[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9872-9937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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