[Federal Register: April 8, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 67)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17155-17231]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08ap03-22]
[[Page 17155]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Seven Bexar County, Texas, Invertebrate Species; Final Rule
[[Page 17156]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AI47
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Seven Bexar County, TX, Invertebrate Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat for seven endangered invertebrate species found in
Bexar County, Texas, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The critical habitat designation totals approximately
431 hectares (1,063 acres) in 22 units. Section 7 of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with the Service, that
actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to result in
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 4
of the Act requires us to consider economic and other impacts when
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We solicited data
and comments from the public on all aspects of the proposed rule,
including data on economic and other impacts of the designation. As a
result of comments and information received, we are not designating
critical habitat as originally proposed for two species that occur
entirely on State-owned lands that are subject to a conservation plan.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on May 8, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
the Austin Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pine, Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, at the above
address (telephone 512/490-0057; facsimile 512/490-0974).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The seven species for which we are designating critical habitat in
this rulemaking inhabit caves or other features known as karst. The
term ``karst'' refers to a type of terrain that is formed by the slow
dissolution of calcium carbonate from limestone bedrock by mildly
acidic groundwater. This process creates numerous cave openings,
cracks, fissures, fractures, and sinkholes, and the bedrock resembles a
honeycomb.
As a result of climatic changes beginning two million years ago and
lasting until ten thousand years ago, invertebrate species colonized
caves and other subterranean voids (Barr 1968; Mitchell and Reddell
1971; Elliott and Reddell 1989). Species that dwell exclusively in
caves and other subterranean voids are referred to as ``troglobites.''
Through faulting and canyon downcutting, the karst terrain colonized by
these species along the Balcones Fault Zone (a zone approximately 25
kilometers (km) in width, extending from the northeast corner of Bexar
County to the western edge of the County) became increasingly
dissected, creating ``islands'' of karst and barriers to dispersal.
These ``islands'' isolated troglobitic populations from each other,
probably resulting in further speciation.
The following nine Bexar County, Texas, troglobitic invertebrate
species were listed as endangered on December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419):
spider (no common name) (Cicurina venii), Robber Baron Cave harvestman
(Texella cokendolpheri), vesper cave spider (Cicurina vespera),
Government Canyon cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps), Madla's cave
spider (Cicurina madla), Robber Baron cave spider (Cicurina baronia),
beetle (no common name) (Rhadine exilis), beetle (no common name)
(Rhadine infernalis), and Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi).
These are karst dwelling species of local distribution in north and
northwest Bexar County. They spend their entire lives underground.
Since publication of the listing final rule, the common names for
the following six arachnid species have been changed as a result of a
meeting of the Committee on Common Names of Arachnids of the American
Arachnological Society in 2000. Accordingly, we are changing the common
names of the species currently in the list of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) as Robber Baron Cave harvestman, Robber Baron
cave spider, Madla's cave spider, vesper cave spider, Government Canyon
cave spider, and one with no common name (Cicurina venii) to
Cokendolpher cave harvestman, Robber Baron Cave meshweaver, Madla Cave
meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver, Government Canyon
Bat Cave spider, and Braken Bat Cave meshweaver, respectively.
Individuals of the listed species are small, ranging in length from
1 millimeter (0.039 inch (in)) to 1 centimeter (0.39 in). They are
eyeless, or essentially eyeless, and most lack pigment. Low quantities
of food in caves have caused adaptations in these species, including
low metabolism, long legs for efficient movement, and loss of eyes,
possibly as an energy-saving trade-off (Howarth 1983). Survival may be
possible from months to years with little or no food (Howarth 1983).
Adult Cicurina spiders have survived in captivity without food for
about 4 months (James Cokendolpher, Museum of Texas Tech University,
pers. comm. 2002).
Although little is known about the life history of listed Texas
troglobitic invertebrates, they are believed to live for longer than 1
year. This belief is based, in part, on the amount of time some
juveniles have been kept in captivity without maturing (Veni and
Associates 1999; James Reddell, Texas Memorial Museum, pers. comm.
2000). For example, James Cokendolpher (Museum of Texas Tech
University, pers. comm. 2002) maintained a juvenile troglobitic
Cicurina spider from May 1999 through April 2002. Reproductive rates of
troglobites are typically low (Poulson and White 1969; Howarth 1983).
According to surveys conducted by Culver (1986), Elliott (1994a), and
Hopper (2000), population sizes of troglobitic invertebrates are
typically small, with most species known from only a few specimens
(Culver et al. 2000).
As described below, the primary habitat requirements of these
species include: (1) Subterranean spaces in karst with stable
temperatures, high humidities (near saturation), and suitable
substrates (for example, spaces between and underneath rocks suitable
for foraging and sheltering); and (2) a healthy surface community of
native plants and animals that provide nutrient input and, in the case
of native plants, act to buffer the karst ecosystem from adverse
effects (for example, invasions of nonnative species, contaminants, and
fluctuations in temperature and humidity). These karst invertebrates
require stable temperatures and constant, high humidity (Barr 1968;
Mitchell 1971a) because they are vulnerable to desiccation in drier
habitats (Howarth 1983) or cannot detect or cope with more extreme
temperatures (Mitchell 1971a). Temperatures in caves typically remain
at the average annual surface temperature, with little variation
[[Page 17157]]
(Howarth 1983; Dunlap 1995). Relative humidity is typically near 100
percent in caves that support troglobitic invertebrates (Elliott and
Reddell 1989). During temperature extremes, the listed species may
retreat into small interstitial spaces (human-inaccessible) connected
to a cave, where the physical environment provides the required
humidity and temperature levels (Howarth 1983). These species may spend
the majority of their time in such retreats, only leaving them to
forage in the larger cave passages (Howarth 1987).
Since sunlight is absent or present in extremely low levels in
caves, most karst ecosystems depend on nutrients derived from the
surface either directly (organic material brought in by animals, washed
in, or deposited through root masses) or indirectly through feces,
eggs, and carcasses of trogloxenes (species that regularly inhabit
caves for refuge, but return to the surface to feed) and troglophiles
(species that may complete their life cycle in the cave, but may also
be found on the surface) (Barr 1968; Poulson and White 1969; Howarth
1983; Culver 1986). Primary sources of nutrients include leaf litter,
cave crickets, small mammals, and other vertebrates that defecate or
die in the cave.
As described in our final rule to list the nine species (65 FR
81419), the continuing expansion of the human population in karst
terrain constitutes the primary threat to the species through: (1)
Destruction or deterioration of habitat by construction; (2) filling of
caves and karst features and loss of permeable cover; (3) contamination
from septic effluent, sewer leaks, runoff, pesticides, and other
sources; (4) exotic species, especially nonnative fire ants (Solenopsis
invicta); and (5) vandalism.
Karst in Bexar County
The northern portion of Bexar County is located on the Edwards
Plateau, a broad, flat expanse of Cretaceous carbonate rock that ranges
in elevation from 335.5 meters (m) (1,100 feet (ft)) to 579.5 m (1,900
ft) (Veni 1988; Soil Conservation Service 1962). This portion of the
Plateau is dissected by numerous small streams and is drained by Cibolo
Creek and Balcones Creek. To the southeast of the Plateau lies the
Balcones Fault Zone, a 25-km-wide fault zone that extends from the
northeast corner of the County to the western County line. The many
streams and karst features of this zone recharge the Edwards Aquifer.
The principal, cave-containing rock units of the Edwards Plateau
are the upper Glen Rose Formation, Edwards Limestone, Austin Chalk, and
Pecan Gap Chalk (Veni 1988). The Edwards Limestone accounts for one-
third of the cavernous rock in Bexar County and contains 60 percent of
the caves, making it the most cavernous unit in the County. The Austin
Chalk outcrop is second to the Edwards in total number of caves. In
Bexar County, the outcrop of the upper member of the Glen Rose
Formation accounts for approximately one-third of the cavernous rock,
but only 12.5 percent of Bexar County caves (Veni 1988). In Bexar
County, the Pecan Gap Chalk, while generally not cavernous, has a
greater than expected density of caves and passages (Veni 1988).
Veni (1994) delineated six karst areas within Bexar County. The
regions were named after places within their boundaries. These karst
fauna regions are bounded by geological or geographical features that
may represent obstructions to the movement (on a geologic time scale)
of troglobites, which has resulted in the present-day distribution of
endemic (restricted to a given region) karst invertebrates in the Bexar
County area.
These areas have been delineated by Veni (1994) into five zones
that reflect the likelihood of finding a karst feature that will
provide habitat for the endangered Bexar County invertebrates based on
geology, distribution of known caves, distribution of cave fauna, and
primary factors that determine the presence, size, shape, and extent of
caves with respect to cave development. These five zones are defined
as:
Zone 1: Areas known to contain one or more of the nine endangered
karst invertebrates;
Zone 2: Areas having a high probability of suitable habitat for the
invertebrates;
Zone 3: Areas that probably do not contain the invertebrates;
Zone 4: Areas that require further research but are generally
equivalent to zone 3, although they may include sections that could be
classified as zone 2 or zone 5; and
Zone 5: Areas that do not contain the invertebrates.
Under contract with the Service, Veni (2002) re-evaluated and,
where applicable, redrew the boundaries of each karst zone originally
delineated in Veni (1994). Revisions were based on current geologic
mapping, further studies of cave and karst development, and the most
current information available on the distribution of listed and
nonlisted cave-adapted species (Veni 2002).
Endangered Karst Invertebrate Distribution
As of December 2002, 475 caves were known to occur in Bexar County,
some of which have been biologically surveyed for listed species (Veni
2002). At least 97 of the 475 caves were sealed or destroyed before
they could be biologically surveyed (Veni 2002). Not all of the
remaining caves in Bexar County have been adequately surveyed for
invertebrates. It is likely that some of these caves will be found to
contain one or more of the listed species. When the species were listed
as endangered in December 2000, the Service knew of 57 occupied caves.
When critical habitat was proposed in Bexar County in August 2002, we
knew of 69 occupied caves. We now know of 74 caves containing one or
more of the listed species in Bexar County (Table 1). The following
species status descriptions are based on information available to us as
of December 23, 2002.
Braken Bat Cave Meshweaver
The Braken Bat Cave meshweaver, Cicurina venii (Araneae:
Dictynidae), was first collected on November 22, 1980, by G. Veni and
described by Gertsch (1992). Braken Bat Cave remains the only location
known to contain this species (Table 1).
Cokendolpher Cave Harvestman
The Cokendolpher cave harvestman, Texella cokendolpheri
(Opilionida: Phalangodidae), was collected in 1982 and described by
Ubick and Briggs (1992). This species, along with the Robber Baron Cave
meshweaver, is only known from Robber Baron Cave (Table 1).
Government Canyon Bat Cave Meshweaver
The Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver, Cicurina vespera
(Araneae: Dictynidae), was first collected on August 11, 1965, by J.
Reddell and J. Fish (Reddell 1993), and described by Gertsch (1992).
The species is currently known from Government Canyon Bat Cave in
Government Canyon State Natural Area and an unnamed cave referred to as
``5 miles northeast of Helotes.'' However, the specimen collected from
the latter cave has been tentatively identified as a new species
(Cokendolpher, in press).
Government Canyon Bat Cave Spider
The Government Canyon Bat Cave spider, Neoleptoneta microps
(Araneae: Leptonetidae), was first collected on August 11, 1965, by J.
Reddell and J. Fish (Reddell 1993). The species was originally
described by Gertsch (1974)
[[Page 17158]]
as Leptoneta microps and later reassigned to Neoleptoneta following
Brignoli (1977) and Platnick (1986). The species is known from 2 caves
in Government Canyon State Natural Area (Table 1).
Madla Cave Meshweaver
The Madla Cave meshweaver, Cicurina madla (Araneae: Dictynidae),
was first collected on October 4, 1963, by J. Reddell and D. McKenzie
(Reddell 1993) and described by Gertsch (1992). The Madla Cave
meshweaver has been found in eight caves (Table 1).
The Service is aware of 11 additional caves from which immature,
eyeless troglobitic Cicurina spiders have been collected (SWCA 2000).
Eight of these are in caves that have other listed species and are
either included in critical habitat areas or areas that are not
included in the designation due to the provision of adequate special
management. The remaining three are in caves where authorization for
take of C. madla was granted to La Cantera under a section 10(a)(1)(B)
permit. These three caves have been, or will be, heavily impacted and
are, therefore, not expected to contribute to the species recovery.
Robber Baron Cave Meshweaver
The Robber Baron Cave meshweaver, Cicurina baronia (Araneae:
Dictynidae), was first collected in Robber Baron Cave February 28,
1969, by R. Bartholomew (Reddell 1993) and described by Gertsch (1992).
The Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (a spider) is only known from Robber
Baron Cave (Table 1).
Beetle (No Common Name) Rhadine exilis
The beetle Rhadine exilis (Coleoptera: Carabidae) was first
collected in 1959. The species was described by Barr and Lawrence
(1960) as Agonum exile and later assigned to the genus Rhadine (Barr
1974). The species is currently known to have been found in 47 caves
(Table 1).
Beetle (No Common Name) Rhadine infernalis
Rhadine infernalis (Coleoptera: Carabidae) was first collected in
1959. The species was initially described by Barr and Lawrence (1960)
as Agonum infernale, but later assigned to the genus Rhadine (Barr
1974). Scientists have recognized three subspecies (Rhadine infernalis
ewersi, Rhadine infernalis infernalis, Rhadine infernalis new
subspecies) (Barr 1974; Barr and Lawrence 1960; Reddell 1998), all of
which are included as protected under the Federal listing of the full
species as endangered. A total of 35 caves are known to contain Rhadine
infernalis (Table 1).
Rhadine infernalis ewersi is known from 3 caves. Rhadine infernalis
infernalis is known from 19 caves. The unnamed new subspecies (Rhadine
infernalis new subspecies) was known from 6 caves at the time of the
proposed rule designating critical habitat. During the public comment
period, we received confirmation that R. infernalis collected from
Obvious Little Cave has been identified as R. infernalis new
subspecies. An additional 5 caves were identified in the proposed rule
as containing Rhadine infernalis that have not yet been identified at
the subspecies level. During the public comment period, we received
survey information confirming the presence of R. infernalis in
Continental Cave (Table 1). According to Veni (2002), specimens from
these caves are probably R. infernalis infernalis, but have either not
yet been fully identified or not reported.
Helotes Mold Beetle
The Helotes mold beetle, Batrisodes venyivi (Coleoptera:
Pselaphidae), was first collected in 1984 and described by Chandler
(1992). The species is currently known from six caves (Table 1). The
location of one of the caves, referred to as ``unnamed cave \1/2\ mile
north of Helotes,'' is unknown. The original record for this cave is
from Barr's (1974) description of Rhadine exilis. Because the number of
caves in the general area is large, the location of this cave cannot be
positively identified (George Veni, George Veni & Associates, pers.
comm. 2002). However, this cave may not be a separate location after
all, but may be an existing cave listed by the collector under the
alternative name ``5 miles NE of Helotes.'' The cave referred to as ``5
miles NE of Helotes,'' also has an unknown location.
Table 1.--Caves Known as of December 23, 2002, To Contain One or More of
the Nine Bexar County, Texas, Karst Invertebrates Federally Listed as
Endangered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species ( of caves) Cave name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (C. venii) Braken Bat Cave.
(1).
Cokendolpher cave harvestman (Texella Robber Baron Cave.
cokendolpheri) (1).
Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver Government Canyon Bat Cave.
(C. vespera) (1).
Government Canyon Bat Cave spider Government Canyon Bat Cave,
(Neoleptoneta microps) (2). Surprise Sink.
Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla) Christmas Cave, Madla's Cave,
(8). Madla's Drop Cave, Helotes
Blowhole, Headquarters Cave,
Hills and Dales Pit, Robber's
Cave, Lost Pothole.
Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (C. Robber Baron Cave
baronia) (1).
Beetle (no common name) (Rhadine 40 mm Cave, B-52 Cave,
exilis) (47). Backhole, Black Cat Cave,
Boneyard Pit, Bunny Hole,
Cross the Creek Cave, Dos
Viboras Cave, Eagles Nest
Cave, Hairy Tooth Cave,
Headquarters Cave, Hilger
Hole, Hold Me Back Cave,
Hornet's Last Laugh Pit,
Isocow Cave, Kick Start Cave,
MARS Pit, MARS Shaft, Pain in
the Glass Cave, Platypus Pit,
Poor Boy Baculum Cave, Ragin'
Cajun Cave, Root Canal Cave,
Root Toupee Cave, Springtail
Crevice, Strange Little Cave,
Up the Creek Cave.
Christmas Cave, Helotes
Blowhole, Helotes Hilltop
Cave, Logan's Cave, unnamed
cave \1/2\ mile N. of Helotes.
Creek Bank Cave, Government
Canyon Bat Cave, Lithic Ridge
Cave, Pig Cave, San Antonio
Ranch Pit, Tight Cave.
Hills and Dales Pit, John
Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3,
Kamikazi Cricket Cave, La
Cantera Cave No. 1, La Cantera
Cave No. 2, Mastodon Pit,
Robber's Cave, Three Fingers
Cave, Young Cave No. 1.
Beetle (no common name) R. infernalis Canyon Ranch Pit, Continental
(6) (subspecies not indicated-- Cave, Fat Man's Nightmare
probably R. infernalis infernalis but Cave, Pig Cave, San Antonio
individual specimens are either not Ranch Pit, Scenic Overlook
fully identified or reported (Veni Cave.
2002)).
[[Page 17159]]
R. infernalis ewersi (3)............... Flying Buzzworm Cave,
Headquarters Cave, Low
Priority Cave.
R. infernalis new subspecies (7)....... Caracol Creek Coon Cave, Game
Pasture Cave No. 1, Isopit,
King Toad Cave, Obvious Little
Cave, Stevens Ranch Trash Hole
Cave, Wurzbach Bat Cave.
R. infernalis infernalis (19).......... Bone Pile Cave, Dancing Rattler
Cave, Government Canyon Bat
Cave, Hackberry Sink, Lithic
Ridge Cave, Surprise Sink,
Christmas Cave, Helotes
Blowhole, Logan's Cave,
Madla's Cave, Madla's Drop
Cave, Crownridge Canyon Cave,
Genesis Cave, John Wagner
Ranch Cave No. 3, Kamikazi
Cricket Cave, Mattke Cave,
Robber's Cave, Scorpion Cave,
Three Fingers Cave.
Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes San Antonio Ranch Pit, Scenic
venyivi) (6). Overlook Cave, Christmas Cave,
unnamed cave \1/2\ mile N of
Helotes, Helotes Hilltop Cave,
unnamed cave 5 miles NE of
Helotes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Community
Cave Crickets
Cave crickets are a critical source of nutrient input for karst
ecosystems (Barr 1968; Reddell 1993). Cave crickets in the genus
Ceuthophilus occur in most caves in Texas (Reddell 1966). Being
sensitive to temperature extremes and drying, cave crickets forage on
the surface at night and roost in the cave during the day. Cave
crickets lay their eggs in the cave, providing food for a variety of
karst species (Mitchell 1971b). Some karst species also feed on cave
cricket feces (Barr 1968; Poulson et al. 1995) and on adults and nymphs
directly (Cokendolpher, in press; Elliott 1994a). Cave crickets are
scavengers or detritivores, feeding on dead insects, carrion, and some
fruits, but not on foliage (Elliott 1994a).
Elliott (2000) studied the community ecology of three caves in
protected areas of varying size in northwest Travis and Williamson
Counties, Texas, from 1993 to 1999. The three caves are in areas
protected as mitigation for two listed species found in Lakeline Cave
during the development of Lakeline Mall. Lakeline Cave is located on a
0.9 hectares (ha) (2.3 acres (ac)) protected area and is surrounded by
parking lots and a shopping center. Temples of Thor Cave and Testudo
Tube are within much larger tracts of undeveloped land, being located
on 42.5 ha (105 ac), and 10.5 ha (26 ac) of protected areas,
respectively. During the monitoring study (1993-1999), the number of
cave crickets drastically declined in Lakeline Cave, while they
increased slightly or decreased moderately in the other two caves.
Elliott (2000) concluded that drought, fire ants, and a decrease in
racoon visitation caused the decline of the cave crickets. These
results are consistent with reports of declines and extinctions of
several invertebrates and small mammals (resulting from lower
survivorship, higher emigration, and/or lower immigration) from habitat
patches ranging in size from 2 to 7 ha (5 to 17 ac) (Mader 1984;
Tscharntke 1992; Keith et al. 1993; Lindenmayer and Possingham 1995;
Hill et al. 1996).
Elliott (1994a) evaluated cave cricket foraging within 50 m (164
ft) of cave entrances at his study sites and found crickets to the end
of the 50 m sampling distance. On a few occasions he observed cave
crickets beyond his sampling sites, and on one occasion he set a trap
60 m (197 ft) from the entrance and found one large adult. Elliott
(1994a) concluded that the ``largest adults probably are capable of
traveling far beyond 60 m from the entrance,'' but he did not have the
data necessary to establish how far they go. During recent cave cricket
surveys conducted for an ongoing project in central Texas, an adult
cave cricket was found foraging 95 m (311 ft) from the study cave
(Steve Taylor, Illinois Natural History Survey, pers. comm. 2002).
As trogloxenes, cave cricket populations are dependent on the
patchy distribution of karst voids. Therefore, cave cricket populations
may have a metapopulation (subpopulations that interact via the
dispersal of individuals from one subpopulation to others) or a source-
sink population structure, and it may be important to protect multiple
karst features that support cave crickets in a karst ecosystem (Helf et
al. 1995). Metapopulation dynamics require movement among patches, and
persistence requires interacting patches that undergo local extinctions
and establishment of new subpopulations in areas previously devoid of
individuals (Hanski 1999). ``Source'' populations are those that occur
``in a high-quality habitat in which birth rate generally exceeds the
death rate and the excess individuals leave as emigrants.'' ``Sink''
populations are those that occur ``in a low-quality habitat in which
the birth rate is generally lower than the death rate and population
density is maintained by immigrants from source populations (Meffe et
al. 1997). Because cave crickets are a key source of nutrient input for
karst ecosystems, conserving adequate areas between karst patches in a
manner that allows for movement of individuals among cave cricket
populations is likely an important factor in long-term maintenance for
karst ecosystems.
Subsurface karst areas may also be important to allow movement
among cave cricket populations through the subsurface environment
associated with continuous limestone blocks. For example, Caccone and
Sbordoni (1987) studied nine species of North American cave crickets
(genera Eukadenoecus and Hadenoecus) from sites in North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and
Alabama. Seven of the species were obligate cave-dwelling species that
emerged at night to feed. Through genetic analyses of the cave-dwelling
species, they found that species or groups of populations inhabiting
areas where the limestone is continuous and highly fissured are
genetically less differentiated than are populations occurring in
regions where the limestone distribution is more fragmented, indicating
more exchange of individuals in areas of continuous karst.
Helf et al. (1995) suggested that populations of an eastern species
of cave cricket (Hadenoecus subterraneus) may be at risk because they
do not recover quickly after events such as drought, floods, and
temperature extremes that preclude or diminish foraging opportunities.
These cave cricket populations may have source-sink population
dynamics, with some
[[Page 17160]]
karst features acting as sources and the majority of karst features
acting as sinks, but Helf et al. (1995) recommends that ``even sink
populations should be protected because their emigrants can ``rescue''
source populations that experience local decimation.'' These studies
suggest that it is important to protect the geological features that
connect caves and maintain habitat corridors among caves.
Other Surface Animals
Many central Texas caves with endangered invertebrate species are
frequented by mammals and several species of reptiles and amphibians
(Reddell 1967). Although there are no studies establishing the role of
mammals in central Texas cave ecology, the presence of a large amount
of animal materials (such as scat, nesting materials, and dead bodies)
indicates they are probably important. An important source of nutrients
for the cave species may be the fungus, microbes, and/or other
troglophiles and troglobites that grow or feed on feces (Elliott 1994b;
Gounot 1994).
For predatory troglobites (such as the listed Bexar County
invertebrates), invertebrates that accidently occur in the caves may
also be an important nutrient source (Hopper 2000). Documented
accidental species include snails, earthworms, terrestrial isopods
(commonly known as pillbugs or potato bugs), scorpions, spiders, mites,
collembola (primitive wingless insects that are commonly known as
springtails), thysanura (commonly known as bristletails and
silverfish), harvestmen (commonly known as daddy-long-legs), ants,
leafhoppers, thrips, beetles, weevils, moths, and flies (Reddell 1965;
1966; 1999).
Vegetation Community
Surface vegetation is an important element of the karst habitat for
several reasons, including its role in providing nutrients from: (1)
Direct flow of plant material into the karst with water; (2) habitat
and food sources provided for the animal communities that contribute
nutrients to the karst ecosystem (such as cave crickets, small mammals,
and other vertebrates); and possibly, (3) roots that extend into
subsurface areas. Surface vegetation also acts as a buffer for the
subsurface environment against drastic changes in the temperature and
moisture regime and serves to filter pollutants before they enter the
karst system (Biological Advisory Team 1990; Veni 1988). In some cases,
healthy native plant communities also help control certain exotic
species (such as fire ants) (Porter et al. 1988) that may compete with
or prey upon the listed species and other species (such as cave
crickets) that are important nutrient contributors (Elliott 1994a;
Helf, in litt. 2002).
Tree roots have been found to provide a major energy source in
shallow lava tubes and limestone caves in Hawaii (Howarth 1981).
Jackson et al. (1999) investigated rooting depth in 21 caves on the
Edwards Plateau to assess the belowground vegetational community
structure and the functional importance of roots. They observed roots
penetrating up to 25 m (82 ft) into the interior of 20 of the caves,
with roots of 6 tree species common to the plateau penetrating to below
5 m (16.4 ft).
Along with providing directly and indirectly nutrients to the karst
ecosystem, a healthy vegetative community may also help control the
spread of exotic species. The red imported fire ant (Solenopsis
invicta) is an aggressive predator, which has had a devastating and
long-lasting impact on native ant populations and other arthropod
communities (Vinson and Sorenson 1986; Porter and Savignano 1990) and
is a threat to the karst invertebrates (Elliott 1994b; USFWS 1994).
Fire ants have been observed building nests both within and near cave
entrances, as well as foraging in caves, especially during the summer.
Shallow caves inhabited by listed karst invertebrates are especially
vulnerable to invasion by fire ants and other exotic species. In
addition to preying on cave invertebrate species, including cave
crickets, fire ants may compete with cave crickets for food (Elliott
1994a; Helf in litt. 2002). Helf (in litt. 2002) states that
competition for food between fire ants and cave crickets (Ceuthophilus
secretus) may be a more important interaction than predation. The
presence of fire ants in and around karst areas could have a drastic
detrimental effect on the karst ecosystem through loss of both surface
and subsurface species that are critical links in the food chain.
The invasion of fire ants is known to be aided by ``any disturbance
that clears a site of heavy vegetation and disrupts the native ant
community'' (Porter et al. 1988). Porter et al. (1991) state that
control of fire ants in areas greater than 5 ha (12 ac) may be more
effective than in smaller areas since multiple queen fire ant colonies
reproduce primarily by ``budding,'' where queens and workers branch off
from the main colony and form new sister colonies. Maintaining large,
undisturbed areas of native vegetation may also help sustain the native
ant communities (Porter et al. 1988; 1991).
Listed species, and their associated prey items, have adapted to
native vegetation, with its associated nutrients, surface foliage, and
subsurface roots. Before 1860, Bexar County native vegetation consisted
of an approximate equal mix of areas with woody and grassland plants
(Del Weniger 1988). In more recent times, exotic species have often
replaced native plants. The effects on listed invertebrates of
replacement of native with exotic vegetation have not been reported.
Woodland-Grassland Community
Because of the various roles played by surface vegetation in
maintaining the cave and karst ecosystem, including the listed karst
invertebrate species that are part of the ecosystem, we examined the
best available scientific information to estimate the surface
vegetation needed to support ecosystem processes. The woodland-
grassland mosaic community typical of the Edwards Plateau is a patchy
environment composed of many different plant species. Van Auken et al.
(1980) studied the woody vegetation of the Edwards and Glen Rose
formations in the southern Edwards Plateau in Bexar, Bandera, and
Medina counties. They encountered a total of 24 species of plants on
the Edwards or Glen Rose geologic formations, two of the principal,
cave-containing rock units of the Edwards Plateau.
To maintain natural vegetation communities over the long term,
enough individuals of each plant species must be present for successful
reproduction. The number of reproductive individuals necessary to
maintain a viable or self-reproducing plant population is influenced by
needs for satisfactory germination (Menges 1995), genetic variation
(Bazzaz 1983; Menges 1995; Young 1995), and pollination (Groom 1998;
Jennersten 1995; Bigger 1999). Pavlik (1996) stated that long-lived,
self-fertilizing, woody plants with high fecundity would be expected to
have minimum viable population sizes in the range of 50-250
reproductive individuals. Fifty reproductive individuals is a
reasonable minimum figure for one of the dominant species of the
community (Juniperous ashei) based on reproductive profiles (Van Auken
et al. 1979; Van Auken et al. 1980; Van Auken et al. 1981). This figure
would likely be an underestimate for other woody species present in
central Texas woodlands, however, because these other species are more
sensitive to environmental changes and do not meet several of the life-
history criteria needed for the lowest minimal viable population size.
Although these species may require population sizes at
[[Page 17161]]
the higher end of range (that is, nearer 250 individuals) suggested by
Pavlik (1996) to be viable, we do not have the data to support that
contention. Therefore, on the basis of our review of information
available to us, and after soliciting input from a botanist with
expertise in the Edwards Plateau (Dr. Kathryn Kennedy, Center for Plant
Conservation, pers. comm. 2002), we consider a minimum viable
population size for individual plant species composing a typical oak/
juniper woodland found in central Texas to be 80 individuals per
species. This estimate is based on a habitat type that, as a whole, is
fairly mature, and on knowledge that the species are relatively long-
lived and reproductively successful.
On the basis of an analysis of recorded densities, corrected for
nonreproductive individuals, we then calculated the area needed to
support 80 mature reproductive individuals per species for the 24
species reported by Van Auken et al. (1980). Based on our calculations,
the four highest area requirements to maintain at least 80 mature
individuals were for species that occur at lower densities. These
included 80 ha (198 ac) for Condalia hookeri, and approximately 32 ha
(79 ac) for each of Ptelea trifoliata, Ungnadia speciosa, and Bumelia
lanuginosa. Our calculations indicate that the area needed to maintain
the 7 species with the highest average dominance values (Juniperus
ashei, Quercus fusiformis, Quercus texana, Acacia greggii, Rhus virens,
Berberis trifoliata, and Ulmus crassifolia) is approximately 13 ha (33
ac). This number would maintain 80 reproductive individuals for 15 of
the 24 species. Nine of the species are rarer in the community and all
have importance values of less than 1.0. The area needed to maintain
these nine species ranges from approximately 20 to 80 ha (49 to 198
ac), with 7 of them in the 26 ha to 32 ha (65 to 79 ac) range.
Most literature found for Central Texas native grasslands was
descriptive and not quantitative in its treatment of species
composition and dispersion. No literature was located that provided
grassland species area curves or quantitative species density tables
for the Central Texas area. Two papers by Lynch (1962, 1971) examined
species on an 8-acre tract over time, with 123 species, but a high
species turnover. High species turnover can be indicative of a habitat
area which is too small; however, pre- and post-drought conditions may
also have affected this situation. Robertson et al. (1997), in a
slightly more mesic grassland habitat, found that a 4 ha (10 ac) site
captured most of the species diversity (100 species) present even in
much larger patches, although it does not address population sizes and
persistence in isolation, and an increase to a 6 ha (14 ac) tract
increased species representation to 140. One paper on a grassland in a
more westerly and drier location in Central Texas recorded 157 taxa in
a 16 ha (40 ac) exclosure studied between 1948 and the mid-1970's
(Smeins and Merrill 1976).
Primary recruitment of new individuals of grass species in
grasslands is from seedling establishment. Many grass species use wind
to disperse their seeds and dispersal distances may be small. The
process of expansion through rhizomes (underground stems) is slow and
clonal, which reduces genetic variability. Seed dispersal, soil
texture, and suitable soil moisture profiles at critical times are
important factors for maintaining viability (Coffin et al. 1993).
As described above, we have reviewed the available information
concerning grasslands and grassland species in Central Texas. The
information is of a relatively general nature, and we did not find
specific information addressing the role that grasslands or grass
species might play in contributing, directly or indirectly, to karst
ecosystems. While grassland communities and species may be important to
maintaining the karst community, we lack adequate information to
credibly estimate surface habitat patch size requirements for grass
species in relation to karst ecosystems.
The presence of surface vegetation communities is important for
maintaining the humid conditions, stable temperatures, and natural
airflow in cave and karst environments. Vegetation also plays an
important role in water quality. Since soil depth is shallow over the
limestone plateau, water collects as sheet flow on the surface
following rain and enters the subsurface environment through cave
openings, fractures, and solutionally-enlarged bedding planes. This
direct, rapid transport of water through the karst allows for little or
no purification (Veni 1988), allowing contaminants and sediments to
enter directly into the subsurface environment. As a result, karst
features and karst dependent invertebrates are vulnerable to the
adverse effects of pollution from contaminated ground and surface
water. Maintaining stable environmental conditions and protecting
groundwater quality and quantity requires managing a healthy vegetation
community to avoid threats from surface and subsurface drainage to the
karst environment needed by the karst dependent species. This includes
not only the cave entrances accessible to humans, but also sinks,
depressions, fractures, and fissures, which may serve as subsurface
conduits into caves and other subsurface spaces used by the
invertebrates.
Buffer Areas
To maintain a viable vegetative community, including woodland and
grassland species, a buffer area is needed to shield the core habitat
from impacts associated with edge effects or disturbance from adjacent
urban development (Lovejoy et al. 1986; Yahner 1988). In this context,
edge effects refer to the adverse changes to natural communities
(primarily from increases in invasive species and pollutants, and
changes in microclimates) from nearby areas that have been modified for
human development.
The changes caused by edge effects can occur rapidly. For example,
vegetation 2 m (6.6 ft) from a newly created edge can be altered within
days (Lovejoy et al. 1986). Edges may allow invasive plant species to
gain a foothold where the native vegetation had previously prevented
their spread (Saunders et al. 1990; Kotanen et al. 1998; Suarez et al.
1998; Meiners and Steward 1999). When plant species composition is
altered as a result of an edge effect, changes also occur in the
surface animal communities (Lovejoy and Oren 1981; Harris 1984; Mader
1984; Thompson 1985; Lovejoy et al. 1986; Yahner 1988; Fajer et al.
1989; Kindvall 1992; Tscharntke 1992; Keith et al. 1993; Hanski 1995;
Lindenmayer and Possingham 1995; Bowers et al. 1996; Hill et al. 1996;
Kozlov 1996; Kuussaari et al. 1996; Turner 1996; Mankin and Warner
1997; Burke and Nol 1998; Didham 1998; Suarez et al. 1998; Crist and
Ahern 1999; Kindvall 1999). Changes in plant and animal species
composition as a result of edge effects may unnaturally change the
nutrient cycling processes required to support cave and karst ecosystem
dynamics. To minimize edge effects, the core area must have a
sufficient buffer area.
One recommendation for protecting forested areas from edge effects
that are in proximity to clear-cut areas is use of the ``three tree
height'' approach (Harris 1984) for estimating the width of the buffer
area needed. We used this general rule to estimate the width of buffer
areas needed to protect the habitat core areas. The average height of
native mature trees in the Edwards woodland association in Texas ranges
from 3 to 9
[[Page 17162]]
m (10 to 30 ft) (Van Auken et al. 1979). Applying the ``three tree
height'' general rule, and using the average value of 6.6 m for tree
height, we estimated that a buffer width of at least 20 m (66 ft) is
needed around a core habitat area to protect the vegetative community
from edge effects. Based on this rule, 7 acres is necessary to protect
a 33-acre core area. We recognize that the ``three tree height''
approach described by Harris (1984) was based on the distance that
effects of storm events (``wind-throw'') from a surrounding clear-cut
``edge'' will penetrate into an old-growth forest stand. Since the
effects of edge on woodland/grass land mosaic communities have not been
well studied, the ``three tree height'' recommendation is considered to
be the best available peer-reviewed science to protect woodland areas
from edge effects (Dr. Kathryn Kennedy, Center for Plant Conservation,
pers. comm. 2003). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is also in
general agreement about the need for some type of buffer as a means of
addressing edge effects, but currently has not specific recommendations
on appropriate size for such a buffer ( John Herron, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, pers. comm. 2003).
Animal communities also should be buffered from impacts associated
with edge effects or disturbance from adjacent urban development. Edges
can act as a barrier to dispersal of birds and mammals (Yahner 1988;
Hansson 1998). Invertebrate species are affected by edges. Mader et al.
(1990) found that carabid beetles and lycosid spiders avoided crossing
unpaved roads that were even smaller than 3 m (9 ft) wide. Saunders et
al. (1990) suggested that as little as 100 m (328 ft) of agricultural
fields may be a complete barrier to dispersal for invertebrates and
some species of birds. In general, for animal communities, species need
buffers of 50 to 100 m (164 to 328 ft) or greater to ameliorate edge
effects (Lovejoy et al. 1986; Wilcove et al. 1986; Laurance 1991;
Laurance and Yensen 1991; Kapos et al. 1993; Andren 1995; Reed et al.
1996; Burke and Nol 1998; Didham 1998; Suarez et al. 1998).
Nonnative fire ants are known to be harmful to many species of
invertebrates and vertebrates. In coastal southern California, Suarez
et al. (1998) found that densities of the exotic Argentine ant
(Linepithema humile), which has similar life history and ecological
requirements to the red imported fire ant (Dr. Richard Patrock,
University of Texas at Austin, pers. comm. 2003), are greatest near
disturbed areas. Native ant communities tended to be more abundant in
native vegetation and less abundant in disturbed areas. Based on the
association of the Argentine ant and distance to the nearest edge in
urban areas, core areas may only be effective at maintaining natural
populations of native ants when there is a buffer area of at least 200
m (656 ft) (Suarez et al. 1998).
Information on the area needed to maintain populations of animal
species, including cave crickets, found in Central Texas is lacking. As
discussed above, animal communities should be buffered by areas of 50
to 100 m (164 to 328 ft) or greater to ameliorate edge effects, and by
areas of 200 m (656 ft) to buffer against the effects of fire ants.
From this data, we determined that a buffer of 100 m (328 ft), in
addition to the 50 m (164 ft) cave cricket foraging area, would, at a
minimum, protect the cave cricket foraging area from the effects of
edge and nonnative species invasions.
Fragmentation
Haskell (2000) examined the effect of habitat fragmentation by
unpaved roads through otherwise contiguous forest in the southern
Appalachian Mountains and found reduced soil macroinvertebrate species
abundance up to 100 m (328 ft) from the road and declines in faunal
richness up to 15 m (50 ft) from the road. Haskell (2000) pointed out
that ``these changes may have additional consequences for the
functioning of the forest ecosystem and the biological diversity found
within this system. The macroinvertebrate fauna of the leaf litter
plays a pivotal role in the ability of the soil to process energy and
nutrients.'' Haskell further points out that these changes may in turn
affect the distribution and abundance of other organisms, particularly
plants. Changes in abundance in litter dwelling macroinvertebrates may
also affect ground-foraging vertebrate fauna (Haskell 2000).
Invertebrate biomass per unit area has been found to be less in
small fragmented habitats, which may result in reduced food available
for cave crickets. Burke and Nol (1998), working in southern Ontario,
Canada, found a greater biomass of leaf litter invertebrates in large
(=20 ha (49 ac)) than in smaller forested areas. Zanette et
al. (2000) in New South Wales, Australia, reported that the biomass of
ground dwelling invertebrates was 1.6 times greater in large
( 400 ha (988 ac)) than in smaller ([sim]55 ha (136 ac))
forested areas.
Dispersal
The ability of individuals to move between preferred habitat
patches is essential for colonization and population viability (Eber
and Brandl 1996; Fahrig and Merriam 1994; Hill et al. 1996; Kattan et
al. 1994; Kindvall 1999; Kozlov 1996; Kuussaari et al. 1996; Turner
1996). Patch shapes allowing connection with the highest number of
neighboring patches increase the likelihood that a neighboring patch
will be occupied (Fahrig and Merriam 1994; Kindvall 1999; Kuussaari et
al. 1996; Tiebout and Anderson 1997). If movement among populations is
restricted and a population is isolated, the habitat patch size must be
large enough to ensure that the population can survive (Fahrig and
Merriam 1994).
It is likely that many cave systems are connected throughout the
subsurface geologic formation even though this may not be readily
apparent from surface observations. The extent to which listed species
use interstitial spaces and passages is not known. Troglobitic species
may retreat into these small interstitial spaces where the physical
environment is more stable (Howarth 1983) and may spend the majority of
their time in such retreats, only leaving them during temporary forays
into the larger cave passages to forage (Howarth 1987). During several
karst invertebrate surveys conducted in Bexar County caves, Service
biologists have observed that troglobites, including listed species,
were not found when temperature and humidity in the cave was low. Upon
returning to the same cave once environmental conditions returned to
optimal, the listed species and other troglobites were observed.
Small voids (inaccessible to humans) and interstitial spaces can
also provide subsurface corridors for movement of listed species and
cave crickets between and among caves and karst features. Cores drilled
around and between occupied caves have led to discovery of additional
void space that was hydrologically, but not physically connected to the
humanly-accessible portion of an occupied cave. Listed species were
found in this void space.
Summary
The conservation of the endangered karst invertebrates depends on a
self-sustaining karst ecosystem; surface and subsurface drainage basins
to maintain adequate levels of moisture; and a viable surface animal
and plant community for nutrient input and protection of the subsurface
from adverse impacts. The area needed to conserve such an
[[Page 17163]]
ecosystem includes a core area buffered from the impacts associated
with fragmentation, isolation, edge effects, and other factors that may
threaten ecosystem stability. Depending on the size and shape of these
core habitat areas or patches, in order to remain viable, they may also
require connections to other habitat patches.
Previous Federal Action
On January 16, 1992, we received a petition submitted by
representatives of the Helotes Creek Association, the Balcones
Canyonlands Conservation Coalition, the Texas Speleological
Association, the Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, and the Texas Cave
Management Association to add the nine invertebrates to the List of
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. On December 1, 1993, we announced
in the Federal Register (58 FR 63328) a 90-day finding that the
petition presented substantial information that listing may be
warranted.
On November 15, 1994, we added eight of the nine invertebrates to
the Animal Notice of Review as category 2 candidate species in the
Federal Register (59 FR 58982). We intended to include Rhadine exilis
in the notice of review, but an oversight occurred and it did not
appear in the published notice. Category 2 candidates, a classification
since discontinued, were those taxa for which we had data indicating
that listing was possibly appropriate, but for which we lacked
substantial data on biological vulnerability and threats to support
proposed listing rules.
On December 30, 1998, we published a proposed rule to list the nine
Bexar County karst invertebrates as endangered (63 FR 71855).
Incorporating comments and new information received during the public
comment period on the proposed rule, we published a final rule to list
the nine Bexar County karst invertebrate species as endangered in the
Federal Register on December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419).
In the proposed rule for listing these species, we indicated that
designation of critical habitat was not prudent for the nine
invertebrates because the publication of precise species locations and
maps and descriptions of critical habitat in the Federal Register would
make the nine species more vulnerable to incidents of vandalism through
increased recreational visits to their cave habitat and through
purposeful destruction of the caves. We also indicated that designation
of critical habitat was not prudent because it would not provide any
additional benefits beyond those provided through listing the species
as endangered.
Based on recent court decisions (for example, Natural Resources
Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F. 3d 1121 (9th
Cir. 1997); Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp. 2d
1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)) and the standards applied in those judicial
opinions, we reexamined the question of whether critical habitat for
the nine invertebrates would be prudent. After reexamining the
available evidence for the nine invertebrates, we did not find specific
evidence of collection or trade of these or any similarly situated
species. Consequently, in our final rule listing the species, we found
that ``by designating critical habitat in a manner that does not
identify specific cave locations, the threat of vandalism by
recreational visits to the cave or purposeful destruction by unknown
parties should not be increased'' (65 FR 81419). Therefore, our final
rule to list the species as endangered also included our determination
that critical habitat designation was prudent as we did not find
specific evidence of increased vandalism, and we found there may be
some educational or informational benefit to designating critical
habitat. Thus, we found that the benefits of designating critical
habitat for the nine karst invertebrate species outweighed the benefits
of not designating critical habitat.
The Final Listing Priority Guidance for FY 2000 (64 FR 57114)
stated that we would undertake critical habitat determinations and
designations during FY 2000 as allowed by our funding allocation for
that year. As explained in detail in the Listing Priority Guidance, our
listing budget was insufficient to allow us to immediately complete all
of the listing actions required by the Act during FY 2000. We stated
that we would propose designation of critical habitat in the future at
such time when our available resources and priorities allowed.
On November 1, 2000, the Center for Biological Diversity (Center)
filed a complaint against the Service alleging that the Service
exceeded its 1-year deadline to publish a final rule to list and to
designate critical habitat for the nine Bexar County cave
invertebrates. Subsequent to the Service publishing the final rule to
list these nine species as endangered on December 26, 2000, the Center
agreed to dismiss its claim regarding the listing of the species. Under
the terms of a settlement reached between the Center and the Service,
the Service agreed to submit to the Federal Register for publication a
proposed critical habitat determination on or by June 30, 2002, and a
final determination on or by January 25, 2003. Sixty-day extensions on
the deadlines to submit both the proposed and final critical habitat
determinations to the Federal Register for publication were approved by
the court, and the new deadlines became August 31, 2002, and March 26,
2003, for the proposed and final rules, respectively.
On February 28, 2002, we mailed letters to the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission informing them that we were in the process of designating
critical habitat for the nine Bexar County karst invertebrates. We
requested any additional available information on the listed species,
including biology; life history; habitat requirements; distribution,
including geologic controls to species distribution; current threats;
and management activities, current or in the foreseeable future. The
letters contained a current list of Bexar County caves known to contain
listed species, a map showing the general distribution of these species
within each Karst Fauna Region, and a list of the references pertaining
to these species and their distribution as we know it. We requested
their review and comments on our current information and asked their
assistance in providing any additional available information.
We also mailed approximately 300 pre-proposal letters to interested
parties and cave biologists on March 20, 2002, informing them that we
were in the process of designating critical habitat for the 9 listed
karst invertebrates. The letters contained a copy of the final rule to
list these Bexar County invertebrate species as endangered, a map
showing the general distribution of these species, a list of literature
about these species and their habitats, and a brief summary with
questions and answers on critical habitat. We requested comments on:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including
whether the benefits of excluding areas will outweigh the benefits of
including areas; (2) land use practices and current or planned
activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on possible
critical habitat; (3) any foreseeable economic or other impacts
resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, and
particularly any impacts on small entities or families; and (4)
economic and other benefits associated with designating critical
habitat for the Bexar County karst invertebrates.
On August 27, 2002, we proposed that 25 units encompassing a total
of approximately 3,857 ha (9,516 ac) in
[[Page 17164]]
Bexar County, Texas, be designated as critical habitat for the nine
karst invertebrates (67 FR 55064). The comment period for the proposed
rule was originally scheduled to close on November 25, 2002, but was
extended until December 23, 2002 (67 FR 70203), to allow for a 30-day
comment period on the draft economic analysis. Thus, we accepted
comments on the proposed rule and the economic analysis until December
23, 2002.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the August 27, 2002, proposed rule, we requested all interested
parties to submit comments or information concerning the designation of
critical habitat for the nine endangered Bexar County invertebrates (67
FR 55064). During the comment period, we held a public hearing in San
Antonio on October 30, 2002. We published a newspaper notice inviting
public comment and announcing the public hearing in the San Antonio
Express-News. A transcript of the hearing is available for inspection
(see ADDRESSES section). The comment period was originally scheduled to
close on November 25, 2002.
On November 21, 2002, we announced the availability of the draft
economic analysis and requested comments on it and the proposal during
an extension of the comment period until December 23, 2002 (67 FR
70203). We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, county
governments, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and
invited them to comment. We also provided notification of these
documents through email, telephone calls, letters, and news releases
faxed and/or mailed to affected elected officials, media outlets, local
jurisdictions, and interest groups. For the notice of the proposed
rule, we mailed over 1,500 letters to interested parties. Later we sent
over 1,200 post cards notifying interested parties of the availability
of the draft economic analysis and the extension of the comment period.
The number of parties on the mailing list fell as we deleted out-of-
date and duplicate addresses. We also published all of the associated
documents on the Service's regional Internet site following their
release.
We solicited 11 independent experts who are familiar with these
species and the karst ecosystem to peer-review the proposed critical
habitat designation. Only one of the peer reviewers submitted comments,
generally in support of the proposed designation (see ``Peer Review''
section below). We also received a total of 42 written comments, and 3
oral comments at the public hearing. Of those comments indicating a
preference, 10 supported the critical habitat designation and 13
indicated opposition to designation. Many commenters did not express
opposition to the designation, but did express opposition to specific
areas being included. We reviewed all comments received for substantive
issues and new data regarding critical habitat and the draft economic
analysis. Here, we address all comments on both documents received
during the comment periods, as well as public hearing testimony. We
have grouped similar comments and addressed them in the following
summary.
Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology for Size of Critical
Habitat Units
(1) Comment: The Service should designate smaller areas for
critical habitat units, including: (1) Surface and subsurface drainage
areas; (2) cave cricket foraging areas; and (3) dominant and
subdominant woody species, rather than uncommon plant species. The
Service focused its methodology on surface plant communities, but
little information exists relating particular vegetation communities to
the subsurface habitat of the listed species.
Our Response: We believe it is well documented that surface flora
and fauna communities are an essential energy source for fauna,
including the nine endangered invertebrates, in the karst environment.
The areas needed to support dominant, subdominant, and ``other woody
species'' common to the Edwards Plateau were included in our proposal
to incorporate key components of the native vegetative community that
contribute directly to nutrient input, and which also support the
animal community that is another source of nutrient input to karst
areas. We do not have data from vegetation surveys conducted around
occupied caves to determine the importance of rarer plant species.
Therefore, in this final designation we have reduced the size of all of
the critical habitat units based on the amount of area that we believe,
based on the best available information, is needed to support at least
15 of 24 species of vegetation on the Edwards Plateau, including the
seven species with the highest dominance values, but not the rarer
plant species (see ``Criteria Used to Delineate Critical Habitat''
section below for further explanation).
(2) Comment: The Service should designate larger areas for the
critical habitat units to: (1) Include all or most of Karst Zone 1; (2)
all or portions of Karst Zone 2; (3) reduce fragmentation of habitat;
(4) consider subsurface karst voids between known caves that may
provide habitat for the species; (5) provide better protection against
pollution; and (6) provide dispersal corridors for cave crickets.
Our Response: We agree that it is likely that all of these concerns
have the potential to affect the conservation of the endangered karst
invertebrates. Much of the biology and ecology of these karst-adapted
listed species is not well understood. Critical habitat was delineated
to encompass areas on which are found those components of the karst
ecosystem for which sufficient information exists to determine that
they are essential to the conservation of the listed species.
We recognize that areas outside of the boundaries of critical
habitat may be important for the karst invertebrates for purposes such
as providing habitat in interstitial karst voids (beyond the known
caves), additional sources of nutrients, or dispersal corridors.
However, we did not have sufficient data when we proposed critical
habitat, nor were any data provided during the comment period, that
would allow us to adequately assess the importance to occupied caves of
other areas of Karst Zones 1 or 2, karst voids between known caves,
larger buffers, or areas that are needed for dispersal corridors for
cave crickets. For instance, members of the Technical Subcommittee of
the Karst Invertebrate Recovery Team, who are experts on the species
and the karst ecosystems, agree that it is likely the invertebrates
spend considerable time, perhaps the majority of time, in the human-
inaccessible karst voids (interstitial spaces) associated with the cave
(Steve Taylor, Technical Subcommittee chair, pers. comm. 2002).
However, the distance that these invertebrates go from the cave into
the surrounding karst is unknown. Since protection of the surface and
subsurface drainage areas associated with each occupied cave is
important to buffer the cave from pollutants, these drainage areas were
included, where possible, in the critical habitat designation.
Additional scientific discovery may show that larger areas are needed
for long-term conservation, and we will continue to incorporate such
information into planning and implementing various conservation
activities for these species. Given the best available information, we
believe the specific areas designated in this rule contain one or more
of the physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and meet the definition of critical habitat
as provided in section 3 of the Act.
[[Page 17165]]
(3) Comment: The proposed rule did not show that designating
critical habitat was essential to conservation of the species or
requires special management.
Our Response: Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as
``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed * * *, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) which may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon a determination *
* * that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.'' Regulations (50 CFR 424.12) direct us to ``focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements within the
defined area that are essential to the conservation of the species.''
Conservation is defined in the Act, section 3, as ``the use of all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.'' We believe the
proposed rule demonstrated that the primary constituent elements we
recognized are essential to the conservation of the species. The areas
we are designating all contain one or more of such features.
The caves and the associated karst are essential to the
conservation of the species because the invertebrates live, feed, and
reproduce in the caves and the associated karst structures. The
subsurface drainage area is essential to provide the environmental
conditions in the cave that are requirements for the species. The
surface drainage area helps maintain the environmental conditions and
helps maintain an energy flow into the underground karst system. The
surface vegetation is a direct source of energy through plant materials
entering the karst system, and the surface vegetation also supports
animals (such as cave crickets) that process the plant materials and
then leave the resulting nutrients in the cave. Cave crickets are
likely one of the most important sources of nutrients that support the
endangered karst invertebrates. We believe this final rule documents
that the areas designated meet the definition of critical habitat in
that they contain one or more of the physical and biological features
that are essential to the conservation of the endangered karst
invertebrates. We also have carefully reviewed whether such areas may
require special management considerations or protection, as called for
under the definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)A)(i) of the
Act. On the basis of our evaluation of certain areas already covered by
conservation plans and thus already have special management
considerations or protection, we did not include some areas in this
final designation. (See ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation
Plans'' section, below.)
(4) Comment: Because critical habitat must contain those physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,
with the term ``conservation'' being considered synonymous with
recovery, it appears that the same criteria used by the Service to
delineate critical habitat must be incorporated into recovery plans for
the Bexar County karst invertebrates. The commenter also hypothesized
that the recovery of the Bexar County invertebrates will require
establishment of a certain number of caves within adequate preserves
that meet the parameters described in the proposed rule for critical
habitat designation. Although a recovery plan has not yet been
developed for these species, some of the areas proposed as critical
habitat do not appear as if they will meet likely future recovery
criteria for these species.
Our Response: We recognize that our designation of critical habitat
may not include all the habitat areas that might eventually be
determined to be necessary for the conservation of the listed karst
invertebrates. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not
signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not
be recommended for attention as part of a recovery plan. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best information
available at the time of designation will not control the direction and
substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts, particularly if new
information available to these planning efforts calls for a different
outcome. We also note that as provided for under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act, we can revise our designation of critical habitat in the future if
it is appropriate to do so.
Designation of critical habitat does not establish recovery
criteria; that is one of the purposes of a recovery plan. Pursuant to
section 4(f)(1) of the Act, the Service develops and implements plans,
referred to as recovery plans, for the conservation and survival of
listed species. As defined in section 3 of the Act, ``conservation''
means ``the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at
which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer
necessary.'' A key purpose of a recovery plan is to recognize the
threats to the listed species and propose methods for removing or
minimizing the threats.
A Recovery Team, including stakeholders, currently is working with
the Service to prepare a draft recovery plan for these species. While
the Team has discussed recovery criteria, no draft plan has been
developed. When a plan is developed, the public's review and comments
will be solicited before a final plan is adopted by the Service. We
cannot currently say how many or which areas will be identified in the
recovery plan as being important for the conservation the species.
(5) Comment: The Service's recommendation for the size of the
critical habitat units appears to be based on the study of a single
cave (Lakeline Cave in Williamson County, Texas) that may not be
representative of the other karst features.
Our Response: The recommended size for critical habitat units is
not based on the results of the Lakeline Cave cricket study. The
Service used the Lakeline study as one source of information that
suggests small areas of native vegetation, surrounded by urban
development, are not adequate to sustain the cave cricket population,
which is believed to be a key to the ecology of karst invertebrates and
a primary source of cave nutrients. Our designation is based on the use
of the best scientific data available regarding the physical and
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species and the identification of specific areas where such features
are found.
(6) Comment: The size of the area needed to support native plant
communities is based on the need for the plants to support each other,
not one karst ecosystem. Therefore, no reason exists that multiple
cave/karst ecosystems cannot occur within the boundaries of one
critical habitat unit, as long as the actual areas providing nutrients
to each cave are encompassed.
Our Response: We agree that the approach taken in the proposed rule
of providing adequate surface plant communities for the karst ecosystem
does not necessarily require more surface area to support multiple
caves in close proximity. In the final rule, we revised our methods for
delineating critical habitat to include multiple caves within the same
smaller surface area, where appropriate. For each cave, we overlaid the
areas needed to include the surface and subsurface drainages, cave
cricket foraging area, and the vegetative surface community (see
``Critical Habitat'' section).
[[Page 17166]]
(7) Comment: The Service should consider only designating the cave
cricket foraging area plus a buffer area, or about 5.34 ac, as critical
habitat around each cave.
Our Response: We agree that the immediate area around an occupied
cave is very important for cave cricket foraging and other reasons, and
that this area should be included in the critical habitat designation.
However, there are additional physical and biological features that we
have identified as essential to the conservation of the species,
consistent with the definition of critical habitat in section 3 of the
Act. The area recommended by the commenter would not adequately provide
for the features and related primary constituent elements that we have
identified as being essential to the conservation of these species (see
``Critical Habitat'' and ``Primary Constituent Elements'' sections,
below).
(8) Comment: Based on the Testudo Tube Cave example in Williamson
County, 31 acres (26-acre preserve plus a buffer area) may be an
adequate area for critical habitat units.
Our Response: Testudo Tube Cave Preserve in Williamson County,
Texas, is surrounded by several hundred acres of undeveloped land and
is adjacent to an even larger preserved area of several thousand acres,
resulting in an effective ``preserve'' size of much larger than 31
acres. We will be interested in long-term studies of the Testudo Tube
Cave Preserve that may provide additional information about the
adequacy of the size of the preserve. We note also that designating
critical habitat does not establish a preserve (see ``Critical
Habitat'' section).
(9) Comment: Boundaries of the critical habitat units are arbitrary
and not properly defined. The boundaries should be based on biology and
not roads and surface features.
Our Response: While the general size of the critical habitat unit
boundaries are based on primary constituent elements needed by the
species, in the proposed rule we did use roads and other surface
features to make it easy for the public to identify the boundaries. In
the changes to the boundaries in this final rule, we did not use
surface features, but instead used specific coordinates to describe the
boundaries. This allowed us to base boundaries mainly on biological,
hydrological, and geological considerations, thereby delineating
critical habitat areas more precisely.
(10) Comment: Critical habitat needs to be defined to include three
new caves that have been discovered to contain listed species since the
proposed rule was published.
Our Response: Of the three caves that were discovered to contain
listed species since the proposed rule was published, two (Hackberry
Sink and Dancing Rattler Cave) are located in Government Canyon State
Natural Area. We have determined that the management for the caves and
the species in the Natural Area provides adequate special management
considerations for the primary constituent elements, and consequently
units within the Natural Area that we proposed for designation are not
included in this final rule. (See the ``Lands Covered Under Existing
Conservation Plans'' section for further details.) One cave (Crownridge
Canyon Cave) is in a new location, but was not included in this final
determination because there would have been no opportunity for public
comment had we included the area in critical habitat. Under our
rulemaking procedures and the Administrative Procedure Act, we would
first need to propose the area for designation and seek public review
and comment on such a proposal before a designation would be possible.
Because of the court-approved settlement agreement that set a deadline
for finalizing this rule, we did not have enough time to republish a
proposed rule that might have included the Crownridge Canyon Cave in
the critical habitat designation. We note that the listed species in
Crownridge Canyon Cave do occur in other caves within the critical
habitat designation. Although we are not able to consider including
Crownridge Canyon Cave in this designation of critical habitat, we
believe the cave and the associated karst ecosystem to be important to
the conservation of the species. Because the cave is known to be
occupied, it will be covered by applicable provisions under sections 7
(requiring Federal agencies to consult under the ``jeopardy
standard''), 9, and 10 of the Act.
(11) Comment: The Service ignored the potential for the species to
occur in void spaces within the bedrock lying between caves.
Our Response: We agree that the species occur within, and use,
subsurface voids in karst rock and areas between occupied caves, and we
indicated this in the proposed rule for critical habitat. However, we
do not have data to quantify such areas. Using the best available data,
we designated critical habitat to incorporate the specific areas on
which are found the primary constituent elements of a karst ecosystem
in the vicinity of caves known to be occupied by the endangered
species.
(12) Comment: How can a cave located within an area lacking a
healthy surface plant community contain an intact subsurface
environment?
Our Response: The surface vegetative community has been
significantly altered by urbanization in some of the designated
critical habitat units. Since the caves still contain the endangered
species, we believe that the areas have maintained the primary
constituent elements related to the karst subsurface environment and
surface and subsurface drainages. We recognize that intensive
management of the remaining surface habitat may be needed to compensate
for lack of natural plant and animal communities on the surface.
Issue 2: Data Quality
(13) Comment: The available data used in the proposed rule is not
adequate to support this critical habitat designation. There seems to
be a particular lack of data on species biology, ecology, and
distribution of the species and information on which to base the unit
boundaries and areas.
Our Response: As per section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are required to
designate critical habitat ``on the basis of the best scientific data
available,'' and we believe our designation meets that requirement. In
general, the biology and ecology of the karst-adapted species are not
well understood. Consequently, the criteria we used to delineate
critical habitat, and the areas we delineated, were based on components
of the karst ecosystem for which sufficient information exists to
determine their importance to the listed species, and for which
specific areas can be identified and mapped. The ``Information
Sources'' and ``Criteria Used to Designate Critical Habitat'' sections
below provide additional information regarding the basis for our
designation.
(14) Comment: The number of Bexar County caves and those containing
listed species should be updated to the latest available information.
Will the Service designate critical habitat for new locations of the
listed species that will be discovered subsequent to publication of the
final rule for critical habitat designation?
Our Response: We fully agree that our knowledge of the caves in
Bexar County that are known to provide habitat for endangered karst
invertebrates should be as current as possible. This knowledge will
help the Service evaluate the threats to the species, the status of the
species, and plan for their conservation. We recognize that additional
caves are likely to be found
[[Page 17167]]
in the future that have endangered karst invertebrates and may not be
within the areas currently designated as critical habitat.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act provides that subsequent to the
designation of critical habitat, we ``may, from time-to-time thereafter
as appropriate, revise such designation.'' Any new caves discovered to
contain the listed species may be important to the conservation of the
species, and we will consider them for potential future revisions of
this designation, provided the available science at the time supports
the designation. This would require the same procedures for public
comment and full economic analysis as this final rule has followed. We
note also that new areas found to be occupied by the endangered species
and not included in this designation of critical habitat may be
considered and included in the recovery plan being prepared for these
species. Also, the species at those new locations will receive
protection under sections 7 (pursuant to requirements for Federal
agencies related to the ``jeopardy'' standard), 9, and 10 of the Act,
regardless of whether the area is designated as critical habitat.
(15) Comment: Restricted access to private property limits the
knowledge of other caves that may contain endangered karst
invertebrates.
Our Response: The help of private property owners will be essential
for the recovery of these endangered karst invertebrates. Any surveys
for caves or cave invertebrates on private property are completely
voluntary and at the discretion of the landowner. We appreciate the
cooperation the Service has received from many landowners in Bexar
County who allowed geologists and biologists access. We want to
continue to build positive, voluntary relationships with private
landowners for the conservation of listed species.
(16) Comment: Does critical habitat designation comply with the
Federal Data Quality Act and Service Information Quality Guidelines?
Our Response: The U.S. Department of the Interior, of which the
Fish and Wildlife Service is part, issued guidelines regarding data
quality, in response to the passage of Public Law 106-554, referenced
by the commenter. These guidelines, Information Quality Guidelines
Pursuant to Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act For Fiscal Year 2001, became effective October 1,
2002. The Service's rulemaking procedure, inclusive of this designation
of critical habitat, includes a comprehensive public comment process
and imposes a legal obligation on us to respond to comments on the
proposed action. These procedural safeguards can ensure a thorough
response to comments on quality of information. The thorough
consideration required by this process generally meets the needs of the
request for correction of information process, under the Federal Data
Quality Act and Service Information Quality Guidelines. In the case of
rulemakings and other public comment procedures, where we disseminate a
study analysis or other information prior to the final rulemaking,
requests for correction are considered prior to the final action. The
commenter did not specifically identify how the draft economic analysis
or proposed rule might not meet the criteria that the guidelines
require. Regardless, we believe that this process used the best and
most reliable scientific and commercial data available regarding the
designation and meets the criteria of the data quality guidelines.
(17) Comment: The proposed rule states that of about 400 caves
known in Bexar County, only 57 contain the listed species. Have the
other 343 caves been surveyed?
Our Response: The final rule has been updated to reflect the best
available information on the total number of caves known from Bexar
County (475 caves as of December 2002). Seventy four caves are
currently known to contain listed species. Not all of the known caves
in Bexar County have been adequately surveyed for invertebrates. It is
likely that some of these caves will be found to contain one or more of
the listed species. We also expect more caves to be discovered as
additional surveys are completed.
Issue 3: Site-Specific Comments
(18) Comment: Many individual landowners commented that their
property should be excluded from the critical habitat because it did
not contain either the caves with the species or the primary
constituent elements necessary for critical habitat. Several units have
already been significantly disturbed from urban development and others
are planned for development.
Response: The specific properties of most of the individual
landowners who expressed these concerns have been either removed from
the critical habitat designation, or the amount of their property
included in the designation is now significantly reduced. This is a
result of the reduction in area designated in all of the units based on
the updated criteria used in the final rule to determine the areas for
critical habitat (refer to the ``Methods'' and the ``Criteria Used to
Identify Critical Habitat'' sections of the final rule for the specific
changes). All of the revised critical habitat units designated in this
final rule contain one or more of the primary constituent elements
essential for the conservation of these endangered species.
Conservation of some species may be dependent, in part, on habitat
restoration activities in some areas that have been disturbed. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, restoration of native
vegetation, control of invasive species, and the installation of berms
to protect the cave opening from pollutants.
(19) Comment: The groundwater drainage basins for Black Cat Cave
and Logan's Cave (Units 13 and 17, respectively) extend beyond the
boundaries of their proposed critical habitat areas. These units should
be expanded to include the appropriate drainage basins. The surface
water drainage area for Springtail Crevice Cave (Unit 21) extends more
than 6 km outside of its proposed critical habitat area. All, or at
least a significantly greater percentage, of the lower drainage area
within about 2 km of the cave should be included within the critical
habitat area to better protect the cave from degradation of water
quality due to urbanization.
Our Response: The subsurface drainage areas associated with the
caves from units 13 and 17, and the surface drainage area for the cave
in Unit 21, were delineated after the proposed rule was published (Veni
2002). These drainage areas extend outside of the boundaries of the
proposed critical habitat boundaries. These areas were not included in
this final determination because they were not identified in the
proposed rule and, therefore, were not available for public comment.
Although not included in the critical habitat designation, minimizing
future impacts to the subsurface and surface drainage areas associated
with these caves will likely be important for the conservation of the
listed species in these caves. We have emphasized the importance of
these areas in this final rule (see ``Critical Habitat Unit
Descriptions'' section).
(20) Comment: The boundaries of Unit 20 are arbitrary, and 160 ha
(395 ac) are not required to protect the species in Robber Baron Cave.
Our Response: The boundaries of Unit 20 have been redrawn based on
the cave footprint and the subsurface drainage area of the cave and
reduced to include 23 ha (57 ac). The amount of Zone 1 area included in
the critical habitat designation was also reduced due to a lack of
information on the importance of this area to the listed species within
the cave. We also reduced the area included
[[Page 17168]]
in the critical habitat by using coordinate data to describe the
boundaries, rather than roads as used in the proposed rule.
(21) Comment: Several commenters requested that certain units be
excluded because there are other caves with critical habitat, located
in the same karst fauna region and containing the same listed species,
whose surface habitat is in a more natural and less degraded state.
Therefore, the Service should omit those units with degraded surface
habitat, because they will not be required for conservation of these
species.
Our Response: As discussed above, all of the specific areas being
designated contain one or more physical or biological features and
primary constituent elements that are essential for the conservation of
these endangered species and meet the definition of critical habitat as
provided in section 3 of the Act. While some of the designated areas
may not be in optimal condition, they are the only known locations for
these species. Some of the areas may need intensive special management
to restore or maintain some of the conditions important to these
species. Conservation efforts involving the designated areas and other
areas, including efforts taken to implement a recovery plan when one is
adopted, will be dependent on the voluntary cooperation of landowners.
This may include, but is not limited to, the cooperation of landowners
who may voluntarily allow restoration efforts on their lands.
(22) Comment: Unit 1e should be divided into multiple smaller units
for critical habitat.
Our Response: We agree and the final designation divides Unit 1e,
previously 341 ha (842 ac), into three smaller Units 1e1, 1e2, and 1e3
for a total area of 50 ha (124 ac) (see Table 2 below).
(23) Comment: How can the Service designate critical habitat for
Unit 19 and Genesis Cave when the urban development on the site has
already resulted in take of the species in the cave? If the unit was
designated based on the alleged existence of intact subsurface
environment, then why are the vegetation buffer zones necessary?
Our Response: We determined that area designated as Unit 19
maintains the biological and physical features essential to the
conservation of the species and supports one or more of the primary
constituent elements. Thus it warrants inclusion in the final critical
habitat designation regardless of whether ``take'' (as defined in
Section 9 of the Act) of listed species in Unit 19 has already
occurred. Critical habitat for Units 19 and 20 is designated only for
the subsurface environment due to the significant surface degradation
that has already occurred. We acknowledge that intense management will
likely be needed in both of these units for conservation of the
species. Identifying areas that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations or protection is a primary purpose of designating
critical habitat.
(24) Comment: The Service should address how intensive management
will provide nutrients and water to listed species in caves in heavily
urbanized areas, such as units 12 and 19. The Service should also
identify who should be responsible for this management, since critical
habitat designation does not mandate special management or require
removal of existing structures.
Our Response: Under the definition of critical habitat, all of the
areas being designated may require special management. Caves in heavily
urbanized areas, such as those within Units 12, 19, and 20, may need
more intensive management for conservation of the species than some of
the other units. We anticipate that the recovery plan for these species
will address the specific management strategies recommended for long-
term conservation of these species. This designation does not in any
way require landowners to undertake any particular management actions
for the designated critical habitat or the listed species. As part of
the recovery process, we anticipate working cooperatively with
landowners and other partners to provide the management needed for
conservation.
(25) Comment: The proposed rule did not clearly indicate that
surface disturbances within Units 19 and 20 would not have the
potential to adversely modify sub-surface critical habitat and would
not be regulated under Section 7. Similarly, what is the regulatory
distinction between units with both primary constituent elements and
those units with only one of the primary constituent elements.
Our Response: For critical habitat Units 19 and 20, we designated
the subsurface area only as critical habitat, because of the level of
disturbance that already has altered the surface habitat. Under section
7 of the Act, Federal agencies are required to insure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existed of a listed species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. An action authorized, funded, or carried out by a
Federal agency involving the surface of the land is subject to the
consultation requirement of section 7, and related regulations at 50
CFR 402, if such action may affect a listed species or its designated
critical habitat. The aspect of a consultation involving critical
habitat would address the potential effects of a proposed Federal
action on the primary constituent elements in the area covered by the
consultation. For additional information about consultations and the
potential Federal activities that could destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat see the ``Section 7 Consultation'' section, below.
(26) Comment: Unit 12 should be deleted because the areas around
Hairy Tooth and Ragin' Cajun caves are effectively protected. Big
Springs Ltd., has established preserves around each cave and has
developed a management plan for Hairy Tooth Cave and is considering a
management plan for Ragin' Cajun Cave. Also, Unit 9 should be deleted
or much reduced to exclude areas under a karst management plan by the
University of Texas at San Antonio.
Our Response: In order to consider not including an area that is
the subject of a management plan, we first evaluate the plan. Key
factors we evaluate include whether the plan or agreement is legally
binding, the status of implementation of the plan, whether the plan
specifies the management needed to ensure that primary constituent
elements are appropriately protected and, if needed, improved. Along
with meeting other criteria, the plan also must include a timely
schedule for implementation and outline the probability that the
funding source or other resources necessary to implement the management
will be available. The management plan for Hairy Tooth Cave (Unit 12),
which we received after the close of the comment period, did not meet
the above criteria. A management plan for Ragin' Cajun Cave was not
provided to us.
The University of Texas at San Antonio submitted a draft karst
management plan for consideration with respect to Unit 9. This draft
plan represents a very positive step for conservation of the listed
karst invertebrate species. However, without a final plan, we could not
make a determination that the area is receiving adequate special
management, in accordance with the criteria described above. (See the
``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans'' for additional
information on our process.) Therefore, Unit 9 is part of the final
designation, although its size has been reduced (for other reasons)
from the
[[Page 17169]]
proposed amount of 71 ha (175 ac) to 16 ha (40 ac) in this final rule.
The procedures for submitting management plans for possible exclusion
of specific areas were clearly described in the proposed rule.
Issue 4: Economic Issues
(27) Comment: The draft economic analysis understates the economic
impact from the critical habitat designation because it failed to
adequately consider effects from: (1) Greater amounts of technical
assistance and administrative tasks than estimated; (2) greater numbers
of informal and formal section 7 consultations than estimated because
of a vast understatement of Federal involvement in private projects;
(3) increased difficulty in obtaining state and/or county approval for
development; (4) project modifications and delays for planned
developments; (5) development of biological assessments; (6) reduced
property values; and (7) increased mitigation costs. Generally, the
baseline approach used in the draft economic analysis underestimates
the impacts to all development activities, whether or not Federal
involvement is presumed.
Our Response: Minor modifications were made in the final economic
analysis of the proposed rule to reflect increased technical assistance
in one unit and to the cost of technical assistance related to Clean
Water Act activities. We believe the estimates of formal and informal
consultations in the final economic analysis reflect numbers that can
be reasonably anticipated. We do not anticipate any increased
difficulty in obtaining State or county approvals for development.
While uncertainties about the impacts of the critical habitat
designation and the perception that the designation will impose land
use restrictions could temporarily foster this result, this effect is
likely to be temporary in nature as the uncertainties and perceptions
dissipate or become clarified over time.
We do not believe that critical habitat designation will impose
additional project modifications and delays for projects, including
preparation of biological assessments. Additional requirements
associated with critical habitat designation apply solely to Federal
actions, and since this designation only involves occupied habitat,
then the section 7 requirements would have to be met pursuant to
consideration of ``jeopardy standard'' regardless of the presence of
critical habitat. We do not believe that the designation of critical
habitat, when occupied by the listed species, should have any real
effect on property value, because it only applies to those activities
that involve a Federal action. However, we do recognize that there can
be a perceived effect which could adversely affect property values. We
will, through outreach and education, do all we can to correct this
perception.
We believe mitigation costs associated with critical habitat
designation were accurately estimated in the final economic analysis.
The anticipated number of HCPs was increased from five to eight, and
the cost of purchasing and managing mitigation lands due to the
development of HCPs was estimated. The analysis used standard methods
for analyzing the economic impacts. These methods have been used in
past designations throughout the United States and have generally been
found to be sufficient.
(28) Comment: The draft economic analysis is clearly prepared to
show that minimal effects will be felt by the designation and should be
rejected because it does not take an objective view of the matter under
consideration. The information sources referenced do not include any
discussions with private landowners.
Our Response: The analysis used standard methods for analyzing
economic impacts. These methods have been used in past designations
throughout the United States and have generally been found to be
sufficient. Also, the final economic analysis of the proposed rule
considers information gathered from interviews with individual property
owners who submitted comments on the draft analysis.
(29) Comment: The level of predicted consultations appears to be
based on the assumption that only commercial, as opposed to
residential, development would trigger consultations, and the only
anticipated Federal nexus for development was a party seeking an HCP.
Our Response: We apologize if the assumptions were not clear. We
have clarified the assumptions in the final economic analysis.
(30) Comment: The draft economic analysis discounts entirely
broader regional impacts, focusing only on the costs of consultation.
The setting aside of land and delaying and increasing the costs of a
variety of projects and activities will undoubtedly have a broader
impact. In its draft economic analysis for the Kauai Cave wolf spider,
the Service considered some of these broader economic impacts and
determined that the impact of designating less than half the acreage
proposed in Bexar County could be as high as $1.9 million. This
difference in estimated costs is attributable to differences in
methodology.
Our Response: We want to stress that the designation of critical
habitat does not ``set aside'' land and does not create parks or
preserves. We believe the economic analysis fairly estimated the costs
of critical habitat designation in Bexar County (see our response to
Comment 27). The final economic analysis of the proposed rule clarifies
the methods used.
(31) Comment: Many landowners commented that their individual
properties were of high economic value and the designation of critical
habitat would substantially impact the future value and development
potential of their properties. For this reason, the economic impact on
individual property owners, in at least some instances, should outweigh
the biological benefits of the designation of critical habitat.
Our Response: The regulatory requirements involving critical
habitat apply only to those actions authorized, funded, or carried out
by a Federal agency. We do recognize, however, that there can be a
perceived effect which could influence property values, but believe any
such effect is likely to be temporary in nature as the uncertainties
and perceptions dissipate or become clarified over time. We will,
through outreach and education, do all we can to correct this
perception. We believe that the economic analysis appropriately
considered the potential economic impacts of the proposed designation.
Further, reductions in the amount of critical habitat in this final
designation have resulted in a significant decrease in the amount of
private land being designated.
(32) Comment: The draft economic analysis evaluates the effect of
the total section 7 costs for individual units and then spreads those
costs over the entire population of Bexar County. If these costs are
attributed to the individual landowners in a single unit they would
have a much greater impact. For instance, there are eight landowners in
Unit 16, and the economic analysis is defective unless it measures the
effects on those individual landowners.
Our Response: The analysis uses standard methods for analyzing the
economic impacts of designating the areas included in our proposed
rulemaking. These methods have been used in past designations
throughout the United States and have generally been found to be
sufficient. Time constraints prevented us from applying economic costs
to individual property owners. We note also that the size of each unit
designated is substantially reduced from what we proposed,
[[Page 17170]]
resulting from consideration of comments received and refinements in
our methodology for identifying and mapping areas that meet the Act's
definition of critical habitat. For instance, for Unit 16 our proposal
included 61 ha (152 ac), whereas our final designation for that unit is
16 ha (40 acres).
(33) Comment: The draft economic analysis states that all of the
critical habitat is over the Edwards Aquifer and then states which
units are over the recharge zone. It isn't clear that only the units
over the recharge zone get the protection measures that are listed. If
the analysis assumed that all of the units get the same level of
Edwards Aquifer protection, reevaluation of the numbers may be
warranted.
Our Response: The draft economic analysis credited the protections
only to those units in the recharge zone. We hope this point is
adequately clarified in the final economic analysis of the proposed
rule.
(34) Comment: For Unit 9, the draft economic analysis estimates
only one technical assistance effort is anticipated and that no project
modifications are anticipated. One request for assistance has already
occurred, and probably one or two more will be required. In addition, a
considerable amount of modification to University of Texas--San
Antonio's plans in Unit 9 will have to occur to be in compliance with
the proposed designation of critical habitat.
Our Response: The Service agrees that the effort was underestimated
and corrections in the final economic analysis of the proposed rule
have been made to reflect this. The Service agrees that if the proposed
activities involve a Federal action, then modification of the proposed
action may be needed. However, since this designation only involves
occupied habitat, then the section 7 consultation requirements would
have to be met (for the ``jeopardy standard'') regardless of the
designation of critical habitat, and based on our experience in other
situations, the outcome of such consultation is likely to be unchanged
when it includes critical habitat.
(35) Comment: The estimates in Exhibit 4-4, page 44 (of the draft
economic analysis) for anticipated costs to the Service, third parties,
and the action agency do not cover the costs to date or future costs
for UTSA in Unit 9, which are expected to be substantial.
Our Response: The final economic analysis of the proposed rule has
been modified to incorporate expected costs to UTSA that would result
from section 7 consultation related to development.
(36) Comment: The draft economic analysis does not adequately
address the tremendous economic benefits of designating critical
habitat, for example, the benefits to water supply protection for area
residents.
Our Response: The value of economic benefits are difficult to
estimate. The potential benefits of designating critical habitat are
described subjectively in section 5 of the final economic analysis of
the proposed rule.
(37) Comment: Landowners for Unit 12 provided specific value data
to show a higher economic impact of the designation than provided in
the economic analysis.
Our Response: The economic analysis includes consideration of a
potential HCP for private development within this unit. Thus the
comment is not inconsistent with the assumptions of the analysis. We do
not expect costs to be greater than those represented by the
formulation and implementation of the expected HCP.
Issue 5: Other Issues and Comments
(38) Comment: One commenter requested additional time so that the
taxonomic description of a new subspecies of Rhadine infernalis can be
completed.
Our Response: The Service is required to designate critical habitat
for the Bexar County invertebrates within the time frame specified in
the court settlement agreement. We have used the best scientific data
available in making this designation.
(39) Comment: The City of San Antonio should be provided more exact
cave locations for planning and protection of habitat, and to avoid
inadvertent damage by the City.
Our Response: The Service and the City of San Antonio regularly
exchange information for conservation of listed species. We understand
that legally, the City may not be able to keep the cave locations
confidential if we provided them, and having the locations generally
known would pose an unacceptable risk of vandalism to the caves. Anyone
may contact the Service for technical assistance to ensure their
activities are consistent with conservation of these species. Helping
make the public aware of the sensitive areas inhabited by these species
is one of the most significant benefits of this designation. In
addition to these critical habitat units, there are likely other
localities where these species occur, of which we are not aware, or
have not yet been discovered. Although they are not included in this
designation, they are likely to be important for conservation of the
species and should be considered in planning land management and
development activities. We look forward to working with the City, and
other partners, for management of their lands for the mutual benefit of
the City's citizens and the conservation of the listed species.
(40) Comment: The Service should change the name of the Alamo
Heights Karst Fauna Region so the public is not misled to believe the
City of Alamo Heights is in critical habitat.
Our Response: The name of the Karst Fauna Region was taken from a
report by George Veni and Associates (1994), which delineates separate
geological regions in the San Antonio area. We recognize that the City
of Alamo Heights is not within any of the units designated as critical
habitat and regret any confusion the name of the faunal region might
have caused. We have not used the Karst Faunal Region names in this
final rule.
(41) Comment: Does critical habitat designation comply with
Environmental Justice laws?
Our Response: Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, requires that each Federal agency make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. We do not believe
that the designation of critical habitat for endangered and threatened
species results in any changes to human health or environmental effects
on surrounding human populations, regardless of their socioeconomic
characterization. As such, we do not believe that Executive Order 12898
applies to critical habitat designations.
(42) Comment: The required public notice to interested parties was
not satisfied because numerous mailings were returned because of
invalid zip codes.
Our Response: We made the best effort to notify all individual
landowners involved directly. We sent the letters announcing the
proposed rule and requesting comments to over 1,500 interested parties.
Of those, about 200 were returned because of out-of-date addresses. We
attempted to update addresses and remove duplicate addresses. We
followed this mailing with over 1,200 postcards announcing the
availability of the draft economic analysis and extension of the
comment period. We regret that some of the attempts to contact
interested parties
[[Page 17171]]
through the mail were unsuccessful. In addition to those efforts, the
required public notices were published in the local newspaper. We also
issued a news release, and there was coverage in the local newspaper
and in other news media. Consequently, we believe we satisfactorily met
the requirements for public notice to interested parties.
(43) Comment: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and
the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted karst management plans for
Government Canyon State Natural Area (GCSNA) and Camp Bullis,
respectively, during the public comment period and requested that their
properties be excluded from the final critical habitat designation.
Our Response: We reviewed the management plans submitted for both
Camp Bullis and GCSNA. On the basis of our evaluation of these plans,
we determined that they provide adequate special management and have
not included the areas involved in the final designation of critical
habitat. (See ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans''
section for more information.)
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited independent opinions from knowledgeable
individuals with expertise in one or several fields, including
familiarity with the species, familiarity with the geographic region in
which the species occurs, and familiarity with the principles of
conservation biology. Only one of the eleven peer reviewers requested
to review the proposed rule submitted comments. Overall the peer
reviewer found the proposed rule to be an ``excellent, comprehensive
document.'' The following specific comments were provided by the peer
reviewer.
(44) Comment: The 36 ha (90 ac) zone of vegetation surrounding each
known cave or cave complex should be adequate to preserve foraging
habitat for cave crickets.
Our Response: In this final rule we have significantly reduced the
areas around occupied caves that are included in the critical habitat
designation. However, in most cases, the critical habitat boundaries
were drawn to include a 50 m (164 ft) area plus a buffer, and best
available information indicates that most cave crickets forage within
50 m (164 ft) of cave entrances (see ``Background'' section for
additional information).
(45) Comment: The reviewer stated that habitat requirements
described in the proposed rule seemed fine; however, the reviewer
expressed concern that active management may be required to maintain
natural surface habitat for the benefit of the subsurface environment.
The reviewer also expressed concern about the encroachment of red
imported fire ants and the impacts of predation on and competition with
cave crickets and asked if there is a provision for dealing with this
threat in the critical habitat units.
Our Response: We recognize the impact that fire ants likely have on
listed karst invertebrates and the need for intense management to
control this threat. The designation of critical habitat recognizes
that these areas may need special management, however, the designation
does not require any particular land management activities. Specific
actions for management recommendations will likely be included in the
future recovery plan for these species. We will work with landowners on
a case-by-case basis to assist in land management provisions to protect
the karst environment that supports the listed Bexar County
invertebrates.
(46) Comment: There are no dispersal corridors between these
habitat units to provide opportunities for movement of individuals
between cave cricket populations.
Our Response: We know that dispersal corridors are likely important
for the long-term maintenance of cave cricket populations (see
Background section for discussion). However, we lack the necessary
information to adequately quantify the specific locations of such
corridors and therefore have not included them in this critical habitat
designation.
(47) Comment: The commenter recommends deleting the reference in
the ``Background'' section to a study concerning Ceuthophilu
gracilipes, another species of cave crickets, because it is not
appropriate in the context in which it was used.
Our Response: We deleted this reference, which had been included in
our proposed designation, and updated the ``Background'' section of
this final rule as suggested.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
On the basis of public comments, we reviewed our methodology for
determining the extent of critical habitat designation for the Bexar
County karst invertebrates. Consequently, we refined the boundaries of
our original proposed critical habitat units for this final designation
and clarified our description of the methodology and rationale used in
defining the critical habitat boundaries. Overall, these changes
resulted in designating 431 ha (1,063 ac) in 22 units as critical
habitat, as compared to our proposed designation of 3,857 ha (9,516 ac)
in 25 units. Table 2 provides a unit-by-unit list of the changes in
this final rule, which are summarized below.
In the proposed rule, we delineated critical habitat boundaries on
the basis of the following criteria: Known occupied caves; the cave
footprint; surface/subsurface drainage areas associated with the
occupied cave; the cave cricket foraging area plus a buffer; the
contiguous karst deposit associated with the occupied cave; and a
minimum of 36 ha (90 ac), where possible, to support dominant,
subdominant, and rare plant species. In the final rule, we revised
several of these criteria. We reduced the minimum area needed to
support surface vegetation from 36 ha (90 ac) to 16 ha (40 ac), which
is the minimum area we determined is needed to support 15 of the 24
plant species common to the Edwards Plateau, including the 7 species
with the highest dominance values, as listed in Van Auken et al.
(1980). We did not include an estimated area to support nine of the
rarer plant species in our consideration of this minimum area, because
of a lack of definitive information on the importance of such species
to the functioning of the karst ecosystem. These nine species all have
importance values of less than 1.0 and needed an area of approximately
20 to 80 ha (49 to 198 ac) to maintain their populations. We also
reduced the criterion for the amount of contiguous karst deposit
surrounding occupied caves. In the proposed rule, we delineated the
unit boundaries to maximize the amount of contiguous karst deposit we
estimated was necessary to provide for subsurface movement of listed
species between and around occupied caves. However, because of lack of
data allowing us to quantify the extent of subsurface karst needed to
maintain populations of these species, in the final rule we delineated
the boundaries to maximize the amount of subsurface karst deposit
underlying the cave footprint, drainage areas, cave cricket foraging
area plus buffer, and 16 ha (40 ac) vegetation area only. As a result
of these revisions, the size of most units was reduced significantly
(Table 2). (See ``Criteria Used to Designate Critical Habitat'' section
for additional details.)
In addition to the changes in criteria, we also completely removed
six units that had been proposed for designation (Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d,
10, and 11) from the final designation. Units 1a-1d were
[[Page 17172]]
located on the Government Canyon State Natural Area (GCSNA) and the
majority of Unit 10 and all of Unit 11 were located on Department of
Defense land at Camp Bullis. We did not include these six units in the
final designation because we determined that the conservation plans for
these areas provide adequate special management and protection, such
that the areas do not meet the definition of critical habitat under
section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. We also excluded these areas from
designation based on section 4(b)(2). (See ``Lands Covered Under
Existing Conservation Plans'' section.) Two of the nine species, the
Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver and the Government Canyon Bat
Cave spider, occur only in caves on the GCSNA. As a result of not
including in the final designation the four units originally proposed
on the GCSNA, no critical habitat is being designated for these two
species.
As a result of applying our revisions of the criteria used to
delineate the unit boundaries (as described above) we separated two
units identified in the proposed rule into separate, smaller units in
this final rule. Specifically, Unit 1e as described in the proposed
rule has been separated into three smaller units (Units 1e1, 1e2, and
1e3), and we separated Unit 8 into Units 8a and 8b. Removing six units,
separating Unit 1e into three smaller units and Unit 8 into two smaller
units resulted in a net change of three fewer units in this final rule
as compared to the proposed rule.
Table 2.--Changes in Unit Number and Unit Area Between Proposed and
Final Rules Designating Critical Habitat for Seven of the Nine Bexar
County Karst Invertebrates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total area of
Total area of Unit unit hectares
Unit unit hectares (ha); acres
(ha); acres (ac) (ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a........................ 76 ha; 188 ac... 1a Government
1b........................ 47 ha; 116 ac... 1b Canyon State
Natural Area--
excluded from
critical
habitat.
1c........................ 47 ha; 116 ac... 1c ...............
1d........................ 47 ha; 116 ac... 1d ...............
1e........................ 341 ha; 842 ac.. 1e1 15 ha; 38 ac.
1e2 16 ha; 40 ac.
1e3 19 ha; 46 ac.
2......................... 99 ha; 245 ac... 2 37 ha; 92 ac.
3......................... 63 ha; 154 ac... 3 17 ha; 41 ac.
4......................... 63; ha; 154 ac.. 4 16 ha; 40 ac.
5......................... 47 ha; 116 ac... 5 16 ha; 40 ac.
6......................... 45 ha; 111 ac... 6 16 ha; 40 ac.
7......................... 50 ha; 123 ac... 7 16 ha; 40 ac.
8......................... 174 ha; 428 ac.. 8a 16 ha; 40 ac.
8b 28 ha; 69 ac.
9......................... 71 ha; 175 ac... 9 16 ha; 40 ac.
10........................ 367 ha; 906 ac.. 10 Camp Bullis--
excluded from
critical
habitat.
11........................ 1,273 ha; 3,143 11 Camp Bullis--
ac. excluded from
critical
habitat.
12........................ 105 ha; 258 ac.. 12 21 ha; 51 ac.
13........................ 51 ha; 125 ac... 13 16 ha; 40 ac.
14........................ 173 ha; 426 ac.. 14 26 ha; 64 ac.
15........................ 195 ha; 481 ac.. 15 34 ha; 85 ac.
16........................ 61 ha; 152 ac... 16 16 ha; 40 ac.
17........................ 48 ha; 118 ac... 17 16 ha; 40 ac.
18........................ 40 ha; 100 ac... 18 16 ha; 40 ac.
19........................ 59 ha; 146 ac... 19 5 ha; 12 ac.
20........................ 160 ha; 395 ac.. 20 23 ha; 57 ac.
21........................ 155 ha; 382 ac.. 21 27 ha; 68 ac.
---------------------------
Totals: 25 units; 3,857 ha; (1) 22 units; 431 ha; 1,063
ac.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as--(i)
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. ``Conservation,'' as defined by section 3(3) of the Act,
means the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to
bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point that measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies shall, in
consultation with the Service, insure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Section 7 also requires conferences
on Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Aside from the added
protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not
provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical
habitats. Consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply to
activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve a
Federal nexus (i.e., Federal funding or authorization), and
consequently critical habitat designation does not afford any
additional regulatory protection or result in additional regulatory
requirements under the Act in those circumstances. (See ``Effects of
Critical Habitat
[[Page 17173]]
Designation'' for further discussion of consultations under section 7
of the Act.)
Critical habitat provides nonregulatory benefits to the species by
informing the public and private sectors of areas that are important
for species conservation, and where such conservation actions would be
most effective. Designation of critical habitat can help focus
conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that
contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the
conservation of that species, and can alert the public and land-
managing agencies to the importance of those areas. Critical habitat
also identifies areas that may require special management
considerations or protection, and may help provide protection to areas
where significant threats to the species have been identified, by
helping people avoid causing accidental damage to such areas.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must
be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical habitat
designations identify, to the extent known and using the best
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide
essential life cycle needs of the species (such as areas on which are
found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)). Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that, ``Except in those
circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not
include the entire geographical area which can be occupied'' by the
listed species. In addition, our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(e)) state
that ``The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside
the geographic area presently occupied by the species only when a
designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure
the conservation of the species.''
Section 4 (b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into
consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of
specifying any particular areas as critical habitat. We may exclude
areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat,
provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), provides criteria,
establishes procedures, and provides guidance to ensure that decisions
made by the Service represent the best scientific and commercial data
available. It requires that our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial
data available, use primary and original sources of information as the
basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of
information should, at a minimum, be the listing rule for the species.
Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan (if
available), articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, and biological assessments or other unpublished reports, and
discussion with experts.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of what we know at the time of designation. Since much of the
cave-forming rock is located on private property in areas that have not
been adequately surveyed, additional populations for some of these
species are likely to exist and may be discovered over time. We
recognize that our designation of critical habitat for these species
may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be
determined to be necessary for the conservation of the species. For
these reasons, this critical habitat designation should not be
interpreted to mean that habitat outside the designation is unimportant
or may not be required for conservation of the species. Critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning and recovery efforts if
new information available to these efforts calls for a different
outcome.
Habitat of the listed species that is not included in this critical
habitat designation will continue to be subject to conservation actions
implemented by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, which
directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out
programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species.
Habitat outside the designation also will continue to receive
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, which requires each Federal agency to insure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out
is not likely to ``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a listed
species. To achieve this objective, action agencies must consult with
us whenever a Federal action ``may affect'' a listed species. This
requirement applies regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated, and Federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases.
The applicability of the section 9 section take prohibition is not
altered by the designation of critical habitat. Section 9 makes it
unlawful for any person to ``take'' (defined broadly in section 3 as
``harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct'') a listed
wildlife species. Under section 10(a) of the Act, the Service may issue
a permit to a non-Federal entity authorizing ``take'' if certain
conditions are met. These conditions include a finding by the Service
that such take is incidental to otherwise legal conduct, and that the
take ``will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and
recovery of the species in the wild.'' The issuance criteria for such
take permits also require applicants to minimize and mitigate the
effects of their permitted actions, to the maximum extent practicable.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas to designate as critical
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management consideration or protection. As described in our
regulations, these features include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring, and
generally;
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) further direct that, when
considering the designation of critical habitat, we are to focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements within the
defined area that are essential to the conservation of the species, and
we are to list known primary constituent elements with the critical
habitat description. Our regulations describe known primary constituent
elements in terms that are more specific than the
[[Page 17174]]
description of physical and biological features. Specifically, our
regulations state that primary constituent elements may include, but
are not limited to, the following: Roost sites, nesting grounds,
spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water
quality or quantity, host species of plant pollinator, geological
formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types.
Using the best scientific information available to us, we have
determined that the primary constituent elements required by the karst
invertebrates consist of: (1) The physical features of karst-forming
rock containing subterranean spaces with stable temperatures, high
humidities (near saturation) and suitable substrates (for example,
spaces between and underneath rocks suitable for foraging and
sheltering); and (2) the biological features of a healthy surface
community of native plants (for example, juniper-oak woodland) and
animals (for example, cave crickets) living in and near the karst
feature that provide nutrient input and buffer the karst ecosystem from
adverse effects (from, for example, nonnative species invasions,
contaminants, and fluctuations in temperature and humidity).
Information Sources
As required by the Act and regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR
424.12, respectively), we used the best scientific information
available to determine critical habitat areas that contain the physical
and biological features and primary constituent elements that are
essential for the conservation of the karst invertebrate species. This
information included: (1) Peer-reviewed scientific publications; (2)
the final listing rule for the nine Bexar County karst invertebrate
species (65 FR 81419); (3) unpublished field data, survey reports,
notes, and communications from qualified biologists or experts; (4)
published descriptions of the regional geology (Soil Conservation
Service 1962; Veni 1988, 1994, 2002); and (5) recent digital
orthophotographs (March 2001) and parcel maps (generated in early 2002)
obtained from the Bexar County Appraisal District to determine the
current status of habitat surrounding the known occupied caves.
In the proposed rule, we referred to Veni's 1994 karst zone maps to
ensure that the majority of the lands within each proposed unit
overlaid a contiguous deposit of karst-bearing rock either known to
contain the listed species (Zone 1) and/or having a high probability of
suitable habitat for the listed species (Zone 2) to maintain subsurface
connectivity for species movement throughout the contiguous karst
deposit. Recognizing that a significant amount of additional
information has become available, either as a result of the discovery
of new caves containing the listed species, or additional biological
surveys conducted in previously mapped caves and/or as a result of the
release of information not available at the time of the 1994 report, we
contracted with George Veni & Associates to re-evaluate and, where
necessary, redraw the boundaries of the Bexar County karst zones. The
resulting report (Veni 2002) also estimated the surface and subsurface
drainage areas associated with each occupied cave in Bexar County with
the exception of several caves which occur on cliffs and several for
which sufficient information was not available. We received the report
during the public comment period and used the information to ensure
that each unit overlaid a contiguous deposit of karst-bearing rock and
that the estimated drainage basins associated with each occupied cave
were, where possible, designated as critical habitat. Contiguous
deposits of karst-bearing rock associated with occupied caves
subterranean spaces were included to protect subsurface voids believed
to maintain populations of the listed species and provide for species
movement. The drainage basins associated with occupied caves were
included in order to protect the quantity and quality of water entering
the karst ecosystem which, in turn, maintains stable temperatures and
high humidities required by the listed species and protects the system
from contamination.
Information on the status and location of occupied caves was
obtained from presence/absence survey reports submitted during project
consultations conducted with the Service under section 7 of the Act,
annual reports on research and conservation activities conducted under
a section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific permit, section 6 species status
reports, and literature published in peer reviewed journals. Survey
reports and scientific permit annual reports typically contained cave
location information in the form of a cave location indicated on a U.S.
Geological Survey topographic maps and/or UTM coordinates, and a map of
the cave footprint.
To improve the accuracy of our cave location information, we
submitted a request to the Texas Speleological Survey (TSS) for any
available digital location data (UTM coordinates) for Bexar County
caves known to contain one or more of the nine endangered species. TSS
is a non-profit corporation established in 1961 to collect, organize,
and maintain information on Texas caves and karst for scientific,
educational, and conservation purposes, and to support safe and
responsible cave exploration, and is affiliated with the Texas Memorial
Museum, the Texas Speleological Association, and the National
Speleological Society. TSS provided the majority of the digital
location data, and reviewed and confirmed our location data for caves
where no digital information was available. The precision of the
locations for which digital location data were available ranges from 1
m to 10 m (3ft to 33 ft) and data documented on topographic maps was
estimated to be accurate to within 10 m to 20 m (33 ft to 66 ft). This
variability in precision was taken into account when delineating unit
boundaries. We further agreed that any requests for such information
would be directed to TSS as owners of the data. The precise location of
the caves within each unit is not specified on the critical habitat
maps in order to protect these caves from potential vandalism and to
protect private landowners from potential increases in trespassing.
Criteria Used To Delineate Critical Habitat
Using the best scientific data available (as summarized in the
``Background'' section), we developed the following criteria to
identify and delineate lands for designation as critical habitat: caves
known to be occupied by one or more of the listed karst invertebrate
species; the cave footprint; the surface and subsurface drainage areas
associated with each cave, to the extent possible; a 150 m (492 ft)
area around each cave to encompass the cave cricket foraging area of 50
m (164 ft) on the surface, measured from the cave entrance(s) and a 100
m (328 ft) area around the cave cricket foraging area to buffer the
animal community, including cave crickets, against the effects of urban
edges and red imported fire ant invasion; and, where possible, a
minimum of 16 ha (40 ac) around each cave or cave cluster. This minimum
16 ha core area consists of a minimum 13 ha (33 ac) needed to support
at least 15 of 24 species of the vegetative community commonly found on
the Edwards Plateau, plus a 3 ha (7 ac) area to buffer the vegetative
community against edge effects associated with urban disturbances. This
surface area also acts to incorporate areas of contiguous karst deposit
around an occupied cave, which likely contains the listed species that
occupy the cave.
[[Page 17175]]
In several instances (Units 2, 13, and 21), the surface or
subsurface drainage basin associated with the occupied cave, as defined
by Veni (2002), extends outside of the area originally designated in
the proposed rule and therefore was not included in the final rule (see
``Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions'' section). Also, in several
instances (Units 1e1, 3, 6, 8b, and 17), the cave, cave footprint, and
portions of the cave cricket foraging area plus buffer, the drainage
basins, and the 16-ha (40-ac) vegetative area are located on lands
protected under the La Cantera HCP which were not included in the
designation (see ``Unit Description'' and Lands Covered Under Existing
Conservation Plans'' sections). The critical habitat area encompassing
Robber Baron Cave (Unit 20) includes both the known and estimated
extent of the cave's footprint. This cave is a complex maze cave
consisting of approximately 1.51 km (0.94 mi) of passages known within
a square area approximately 100 m (328 ft) on each side (Veni 1988).
Prior to the extensive development that has occurred in the area, the
cave's footprint was estimated to extend at least 100 m (328 ft)
farther east to a water well, 600 m (1,969 ft) southwest to a now-
sealed, extensive maze cave and about 1.2 km (0.75 mi) to the southwest
to another well (Veni 1988). Exploration and mapping of these possible
passages is continuing under the direction of the Texas Cave Management
Association, which owns the cave entrance.
Critical Habitat Delineation
Lands designated as critical habitat for the seven endangered karst
invertebrates occur in 22 separate units, with a total area of
approximately 431 ha (1,063 ac). The lands within the critical habitat
units are under private, city, and State ownership. Table 3 lists the
known occupied caves, the total critical habitat unit area, land
ownership, and the listed species that occur within each designated
unit. Table 4 shows the listed species and the critical habitat unit(s)
where they occur.
Each critical habitat unit contains one or more of the primary
constituent elements needed by the karst invertebrate species. The
``Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions'' section (below) provides a
description of lands within each unit and a description of how unit
boundaries were delineated.
Areas within the boundaries of mapped units that have existing
human-constructed, above-ground, impervious structures do not contain
the primary constituent elements and are not considered to be critical
habitat. Such features and structures include, but are not limited to,
buildings and paved roads. However, subsurface areas under these
structures are considered to be critical habitat since subterranean
spaces containing these species or transmitting moisture and nutrients
through the karst ecosystem extend, in some cases, underneath these
existing human-constructed structures. Landscaped areas associated with
existing human-constructed structures also are also not considered
critical habitat because they do not contain the primary constituent
elements. Although not considered to be critical habitat, these
landscaped areas may provide some foraging area for cave crickets and
other trogloxenes which are an important source of nutrients to the
karst ecosystem.
Table 3.--Known Occupied Caves, Land Ownership and Listed Species That Occur Within Each Critical Habitat Unit
Designated for One or More of the Endangered Bexar County Karst Invertebrates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known occupied caves in Listed species in
Unit unit Total area of unit Ownership unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1e1.................. Pig Cave................. 15 ha (38 ac)....... Private, city...... Rhadine exilis
San Antonio Ranch Pit.... R. infernalis
Batrisodes venyivi
1e2.................. Continental Cave......... 16 ha (40 ac)....... City............... R. infernalis
1e3.................. Creek Bank Cave.......... 19 ha (46 ac)....... Private, city...... R. exilis
Tight Cave...............
2.................... Logan's Cave............. 37 ha (92 ac)....... Private............ Cicurina madla
Madla's Drop Cave........ R. exilis
R. infernalis
3.................... Helotes Blowhole *....... 17 ha (41 ac)....... Private............ C. madla
Helotes Hilltop Cave *... R. exilis
R. infernalis
B. venyivi
4.................... Kamikazi Cricket Cave.... 16 ha (40 ac)....... Private............ R. exilis
R. infernalis
5.................... Christmas Cave........... 16 ha (40 ac)....... Private............ C. madla
R. exilis
R. infernalis
B. venyivi
6.................... John Wagner Ranch........ 16 ha (40 ac)....... Private, city...... R. exilis
Cave No. 3 *............. R. infernalis
7.................... Young Cave No. 1......... 16 ha (40 ac)....... Private............ R. exilis
8a................... Three Fingers Cave....... 16 ha (40 ac)....... Private............ R. exilis
R. infernalis
8b................... Hills and Dales Pit *.... 28 ha (69 ac)....... Private, city...... C. madla
Robber's Cave............ R. infernalis
R. exilis
9.................... Mastodon Pit............. 16 ha (40 ac)....... State.............. R. exilis
12................... Hairy Tooth Cave......... 21 ha (51 ac)....... Private............ R. exilis
Ragin' Cajun Cave........
13................... Black Cat Cave........... 16 ha (40 ac)....... Private............ R. exilis
14................... Game Pasture Cave No. 1.. 26 ha (64 ac)....... Private............ R. infernalis
King Toad Cave...........
Stevens Ranch Trash Hole
Cave.
15................... Braken Bat Cave.......... 34 ha (85 ac)....... Private............ Cicurina venii
Isopit................... R. infernalis
[[Page 17176]]
Obvious Little Cave...... ...................
Wurzbach Bat Cave........
16................... Caracol Creek Coon Cave.. 16 ha (40 ac)....... Private............ R. infernalis
17................... Madla's Cave *........... 16 ha (40 ac)....... Private............ C. madla
R. infernalis
18................... Mattke Cave.............. 16 ha (40 ac)....... Private............ R. infernalis
Scorpion Cave............
19................... Genesis Cave............. 5 ha (12 ac)........ Private............ R. infernalis
20................... Robber Baron Cave........ 23 ha (57 ac)....... Private............ Texella
cokendolpheri
Cicurina baronia
21................... Hornet's Last Laugh Pit.. 27 ha (68 ac)....... City, Private...... R. exilis
Kick Start Cave..........
Springtail Crevice.......
Totals
----------------------==================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates caves and associated lands protected by management under La Cantera's Section 10 permit; these are
not included in this designation or in the area figures.
Table 4.--List of the Nine Endangered Bexar County Karst Invertebrates
and the Critical Habitat Units Within Which They Occur
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit(s) of
Species name occurrence
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina 15
venii).
Cokendolpher cave harvestman (Texella 20
cokendolpheri).
Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver No critical habitat
(Cicurina vespera). designated.
Government Canyon Bat Cave spider No critical habitat
(Neoleptoneta microps). designated.
Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla).... 2, 3, 5, 8b, 17
Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (Cicurina 20
baronia).
Beetle (Rhadine exilis)................... 1e1, 1e3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8a, 8b, 9, 12, 13, 21
Beetle (Rhadine infernalis)............... 1e1, 1e2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8a,
8b, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi).. 1e1, 3, 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 74 caves known to contain one or more of the listed species,
43 were not included in the critical habitat designation. These 43
caves, and the reasons they were not designated, are described in the
following summary.
Two caves, referred to as ``unnamed cave \1/2\ mile N of Helotes''
and ``5 miles NE of Helotes,'' were not included in the proposed or
final designation because their precise locations are unknown.
One cave, Crownridge Canyon Cave, was confirmed as a new location
for one of the listed species during the public comment period. This
cave was not included in this final determination because deadlines
negotiated under the court-ordered settlement did not allow us to re-
propose critical habitat, and thus there was not opportunity for the
public to comment on its inclusion. Although we cannot include
Crownridge Canyon Cave in this designation of critical habitat, we
consider the cave and the associated karst ecosystem to be important to
the conservation of the species. Because the cave is known to be
occupied, it will receive protection under sections 7 (under the
``jeopardy standard'' standard), 9, and 10 of the Act.
Of the ten occupied caves associated with the La Cantera HCP, none
were included in the proposed designation, and we have not included
them in the final designation of critical habitat. We authorized two
caves for take of C. madla under La Cantera's section 10(a)(1)(B)
permit associated with the HCP. These two caves were heavily impacted
as a result of authorized take and are not expected to contribute to
the species' recovery. The other eight caves associated with the La
Cantera HCP are protected within five karst management areas that will
be perpetually managed and monitored in accordance with the
conservation needs of the species. In most cases, these karst
management areas were not considered adequate as stand alone preserves.
Therefore, where appropriate, we included lands surrounding these
occupied caves and associated management areas as part of the
designation of critical habitat, as these lands provide physical and
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species. These areas include: Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare
Cave, and Scenic Overlook Cave and the surrounding approximately 30 ha
(75 ac); Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves and the surrounding
approximately 10 ha (25 ac); John Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3 and the
surrounding approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac); Hills and Dales Pit and the
surrounding approximately 28 ha (70 ac); and Madla's Cave and the
surrounding approximately 2 ha (5 ac). These eight caves and their
associated karst management areas are being protected under the HCP,
and we have not included them in this critical habitat designation (see
``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans'' section). Because
of their geographic relationship to the rest of the critical habitat
unit, it was difficult to show some of these areas in our mapping
process. Thus, although some of these areas occur within the mapped
area, they are not included in a legal sense through language in the
final determination.
We did not include seven occupied caves in the Government Canyon
State Natural Area (GCSNA), which is owned by the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPWD), and 23 occupied caves on the Department of
Defense's (DOD) Camp Bullis, in this critical habitat designation. Five
of these caves were known to be occupied at the time of the proposed
rule and were included in the proposed rule. The presence of listed
species in the other two caves was confirmed by TPWD during the public
comment period. During the public comment period, the Service received
[[Page 17177]]
and approved karst management plans submitted by each agency. These
plans commit TPWD and DOD to long-term management and monitoring
strategies that for the listed species and their habitat on their
respective lands. The ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation
Plans'' section explains the reasons why we did not include these areas
in this designation of critical habitat.
Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions
Unless otherwise indicated in the unit descriptions below, each
unit encompasses the following components: one or more occupied caves;
the footprint of each cave; a 150 m (492 ft) area around the cave to
encompass the cave cricket foraging area (50 m (164 ft)) and a buffer
of 100 m (328 ft) against the effects of urban edges and red imported
fire ant invasion; the surface and subsurface drainage areas associated
with each cave as estimated in Veni (2002), to the extent possible;
and, where possible, a minimum of 16 ha (40 ac) of surface vegetation
encompassing each cave or cave cluster. Also, where possible, each unit
was delineated to include contiguous deposits of Zone 1 karst-bearing
rock as defined by Veni (2002) underlying the cave cricket foraging
area plus buffer, the drainage areas, and the vegetative area.
As explained previously (see ``Critical Habitat Delineation''
section), some of the units include human-constructed, aboveground,
impervious structures (e.g., buildings, paved roads) that do not
contain the primary constituent elements and are not considered to be
critical habitat. They are included within the mapped unit because
subsurface areas under these structures are considered to be critical
habitat, since subterranean spaces containing the karst species, or
transmitting moisture and nutrients through the karst ecosystem, extend
underneath these existing human-constructed structures. Within the
units, landscaped areas associated with existing human-constructed
structures also are not considered to be critical habitat because they
do not contain the primary constituent elements, although they may
provide some foraging area for cave crickets and other trogloxenes that
are an important source of nutrients to the karst ecosystem.
Critical habitat boundaries are described as the area bounded by
coordinates provided as geographic longitude and latitude coordinate
pairs (e.g., -98.7612682, 29.4363049), referenced to North American
Horizontal Datum 1983 (NAD 83). Coordinates were derived from 2001
digital orthophotographs obtained from the Bexar County Appraisal
District. A description of each unit designated, including the current
status of the lands in and around the unit, is presented below.
Unit 1e1
Unit 1e1 contains two occupied caves (Table 3). The surface of the
unit consists primarily of undeveloped land. The majority of the unit
is privately owned, with a small portion occurring on the City of San
Antonio's Iron Horse Canyon tract, which was purchased under the
Proposition 3 program. Proposition 3 is the Parks Development and
Expansion Venue Project passed by San Antonio voters in 2000 for
preservation of undeveloped Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone lands. This
unit is surrounded by undeveloped, privately owned land, including the
City of San Antonio's Iron Horse Canyon tract and the La Cantera Canyon
Ranch karst management area, which is being managed in perpetuity for
the conservation of the species under a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit.
(See ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans'' section.) This
unit contains all of the components described above, with the exception
of a portion of the groundwater drainage area and cave cricket foraging
area and buffer associated with San Antonio Ranch Pit extends onto La
Cantera's Canyon Ranch karst management area, which is being managed
for the conservation of the listed karst invertebrates.
Unit 1e2
Unit 1e2 contains one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of the
unit consists primarily of undeveloped lands with a few small roads.
The entire unit occurs on the City of San Antonio's Iron Horse Canyon
property. This unit contains all of the components described above.
Unit 1e3
Unit 1e3 contains two occupied caves (Table 3). The surface of the
unit consists of undeveloped land with several small roads. The
majority of the land is privately owned with a portion of the unit
occurring on the City of San Antonio's Iron Horse Canyon property. This
unit is surrounded by undeveloped, privately owned land, the City of
San Antonio's Iron Horse Canyon property, and TPWD's Government Canyon
State Natural Area. This unit contains all of the components described
above, with the exception of a portion of the 21 ha (51 ac) subsurface
drainage area shared by both caves that occurs on TPWD's Government
Canyon State Natural Area, which we did not include in the designation
(see ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans'' section).
Unit 2
Two occupied caves occur within this Unit 2 (Table 3). The surface
of Unit 2 consists of large, privatelyowned tracts, which appear to be
primarily undeveloped with the exception of several small buildings and
two or three small roads. The unit is surrounded by primarily
undeveloped privately owned land. This unit contains all of the
components described above, with the exception of a small portion of
the 80-acre subsurface drainage basin associated with these caves that
extends outside of the western boundary of this unit. This area was not
included in this final determination because it was not identified in
the proposed rule and therefore was not available for public comment.
Although not included in the critical habitat area, minimizing impacts
to the subsurface drainage area associated with these caves may be
important for the conservation of the species in that cave.
Unit 3
Unit 3 consists of large tracts of primarily undeveloped privately
owned land. La Cantera's Helotes Blowhole/Helotes Hilltop karst
management area (approximately 10 ha (25 ac)) occurs entirely within
this unit and contains two occupied caves (Table 3). This management
area was acquired by La Cantera under their Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit,
which requires that these caves and the surrounding lands be managed in
perpetuity for the conservation of the species. We did not include
these caves and associated management areas in the designation of
critical habitat (see ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation
Plans'' section). This unit was delineated to encompass the portion of
the cave cricket foraging area plus buffer, the 16 ha (40 ac)
vegetation area, and the subsurface drainage basin shared by the
occupied caves that extends outside of the area protected under the La
Cantera HCP. The majority of the unit overlies a contiguous deposit of
Zone 1 karst-bearing rock and a small portion of Zone 3 as defined in
Veni (2002), which underlies part of the cave cricket foraging area and
buffer.
Unit 4
Unit 4 includes one occupied cave (Table 3). Lands surrounding Unit
4 consist of relatively large undeveloped tracts with some subdivided
residential tracts that appear to be partially developed. The majority
of the unit
[[Page 17178]]
overlies a contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-bearing rock with a small
portion of Zone 3, which underlies part of the cave cricket foraging
area and associated buffer areas. This unit contains all of the
components described above.
Unit 5
Unit 5 contains one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of Unit 5
consists of a large tract of privately owned, undeveloped land and
several smaller tracts developed with homes and an associated
residential road. The unit is bordered to the north and northwest by
large tracts of undeveloped land and bordered on the remaining sides by
smaller tracts with some residential development. This unit contains
all of the components described above. The majority of the unit
overlies a contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-bearing rock, with a
small portion of Zone3, which underlies part of the cave cricket
foraging area and associated buffer area.
Unit 6
La Cantera's John Wagner Ranch Cave 3 karst management
area is within this unit, and contains one occupied cave (Table 3).
This cave, and approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac) surrounding the cave, were
acquired by La Cantera under their section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. The
permit requires that the cave and the surrounding lands be managed in
perpetuity for the conservation of the species. We did not include this
cave, and the associated lands being managed under the permit, in this
designation of critical habitat (see ``Lands Covered Under Existing
Conservation Plans'' section). The surface of Unit 6 consists of
several subdivided, large-lot tracts with homes and their associated
roads and a large, undeveloped tract to the north owned by the City of
San Antonio as part of the Thrift tract, which was purchased under the
Proposition 3 program. The unit is surrounded on most of three sides by
the City-owned Thrift tract and is adjacent to large-lot residential
development to the south and southwest. This unit was delineated to
encompass the portion of the cave cricket foraging area plus buffer,
the subsurface drainage basin, and 16 ha (40 ac) vegetation area that
extends outside of the area protected under the La Cantera HCP. The
majority of Unit 6 overlies a contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-
bearing rock with a small portion of Zone 3, which underlies part of
the cave cricket foraging area and associated buffer area.
Unit 7
Unit 7 contains one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of Unit 7
consists of relatively large, privately owned, undeveloped tracts with
a few residential roads. The unit is surrounded by large, primarily
undeveloped, privately-owned land. This unit contains all of the
components described above.
Unit 8a
Unit 8a contains one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of Unit
8a consists of large tracts of undeveloped land with a few small roads.
About half of the unit is privately-owned. The other half lies within
the City of San Antonio's Medallion tract, which was purchased under
the Proposition 3 program. The unit is surrounded by undeveloped,
privately owned lands and the City's Medallion property. This unit
contains all of the components described above.
Unit 8b
Unit 8b contains two occupied caves (Table 3). The surface consists
of large, primarily undeveloped tracts. A large portion of this unit
occurs on the City of San Antonio's Medallion property, which was
purchased under the Proposition 3 program. This unit also contains a
portion of La Cantera's Hills and Dales Pit karst management area,
which contains Hills and Dales Pit, one of the two occupied caves
within the unit (Table 3). Hills and Dales Pit and 28 ha (70 ac)
surrounding the cave were acquired by La Cantera under a section
10(a)(1)(B) permit, which requires that the cave and the surrounding
lands be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the species. We
did not include this cave and associated lands in this designation of
critical habitat (see ``Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation
Plans'' section). This unit was delineated to encompass the portion of
the 33-acre surface drainage basin and cave cricket foraging area plus
buffer associated with Hills and Dales Pit that extends outside of the
28-ha management area protected under the La Cantera HCP, as well as
all of the components associated with Robber's Cave as described above.
Unit 9
Unit 9 contains one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of the
unit consists of a large tract of undeveloped land owned by the
University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). The unit is bordered to the
north by Loop 1604, a major highway, to the west by the UTSA campus,
and to the south and east by currently undeveloped land. A portion of
the unit overlies a contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-bearing rock
with the remainder being defined as Zone 2. This unit contains all of
the components described above.
Unit 12
Unit 12 contains two occupied caves (Table 3). The unit is
surrounded by residential development. Within the unit, there are
multiple residential lots surrounding a tract of undeveloped land. The
lots appear to be partially developed. Several residential roads and
one major roadway occur within the unit. As explained above, these
human-constructed features are not considered critical habitat, but
subsurface areas under these structures are part of the designation of
critical habitat. This unit contains all of the components described
above.
Unit 13
Unit 13 includes one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of the
unit consists primarily of large privately owned tracts with some
residential development. Bulverde Road, a major roadway, bisects the
western portion of the unit. Unit 13 is bordered by dense residential
development to the northwest and large-lot residential development to
the northeast. The lands to the south, southeast, and southwest consist
of large, primarily undeveloped tracts. This unit contains all of the
components described above, with the exception of a portion of the
subsurface drainage area, which extends outside of the western boundary
of the unit underneath an area of existing residential development.
This drainage area was not included in this final determination because
it was not identified in the proposed rule and therefore was not
available for public comment, and because of the legal settlement
agreement to complete this designation by a specific deadline, we did
not have time to republish the critical habitat proposal to include
this area and allow public comment on it. Although this area is not
included in the critical habitat area, minimizing impacts to the
subsurface drainage area associated with Black Cat Cave may be
important for the conservation of the species in that cave.
Unit 14
Unit 14 contains three occupied caves (Table 3). The surface of the
unit consists of several large privately owned, undeveloped tracts and
is surrounded by large tracts of currently undeveloped land. This unit
contains all of the components described above.
[[Page 17179]]
Unit 15
Unit 15 contains four occupied caves (Table 3). The unit occurs
within and is surrounded by large-lot residential development. This
unit contains all of the components described above.
Unit 16
Unit 16 includes one occupied cave (Table 3). The surface of this
unit consists of several large privately owned, undeveloped tracts. The
unit is surrounded on three sides by privatelyowned undeveloped land.
Loop 1604, a major roadway, goes through the eastern part of the unit
and lies above the eastern portion of the subsurface drainage area
associated with the cave. This unit contains all of the components
described above.
Unit 17
Unit 17 consists of several large privately owned undeveloped
tracts with a few small roads and is surrounded by privately owned
undeveloped land. La Cantera's Madla's Cave management area occurs
within this unit and contains the one occupied cave in the unit (Table
3). This cave and the approximately 2 ha (5 ac) surrounding the cave is
under a conservation easement acquired by La Cantera under a section
10(a)(1)(B) permit, which requires that this cave and the surrounding
lands be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the species. We
did not include this cave, as well as the the associated lands covered
by the permit, in the designation of critical habitat (see ``Lands
Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans'' section). This unit was
delineated to encompass the portions of the cave cricket foraging area
plus buffer and 16 ha (40-ac) vegetative area that extend outside of
the management area protected under the La Cantera HCP. The majority of
the unit overlies a contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-bearing rock
with a small portion of Zone 3, which underlies part of the cave
cricket foraging area and associated buffer area.
Unit 18
Unit 18 includes two occupied caves (Table 3). The surface of this
unit consists of large privately owned undeveloped tracts and several
smaller residential lots developed with homes. Unit 18 is surrounded on
three sides by residential and commercial development and on the fourth
side by a large undeveloped tract. This unit contains all of the
components described above. The majority of the unit overlies a
contiguous deposit of Zone 1 karst-bearing rock and a small portion of
Zone 3 as defined in Veni (2002), which underlies part of the cave
cricket foraging area and buffer.
Unit 19
This unit contains one cave (Table 3). Genesis Cave is one of only
two locations currently known to contain Rhadine infernalis infernalis
(Table 1) and is therefore particularly important for the conservation
of the species. Genesis Cave is the deepest explored cave in Bexar
County, extending below the water table, and has been mapped down to 78
m (256 ft) (Veni 1988).
The majority of the land within this unit has been developed for
residential and/or commercial uses. As a result of the extensive
existing development within this unit, the surface vegetation has been
reduced and degraded and only small vegetated areas remain. Therefore,
this unit does not contain the primary constituent element of a healthy
surface plant community and was delineated to encompass the cave, its
footprint, the surface and subsurface drainage area, and a portion of
the cave cricket foraging area with potential for being restored to
native vegetation. The cave is surrounded by approximately 2 acres of
undeveloped land, which is adjacent to several small parcels of
undeveloped land. We believe that these areas, by themselves, are not
sufficient to maintain a healthy plant community and that intensive
management will likely be needed to provide nutrients and water to the
listed species in this cave. However, these small undeveloped areas
surrounding the cave may provide foraging area for crickets inhabiting
Genesis Cave and should be managed to benefit the species.
Unit 20
This unit contains one occupied cave (Table 3). Robber Baron Cave
is the only known location for two of the nine listed species (Table 1)
and because the cave is located within an area that is geologically
isolated from other karst areas in the San Antonio region, these two
species are not likely to occur outside this area (Veni 1994).
Therefore, this cave is particularly important for the conservation of
these species. Robber Baron Cave is by far the longest cave in Bexar
County consisting of approximately 1.51 km (0.94 mi) of passages known
within a square area approximately 100 m (328 ft) on each side (Veni
1988). Prior to the extensive development that has occurred in the
area, the cave's footprint was estimated to extend at least 100 m (328
ft) farther east to a water well, 600 m (1,969 ft) southwest to a now-
sealed extensive maze cave, and about 1.2 km (0.75 mi) to the southwest
to another well (Veni 1988). The estimated footprint of the cave now
extends underneath numerous residential and commercial developments.
The Texas Cave Management Association (TCMA) now owns and manages the
cave entrance and about 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) surrounding the opening. TCMA,
in cooperation with the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program, is currently working to replace the existing cave gate, which
consists of a concrete bunker created to deter access, with a new gate
that will facilitate exchange of air and nutrients into the cave as
well as restrict access. TCMA also plans to restore the grounds
immediately surrounding Robber Baron Cave to a more natural state and
repair the perimeter fence to regulate access.
The majority of the surface land within this unit has been
developed for residential and/or commercial uses. As a result of the
extensive existing development within this unit, the surface vegetation
has been reduced and degraded and only small vegetated areas remain.
Therefore, this unit does not contain the primary constituent element
of a healthy surface plant community. The unit was designated to
encompass the cave; the cave footprint, both the known and estimated
extent; and the surface and subsurface drainage area. Vegetation
surrounding the cave entrance consists primarily of nonnative species
used for residential landscaping. Intensive management will likely be
needed to provide nutrients and water to the listed species in this
cave.
Unit 21
Unit 21 contains three occupied caves (Table 3). The majority of
this unit occurs within the City of San Antonio's Stone Oak property,
purchased under the Proposition 3 program. Several residential lots
also occur within the unit boundaries. This unit contains all of the
components described above, with the exception of the majority of the
over 5,600-ac surface drainage area associated with Springtail Crevice
Cave as defined by Veni (2002). This drainage area was not included in
this final determination because it was not identified in the proposed
rule and therefore was not available for public comment, and because of
time deadlines associated with the legal settlement agreement to
complete this designation, we did not have time to republish the
critical habitat proposal to include this area and allow public comment
on it. Although not included in the critical habitat area, minimizing
impacts to the surface drainage area associated with this cave may be
important for the conservation of the species in that cave.
[[Page 17180]]
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a list species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
In our regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not
limited to alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.'' However, in a March 15, 2001, decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434), the Court found our
definition of destruction or adverse modification to be invalid. In
response to this decision, we are reviewing the regulatory definition
of adverse modification in relation to the conservation of the species.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions with respect to any species that is listed as endangered
or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Activities on Federal lands that may affect the listed
karst invertebrates or their designated critical habitat will require
section 7 consultation with the Service. Federal agencies also must
consult with the Service under section 7 with regard to actions they
authorize (permit) or fund that occur on private, State, or other non-
Federal lands if the action may affect listed species or designated
critical habitat. Actions authorized, funded, or implemented by Federal
agencies that affect listed species outside their designated critical
habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases.
Federal actions that do not affect the species or designated critical
habitat, as well as actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally
funded or permitted, will not require section 7 consultation.
Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer on
any action likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species
proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification
of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide conservation
recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may
be caused by the proposed action. The conservation recommendations are
advisory. We may issue a formal conference report, if requested by the
Federal action agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion
that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was
listed or critical habitat was designated. We may adopt the formal
conference report as the biological opinion when the species is listed
or critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR
402.10(d)).
If we issue a biological opinion, resulting from a section 7
consultation, concluding that a Federal action is likely to result in
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we also
would provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action, if any
are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives are defined at 50
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during formal consultation
that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of the
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are
economically and technologically feasible, and that we believe would
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions under certain
circumstances, including instances where critical habitat is
subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been
completed if those actions may affect designated critical habitat.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect any of the nine karst
invertebrates or the designated critical habitat will require
consultation under section 7 of the Act. Activities on private, State,
or other non-Federal lands that involve a Federal action such a permit
(e.g., a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404
of the Clean Water Act or a Construction General permit from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency), or Federal funding (e.g., from the
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, or Housing and Urban Development) also will continue to be
subject to the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions that do
not affect listed species or critical habitat, as well as actions on
non-Federal lands that are not federally funded or permitted, do not
require section 7 consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to evaluate briefly in any
proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat those
activities which, if undertaken, may adversely modify such habitat or
that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may result in
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat include
those that alter the primary constituent elements to an extent that the
value of critical habitat for the conservation of any of the seven
karst invertebrates is appreciably reduced. These activities may occur
outside the designated critical habitat and still result in destruction
or adverse modification; for example, activities in the drainage area
or locations adjacent to the critical habitat that impacts the karst
environment within the designated critical habitat. Activities that may
directly or indirectly adversely affect critical habitat for these
karst invertebrates include, but are not limited to:
(1) Removing, thinning, or destroying perennial surface vegetation,
with the exception of landscaping associated with existing human-
constructed, above-ground, impervious structures, occurring in any
critical habitat unit, whether by burning, mechanical, chemical, or
other means (for example, wood cutting, grading, overgrazing,
construction, road building, pipelines, mining, herbicide application);
(2) Alteration of the surface topography or subsurface geology
within any critical habitat unit that results in significant disruption
of ecosystem processes that sustain the cave environment. This may
include, but is not limited to, such activities as filling cave
entrances or otherwise reducing airflow, which limits oxygen
availability; modifying cave entrances, or creating new entrances that
increase airflow and result in drying; altering natural drainage
patterns (surface or subsurface) in a manner that alters the amount of
water entering the cave or karst feature; removal or disturbance of
native surface vegetation that may alter the quality or quantity of
water entering the karst environment; soil disturbance that results in
increased sedimentation in the karst environment; increasing impervious
cover that may decrease water quantity entering the karst
[[Page 17181]]
environment within any critical habitat unit (e.g., paving over a
vegetated area); and altering the entrance or opening of the cave or
karst feature in a way that would disrupt movements of raccoons,
opossums, cave crickets, or other animals that provide nutrient input;
or otherwise negatively altering the movement of nutrients into the
cave or karst feature;
(3) Discharge or dumping of chemicals, silt, pollutants, household
or industrial waste, or other harmful material into or near critical
habitat units that may affect surface plant and animal communities or
that affects the subsurface karst ecosystem.
(4) Pesticide or fertilizer application in or near critical habitat
units that drain into these karst features or that affect surface plant
and animal communities that support karst ecosystems. Careful use of
pesticides in the vicinity of karst features may be necessary in some
instances to control nonnative fire ants. Guidelines for controlling
fire ants in the vicinity of karst features are available from us (see
ADDRESSES section);
(5) Activities within caves that lead to soil compaction, changes
in atmospheric conditions, or abandonment of the cave by bats or other
fauna;
(6) Activities that attract or increase access for fire ants,
cockroaches, or other invasive predators, competitors, or potential
vectors for diseases or parasites into caves or karst features within
the critical habitat units (e.g., dumping of garbage in or around caves
or karst features); and
(7) Release of certain biological control organisms within or
adjacent to critical habitat areas. Biological control organisms
include, but are not limited to, predaceous or parastoid (i.e., an
organism that lays its eggs in the body of another animal) vertebrates
or invertebrates, fungi, bacteria, or other natural or bioengineered
organisms.
Not all of the identified activities will necessarily result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. They indicate,
however, the potential types of activities that will require section 7
consultation in the future and, therefore, that may be affected by the
designation of critical habitat. To properly portray the effects of
critical habitat designation, we must compare the section 7
requirements for actions that may affect critical habitat with the
requirements for actions that may affect a listed species. All of the
areas designated as critical habitat are known to contain one or more
caves occupied by one or more of the listed karst invertebrates.
Therefore, all of the actions described above as potentially adversely
modifying critical habitat are also likely to adversely affect the
listed species. Federal agencies already are required to consult with
us on activities in areas where the species may be affected to ensure
that the actions of the agency are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. Therefore, we do not expect that
this designation of critical habitat will result in a regulatory burden
above that already in place because of the presence of the listed
species.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities would
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, please contact
Robert T. Pine, Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Requests for copies of
the regulations on listed wildlife and plants, and inquiries about
prohibitions and permits, should be directed to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act Section 10 Program (see
ADDRESSES section).
Lands Covered Under Existing Conservation Plans
The first portion of the definition of critical habitat in section
3(5)(A) of the Act states that critical habitat means: ``(i) The
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed * * * on which are found those physical or
biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species
and (II) which may require special management considerations or
protection.'' As part of our process of developing a critical habitat
designation, we evaluate existing management plans to determine whether
an area may require special management or protection and thus qualifies
as critical habitat. The Service believes that special management or
protection is not required if an area is covered by a legally operative
plan that addresses the maintenance and improvement of essential
habitat elements and that provides for the long-term conservation of
the species.
We consider a current plan to provide adequate special management
or protection if it meets three criteria: (1) The plan is complete and
provides a conservation benefit to the species (i.e., the plan must
maintain or provide for an increase in the species' population, or the
enhancement or restoration of its habitat within the area covered by
the plan); (2) the plan provides assurances that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented (i.e., those
responsible for implementing the plan are capable of accomplishing the
objectives, and have an implementation schedule or adequate funding for
implementing the management plan); and (3) the plan provides assurances
the conservation strategies and measures will be effective (i.e., it
identifies biological goals, has provisions for reporting progress, and
is of a duration sufficient to implement the plan and achieve the
plan's goals and objectives).
When we assess the likelihood of whether the special management and
protection will be implemented, we consider whether: (1) A management
plan or agreement exists that specifies the special management actions
being implemented or to be implemented; (2) there is a timely schedule
for implementation; (3) there is a high probability that the funding
source(s) or other resources necessary to implement the special
management will be available; and (4) the party(ies) have the authority
and long-term commitment to the agreement or plan to implement the
special management and provide the protection, as demonstrated, for
example, by a legal instrument providing enduring protection and
special management of the areas that contain the primary constituent
elements.
When we evaluate whether an action is likely to be effective, we
consider whether: (1) The plan specifically addresses the special
management needs, with respect to the conservation and enhancement,
where possible, of the primary constituent elements; (2) actions
similar to those being proposed or used as special management and
protection have been successfully used in the past; (3) there are
provisions for monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of the
special management and protection; and (4) adaptive management
principles have been incorporated into the plan.
If an area provides physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species, and also is covered by a plan that
meets these criteria described above, then such an area does not
constitute critical habitat as defined by section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act
because the primary constituent elements found there are not in need of
special management.
With the ``may require special management or protection'' clause,
Congress determined that certain areas should not be included in a
designation despite the fact that they contain features essential to
the conservation of the species. However, it has been suggested that
the need for any management of physical or biological features,
regardless of whether that
[[Page 17182]]
management is in place, qualifies an area as meeting this part of the
definition of critical habitat. This interpretation ignores the
question of whether the special management or protections are or are
not required. Under this interpretation, any area on which an action
needs to be taken to provide special management consideration or
protection for a species constitutes critical habitat for that species.
We believe that this interpretation of section 3(5)(A)(i) is incorrect
because it essentially reads the special management clause out of the
definition. Thus, under this interpretation, critical habitat would
include all areas within the range of the species on which are found
features essential to the conservation of the species, notwithstanding
the additional requirement in the language of the Act. In contrast, our
interpretation of the language, as described above, gives independent
meaning to the special management clause because there will be some
areas with features essential to the conservation of the species that
will not require special management because they already have such
management.
La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan
Section 10(a) of the Act authorizes the Service to issue to non-
Federal entities a permit for the incidental take of endangered or
threatened species. This permit allows a non-Federal landowner to
proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but
results in the incidental taking of a listed species (i.e., take that
is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an
otherwise lawful activity). The Act specifies that an application for
an incidental take permit must be accompanied by a conservation plan. A
permit may not be issued unless the conservation plan submitted to the
Service meets certain requirements, as provided in section 10(a)(2)(A)
of the Act. For example, the conservation plan must specify what steps
the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate such impacts, and the
funding that will be available to implement such steps. After an
opportunity for public comment on the conservation plan, the Service
may issue the permit provided we determine that certain conditions, as
specified in section 10(a)(2)(B), are met. For instance, the Service
must find that the taking will be incidental, and the taking will not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the
species in the wild.
In our proposed rule for designating critical habitat for the karst
invertebrates, we considered the lands covered by the La Cantera
Habitat Conservation Plan. (A notice of availability for the HCP was
published on July 2, 2001, opening a 30-day period for public comment.
The section 10 permit was issued on October 31, 2001.) The goals of the
HCP are to minimize and mitigate for the potential negative effects of
constructing and operating commercial, light industrial, recreational,
and residential development near and adjacent to currently occupied
habitat of the endangered karst invertebrates, and to contribute to
conservation of the covered species and other listed and non-listed
cave or karst fauna. To accomplish these goals, the plan requires the
following special management and protection:
[sbull] Routine inspections will be conducted and will include, but
may not be limited to: Signs of vandalism and unauthorized entry;
damage to cave gates, fencing, and/or signs; damage to vegetation;
presence of fire ants or other nonnative species; dumping; and any
other conditions that could affect the listed species or the karst
ecosystem. Native vegetation will be maintained or improved within the
karst management area. A baseline survey will be conducted and repeated
every 10 years thereafter.
[sbull] A fire ant control and treatment program will be
implemented. Boiling water will be used within 50 m of the cave
footprint. Boiling water and/or chemical bait will be used between 50
and 150 m. Baits may be ``broadcast'' more than 150 m from a cave
footprint according to protocols outlined in the HCP. The control and
monitoring of fire ants will occur at least twice a year over the
entire karst management area. Documentation of mounds will also occur
during routine inspections. An increase in treatment will occur if
mounds exceed stated numbers in the HCP.
[sbull] Cave security fences will be installed around all caves
according to specifications outlined in the HCP, and some caves will
have cave gates installed. Signs will be placed along all fences to
further minimize the potential for vandalism and unauthorized access to
the management areas. These areas will have officially designated
points of access or entry. Entry gates will remain locked at all times
when unattended. Cave security fences and their signs and cave gates
will be maintained and routinely inspected; barbed-wire fences will be
inspected at least every 6 months. Necessary repairs to fencing, gates,
and signs will be initiated within one week if any of these are found
to have incurred damage.
[sbull] In addition, the plan requires the control of impacts from
increasing population densities of white-tailed deer and other mammals
on surface plant and animal communities. Cattle, other domestic and/or
exotic livestock, and pets will not be allowed in the karst management
areas unless approved by the Service. No fertilizers, herbicides, or
pesticides will be used within the management areas unless approved by
the Service. No new roads, new utilities, or other development,
including stormwater or wastewater lines, treatment ponds, structures
or other facilities, are allowed within the karst management area
boundaries unless allowed for under the HCP or approved by the Service.
Motorized vehicles will be prohibited from the management areas at all
times, unless utilized to facilitate operation, monitoring, and
maintenance. No public access, including hiking, biking, and horseback
riding, will be allowed unless approved by the Service. Karst
management and monitoring plans will be developed for each management
area and will include monitoring of the baseline conditions (biological
and physical conditions of the area prior to the other scheduled
activities), surface and subsurface animal species, and surface
vegetation, as well as measurement of cave and surface climates.
[sbull] An adaptive management strategy will be used in the
implementation of the plan. On the basis of this strategy, if
monitoring or other information indicates that the goals or
requirements of the HCP are not being met, then adjustments will be
made as outlined in the HCP.
As explained in the proposed rule (67 FR 55064), based on our
evaluation of the adequacy of special management considerations and
protection provided by the La Cantera HCP, and in light of the
definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we did
not include the five karst management areas established by La Cantera
as part of the proposed designation of critical habitat. These areas
were established as a requirement of their section 10(a)(1)(B) permit,
which is titled ``Environmental Assessment and Habitat Conservation
Plan for Issuance of an Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B)
Permit for the Incidental Take of Two Troglobitic Ground Beetles
(Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis) and Madia Cave Meshweaver
(Cicurina madia) During the Construction and Operation of Commercial
Development on the Approximately 1,000-Acre La Cantera Property, San
Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, dated October 11, 2001.'' These five
karst management areas
[[Page 17183]]
include: (1) Canyon Ranch (including Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's
Nightmare Cave, and Scenic Overlook Cave and the surrounding
approximately 30 ha (75 ac) within critical habitat Unit 1e, as
proposed; (2) Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves and the
surrounding approximately 10 ha (25 ac), within Unit 3 as proposed; (3)
John Wagner Cave No. 3 and the surrounding approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac),
within Unit 6 as proposed; (4) Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding
approximately 28 ha (70 ac), within Unit 8 as proposed; and (5) Madla's
Cave and the surrounding approximately 2 ha (5 ac), within Unit 17 as
proposed.
We believe that the La Cantera HCP meets the three criteria used by
the Service to determine if a plan provides adequate special management
or protection to a listed species. First, the HCP provides a
conservation benefit to the species through the protection of eight
caves, each occupied by one or more of the three listed species covered
under the HCP. The various management actions (e.g., installation of
security fences, controls on numerous potential human impacts, fire ant
control and treatment program) will provide conservation benefits.
Second, the HCP provides assurance that the conservation management
strategies and actions will be implemented. These caves and associated
management areas are protected, in perpetuity, by appropriate legal
mechanisms, and will be managed, in perpetuity. The HCP provides
assurances that the conservation strategies and actions will be
implemented by outlining a schedule of management and monitoring
activities to be conducted at each karst management area. Also, based
on our review of available information, estimates, and budgets, La
Cantera committed to provide funding for all management, monitoring,
repair, and adaptive management actions described in the HCP up to an
aggregate of $38,032 per year, as adjusted for inflation. Third, to
provide assurances that the conservation strategies and measures will
be effective, the HCP was developed on the basis of the best available
information, and La Cantera is required to conduct periodic surveys of
the cave environment, as well as the surface plant and animal community
to determine the status of these environments and the need for adaptive
management. If monitoring or other information indicates that the goals
or requirements of the HCP are not being met, then adjustments will be
made as appropriate. La Cantera is required to submit a report of all
management and monitoring activities conducted each year to the Service
annually.
For the reasons described above, the five karst management areas
established by La Cantera and being provided for under their HCP are
not included in this designation of critical habitat because they are
receiving adequate special management considerations and protection,
and therefore do not meet the definition of critical habitat as stated
in section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act.
Camp Bullis Conservation Plan for Karst Species
During the comment period for the proposed designation of critical
habitat, the U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Sam Houston submitted a
``Management Plan for the Conservation of Rare and Endangered Karst
Species, Camp Bullis, Bexar and Comal Counties, Texas,'' for the 23
caves on Department of Defense (DOD) property that are known to contain
listed karst species. These 23 caves were included within Units 10 and
11 of the proposed designation of critical habitat. The Camp Bullis
conservation plan calls for the following special management
considerations and protection:
[sbull] The Army will identify karst management areas (KMAs) and
determine the appropriate size and shape of each KMA necessary to
incorporate the biological and physical components needed for the
conservation of the species (e.g., cave footprint, surface and
subsurface drainage areas associated with the occupied cave, cave
cricket foraging area, surface plant and animal community). The KMAs
will be preserved in perpetuity within the limits possible through the
authority of Camp Bullis and its operational and mission requirements.
The Plan stipulates that should Camp Bullis ever be transferred in
whole or in part, local Army officials will request that the Secretary
of the Army, or other appropriate authority, review and incorporate
provisions from this management plan into the property disposal
procedures in order to transfer responsibility for appropriate
management of any former Camp Bullis karst management areas to all
subsequent owners by deed recordation or other binding instrument.
[sbull] Fire ants will be controlled. Only boiling water will be
used up to 50 m from a cave's footprint, chemical fire ant bait or
boiling water, if feasible, will be used between 50 and 150 m, and
``broadcasting'' of bait may be used at distances greater than 150 m.
Pesticide and fertilizer use will be prohibited within KMAs unless
specifically authorized. Special management will protect important
sources of nutrients for KMAs, prevent siltation and/or entry of other
contaminants into KMAs, dprevent vandalism, dumping of trash, and
unauthorized entry into caves. Certain caves may require cave gates
and/or security fences.
[sbull] In addition, the Army will: (1) Continue conducting karst
and biospeleological surveys; (2) complete hydrogeologic studies on
KMAs; (3) continue studies on the ecology of karst species; (4) develop
educational programs to raise awareness and encourage protection of
karst ecosystems by Camp Bullis personnel and the public; (5) monitor
all KMAs to determine success or failure of management actions; and (6)
document all fauna and flora encountered during monitoring. Monitoring
will occur every 1-3 years based on changes in the extent that Camp
Bullis uses areas in or around the cave.
[sbull] Finally, only native xeriscape plants will be used to
landscape for new construction within 150 m of a KMA. Two of the caves
are near the boundary of Camp Bullis. We intend to form a partnership
with Camp Bullis and the private landowners to gain their support for
protecting the habitat that is on private lands near these caves.
In addition to the activities outlined in their plan, Camp Bullis
began conducting surveys for cave and karst features and karst fauna in
1993 and plans to complete karst surveys of the entire approximately
28,000-acre installation in 2003. Camp Bullis submitted a draft karst
management plan to us in 1999 and has been implementing measures to
conserve listed karst invertebrate species since then. These measures
include, but are not limited to, control of red-imported fire ants,
control of unauthorized access through cave gating, and limiting
training activities in areas around occupied caves. The 2002 karst
management plan, received and approved by the Service during the
comment period, includes these and additional measures to conserve the
listed species and their ecosystems on Camp Bullis.
Based on our evaluation of the Camp Bullis conservation plan for
the karst invertebrates, we find that it provides adequate special
management considerations and protection for the species occurring
within Units 10 and 11 that were proposed for designation as critical
habitat. We believe that Camp Bullis' karst management plan (Plan)
meets the three criteria used by the Service to determine if a plan
provides adequate special management or protection to a listed species.
The Plan
[[Page 17184]]
provides a conservation benefit to the species through the protection
of twenty-three caves occurring on Camp Bullis. Each cave is occupied
by one or more of the listed species. Under the terms of a memorandum
of understanding (MOU) signed by Camp Bullis and the Service on
December 20, 2002, Camp Bullis agreed to protect, manage and monitor
caves containing listed species as specified in the Plan within the
limits possible through the authority of Camp Bullis and its
operational and mission requirements. The Plan stipulates that should
Camp Bullis ever be transferred in whole or in part, local Army
officials will request that the Secretary of the Army, or other
appropriate authority, review and incorporate provisions from this
management plan into the property disposal procedures in order to
transfer responsibility for appropriate management of any former Camp
Bullis karst management areas to all subsequent owners by deed
recordation or other binding instrument. The Plan provides assurances
that the conservation strategies and actions will be implemented by
outlining a schedule of management and monitoring activities to be
conducted at each occupied cave. The Plan also stipulates that funding
for the management actions will be programmed in the Environmental
Project Requirements database which is submitted annually. To provide
assurances that the conservation strategies and measures will be
effective, Camp Bullis has agreed to conduct periodic surveys of the
cave environment, as well as the surface plant and animal community to
determine the status of these environments and the need for adaptive
management. If monitoring or other information indicates that the goals
or requirements of the Plan are not being met, then adjustments will be
made as appropriate. Under the Plan, Camp Bullis is required to submit
a report of all management and monitoring activities conducted each
year to the Service annually.
For the reasons described above, we have not included the Camp
Bullis lands in proposed Units 10 and 11 in this final designation of
critical habitat because these areas do not meet the definition of
critical habitat as stated in section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act.
Government Canyon State Natural Area Conservation Plan
During the comment period for the proposed rule, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPW) submitted the ``Karst Management and
Maintenance Plan for Government Canyon State Natural Area, Bexar
County, Texas.'' Government Canyon State Natural Area (GCSNA) was
designated as a state natural area in 1993. As of 2002, GCSNA includes
a total of 8,199 acres. As a designated natural area, GCSNA's mission
is to protect the outstanding natural attributes found on the property,
including caves inhabited by the listed karst invertebrates. Surveys
for cave and karst features and cave fauna have been ongoing at GCSNA
since 1994. To protect the listed karst invertebrates, GCSNA began
treating for fire ants around the occupied caves in 1999 and has
continued to implement this and other conservation measures benefitting
the listed species and their ecosystem. Such on-going measures include,
but are not limited to, ongoing surveys for cave and karst features and
cave fauna, control of fire ants, and control of unauthorized access.
As described in the following paragraphs, the 2002 karst management
plan, received and approved by the Service during the comment period,
includes these and additional measures to conserve the listed species
and their ecosystems on GCSNA.
TPWD committed to limiting human use to a trail system and 12
primitive campsites on the portions of the property overlying the
Edwards Aquifer. At least two surveys a year for fire ant mounds around
cave openings will be conducted with fire ant mound densities being
recorded within 50 m of cave entrances. Searches for fire ant mounds
also will be made during routine maintenance inspections. Control will
be conducted twice a year, with an increase in frequency if more than
80 mounds are located within 50 m of a cave entrance. Boiling water
will be used to control fire ants within 50 m of the footprint of any
cave. Boiling water or chemical baits will be used between 50 and 100 m
from the footprint. Baits may be ``broadcast'' in areas greater than
150 m, and the bait use protocol is outlined in the management plan.
Wildfire fighting will, to the fullest extent practical, avoid
direct or indirect impacts to caves. Pesticide and herbicide use will
be prohibited unless expressly agreed to by all partners involved in
the special management. Monthly monitoring and inspections of all
endangered species caves will occur. Data collection will include:
evidence of vandalism, evidence of vegetation damage due to off-trail
use, condition of the cave gate and/or security fence, evidence of
feral hogs and/or white tailed deer, presence of fire ants, and results
of recent fire ant treatments. Cave cricket counts will be performed
yearly at all caves. Through photographic documentation, changes in
vegetation structure and composition around caves will be monitored.
Volunteers holding valid scientific research and recovery permits for
karst invertebrates will assist in monitoring listed and unlisted
species. An annual report of activities will be submitted by October
31st of each calendar year.
Based on our evaluation of the Karst Management and Maintenance
Plan for Government Canyon State Natural Area, we find that it provides
adequate special management considerations and protection for Units 1a,
1b, 1c, and 1d that were proposed for designation as critical habitat.
We believe that TPWD's karst management plan submitted for GCSNA meets
the three criteria used by the Service to determine if a plan provides
adequate special management or protection to a listed species. The Plan
provides a conservation benefit to the species through the protection
of seven caves, each occupied by one or more of the listed species. As
a designated natural area, GCSNA's mission is to protect the
outstanding natural attributes found on the property, including caves
inhabited by the listed karst invertebrates. The property will be
protected in perpetuity and used in a sustainable manner for scientific
research, education, aesthetic enjoyment, and appropriate public use,
not detrimental to the primary purposes for which the property was
acquired. The Plan provides assurances that the conservation strategies
and actions will be implemented by outlining a schedule of management
and monitoring activities to be conducted at each occupied cave.
Surveys for cave and karst features and cave fauna have been ongoing at
GCSNA since 1994. The Plan also stipulates that funding for the
management actions will be programmed into GCSNA's operating budget
annually. To provide assurances that the conservation strategies and
measures will be effective, TPWD has agreed to conduct periodic surveys
of the cave environment, as well as the surface plant and animal
community to determine the status of these environments and the need
for adaptive management. If monitoring or other information indicates
that the goals or requirements of the Plan are not being met, then
adjustments will be made as appropriate. Under the Plan, TPWD is
required to submit a report of all management and monitoring activities
conducted each year at GCSNA to the Service annually. Therefore, we are
not including these units in this final designation of critical habitat
because
[[Page 17185]]
these areas do not meet the definition of critical habitat as stated in
section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act.
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
As described above, based on our evaluation of the adequacy of
special management and protection that is provided in current
management plans involving the karst invertebrates, and in accordance
with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not included the areas
covered by the La Cantera HCP, or Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 10 and 11 as
proposed, in this final designation of critical habitat. To the extent
that special management considerations and protection may be required
for these areas, and they therefore qualify as critical habitat
according to section 3(5)(A)(i), they are properly excluded from
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, based on the following
analysis.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and
to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions
outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We
cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such exclusion
will result in the extinction of the species concerned. We believe
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act applies to the areas
encompassed in the special management and protection plans for the La
Cantera HCP, GCSNA, and Camp Bullis.
La Cantera HCP
The principal benefit of any designated critical habitat is that
Federal activities that may affect the habitat require consultation
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Consultation is designed to ensure
that adequate protection is provided to avoid adverse modification or
destruction of critical habitat resulting from an action authorized,
funded, or carried out by a Federal agency. Where HCPs are in place and
lands are covered by a section 10(a)(1)B) permit, our experience has
shown that any benefit of designation of such lands as critical habitat
is small to none when the areas concerned are occupied by the species,
because the occupied areas already are subject to section 7
consultation based on the ``jeopardy standard.'' Permitted HCPs are
designed to ensure the long-term survival of listed species within the
area covered by the permit. Under an HCP, an areas that might be
designated as critical habitat already will be protected in reserves
and other conservation lands by the terms of the HCP and its
implementation agreements. The HCP and implementation agreements
include management measures and protections for conservation lands that
are crafted to protect, restore, and enhance their value as habitat for
covered species.
In addition, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit issued by us as a result
of an HCP application must itself undergo consultation. While this
consultation may not look specifically at the issue of the likelihood
of adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat, it will
look at the very similar concept of jeopardy to the listed species in
the plan area. Since HCPs address land use within the plan boundaries,
habitat issues within the plan boundaries will have been thoroughly
addressed in the HCP and the consultation on the HCP.
The development and implementation of HCPs provide other important
conservation benefits, including the development of biological
information to guide conservation efforts and assist in species
recovery and the creation of innovative solutions to conserve species
while allowing for development. The educational benefits of critical
habitat, including informing the public of areas that are important for
the long-term survival and conservation of the species, are essentially
the same as those that would occur from the public notice and comment
procedures required to establish an HCP, as well as the public
participation that occurs in the development of many HCPs. For these
reasons we believe that designation of critical habitat has little or
no benefit in areas covered by HCPs.
The benefits of excluding HCPs from designation as critical habitat
are significant. Benefits of excluding HCPs include relieving
landowners, communities, and counties of any additional minor
regulatory review that might be imposed by critical habitat. Many HCPs
take considerable time--sometimes years--to develop and, upon
completion, become the basis for regional conservation plans that are
consistent with the conservation of covered species. Many of these
plans benefit many species, both listed and unlisted. Imposing an
additional regulatory review after HCP completion may jeopardize
conservation efforts and partnerships in many areas and could be viewed
as a disincentive to those developing HCPs. Excluding HCPs provides us
with an opportunity to streamline regulatory compliance and confirms
regulatory assurances for HCP participants.
Another benefit of excluding HCPs is that exclusion encourages the
continued development of partnerships with HCP participants, including
States, local governments, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, that together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish alone. By excluding areas covered by HCPs
from critical habitat designation, we preserve these partnerships, and,
we believe, set the stage for more effective conservation actions in
the future.
Specifically, for the lands covered by the La Cantera HCP, in a
letter dated April 18, 2002, Mr. Alan Glen, representing the La Cantera
Development Company, noted the following. ``The significant mitigation
measures and conservation benefits provided by the La Cantera HCP would
likely not have been realized through a section 7 consultation. As a
result, it is highly unlikely that the inclusion of the areas covered
by the HCP in a designation of critical habitat would provide any
benefit for the listed species. In contrast, the benefits of excluding
the La Cantera HCP from the designation are expected to be significant
for many of the same reasons identified in the Quino analysis set forth
above. La Cantera and the Service worked together for years to produce
the first HCP covering any of the listed Bexar County invertebrate
species, and as the Service has acknowledged, the result is a model
that can be followed throughout the region. The imposition of even a
minor regulatory burden that will not yield substantial benefits for
the species may hinder the orderly and effective implementation of the
La Cantera HCP and, perhaps more importantly, discourage similar
efforts to conserve the listed species by other parties in the
future.''
We have weighed the small benefit, if any, of including the lands
in the HCP against the benefits of exclusion, which include the benefit
of relieving both the property owners and the Service of the extra time
and funds associated with the additional layer of approvals and
regulation, including reinitiation of the intra-Service section 7
consultation, together with the encouragement of conservation
partnerships. We have determined that the benefit of excluding the land
covered by the La Cantera HCP from designation as critical habitat
outweighs the benefits of including the areas, so we have excluded them
from designation on the basis of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
[[Page 17186]]
Government Canyon State Natural Area and Camp Bullis
The benefits of designating as critical habitat the State-owned
GCSNA lands in proposed Units 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d, and the DOD-owned
Camp Bullis lands in proposed Units 10 and 11, are small to none. As
previously stated, the listed species and their habitat on both Camp
Bullis and the GCSNA already are being managed and protected under
Service-approved karst management plans. These management plans provide
long-term conservation benefits to the listed species on these
properties. The only additional protection for the primary constituent
elements that could occur on GCSNA would be the requirement for Federal
agencies to consult on any action they permit, fund, or carry out, that
may affect designated critical habitat, were it designated, on the
State-owned lands. However, all of the caves on the Natural Area that
could have been included in the designation are known to be inhabited
by one or more species of the endangered karst invertebrates.
Therefore, the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard for Federal agency
actions already is in place and Federal agencies are required to
consult with the Service on any action that may affect a listed
species. Since take of the species would almost certainly be a result
of harm to the habitat, no added section 7(a)(2) protections would be
provided by designation of critical habitat in this situation.
Also, the primary purpose for GCSNA is for the protection and
stewardship of outstanding natural attributes of statewide significance
under Policy, TAC 59.61-59.64. Given this stated purpose, it is highly
unlikely that the State would allow any federally funded or permitted
project that would harm the habitats associated with the caves on the
Natural Area. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that section 7(a)(2)
consultation would ever be required. Also, GCSNA's karst management
plan stipulates that TPWD intends to coordinate with the Service on any
activities on GCSNA that may impact listed species or their habitat.
Further, in the unlikely event that the State should ever propose an
action that lacks Federal agency involvement and that might result in
incidental take of the listed karst invertebrates on the Natural Area,
an incidental take permit would be required under section 10(a)(1)(B)
of the Act. Section 10(a)(1)(B) requires that the applicant minimize
and mitigate, to the maximum extent practical, the impacts to listed
species. While the Service would have to complete an intra-Service
section 7(a)(2) consultation to ensure that issuing the permit did not
jeopardize the listed species or adversely modify critical habitat,
were it designated, it is highly unlikely that the designation of
critical habitat on the Natural Area would add any measures that would
increase the minimization and mitigation of harm to the habitat.
Camp Bullis' mission is to provide field training and support for
military activities in south Texas. The mission requirements demand the
presence of large tracts of undeveloped land for training operations.
The management plan discussed above represents the cumulative efforts
of Camp Bullis to eliminate, mitigate, and prevent harm to the
federally and state-listed karst species. Camp Bullis has an approved
and signed Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP). This
INRMP provides yet another layer of protection for the natural
resources on Camp Bullis. The INRMP includes specific goals for
managing the karst resources on Camp Bullis to ensure protection and
enhance understanding. This includes: (1) Management of water resources
on Camp Bullis, including wetlands, that protects the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone; (2) supporting research to measure the relationship
between species diversity and the amount of water flowing into the
recharge zones; and (3) continuing to support work done by the U.S.
Geological Survey. Given these layers of protection for the habitats
associated with the occupied caves, inclusion of Camp Bullis lands in
this designation of critical habitat would have little or no benefit to
the listed karst species.
The benefits of excluding areas within GCSNA and Camp Bullis from
designation are significant. If special management and protection plans
were not implemented as called for the in the GCSNA conservation plan,
the State would be required to complete section 10(a)(1)(B) habitat
conservation planning for any action that might result in incidental
take of the listed species. In the case of Camp Bullis, section 7(a)(2)
consultation would be needed on any action likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
However, since both areas are implementing special management and
protection plans that preclude take of listed species and harm to the
associated habitat, no HCPs or consultations are needed. Completion of
section 10(a)(1)(B) permits can require extensive lengths of time, in
some cases, years and thousands of hours. Likewise, completion of
formal section 7(a)(2) biological opinions may require completion of
biological assessments that can require extensive lengths of time and
thousands of hours to complete. Both processes may require the
employment of consultants. Thus, by having special management and
protection plans in place that preclude actions that might harm species
and associated habitat, there is a great savings, in terms of both
money and time, and a great benefit, to the Service, the State, and the
DOD.
In the situations of GCSNA and Camp Bullis, the State and the DOD
assumed the additional cost of putting in place and implementing
special management for endangered species in their resource management
plans. The special management far exceeds the protections that would be
afforded by designation of critical habitat. If these areas were
included in the critical habitat designation, the cooperative
partnership that motivated these two agencies to assume the cost and
work would be damaged. Since the added special management and
protection measures for endangered karst invertebrates on the part of
the State is voluntary, the designation could result in an adverse
change to the cooperative partnership with the Service and changes to
future management and protection. The primary constituent elements and
species will greatly benefit from the implementation of these plans.
We believe recovery of listed species is best accomplished through
partnerships and voluntary actions. If areas that are subject to
adequate management plans are not excluded from designations of
critical habitat, there will be a chilling effect on other potential
partners. There is a great incentive to not having Federal regulations
encumbering non-Federal land. It is likely that many potential partners
will not assume the cost and work associated with implementing
voluntary special management and protection if critical habitat is
designated regardless of their efforts. As a result, listed species and
their habitat will not have the benefits of voluntary special
management. We believe that the benefits of excluding these areas
already under special management as a result of voluntary action by the
landowners greatly outweighs the benefits of including such areas as
part of critical habitat. We believe that excluding these areas is
beneficial to these and other species.
In the case of Camp Bullis, there also are national security
benefits from exclusion of Units 10 and 11 from critical habitat
designation which exceed any benefits from including these areas. In a
prior consultation under section 7 of the Act, the Service
[[Page 17187]]
found: ``All available land at Camp Bullis is being used for training
for the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Reserve components, San Antonio
police, FBI, U.S. Marshals and Academy Health Sciences.'' Training
includes search and rescue, escape and evasion, survival, mechanized
infantry maneuvers, urban warfare tactics, reconnaissance in enemy
territory, parachute operations and combat assault landing, air base
ground protection and low-level helicopter assault and maneuvering. An
average of over 36,000 Army and other services' medical personnel
undergo field medical training at Camp Bullis, and total military
training use averages over 720,000 person-days annually.
The space and facilities for this training at Camp Bullis cannot
readily be duplicated elsewhere. The benefits of avoiding adverse
impacts to the U.S. Army's mission if training were delayed due to the
need to reinitiate section 7 consultation as a result of concerns for
irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to
the agency's action (section 7(d)) exceed the benefits of designation
of proposed Units 10 and 11 as critical habitat.
Based on section 4(b)(2) and the consideration of the information
described above, we find that the benefits of excluding the areas
covered by the La Cantera HCP, proposed Units 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d of the
GCSNA lands, and proposed Units 10 and 11 on Camp Bullis, greatly
exceed the limited benefits of including these areas in the designation
of critical habitat. Benefits of exclusion include implementation of
special management and protection plans that provide protection and
management far in excess of any protection afforded by the Act through
designation of critical habitat, by encouraging the formation of
partnerships that will be the key to recovery of the species, by
reducing the time and money that would have been needed to complete
regulatory processes under sections 7(a)(2) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act,
and by ensuring that the U.S. Army's role in protecting the Nation is
not impaired.
We may exclude areas from the critical habitat designation unless
the Secretary determines, ``based on the best scientific and commercial
data available, that the failure to designate such areas as critical
habitat will result in extinction of the species concerned.'' Here, we
have determined that the exclusion of the La Cantera HCP, GCSNA, and
Camp Bullis lands will not result in the extinction of the species.
First, activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal
agencies in these areas that may affect the listed karst invertebrates
will still require consultation under section 7 of the Act, based on
the requirement that Federal agencies ensure that such activities are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.
This requirement applies even without critical habitat designation on
these lands. Second, these three entities have committed to protecting
and managing these endangered species in accordance with their special
management plans and natural resource management objectives. In short,
they have committed to greater conservation measures on these areas
than would be available through the designation of critical habitat.
With these natural resource measures, we have concluded that these
exclusions from critical habitat will not result in the extinction of
these karst invertebrates.
We have determined that, with the exceptions noted above, for the
rest of the areas included in the designation of critical habitat in
this final rule, the benefits of exclusion do not outweigh the benefits
of critical habitat designation. As part of this determination, we
conducted an economic analysis of the proposed rule designating
critical habitat for these species.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and
that we consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating
a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude any area from
designation as critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits
of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such an area as
critical habitat, unless we determine, on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate
such area will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat designation,
we completed a draft economic analysis to estimate the potential
economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was made
available to the public for review on November 21, 2002 (67 FR 70203)
and we accepted comments on the proposed rule and the draft economic
analysis of it until December 23, 2002.
In making our final critical habitat designation, we utilized the
economic analysis and our analysis of other relevant impacts, and
considered all comments and information submitted during the public
hearing and comment period. No areas proposed as critical habitat were
excluded or modified because of economic impacts. This analysis first
identifies land use activities within or in the vicinity of those areas
being proposed for critical habitat that are likely to be affected by
section 7 of the Act. To do this, the analysis evaluates a ``without
section 7'' scenario and compares it to a ``with section 7'' scenario.
The ``without section 7'' scenario constitutes the baseline of this
analysis. It represents the level of protection currently afforded the
species under the Act, absent section 7 protective measures, which
includes other Federal, State, and local laws. The ``with section 7''
scenario identifies land-use activities likely to involve a Federal
nexus that may affect the species or its designated critical habitat,
which accordingly have the potential to be subject to future
consultations under section 7 of the Act.
Upon identifying section 7 impacts, the analysis proceeds to
consider the subset of impacts that can be attributed exclusively to
the critical habitat designation. To do this, the analysis adopts a
``with and without critical habitat approach.'' This approach is used
to determine those effects found in the upper-bound estimate that may
be attributed solely to the proposed designation of critical habitat.
Specifically, the ``with and without critical habitat'' approach
considers section 7 impacts that will likely be associated with the
implementation of the jeopardy provision of section 7 and those that
will likely be associated with the implementation of the adverse
modification provision of section 7. In many cases, impacts associated
with the jeopardy standard remain unaffected by the designation of
critical habitat and thus would not normally be considered an effect of
a critical habitat rulemaking. The subset of section 7 impacts likely
to be affected solely by the designation of critical habitat represents
the lower-bound estimate of this analysis.
This analysis estimates that, over 10 years, 10 formal
consultations and 22 informal consultations will occur on projects with
the potential to affect the proposed critical habitat area. As
mentioned, most of the future section 7 consultations associated with
the area proposed as critical habitat are likely to address private
landowner HCPs and participation in Partners for Fish and Wildlife. In
addition, the Service expects to provide technical assistance to
parties on 431 occasions.
The economic impact associated with section 7 consultations for the
invertebrates is anticipated to be approximately $33.4 million over the
next 10 years, $23.4 million when
[[Page 17188]]
discounted to present value using a rate of 7 percent. Approximately 87
percent of these total costs are expected to result specifically from
designation of critical habitat while the remainder are coextensive
with the listing of these species. While a range of activities may be
affected by designation of critical habitat for the species,
approximately 85 percent of the total designation costs are expected to
stem from private landowner Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) intended
to mitigate impacts from development of private lands within critical
habitat. HCP impacts result from administrative costs associated with
the section 7 consultation process and related project modifications.
Remaining costs are expected to stem from review of management plans
(e.g., within Government Canyon State Natural Area and Camp Bullis),
review of Clean Water Act permits, and participation in Partners for
Fish and Wildlife projects on private lands.
A copy of the final economic analysis and supporting documents are
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
the Austin Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has determined that this is a significant regulatory
action because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. As required
by the Executive Order, we provided a copy of the rule, which describes
the need for this action and how the designation meets that need, and
the economic analysis, which assesses the costs and benefits of this
critical habitat designation, to OMB for review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of
an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for
certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA also amended the RFA to
require a certification statement. We are hereby certifying that this
final critical habitat designation for seven Bexar County invertebrates
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
The economic analysis determined whether this critical habitat
designation potentially affects a ``substantial number'' of small
entities in counties supporting critical habitat areas. It also
quantifies the probable number of small businesses likely to experience
a ``significant effect.'' SBREFA does not explicitly define either
``substantial number'' or ``significant economic impact.''
Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of small
entities is affected by this designation, the economic analysis
considers the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted
in the area. Similarly, this analysis considers the relative cost of
compliance on the revenues/profit margins of small entities in
determining whether or not entities incur a ``significant economic
impact.'' Only small entities that are expected to be directly affected
by the designation are considered in this portion of the analysis. This
approach is consistent with several judicial opinions related to the
scope of the RFA, including Mid-Tex Electric Co-op., Inc. v. F.E.R.C.,
773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) and American Trucking Associations, Inc.
v. U.S. E.P.A., 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
The economic analysis examines the total estimated section 7 costs,
including those impacts that may be ``attributable coextensively'' with
the listing of the species. This results in a conservative estimate
(i.e., more likely to overstate impacts than understate them), because
it utilizes the upper bound impact estimate.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential impacts to
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development,
grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting, etc.). In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
will not be affected by critical habitat designation. We apply the
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine
if certification is appropriate.
The economic analysis identifies land use activities within our
proposed critical habitat designation for the seven invertebrate
species that are expected to be affected by section 7 of the Act. The
following land use activities were identified as being potentially
impacted by section 7 (i.e., requiring consultations or associated
project modifications) under the ``with section 7'' scenario: Private
residential and commercial development; issuance of National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permits by Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC); development of Karst Management Plan
for Camp Bullis; roadway expansions by Texas DOT; Campus expansion of
UTSA; and Partners for Fish and Wildlife conservation projects on
private lands.
Of the projects that are potentially affected by section 7
consultation for the invertebrates, Camp Bullis occurs exclusively on
Federal lands and does not have third party/small entity involvement
(i.e., only the Federal action agency and the Service are expected to
be involved). In addition, under Small Business Administration (SBA)
guidelines, State governments are considered independent sovereigns,
not small governments. As such, TNRCC,
[[Page 17189]]
Texas DOT, and UTSA are not considered ``small entities.''
Of the projects potentially impacted by section 7, some do not
involve any project modifications. Specifically, Partners for Fish and
Wildlife conservation projects on private lands are not expected to
involve any project modifications. The greatest share of the costs
associated with the section 7 consultation process stem from project
modifications, as compared to the consultation itself. Indeed, costs
associated with the consultation itself are relatively minor, with
third-party costs estimated to range from $1,200 to $6,900 per
consultation. Therefore, Partners for Fish and Wildlife conservation
projects are unlikely to be significantly affected by consultations
because these do not involve costly project modifications.
Several developers were identified as having activities with a
Federal nexus and therefore are potentially affected by section 7
implementation for the nine invertebrates for which we proposed
critical habitat designation. Six landowners are expected to complete
HCPs for single- or multi-family homes or commercial development on
their lands. These developers would each bear costs associated with the
consultation and any related project modification for the HCP.
The SBA defines small development businesses as having less than
$28.5 million in average annual receipts (also referred to as sales or
revenues). The following steps were taken as part of the economic
analysis to estimate number of small businesses affected: Estimate the
number of businesses within the study area affected by section 7
implementation annually (assumed to be equal to the number of annual
consultations); calculate the percent of businesses in the affected
industry that are likely to be small; calculate the number of affected
small businesses in the affected industry; calculate the percent of
small businesses likely to be affected by critical habitat. Using these
steps, the economic assessment done for the Bexar County Invertebrate
Species Critical Habitat designation indicates that a total annual
percentage of about 1 percent of small businesses would bear a
significant cost in industry.
In summary, of the projects potentially impacted by section 7
implementation, some are excluded from consideration because they are
on Federal or State lands, and some do not involve any project
modifications. Specifically, Partners for Fish and Wildlife
conservation projects on private lands are not expected to involve any
project modifications. The greatest share of the costs associated with
the consultation process stem from project modifications (as opposed to
the consultation itself). Indeed, costs associated with the
consultation itself are relatively minor, with third-party costs
estimated to range from $1,200 to $6,900 per consultation. Therefore,
small entities are unlikely to be significantly affected by
consultations as these consultations do not involve costly project
modifications. Additionally, because the costs associated with
designating critical habitat for the seven invertebrates are likely to
be significant for an total percentage of about one small business per
year in the affected industries in the study area, this analysis
concludes that a significant economic impact on a significant number of
small entities will not result from the designation of critical habitat
for the nine invertebrates. This would be true even if all of the
effects of section 7 consultation on these activities were attributed
solely to the critical habitat designation.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is
a significant action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use since the
majority of the lands being designated as critical habitat occur on
privately owned lands that are primarily developed for agricultural and
residential uses, and not for energy production or distribution.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.):
1. On the basis of information contained in the economic analysis,
we determine that this rule will not ``significantly or uniquely''
affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that
any of their actions involving Federal funding or authorization must
not destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat or take the
species under section 9 of the Act.
2. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year (i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act).
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights,''
March 18, 1988; 53 FR 8859), we have analyzed the potential takings
implications of the designation of critical habitat for the seven karst
invertebrates. The takings implications assessment concludes that this
final rule does not pose significant takings implications. A copy of
this assessment can be obtained by contacting the Austin Ecological
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
On the basis of the above assessment, we find that this final rule
designating critical habitat for the seven karst invertebrates does not
pose significant takings implications.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat in
areas currently occupied by the seven endangered karst invertebrates
would have little incremental impact on State and local governments and
their activities. The designations may have some benefit to these
governments in that the areas essential to the conservation of these
species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements
of the habitat necessary to the survival of the species are identified.
While this designation does not alter where and what federally
sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local governments
in long-range planning.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (February 7, 1996; 61 FR
4729), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule would
not unduly burden the judicial system and would meet the requirements
of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We designate critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The rule uses
standard coordinates that are geographic longitude and latitude,
decimal degree coordinate pairs, referenced to North American
Horizontal Datum 1983 (NAD 83), and identifies the primary constituent
elements within the designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the
[[Page 17190]]
habitat needs of the seven karst invertebrates.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
for which OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is required.
Information collections associated with Endangered Species permits are
covered by an existing OMB approval, which is assigned control number
1018-0094 and which expires on July 31, 2004. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information, unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act as
amended. A notice outlining our reason for this determination was
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
This proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. The
designation of critical habitat for the seven karst invertebrates does
not contain any Tribal lands or lands that we have identified as
impacting Tribal trust resources.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is
available, upon request, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
This rule was prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, as set forth below:
0
a. By revising the entries for Beetle, Helotes mold; Beetle [no common
name] (Rhadine exilis); and Beetle [no common name] (Rhadine
infernalis) under ``INSECTS'' to read as follows;
0
b. By removing the entries for Harvestman, Robber Baron Cave; Spider,
Government Canyon Cave; Spider, Madla's Cave; Spider [no common name]
(Cicurina venii); Spider, Robber Baron Cave; and Spider, vesper cave;
and
0
c. By adding entries for Harvestman, Cokendolpher cave; Meshweaver,
Braken Bat Cave; Meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cave; Meshweaver,
Madla Cave; Meshweaver, Robber Baron Cave; and Spider, Government
Canyon Bat Cave under ``ARACHNIDS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population
where Special
Historic range endangered Status When listed Critical habitat rules
Common name Scientific name or
threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
INSECTS
* * * * * * *
Beetle, Helotes mold............. Batrisodes venyivi.. U.S.A. (TX)......... NA E 706 17.95(i) NA
* * * * * * *
Beetle, [no common name]......... Rhadine exilis...... U.S.A. (TX)......... NA E 706 17.95(i) NA
Beetle, [no common name]......... Rhadine infernalis.. U.S.A. (TX)......... NA E 706 17.95(i) NA
* * * * * * *
ARACHNIDS
* * * * * * *
Harvestman, Cokendolpher cave.... Texella U.S.A. (TX)......... NA E 706 17.95(g) NA
cokendolpheri.
Meshweaver, Braken Bat Cave...... Circurina venii..... U.S.A. (TX)......... NA E 706 17.95(g) NA
Meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Circurina vespera... U.S.A. (TX)......... NA E 706 NA NA
Cave.
Meshweaver, Madla Cave........... Cicurina madla...... U.S.A. (TX)......... NA E 706 17.95(g) NA
[[Page 17191]]
Meshweaver, Robber Baron Cave.... Cicurina baronia.... U.S.A. (TX)......... NA E 706 17.95(g) NA
* * * * * * *
Spider, Government Canyon Bat Neoleptoneta microps U.S.A. (TX)......... NA E 706 NA NA
Cave.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95 by adding, in the same alphabetical order as these
species occur in Sec. 17.11(h):
0
a. In paragraph (g), critical habitat for the Cokendolpher cave
harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri);
0
b. In paragraph (g), critical habitat for the Braken Bat Cave
meshweaver (Cicurina venii);
0
c. In paragraph (g), critical habitat for the Madla Cave meshweaver
(Cicurina madla);
0
d. In paragraph (g), critical habitat for the Robber Baron Cave
meshweaver (Cicurina baronia);
0
e. In paragraph (i), critical habitat for the Helotes mold beetle
(Batrisodes venyivi).
0
f. In paragraph (i), critical habitat for the beetle (no common name)
(Rhadine exilis); and
0
g. In paragraph (i), critical habitat for the beetle (no common name),
(Rhadine infernalis).
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(g) Arachnids.
Cokendolpher cave harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri)
(1) Critical habitat for the Cokendolpher cave harvestman occurs in
Unit 20 as described below and depicted on Map 1 (index map) and Map 2
below. All coordinates are geographic longitude and latitude, decimal
degree coordinate pairs, referenced to North American Horizontal Datum
1983. Coordinates were derived from 2001 digital orthophotographs.
(2) Map 1--Index map of critical habitat units for karst
invertebrate species in Bexar County, Texas--follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 17192]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(3) The primary constituent elements include:
(i) The physical features of karst-forming rock containing
subterranean spaces with stable temperatures, high humidities (near
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and
underneath rocks suitable for foraging and sheltering); and
(ii) The biological features of a healthy surface community of
native plants (for example, juniper-oak woodland) and animals (for
example, cave crickets) surrounding the karst feature that provide
nutrient input and buffer the karst ecosystem from adverse effects
(from, for example, nonnative species invasions, contaminants, and
fluctuations in temperature and humidity).
(4) Existing human-constructed, above-ground, impervious structures
do not contain the primary constituent elements and are not considered
to be critical habitat. Such features and structures include, but are
not limited to, buildings and paved roads. However, subsurface areas
under these structures are considered to be critical habitat since
subterranean spaces containing these species and/or transmitting
moisture and nutrients through the karst ecosystem extend, in some
cases, underneath these existing human-constructed structures.
Landscaped areas associated with existing human-constructed structures
also are not considered critical habitat.
(5) Unit 20 (23 ha (57 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.4582897, 29.5087489; -98.4575517,
29.5091199; -98.4561171, 29.5091615; -98.4553228, 29.5088978; -
98.4552343, 29.5082394; -98.4563160, 29.5073726; -98.4571671,
29.5071204; -98.4586325, 29.5063688; -98.4606616, 29.5044311; -
98.4637341, 29.5006275; -98.4649997, 29.4990919; -98.4656642,
29.4986719; -98.4660631, 29.4991019; -98.4658881, 29.4995898; -
98.4646589, 29.5017013; -98.4639396, 29.5027162; -98.4616730,
29.5055952; -98.4595256, 29.5073856; -98.4591719, 29.5077488; -
98.4582897, 29.5087489.
(6) Map 2--Unit 20 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 17193]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.001
Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina venii)
(1) Critical habitat for the Braken Bat Cave meshweaver in Bexar
County, Texas, occurs in Unit 15 as described below and depicted on Map
3 below.
[[Page 17194]]
Unit 15 also is depicted on Map 1 (index map) provided in the entry for
Cokendolpher cave harvestman in this paragraph (g). The primary
constituent elements and statements regarding existing structures and
associated landscaping, as described in the entry for Cokendolpher cave
harvestman in this paragraph (g), are identical for this species.
(2) Unit 15 (34 ha (85 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.7631005, 29.4388531; -98.7600316,
29.4394009; -98.7598094, 29.4392533; -98.7587180, 29.4382984; -
98.7558932, 29.4384257; -98.7556537, 29.4383265; -98.7547983,
29.4359982; -98.7550418, 29.4352415; -98.7555963, 29.4347910; -
98.7573878, 29.4337784; -98.7580646, 29.4338220; -98.7586605,
29.4340159; -98.7612682, 29.4363049; -98.7623440, 29.4362183; -
98.7633120, 29.4363085; -98.7638206, 29.4366668; -98.7641806,
29.4371861; -98.7641397, 29.4377268; -98.7639175, 29.4385170; -
98.7631005, 29.4388531.
(3) Map 3--Unit 15 follows:
[[Page 17195]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.002
Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla)
(1) Critical habitat for the Madla Cave meshweaver in Bexar County,
Texas, occurs in Units 2, 3, 5, 8b, and 17 as described below and
depicted on Maps
[[Page 17196]]
4 through 7 below. These units also are depicted on Map 1 (index map)
provided in the entry for Cokendolpher cave harvestman in this
paragraph (g). The primary constituent elements and statements
regarding existing structures and associated landscaping, as described
in the entry for Cokendolpher cave harvestman in this paragraph (g),
are identical for this species.
(2) Four caves and their associated karst management areas
established under the La Cantera section 10(a)(1)(B) permit are within
the boundaries of units but are not designated as critical habitat.
These include Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves and the
surrounding approximately 10 ha (25 ac) (within Unit 3); Hills and
Dales Pit and the surrounding approximately 28 ha (70 ac) (within Unit
8b); and Madla Cave and the surrounding 2 ha (5 ac) (within Unit 17).
(3) Unit 2 (37 ha (92 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.7233687, 29.6171088; -98.7232109,
29.6176729; -98.7226506, 29.6187073; -98.7223227, 29.6191855; -
98.7219946, 29.6195016; -98.7215653, 29.6198980; -98.7214108,
29.6206847; -98.7175298, 29.6206847; -98.7174011, 29.6219810; -
98.7170539, 29.6225993; -98.7162170, 29.6229506; -98.7153881,
29.6229101; -98.7147133, 29.6225995; -98.7143375, 29.6220053; -
98.7142667, 29.6214953; -98.7144462, 29.6206782; -98.7144750,
29.6170924; -98.7145361, 29.6170162; -98.7165027, 29.6170258; -
98.7163850, 29.6174867; -98.7177246, 29.6172351; -98.7177252,
29.6170317; -98.7211420, 29.6170764; -98.7233687, 29.6171088.
(4) Map 4--Unit 2 follows:
[[Page 17197]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.003
(5) Unit 3 (17 ha (41 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6924522, 29.5880654; -98.6884953,
29.5878232; -98.6883750, 29.5869448; -98.6879295, 29.5850798; -
98.6894469, 29.5850833; -98.6906186,
[[Page 17198]]
29.5841182; -98.6929315, 29.5855036; -98.6936461, 29.5865268; -
98.6931713, 29.5875652; -98.6924522, 29.5880654.
(6) Map 5--Unit 3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.004
[[Page 17199]]
(7) Unit 5 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6935478, 29.6136095; -98.6890212,
29.6135990; -98.6890205, 29.6111931; -98.6891305, 29.6109546; -
98.6896239, 29.6104067; -98.6903350, 29.6101696; -98.6935582,
29.6101663; -98.6935478, 29.6136095.
(8) Map 6--Unit 5 (which also depicts Unit 17) follows:
[[Page 17200]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.005
(9) Unit 8b (28 ha (69 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6429582, 29.5992695; -98.6395799,
29.6005152; -98.6381868, 29.6000556; -98.6378758, 29.5991778; -
98.6383595, 29.5973398; -98.6370868,
[[Page 17201]]
29.5969511; -98.6383585, 29.5959854; -98.6384179, 29.5941526; -
98.6395017, 29.5934820; -98.6411044, 29.5935108; -98.6417193,
29.5949384; -98.6417849, 29.5965421; -98.6429721, 29.5983417; -
98.6429582, 29.5992695.
(10) Map 7--Unit 8b (which also depicts Unit 8a) follows:
[[Page 17202]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.006
(11) Unit 17 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6986633, 29.6061189; -98.6978901,
29.6064178; -98.6968967, 29.6060042; -98.6955470, 29.6059909; -
98.6944214, 29.6056088; -98.6944325,
[[Page 17203]]
29.6018959; -98.6967798, 29.6018910; -98.6967762, 29.6031320; -
98.6986774, 29.6031773; -98.6986633, 29.6061189.
(12) For a map of unit 17, refer to Map 6--Unit 5 in paragraph (8)
of this entry.
Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (Cicurina baronia)
(1) Critical habitat for the Robber Baron Cave meshweaver in Bexar
County, Texas, occurs in Unit 20 as provided in the critical habitat
unit description and depicted on Map 1 and Map 2 in the entry for
Cokendolpher cave harvestman in this paragraph (g). The primary
constituent elements and statements regarding existing structures and
associated landscaping, as described in the entry for Cokendolpher cave
harvestman in this paragraph (g), are identical for this species.
* * * * *
(i) Insects.
* * * * *
Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi)
(1) Critical habitat for the Helotes mold beetle occurs in Units
1e1, 3, and 5 as described below and depicted on Map 1 (index map) and
Maps 2 through 4 below. All coordinates are geographic longitude and
latitude, decimal degree coordinate pairs, referenced to North American
Horizontal Datum 1983. Coordinates were derived from 2001 digital
orthophotographs.
(2) Map 1--Index map of critical habitat units for karst
invertebrate species in Bexar County, Texas--follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.007
(3) The primary constituent elements include:
(i) The physical features of karst-forming rock containing
subterranean spaces with stable temperatures, high humidities (near
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and
underneath rocks suitable for foraging and sheltering); and
(ii) The biological features of a healthy surface community of
native plants (for example, juniper-oak woodland) and animals (for
example, cave crickets) surrounding the karst feature that provide
nutrient input and buffer the karst ecosystem from adverse effects
(from, for example, nonnative species invasions, contaminants, and
fluctuations in temperature and humidity).
(4) Existing human-constructed, above ground, impervious structures
do not contain the primary constituent elements and are not considered
to be critical habitat. Such features and structures include, but are
not limited to, buildings and paved roads. However, subsurface areas
under these structures
[[Page 17204]]
are considered to be critical habitat since subterranean spaces
containing these species and/or transmitting moisture and nutrients
through the karst ecosystem extend, in some cases, underneath these
existing human-constructed structures. Landscaped areas associated with
existing human-constructed structures are also not considered critical
habitat.
(5) Two caves, Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves, and
their associated approximately 10 ha (25 ac) karst management area
established under the La Cantera section 10 permit, are within the
boundaries of Unit 3 but are not designated as critical habitat.
(6) Unit 1e1 (15 ha (38 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.7273522, 29.5853221; -98.7276682,
29.5844887; -98.7282285, 29.5840393; -98.7289978, 29.5838347; -
98.7296876, 29.5839736; -98.7302983, 29.5843184; -98.7305603,
29.5848409; -98.7317069, 29.5879827; -98.7287776, 29.5890153; -
98.7285230, 29.5883695; -98.7273522, 29.5853221.
(7) Map 2--Unit 1e1 (which also depicts Units 1e2 and 1e3) follows:
[[Page 17205]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.008
(8) Unit 3 (17 ha (41 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6924522, 29.5880654; -98.6884953,
29.5878232; -98.6883750, 29.5869448; -98.6879295, 29.5850798; -
98.6894469, 29.5850833; -98.6906186,
[[Page 17206]]
29.5841182; -98.6929315, 29.5855036; -98.6936461, 29.5865268; -
98.6931713, 29.5875652; -98.6924522, 29.5880654.
(9) Map 3--Unit 3 (which also depicts Units 4 and 18) follows:
[[Page 17207]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.009
(10) Unit 5 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6935478, 29.6136095; -98.6890212,
29.6135990; -98.6890205, 29.6111931; -98.6891305, 29.6109546; -
98.6896239, 29.6104067; -98.6903350,
[[Page 17208]]
29.6101696; -98.6935582, 29.6101663; -98.6935478, 29.6136095.
(11) Map 4--Unit 5 (which also depicts Unit 17) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.010
[[Page 17209]]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Beetle (no common name) (Rhadine exilis)
(1) Critical habitat for the beetle Rhadine exilis in Bexar County,
Texas, occurs in Units 1e1, 3, and 5 as provided in the critical
habitat unit descriptions and depicted on Maps 1 through 4 in the entry
for Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i). Critical habitat for
this species also occurs in Units 1e3 and 4 as described below and
depicted on Maps 2 and 3 in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in this
paragraph (i). In addition, critical habitat for this species occurs in
Units 2, 6, 7, 8a, 8b, 9, 12, 13, and 21 as described below and
depicted on Maps 5 through 12 below. The primary constituent elements
and statements regarding existing structures and associated
landscaping, as described in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in this
paragraph (i), are identical for this species.
(2) Four caves and their associated karst management areas
established under the La Cantera section 10(a)(1)(B) permit are within
the boundaries of units but are not designated as critical habitat.
These include Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves and the
surrounding approximately 10 ha (25 ac) (within Unit 3); John Wagner
Ranch Cave No. 3 and the surrounding approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac)
(within Unit 6); and Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding
approximately 28 ha (70 ac) (within Unit 8b).
(3) Unit 1e3 (19 ha (46 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.7330644, 29.5808303; -98.7317429,
29.5817323; -98.7300245, 29.5817484; -98.7287834, 29.5808858; -
98.7278797, 29.5794152; -98.7277522, 29.5779929; -98.7299554,
29.5788393; -98.7305067, 29.5770049; -98.7316838, 29.5770266; -
98.7331986, 29.5789722; -98.7332119, 29.5796238; -98.7330644,
29.5808303.
(4) A map of Unit 1e3 is provided in Map 2 of the entry for Helotes
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(5) Unit 2 (37 ha (92 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.7233687, 29.6171088; -98.7232109,
29.6176729; -98.7226506, 29.6187073; -98.7223227, 29.6191855; -
98.7219946, 29.6195016; -98.7215653, 29.6198980; -98.7214108,
29.6206847; -98.7175298, 29.6206847; -98.7174011, 29.6219810; -
98.7170539, 29.6225993; -98.7162170, 29.6229506; -98.7153881,
29.6229101; -98.7147133, 29.6225995; -98.7143375, 29.6220053; -
98.7142667, 29.6214953; -98.7144462, 29.6206782; -98.7144750,
29.6170924; -98.7145361, 29.6170162; -98.7165027, 29.6170258; -
98.7163850, 29.6174867; -98.7177246, 29.6172351; -98.7177252,
29.6170317; -98.7211420, 29.6170764; -98.7233687, 29.6171088.
(6) Map 5--Unit 2 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 17210]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.011
(7) Unit 4 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6867019, 29.5907363; -98.6858306,
29.5913949; -98.6821967, 29.5933020; -98.6821915, 29.5888925; -
98.6838368, 29.5884340; -98.6861597,
[[Page 17211]]
29.5888524; -98.6867424, 29.5898281; -98.6867019, 29.5907363.
(8) A map of Unit 4 is provided in Map 3 of the entry for Helotes
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(9) Unit 6 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6754738, 29.6114940; -98.6754991,
29.6076989; -98.6783407, 29.6077443; -98.6790700, 29.6080113; -
98.6795845, 29.6087581; -98.6796498, 29.6115041; -98.6754738,
29.6114940.
(10) Map 6--Unit 6 follows:
[[Page 17212]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.012
(11) Unit 7 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6713696, 29.6269338; -98.6713466,
29.6298459; -98.6696115, 29.6299251; -98.6688040, 29.6303752;
[[Page 17213]]
-98.6666183, 29.6303712; -98.6666569, 29.6269341; -98.6713696,
29.6269338.
(12) Map 7--Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.013
[[Page 17214]]
(13) Unit 8a (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6467402, 29.6026321; -98.6447253,
29.6024097; -98.6447648, 29.5992959; -98.6494110, 29.5993090; -
98.6494384, 29.6013452; -98.6489127, 29.6023010; -98.6482203,
29.6027779; -98.6476087, 29.6028598; -98.6467402, 29.6026321.
(14) Unit 8b (28 ha (69 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6429582, 29.5992695; -98.6395799,
29.6005152; -98.6381868, 29.6000556; -98.6378758, 29.5991778; -
98.6383595, 29.5973398; -98.6370868, 29.5969511; -98.6383585,
29.5959854; -98.6384179, 29.5941526; -98.6395017, 29.5934820; -
98.6411044, 29.5935108; -98.6417193, 29.5949384; -98.6417849,
29.5965421; -98.6429721, 29.5983417; -98.6429582, 29.5992695.
(15) Map 8--Units 8a and 8b follows:
[[Page 17215]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.014
(16) Unit 9 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.6166421, 29.5881679; -98.6097995,
29.5889549; -98.6094772, 29.5865751; -98.6141408, 29.5862370;
[[Page 17216]]
-98.6158210, 29.5862418; -98.6165749, 29.5871541; -98.6166421,
29.5881679.
(17) Map 9--Unit 9 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.015
[[Page 17217]]
(18) Unit 12 (21 ha (51 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.4631439, 29.6393535; -98.4620337,
29.6395912; -98.4610270, 29.6393230; -98.4604275, 29.6383078; -
98.4601340, 29.6376003; -98.4602053, 29.6369053; -98.4599272,
29.6355399; -98.4604201, 29.6346170; -98.4608048, 29.6344781; -
98.4611518, 29.6336481; -98.4621637, 29.6330425; -98.4636173,
29.6333332; -98.4641049, 29.6342973; -98.4640055, 29.6350951; -
98.4634444, 29.6356360; -98.4627791, 29.6368420; -98.4635574,
29.6374176; -98.4637899, 29.6381796; -98.4637898, 29.6382043; -
98.4631439, 29.6393535.
(19) Map 10--Unit 12 follows:
[[Page 17218]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.016
(20) Unit 13 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.4218888, 29.6404393; -98.4212080,
29.6405040; -98.4208242, 29.6372953; -98.4239377, 29.6367357; -
98.4241724, 29.6382709; -98.4250182,
[[Page 17219]]
29.6383670; -98.4255670, 29.6386096; -98.4260182, 29.6390832; -
98.4257350, 29.6392361; -98.4260492, 29.6397945; -98.4250314,
29.6403527; -98.4246243, 29.6411168; -98.4229768, 29.6409069; -
98.4218888, 29.6404393.
(21) Map 11--Unit 13 follows:
[[Page 17220]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.017
(22) Unit 21 (27 ha (68 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.4716469, 29.6499842; -98.4730641,
29.6507507; -98.4730857, 29.6517491; -98.4715209, 29.6547384; -
98.4726672, 29.6552447; -98.4728036,
[[Page 17221]]
29.6567962; -98.4712860, 29.6577112; -98.4695532, 29.6569100; -
98.4696535, 29.6556282; -98.4692815, 29.6535131; -98.4685518,
29.6532365; -98.4678845, 29.6527093; -98.4677417, 29.6516106; -
98.4683879, 29.6507722; -98.4716469, 29.6499842.
(23) Map 12--Unit 21 follows:
[[Page 17222]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.018
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Beetle (no common name) (Rhadine infernalis)
(1) Critical habitat for the beetle Rhadine infernalis in Bexar
County,
[[Page 17223]]
Texas, occurs in Units 1e1, 3 and 5 as provided in the critical habitat
unit descriptions and depicted on Maps 1 through 4 in the entry for
Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i). This species also occurs in
the following units: Unit 1e2 as described below and depicted on Map 2
in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i); Units 2, 6,
8a, and 8b as described in the text and depicted on Maps 5, 6, and 8 in
the entry for beetle (Rhadine exilis) in this paragraph (i); Unit 4 as
provided in the critical habitat descriptions for beetle (Rhadine
exilis) and depicted on Map 3 in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in
this paragraph (i); Units 17 and 18 described below and depicted on
Maps 3 and 4 found in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in this
paragraph (i); and Units 14, 15, 16, and 19 as described below and
depicted on Maps 13 through 16 below. The primary constituent elements
and statements regarding existing structures and associated
landscaping, as described in the entry for Helotes mold beetle in this
paragraph (i), are identical for this species.
(2) Five caves and their associated karst management areas
established under the La Cantera section 10(a)(1)(B) permit are within
the boundaries of units but are not designated as critical habitat
designation. These include Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop caves
and the surrounding approximately 10 ha (25 ac) (within Unit 3); John
Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3 and the surrounding approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac)
(within Unit 6); and Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding
approximately 28 ha (70 ac) (within Unit 8b); and Madla Cave and the
surrounding 2 ha (5 ac) (within Unit 17).
(3) Unit 1e2 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.7238284, 29.5847161; -98.7201061,
29.5861352; -98.7189558, 29.5844029; -98.7194474, 29.5832652; -
98.7230107, 29.5818492; -98.7245095, 29.5824623; -98.7247550,
29.5841155; -98.7238284, 29.5847161.
(4) A map of unit 1e2 is provided in Map 2 of the entry for Helotes
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(5) Unit 14 (26 ha (64 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.7863612, 29.4495294; -98.7869725,
29.4489471; -98.7875551, 29.4486522; -98.7883435, 29.4486781; -
98.7889905, 29.4489913; -98.7918932, 29.4524710; -98.7918632,
29.4533747; -98.7904052, 29.4548676; -98.7899060, 29.4556966; -
98.7887880, 29.4561713; -98.7872743, 29.4556964; -98.7870331,
29.4543351; -98.7888385, 29.4523567; -98.7868531, 29.4511085; -
98.7863591, 29.4505317; -98.7863612, 29.4495294.
(6) Map 13--Unit 14 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 17224]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.019
(7) Unit 15 (34 ha (85 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.7631005, 29.4388531; -98.7600316,
29.4394009; -98.7598094, 29.4392533; -98.7587180, 29.4382984; -
98.7558932, 29.4384257; -98.7556537,
[[Page 17225]]
29.4383265; -98.7547983, 29.4359982; -98.7550418, 29.4352415; -
98.7555963, 29.4347910; -98.7573878, 29.4337784; -98.7580646,
29.4338220; -98.7586605, 29.4340159; -98.7612682, 29.4363049; -
98.7623440, 29.4362183; -98.7633120, 29.4363085; -98.7638206,
29.4366668; -98.7641806, 29.4371861; -98.7641397, 29.4377268; -
98.7639175, 29.4385170; -98.7631005, 29.4388531.
(8) Map 14--Unit 15 follows:
[[Page 17226]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.020
(9) Unit 16 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: -98.7154218, 29.4533018; -98.7153995,
29.4573801; -98.7119857, 29.4573751; -98.7119610, 29.4558232; -
98.7111540, 29.4557860; -98.7106973,
[[Page 17227]]
29.4556731; -98.7105899, 29.4554235; -98.7105693, 29.4552002; -
98.7107385, 29.4550044; -98.7110558, 29.4549040; -98.7119873,
29.4548136; -98.7119764, 29.4532848; -98.7154218, 29.4533018.
(10) Map 15--Unit 16 follows:
[[Page 17228]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.021
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(11) Unit 17 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: --98.6986633, 29.6061189; --98.6978901,
29.6064178;
[[Page 17229]]
--98.6968967, 29.6060042; --98.6955470, 29.6059909; --98.6944214,
29.6056088; --98.6944325, 29.6018959; --98.6967798, 29.6018910; --
98.6967762, 29.6031320; --98.6986774, 29.6031773; --98.6986633,
29.6061189.
(12) A map of Unit 17 is provided in Map 4 in the entry for Helotes
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(13) Unit 18 (16 ha (40 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: --98.6879353, 29.5840278; --98.6871403,
29.5838597; --98.6859450, 29.5845069; --98.6838609, 29.5817508; --
98.6870156, 29.5791593; --98.6889591, 29.5810380; --98.6883743,
29.5818521; --98.6879353, 29.5840278.
(14) A map of Unit 18 is provided in Map 3 in the entry for Helotes
mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(15) Unit 19 (5 ha (12 ac)) is an area bounded by points with the
following coordinates: --98.4945129, 29.6147150; --98.4940750,
29.6145674; --98.4938755, 29.6141954; --98.4939880, 29.6138063; --
98.4942787, 29.6135970; --98.4952809, 29.6135500; --98.4956056,
29.6133414; --98.4963069, 29.6130155; --98.4967699, 29.6130881; --
98.4966492, 29.6123219; --98.4973783, 29.6125657; --98.4978516,
29.6131158; --98.4974600, 29.6135445; --98.4971077, 29.6136897; --
98.4970745, 29.6140495; --98.4968571, 29.6142911; --98.4962556,
29.6145285; --98.4954870, 29.6146791; --98.4945129, 29.6147150.
(16) Map 16--Unit 19 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 17230]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP03.022
[[Page 17231]]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *
Dated: March 26, 2003.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-7735 Filed 4-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P