antonio Ranch
                                   Pit.
                                  Scenic Overlook
                                   Cave*.
                                  Tight Cave........
1f..............................  10K Cave..........  178 ac (72 ha)....  State.............  R. infernalis.
2...............................  Logan's Cave......  252 ac............  Private...........  C. madla.
                                  Madla's Drop Cave.  (102 ha)..........                      R. exilis.
                                                                                              R. infernalis.
3...............................  Helotes Blowhole *  125 ac (51 ha)....  Private...........  C. madla.
                                  Helotes Hilltop                                             R. exilis.
                                   Cave *.                                                    R. infernalis.
                                                                                              B. venyivi.

[[Page 9888]]

 
4...............................  Kamikazi Cricket    255 ac (103 ha)...  Private...........  R. exilis.
                                   Cave.                                                      R. infernalis.
                                  Mattke Cave.......
                                  Scorpion Cave.....
5...............................  Christmas Cave....  117 ac............  Private...........  C. madla.
                                                      (47 ha)...........                      R. exilis.
                                                                                              R. infernalis.
                                                                                              B. venyivi.
6...............................  John Wagner Ranch.  105 ac (42 ha)....  Private...........  C. madla.
                                  Cave No. 3 *......                      City..............  R. exilis.
                                                                                              R. infernalis.
7...............................  Young Cave No. 1..  158 ac (64 ha)....  Private...........  R. exilis.
8...............................  Three Fingers Cave  471 ac (191 ha)...  Private...........  C. madla.
                                  Hills and Dales                         City..............  R. infernalis.
                                   Pit *.                                                     R. exilis.
                                  Robber's Cave.....
9...............................  Mastodon Pit......  286 ac (116 ha)...  State.............  C. madla.
                                  Feature No. 50....                      Private...........  R. exilis.
                                  La Cantera Cave
                                   No. 1.
                                  La Cantera Cave
                                   No. 2.
10a.............................  Low Priority Cave   67 ac (27 ha).....  City Private......  R. infernalis.
                                   1.
10b.............................  Flying Buzzworm     66 ac (27 ha).....  City..............  R. infernalis.
                                   Cave \1\.
11a.............................  Up The Creek Cave   21 ac (8.5 ha)....  Private...........  R exilis.
                                   \1\.
11b.............................  Bunny Hole \1\....  16 ac 6.5 ha......  Private...........  R. exilis.
11c.............................  Poor Boy Baculum    21 ac 8.5 ha......  Private...........  R exilis.
                                   Cave \1\.
11d.............................  Root Toupee Cave    52 ac.............  Private...........  R. exilis.
                                   \1\.               21 ha.............
11e.............................  Blanco Cave.......  102 ac (41 ha)....  Private...........  R. exilis.
12..............................  Hairy Tooth Cave..  371 ac (150 ha)...  Private...........  R. exilis.
                                  Ragin' Cajun Cave.
13..............................  Black Cat Cave....  187 ac (76 ha)....  Private...........  R. exilis.
14..............................  Game Pasture Cave   330 ac (134 ha)...  Private...........  R. infernalis.
                                   No. 1.
                                  King Toad Cave....
                                  Stevens Ranch
                                   Trash Hole Cave.
15..............................  Braken Bat Cave...  339 ac (137 ha)...  Private...........  C. venii.
                                  Isopit............                                          R. infernalis.
                                  Obvious Little
                                   Cave.
                                  Wurzbach Bat Cave.
16..............................  Caracol Creek Coon  194 ac (76 ha)....  Private...........  R. infernalis.
                                   Cave.
17..............................  Madla's Cave *....  114 ac (46 ha)....  Private...........  C. madla.
                                                                                              R. infernalis.
19..............................  Genesis Cave......  142 ac (57 ha)....  Private...........  R. infernalis.
20..............................  Robber Baron Cave.  247 ac (100 ha)...  Private...........  T. cokendolpheri.
                                                                                              C. baronia.
21..............................  Hornet's Last       396 ac (160 ha)...  City..............  R. exilis.
                                   Laugh Pit.                             Private...........
                                  Kick Start Cave...
                                  Springtail Crevice
22..............................  Breathless Cave...  178 ac (72 ha)....  City..............  C. madla.
                                                                          Private...........
23..............................  Crownridge Canyon   178 ac (72 ha)....  City..............  R. infernalis.
                                   Cave.                                  Private...........
24..............................  Peace Pipe Cave     11 ac (4.5 ha)....  Private...........  R. exilis.
                                   \1\.
25..............................  OB3...............  177 ac (72 ha)....  Private...........  C. baronia.
26..............................  Max and Roberts     117 ac (47 ha)....  Private...........  R. infernalis.
                                   Cave.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Totals........................  62 caves 35 Units.  6,906 ac (2,795
                                                       ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates caves and associated lands managed under the La Cantera HCP.
\1.\ Cave is located on Camp Bullis; proposed critical habitat is outside Camp Bullis but most likely includes
  mesocaverns of the cave.
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    Table 3 shows whether the critical habitat units were known to be 
occupied at the time of listing. At the time of listing, we were 
unaware of several caves or whether some of the caves we did know about 
were occupied. Therefore, a ``No'' is listed in Table 3 for units where 
surveys had not yet been conducted or the species had not yet been 
found in previous surveys. All units are currently occupied.

[[Page 9889]]



Table 3--Occupancy of One or More of the Nine Bexar County Invertebrates
                   by Proposed Critical Habitat Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Known to be
              Unit                 occupied at time        Currently
                                      of listing?          occupied?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
1b..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
1c..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
1d..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
1e..............................  No................  Yes.
1f..............................  No................  Yes.
2...............................  Yes...............  Yes.
3...............................  Yes...............  Yes.
4...............................  Yes...............  Yes.
5...............................  Yes...............  Yes.
6...............................  Yes...............  Yes.
7...............................  Yes...............  Yes.
8...............................  Yes...............  Yes.
9...............................  Yes...............  Yes.
10a.............................  Yes...............  Yes.
10b.............................  Yes...............  Yes.
11a.............................  Yes...............  Yes.
11b.............................  Yes...............  Yes.
11c.............................  Yes...............  Yes.
11d.............................  No................  Yes.
11e.............................  No................  Yes.
12..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
13..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
14..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
15..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
16..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
17..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
19..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
20..............................  Yes...............  Yes.
21..............................  No................  Yes.
22..............................  No................  Yes.
23..............................  No................  Yes.
24..............................  No................  Yes.
25..............................  No................  Yes.
26..............................  No................  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 shows the units and total area of proposed critical habitat 
for each of the nine Bexar County invertebrates.

  Table 4--Unit Number and Total Area of Proposed Critical Habitat for
               Each of the Nine Bexar County Invertebrates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Total area of
         Listed species            Critical habitat    critical habitat
                                        unit(s)        acres (hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. exilis (ground beetle, no      1b, 1d, 1e, 2, 3,   4,163 ac (1,684
 common name).                     4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,   ha).
                                   11a, 11b, 11c,
                                   11d, 11e, 12, 13,
                                   21, 24.
R. infernalis (ground beetle, no  1a, 1b, 1d, 1e,     4,505 ac (1,823
 common name).                     1f, 2, 3, 4, 5,     ha).
                                   6, 8, 10a, 10b,
                                   14, 15, 16, 17,
                                   19, 23, 26.
Helotes mold beetle (B. venyivi)  1e, 3, 5..........  932 ac (377 ha).
Cokendolpher Cave harvestman (T.  20................  247 ac (100 ha).
 cokendolpheri).
Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (C.  20, 25............  424 ac (172 ha).
 baronia).
Madla Cave meshweaver (C. madla)  1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2,  3,103 ac (1,256
                                   3, 5, 6, 8, 9,      ha).
                                   17, 22.
Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (C.    15................  339 ac (137 ha).
 venii).
Government Canyon Bat Cave        1b................  178 ac (72 ha).
 meshweaver (C. vespera).
Government Canyon Bat Cave        1b................  178 ac (72 ha).
 spider (N. microps).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates below.

Unit 1a

    We are proposing to designate 238 ac (96 ha) of State-owned land in 
Unit 1a located in northwestern Bexar County in the northwestern part 
of Government Canyon State Natural Area (GCSNA) in the Government 
Canyon KFR for the Madla Cave meshweaver and R. infernalis. The GCSNA 
is an area of

[[Page 9890]]

approximately 8,622 ac (2,688 ha) owned and managed by the Texas Parks 
and Wildlife Department (TPWD). The GCSNA is accessible to the public 
under certain restrictions. This unit is all undeveloped native 
woodland and is crossed by a wet weather stream and a trail. Unit 1a 
contains Surprise Sink Cave, which is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver 
and R. infernalis, and Bone Pile Cave, which is occupied by R. 
infernalis. The Surprise Sink Cave may also be occupied by Government 
Canyon Bat Cave spider, but the specimen collected has not been 
confirmed (Zara 2010, p. 2). The caves in this unit were occupied at 
the time of listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs for the 
species.
    The main threat in this unit is infestation of fire ants. The GCSNA 
currently has a management plan in place that includes treating for 
fire ants and managing for the benefit of the Madla Cave meshweaver and 
R. infernalis.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 ha) 
around each of the two caves and connecting the edges of the 
overlapping circles. Unit 1a is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 1b

    In Unit 1b, we are proposing 178 ac (72 ha) of State-owned land 
located in northwest Bexar County in the western portion of the GCSNA 
in the Government Canyon KFR for the Government Canyon Bat Cave 
meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cave spider, R. exilis, and R. 
infernalis. Land within the proposed unit consists of undeveloped 
native vegetation. However, there are several one-lane gravel roads 
that serve primarily as pedestrian trails within the State natural 
area. A small portion of the vegetation appears to have been cleared 
for ranching prior to TPWD ownership. The unit contains one cave, 
Government Canyon Bat Cave, which is the only known cave occupied by 
the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver. The cave is also occupied by 
Government Canyon Bat Cave spider, R. exilis, and R. infernalis. The 
Government Canyon Bat Cave was occupied at the time of listing, and the 
unit contains all the PCEs.
    The main threat to species in this unit is infestation of fire 
ants. While GCSNA currently has a management plan in place that 
includes treating for fire ants and managing for the benefit of the 
species.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave. The unit is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 1c

    We are proposing 178 ac (72 ha) of State-owned land in Unit 1c 
located in northwestern Bexar County in the central part of GCSNA in 
the Government Canyon KFR for the Madla Cave meshweaver. This unit is 
primarily undeveloped native woodland that is crossed by a hiking 
trail. There is only one cave in this unit, Lost Pothole Cave. The cave 
was occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs 
for the species. A small amount of the woody vegetation in this unit 
has been cleared in the past for ranching prior to TPWD ownership.
    The main threat to the cave is infestation of fire ants. While 
GCSNA currently has a management plan in place that includes treating 
for fire ants and managing for the benefit of the species.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a 0.3-mi (0.5-km) radius around 
the cave. The entire unit is Karst Zone 1.

Unit 1d

    In Unit 1d, we are proposing 349 ac (141 ha) of State-owned land 
located in northwestern Bexar County in the central part of the GCSNA 
in the Government Canyon KFR for the Madla Cave meshweaver, R. exilis, 
and R. infernalis . This unit is wooded and undeveloped. The unit is 
primarily native vegetation, but small portions of the unit appear to 
have been thinned in the past for ranching prior to TPWD ownership. 
Unit 1d contains three caves: Dancing Rattler Cave, Lithic Ridge Cave, 
and Hackberry Sink. The Lithic Ridge Cave is occupied by Madla Cave 
meshweaver, R. exilis, and R. infernalis. The Dancing Rattler Cave and 
Hackberry Sink are occupied by R. infernalis. The caves in this unit 
were occupied at the time of listing and contain all the PCEs for the 
species.
    The main threat to the unit is infestation of fire ants, but the 
GCSNA currently has a management plan in place that includes treating 
for fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a 0.3-mi (0.5-km) radius around 
each of the three caves and connecting the edges of the overlapping 
circles. The entire unit is Karst Zone 1.

Unit 1e

    We are proposing 690 ac (279 ha) in Unit 1e in northwestern Bexar 
County that includes the northeastern part of State-owned GCSNA, 
adjacent City of San Antonio-owned land, and private land in the 
Government Canyon KFR for the Madla Cave meshweaver, R. infernalis, R. 
exilis, and Helotes mold beetle. The majority of Unit 1e consists of 
undeveloped land with the exception of several small private and/or 
county roads. Woody vegetation has been thinned for ranching on a small 
area of the northeastern part of the unit. Unit 1e contains eight 
caves. Four caves are occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver (Fat Man's 
Nightmare Cave, Pig Cave, San Antonio Ranch Pit, and Scenic Overlook 
Cave). Fat Man's Nightmare Cave is also occupied by R. infernalis; Pig 
Cave is also occupied by R. infernalis and R. exilis; San Antonio Ranch 
Pit is occupied by R. infernalis, R. exilis, and Helotes mold beetle; 
and Scenic Overlook Cave is occupied by R. infernalis and Helotes mold 
beetle. The unit also contains Canyon Ranch Pit and Continental Park 
Cave, which are occupied by R. infernalis, Creek Bank Cave occupied by 
R exilis, and Tight Cave occupied by R. exilis and Helotes mold beetle. 
It is not known if the caves were occupied at the time of listing, but 
they currently are, and the unit contains all the PCEs for the species.
    The major threats to the unit are infestation of fire ants and 
vandalism from unauthorized access. Five of the caves in this unit are 
owned by GCSNA, and they currently have a management plan in place that 
includes treating for fire ants and managing for the benefit of the 
species.
    Three of the eight known occupied caves within this unit and their 
associated preserve lands are being considered for exclusion. The 75-ac 
(30-ha) Canyon Ranch Preserve, which was acquired and is managed by La 
Cantera under their HCP, contains Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare 
Cave, and Scenic Overlook Cave. According to the La Cantera HCP, these 
three caves and the surrounding preserve lands will be managed in 
perpetuity for the conservation of the species.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around each of the eight caves and joining the edges of the overlapping 
circles. The entire unit is Karst Zone 1.

Unit 1f

    For Unit 1f, we are proposing 178 ac (72 ha) of State-owned land in 
northwest Bexar County in the southeastern part of the GCSNA in the 
Government Canyon KFR for R. infernalis. The unit is entirely native 
woodland, but a small amount appears to have been cleared in the past 
for ranching prior to TPWD ownership. It contains only one cave, which 
is named 10k Cave. We do not know if the cave was occupied at the time 
of listing, but it is currently, and the unit contains all the PCEs for 
the species.

[[Page 9891]]

    The major threats to Unit 1f are infestation of fire ants. The 
GCSNA currently has a management plan in place that includes 
controlling fire ants and managing for the benefit of the species.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave. The unit is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 2

    We are proposing 252 ac (102 ha) of private land in Unit 2 located 
in northwestern Bexar County north of Bandera Road and southeast of 
High Bluff Road in the Helotes KFR for Madla Cave meshweaver, R. 
infernalis, and R. exilis. This unit contains a mix of large, wooded 
tracts with several residential buildings, cleared areas, a quarry on 
the southeastern edge, and private or county roads. The entire unit is 
private land.
    Unit 2 contains two caves. The Madla's Drop Cave is occupied by 
Madla Cave meshweaver and R. infernalis. This unit also contains 
Logan's Cave, which is occupied by R. infernalis and R. exilis. These 
caves were occupied at the time of listing, and parts of the unit 
contain all the PCEs for the species. There are two paved roads that 
cross the cave cricket foraging area of this unit and act as barriers 
to cricket movement.
    This unit requires special management because of residential 
development. Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat 
from vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the 
unit, drying of karst, reduction of nutrient input, and infestation of 
fire ants.
    This unit was delineated constructing a 0.3-mi (0.5-km) radius 
around each of the two caves and connecting the edges of the 
overlapping circles. Areas of Karst Zone 3 karst along the western, 
northwestern, and southern portions of the unit were removed in order 
to substantially reduce fragmentation of the unit. The rest of Unit 2 
is Karst Zone 1.

Unit 3

    For Unit 3, we are proposing 125 ac (51 ha) of private land in 
northwestern Bexar County, east of Bandera Road and northwest of Scenic 
Loop in the Helotes KFR for the Madla Cave meshweaver, R. infernalis, 
R. exilis, and Helotes mold beetle. The unit contains relatively large, 
wooded tracts. This unit contains two caves, Helotes Blowhole and 
Helotes Hilltop. The Helotes Blowhole is occupied by Madla Cave 
meshweaver, R. infernalis, and R. exilis. The Helotes Hilltop Cave is 
occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver, R. exilis, and Helotes mold beetle. 
Both caves were occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains 
all the PCEs for the species.
    Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from 
vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, 
and infestation of fire ants. In addition, the land along the northern 
side of the unit has been developed with residential homes. Unit 3 
contains several small residential roads and is crossed by Bandera 
Road, a four-lane divided highway, in its southwestern corner. This 
unit does not include the entire 344-ft (105-m) cave cricket foraging 
area around Helotes Hilltop Cave in Karst Zone 3 because there is a 
paved road creates a barrier to cave cricket movement.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a 0.3-mi (0.5-km) radius around 
each of the two caves and following the edge of Karst Zone 1 (Veni 
2003) within the overlapping circles. Some areas of Zone 3 are included 
along the eastern boundary of the unit to include more of the cave 
cricket foraging area for Helotes Hilltop Cave. Areas of Zone 3 along 
all but a part of the northern portion of the unit were removed. The 
rest of Unit 3 is Karst Zone 1.
    This unit is being considered for exclusion, because the two caves 
and the approximately 25 ac (10-ha) of land surrounding the caves were 
acquired under the La Cantera HCP. These caves and the surrounding 
preserve lands will be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of 
the species. The remainder of the unit requires special management 
because of the presence of roads and residential development.

Unit 4

    For Unit 4, we are proposing 255 ac (103 ha) of private land in 
northwestern Bexar County, west of the intersection of Scenic Loop and 
Cross XD Road in the UTSA KFR for R. exilis and R. infernalis. Tower 
View Road and Cash Mountain Road cross the northern part of the unit, 
and Rafter S and Cross XD cross the southern part. Unit 4 contains 
three caves. The Kamikazi Cricket Cave is occupied by R. exilis and R. 
infernalis. The Mattke and Scorpion Caves are occupied by R. 
infernalis. These three caves were occupied at the time of listing, and 
parts of the unit contain all the PCEs for the species.
    Several threats impact this unit, including the potential for 
destruction of habitat from vandalism and potential future development, 
contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of 
karst areas, reduction of nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants. 
In addition, this unit contains several residential roads, but no major 
roadways or highways. Lands surrounding Unit 4 consist of relatively 
large, residential tracts. The unit requires special management because 
of threats from existing and potential future residential development.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3-mi (0.5-km) 
around each of the three caves and removing most areas of Karst Zone 3 
from the unit. Large portions of the northern, southern, and western 
edges of Karst Zone 3 inside the circle were removed. Some areas of 
Karst Zone 3 were included along the western, northern, and southern 
edges of the cave cricket protection areas of Kamikaze Cricket and 
Mattke Caves. The remainder of the unit is Karst Zone 1. The unit was 
expanded beyond the 0.3 mi (0.5 km) area to the east and south of 
Kamikaze Cricket Cave and to the north and east of Mattke and Scorpion 
Caves in order to include at least 100 ac (40 ha) of native vegetation.

Unit 5

    In Unit 5, we are proposing 117 ac (47 ha) of private land in 
northwestern Bexar County, northwest of Cedar Crest Drive and north of 
Madla Ranch Road in the Helotes KFR for the R. exilis, R. infernalis, 
Helotes mold beetle, and Madla Cave Meshweaver. The unit contains a 
large tract of undeveloped woodland and several smaller, wooded tracts 
developed with homes and associated residential roads. This unit 
contains one cave, Christmas Cave, which is occupied by R. exilis, R. 
infernalis, Helotes mold beetle, and Madla Cave Meshweaver. The cave 
was occupied at the time of listing and parts of the unit contain all 
the PCEs for the species. However, there are homes and associated roads 
within the cave cricket foraging area of the cave.
    The unit requires special management because of the presence of 
residential development and impending future development. Threats 
include the potential for destruction of habitat from development and 
vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, 
reduction of moisture and nutrients, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave entrance and following the edge of Karst Zone 1 within 
the circle. Some areas of Zone 3 are included along the southeastern 
boundary of the unit to include the cave cricket foraging area for 
Christmas Cave. The rest of Unit 5 is Karst Zone 1.

Unit 6

    For Unit 6, we are proposing 105 ac (42 ha) of private and City of 
San Antonio-owned land located in

[[Page 9892]]

northwestern Bexar County, bordered to the south by Menchaca Road and 
to the west by Morningside Drive in the UTSA KFR for the Madla Cave 
meshweaver, R. exilis, and R. infernalis. Unit 6 consists primarily of 
large, undeveloped, woodland tracts with several smaller areas 
developed with homes. The John Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3 is the only cave 
in this unit, and it is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver, R. exilis, 
and R. infernalis. The cave was occupied at the time of listing, and 
the unit contains all the PCEs for species.
    Threats to the unit include the potential for destruction of 
habitat from potential future development and vandalism, contamination 
of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, and infestation of fire 
ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around John Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3 and following the general boundary 
of Karst Zone 1, primarily the northeastern quadrant of the circle. A 
portion of the cave cricket foraging and protection area in Karst Zone 
3 was included in the unit. The majority of land included in Unit 6 is 
in Karst Zone 1. The unit was expanded slightly outside the 0.3-mi 
(0.5-km) radius to the northern to eastern edge of the unit in order to 
include a minimum of 100 ac (40 ha) of native vegetation.
    The John Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3 and approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha) 
surrounding the cave were acquired as part of the La Cantera HCP. 
Therefore, the cave and surrounding preserve lands will be managed in 
perpetuity for the conservation of the species. This part of the unit 
is being considered for exclusion in the final critical habitat rule.

Unit 7

    We are proposing 158 ac (64 ha) of private land in Unit 7 located 
in northwestern Bexar County, south of Babcock Road near the 
intersection of Cielo Vista Drive and Luna Vista in the UTSA KFR for R. 
exilis. The unit is largely wooded, but there is some development in 
the north and eastern parts of the unit. Unit 7 contains one cave known 
as Young Cave No. 1 and it is occupied by R. exilis. The cave was 
occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs for 
the species.
    This unit requires special management because of residential 
development. There is a new road, Camino del Sol, which ends east of 
Young Cave No. 1, and is located within the cave cricket foraging area. 
Also, residential homes are located on the south part of this unit in 
the cave cricket protection area. Other threats include the potential 
for destruction of habitat from vandalism and new construction, 
contamination of the subsurface drainage area, drying of karst 
features, reduction of nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    Unit 7 was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) around 
Young Cave No. 1 and including the general boundary of Karst Zone 1 in 
the circle. A portion of the cave cricket foraging and protection area 
in Karst Zone 3 is included in the unit.

Unit 8

    In Unit 8, we are proposing 471 ac (191 ha) of private and City of 
San Antonio's Medallion Park land located in northwestern Bexar County 
in the UTSA KFR for the Madla Cave meshweaver, R. exilis, and R. 
infernalis. The unit is bordered on the northwest by Kyle Seale 
Parkway, on the northeast by Moss Brook Drive, and on the south by 
Cotton Trail Lane. Some of the land is undeveloped woodland, but some 
areas on the edges of the unit have been developed or have been cleared 
for future development. This unit contains three caves: Three Fingers 
Cave, Hills and Dales Pit, and Robber's Cave. The Hills and Dales Pit 
and Robber's Cave are occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver, R. exilis, and 
R. infernalis. The Three Fingers Cave is occupied by R. exilis and R. 
infernalis. This unit was occupied at the time of listing, and portions 
of the unit contain all the PCEs for the species.
    The southeastern, extreme southern, northeastern, and northwestern 
portions of this unit have been subdivided and developed with homes. 
Several roads cross the unit. The extreme southern portion of the unit 
has higher density development. Part of the unit has been developed 
with residential roads, but it currently contains no homes. Threats in 
this unit include the potential for destruction of habitat from 
vandalism and potential future development, contamination of the 
subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of karst features, 
reduction of nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around each of the three caves and connecting the resulting overlapping 
circles. Unit 8 is entirely Karst Zone 1.
    The Hills and Dales Pit and approximately 70 ac (28 ha) surrounding 
the cave have been acquired as part of the La Cantera HCP. Therefore, 
the cave and surrounding preserve lands will be managed in perpetuity 
for the conservation of the species. This area is being considered for 
exclusion from the final critical habitat rule.

Unit 9

    For Unit 9, we are proposing 286 ac (116 ha) of State and private 
land in north-central Bexar County on both sides of Loop 1604 and east 
of the Loop 1604 intersection with IH 10 in the UTSA KFR for the Madla 
Cave meshweaver and R. exilis. There is a large tract of undeveloped 
woodland to the south and dense commercial development in the north. 
Also, this unit has a major shopping mall in the northwestern area. The 
unit is bordered to the west by the University of Texas at San Antonio 
campus and to the east by commercial development. Unit 9 contains four 
caves: Mastodon Pit, Feature No. 50, La Cantera Cave No. 1, and La 
Cantera Cave No. 2. La Cantera Cave No. 1 is occupied by Madla Cave 
meshweaver and R. exilis. Feature No. 50 is occupied by Madla Cave 
meshweaver. The two other caves, Mastodon Pit and La Cantera Cave No. 
2, contain only R. exilis. All four caves were occupied at the time of 
listing, and the southern part of the unit has all of the PCEs for the 
species. Most of the northern part of the unit does not contain the PCE 
of a healthy surface community of native plants and animals. We are 
proposing it on the basis that it contains the PCE of karst-forming 
rock containing subterranean spaces.
    Because of the commercial development and roadways that border and 
cross the unit, Unit 9 requires special management. Threats include the 
potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism and potential 
future development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of 
the unit, drying of karst features from impervious cover, reduction of 
nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around each of the four caves and connecting the resulting overlapping 
circles. The majority of the land included in Unit 9 is Karst Zone 1.

Unit 10a

    We are proposing 67 ac (27 ha) of private and City of San Antonio's 
Eisenhower Park land in Unit 10a located in north central Bexar County 
outside the easternmost portion of the southern boundary of Camp Bullis 
(a military reservation) in the Stone Oak KFR for R. infernalis. The 
eastern part of the unit is in the City of San Antonio's Eisenhower 
Park, which is used for picnicking, camping, hiking, jogging, and 
nature study. The

[[Page 9893]]

remainder of the unit is in private ownership. The unit is almost 
entirely undeveloped, but contains some unpaved roads and hiking 
trails. This unit was occupied at the time of listing, and contains all 
the PCEs of the species.
    The Low Priority Cave is located on Camp Bullis and contains R. 
infernalis. However, the Low Priority Cave's entrance is not included 
in the unit (since it is exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act; see 
Exemptions below), but its drainages are included in this unit.
    The unit requires special management because of human use of the 
park and possible future development on private land and the presence 
of trails and a secondary roadway in the unit. Threats include the 
potential for destruction of surface vegetation, contamination of the 
subsurface drainage area of the unit, and infestation of fire ants.
    Unit 10a was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave entrance and removing the portion of the circle within 
Camp Bullis. Camp Bullis was removed according to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see Exemptions section, 
below). The unit is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 10b

    In Unit 10b, we are proposing 66 ac (27 ha) of the City of San 
Antonio's Eisenhower Park in north-central Bexar County, east of Unit 
10a and along the southern boundary of Camp Bullis in the Stone Oak KFR 
for R. infernalis. The unit is mostly wooded and is entirely in the 
City of San Antonio's Eisenhower Park. The Flying Buzzworm Cave, which 
contains R. infernalis, is located on Camp Bullis. An immature blind 
Cicurina has been collected from the cave, but has not been identified 
to species. The cave was occupied at the time of listing. Unit 10b 
contains the PCEs for the species.
    The unit requires special management because of human use of the 
park and the presence of trails and a secondary roadway in the unit. 
Threats include the potential for destruction of surface vegetation, 
contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave entrance and removing the portion of the circle within 
Camp Bullis according to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see Exemptions section, below). Therefore, the 
Flying Buzzworm Cave's entrance is not included in the unit, but its 
drainages and mesocaverns are. A small area of Karst Zone 2 was also 
removed because it was not in the cave cricket foraging area. Unit 10b 
contains part of its cave cricket foraging area and contiguous Karst 
Zone 1.

Unit 11a

    We are proposing 21 ac (8.5 ha) of private land in Unit 11a in 
north-central Bexar County, outside the southern boundary of Camp 
Bullis, and southeast of Wilderness Road in the Stone Oak KFR for R. 
exilis. This unit is primarily undisturbed native vegetation. An 
unnamed road borders the unit on the northern boundary and crosses it 
close to its western edge. Two buildings are located in the 
northeastern and northwestern corners of the unit. Up the Creek Cave is 
located on adjacent Camp Bullis and contains R. exilis. The cave was 
occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs for 
the species.
    The unit requires special management because of the potential for 
trespassing and future development. Threats include destruction of 
habitat from vandalism and potential future development, contamination 
of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of karst features 
from impervious cover, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of fire 
ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave and including all Karst Zone 1 outside of Camp Bullis 
in the resulting circle. Camp Bullis was removed according to section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see Exemptions 
section, below). The southwest portion along the edge of the circle was 
not included because it is Karst Zone 2. Even though the cave's 
entrance is not included in this unit, its drainages and mesocaverns 
are. The resulting unit is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 11b

    We are proposing 16 ac (6.5 ha) of private land in Unit 11b in 
north-central Bexar County in the Stone Oak KFR for R. exilis. The unit 
is outside the southern boundary of Camp Bullis and is east of unit 
11a. There are two small, cleared areas about 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) in size 
along the northern unit border, and vegetation appears to have been 
thinned in parts of the unit in the past. The unit is bordered on the 
north by an unnamed road. A cave called Bunny Hole, which is on 
adjacent Camp Bullis, is occupied by R. exilis. The cave was occupied 
at the time of listing, and the unit contains all of the PCEs for the 
species.
    The unit requires special management because of the potential for 
future development. Threats include destruction of habitat from 
vandalism and potential future development, contamination of the 
subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of karst features from 
impervious cover, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave and including all Karst Zone 1 outside of Camp Bullis 
according to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see Exemptions section, below). The unit is all 
Karst Zone 1.

Unit 11c

    We are proposing 21 ac (8.5 ha) of private land in Unit 11c outside 
the eastern boundary of Camp Bullis in north-central Bexar County in 
the Stone Oak KFR for R. exilis. Unit 11c contains a small amount of 
native vegetation and is crossed by Blanco Road along its western edge, 
a major north-south thoroughfare, and by Wilderness Oak and Ranch Oak 
Roads that cross the unit from east to west. The southern part of the 
unit has some commercial development. Poor Boy Bacculum Cave on 
adjacent Camp Bullis contains R. exilis. The cave was occupied at the 
time of listing. A portion of the unit has the surface PCEs for the 
species, but most of the unit contains only the PCE of subterranean 
karst-forming rock.
    The unit requires special management because of the presence of 
existing roadways and commercial development and potential future 
development. Threats include destruction of habitat from vandalism and 
potential future development, contamination of the subsurface drainage 
area of the unit, drying of karst features from impervious and water 
diversion, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave and including all Karst Zone 1 outside of Camp Bullis 
according to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see Exemptions section, below). Unit 11c is all 
Karst Zone 1.

Unit 11d

    In Unit 11d, we are proposing 52 ac (21 ha) of private land located 
outside the eastern boundary of Camp Bullis in north-central Bexar 
County in the Stone Oak KFR for R. exilis. Unit 11d contains some 
landscaped areas, but it is crossed by Blanco Road on its western edge 
and by Goldcrest Run, a road parallel to Blanco Road and slightly to 
the east. Unit 11d contains a substantial amount of commercial 
development and a large parking lot. The unit does contain the first 
two PCEs, and has a few landscaped areas with some with trees,

[[Page 9894]]

but does not contain the PCE of healthy native surface vegetation. The 
Root Toupee Cave, which is on adjacent Camp Bullis, contains R. exilis. 
We do not know if the cave was occupied at the time of listing, but it 
currently is. We are proposing it as critical habitat in order to 
provide protection for the mesocaverns and other subsurface features.
    The unit requires special management because of due to the presence 
of existing roadways, commercial development, and potential future 
development. Threats include destruction of habitat from vandalism and 
potential future development, contamination of the subsurface drainage 
area of the unit, drying of karst features from impervious cover and 
storm water diversion, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of fire 
ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave and including all Karst Zone 1 outside of Camp Bullis 
according to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see Exemptions section, below). Unit 11d is entirely 
Karst Zone 1.

Unit 11e

    In Unit 11e, we are proposing 102 ac (41 ha) of private land 
outside the eastern boundary of Camp Bullis in north-central Bexar 
County for R. exilis. Unit 11e contains a substantial amount of 
residential development with landscaped areas and is crossed by Blanco 
Road on its western edge, Cardigan Chase Road near its eastern edge, 
and Calico Chase Road across most of its central portion. Blanco Cave, 
located in the Blanco Road right-of-way, contains R. exilis. The cave 
was occupied at the time of listing, and only the area within Camp 
Bullis, which is being exempted, contains all the PCEs for the species.
    The unit requires special management because of the presence of 
existing roadways, commercial development, and potential future 
development. Threats include destruction of habitat from vandalism and 
potential future development, contamination of the subsurface drainage 
area of the unit, drying of karst features, reduced nutrient input, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave and including all Karst Zone 1 outside of Camp Bullis 
within the resulting circle. Camp Bullis was exempted according to 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see 
Exemptions section, below). Because it did not meet the criteria for 
delineating critical habitat, an area of Zones 2 and 3 was removed from 
the northern part of the arc. The portion of the circle within Camp 
Bullis (west of the unit) contains the PCE of healthy native surface 
vegetation. The unit is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 12

    In Unit 12, we are proposing 371 ac (150 ha) of private land in 
north-central Bexar County, east of the intersection of U.S. Highway 
281 and Evans Road in the Stone Oak KFR for R. exilis. The unit is 
bordered to the east by U.S. Highway 281, to the south by a quarry and 
to the west by a school and some residential development. Evans Road, 
another major roadway, crosses the north central part of the unit. With 
the exception of a U.S. 281 and its right of way and a small amount of 
floodway in the western portion and part of a middle school, the unit 
is in private ownership. Most of the unit has been developed as a 
single-family homes subdivision. The unit also includes some commercial 
development in the northeast portion. However, small amounts of 
undeveloped land are located in the southern, northern, and 
northwestern part of the unit.
    Unit 12 contains the Hairy Tooth and Ragin' Cajun Caves, which are 
occupied by R. exilis. Both caves were occupied at the time of listing. 
This unit does contain the first two PCEs, but most of Unit 12 does not 
contain the PCE of a healthy surface native plant community near to the 
occupied caves. The cave cricket foraging areas are impacted by houses 
and streets. However, this area has been delineated to protect 
mesocaverns and other subsurface features that are necessary for the 
conservation of the species.
    The unit requires special management because of the commercial 
development and roadways that border the unit. Threats include the 
potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism, future 
development, operation of a quarry, contamination of the subsurface 
drainage area of the unit, karst drying, reduction of nutrient input, 
and infestation of fire ants.
    Unit 12 was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around each of the two caves and joining the edges of the two 
overlapping circles. A portion of the extreme southern area was removed 
from the unit because it contains an active quarry which has removed 
some of the karst, as the karst is covered only by a thin layer of soil 
in Karst Zone 1. The area to the north and northeast was expanded 
outside the 0.3 mi radius to include at least 100 ac (40 ha) of 
vegetation, necessary for units in areas with high surface impacts, as 
described in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section 
above. All of Unit 12 is Karst Zone 1.

Unit 13

    In Unit 13, we are proposing 187 ac (76 ha) of developed and 
undeveloped private land located in northeastern Bexar County in the 
Stone Oak KFR with the intersection of Bulverde Road and Ridgeway Drive 
at the middle of its northern edge for R. exilis. This unit contains 
one cave named Black Cat Cave. The cave was occupied by R. exilis at 
the time of listing, and part of the unit contains all the PCEs for the 
species. The cave opening is a short distance Bulverde Road, which 
crosses its cave footprint and cave cricket foraging area. The northern 
part of the unit, including about half of the cave cricket foraging 
area and protection area, is developed with dense residential 
development west of Bulverde Road, and a lower density subdivision to 
the east. Bulverde Road, a major two-lane roadway, crosses the middle 
of the unit from north to south. The southern part of the unit on both 
sides of Bulverde road is undeveloped. The southeastern part of the 
unit was expanded slightly to include at least 100 ac (40 ha) of native 
vegetation.
    This unit requires special management because of residential 
development and roadways. Threats include the potential for destruction 
of habitat from vandalism, operation of a quarry, potential future 
development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, 
drying of karst features from impervious cover and storm water 
diversion, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave. Additional undeveloped land was added to the unit 
outside the southeastern edge to include at least 100 ac (40 ha) of 
surface vegetation, necessary for units in areas with high surface 
impacts, as described in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat 
section above. All of Unit 13 is Karst Zone 1.

Unit 14

    In Unit 14, we are proposing 330 ac (134 ha) of private land in 
western Bexar County, west of the end of Louis Agusta Drive in the 
Culebra Anticline KFR for R. infernalis. The unit includes several 
large tracts of undeveloped woodland. There is a major roadway, Stevens 
Parkway, in this unit, and it is in the process of being extended from 
the southwestern to western part of the unit. Some of the vegetation 
has been

[[Page 9895]]

cleared in the past for ranching. Three caves occur in this unit: Game 
Pasture Cave No. 1, Stevens Ranch Trash Hole Cave, and King Toad Cave. 
All three caves are known to contain R. infernalis and all were 
occupied at the time of listing. This unit contains all the PCEs of the 
species.
    The unit requires special management because of potential future 
residential and commercial development and trespassing. Threats include 
the potential for destruction of surface vegetation and karst habitat, 
contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of 
karst features, reduction of nutrient input, and infestation of fire 
ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around each of the three caves and connecting the edges of the 
resulting overlapping circles. Unit 14 is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 15

    In this unit, we are proposing 339 ac (137 ha) of private land 
located in western Bexar County, west of Talley Road and north of Farm 
to Market Road 1957 in the Culebra Anticline KFR for the Bracken Bat 
Cave meshweaver and R. infernalis. The majority of the lands within 
Unit 15 are within a subdivision, and all are privately owned. Tracts 
in the subdivision are relatively large and still contain wooded 
vegetation, but there is some high-density residential development in 
the eastern part of the unit. Some native vegetation remains in this 
unit, but the cave cricket foraging areas around all of the occupied 
caves have been fragmented by roads and houses. A substantial amount of 
the vegetation appears, from the examination of aerial photographs, to 
be nonnative landscaped grasses. This unit contains four caves: Braken 
Bat Cave, Isopit, Obvious Little Cave, and Wurzback Bat Cave. Bracken 
Bat Cave is the only one that contains the Bracken Bat Cave meshweaver. 
All four caves are known to contain R. infernalis and all were occupied 
at the time of listing. The undeveloped parts of this unit contain all 
the PCEs for the species.
    The unit requires special management because of the proximity of 
development, the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism, 
and the lack of a healthy surface community of plants and animals. 
Threats include potential future development, contamination of the 
subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of karst, reduction of 
nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated to encompass a 0.3 mi (0.5 km) area around 
each of the four caves and connecting the edges of the overlapping 
circles. All of Unit 15 is Karst Zone 1.

Unit 16

    In Unit 16, we are proposing 194 ac (79 ha) of private land in 
western Bexar County in the Culebra Anticline KFR for R. infernalis. 
The Unit contains several large, primarily undeveloped tracts of 
woodland. However, Loop 1604, a major highway, bisects the eastern part 
of the unit. A high-density residential subdivision is in the eastern 
part of the unit, and a quarry is within the southern portion. With the 
exception of Loop 1604 and its cleared right-of-way, most of the 
remainder of the unit is vegetated. But, some vegetation in the 
northern and northwestern part of the unit has been removed for 
livestock grazing. The Caracol Creek Coon Cave is the only cave in this 
unit and it is occupied by R. infernalis. The unit was occupied at the 
time of listing, and part of the unit contains all the PCEs for the 
species. However, part of the cave's footprint is under Loop 1604, and 
the highway has impacted parts of the cave cricket foraging and 
protection areas.
    The unit requires special management because of the proximity of 
roads, existing and potential future development. Threats include 
potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism, quarry operation, 
and potential new development, contamination of the subsurface drainage 
area of the unit, drying of karst features, reduction of nutrient 
input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave. The unit was expanded outside that distance to the 
west and northwest to include at least 100 ac (40 ha) of vegetation 
around the cave opening, necessary for units in areas with high surface 
impacts, as described in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat 
section above. Most of Unit 16 is Karst Zone 1, except a small part of 
Karst Zone 2 on its western edge.

Unit 17

    In Unit 17, we are proposing 114 ac (46 ha) of private land in 
northwest Bexar County east of Scenic Loop Road and south of Madla 
Ranch Road in the Helotes KFR for the Madla Cave meshweaver and R. 
infernalis. The unit contains some houses and paved roads in the 
eastern portion, and one house in the southeastern portion. The unit 
contains one cave called Madla's Cave, which is occupied by Madla Cave 
meshweaver and R. infernalis. The cave was occupied at the time of 
listing, and the unit has all the PCEs of the species.
    Madla's Cave and the surrounding approximately 5 ac (2 ha) has been 
acquired in accordance with the La Cantera HCP, which also requires 
that the cave and the surrounding preserve lands be managed in 
perpetuity for the conservation of the species. We are considering 
excluding this area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because it falls 
under the La Cantera HCP. The remainder of the unit requires special 
management because of the presence of residential development and 
potential future development within the unit. Threats include the 
potential for destruction of habitat from new development and 
vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit 
from future development, reduction of moisture and nutrient input, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave and removing areas that are not Karst Zone 1 from the 
northern and southwestern parts of the resulting circle. However, some 
areas of Karst Zone 3 were left in the unit to encompass the cave 
cricket protection area and to reduce edge effects.

Unit 19

    In Unit 19, we are proposing 142 ac (57 ha) of private land in 
north-central Bexar County near the intersection of Stone Oak Road and 
Loop 1604 in the Stone Oak KFR for R. infernalis. The majority of the 
unit has been developed for residential and/or commercial uses. The 
eastern part of Unit 19 is crossed by Stone Oak Road. Several other 
minor roadways and parking lots are scattered through the unit, and 
part of a golf course is in the northwestern section of the unit. There 
are some trees left in a neighborhood in the northern part of the unit, 
and a few trees are on the golf course. In addition, there is some 
landscaped grass surrounding Genesis Cave, the only cave in this unit. 
This cave is occupied by R. infernalis. The cave was occupied at the 
time of listing, but the unit does not contain the PCE of a healthy 
surface community of native plants and animals. However, we delineate 
this unit as it contains the first two PCEs, and in order to protect 
the mesocaverns and other subsurface karst features that are occupied.
    The unit requires special management because of the high levels of 
residential and commercial development and high impervious cover within 
the unit. Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from 
vandalism and future development, contamination of the subsurface 
drainage area of the unit, drying of karst features from

[[Page 9896]]

impervious cover and storm water diversion, reduced nutrient input, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave entrance and removing areas that are not Karst Zone 1 
from the southern and eastern parts of the unit. The unit is all Karst 
Zone 1.

Unit 20

    In Unit 20, we are proposing 247 ac (100 ha) of private land 
located in north-central part of the City of San Antonio, south of Loop 
410 West, and primarily along Nacogdoches Road northeast of Broadway in 
the Alamo Heights KFR for the Cokendolpher cave harvestman and Robber 
Baron Cave meshweaver. This unit contains one known occupied cave, 
Robber Baron Cave, which is the only known cave for the Cokendolpher 
cave harvestman. It is also one of only two caves known to be occupied 
by Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (OB3 in Unit 25 is the other cave). The 
Robber Baron Cave was occupied at the time of listing and is the 
longest cave in Bexar County, consisting of approximately 0.9 mi (1.5 
km) of passages (Veni 2003, p. 19). The estimated footprint of the cave 
now underlies numerous residential and commercial developments. The 
Texas Cave Management Association (TCMA), a non-profit organization 
dedicated to the study and management of Texas cave resources, now owns 
and manages the cave and about 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) surrounding the opening.
    The unit was occupied at the time of listing; however, surface 
vegetation within Unit 20 has been significantly reduced and degraded 
by urban development, and the only PCE remaining is karst-forming rock 
containing subterranean spaces. Lands within this unit do not contain 
the physical and biological features of a healthy surface community of 
native vegetation or of surface water free of pollutants. The unit 
requires special management because of the high levels of residential 
and commercial development within the unit. Threats include the 
potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism, soil compaction 
from cave visitation, lack of a healthy community of native plants and 
animals, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, 
drying of karst, and infestation of fire ants. Because of the extensive 
development, high levels of impervious cover, and diversion of storm 
water over the cave, intensive management may be needed to provide 
nutrients and water to the karst environment.
    The unit was delineated to encompass the estimated extent of the 
cave's surface and subsurface drainage and all of the contiguous Karst 
Zone 1.

Unit 21

    We are proposing 396 ac (160 ha) of private and City of San 
Antonio-owned land in Unit 21 in northeast Bexar County, northeast of 
the intersection of Evans Road and Stone Oak Parkway for R. exilis. The 
unit contains several large tracts of undeveloped land and several 
smaller tracts developed with homes and residential roads. Mud Creek 
runs through the unit, and part of Unit 21 is the pool area of a flood 
control reservoir owned by the City of San Antonio. The rest of the 
unit is in private ownership. Vegetation in the flood pool area is 
modified by periodic inundation and/or mechanical control by the City 
of San Antonio. The northern and northeastern part of the unit has 
dense residential development, while there is less dense development in 
the western portion. The southeastern corner of the unit also has a 
small amount of residential development. Unit 21 contains three caves: 
Hornet's Last Laugh Pit, Kick Start Cave, and Springtail Crevice. All 
are currently occupied by R. exilis, but they were not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing. Parts of the unit contain all the PCEs 
for the species.
    The unit requires special management because of residential 
development, roadways, and potential for new construction in the unit. 
Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from 
vandalism, operation of a quarry, and potential future development, 
contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, altered 
karst features from stormwater retention, reduced nutrient input, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    Unit 21 was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around each of the three caves and joining the edges of the three 
overlapping circles. The entire unit is Karst Zone 1. One of three 
caves (Springtail Crevice) is located in the pool area of a flood 
control reservoir, and its surface drainage basin covers the entire 
watershed of Mud Creek upstream of the cave, which includes 5,675 ac 
(2,297 ha) of land and extends about 4.3 mi (6.9 km) upstream. We 
included a portion of the watershed beyond the normal 0.3 mi (0.5 mi) 
distance used to delineate units, in order to include stream drainage 
that could provide the moisture necessary to provide humidity to the 
cave and its connected mesocaverns, but we did not include the entire 
surface drainage area for the unit, as it is so large and extends so 
far from the cave and its mesocaverns. The extra area included extends 
in contiguous Karst Zone 1 up the drainage basin about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) 
outside of the 0.3 mi (0.5 km) distance and adds approximately 68 ac 
(28 ha) to the area of the unit. The proposed unit designation includes 
about seven percent of the entire surface watershed.

Unit 22

    In Unit 22, we are proposing 178 ac (72 ha) of private and City of 
San Antonio's Woodland Hills land located in northwestern Bexar County, 
northeast of Babcock Road and northwest of Heuermann Road in the UTSA 
KFR for the Madla Cave meshweaver. The unit is mostly vegetated, but 
contains a few residential sites on its extreme western border. There 
are several unpaved roads and trails, including one within the cave 
cricket foraging area. The unit is mostly undeveloped woodland, but 
some areas appear to have been cleared in the past for ranching. Unit 
22 is a combination of private land and the City of San Antonio's 
Woodland Hills' property, which includes Breathless Cave, the only cave 
in this unit. Breathless Cave is currently occupied by Madla Cave 
meshweaver, but it was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. 
The unit contains all the PCEs for the species.
    The unit requires special management because of the presence of 
residential development and potential future development within the 
unit. Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from new 
development and vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage 
area of the unit from future development, reduction of moisture and 
nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 0.3 mi 
(0.5 km) around Breathless Cave. The resulting unit is mostly Karst 
Zone 1, except for a small sliver of Karst Zone 3 in the southwestern 
corner, which was included because of its narrow width and the 
increased edge effect. Adverse effects of edges include increased 
abundance of invasive plant and animal species. For a detailed 
description, refer to the sections on Edge Effects, Special Management 
Considerations or Protection, and Criteria Used To Identify Critical 
Habitat.

Unit 23

    In Unit 23, we are proposing 178 ac (72 ha) of private land and 
City of San Antonio's Crownridge Canyon Natural Area in northwestern 
Bexar County northeast of Luskey road and east of the end of Fiesta 
Grande in the UTSA KFR for R. infernalis. A large portion of the unit 
is the City of San Antonio's Crownridge Canyon Natural Area, which is 
open to hiking, nature study,

[[Page 9897]]

and wildlife observation. Most of Unit 23 is in native woodland 
vegetation. The western and southwestern portion of the unit has been 
cleared for a residential subdivision. The clearing extends more than 
half way into the western portion of the Crownridge Canyon Cave's cave 
cricket foraging area. The Crownridge Canyon Cave is the only cave in 
this unit and it is occupied by R. infernalis. The cave was not known 
to be occupied at the time of listing, but part of the unit contains 
all the PCEs for the species.
    The unit requires special management because of residential 
development, roadways, and potential for new construction in the unit. 
Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism 
and future development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area 
of the unit, drying of karst features from impervious cover and 
diversion of storm water, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of 
fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave. The unit is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 24

    In Unit 24, we are proposing 11 ac (4.5 ha) of private land in 
north-central Bexar County, but south of Vera Cruz Road in the Stone 
Oak KFR for R. exilis. The unit is composed of undisturbed, native 
vegetation along the western edge of Camp Bullis, which contains the 
Peace Pipe Cave occupied by R. exilis. The cave was not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing, but the unit contains all the PCEs for 
the species.
    The unit requires special management because of the potential for 
future development. Threats include destruction of habitat from 
vandalism and potential future development, contamination of the 
subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of karst features, reduced 
nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the cave and including all Karst Zone 2 outside of Camp Bullis 
in the resulting circle. Camp Bullis was exempted according to section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see Exemptions 
section, below). The habitat was classified as Karst Zone 2 by Veni 
(2003, pp. 10-18) because the Peace Pipe Cave was not discovered until 
2009. At that time, the cave was verified by a species expert to 
contain R. exilis. An area that was Karst Zone 3 was removed from the 
northern portion of the circle outside Camp Bullis because it did not 
meet the criteria for delineating critical habitat. The rest of Unit 24 
is Karst Zone 2.

Unit 25

    In Unit 25, we are proposing 177 ac (72 ha) of private land located 
in northern part of the City of San Antonio near the intersection of 
Shook Avenue and East Kings Highway in the Alamo Heights KFR for the 
Robber Baron Cave meshweaver. This unit contains cave OB3, occupied by 
the Robber Baron Cave meshweaver. The cave feature was discovered 
during excavation in 2009, after the Robber Baron Cave meshweaver had 
already been listed, so it is unknown whether the cave was occupied at 
the time of listing. The surface habitat around this feature has been 
highly modified and is covered with residential and commercial 
development, including numerous streets. Unit 25 also contains 
landscaped lawns, sports fields, and residential and commercial 
development. The unit contains only the PCE of karst-forming rock 
containing subterranean spaces.
    The unit requires special management because of the high levels of 
residential and commercial development within the unit. Threats include 
the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism and potential 
new development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the 
unit, drying of the karst feature, reduction of nutrient input, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around the feature. Because no listed species were known from this area 
of the Alamo Heights KFR when Karst Zones were delineated by Veni 
(2003), the entire unit is located in Karst Zone 2.

Unit 26

    In Unit 26, we are proposing 117 ac (47 ha) of private land in 
western Bexar County southwest of the extension of Stevens Ranch 
Parkway and south of Unit 14 in the Culebra Anticline KFR for R. 
infernalis. This unit is all undeveloped land. Woody vegetation has 
been thinned for ranching in the eastern portion of the unit, while the 
western portion has been more heavily cleared. There is one cave in 
this unit, Max and Roberts Cave, and it currently contains R. 
infernalis. It is unknown if the cave was occupied at the time of 
listing. The cave has two entrances, and this unit contains all the 
PCEs necessary for the conservation of the species.
    The unit requires special management because of potential future 
residential and commercial development and trespassing. Threats include 
the potential for destruction of surface vegetation and karst habitat 
from vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the 
unit, drying of karst habitat, reduction of nutrient input, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a radius of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 
around each of the two cave entrances and connecting the edges of the 
overlapping circles. Unit 26 is primarily Karst Zone 1, but the cave 
cricket foraging and protection area on the western part of the unit 
was included even though it is Karst Zone 3.

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 any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    Decisions by the Fifth and Ninth Circuits Court of Appeals have 
invalidated our definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' 
(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), 
and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether 
an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or 
adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of 
the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain 
functional (or retain those PCEs that relate to the ability of the area 
to periodically support the species) to serve its intended conservation 
role for the species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a

[[Page 9898]]

Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a 
permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve 
some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed 
species or critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that are not Federally funded or authorized, do not 
require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of this consultation, we document compliance with the 
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide 
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are 
identifiable. We define ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50 
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
    Federal activities that may affect any of the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates or their designated critical habitat require section 7 
consultation under the Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from us under section 10 of the 
Act) or involving some other Federal action (such as funding from the 
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency) are subject to the section 7 
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or 
critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local or private lands 
that are not Federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require 
section 7 consultations.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species, or retain those PCEs that relate to 
the ability of the area to periodically support the species. Activities 
that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that 
alter the PCEs to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation 
value of critical habitat for any of the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to 
support the life-history needs of the species and provide for the 
conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore should result 
in consultation for any of the nine Bexar County invertebrates include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would result in removing, thinning, or destroying 
perennial surface vegetation. Such activities could include, but are 
not limited to, burning, wood cutting or other mechanical removal, 
grading, excessive livestock overgrazing, construction, road building, 
mining, and herbicide application. These activities could destroy or 
damage the native plant community and increase the number of nonnative 
plants and animals, including fire ants. The actions could also 
adversely affect cave crickets and other native animals on the surface 
that provide nutrients to the karst ecosystem, reduce other nutrient 
input (for example, leaf litter and roots), reduce water quality, 
reduce humidity of the cave, and change subterranean temperatures.
    (2) Actions that would alter the surface topography or subsurface 
geology resulting in a disruption of ecosystem processes necessary to 
sustain the cave environment. Such activities could include, but are 
not limited to, filling cave entrances or otherwise reducing airflow in 
a way that limits oxygen availability; modifying cave entrances or 
creating new entrances that increase airflow in a way that results in 
drying of the karst features; altering natural drainage patterns, 
surface or subsurface, in a manner that alters the amount or quality or 
both of water entering the cave, karst feature, or mesocaverns; 
removing or disturbing native surface vegetation so that it alters the 
quality or quantity of water entering the karst environment; disturbing 
soil in such a way that it results in increased sedimentation in the 
karst environment or increased numbers of fire ants; increasing 
impervious cover that may decrease water quantity entering the karst 
environment or affect the temperature of karst below it or both within 
any critical habitat unit, such as paving over a vegetated area; and 
altering the entrance or opening of a cave or karst feature in a way 
that would disrupt movements of cave crickets or other animals that 
provide nutrient input or otherwise negatively altering the movement of 
nutrients into the cave or karst feature.
    (3) Actions that would introduce pollutants to the occupied 
features themselves, the surface and subsurface drainage basins, or the 
surrounding mesocaverns. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, discharge or dumping of chemicals, silt, pollutants, 
household or industrial waste, pesticides or herbicides, or other 
harmful material into or near critical habitat units that may affect 
surface plant and animal communities or that

[[Page 9899]]

may affect the subsurface karst ecosystem or degrade subsurface water 
quality.
    (4) Activities within caves that would lead to soil compaction, 
changes in atmospheric conditions, or abandonment of the cave by bats 
or other fauna. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
excessive human traffic, destruction of cave features, enlargement of 
existing entrances, or creation of new entrances to karst features.
    (5) Activities that would attract or increase fire ants, 
cockroaches, or other invasive predators, competitors, parasites, or 
potential vectors for diseases into caves or karst features within the 
critical habitat units. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, dumping of garbage in or around caves or karst features.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
proposed critical habitat designation for the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates to determine if they are exempt under section 4(a)(3) of 
the Act.
Approved INRMPs
Camp Bullis Military Reservation
    Camp Bullis Military Reservation (Camp Bullis) has an approved 
INRMP in place that provides benefits to Rhadine exilis, R. infernalis, 
and Madla Cave meshweaver. Camp Bullis is a 43.7 mi\2\ (113.3 km\2\) 
facility under the command of Fort Sam Houston, U.S. Army, Texas. The 
area contains 26 caves with 1 or more of the 3 listed species. After 
the species were petitioned for listing, Camp Bullis began karst 
investigations to determine the extent of these species on their 
property and how best to manage them. A management plan was developed 
in 1999 (Veni and Associates 1999) and revised in 2002 (Veni et al. 
2002a and 2002b) to eliminate, mitigate, and prevent harm to these and 
other rare species on Camp Bullis in perpetuity. The Veni et al. 2002a 
and 2002b reports became part of an INRMP in 2005. The INRMP was 
revised in 2007 and underwent an annual review and update in 2010.
    The INRMP provides for management of all caves occupied by Rhadine 
exilis, R. infernalis, and Madla Cave meshweaver. The Madla Cave 
meshweaver is only found in one cave within the interior of Camp 
Bullis. Management actions include protecting the cave footprint, 
surface and subsurface drainage areas associated with the occupied 
cave, cave cricket foraging area, and surface plant and animal 
community, and controlling fire ants. The plan includes in-cave 
biological surveys, cave gate construction, and preservation of karst 
management areas (KMAs) around cave entrances. The KMAs will be 
preserved in perpetuity within the limits possible through the 
authority of Camp Bullis and its operational and mission requirements. 
The INRMP 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. Those provisions would transfer responsibility for 
appropriate management of any former Camp Bullis karst management areas 
to all subsequent owners by deed recordation or other binding 
instrument.
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands 
are subject to the Camp Bullis INRMP and that conservation efforts 
identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to R. exilis, R. 
infernalis, and the Madla Cave meshweaver occurring in habitats within 
or adjacent to Camp Bullis. Therefore, lands within this installation 
are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of 
the Act. We are not including approximately 4,104 ac (1,660 ha) of 
habitat in this proposed revised critical habitat designation because 
of this exemption.

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available 
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, 
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying 
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an 
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that 
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has 
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight 
to give to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on 
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must 
identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, 
identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and 
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion. If based on this

[[Page 9900]]

analysis, we make this determination, then we can exclude the area only 
if such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the 
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping 
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; and/or implementation of a management plan that provides 
equal to or more conservation that a critical habitat designation would 
provide.
    The benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the 
presence of these species and the importance of habitat protection, and 
in cases where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for 
these species due to the protection from adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat.
    When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when 
considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of 
factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 
how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical and 
biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a 
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the 
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and 
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management 
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be 
adapted in the future in response to new information.
    After evaluating the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to determine whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If we determine that 
they do, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result 
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as any additional public comments received, we will be evaluating 
whether certain lands in proposed critical habitat unit 1e, 3, 6, 8, 
and 17 are appropriate for exclusion from the final designation. If our 
analysis results in a determination that the benefits of excluding 
lands from the final designation outweigh the benefits of designating 
those lands as critical habitat, then we will exclude the lands from 
the final designation.
    After considering the following areas under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act, we are proposing to exclude them from the critical habitat 
designation for R. exilis. R. infernalis, Helotes mold beetle, and 
Madla Cave meshweaver: Canyon Ranch Pit; Fat Man's Nightmare Cave; 
Scenic Overlook Cave and associated portions of Unit 1e; Helotes 
Blowhole, Helotes Hilltop Cave, and portions of Unit 3 associated with 
these caves; Madla's Cave and portions of Unit 17 associated with it; 
Hills and Dales Pit and portions of Unit 8 associated with it; and John 
Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3 and portions of Unit 6 associated with it.
    We propose to exclude these areas because we believe that:
    (1) Their value for conservation will be preserved for the 
foreseeable future by existing protective actions, or
    (2) They are appropriate for exclusion under the ``other relevant 
factor'' provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    However, we specifically solicit comments on the inclusion or 
exclusion of such areas. In the paragraphs below, we provide a detailed 
analysis of our exclusion of these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related 
factors.
    An economic analysis conducted on the previous critical habitat 
designation found that the invertebrate critical habitat area is 
characterized by intense commercial and residential development. It 
stated that potential costs arising from such development were captured 
through quantification of technical assistance efforts for landowners 
regarding smaller land use activities on private properties, 
development of HCPs, and individual construction projects that are 
foreseeable over a 10-year time horizon (e.g., infrastructure 
development at University of Texas, San Antonio, and road expansion 
projects). The economic analysis further stated that the economic 
impacts of the proposed designation will be manifested primarily 
through project modification costs of development-related HCPs. It 
estimated that project modification costs represent approximately 84 
percent of the total cost of the designation and will be borne by 
private landowners planning to engage in commercial or large-scale 
residential development on their properties. The analysis found that 
the most costly of these modifications is the purchasing of karst 
preserves. The analysis further stated that the majority of the costs 
that are attributable solely to designation of critical habitat are 
expected to arise from actions taken in accordance with new information 
and awareness that would result from the designation.
    We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis on 
this revised designation of critical habitat as soon as it is 
completed, at which time we will seek public review and comment. At 
that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for 
downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
contacting the Austin Ecological Services Field Office directly (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). During the development of a 
final designation, we will consider economic impacts, public comments, 
and other new information, and areas may be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a 
national security impact might exist. Lands owned by Camp Bullis were 
exempted from this proposed critical habitat rule on the basis of an 
existing INRMP. Therefore, we anticipate no impact to national 
security. There are no areas proposed for exclusion based on impacts on 
national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts to national 
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the 
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United

[[Page 9901]]

States with Tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that 
might occur because of the designation.
    When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when 
considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of 
factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 
how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical and 
biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a 
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the 
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and 
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management 
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be 
adapted in the future in response to new information.
    We will consider the La Cantera HCP and any other relevant 
information during the development of the final rule to determine if 
this area should be excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    The goals of the La Cantera 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.
    The La Cantera HCP authorizes take of listed species in La Cantera 
Cave No. 1 and La Cantera Cave No. 2. Under the La Cantera HCP, 
mitigation for take within these caves was implemented by purchasing 
and managing eight caves known to contain one or more of the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates for which take was being permitted. These 
mitigation caves are Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare Cave, Scenic 
Overlook Cave and the surrounding approximately 75 ac (30 ha) within 
Unit 1e; Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop Caves and the surrounding 
approximately 25 ac (10 ha) within Unit 3; John Wagner Cave No. 3 and 
the surrounding approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha) within Unit 6; Hills and 
Dales Pit and the surrounding approximately 70 ac (28 ha) within Unit 
8; and Madla's Cave and the surrounding approximately 5 ac (2 ha) 
within Unit 17. As part of their HCP, La Cantera is required to protect 
and manage these areas in perpetuity in accordance with the 
conservation needs of the species.
    Table 5 below provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands that 
meet the definition of critical habitat but are exempt from designation 
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, and lands that the Service is 
considering for possible exclusion from the final critical habitat rule 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

                 Table 5--Exemptions and Areas Considered for Exclusion by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Areas meeting the
                                                             Basis for        definition of    Areas exempted or
             Unit                    Specific area           exclusion/      critical habitat       possible
                                                             exemption           in acres         exclusion in
                                                                                (hectares)     acres  (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1e...........................  La Cantera HCP..........            4(b)(2)          690 (279)            75 (30)
3............................  La Cantera HCP..........            4(b)(2)           125 (51)            25 (10)
6............................  La Cantera HCP..........            4(b)(2)            99 (40)            4 (1.6)
8............................  La Cantera HCP..........            4(b)(2)          471 (191)            70 (28)
10...........................  Camp Bullis.............            4(a)(3)      3,143 (1,273)      3,143 (1,273)
11...........................  Camp Bullis.............            4(a)(3)          906 (367)          906 (367)
17...........................  La Cantera HCP..........            4(b)(2)           115 (47)              5 (2)
24...........................  Camp Bullis.............            4(a)(3)            55 (22)            55 (22)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A final determination on whether we should exclude any of these 
areas from critical habitat for any of the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates will be made when we publish the final rule designating 
critical habitat. We will take into account public comments and 
carefully weigh the benefits of exclusion versus inclusion of these 
areas. We may also consider areas not identified above for exclusion 
from the final critical habitat designation based on information we may 
receive during the preparation of the final rule (e.g., management 
plans for additional areas).

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers 
to comment during this public comment period on our specific 
assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation of critical 
habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during 
this comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a 
final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from 
this proposal.

Public Hearings

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings 
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, 
and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 
15 days before the hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under 
Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon 
the following four criteria:
    (1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.

[[Page 9902]]

    (4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996, whenever an agency must 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 (small businesses, 
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended RFA to require 
Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual 
basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary 
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding. 
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft 
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. 
12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the required factual 
basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the draft economic 
analysis, we will announce availability of the draft economic analysis 
of the proposed designation in the Federal Register and reopen the 
public comment period for the proposed designation. We will include 
with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
accompanied by the factual basis for that determination.
    In the previous proposed rule, we certified that the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the nine endangered Bexar County 
invertebrate species would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities and that the proposed rule did not 
meet the criteria under SBREFA as a major rule. Therefore, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis was not required. In summary, we 
reasoned that probable future land uses in the areas proposed for 
designation were expected to have a Federal nexus or require section 7 
consultation (for example, road and utility development projects, water 
crossings, etc.). These projects may require Federal permits. In these 
areas, Federal involvement--and thus section 7 consultations, the only 
trigger for economic impact under the rule--would be limited to a 
subset of the area proposed. The most likely Federal involvement would 
be associated with activities involving the Department of Defense, 
Federal Highways Administration, Texas Department of Transportation, 
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. This proposed revised rule may 
result in project modifications when proposed Federal activities would 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. While this may occur, it 
is not expected frequently enough to affect a substantial number of 
small entities. Even when it does occur, we do not expect it to result 
in a significant economic impact because we expect that most proposed 
projects, with or without modification, can be implemented in such a 
way as to avoid adversely modifying critical habitat, as the measures 
included in reasonable and prudent alternatives must be economically 
feasible and consistent with the proposed action.
    The economic analysis of the previous critical habitat designation 
found that the invertebrate critical habitat area is characterized by 
intense commercial and residential development and that the economic 
impacts of the proposed designation would be manifested primarily 
through project modification costs of potentially eight development-
related HCPs. The previous analysis estimated that project modification 
costs represent approximately 84 percent of the total cost of the 
designation and would be borne by private landowners planning to engage 
in commercial or large-scale residential development on their 
properties. The analysis further stated that the most costly of these 
modifications is the purchasing of karst preserves. At this time, only 
the La Cantera HCP covers take for any of the Bexar County 
invertebrates.
    We have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion 
of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and 
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will 
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on 
adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for 
public comment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate

[[Page 9903]]

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the 
large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because critical habitat is already 
designated in most of the areas of Bexar County, and this proposed 
revision would not substantially change the impacts associated with the 
currently designated critical habitat. Therefore, a Small Government 
Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further evaluate this 
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this 
assessment if appropriate.

Takings

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we will 
analyze the potential takings implications of designating new and 
revised critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates in a 
takings implications assessment. Following completion of the proposed 
rule, a draft Economic Analysis will be completed for the proposed 
designation. The draft Economic Analysis will provide the foundation 
for us to use in preparing a takings implications assessment.
Federalism
    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated 
development of, this proposed critical habitat designation with 
appropriate State resource agencies in Texas. The designation may have 
some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the 
features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly 
defined, and the physical and biological features of the habitat 
necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically 
identified. This information does not alter where and what Federally 
sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local 
governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for 
case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are proposing critical habitat in accordance 
with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses standard 
property descriptions and identifies the physical and biological 
features within the designated areas to assist the public in 
understanding the habitat needs of the nine Bexar County invertebrates.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in 
connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was 
upheld by the U.S. court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 
1042 (1996)).

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

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), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 ``American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species 
Act'', we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly 
with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to 
acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as 
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to 
make information available to Tribes.
    We have determined that there are no Tribal lands occupied at the 
time of listing that contain the features essential for the 
conservation, and no Tribal lands that are essential for the 
conservation, of the nine Bexar County invertebrates. Therefore, we are 
not proposing designation of critical habitat for them on Tribal lands.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211; Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use) on regulations that significantly affect 
energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. 
We do not expect it to significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, or use. There are electric

[[Page 9904]]

power lines and natural gas pipelines adjacent to or within many of the 
proposed units. We do not believe they would be significantly affected 
because critical habitat is currently in place in most of the units, 
and this proposed revision would not substantially change that. We do 
not expect to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or 
use because the majority of the lands we are proposing as critical 
habitat occur on privately owned lands that are primarily developed for 
residential uses, and not energy production or distribution. Therefore, 
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required. However, we will further evaluate this 
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this 
assessment as warranted.

References Cited

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

Authors

    The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the 
Austin Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

    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.
    2. In Sec.  17.11(h), revise the entries for ``Meshweaver, 
Government Canyon Bat Cave'' and ``Spider, Government Canyon Bat Cave'' 
under ARACHNIDS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Species                                                      Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------------------                        population
                                                                                            where                                 Critical     Special
                                                                      Historic range      endangered     Status    When listed    habitat       rules
              Common name                    Scientific name                                  or
                                                                                          threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Arachnids.............................  .........................  ....................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cave  Cicurina vespera.........  U.S.A. (TX)                    NA            E          706     17.95(g)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Spider, Government Canyon Bat Cave....  Neoleptoneta microps.....  U.S.A. (TX)                    NA            E          706     17.95(g)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Amend Sec.  17.95 by:
    a. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the 
Cokendolpher Cave Harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri);
    b. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the 
Braken Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina venii);
    c. In paragraph (g), adding a critical habitat entry for the 
Government Canyon Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina vespera) in the same 
alphabetical order in which the species appears in Sec.  17.11(h);
    d. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the 
Madla Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina madla);
    e. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the 
Robber Baron Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina baronia);
    f. In paragraph (g), adding a critical habitat entry for the 
Government Canyon Bat Cave Spider (Neoleptoneta microps) in the same 
alphabetical order in which the species appears in Sec.  17.11(h);
    g. In paragraph (i), revising the critical habitat entry for the 
Helotes Mold Beetle (Batrisodes venyivi);
    h. In paragraph (i), revising the critical habitat entry for the 
Beetle (no common name) (Rhadine exilis); and
    i. In paragraph (i), revising the critical habitat entry for the 
Beetle (no common name) (Rhadine infernalis), to read as follows.


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (g) Arachnids.

Cokendolpher Cave Harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in Bexar 
County, Texas, occurs in Unit 20 as described in this entry and 
depicted on Map 1 (index map) and Map 2 in this entry.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the 
Cokendolpher Cave harvestman are:
    (i) Karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces (caves and 
connected mesocaverns) with stable temperatures, high humidities (near 
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and 
underneath rocks for foraging and sheltering);
    (ii) Surface water free of pollutants that flows into the karst 
features. Sources may include surface runoff that flows directly into 
the caves' entrances, or water that flows through associated features, 
such as sinkholes and fractures known to connect to the karst features, 
or water that flows through the connected subsurface drainage area, 
which consequently allows water to flow into caves and passages; and
    (iii) A healthy surface community of native plants (for example, 
juniper-oak woodland) and animals (for example, cave crickets) living 
near the karst

[[Page 9905]]

feature that provides nutrient input and protects the karst ecosystem 
from adverse effects (for example, from nonnative species invasions, 
contaminants, and fluctuations in temperature and humidity).
    (3) Developed lands (residential or commercial) that do not contain 
the subsurface primary constituent element (see subparagraph (2)(i) of 
this entry) and that existed on the effective date of this rule are not 
considered to be critical habitat.
    (4) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS) which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (5) Index Map of Bexar County invertebrates critical habitat units, 
Bexar County, Texas, follows.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.001

    (6) Unit 20: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]

[[Page 9906]]

    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 20 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.002
    
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 in this entry and 
depicted on Map 3 in this entry. Unit 15 is also depicted on Map 1 
(index map) provided at subparagraph (5) of the entry for the 
Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (2) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements 
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Braken Bat Cave 
meshweaver are identical to those set forth at subparagraphs (2) and 
(3) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph 
(g).
    (3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS) which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (4) Unit 15: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 3 of Unit 15 follows:

[[Page 9907]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.003

Government Canyon Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina vespera)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver 
in Bexar County, Texas, occurs in Unit 1b, as described in this entry 
and depicted on Map 4 in this entry. Unit 1b is also depicted on Map 1 
(index map) provided at subparagraph (5) of the entry for the 
Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (2) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements 
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Government 
Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver are identical to those set forth at 
subparagraphs (2) and (3) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave 
harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS) which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (4) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 4 of Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f follows:

[[Page 9908]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.004

* * * * *

Madla Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina madla)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Madla Cave meshweaver in Bexar County, 
Texas, occurs in Units 1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 22, as 
described in this entry and depicted on Maps 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in 
this entry. Units 1a, 1c, 1d, and 1e are depicted on Map 4, which is 
provided at subparagraph (4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon 
Bat Cave meshweaver in this paragraph (g). Units 1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, and 22 are also depicted on Map 1 (index map) 
provided at subparagraph (5) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave 
harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (2) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements 
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Madla Cave 
meshweaver are identical to those set forth at subparagraphs (2) and 
(3) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph 
(g).
    (3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS) which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (4) Unit 1a: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Unit 1a is depicted on Map 4, which is provided at 
subparagraph (4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave 
meshweaver in this paragraph (g).
    (5) Unit 1c: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Unit 1c is depicted on Map 4, which is provided at 
subparagraph (4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave 
meshweaver in this paragraph (g).
    (6) Unit 1d: Bexar County, Texas.

[[Page 9909]]

    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Unit 1d is depicted on Map 4, which is provided at 
subparagraph (4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave 
meshweaver in this paragraph (g).
    (7) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Unit 1e is depicted on Map 4, which is provided at 
subparagraph (4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave 
meshweaver in this paragraph (g).
    (8) Unit 2: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 5 of Unit 2 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.005
    
    (9) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 6 of Units 3 and 4 follows:

[[Page 9910]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.006

    (10) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 7 of Units 5, 6, and 17 follows:

[[Page 9911]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.007

    (11) Unit 6: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Unit 6 is depicted on Map 7, which is provided at 
subparagraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
    (12) Unit 8: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 8 of Unit 8 follows:

[[Page 9912]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.008

    (13) Unit 9: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 9 of Unit 9 follows:

[[Page 9913]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.009

    (14) Unit 17: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Unit 17 is depicted on Map 7, which is provided at 
subparagraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
    (15) Unit 22: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 10 of Unit 22 follows:

[[Page 9914]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.010

Robber Baron Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina baronia)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Robber Baron Cave meshweaver in Bexar 
County, Texas, occurs in Units 20 and 25. Unit 20 is described as set 
forth, and depicted on Map 2 provided, at subparagraph (6) of the entry 
for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g). Unit 25 is 
described in this entry and depicted on Map 11 in this entry. Units 20 
and 25 are also depicted on Map 1 (index map) provided at subparagraph 
(5) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph 
(g).
    (2) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements 
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Robber Baron 
Cave meshweaver are identical to those set forth at subparagraphs (2) 
and (3) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this 
paragraph (g).
    (3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS) which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (4) Unit 20: Bexar County, Texas. Unit 20 is described as set 
forth, and depicted on Map 2 provided, at subparagraph (6) of the entry 
for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (5) Unit 25: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 11 of Unit 25 follows:

[[Page 9915]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.011

Government Canyon Bat Cave Spider (Neoleptoneta microps)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Government Canyon Bat Cave spider in 
Bexar County, Texas, occurs in Unit 1b, as described and depicted on 
Map 4 at subparagraph (4) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat 
Cave meshweaver in this paragraph (g). Unit 1b is also depicted on Map 
1 (index map) provided at subparagraph (5) of the entry for the 
Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (2) The primary constituent elements of, and statements regarding 
developed lands in, critical habitat for the Government Canyon Bat Cave 
spider are identical to those set forth at subparagraphs (2) and (3) of 
the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS) which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (4) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas. Unit 1b is described as set 
forth, and depicted on Map 4 provided, at subparagraph (4) of the entry 
for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver in this paragraph (g).
* * * * *
    (i) Insects.
* * * * *

Helotes Mold Beetle (Batrisodes venyivi)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Helotes mold beetle in Bexar County, 
Texas, which occurs in Units 1e, 3, and 5 as described in this entry 
and depicted on Maps 1 (index map), 2, 4, and 5 of this entry.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Batrisodes venyivi are:

[[Page 9916]]

    (i) Karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces (caves and 
connected mesocaverns) with stable temperatures, high humidities (near 
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and 
underneath rocks for foraging and sheltering);
    (ii) Surface water free of pollutants that flows into the karst 
features. Sources may include surface runoff that flows directly into 
the caves' entrances, or water that flows through associated features, 
such as sinkholes and fractures known to connect to the karst features, 
or water that flows through the connected subsurface drainage area, 
which consequently allows water to flow into caves and passages; and
    (iii) A healthy surface community of native plants (for example, 
juniper-oak woodland) and animals (for example, cave crickets) living 
near the karst feature that provide nutrient input and protects the 
karst ecosystem from adverse effects (for example, from nonnative 
species invasions, contaminants, and fluctuations in temperature and 
humidity).
    (3) Developed lands (residential or commercial) that do not contain 
the subsurface primary constituent element (see subparagraph (2)(i) of 
this entry) and that existed on the effective date of this rule are not 
considered to be critical habitat.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using a geographic information system (GIS) which included cave 
locations, karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial 
photography, and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (5) Index Map of Bexar County invertebrates critical habitat units, 
Bexar County, Texas follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.012

    (6) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f follows:

[[Page 9917]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.013

    (7) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 4 of Units 3 and 4 follows:

[[Page 9918]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.014

    (8) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 5 of Units 5, 6, and 17 follows:

[[Page 9919]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.015

Beetle (No Common Name) (Rhadine exilis)

    (1) Critical habitat for the beetle (Rhadine exilis) in Bexar 
County, Texas, which occurs in Units 1b, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 
9, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 12, 13, 21, and 24, is depicted on Maps 3, 
6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, and 22 in this entry, and on Maps 2, 4, 
and 5 provided at subparagraph (5) of the entry for the Helotes mold 
beetle in this paragraph (i). The Units are also depicted on Map 1 
(index map) provided in subparagraph (5) of the entry for the Helotes 
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (2) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements 
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Rhadine exilis 
are identical to those set forth at subparagraphs (2) and (3) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (3) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using a geographic information system (GIS) which included cave 
locations, karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial 
photography, and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (4) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f are depicted on Map 2, 
which is provided at subparagraph (6)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes 
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (5) Unit 1d: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f are depicted on Map 2, 
which is provided at subparagraph (6)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes 
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (6) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f are depicted on Map 2, 
which is

[[Page 9920]]

provided at subparagraph (6)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold 
beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (7) Unit 2: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 3 of Unit 2 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.016

    (8) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Units 3 and 4 are depicted on Map 4, which is provided 
at subparagraph (7)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in 
this paragraph (i).
    (9) Unit 4: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Units 3 and 4 are depicted on Map 4, which is provided 
at subparagraph (7)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in 
this paragraph (i).
    (10) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Units 5, 6, and 17 are depicted on Map 5, which is 
provided at subparagraph (8)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold 
beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (11) Unit 6: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Units 5 and 6 are depicted on Map 5, which is provided 
at subparagraph (8)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in 
this paragraph (i).
    (12) Unit 7: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 6 of Unit 7 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9921]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.017

    (13) Unit 8: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 7 of Unit 8 follows:

[[Page 9922]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.018

    (14) Unit 9: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 8 of Unit 9 follows:

[[Page 9923]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.019

    (15) Unit 11a: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 9 of Units 11a and 11b follows:

[[Page 9924]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.020

    (16) Unit 11b: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Units 11a and 11b are depicted on Map 9, which is 
provided at subparagraph (15)(ii) of this entry.
    (17) Unit 11c: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 10 of Units 11c, 11d, and 11e follows:

[[Page 9925]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.021

    (18) Unit 11d: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Units 11c, 11d, and 11e are depicted on Map 10, which is 
provided at subparagraph (17)(ii) of this entry.
    (19) Unit 11e: Bexar County, Texas
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Units 11c, 11d, and 11e are depicted on Map 10, which is 
provided at subparagraph (17)(ii) of this entry.
    (20) Unit 12: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 11 of Unit 12 follows:

[[Page 9926]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.022

    (21) Unit 13: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 12 of Unit 13 follows:

[[Page 9927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.023

    (22) Unit 21: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 13 of Unit 21 follows:

[[Page 9928]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.024

    (23) Unit 24: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 14 of Unit 24 follows:

[[Page 9929]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.025

Beetle (No Common Name) (Rhadine infernalis)

    (1) Critical habitat for the beetle (Rhadine infernalis) in Bexar 
County, Texas, occurs in Units 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 1f, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 
10a, 10b, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, and 26. These units are depicted on 
Maps, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 in this entry; on Maps 2, 4, and 5 
provided at subparagraphs (6), (7), and (8) of the entry for the 
Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i); and on Maps 3 and 7 provided 
at subparagraphs (7) and (13) of the entry for the beetle (Rhadine 
exilis) in this paragraph (i). The units are also depicted on Map 1 
(index map) provided in subparagraph (5) of the entry for the Helotes 
mold beetle in paragraph (i).
    (2) The primary constituent elements of, and statements regarding 
developed lands in critical habitat for Rhadine infernalis are 
identical to those set forth at subparagraphs (2) and (3) of the entry 
for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (3) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using a geographic information system (GIS) which included cave 
locations, karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial 
photography, and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (4) Unit 1a: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f is provided at 
subparagraph (6)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i).
    (5) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f is provided at 
subparagraph (6)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i).
    (6) Unit 1d: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]

[[Page 9930]]

    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f is provided at 
subparagraph (6)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i).
    (7) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f is provided at 
subparagraph (6)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i).
    (8) Unit 1f: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f is provided at 
subparagraph (6)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i).
    (9) Unit 2: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 3 of Unit 2 is provided at subparagraph (7)(ii) of 
the entry for the beetle (Rhadine exilis) in this paragraph (i).
    (10) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 4 of Units 3 and 4 is provided at subparagraph 
(7)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (11) Unit 4: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 4 of Units 3 and 4 is provided at subparagraph 
(7)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (12) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 5 of Units 5, 6, and 17 is provided at subparagraph 
(8)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (13) Unit 6: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 5 of Units 5, 6, and 17 is provided at subparagraph 
(8)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (14) Unit 8: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 7 of Unit 8 is provided at subparagraph (13)(ii) of 
the entry for the beetle (Rhadine exilis) in this paragraph (i).
    (15) Unit 10a: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 15 of Units 10a and 10b follows:

[[Page 9931]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.026

    (16) Unit 10b: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 15 of Units 10a and 10b is provided at subparagraph 
(15)(ii) of this entry.
    (17) Unit 14: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 16 of Unit 14 follows:

[[Page 9932]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.027

    (18) Unit 15: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 17 of Unit 15 follows:

[[Page 9933]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.028

    (19) Unit 16: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 18 of Unit 16 follows:

[[Page 9934]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.029

    (20) Unit 17: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 5 of Units 5, 6, and 17 is provided at subparagraph 
(8)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (21) Units 19: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 19 of Unit 19 follows:

[[Page 9935]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.030

    (22) Unit 23: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 20 of Unit 23 follows:

[[Page 9936]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.031

    (23) Unit 26: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map 21 of Unit 26 follows:

[[Page 9937]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22FE11.032

* * * * *

    Dated: February 7, 2011.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-3038 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C