[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8449-8523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2195]



[[Page 8449]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 30

February 14, 2012

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 8450]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2010-0091; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX11


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for Rhadine exilis (ground beetle, no common name), 
Rhadine infernalis (ground beetle, no common name), Helotes mold beetle 
(Batrisodes venyivi), Cokendolpher Cave harvestman (Texella 
cokendolpheri), Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (Cicurina baronia), Madla 
Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla), Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina 
venii), Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina vespera), and 
Government Canyon Bat Cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). These species are 
collectively known as the nine Bexar County invertebrates. In total, 
approximately 4,216 acres (ac) (1,706 hectares (ha)) in Bexar County, 
Texas, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. 
Also, we announce a 12-month finding on a petition to revise critical 
habitat designation by removing unit 13 from designation under the Act. 
After review of all available scientific and commercial information, we 
find that the petitioned action is not warranted at this time.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: This final rule and the associated final economic analysis 
are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments 
and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in 
preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet 
Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512-450-0057; facsimile 
512-490-0974.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics 
directly relevant to the development and designation of critical 
habitat for the Rhadine exilis (ground beetle, no common name), Rhadine 
infernalis (ground beetle, no common name), Helotes mold beetle, 
Cokendolpher Cave harvestman, Robber Baron Cave meshweaver, Madla Cave 
meshweaver, Braken Bat Cave meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cave 
meshweaver, and Government Canyon Bat Cave spider under the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For more information on the biology and ecology 
of the nine Bexar County invertebrates, refer to the final listing rule 
published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419), 
and to our September 2011 final recovery plan (Service 2011), which is 
available from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section). For information on the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates' critical habitat, refer to the proposed rule to 
designate critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates 
published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2002 (67 FR 55063), the 
final critical habitat designation published April 8, 2003 (68 FR 
17155), and the proposed revised critical habitat designation published 
on February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9872). Information on the associated draft 
economic analysis for the February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9872), proposed rule 
to designate revised critical habitat was published in the Federal 
Register on August 2, 2011 (76 FR 46234).
    We use the terms karst fauna regions (KFRs), karst zones, and karst 
fauna areas (KFAs) in this document. The term ``karst'' refers to a 
subterranean 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, 
sinkholes, and bedrock resembling Swiss cheese.
    Veni (1994, pp. 68-76) delineated six KFRs within Bexar County: 
Stone Oak, University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), Helotes, 
Government Canyon, Culebra Anticline, and Alamo Heights (Figure 1). 
These KFRs are bounded by geological or geographical features that may 
represent obstructions to the movement (on a geologic timescale) of 
troglobites (small, cave-dwelling animals that have adapted to their 
dark surroundings), which has resulted in the present-day distribution 
of endemic (restricted to a given region) karst invertebrates in the 
Bexar County area. The basis for these divisions is the lack of 
continuity between caves, which may form complete barriers or 
significant restrictions to migration of troglobites over modern or 
geologic timescales. These discontinuities result from cave development 
and the geologic history of the area.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 8451]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    The KFRs were analyzed by Veni (1994, pp. 72-73) using the then 
current range of 19 troglobitic species, including the 9 Bexar County 
invertebrates. The KFRs are important because they are used to 
establish recovery criteria for individual species in the Bexar County 
Karst Invertebrate Recovery Plan (Service 2011, pp. 17-26). To meet 
those criteria, specified numbers of preserves of a given quality must 
be protected within each KFR in which they occur.
    Also, the six KFRs were delineated by Veni (2003, pp. 10-18) into 
five karst zones that reflect the likelihood of finding a karst feature 
that will provide habitat for the endangered invertebrates, based on 
geology, distribution of known caves, distribution of cave fauna, and 
primary factors that determine the presence, size, shape, and extent of

[[Page 8452]]

caves with respect to cave development. As described by Veni (2003, pp. 
10-18), these five zones (Figure 1) are defined as:
    Zone 1: Areas known to contain one or more of the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates (areas where species are present).
    Zone 2: Areas having a high probability of suitable habitat for the 
invertebrates (areas that may contain one or more invertebrates, but 
have not been fully surveyed).
    Zone 3: Areas that probably do not contain the invertebrates 
(because there is very little suitable karst habitat).
    Zone 4: Areas that require further research, but are generally 
equivalent to Zone 3, although they may include sections that could be 
classified as Zone 2 or 5 (areas where less is known about the karst 
structure than with Zone 3).
    Zone 5: Areas that do not contain the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates (areas with units of rock that do not contain karst 
habitat).
    A karst fauna area (Service 1994, p. 76) is a geographic area known 
to support one or more locations of an endangered species. A KFA is 
distinct in that it acts as a system that is separated from other KFAs 
by geologic and hydrologic features and/or processes or distances that 
create barriers to movement of water, contaminants, and troglobitic 
fauna.

Previous Federal Actions

    We published a proposed rule to list the nine Bexar County karst 
invertebrate species as endangered in the Federal Register on December 
30, 1998 (63 FR 71855). On November 1, 2000, the Center for Biological 
Diversity filed a complaint against the Service alleging that we 
exceeded our 1-year obligation to publish a final listing rule and make 
a determination whether to designate critical habitat for the nine 
Bexar County karst invertebrates. We published a final listing rule on 
December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419). In the final listing rule, we 
determined that critical habitat designation was prudent. On August 27, 
2002, we proposed that 25 units encompassing approximately 9,516 ac 
(3,857 ha) in Bexar County, Texas, be designated as critical habitat 
for the nine karst invertebrates (67 FR 55063). The final critical 
habitat rule, designating approximately 1,063 ac (431 ha) in 22 units, 
was published on April 8, 2003 (68 FR 17155).
    On July 17, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens 
Alliance for Smart Expansion, and Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas 
provided us with a 60-day notice of intent to sue on the final critical 
habitat rule. On January 14, 2009, the plaintiffs (CBD v. FWS, case 
number 1:09-cv-00031-LY) filed suit in Federal Court (Western District 
of Texas), alleging that the Service failed to use the best available 
science, and incorrectly made exclusions according to sections 3(5)(A) 
and 4(b)(2) of the Act. On December 18, 2009, the parties filed a 
settlement agreement where we agreed to submit a revised proposed 
critical habitat determination for publication in the Federal Register 
on or before February 7, 2011, and a final revised determination by 
February 7, 2012. The proposed rule was submitted to the Federal 
Register prior to the February 7, 2011, deadline, and it published on 
February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9872). On August 2, 2011 (76 FR 46234), we 
reopened the comment period and announced the availability of a draft 
economic analysis, an amended required determinations section of the 
proposal, and a public hearing to allow. This final rule is published 
in accordance with the settlement agreement.

12-Month Finding

    On July 8, 2010, we received a petition from Capital Foresight 
Limited Partnership to revise designated critical habitat for Rhadine 
exilis by removing Unit 13. The petitioner alleges that the original 
specimens collected from Black Cat Cave were never positively 
identified as R. exilis. They stated that another species of Rhadine 
with a slender body form similar to R. exilis occurs in a cave a short 
distance from Black Cat Cave, which is likely connected by mesocaverns 
(small, human-inaccessible, interstitial spaces in karst limestone), 
and that two species of Rhadine with similar body forms have never been 
documented to occur in the same location. In addition, the petitioner 
asserted that drinking water is leaking into Black Cat Cave and that 
the habitat has been highly degraded by the Bulverde Road, rending the 
area no longer suitable for conservation of the species. However, 
information in our files at the time we received the petition indicated 
that a species expert had identified the original specimen collected 
from Black Cat Cave as R. exilis (T. Barr, pers. comm., 2010).
    In our February 22, 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 9872), we issued a 
90-day finding that the Capital Foresight Limited Partnership presented 
substantial information indicating that revising critical habitat for 
Rhadine exilis may be warranted. We initiated a review to determine if 
revising critical habitat for R. exilis is warranted. During that 
review, we received evidence that the cave entrance had been filled 
with dirt and rocks, and a concrete structure had been placed over the 
natural opening.
    In addition, the species expert examined the original specimens and 
stated, ``My preliminary conclusions are that the Black Cat Rhadine are 
distinct from Rhadine exilis though closely related, but I want to 
spend about six hours or so on a final evaluation'' (T. Barr, pers. 
comm., 2011). Unfortunately, T. Barr died in May 2011, and his 
collection was donated to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. The 
Texas Memorial Museum is working with the Carnegie Museum to locate, 
obtain, and examine the specimens from Black Cat Cave, but this task 
has not been accomplished to date.
    The preliminary determination by the species expert (T. Barr) that 
this was not Rhadine exilis casts some additional doubt on whether the 
unit contains, or ever contained, the species. However, because the 
specimens are not currently available for examination, we give 
deference to the original identification of the species as Rhadine 
exilis by the species expert, T. Barr.
    It has been 24 years since this Rhadine has been found in the cave, 
and nine surveys conducted since 2008 have not confirmed its presence. 
In addition, the surface habitat has been further degraded since the 
original specimens were collected. However, because of the cryptic 
nature of the karst invertebrates, it often takes intensive survey 
efforts to document a species' presence within a cave (Krejca and 
Weckerly 2007, p. 286), and the lack of positive survey results does 
not indicate with reasonable certainty that R. exilis is currently 
absent in Black Cat Cave. In addition, many of the surveys were 
conducted during either extreme drought or during temperature extremes, 
when karst species recede into mesocaverns that have a more favorable 
microclimate. Although the surface habitat has been degraded, Black Cat 
Cave and the surrounding mesocaverns still contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Even 
though recent survey efforts have failed to detect the R. exilis in 
Black Cat Cave, and the surface habitat has been degraded, we have 
determined that Unit 13 still meets the definition of critical habitat, 
as defined in section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, by being occupied at the 
time of listing, and currently containing the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species, which may 
require special management considerations or protection. In addition, 
the karst habitat within Unit

[[Page 8453]]

13 is needed to conserve R. exilis in the Stone Oak KFR.
    At this time, we find that revising critical habitat by removing 
Unit 13 is not warranted. It is therefore included in this final 
designation. However, if at some future time further taxonomic studies 
reveal that the specimens collected in Black Cat Cave were not Rhadine 
exilis, or more intensive survey efforts do not reveal the species' 
presence, then we will consider revising this critical habitat 
designation. This document includes our 12-month finding on the 
petition, as well as our final designation of critical habitat for the 
nine Bexar County invertebrates, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of 
the Act.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates 
during two comment periods. The first comment period associated with 
the publication of the proposed rule (76 FR 9872) opened on February 
22, 2011, and closed on April 25, 2011. We also requested comments on 
the proposed critical habitat designation and associated draft economic 
analysis during a comment period that opened August 2, 2011, and closed 
on September 1, 2011 (76 FR 46234). We did receive three requests for a 
public hearing. Therefore, we held a public hearing on August 17, 2011. 
We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; 
scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them 
to comment on the proposed rule and draft economic analysis during 
these comment periods.
    During the first comment period, we received 35 comment letters 
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During 
the second comment period, we received 27 comment letters addressing 
the proposed critical habitat designation or the draft economic 
analysis. During the August 17, 2011, public hearing, one individual 
made comments on the designation of critical habitat for the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates. All substantive information provided during 
comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final 
determination or addressed below. Comments we received are grouped into 
seven general issues specifically relating to the proposed critical 
habitat designation for the nine Bexar County invertebrates, and are 
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule 
as appropriate.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from eight knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the nine Bexar County invertebrates, the geographic region in which the 
species occur, and conservation biology principles. We received 
responses from four of the peer reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for 
the nine Bexar County invertebrates. The peer reviewers generally 
concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional 
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final 
critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the 
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether tree roots were 
present in the Bexar County caves in critical habitat and therefore 
their nutrient importance.
    Our Response: Tree roots are present in many of the Bexar County 
caves in designated critical habitat, and we believe they are important 
nutrient sources for the invertebrates.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that there should be more 
discussion of the potential impacts of global warming and the predicted 
increased drying expected in Texas (Banner et al. 2010). Another 
commented that loss of habitat or reduction of habitat quality are 
likely to be more immediate threats to the nine endangered karst 
invertebrates than climate change effects.
    Our Response: We agree and added information to emphasize the 
threats of climate change on the species and the immediacy of habitat 
destruction (see section on Special Management Considerations or 
Protection).
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that four of the listed 
invertebrates are known from one or very few specimens from a single or 
very few locations and are likely to suffer from the negative effects 
of small population sizes and lack of genetic diversity. The reviewer 
questions whether significant effort or expense should be directed to 
their protection and monitoring, except where their locations overlap 
with other species.
    Our Response: While we agree that these species are rare and highly 
vulnerable, the Act does not provide for flexibility regarding whether 
or not they receive the protections of critical habitat.
    (4) Comment: Two peer reviewers commented that monitoring plans 
should be added as part of the final critical habitat.
    Our Response: While monitoring is important, it is a component of 
the recovery plan and is outside of the scope of critical habitat 
determination under the Act.
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer said that we should be clear in the 
document that the 100-meter (m) distance to protect cave crickets and 
other invertebrates from red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) 
(fire ant) foraging comes from a study by Suarez et al. (1998) on 
Argentine ants in California.
    Our Response: We clarified this point, and based on this and other 
comments, removed the 100-m distance.

Comments From the State

    Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the 
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt 
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' 
Comments received from the State regarding the proposal to designate 
critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates are addressed 
below.
    (6) Comment: The proposed rule may have substantial impact on the 
State's transportation system in Bexar County and will increase costs 
and complexity of consultations. The State requested that the Service 
not designate critical habitat in Texas Department of Transportation 
(TxDOT) right of way (ROW).
    Our Response: Because of changes in the criteria for delineation of 
critical habitat units, some of the total area in TxDOT ROW has been 
reduced. The impact of designation on transportation projects was 
analyzed in the draft and final economic analyses, and based on the 
estimated costs in that analysis, we did not find disproportionate 
economic impacts of designation.
    (7) Comment: One State agency (TxDOT) and several other individuals 
commented that the use of the 0.3-mile (mi) distance for the 
theoretical mesocavern boundary is not supported by the geologic or 
genetic studies we cited.
    Our Response: Based on these and other comments, and our own 
internal analysis of the issue, we removed the 0.3-mi (0.5-kilometer 
(km)) distance from this final rule. Please see the Summary of Changes 
from Proposed Rule section.

[[Page 8454]]

    (8) Comment: One State agency (TxDOT) commented that a review of 
additional cave data for proposed Unit 16 indicates that the 
hydrological component of the primary constituent element (PCE) does 
not occur within the area of concern under and east of Loop 1604 and 
should not be included in designated critical habitat. The commenter 
also suggested that maintaining the intact surface communities in the 
undeveloped area to the west of Loop 1604 is a higher conservation 
priority and more likely to benefit the species in the cave.
    Our Response: Based on these comments and other information 
provided, we are not including this area in critical habitat, because 
it does not meet the definition of critical habitat for any of the nine 
Bexar County invertebrates.
    (9) Comment: One State agency (TxDOT) and several other individuals 
commented that the PCEs are too general and that critical habitat 
should contain more than one PCE.
    Our Response: Based on this and other comments and information 
provided, we modified our PCEs and our criteria for delineation so that 
both PCEs needed to be present a unit in order to meet the definition 
of critical habitat.
    (10) Comment: One State agency (TxDOT) and several other 
individuals commented that the derivation of the area of native 
vegetation required and the buffer against edge effects were not based 
on the best available science.
    Our Response: We believe the derivation was based on the best 
available science for the vegetation requirements we identified in the 
proposed rule. However, while native vegetation is beneficial to 
promote the long-term viability of an area, the native vegetation 
species we identified in the proposed rule may not be necessary to the 
conservation of the nine Bexar County invertebrates. Based on these and 
other comments, we revised the area needed around each occupied cave 
entrance to focus on the optimal size necessary to provide long-term 
viability for the listed species. We dropped the focus on deriving the 
area based on native plant species and instead relied on the expert 
opinion of the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Team (Service 
2008, pp. B-1-B-5) for the size of area needed, which is 100 ac (40 ha) 
to meet conservation objectives.
    (11) Comment: The State Comptroller stated that the proposed 
critical habitat could have substantial impacts to this region of the 
State and add additional costs to taxpayers without sufficient 
scientific basis. The Service should delay all action in order to re-
examine this proposal and the available research.
    Our Response: We have addressed the economic impacts of designation 
to all parties through an economic analysis and have determined that 
there will not be significant economic impacts due to this designation. 
In addition, we carefully considered and addressed all comments 
submitted. As a result of these comments and our analysis of the 
issues, this final designation is smaller in area, and thus smaller in 
the economic effects associated with the areas originally proposed. In 
regards to delaying our action to designate critical habitat, we are 
not able to delay because we are held to a February 7, 2012, deadline 
to submit a final rule to the Federal Register according to a court-
ordered settlement agreement.

Public Comments

General Comments
    Issue 1: Extent of mesocaverns to be included.
    (12) Comment: Several commenters stated that site-specific geologic 
information limits or precludes the use of the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance 
as a measure of the distance that mesocaverns are likely to be 
connected to occupied features in several proposed units.
    Our Response: We agree that there may be site-specific issues 
involved in some units. Based on this and other comments, we do not use 
the specific 0.3-mi (0.5-km) as a criterion for delineating specific 
mesocavern distance in this final critical habitat rule.
    (13) Comment: The manner in which White (2006) is cited in the 
proposed rule seems to indicate that the author determined that this 
distance was appropriate for use in a critical habitat context and that 
it can be appropriately applied to sites other than those that were 
studied in detail. This is misleading.
    Our Response: We have revised the wording in this final rule to 
clarify this issue.
    (14) Comment: White's (2006) research was not intended to yield a 
buffer such as the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance. The distance was derived 
by the Service indirectly from the results of that research.
    Our Response: The Service acknowledges that the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) 
distance was based on White's research, and that his research did not 
specifically suggest using this distance in this way. See our responses 
to comments (12) and (13), above.
    (15) Comment: The Service's 0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance was derived 
from a site located within the Edwards karst, which is highly modified 
by the tremendous volume of fresh water that formed the Edwards Aquifer 
and is quite different from geology and hydrologic conditions in many 
other proposed units in Bexar County. A two-dimensional buffer cannot 
be applied to a three-dimensional landscape without misrepresenting the 
potential for gene flow through the karst. This is especially true in 
the older, more eroded karst landscapes of the Helotes area where many 
small islands of karst occur on hilltops. The distribution of genetic 
diversity was found to be controlled by geologic structure (primarily 
by faults), which imposes a linear, not radial, geometry on available 
habitat. Ignoring site-specific geologic structure nearly guarantees 
that a blanket radial buffer incorrectly represents the spatial 
distribution of habitat.
    Our Response: We acknowledge there are problems with applying the 
0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance to all units, and, ideally, the distance would 
be based on site-specific data or information. We have removed the 0.3-
mi (0.5-km) distance from this final rule. See our responses to 
comments (12), (13), and (14), above.
    (16) Comment: We believe the Service is misapplying the conclusions 
in White (2006). If the species did travel 0.3-mi (0.5-km) through 
connected mesocaverns, the genetics of Cicurina madla would be 
identical in Robbers Cave and Hills and Dales Pit.
    (17) Comment: Even with identical signatures in separate caves, it 
is not possible to determine when that contact happened because it is 
not known how long it would take two isolated populations to become 
genetically different.
    (18) Comment: The conclusion drawn by White (2006) is that, in 
general, gene flow is not occurring between troglobite populations and 
has not likely occurred in recent evolutionary timescale.
    Our Response to Comments (16), (17), and (18): We agree that 
similar genetic signatures do not demonstrate positively that the Madla 
Cave meshweavers in the two caves we cited are not identical. We 
acknowledge the limitations on the use of data from Hedin and Paquin 
(2004, p. 3243) for this purpose. The question of whether identical 
signatures demonstrate current connectivity is dependent on the 
specific techniques used, sample sizes, and whether the genes being 
examined are slowly or quickly evolving genes. We clarified these 
points in, and removed any specific distance for mesocavern 
connectivity from, this final rule.

[[Page 8455]]

    (19) Comment: Several commenters stated that we inappropriately 
used justification of genetic similarity of Cicurina in two caves to 
justify use of the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) mesocavern distance.
    Our Response: We stated in our proposed rule that White (2006, pp. 
97-99) indicated the species were similar, not identical, and we used 
this only as partially supporting information. Based on this and other 
comments, we removed the mesocavern distance from this final rule.
    (20) Comment: Occurrence of many caves with the same or similar 
suites of species beyond the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance suggests that 
using the mesocavernous distances at Camp Bullis is in fact more 
representative of the distances of mesocavernous connectivity and 
perhaps conservative at that. I strongly suggest reevaluating and 
redrawing the proposed critical habitat areas with distances no less 
than those demonstrated at Camp Bullis.
    Our Response: While the mesocaverns may be connected to the 0.3-mi 
(0.5-km) distance in some units, we are unable to find genetic 
information that is adequate to determine maximum distance over which 
population-level genetic exchange may occur. In the absence of that 
information, and due to differences in site-specific geological 
influences on connectivity, we decided not to use the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) 
distance as a criterion for delineation.
    Issue 2: Amount and type of vegetation needed.
    (21) Comment: For critical habitat areas that contain healthy 
native vegetation, a circular area of approximately 40 ac (16 ha) in 
size (assuming one cave per preserve) would incorporate the biological 
elements necessary to provide nutrient input into the caves and protect 
the surface component of the karst ecosystem from edge effects and fire 
ant infestation.
    Our Response: We believe an area of 100 ac (40 ha) provides a 
higher probability of species survival and conservation. We base this 
on the expert opinion of the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery 
Team (Service 2008, pp. B-1-B-5), and on the size of area needed to 
meet certain conservation objectives. The area needed is based in part 
on the fact that we believe the karst invertebrates occupy a larger 
area than the caves, may be using mesocaverns more than caves, and may 
spend the majority of their time in such retreats, only leaving the 
mesocaverns during temporary forays into the larger cave passages to 
forage (Howarth 1987, p. 377). We modified the justification for the 
area needed to provide for the conservation of the species, focusing on 
overall need for nutrient input, moisture, and mesocaverns.
    (22) Comment: Several commenters stated that the 10-ac (4-ha) 
grassland component was not present in some units and should not be 
included as a component for all units.
    Our Response: We modified the justification for the area needed to 
provide for the conservation of the species, focusing on overall need 
for nutrient input, moisture, and mesocaverns, rather than on specific 
vegetation components.
    (23) Comment: Comments on several units stated that site-specific 
plant survey data should be utilized when available. In the absence of 
this data, commenters suggest an area of roughly 33 ac (13 ha) would be 
required to include 15 to 20 species of the Edwards plateau at a 
population size of 80 individuals plus a distance of 66 feet (ft) (20 
meters (m)) to protect against edge effects.
    Our Response: We revised the criteria for designating critical 
habitat by using an area with an overall size of 100 ac (40 ha) to 
provide for the conservation of the species, focusing on overall need 
for nutrient input, moisture, and mesocaverns, rather than on specific 
vegetation components.
    Issue 3: Cave cricket foraging area.
    (24) Comment: Given the extremely low expected density of foraging 
crickets in the outer 42 percent of cave cricket foraging distance, and 
given the distance fire ants are known to travel from a mound, a 
continuous woody canopy within 344 ft (105 m) of a cave is sufficient 
to protect cave crickets from adjacent disturbance activities.
    Our Response: We have revised this final rule to be consistent with 
the final Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan's Karst 
Invertebrates Preserve Design Recommendations Document (Service 2011a, 
p. 4).
    Issue 4: Amount of critical habitat proposed.
    (25) Comment: All of Karst Zones 1 and 2 should be included in 
critical habitat because long-term stewardship necessitates that 
protected karst formations and associated mesocaverns contiguous to 
occupied features be larger to provide microclimate refugia to counter 
the adverse impacts of climate change, pollution, invasive species, and 
stochastic events.
    Our Response: While we agree that additional mesocavernous areas 
may be desirable for species conservation, we lack adequate data to 
justify designating as critical habitat all of Karst Zones 1 and 2. We 
made our final critical habitat designation consistent with recovery 
criteria for high-quality KFRs in the final Bexar County Karst 
Invertebrates Recovery Plan's Karst Invertebrates Preserve Design 
Recommendations Document (Service 2011a, pp. 3-5).
    (26) Comment: The Service seems to be ignoring the 2008 Draft 
Recovery Plan for the Bexar County Invertebrates. An analysis of the 
required KFAs across each KFR for the species indicates that 4,350 ac 
(1,760 ha) would be required to meet downlisting criteria. The Service 
now proposes 6,906 ac (2,795 ha) that, when combined with the Camp 
Bullis Karst Management Areas, now totals 8,976 ac (3,632 ha). We do 
not understand why, if 4,350 ac (1,760 ha) can result in downlisting of 
the species, 8,976 ac (3,632 ha) are essential for the conservation of 
the species.
    Our Response: In this final critical habitat designation, we relied 
heavily on the 2011 Final Recovery Plan for the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates (Service 2011). Because we have a final recovery plan, 
the recommendations to use the draft recovery plan are not followed. 
Also, we designated low-quality units that do not count for the 
recovery of individual species, because not enough high- and medium-
quality KFAs are available in the proper configuration to meet recovery 
criteria for some KFRs. In addition, none of the KFAs is currently 
fully protected, and we have no way of predicting which, if any, will 
be fully protected in the future. Therefore, we believe all areas 
designated meet the definition of critical habitat and are necessary 
for the conservation of the species. The total area designated in this 
rule, however, has been reduced to 4,216 ac (1,706 ha) as a result of 
exemptions and exclusions (explained later in this rule).
    Issue 5: Information quality and general comments.
    (27) Comment: The Service has created critical habitat units that, 
in many cases, may only include one of the primary constituent 
elements, with no hope of ever creating the other two. This seriously 
calls into question the method used to develop areas of critical 
habitat.
    Our Response: We acknowledged in the proposed rule that not all 
units contain all the PCEs. For some species, we believed it was 
appropriate to propose some units that did not have all of the PCEs. 
For species that occur in only a few locations that have had 
substantial negative impacts to one or more of the PCEs, we still 
proposed to designate critical habitat, because the PCEs that are 
present can support the listed species to some extent. For example, 
surface habitat without a healthy plant and animal community

[[Page 8456]]

can continue to support listed invertebrates below the surface, and 
clean water from modified surface areas can provide the humidity needed 
by the listed invertebrates. However, in this final rule, we have 
reduced the number of PCEs to two and only included areas in the 
critical habitat designation that contain both PCEs in close enough 
proximity to each other to be used by the invertebrate population in 
the area.
    (28) Comment: Cave crickets and fire ants do not have significant 
overlap and are not competitive in their natural environment.
    Our Response: We have evaluated the available information and 
believe that the preponderance of information on the topic indicates 
there is some overlap. We added language to this final rule to 
acknowledge the information submitted by the commenter and to explain 
the reason for our conclusion.
    (29) Comment: It appears certain boundaries have been intentionally 
drawn to create a negative impact on property owners and the State of 
Texas, with no conservation or recovery benefit to the species.
    Our Response: We had no agenda in proposing certain areas as 
critical habitat except to designate the appropriate areas essential 
for conservation of the species. We based the proposed boundaries on 
the best available information. We have revised the boundaries of 
critical habitat designation in this final rule based on the best 
available scientific and commercial data available, including comments 
we received as a result of our proposed rule.
    (30) Comment: The proposed rule is legally insufficient. The 
Service has insufficiently identified critical habitat. The Service has 
not demonstrated that the proposed critical habitat is occupied.
    Our Response: We believe the proposed rule was legally sufficient. 
As part of section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act's definition of critical 
habitat, proposed areas do not have to be occupied at the time of 
listing if such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. Additional descriptions of the criteria used to designate 
critical habitat and the PCEs have been added to this final rule.
    (31) Comment: The Service's approach circumvents the additional 
findings that the Service is required to make before designating 
unoccupied habitat (see Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. 
Dep't of Interior, 344 F.Supp.2d 108, 124 (D.D.C. 2004) (``Cape 
Hatteras''); Home Builders Ass'n of Northern California v. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Serv., 268 F.Supp.2d 1197 (E.D. Cal. 2002)).
    Our Response: We believe that all units we are designating are 
currently occupied and contain the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species, which may require special 
management considerations or protection. Even though recent survey 
efforts have failed to detect a listed invertebrate species in one or 
more of the units, the lack of positive survey results does not 
indicate with reasonable certainty that a listed species is absent from 
a cave. In many cases, it takes intensive survey efforts conducted over 
several years to find a specimen. At one time or another, a specimen 
has been documented in all the units we are designating, and at this 
time, we lack substantial evidence to indicate that certain units are 
no longer occupied. Therefore, we consider all critical habitat units 
as being occupied at the time of listing.
    (32) Comment: The Service has insufficiently identified the PCEs. 
The Service does not ``identify the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation [of the species] in a meaningful way'' 
(Homebuilders Association of Northern California v. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Serv., 268 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1213 (E.D. Ca. 2003). The court in 
the 2003 Homebuilder's case (hereinafter referred to as the Whipsnake 
case) found that very similar PCE descriptions were insufficient.
    Our Response: We added additional language to this final rule to 
describe why the PCEs are essential to the conservation of the species.
    (33) Comment: The Whipsnake case also criticized the Service for 
designating areas that were without one or more PCEs within the 
designated boundaries. Throughout the proposed rule there are units 
proposed in heavily developed areas that cannot be assumed to contain 
the necessary elements for the conservation of the karst species. The 
Service gives only a generic, cursory indication of how these proposed 
units provide the PCEs identified in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: See our response to comment (27), above. In this 
final rule, we have reduced the number of PCEs to two and only included 
areas in the critical habitat designation that contain both PCEs in 
close enough proximity to each other to be used by the invertebrate 
population in the area.
    (34) Comment: The Service does not provide information as to why 
each identified PCE would need special management or protection at the 
unit. Courts have required that the Service, in demonstrating that the 
designated areas meet the statutory requirements, provide an analysis 
for why the proposed critical habitat may require special management 
(Cape Hatteras, 344 F.Supp.2d at 124). Courts have found that the 
Service did not meet its burden where the Service did not provide 
analysis: ``Rather than discuss how each identified PCE would need 
management or protection, the Service lists activities that once 
resulted in consultations and makes a conclusory statement that 
dredging or shoreline management could result in permanent habitat 
loss. This does not meet the Service's burden'' (Cape Hatteras, 344 
F.Supp.2d at 124; Whipsnake case, 268 F.Supp.2d at 1218).
    (35) Comment: It is hard to imagine, for example, what special 
management may be required for those units proposed in heavily 
developed areas that do not contain PCEs for surface water or a healthy 
surface native plants, but rather have been designated solely for the 
area's subterranean spaces. With that sort of development and lack of 
surface PCEs, how can the Service reasonably state that special 
management may be required? The Service is statutorily required to 
provide this analysis, and the designation is legally deficient without 
it.
    Our Response to Comments (34) and (35): We added language to the 
section on special management to describe specifically why such 
management was required for each PCE. Because of the changes in 
criteria for delineation, we have revised some of the boundaries of 
critical habitat for low-quality units and added additional description 
of the special management and protection needs.
    (36) Comment: The Service has not complied with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Service 
has not prepared an environmental impact statement in accordance with 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the 10th Circuit and the U.S. District Court of the District of 
Columbia have both held that the Service must comply with NEPA when 
designating critical habitat.
    Our Response: As we stated in the proposed rule, it is our position 
that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses as 
defined by NEPA in connection with designating critical habitat under 
the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d

[[Page 8457]]

1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
    (37) Comment: In general, it appears that some delineation may not 
adequately consider hydrogeologic conditions that may affect the 
boundaries. If the comment suggesting that the distances demonstrated 
at Camp Bullis is accepted and the unit boundaries reevaluated on that 
basis, I suggest that geologic maps and previous reports on the 
hydrogeology of all of the caves be re-examined.
    Our Response: For this final rule, we reevaluated the available 
information, eliminated the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance, and did not 
accept the distance of mesocaverns for Camp Bullis to apply as a rule 
of thumb for designation of critical habitat.
    (38) Comment: Please update your information at the bottom of the 
page on the number of caves in Bexar County at the time of listing. In 
September 2000, 437 caves were known in Bexar County. More 
significantly, about 25 percent had been sealed or destroyed, including 
some that had not been biologically studied but which by observation of 
fauna had likely contained some of the listed species. As of today, 523 
caves are registered in the county (the actual number is probably about 
530) with 103 confirmed as sealed or destroyed and about 40 suspected 
as sealed or destroyed but which need to be visited for confirmation.
    Our Response: We have modified this final rule accordingly.
    Issue 6: Exclusions.
    (39) Comment: The designation of Unit 1e is imprudent under 16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3). The Act's regulations provide that, ``A designation 
of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following 
situations exist: (i) The species is threatened by taking or other 
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected 
to increase the degree of such threat to the species, or (ii) Such 
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the 
species'' (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)).
    Our Response: We do not believe either situation applies to Unit 
1e. This unit contains the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species and which may require special 
management or protection, thus meeting definition of critical habitat 
in accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. Also, proposed 
critical habitat was published for the unit, so designation is not 
likely to increase the threats from human activity. Designation of 
critical habitat will provide additional protection from future Federal 
activities that would adversely modify critical habitat and help to 
educate Federal agencies and the public about the sensitivity of the 
area.
    (40) Comment: Proposed Unit 1e should not be included in the 
designation of critical habitat for the nine karst invertebrate species 
of Bexar County, Texas. The benefits of excluding Unit 1e far outweigh 
the benefits of its inclusion. The economic taint of the designation is 
far more powerful than any unnecessary conservation benefit conferred 
by a designation. The benefits of promoting voluntary conservation 
efforts far outweigh the benefit of including Unit 1e as designated 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are exluding 
approximately 64 ac (26 ha) of preserve land in Unit 1e, which is being 
managed in perpetuity under the La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan 
(HCP) for the conservation of the listed species. Also, an economic 
analysis was performed and did not demonstrate substantial economic 
impacts from critical habitat designation. Finally, the remaining 410 
ac (166 ha) of critical habitat in Unit 1e does provide additional 
protection for the listed species and their habitat.

Comments on Developmental Impacts

    (41) Comment: The draft economic analysis (DEA) underestimates 
potential economic impacts of critical habitat on development in Unit 
1e. The comment states that the Canyon Ranch parcel is well-suited for 
development and that the developer has already obtained a Water 
Pollution Abatement Plan from the Texas Commission on Environmental 
Quality, a Utility Service Agreement with the San Antonio Water System, 
and an approved Master Development Plan from the City of San Antonio. 
In addition, substantial engineering, soil testing, surveying, staking, 
and construction of a portion of Phase I water line has also been 
completed. The commenter estimates that undiscounted losses would range 
between $2.90 million (based on an undeveloped land value of $24,744 
per acre) to $7.83 million (based on the sales price of lots less cost 
of development).
    Our Response: The draft economic analysis (DEA) evaluates two 
scenarios with respect to development impacts. Scenario 1 assumes that 
the project reduces habitat quality to the extent that jeopardy is a 
concern and therefore development restrictions are recommended 
regardless of critical habitat designation (i.e., impacts are 
baseline). Scenario 2 assumes that the project has a lesser effect on 
habitat quality (i.e., reducing it from high to medium) and therefore 
development is precluded because of critical habitat designation 
(jeopardy is not a concern). Under scenario 2, impacts to development 
are incremental. For the 118 acres within Unit 1e, the DEA applied a 
per-acre land value of $6,900 as determined from review of county land 
appraisal data. In response to this comment, however, we followed up 
with the Bexar Appraisal District to affirm the statement in the 
comment that land value in this unit is underestimated. The Appraisal 
District indicated that the land value in the unit is likely between 
$14,000 and $17,000 per acre. Consequently, the final economic analysis 
(FEA) revises the land value loss estimate from that provided in the 
DEA. Specifically, the FEA applies a range of per-acre land values from 
a low end of $14,000 as suggested by the Appraisal District, to a high 
end of $24,700 as suggested in the public comment. This change results 
in the estimated present value incremental impacts to development in 
Unit 1e under scenario 2 being revised from $770,000 in the DEA to 
between $1,550,000 and $2,740,000 in the FEA. This revision is 
discussed in detail in section 4.2 of the FEA.
    (42) Comment: The use of appraisal data to determine land values 
results in an underestimate of impacts to development. Appraisal data 
does not take into consideration land development entitlements, master 
plan approvals, offsite infrastructure improvements, utility 
agreements, onsite road extensions, or the highest and best use for the 
property. The commenter estimates that land values are off by a factor 
of four for Unit 14, a factor of 10 for Unit 21, and a factor of 4 for 
Unit 26.
    Our Response: In general, appraisal data reflect the best available 
information regarding the potential value of parcels within the 
critical habitat. The appraised estimates are based on the information 
available regarding future uses of the parcel at the time of the 
appraisal (including any ongoing master plan efforts, land use 
agreements, and entitlements). To the extent that the latest assessment 
of a parcel occurred prior approval of a master plan, utility 
agreement, or other such improvements, the assessed value may 
underestimate the value of a parcel. Exhibit 4-5 in the DEA presents 
the appraised, average per-acre land values of $10,500 in Unit 14, 
$43,100 in Unit 21, and $34,500 in Unit 26 applied in the DEA. In 
response to this comment, we followed up with the Bexar Appraisal 
District and an independent broker to affirm the statement in the 
comment that the land values in these

[[Page 8458]]

units are underestimated. The broker indicated that the land value in 
Unit 14 is approximately $43,600 per acre and land value in Unit 26 is 
$87,100 per acre. The appraiser and broker provided average land values 
for the developable portion of Unit 21 located outside of the 100-year 
flood plain ranging from $174,000 to $218,000. Consequently, the FEA 
revises the land value loss estimates from those provided in the DEA. 
Specifically, the FEA applies a range of per-acre land values from a 
low end of $42,100 to a high end of $43,600 in Unit 14, $174,000 to 
$431,000 in Unit 21, and $87,100 to $138,000 in Unit 26. These changes 
result in the estimated present value incremental impacts to 
development in Unit 14 under scenario 2 being revised from $3,250,000 
in the DEA to between $13,000,000 and $13,400,000 in the FEA; from 
$12,000,000 to between $3,260,000 and $8,050,000 in Unit 21; and from 
$3,790,000 to between $9,530,000 and $15,100,000 in Unit 26. This 
revision is discussed in detail in section 4.2 of the FEA.
    (43) Comment: The DEA underestimates potential economic impacts of 
critical habitat on development within Unit 13. The comment asserts 
that the designation would eliminate the development value of these 
parcels, resulting in a direct impact on the landowners' revenues in 
excess of $6 million. Similarly, another comment states that 
incremental impacts on future development in Unit 25 would be $20 
million, taking into account land value and the future value of 
development. A third similar comment states that the DEA does not 
include impacts to development in Units 12 and 16. The comment asserts 
that multi-family sites in these units subject to Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) financing have already lost sales to apartment 
developers as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: Chapter 4 of the DEA describes that development would 
be precluded in Units 12, 13, 16, and 25 regardless of critical habitat 
designation because they are low-quality units in Karst Zones 1 and 2. 
As described in Section 3.7 of the DEA, in low-quality units, the 
Service anticipates recommending development be precluded in order to 
avoid jeopardy. Therefore, development restrictions are anticipated 
regardless of critical habitat designation, and incremental impacts of 
critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional 
administrative effort during consultation.
    (44) Comment: Two comments assert that the DEA underestimates 
potential economic impacts of critical habitat designation on 
development in Unit 8. One commenter estimates the lost development 
value to 200 single-family lots in the Cedar Creek Development to be 
$4.5 million. These lots have been engineered and entitled at Cedar 
Creek over the past 6 years. Another commenter estimates that the 
development site is worth $7 million. In addition, the commenter 
estimates a loss of $35 million in construction-related expenditures 
and $200 million in home and business sales. Similarly, multiple 
comments assert that the DEA underestimates impacts to development by 
not including the loss of taxes to local governments and by failing to 
include the ``multiplier effect'' of development, such as the increase 
in demand for furniture and landscaping.
    Our Response: Chapter 4 of the DEA estimates incremental impacts to 
development in Unit 8 ranging from $0 (scenario 1) to $5,590,000 
(scenario 2) in the first 20 years and $0 to $17,100 after 20 years. 
Scenario 2 assumes development restrictions on 299.5 acres of 
developable land in Unit 8 will reduce the land value by $19,600 per 
acre based on county appraisal data. The DEA estimate of land value 
losses of $5.59 million is within the range of the value losses 
described by these comments ($4.5 million to $7 million).
    As explained in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the DEA, the proposed 
critical habitat area accounts for only 1.6 percent of the total land 
area projected for development within the next 29 years within the 
northern portion of Bexar County. Consequently, the designation of 
critical habitat is not expected to have an effect on broader regional 
real estate demand and supply due to the existence of substitute sites 
for development activities. As a result, impacts to the regional 
construction industry and loss in revenue associated with home and 
business sales (estimated in a comment at $200 million) are not 
anticipated to occur. In addition, a reduction in housing supply is 
unlikely due to the existence of substitute sites, and a measurable 
loss of tax revenue is not expected to result from critical habitat 
designation.
    (45) Comment: Multiple comments state that, unrelated to the 
designation of critical habitat for the invertebrates, recent 
undertakings will decrease land values in northwest Bexar County (in 
particular Unit 3). These undertakings include: (1) San Antonio Water 
System's decision to abandon all plans to extend water and sewer 
services into northwest Bexar County and (2) a recent decision to allow 
properties within a 5-mile buffer of the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone 
to be purchased using Proposition 1 funds.
    Our Response: The DEA estimates the average per-acre value of 
unimproved, developable land within each unit using Bexar County land 
value appraisal data. These data represent the best available 
information regarding land values. To the extent that recent decisions 
may impact the value of land in northwest Bexar County, these values 
may be over- or understated.
    (46) Comment: The DEA should reassess the incremental impacts of 
the proposed rule by carefully measuring the impact of critical habitat 
designation on the areas covered by the La Cantera HCP, including the 
acres of the La Cantera development land in Unit 9.
    Our Response: The areas preserved as part of the La Cantera HCP in 
Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, and 17 are being excluded from critical habitat, and 
the areas authorized for development under the La Cantera HCP in Unit 9 
are excluded as well in this final designation.
    (47) Comment: The DEA underestimates the impacts of the expansion 
of several proposed critical habitat units from the previous 2003 
critical habitat for these species.
    Our Response: The DEA estimates impacts associated with the revised 
proposed critical habitat designation. This revised designation 
includes a number of proposed revised units that are larger than they 
were in the 2003 designation. Section 3.7 of the DEA describes the 
Service's approach to section 7 consultation in these expanded units, 
as evaluated in the DEA. Currently, the Service notifies project 
proponents of the need to consult on the impacts to the invertebrate 
species of activities with a Federal nexus within Karst Zones 1 and 2 
regardless of critical habitat designation. Consultation on projects 
within Karst Zone 3 would not occur absent critical habitat 
designation, and therefore these impacts are considered incremental of 
the designation.
    (48) Comment: The third party and biological assessment incremental 
administrative costs applied in the DEA are underestimated. The 
commenter believes that third party and biological assessment costs 
should be at least 10 times greater due to the amount of time and 
effort necessary to analyze potential impacts within a critical habitat 
unit.
    Our Response: The administrative costs applied in the DEA are based 
on a review of consultation records from several Service field offices 
across Bexar County conducted in 2002. For consultations that would 
occur absent

[[Page 8459]]

critical habitat designation (i.e., those in Karst Zones 1 and 2), the 
incremental administrative cost only represents the additional effort 
needed to address adverse modification of critical habitat. As the 
Service is not expected to request any additional conservation efforts 
as a result of the adverse modification analysis (which arises from a 
critical habitat designation), we anticipate that the additional effort 
necessary to address this standard within any biological assessments is 
relatively minimal compared to the effort required to consider jeopardy 
to the species (which arises from the listing of the nine invertebrate 
species).
    (49) Comment: Two comments state that even absent a Federal nexus, 
the sigma of critical habitat will eliminate the development value of 
properties located within Units 13 and 25.
    Our Response: The potential for critical habitat to result in a 
stigma effect, for example, on property values, is described on page 2-
17 of the DEA. In some cases, the public may perceive that critical 
habitat designation results in limitations on private property uses 
above and beyond those associated with anticipated project 
modifications. The DEA assumes that all future development projects 
within the proposed critical habitat would be subject to a Federal 
nexus and therefore section 7 consultation regarding the invertebrates. 
Because scenario 2 of the DEA assumes a complete loss in development 
value for developable lands, further reductions in land value due to 
stigma are not expected.

Comments on the DEA's Small Business Analysis

    (50) Comment: Two comments note that the developers in Units 1e and 
13 are not accounted for in Exhibit A-1 as the number of private 
landowners is zero.
    Our Response: As described in paragraph 1 of Appendix A of the DEA, 
this appendix considers the extent to which incremental impacts from 
critical habitat designation may be borne by small entities. Exhibit A-
1 of the DEA highlights the number of private landowners of parcels for 
which incremental impacts to development are estimated. The DEA 
analyzes two scenarios, in the first scenario, no incremental impacts 
are expected in Unit 1e and therefore no landowners are affected. In 
the second scenario, the analysis assumes that five landowners are 
affected in Unit 1e. If the developer in Unit 1e is also the landowner, 
then the developer would be included in this number. Because Unit 13 is 
of low quality and located in Karst Zones 1 and 2, all impacts are 
expected to be baseline. No incremental impacts are forecast in Unit 
13, and therefore no landowners are affected.
    (51) Comment: Exhibit A-1 inappropriately omits those lands that 
are being considered for exclusion.
    Our Response: The areas being excluded are preserved as part of the 
La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan. These areas are not considered 
developable lands and therefore no impacts to future development are 
anticipated. The footnote to Exhibit A-1 has been revised in the FEA to 
better explain why lands considered for exclusion are not included in 
the FEA's small business analysis.

Comments on Biological Issues That Inform the DEA

    (52) Comment: Two comments state that the assumption that there are 
no incremental impacts in areas that are presently low-quality habitat 
is incorrect. The commenters assert that because these areas do not fit 
into the ``minimum conservation criteria'' described in the DEA, the 
Service could not sustain a jeopardy determination and therefore any 
project modifications requested by the Service would be due to critical 
habitat designation.
    Our Response: As described in section 3.7 of the DEA, the Service 
anticipates that a jeopardy finding is likely in low-quality units in 
Karst Zones 1 and 2 if the project further reduces the habitat quality. 
Projects that would further reduce quality include those that fill in 
cave entrances or those that substantially reduce the remaining cave 
cricket foraging area. Such actions would likely result in jeopardy 
because they would appreciably reduce the likelihood that the species 
would persist in that unit. If the recovery criteria have not been met 
for the species (and they have not for any of the KFRs where low-
quality units are being designated), recovery would also be 
substantially reduced. Therefore, the action would likely result in a 
jeopardy determination.
    (53) Comment: Two comments state that the previous protocols issued 
by the Service on March 8, 2006, indicate that projects that may affect 
the listed species can avoid doing so by preserving the cave entrance 
and as little as nine acres of ``core habitat'' around the entrance. 
The DEA assumes that complete avoidance of critical habitat would be 
recommended to avoid jeopardy or adverse modification in Karst Zones 1 
and 2. Assuming that complete avoidance of critical habitat would be 
recommended to avoid jeopardy leads to an overstatement of baseline 
impacts.
    Our Response: As described in section 3.7 of the DEA, the Service 
has recommended the minimum conservation criteria as outlined in the 
Recovery Plan as part of section 7 consultation on past development 
projects. Following these past examples, the Service anticipates making 
these recommendations to future projects that may jeopardize the 
species. The document issued on March 8, 2006, United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit Requirements 
for Conducting Presence/Absence Surveys for Endangered Karst 
Invertebrates in Central Texas, makes no statements about effects of 
development to listed species or to core habitat that should be 
preserved. These recommendations were updated on September 8, 2011.

Other Economic-Related Comments

    (54) Comment: In exhibit ES-4, it appears that the minimum 
conservation criteria have only been met in one unit (Unit 22), while 
according to exhibit 4-2, the minimum conservation criteria have been 
met in three units (Units 7, 22, and 23).
    Our Response: Exhibit ES-4 presents key uncertainties associated 
with the estimated incremental impacts of critical habitat designation 
for the invertebrates. While the minimum conservation criteria have 
been met in three units (Units 7, 22, and 23), incremental impacts are 
only anticipated in Unit 22, as Unit 22 is the only high-quality unit 
of the three. Units 7 and 23 are low-quality units, and thus the 
Service anticipates recommending development be precluded in order to 
avoid jeopardy (i.e., they are included in the baseline). Text has been 
added to exhibit ES-4 in the FEA to clarify this point.
    (55) Comment: One comment requests that better explanation be given 
to if and how habitat quality and project modification relate.
    Our Response: As described in section 3.7 of the DEA, the project 
modifications recommended to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification 
are the same. The initial habitat quality of a unit, along with how the 
project impacts the unit's quality and the project's location within a 
Karst Zone, affects whether the request for the project modification is 
generated by jeopardy concerns (i.e., the recommendation would be made 
regardless of critical habitat designation) or by adverse modification 
concerns (i.e., specifically because of critical habitat designation).

[[Page 8460]]

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    In the February 22, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 9872), we delineated 
critical habitat boundaries on the basis of the following criteria: (1) 
Known occupied caves; (2) the cave footprint with surface and 
subsurface drainage areas associated with the occupied cave; (3) the 
cave cricket foraging area that is a 344-ft (105-m) circle around the 
cave entrance, plus an additional 330-ft (100-m) distance to protect 
against edge effects from invasive species; (4) contiguous geological 
formations of Karst Zone 1 to protect mesocaverns likely connected to 
the caves to a distance of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) from the cave entrance; and 
(5) native vegetation of an area of at least 100 ac (40 ha) needed to 
support the diversity of native plant species normally found in the 
Edwards Plateau communities.
    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information 
and information provided from the public and peer reviews, we reviewed 
our methodology for determining the extent of critical habitat 
designation for the Bexar County karst invertebrates. We refined the 
boundaries of our proposed critical habitat units for this final 
designation and revised our description of the methodology and 
rationale used in defining the critical habitat boundaries. We made 
several changes from the proposed rule in this final rule. The changes 
include: (1) Modifying and reducing the number of PCEs from three to 
two; (2) removing the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) mesocavern protection area; (3) 
removing the additional 330-ft (100-m) distance beyond the 344-ft (105-
m) cave cricket foraging area to protect against edge effects from 
invasive species (the 344-ft (105-m) cave cricket foraging area remains 
a criterion); (4) changing the justification for 100 ac (40 ha) needed 
around a cave; and (5) removing five previously proposed units that no 
longer meet the revised criteria used to designate critical habitat. 
Overall, these changes result in our designation of 4,216 ac (1,706 ha) 
in 30 units as critical habitat, as compared to our proposed 
designation of 6,906 ac (2,795 ha) in 35 units. Table 1 provides a 
unit-by-unit list of the changes in this final rule. The changes are 
described in more detail below.

  Table 1--Comparison of Proposed and Final Critical Habitat Unit Sizes for the Nine Bexar County Invertebrates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Size of proposed    Size of final
             Unit                units in acres   units in acres    Land ownership     Listed species in unit
                                  (hectares)        (hectares)           type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a...........................  238 ac..........  144 ac..........  State..........  R. infernalis
                               (96 ha).........  (58 ha).                           C. madla
1b...........................  178 ac..........  100 ac..........  State..........  C. vespera
                               (72 ha).........  (40 ha).                           N. microps
                                                                                    R. exilis
                                                                                    R. infernalis
1c...........................  178 ac..........  100 ac..........  State..........  C. madla
                               (72 ha).........  (40 ha).........
1d...........................  349 ac..........  225 ac..........  State..........  C. madla
                               (141 ha)........  (91 ha).                           R. exilis
                                                                                    R. infernalis
1e *.........................  690 ac..........  410 ac..........  State..........  R. infernalis
                               (279 ha)........  (166 ha)........  City...........  R. exilis
                                                                   Private........  B. venyivi
                                                                                    C. madla
1f...........................  178 ac..........  100 ac..........  State..........  R. infernalis
                               (72 ha).........  (40 ha).........
2............................  252 ac..........  180 ac..........  Private........  C. madla
                               (102 ha)........  (73 ha).                           R. exilis
                                                                                    R. infernalis
3 *..........................  125 ac..........  85 ac...........  Private........  C. madla
                               (51 ha).........  (34 ha).                           R. exilis
                                                                                    R. infernalis
                                                                                    B. venyivi
4............................  255 ac..........  210 ac..........  Private........  R. exilis
                               (103 ha)........  (85 ha).                           R. infernalis
5............................  117 ac..........  100 ac..........  Private........  C. madla
                               (47 ha).........  (40 ha).                           R. exilis
                                                                                    R. infernalis
                                                                                    B. venyivi
6 *..........................  105 ac..........  96 ac...........  Private........  C. madla
                               (42 ha).........  (39 ha).........  City...........  R. exilis
                                                                                    R. infernalis
7............................  158 ac..........  100 ac..........  Private........  R. exilis
                               (64 ha).........  (40 ha).........
8 *..........................  471 ac..........  243 ac..........  Private........  C. madla
                               (191 ha)........  (98 ha).........  City...........  R. infernalis
                                                                                    R. exilis
9............................  286 ac..........  105 ac..........  State..........  C. madla
                               (116 ha)........  (42 ha).........  Private........  R. exilis
10a \1\......................  67 ac...........  38 ac...........  City...........  R. infernalis
                               (27 ha).........  (15 ha).........  Private........
10b \1\......................  66 ac...........  35 ac...........  City...........  R. infernalis
                               (27 ha).........  (14 ha).........
11a \1\......................  21 ac...........  Removed.........  Private........  R. exilis
                               (8.5 ha)........  (0 ac, 0 ha)....

[[Page 8461]]

 
11b \1\......................  16 ac...........  Removed.........  Private........  R. exilis
                               6.5 ha..........  (0 ac, 0 ha)....
11c \1\......................  21 ac...........  Removed.........  Private........  R. exilis
                               8.5 ha..........  (0 ac, 0 ha)....
11d \1\......................  52 ac...........  Removed.........  Private........  R. exilis
                               21 ha...........  (0 ac, 0 ha)....
11e..........................  102 ac..........  89 ac...........  Private........  R. exilis
                               (41 ha).........  (36 ha).........
12...........................  371 ac..........  166 ac..........  Private........  R. exilis
                               (150 ha)........  (67 ha).........
13...........................  187 ac..........  100 ac..........  Private........  R. exilis
                               (76 ha).........  (41 ha).........
14...........................  330 ac..........  292 ac..........  Private........  R. infernalis
                               (134 ha)........  (118 ha)........
15...........................  339 ac..........  217 ac..........  Private........  C. venii
                               (137 ha)........  (88 ha).                           R. infernalis
16...........................  194 ac..........  103 ac..........  Private........  R. infernalis
                               (76 ha).........  (42 ha).........
17 *.........................  114 ac..........  96 ac...........  Private........  C. madla
                               (46 ha).........  (39 ha).                           R. infernalis
19...........................  142 ac..........  81 ac...........  Private........  R. infernalis
                               (57 ha).........  (33 ha).........
20...........................  247 ac..........  247 ac..........  Private........  T. cokendolpheri
                               (100 ha)........  (100 ha).                          C. baronia
21...........................  396 ac..........  154 ac..........  City...........  R. exilis
                               (160 ha)........  (62 ha).........  Private........
22...........................  178 ac..........  100 ac..........  City...........  C. madla
                               (72 ha).........  (40 ha).........  Private........
23...........................  178 ac..........  100 ac..........  City...........  R. infernalis
                               (72 ha).........  (40 ha).........  Private........
24 \1\.......................  11 ac...........  Removed.........  Private........  R. exilis
                               (4.5 ha)........  (0 ac, 0 ha)....
25...........................  177 ac..........  100 ac..........  Private........  C. baronia
                               (72 ha).........  (41 ha).........
26...........................  117 ac..........  100 ac..........  Private........  R. infernalis
                               (47 ha).........  (41 ha).........
                              ------------------------------------
    Totals...................  6,906 ac........  4,365 ac........
                               (2,795 ha)......  (1,766 ha)......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates unit where lands managed under the La Cantera HCP have been excluded in accordance with section
  4(b)(2) of the Act.
\1\ Cave is located on Camp Bullis; final critical habitat is outside Camp Bullis.
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    Based on information we received in comments regarding the clarity 
of the PCEs necessary to provide for conservation of the species, we 
reduced the number of PCEs from three to two. In this final rule, we 
omit proposed PCE 2 (surface water free of pollutants that flows into 
the karst features) and include pollutant-free moisture as a component 
of karst (PCE 1), because the function of surface water free of 
pollutants is to maintain the high humidity needed by the invertebrates 
in the karst features, and this is now described in PCE 1. We also 
change proposed PCE 3 to include more general sources of nutrient 
input, rather than focusing on native plant communities, because we do 
not know the precise vegetative community requirements needed for the 
conservation of the species. Although we believe that native plant 
communities are preferred, are important, and can increase the long-
term stability of habitat, nonnative plant species may also serve as 
sources of nutrients, particularly in units that are partially 
developed.
    In the proposed rule, we delineated unit boundaries to a distance 
of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) from the caves to capture the amount of contiguous 
karst deposit we estimated was necessary to provide for subsurface 
movement of listed species through mesocaverns between and around 
occupied caves. However, because of comments we received and an 
internal review of the available information on the reliability of the 
genetic and geologic studies information, upon which we relied to 
propose this distance, we determined that we did not have sufficient 
information to justify this distance as a criterion. We also removed 
the justification of an area needed to support an assemblage of 
vegetation native to the Edwards Plateau. Instead, we used the Bexar 
County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Team's expert opinion (Service 
2008, pp. B-1-B-5) that an area of 100 ac (40 ha) provides a higher 
probability of species survival and conservation, including nutrient 
input, moisture, and mesocaverns. Therefore, in this final rule, we 
delineate the boundaries to include an area of about 100 ac (40 ha) 
that includes subsurface karst deposits, the cave footprint, surface 
and subsurface drainage areas, a cave cricket foraging area, and, where 
possible, at least 100 ac (40 ha) of undisturbed or restorable 
vegetation. Because of these revisions, the size of many units is 
reduced substantially (see Table 1, above). See

[[Page 8462]]

the Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat section for additional 
details.
    As a result in these changes in criteria used to identify critical 
habitat, we completely removed five units from this final designation 
that had been proposed for designation (Units 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, and 
24). All of these units were located adjacent to Department of Defense 
lands (Camp Bullis Military Reservation (Camp Bullis)), and because 
applying the new criteria for delineation left little or no habitat 
associated with the occupied cave and associated karst on Camp Bullis, 
the lands are not designated as critical habitat in this rule. In 
addition, a large portion of Unit 9 north of highway Loop 1604 is not 
included in this final designation because most of the property was 
authorized for development under La Cantera's HCP, and the small, 
undisturbed area around the remaining features is not considered to be 
essential to the conservation of the species because of its small size 
and because highly impervious cover in the surrounding area has reduced 
the input of nutrients and moisture (see Exclusions section for more 
details).

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act would apply; even in the event of a destruction or adverse 
modification finding, however, the obligation of the Federal action 
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but 
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the 
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary 
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal 
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the 
elements of physical or biological features that together provide for a 
species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation 
of the species.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but 
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the 
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat 
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited 
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality 
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide 
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific 
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to 
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for 
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. In addition, our knowledge of species' locations and habitat 
requirements are incomplete. We recognize that critical habitat 
designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the 
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the 
recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat 
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is 
unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas 
that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and 
outside the critical habitat

[[Page 8463]]

designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions 
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions 
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to 
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other 
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at 
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may 
require special management considerations or protection. These include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential 
for the nine Bexar County invertebrates from studies of this species' 
habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat 
section of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in 
the Federal Register on February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9872), and in the 
information presented below. Additional information can be found in the 
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on December 26, 
2000 (65 FR 81419), and the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery 
Plan (Service 2011). We have determined that each of the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates require the physical or biological features 
described below.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    The nine Bexar County invertebrates are terrestrial troglobites 
that require underground passages with stable temperatures (Howarth 
1983, p. 373; Dunlap 1995, p. 76) and constant, high humidity (Barr 
1968, p. 47; Mitchell 1971a, p. 250). In addition to the larger cave 
passages that are accessible by humans where the species are collected, 
the species also need mesocaverns (tiny voids that are connected to 
larger cave passages) (Howarth 1983, p. 371), which provide additional 
habitat to sustain viable populations of the species (White 2006, pp. 
100-101). During temperature extremes, small mesocavernous spaces 
connected to caves may have more favorable humidity and temperature 
levels than the cave (Howarth 1983, p. 371); however, the abundance of 
food may be less in mesocaverns than in the larger cave passages. 
Therefore, the nine Bexar County invertebrates may spend the majority 
of their time in mesocaverns, only leaving during temporary forays into 
the larger cave passages to forage (Howarth 1987, p. 377). Based on the 
information above, we identify karst-forming rock containing 
subterranean spaces (caves and connected mesocaverns) with stable 
temperatures, high humidities (near saturation), and suitable 
substrates (spaces between and underneath rocks for foraging and 
sheltering) to be a physical and biological feature needed by these 
species.

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

Water

    The nine Bexar County invertebrates need clean water that is free 
of pollutants to maintain stable humidity and temperatures. To maintain 
stable humidity, the amount of clean water varies depending on the size 
of the drainage basin, caves, and mesocaverns. Water enters the karst 
ecosystem through surface and subsurface drainage basins. Well-
developed pathways, such as cave openings and fractures, rapidly 
transport water through the karst with little or no purification. Caves 
are susceptible to pollution from contaminated water entering the 
ground because karst has little capacity for self-purification. The 
route that has the greatest potential to carry water-borne contaminants 
into the karst ecosystem is through the drainage basins that supply 
water to the ecosystem. Because cave fauna require material washed in 
through entrances (including human inaccessible cracks), and because 
they require generally high humidity, it is essential to have drainage 
basins with unpolluted water. The surface drainage basin consists of 
the cave entrance and other surface input sources, such as neighboring 
sinkholes and soil percolation. The subsurface or groundwater drainage 
basin includes mesocaverns, as well as subterranean streams that have a 
connection to the surface but that connection is often not observable 
from the surface. The surface and subsurface drainage basins do not 
necessarily overlap, and they may be of different size and direction 
(Veni 2003, pp. 7-8).
    In conclusion, we identify clean surface water that flows into the 
karst features to be a physical and biological feature needed by these 
species. Sources may include runoff that flows into the caves' 
entrances or associated features through sinkholes or fractures, and 
through-ground flows via fractures, conduits, and passages.

Surface Plant and Animal Communities

    The nine Bexar County invertebrates need healthy surface plant and 
animal communities in areas around and over the karst they occupy (see 
discussion under Background). Surface vegetation provides nutrients 
that support trogloxene (species that regularly inhabit caves for 
refuge, but return to the surface to feed) and accidental species 
(those that wander in or are trapped in a cave) and provides nutrients 
through leaf litter and root masses that grow directly into caves 
(Howarth 1983, p. 373; Jackson et al. 1999, p. 11387). Because the nine 
Bexar County invertebrates are at the top of their food chain (Service 
2011c, p.7), habitat changes that affect their food sources (including 
plants and cave crickets) can affect them (Culver et al. 2000, p. 395).
    Surface vegetation also protects the subsurface environment against 
drastic changes in the temperature and moisture regime. It serves to 
filter pollutants (to a limited degree) before they enter the karst 
system and protects against nonnative species invasions (Biological 
Advisory Team 1990, p. 38).
    Surface invertebrates provide food for trogloxenes, such as cave 
crickets, bats, toads, and frogs. Other animals wash or accidentally 
stumble into caves and are food sources for cave-limited species. A

[[Page 8464]]

healthy, native arthropod community may also better stave off fire ants 
(Porter et al. 1988, p. 914), which pose a threat to the karst 
ecosystem.
    Cave crickets are an important source of nutrient input for karst 
ecosystems (Barr 1968, p. 48; Reddell 1993, p. 2). The cave crickets 
forage on the surface at night and roost in the cave during the day. 
Cave crickets provide food for karst species, which feed on their eggs, 
young, and feces (Mitchell 1971b, p. 250; Barr 1968, pp. 51-53; Poulson 
et al. 1995, p. 26). Many of the vertebrate species that occasionally 
use caves bring in a significant amount of energy in the form of scat, 
nesting material, and carcasses.
    Natural quantities of plants and animals are an important part of a 
functioning ecosystem. Therefore, based on the information above, we 
identify a healthy surface community of plants (for example, juniper-
oak woodland) and animals (for example, cave crickets) living in and 
near the karst feature that provides nutrient input and protects the 
karst ecosystem from adverse effects (nonnative species invasions, 
contaminants, and fluctuations in temperature and humidity), as being a 
essential biological feature.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Nine Bexar County Invertebrates

    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the nine Bexar County invertebrates in areas occupied 
at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent 
elements. We consider primary constituent elements (PCEs) to be the 
elements of physical or biological features that together provide for a 
species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation 
of the species.
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the PCEs specific to each of 
the nine Bexar County invertebrates are:
    (1) Karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces (caves and 
connected mesocaverns) with stable temperatures, high humidities (near 
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and 
underneath rocks for foraging and sheltering) that are free of 
contaminants and
    (2) Surface and subsurface sources (such as plants and their roots, 
fruits, and leaves, and animal (e.g., cave cricket) eggs, feces, and 
carcasses) that provide nutrient input into the karst ecosystem.
    With this designation of critical habitat, we intend to identify 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species, through the identification of the appropriate existing or 
restorable quantity and spatial arrangement of the features' primary 
constituent elements sufficient to support the life-history processes 
of the species. All units designated as critical habitat are currently 
occupied by one or more of the nine Bexar County invertebrates and some 
contain the primary constituent elements in the appropriate quantity 
and spatial arrangement sufficient to support the life-history needs of 
the species. Others are degraded, and some may never reach recovery 
criteria for the species.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess the physical or 
biological features within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing that are essential to the conservation 
of the species and which may require special management considerations 
or protection.
    The Bexar County human population is projected to increase 13.8 
percent from 2010 to 2020, and 45.2 percent by 2050 (San Antonio 
Planning Department 2005, p. 1). Most of the threats to the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates and their PCEs are the result of this continued 
rapid population growth and associated urbanization. Threats include: 
Filling and collapsing caves; altering drainage patterns, decreasing 
water infiltration, and drying karst or increasing flooding; removing 
native vegetation and replacing it with impervious cover and nonnative 
plants; reducing nutrient input into caves; changing temperatures; 
decreasing humidity; contaminating habitat as a result of human 
activities in the surface and subsurface drainage basins of caves and 
in adjacent karst areas; increasing human visitation, resulting in 
alteration of the cave habitat and direct mortality of listed species; 
and increasing infestation by fire ants, a predator and competitor that 
can cause direct predation on and competition with trogloxenes like 
cave crickets, ultimately reducing nutrient input into the cave.
    In 2000, 437 caves were known in Bexar County, and about 109 of the 
437 had been sealed or destroyed, including some that had not been 
biologically studied, but by observation of fauna, had likely contained 
some of the listed species. Currently, 523 caves are registered in 
Bexar County, with 103 of those confirmed as sealed or destroyed, and 
about 40 more suspected as sealed or destroyed, but which need to be 
visited for confirmation (Veni 2011, pers. comm.).
    Construction and development activities that may not destroy a cave 
entrance can still result in collapse of the cave ceiling or other 
adverse effects on the karst environment. On ranch land or in rural 
areas, it is not uncommon to use caves as trash dumps (Culver 1986, p. 
434; Reddell 1993, p. 2) or to cover the entrances to prevent livestock 
from falling in (Elliott 2000, pp. 374-375). These activities can be 
detrimental to the karst ecosystem by causing direct destruction of 
habitat or altering the natural passage of organisms, water, detritus, 
and other organic matter into a cave. Quarrying of limestone and road 
base material is a widespread activity that can remove vegetation and 
destroy karst habitat. A number of occupied caves in Bexar County have 
been severely impacted in the past, and an examination of recent aerial 
photography reveals recent impacts to karst habitat near several other 
occupied caves.
    Cave organisms are adapted to live in a narrow range of temperature 
and humidity. To sustain these conditions, both natural surface and 
subsurface flow of water and nutrients should be maintained. Decreases 
in water flow or infiltration can result in excessive drying and may 
slow decomposition of organic matter, while increases can cause 
flooding that drowns air-breathing species and carries away available 
nutrients. Alterations to surface topography, including decreasing or 
increasing soil depth or adding nonnative fill, can change the nutrient 
flow into the cave, and affect the cave community (Howarth 1983, p. 
381). Changes in the amount of impermeable cover, collection of water 
in devices like storm sewers, increased erosion and sedimentation, and 
irrigation and sprinkler systems can affect water flow to caves and the 
surrounding karst. Changes in the quantity of water, its organic 
content, the timing and extent of flood pulses, or droughts may 
negatively impact the listed species.
    Karst ecosystems are heavily reliant on surface plant and animal 
communities to maintain nutrient input, reduce sedimentation (in the 
case of plants), and resist exotic and invasive species. As the surface 
around a cave entrance or over the associated karst ecosystem is 
developed, native plant communities are often replaced with impermeable 
cover or exotic plants from

[[Page 8465]]

nurseries. The abundance and diversity of native animals may decline 
due to decreased food and habitat, combined with increased competition 
and predation from urban, exotic, and pet species. As surface plant and 
animal communities are destroyed, food and habitat once available to 
trogloxenes decreases. Destruction of plant communities can lead to 
increased erosion that causes sedimentation within caves. Where native 
woodland and grassland communities are present, a perimeter area is 
needed to shield the core vegetation habitat from impacts associated 
with edge effects or disturbance from adjacent urban development 
(Lovejoy et al. 1986, p. 284; Yahner 1988, pp. 333-334). Effects from 
such impacts can include increases in invasive species and pollutants, 
and changes in microclimates, which can adversely affect the listed 
species by impacting nutrient cycling processes important in cave/karst 
dynamics.
    Much of the habitat occupied by the Bexar County invertebrates is 
particularly sensitive to groundwater contamination, because little or 
no filtration occurs, and water penetrates rapidly through bedrock 
conduits (White 1988, p. 149). The ranges of these species are becoming 
increasingly urbanized, and, thereby, they are becoming more 
susceptible to contaminants including sewage, oil, fertilizers, 
pesticides, herbicides, seepage from landfills, pipeline leaks, or 
leaks in storage structures and retaining ponds. Activities on the 
surface, such as disposing of toxic chemicals or motor oil, can 
contaminate caves (White 1988, p. 388). Materials like cleaning agents, 
industrial chemicals, and heavy metals can also easily infiltrate 
subterranean ecosystems by the pollutants leaching into the karst, for 
example, from leaking underground storage tanks, or by being washed 
into the surface or subsurface drainage area. Contamination of karst 
habitat can also occur from the deposition of air pollutants in the 
surface or subsurface drainage area and improper disposal of litter, 
motor oil, batteries, or other household products in or near caves 
(White 1988, pp. 399-400).
    Continued urbanization will increase the likelihood that karst 
ecosystems are polluted by contamination from leaks and spills, which 
often have occurred in Bexar County. The Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality (TCEQ 2010, pp. TCEQ--5 to TCEQ--8) summarized 
information on groundwater contamination reported by a number of 
agencies, and listed 109 groundwater contamination cases that occurred 
in Bexar County between 1980 and 2000; the majority of them were spills 
or leaks of petroleum products. Groundwater contamination poses a 
threat to entire karst ecosystems and is particularly difficult to 
manage because pollutants can originate far from the sensitive karst 
site and flow rapidly through the subsurface (White 1988, pp. 387-388).
    Fire ants are a pervasive, nonnative ant species originally 
introduced to the United States from South America over 50 years ago 
and are an aggressive predator and competitor that has spread across 
the southern United States. They often replace native species, and 
evidence shows that overall arthropod diversity, as well as species 
richness and abundance, decreases in infested areas. Fire ants pose a 
threat to the listed invertebrates in Bexar County through direct 
predation and competition with native species (such as cave crickets) 
for food resources. This threat is exacerbated by activities that 
accompany urbanization and that result in soil disturbance and 
disruption to native ant communities (refer to previous detailed 
discussion in Background).
    Maintaining native vegetation communities greater than 12 ac (5 ha) 
may help sustain native ant populations and further deter fire ant 
infestations (Porter et al. 1988, p. 914; 1991, p. 869). On Camp Bullis 
Military Reservation, in Bexar and Comal Counties, Texas, caves are 
located in large expanses of undeveloped land. Although there is some 
ground disturbance in portions of the area, caves on Camp Bullis had 
less fire ant infestation than caves in more urbanized areas, even 
prior to beginning a fire ant treatment regime (Veni and Associates 
1999, p. 55). In addition, Suarez et al. (1998, p. 2047) found that 
protection of a core area zone that is at least 330 ft (100 m) wide 
helps to reduce the severity of infestations of Argentine ant 
(Linepithema humile), a species similar to the fire ant.
    Karst invertebrates in central Texas are especially susceptible to 
fire ant predation because most caves are relatively short and shallow. 
Fire ants have been found within and near many caves in central Texas 
and have been observed feeding on dead troglobites, cave crickets, and 
other species within caves (Elliott 1992, p. 13; 1994, p. 15; 2000, pp. 
668, 678; Reddell 1993a, p. 10; Taylor et al. 2003, p. 3). Hot and dry 
weather may also encourage fire ants to move into caves during summer 
months, and cold weather may cause them to seek refuge or prey in the 
caves during the winter. Besides direct predation, fire ants threaten 
listed invertebrates by reducing the nutrient input that fuels the 
karst ecosystem. Taylor et al. (2003, p. 3) found that cave crickets 
often arrived before fire ants at baits placed above ground at night, 
but the arrival of fire ants corresponded to the departure of cave 
crickets, indicating competition for at least some food resources. 
Lavoie et al. (2007, p. 126) also reported that cave crickets and fire 
ants ate the same baits. Of 36 caves visited during status surveys for 
the nine Bexar County karst invertebrates, fire ants were found in 26 
of them (Reddell 1993a, p. 32).
    Models suggest climate change may cause the southwestern United 
States to experience the greatest temperature increase of any area in 
the lower 48 States (IPCC 2007, p. 15). There is also high confidence 
that many semi-arid areas like the western United States will suffer a 
decrease in water resources due to climate change (IPCC 2007, p. 16), 
as a result of less annual mean precipitation and reduced length of 
snow season and snow depth (Christensen et al. 2007, p. 850). These 
predictions underscore the importance of special management to maintain 
karst moisture levels to ensure survival of the nine invertebrates.
    In summary, threats to the nine Bexar County invertebrates include 
clearing of vegetation for commercial or residential development, road 
building, quarrying, or other purposes. Infestation by nonnative 
vegetation causes adverse changes in the plant and animal community and 
possibly in moisture availability. An increase in fire ants can occur 
with development and cause competition with and predation on other 
invertebrates in the karst ecosystem. In addition, filling cave 
features for construction, ranching, or other purposes can adversely 
affect the listed invertebrate species by reducing nutrient input, 
reducing small mammal access, and changing moisture regimes. Excavation 
for construction or operation of quarries can directly destroy karst 
features occupied by any of the nine Bexar County invertebrates, 
including the mesocaverns they use. Examples of management that would 
alleviate these threats include: (1) Protecting vegetation around 
occupied karst features and overlying connected mesocaverns; (2) 
protecting subsurface karst habitat to allow movement of karst 
invertebrates through caves and mesocaverns; (3) controlling nonnative 
fire ants around cave features and within the karst cricket foraging 
area; (4) preventing unauthorized access to karst features by 
installing fencing and cave gates; and (5) keeping the surface and 
subsurface areas surrounding cave features and associated mesocaverns 
free from sources of contamination.

[[Page 8466]]

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best 
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat. 
We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat 
requirements of these species. In accordance with the Act and its 
implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether 
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well 
as those occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the 
conservation of the species. We are designating critical habitat in 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing in 2000. We also are designating specific areas outside the 
geographical area known to be occupied by the species at the time of 
listing, which are currently occupied, because we have determined that 
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
    We relied on information in presence/absence survey reports 
submitted during project consultations with the Service, annual reports 
on research and recovery activities conducted under section 10(a)(1)(A) 
scientific permits, annual section 10(a)(1)(B) reports, section 6 
species status reports, and literature published in peer-reviewed 
journals. We also used information from the proposed (67 FR 55063; 
August 27, 2002) and final (68 FR 17155; April 8, 2003) critical 
habitat rules, draft recovery plan (Service 2008), final recovery plan 
(Service 2011), and other information in our files. Critical habitat 
units were delineated by creating approximate areas for the units by 
screen-digitizing polygons (map units) using ArcMap (Environmental 
Systems Research Institute, Inc.). We defined the boundaries of each 
unit based on the criteria below:
    (1) We identified all areas known to be occupied by the species. We 
used verified identifications of specimens by recognized species 
experts. In the case of Madla Cave meshweaver, we also used genetic 
identification (Paquin and Hedin 2004, p. 3244).
    (2) We included the cave footprint with the surface and subsurface 
drainage areas of the cave, where known.
    (3) We included a cave cricket foraging area that is a 344-ft (105-
m) circle around the cave entrance (Taylor et al. 2005, p. 97).
    (4) We also included an area of at least 100 ac (40 ha) around the 
cave footprint of undisturbed or restorable vegetation as recommended 
by the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Team (Recovery Team) 
(Service 2008, pp. B1-5). The Recovery Team used an expert opinion poll 
to query members about species conservation needs, relying on goals 
identified by the recovery team for maintaining a healthy karst 
ecosystem for the nine invertebrates. Recovery Team members ranked a 
preserve size of 60 to 90 ac (16 to 36 ha) with the occupied karst 
feature near its center as having the highest probability of achieving 
each goal (Service 2008, p. B-5). Specified goals included maintaining 
high humidity, stable temperatures, high water quality of surface and 
subsurface drainage basins, and good connectivity with mesocaverns for 
population dynamics of troglobites. The Preserve Design Recommendations 
document cited in the final recovery plan increased the preserve size 
to a minimum of 100 ac (40 ha) for a high-quality KFA based on peer-
review comments (Service 2011, p. 3). Therefore, we used a circle 
encompassing 100 ac (40 ha), with the occupied feature near the center 
as a guide, for delineation of critical habitat, because that area and 
configuration are likely to provide the necessary nutrient input, 
maintain moisture, protect a substantial amount of the mesocaverns that 
are likely connected to the occupied karst feature, and remain viable 
over the long term. In units that are undeveloped, it will also protect 
a diverse assemblage of vegetation. We also used this target size for 
units that are at least partially developed because we believe that 
remaining vegetation can provide nutrients, moisture, and mesocavern 
protection for the listed species. Although such low-quality units may 
not count toward the recovery of the species, they do serve to increase 
the probability the species is likely to survive.
    We used a circle with an area of 100 ac (40 ha) as a guide for 
mapping the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the nine Bexar County invertebrates. We positioned the 
circle with the occupied feature at the center. Then we changed the 
shape of the edge to maintain at least 100 ac (40 ha). We gave 
preference to including undisturbed, existing or restorable vegetation 
in Karst Zone 1; the surface and subsurface drainage basins; and the 
cave cricket foraging areas of the occupied features. We did not 
include area for cave cricket foraging if it was on the other side of 
an urban edge, such as a major roadway, because such edges act as 
barriers to cricket movement. When the delineations around individual 
caves overlapped, we included those caves in the same unit.
    In this designation, we included areas that possess those physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of each of the 
species and that may require special management considerations or 
protection. Even though the nine Bexar County invertebrates spend their 
entire lives underground, we included specific surface features when 
identifying critical habitat units, because they are important drainage 
links into the caves, and because surface habitat is needed to support 
the plant and animal communities upon which the invertebrates depend 
for nutrients.
    We identified critical habitat units that are known to be occupied 
based on one or more surveys that resulted in the collection of a 
specimen from the karst feature and verification of a species' identity 
by a taxonomic expert. Some of the rarer species are difficult to 
collect, and it may take many surveys over multiple years to detect 
even the more common species (Krejca and Weckerly 2007, p. 286). 
Therefore, we included all locations with historic records of species 
occupancy, regardless of date.
    We determined the units based on the presence of both of the 
defined PCEs and the kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated 
with those occurrences. We only designated areas that include both PCEs 
in close enough proximity to each other to be used by the invertebrate 
population in the area. Some of the units contain the appropriate 
quantity and distribution of PCEs to support the life cycle stages we 
have determined as essential to the conservation of the species. In 
other units or portions of units, one or both of the PCEs have been 
degraded. We included such units because the portion of the PCEs that 
are present can support the listed species to some extent, even though 
the PCEs have been degraded. For example, surface habitat without a 
healthy plant and animal community can continue to support listed 
invertebrates below the surface for a limited time, and clean water 
from modified surface areas can provide the humidity needed by the 
listed invertebrates.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final 
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas, such as 
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures that lack 
the surface physical or biological features for the nine Bexar County 
invertebrates, and which do not contain the subsurface physical or 
biological features to support life-history processes essential for the 
conservation of the invertebrates. The

[[Page 8467]]

scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication 
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the non-
inclusion of such developed lands in critical habitat. Therefore, a 
Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7 
consultations with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of 
no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the 
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    However, in some instances, we included some developed areas that 
had partially degraded surface features. We included these developed 
lands because they contain the subsurface physical or biological 
features, such as karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces, 
and enough of the surface physical or biological features in close 
enough proximity to support life-history processes essential for the 
conservation of the invertebrates. The scale of the maps we prepared 
under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal 
Regulations may not reflect the non-inclusion of developed lands.
    We are designating as critical habitat lands that we have 
determined were occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient 
physical or biological features to support life-history processes 
essential for the conservation of the species, and lands outside of the 
geographical area not known to be occupied at the time of listing, 
which are currently occupied, and which we have determined are 
essential for the conservation of Bexar County invertebrates.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating 30 units as critical habitat for the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates. The critical habitat areas described below 
constitute our best assessment at this time of areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat. Table 2 lists the occupied units.

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

    The approximate area of each critical habitat unit is shown in 
Table 3.

   Table 3--Unit Number, Known Occupied Caves, Unit Size, Land Ownership, and Listed Species That Are Known To
                                     Occur Within Each Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Known occupied      Size of unit in acres                                   Listed species
        Unit           caves in unit            (Hectares)              Land ownership type          in unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a.................  Bone Pile Cave,   144 ac (58 ha).............  State......................  R. infernalis,
                      Surprise Sink.                                                              C. madla.
1b.................  Government        100 ac (40 ha).............  State......................  C. vespera, N.
                      Canyon Bat Cave.                                                            microps, R.
                                                                                                  exilis, R.
                                                                                                  infernalis.
1c.................  Lost Pothole      100 ac (40 ha).............  State......................  C. madla.
                      Cave.
1d.................  Dancing Rattler   225 ac (91 ha).............  State......................  C. madla, R.
                      Cave, Lithic                                                                exilis, R.
                      Ridge Cave,                                                                 infernalis.
                      Hackberry Sink.
1e.................  Canyon Ranch      410 ac (166 ha)............  State, Private, City.......  R. infernalis,
                      Pit*,                                                                       R. exilis, B.
                      Continental                                                                 venyivi, C.
                      Park Cave,                                                                  madla.
                      Creek Bank
                      Cave, Fat Man's
                      Nightmare
                      Cave*, Pig
                      Cave, San
                      Antonio Ranch
                      Pit, Scenic
                      Overlook Cave*,
                      Tight Cave.
1f.................  10K Cave........  100 ac (40 ha).............  State......................  R. infernalis.
2..................  Logan's Cave,     180 ac (73 ha).............  Private....................  C. madla, R.
                      Madla's Drop                                                                exilis, R.
                      Cave.                                                                       infernalis.
3..................  Helotes           85 ac (34 ha)..............  Private....................  C. madla, R.
                      Blowhole*,                                                                  exilis, R.
                      Helotes Hilltop                                                             infernalis, B.
                      Cave*.                                                                      venyivi.
4..................  Kamikazi Cricket  210 ac (85 ha).............  Private....................  R. exilis, R.
                      Cave, Mattke                                                                infernalis.
                      Cave, Scorpion
                      Cave.
5..................  Christmas Cave..  100 ac (40 ha).............  Private....................  C. madla, R.
                                                                                                  exilis, R.
                                                                                                  infernalis, B.
                                                                                                  venyivi.
6..................  John Wagner       96 ac (39 ha)..............  Private, City..............  C. madla, R.
                      Ranch Cave No.                                                              exilis, R.
                      3*.                                                                         infernalis.
7..................  Young Cave No. 1  100 ac (40 ha).............  Private....................  R. exilis.
8..................  Three Fingers     243 ac (98 ha).............  Private, City..............  C. madla, R.
                      Cave, Hills and                                                             infernalis, R.
                      Dales Pit*,                                                                 exilis.
                      Robber's Cave.
9..................  Mastodon Pit,     105 ac (42 ha).............  State, Private.............  C. madla, R.
                      Feature No. 50,                                                             exilis.
                      La Cantera Cave
                      No. 1*, La
                      Cantera Cave
                      No. 2*.
10a................  Low Priority      38 ac (15 ha)..............  City, Private..............  R. infernalis.
                      Cave \1\.
10b................  Flying Buzzworm   35 ac (14 ha)..............  City.......................  R. infernalis.
                      Cave \1\.
11e................  Blanco Cave.....  89 ac (36 ha)..............  Private....................  R. exilis.
12.................  Hairy Tooth       166 ac (67 ha).............  Private, City..............  R. exilis.
                      Cave, Ragin'
                      Cajun Cave.
13.................  Black Cat Cave..  100 ac (41 ha).............  Private....................  R. exilis.

[[Page 8468]]

 
14.................  Game Pasture      292 ac (118 ha)............  Private....................  R. infernalis.
                      Cave No. 1,
                      King Toad Cave,
                      Stevens Ranch
                      Trash Hole
                      Cave, F2, F4.
15.................  Braken Bat Cave,  217 ac (88 ha).............  Private....................  C. venii, R.
                      Isopit, Obvious                                                             infernalis.
                      Little Cave,
                      Wurzbach Bat
                      Cave.
16.................  Caracol Creek     103 ac (42 ha).............  Private....................  R. infernalis.
                      Coon Cave.
17.................  Madla's Cave*...  96 ac (39 ha)..............  Private....................  C. madla, R.
                                                                                                  infernalis.
19.................  Genesis Cave....  81 ac (33 ha)..............  Private....................  R. infernalis.
20.................  Robber Baron      247 ac (100 ha)............  Private....................  T.
                      Cave.                                                                       cokendolpheri,
                                                                                                  C. baronia.
21.................  Hornet's Last     154 ac (62 ha).............  City, Private..............  R. exilis.
                      Laugh Pit, Kick
                      Start Cave,
                      Springtail
                      Crevice.
22.................  Breathless Cave.  100 ac (40 ha).............  City, Private..............  C. madla.
23.................  Crownridge        100 ac (40 ha).............  City, Private..............  R. infernalis.
                      Canyon Cave.
25.................  OB3.............  100 ac (40 ha).............  Private....................  C. baronia.
26.................  Max and Roberts   100 ac (40 ha).............  Private....................  R. infernalis.
                      Cave.
                    -----------------------------------------------
    Totals.........  59 caves, 30      4,216 ac (1,706 ha)........
                      Units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates caves and associated lands excluded from critical habitat designation under the La Cantera HCP in
  accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
\1\ Cave is located on Camp Bullis; critical habitat is outside Camp Bullis.
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

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

Unit 1a

    Unit 1a consists of 144 ac (58 ha) of State-owned land located in 
northwestern Bexar County in the northwestern part of Government Canyon 
State Natural Area (GCSNA) in the Government Canyon KFR. The GCSNA is 
an area of approximately 8,622 ac (2,688 ha) owned and managed by the 
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). The GCSNA is accessible to 
the public under certain restrictions. This unit is all undeveloped 
woodland and is crossed by a wet weather stream and a trail. Unit 1a 
contains Surprise Sink, which is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver and 
R. infernalis, and Bone Pile Cave, which is occupied by R. infernalis. 
Surprise Sink was believed to be occupied by Government Canyon Bat Cave 
spider, but further investigation showed that this identification could 
not be confirmed (Ledford 2011, pp. 160-161). The caves in this unit 
were occupied at the time of listing by each of the species listed 
above, and the unit contains the features essential to the conservation 
of each species (PCEs 1 and 2).
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in this 
unit may require special management considerations or protection to 
address the main threat in this unit, which is infestation of fire 
ants. The GCSNA currently has a management plan in place that includes 
treating for fire ants and managing for the benefit of the Madla Cave 
meshweaver and R. infernalis. The treatment of fire ants only 
temporarily alleviates the threat, so special management is required in 
perpetuity to remove the threat.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around each of the two caves and connecting the edges of the 
overlapping circles. Unit 1a is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 1b

    Unit 1b consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of State-owned land located in 
northwest Bexar County in the western portion of the GCSNA in the 
Government Canyon KFR. Land within the unit consists of undeveloped 
woodland. However, there are several one-lane gravel roads that serve 
primarily as pedestrian trails within the State natural area. A small 
portion of the vegetation appears to have been cleared for ranching 
prior to TPWD ownership. The unit contains one cave, Government Canyon 
Bat Cave, which is the only cave known to be occupied by the Government 
Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver. The cave is also occupied by Government 
Canyon Bat Cave spider, R. exilis, and R. infernalis. The Government 
Canyon Bat Cave was occupied at the time of listing, and the unit 
contains all the PCEs.
    The main threat to species in this unit is infestation of fire 
ants. The GCSNA currently has a management plan in place that includes 
treating for fire ants and managing for the benefit of the species. 
Because the treatment for fire ants only temporarily alleviates the 
threat, special management is required in perpetuity.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the cave. A small piece of Karst Zone 2 on the northern 
part of the circle is included because removing it would increase the 
edge effects. The remainder of Unit 1b is Karst Zone 1.

Unit 1c

    Unit 1c consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of State-owned land located in 
northwestern Bexar County in the central part of GCSNA in the 
Government Canyon KFR. This unit is primarily undeveloped native 
woodland that is crossed by a hiking trail. There is only one cave in 
this unit, Lost Pothole Cave. The cave was occupied at the time of 
listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs for the species. A small 
amount of the woody vegetation in this unit has been cleared in the 
past for ranching prior to TPWD ownership.
    The main threat to species in the unit is infestation of fire ants. 
GCSNA currently has a management plan in place that includes treating 
for fire ants and managing for the benefit of the species. Because the 
treatment for fire ants only temporarily alleviates the threat, special 
management is required in perpetuity.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the cave. Unit 1c is all Karst Zone 1.

[[Page 8469]]

Unit 1d

    Unit 1d consists of 225 ac (91 ha) of State-owned land located in 
northwestern Bexar County in the central part of the GCSNA in the 
Government Canyon KFR. This unit is wooded and undeveloped. The unit is 
primarily native vegetation, but small portions of the unit appear to 
have been thinned in the past for ranching prior to TPWD ownership. 
Unit 1d contains three caves: Dancing Rattler Cave, Lithic Ridge Cave, 
and Hackberry Sink. The Lithic Ridge Cave is occupied by Madla Cave 
meshweaver, R. exilis, and R. infernalis. The Dancing Rattler Cave and 
Hackberry Sink are occupied by R. infernalis. The caves in this unit 
were occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains all the 
PCEs for the species.
    The main threat to the unit is infestation of fire ants. The GCSNA 
currently has a management plan in place that includes treating for 
fire ants. Because the treatment for fire ants only temporarily 
alleviates the threat, special management is required in perpetuity.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around each of the caves and connecting the edges of the 
overlapping circles. Unit 1d is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 1e

    Unit 1e consists of 410 ac (166 ha) in northwestern Bexar County 
that includes the northeastern part of State-owned GCSNA, adjacent City 
of San Antonio-owned land, and private land in the Government Canyon 
KFR for the Madla Cave meshweaver, R. infernalis, R. exilis, and 
Helotes mold beetle. About 64 ac (26 ha) of land managed under the La 
Cantera HCP are not included in this designation of critical habitat 
(see explanation below). The majority of Unit 1e consists of 
undeveloped land, with the exception of several small private and 
county roads. Woody vegetation has been thinned for ranching on a small 
area of the northeastern part of the unit. Unit 1e contains eight 
caves. Four caves are occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver (Fat Man's 
Nightmare Cave, Pig Cave, San Antonio Ranch Pit, and Scenic Overlook 
Cave). Fat Man's Nightmare Cave is also occupied by R. infernalis; Pig 
Cave is also occupied by R. infernalis and R. exilis; San Antonio Ranch 
Pit is occupied by R. infernalis, R. exilis, and Helotes mold beetle; 
and Scenic Overlook Cave is occupied by R. infernalis and Helotes mold 
beetle. The unit also contains Canyon Ranch Pit and Continental Park 
Cave, which are occupied by R. infernalis; Creek Bank Cave, which is 
occupied by R. exilis; and Tight Cave, which is occupied by R. exilis 
and Helotes mold beetle.
    The caves were likely occupied at the time of listing, but surveys 
sufficient to detect the species were not conducted before the time of 
listing. Since listing, the species has been found in the caves. Due to 
the long lifespan of these critters, or lack of dispersal that occurs, 
we assume they must have been there all along. Therefore, we are 
considering these caves to be occupied at the time of listing. The unit 
contains all the PCEs for the species. In addition, populations and 
known occurrences are so low that all need to be conserved.
    Special management is needed in this unit because of infestation of 
fire ants and vandalism from unauthorized access. Five of the caves in 
this unit are owned by GCSNA, and they currently have a management plan 
in place that includes treating for fire ants and managing for the 
benefit of the species. These five caves are San Antonio Ranch Pit, Pig 
Cave, Creek Bank Cave, Tight Cave, and Continental Park Cave.
    Three of the eight known occupied caves within this unit and their 
associated preserve lands are part of the 75-ac (30-ha) Canyon Ranch 
Preserve. The Canyon Ranch Preserve, which was acquired and is managed 
by La Cantera under their HCP, contains Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's 
Nightmare Cave, and Scenic Overlook Cave. In accordance with the La 
Cantera HCP, these three caves and the surrounding preserve lands will 
be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the species. In 
accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded from critical 
habitat designation approximately 64 ac (26 ha) of the preserve from 
this unit (see Exclusions section). When this unit was delineated, 
there was an 11-ac (4-ha) portion of the 75-ac (30-ha) preserve that 
fell outside the boundaries. Therefore, we excluded the approximately 
64-ac (26-ha) portion of the preserve land that fell within the unit 
boundary.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around each of the caves and generally connecting the edges of 
the overlapping circles. Unit 1e is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 1f

    Unit 1f consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of State-owned land in northwest 
Bexar County in the southeastern part of the GCSNA in the Government 
Canyon KFR for R. infernalis. The unit is entirely native woodland, but 
a small amount appears to have been cleared in the past for ranching 
prior to TPWD ownership. It contains only one cave, which is named 10K 
Cave. The cave was likely occupied at the time of listing, but surveys 
sufficient to detect the species were not conducted prior to listing R. 
infernalis. Since the time of listing, the species has been found in 
the cave. Therefore, we are considering it to be occupied at the time 
of listing. The unit contains both PCEs for the species. In addition, 
populations and known occurrences are so low that all need to be 
conserved. We believe 10K Cave is essential for the conservation of the 
species. The unit contains all the PCEs for the species.
    The major threat to Unit 1f is fire ant infestation. The GCSNA 
currently has a management plan in place that includes controlling fire 
ants, limiting access, monitoring the status of habitat, prohibiting 
the use of pesticides, and constructing gates and fences.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the cave. Unit 1f is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 2

    Unit 2 consists of 180 ac (73 ha) of private land located in 
northwestern Bexar County north of Bandera Road and southeast of High 
Bluff Road in the Helotes KFR. This unit contains a mix of large, 
wooded tracts with several residential buildings, cleared areas, a 
quarry on the southeastern edge, and private or county roads.
    Unit 2 contains two caves. Madla's Drop Cave is occupied by Madla 
Cave meshweaver and R. infernalis. Logan's Cave is occupied by R. 
infernalis and R. exilis. These caves were occupied at the time of 
listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs for the species. Two paved 
roads cross the cave cricket foraging area of this unit and act as 
barriers to cricket movement.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species may 
require special management considerations or protection, because of 
residential development. Threats include the potential for destruction 
of habitat from vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage 
area of the unit, drying of karst, reduction of nutrient input, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around each of the caves and generally connecting the edges of 
the overlapping circles. Areas of Karst Zone 3 karst along the southern 
portion of the unit were left out, and the unit was expanded outside 
the circles in a small area to the east and to the southwest to include 
the estimated subsurface drainage basin. Unit 2 is all Karst Zone 1.

[[Page 8470]]

Unit 3

    Unit 3 consists of 110 ac (45 ha) of private land in northwestern 
Bexar County, east of Bandera Road and northwest of Scenic Loop in the 
Helotes KFR. About 25 ac (10 ha) of lands managed under the La Cantera 
HCP are not included in this designation of critical habitat (see 
explanation below). The unit contains relatively large, wooded tracts. 
This unit contains two caves, Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop 
Cave. Helotes Blowhole is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver, R. 
infernalis, and R. exilis. The Helotes Hilltop Cave is occupied by 
Madla Cave meshweaver, R. exilis, and Helotes mold beetle. Both caves 
were occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains all the 
PCEs for the species.
    Special management is needed in this unit because of the potential 
for destruction of habitat from vandalism, contamination of the 
subsurface drainage area of the unit, and infestation of fire ants. In 
addition, a small portion of the northern side of the unit has been 
developed with residential homes. Unit 3 contains several small 
residential roads and is bordered on its southwestern edge by Bandera 
Road, a four-lane divided highway. This unit does not include the 
entire 344-ft (105-m) cave cricket foraging area around Helotes Hilltop 
Cave in Karst Zone 3, because a paved road creates a barrier to cave 
cricket movement. The road is located in Karst Zone 3, and the area 
east of the road is not included in critical habitat.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around each of the caves and generally connecting the edges of 
the overlapping circles. Because of the large amount of Karst Zone 3 to 
the east was left out, we expanded the western circle to the north and 
northwest in Karst Zone 1 to the boundary proposed for the unit. Some 
areas of Zone 3 are included along the eastern boundary of the unit to 
include more of the cave cricket foraging area for Helotes Hilltop 
Cave. Areas of Zone 3 along all but a part of the northern portion of 
the unit were left out of this designation. The rest of Unit 3 is Karst 
Zone 1.
    In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded from 
critical habitat designation approximately 25 ac (10 ha) of land 
surrounding the caves under the La Cantera HCP (see Exclusions 
section). These caves and the surrounding preserve lands will be 
managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the species. The 
remainder of the unit needs special management because of the presence 
of roads and residential development.

Unit 4

    Unit 4 consists of 210 ac (85 ha) of private land in northwestern 
Bexar County, west of the intersection of Scenic Loop and Cross XD Road 
in the UTSA KFR. Tower View Road and Cash Mountain Road cross the 
northern part of the unit, and Rafter S and Cross XD cross the southern 
part. Unit 4 contains three caves. Kamikaze Cricket Cave is occupied by 
R. exilis and R. infernalis. Mattke and Scorpion Caves are occupied by 
R. infernalis. These three caves were occupied at the time of listing, 
and parts of the unit contain all the PCEs for the species.
    Special management is needed in this unit because of the potential 
for destruction of habitat from vandalism and potential future 
development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, 
drying of karst areas, reduction of nutrient input, and infestation of 
fire ants. In addition, this unit contains several residential roads, 
but no major roadways or highways. Lands surrounding Unit 4 consist 
mainly of relatively large, residential tracts. The unit requires 
special management because of threats from existing and potential 
future residential development.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around each of the caves and generally connecting the edges of 
the overlapping circles. Portions on the western edges of the circles 
were cut out because they are Karst Zone 3. The circles were extended 
outside the circles to the east and northeast to include undisturbed 
vegetation. Some areas of Karst Zone 3 are included along the western 
edges of the cave cricket foraging areas of Kamikaze Cricket and Mattke 
Caves. The remainder of the unit is Karst Zone 1 except for a small 
finger of Karst Zone 3, which is included to reduce edge effects.

Unit 5

    Unit 5 consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of private land in northwestern 
Bexar County, northwest of Cedar Crest Drive and north of Madla Ranch 
Road in the Helotes KFR. The unit contains a large tract of undeveloped 
woodland and several smaller, wooded tracts developed with homes and 
associated residential roads. This unit contains one cave, Christmas 
Cave, which is occupied by R. exilis, R. infernalis, Helotes mold 
beetle, and Madla Cave meshweaver. The cave was occupied at the time of 
listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs for the species.
    The unit requires special management because of the presence of 
residential development and impending future development. Threats 
include the potential for destruction of habitat from development and 
vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, 
reduction of moisture and nutrients, and infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the cave. Large areas of Zone 3 were then removed from 
the southeast portion, but a small amount of Karst Zone 3 is included 
along the southeastern boundary of the unit to include the cave cricket 
foraging area for Christmas Cave. The rest of Unit 5 is Karst Zone 1. 
The boundary circle was expanded to include more Karst Zone 1 along its 
northeast edge, around the northwest side, and to the southwest edge to 
include 100 ac (40 ha) of undisturbed vegetation. However, there are 
homes and associated roads within the cave cricket foraging area of the 
cave.

Unit 6

    Unit 6 consists of 96 ac (39 ha) of private and City of San 
Antonio-owned land located in northwestern Bexar County, bordered to 
the south by Menchaca Road and to the west by Morningside Drive in the 
UTSA KFR. About 4 ac (1.6 ha) of land managed under the La Cantera HCP 
are not included in this designation of critical habitat (see 
explanation below). Unit 6 consists primarily of large, undeveloped, 
woodland tracts with several smaller areas developed with homes. John 
Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3 is the only cave in this unit, and it is 
occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver, R. exilis, and R. infernalis. The 
cave was occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains all the 
PCEs for the species.
    Special management is needed in this unit because of the 
destruction of habitat from development and vandalism, contamination of 
the subsurface drainage area of the unit, and infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the cave and then cutting most of Karst Zone 3 out of 
the circle, which is primarily the southern portion of the circle. A 
small portion of Karst Zone 3 is included in the unit to include the 
cave cricket foraging area on the south side. The unit was expanded 
outside the remaining circle on the northeastern side to include a 
minimum of 100 ac (40 ha) of native vegetation. The majority of

[[Page 8471]]

land included in Unit 6 is in Karst Zone 1.
    In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded from 
critical habitat designation in this unit the John Wagner Ranch Cave 
No. 3 and approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha) surrounding the cave under the La 
Cantera HCP (see Exclusions section). The cave and surrounding preserve 
lands will be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the 
species.

Unit 7

    Unit 7 consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of private land located in 
northwestern Bexar County, south of Babcock Road near the intersection 
of Cielo Vista Drive and Luna Vista in the UTSA KFR. The unit is 
largely wooded, but there is some development in the extreme northern 
and eastern parts of the unit. Unit 7 contains one cave known as Young 
Cave No. 1, and it is occupied by R. exilis. The cave was occupied at 
the time of listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs for the 
species.
    This unit requires special management because of residential 
development. There is a new road, Camino del Sol, which ends east of 
Young Cave No. 1 and is located within the cave cricket foraging area. 
Other threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from 
vandalism and new construction, contamination of the subsurface 
drainage area, drying of karst, reduction of nutrient input, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around Young Cave No. 1. The circle was moved slightly to the 
southeast to avoid Karst Zone 3. A small finger in the northeast 
portion of the unit is Karst Zone 3. The remainder of the unit is 
entirely in Karst Zone 1.

Unit 8

    Unit 8 consists of 243 ac (98 ha) of private and City of San 
Antonio's Thrift Tract land located in northwestern Bexar County in the 
UTSA KFR. About 52 ac (21 ha) of land managed under the La Cantera HCP 
are not included in this designation of critical habitat (see 
explanation below). The unit is bordered by Kyle Seale Parkway on the 
northwest, by Moss Brook Drive on the northeast, and by Cotton Trail 
Lane on the south. Some of the land is undeveloped woodland, but some 
areas on the edges of the unit have been developed or have been cleared 
for future development. This unit contains three caves: Three Fingers 
Cave, Hills and Dales Pit, and Robber's Cave. Hills and Dales Pit and 
Robber's Cave are occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver, R. exilis, and R. 
infernalis. Three Fingers Cave is occupied by R. exilis and R. 
infernalis. This unit was occupied at the time of listing, and the unit 
contains all the PCEs for the species.
    The extreme southern portions of this unit have been subdivided and 
developed with homes. Several roads cross the unit. Threats in this 
unit include the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism 
and development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the 
unit, drying of karst, reduction of nutrient input, and infestation of 
fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around each of the three caves and generally connecting the 
edges of the resulting circles. Areas with dense development were cut 
out of the circle along the northeastern and extreme southern edges. A 
quarry was cut out from the northwestern portion. The unit is entirely 
in Karst Zone 1.
    In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded from 
critical habitat designation in this unit the Hills and Dales Pit and 
approximately 52 ac (21 ha) surrounding the cave under the La Cantera 
HCP (see Exclusions section). The cave and surrounding preserve lands 
will be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the species. 
There is a total of approximately 70 ac (28 ha) of preserve area 
surrounding the cave and being managed under the La Canter HCP. 
However, approximately 18 ac (7 ha) of the 70 ac (28 ha) preserve fell 
outside the boundaries of this unit when the unit was delineated. 
Therefore, we excluded the approximately 52-ac (21-ha) portion of the 
preserve land that fell within the unit boundary.

Unit 9

    Unit 9 consists of 105 ac (42 ha) of State and private land in 
north-central Bexar County on the South side of Loop 1604 and east of 
the Loop 1604 intersection with IH 10 in the UTSA KFR. This unit is 
primarily a large tract of undeveloped woodland. The unit is bordered 
to the west by the University of Texas at San Antonio campus and to the 
east by Valero Way. Unit 9 has two caves: Mastodon Pit and Feature No. 
50. Feature No. 50 is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver, and Mastodon 
Pit is occupied by R. exilis. Both caves were occupied at the time of 
listing, and the unit has all of the PCEs for the species.
    Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from 
vandalism and development, contamination of the subsurface drainage 
area of the unit, drying of karst, reduction of nutrient input, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the two caves and generally connecting the edges of the 
resulting circles. The majority of the land included in Unit 9 is Karst 
Zone 1 or Karst Zone 2 (because Feature No. 50 was found to be occupied 
after Veni (2003) delineated the zones). We stopped the boundary of the 
unit on the north side at the southern edge of Loop 1604, because this 
major roadway and the major shopping mall north of it do not have one 
or more of the PCEs, including sources of nutrient input. The western 
edge generally follows the edge of development. The area to the north 
of Loop 1604 is not included in this final critical habitat 
designation, because it was authorized for adverse impacts under La 
Cantera's HCP (see Exclusions section). We expanded the edge of the 
circles to the south to include 100 ac (40 ha) of undisturbed 
vegetation and contiguous karst.

Unit 10a

    Unit 10a consists of 38 ac (15 ha) of private and City of San 
Antonio land. The unit is located in north central Bexar County outside 
the southern boundary of the western portion of Camp Bullis (a military 
reservation) in the Stone Oak KFR. The eastern part of the unit is in 
Eisenhower Park, operated by the City of San Antonio for picnicking, 
jogging, and nature study. The remainder of the unit is in private 
ownership. The unit is almost entirely undeveloped, but contains some 
unpaved roads and hiking trails. This unit was occupied at the time of 
listing and contains all the PCEs of the species.
    Low Priority Cave is located on Camp Bullis and contains R. 
infernalis. However, the Low Priority Cave's entrance is not included 
in the unit (because it is exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act; see 
Exemptions below), but part of its cave cricket foraging area and 
mesocaverns likely connected to the cave are included in this unit.
    The unit requires special management because of human use of the 
park, possible future development on private land, and the presence of 
trails and a secondary roadway in the unit. Main threats include the 
potential for destruction of surface vegetation, contamination of the 
subsurface drainage area of the unit, and infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the cave entrance and removing the portion of the circle 
within Camp

[[Page 8472]]

Bullis. The unit is all Karst Zone 1 except for a small portion of 
Karst Zone 3 in the northwest corner of the unit, which is included 
because removing it would increase the edge effect.

Unit 10b

    Unit 10b consists of 35 ac (14 ha) of Eisenhower Park, operated on 
Federal land by the City of San Antonio in north-central Bexar County, 
east of Unit 10a and along the southern boundary of Camp Bullis in the 
Stone Oak KFR. The unit is mostly wooded and is entirely in Eisenhower 
Park. Flying Buzzworm Cave, which contains R. infernalis, is located on 
Camp Bullis. An immature blind Cicurina has been collected from the 
cave, but has not been identified to species. The cave was occupied at 
the time of listing. Unit 10b contains the PCEs for the species.
    The unit requires special management because of human use of the 
park and the presence of trails and a secondary roadway in the unit. 
Threats include the potential for destruction of surface vegetation, 
contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the cave entrance and removing the portion of the circle 
within Camp Bullis according to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see Exemptions section, below). Unit 10b 
contains contiguous Karst Zone 1.

Unit 11e

    Unit 11e consists of 89 ac (36 ha) of private land outside the 
eastern boundary of Camp Bullis in north-central Bexar County. Unit 11e 
contains a substantial amount of residential development with 
landscaped areas and is crossed by Blanco Road on its western edge, 
Cardigan Chase Road near its eastern edge, and Calico Chase Road across 
its central portion. Blanco Cave, located in the Blanco Road right-of-
way, contains R. exilis. Blanco Road was included in the unit because 
it is so close to the cave opening (it is located in Blanco Road right 
of way) and because it likely crosses mesocaverns connected to the 
feature. The cave was not known to be occupied at the time of listing, 
but it is currently occupied, and likely was at the time of listing 
because R. exilis likely has inhabited the Bexar County features for 
thousands of years, and surveys sufficient to detect the species were 
not conducted before the listing. Therefore, we are considering it to 
be occupied at the time of listing. In addition, populations and known 
occurrences are so low that all need to be conserved. The area within 
Camp Bullis is exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see 
Exemptions). This unit contains both PCEs, although nutrient and 
moisture input have been altered by development in portions of the 
remainder of the unit. We believe Blanco Cave is essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Major threats to physical or biological features in Unit 11e 
include destruction of habitat from vandalism and potential future 
development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, 
drying of karst, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around 
the cave and including all Karst Zone 1 outside of Camp Bullis within 
the resulting circle. The edge of the circle was expanded to the south 
and to the northeast to include undisturbed vegetation overlying Karst 
Zone 1. Camp Bullis was exempted according to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of 
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see Exemptions section, below). 
The unit is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 12

    Unit 12 consists of 166 ac (67 ha) of mainly private land in north-
central Bexar County, southwest of the intersection of U.S. Highway 281 
and Evans Road in the Stone Oak KFR. The unit is bordered to the east 
by U.S. Highway 281, to the south by a quarry, and to the west by a 
school and some residential development. Evans Road, another major 
roadway, crosses the north-central part of the unit. With the exception 
of floodway and part of a middle school in the western part, the unit 
is in private ownership. Most of the unit has been developed as a 
single-family homes subdivision. The unit also includes some commercial 
development in the northeast portion. However, small amounts of 
undeveloped land are located in the southern, western, and extreme 
northern parts of the unit.
    Unit 12 contains the Hairy Tooth and Ragin' Cajun Caves, which are 
occupied by R. exilis. Both caves were occupied at the time of listing. 
This unit contains the PCEs for the species, but sources of nutrient 
input are degraded through most of the unit. Houses and streets impact 
the cave cricket foraging areas. However, some vegetation remains over 
much of the unit and serves to provide a source of nutrients to the 
karst ecosystem. Mesocaverns likely connected to the two caves are also 
present in the unit. Because of the absence of KFAs for the potential 
to meet recovery criteria for Rhadine exilis in Stone Oak KFR, this 
low-quality unit is needed to assure long-term survival of the species.
    Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from 
vandalism, development, operation of a quarry, contamination of the 
subsurface drainage area of the unit, karst drying, reduction of 
nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants. The unit requires special 
management because of the commercial development and roadways that 
border and cross the unit.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around 
each of the two caves and joining the edges of the two overlapping 
circles. A portion of the extreme southern area was removed from the 
unit because it contains an active quarry, which has removed some of 
the karst, as the karst is covered only by a thin layer of soil in 
Karst Zone 1. All of Unit 12 is Karst Zone 1.

Unit 13

    Unit 13 consists of 100 ac (41 ha) of developed and undeveloped 
private land located in northeastern Bexar County in the Stone Oak KFR. 
The unit is located south of the intersection of Menger Road and 
Bulverde Road. This unit contains one cave named Black Cat Cave. The 
cave opening is a short distance from Bulverde Road, which crosses its 
cave footprint and cave cricket foraging area. The northern part of the 
unit includes a small amount of dense development on the northwest and 
borders less dense development on the northeast. Bulverde Road, a major 
two-lane roadway, crosses the middle of the unit from north to south. 
In preparation for widening the road, the City of San Antonio has 
modified the cave entrance. The southern part of the unit on both sides 
of Bulverde road is undeveloped. The cave was occupied by R. exilis at 
the time of listing, and the unit contains both PCEs.
    This unit requires special management because of residential 
development and roadways that border and cross the unit. Threats 
include the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism, 
potential future development, contamination of the subsurface drainage 
area of the unit, drying of karst from impervious cover and storm water 
diversion, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around 
the cave. We moved the circle to avoid development in the northern part 
of the unit. Additional undeveloped land outside the circle, but inside 
the area proposed, is included in the unit on the eastern and southern 
edge to include at least 100 ac (40 ha) of surface

[[Page 8473]]

vegetation, as described in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical 
Habitat section above. All of Unit 13 is Karst Zone 1. Part of the cave 
cricket foraging area is not included in the unit because it is either 
across the road or across other features that restrict cave cricket 
movement.

Unit 14

    Unit 14 consists of 292 ac (118 ha) of private land in western 
Bexar County, west of the end of Louis Agusta Drive in the Culebra 
Anticline KFR. The unit includes several large tracts of undeveloped 
woodland. There is a major roadway, Stevens Parkway, in this unit, and 
it is in the process of being extended from the southwestern to western 
part of the unit. Some of the vegetation has been cleared in the past 
for ranching. Three caves occur in this unit: Game Pasture Cave No. 1, 
Stevens Ranch Trash Hole Cave, and King Toad Cave. During the comment 
period, we learned of two additional occupied features on the property 
(F2 and F4). In addition, we obtained more precise information on the 
locations and the surface and subsurface drainage areas of all features 
in this unit. All five caves and features are known to contain R. 
infernalis, and all except F2 and F4 were known to be occupied at the 
time of listing; however, all were likely occupied at that time. This 
unit contains all the PCEs of the species.
    The unit requires special management because of potential future 
residential and commercial development and trespassing. Threats include 
the potential for destruction of surface vegetation and karst habitat, 
contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of 
karst, reduction of nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around 
each of the five caves and features. We were unable to include all of 
the edges of the overlapping circles because we added two new features 
to this unit and because we received additional information about the 
locations of the features listed for this unit in proposed critical 
habitat. As a result, portions of the circles in the southern, western, 
and northwestern portion fell outside the area proposed for critical 
habitat, and those portions were not therefore included inside the 
final unit boundaries. All of the cave cricket foraging areas are 
within the unit boundaries. Unit 14 is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 15

    Unit 15 consists of 217 ac (88 ha) of private land located in 
western Bexar County, west of Talley Road and north of Farm to Market 
Road 1957 in the Culebra Anticline KFR. The majority of the lands 
within Unit 15 are within a subdivision, and all are privately owned. 
Tracts in the subdivision are relatively large and still contain wooded 
vegetation, but roads and houses have fragmented the cave cricket 
foraging areas around all of the occupied caves. There is a substantial 
amount of the vegetation in the unit. This unit contains four caves: 
Braken Bat Cave, Isopit, Obvious Little Cave, and Wurzbach Bat Cave. 
Bracken Bat Cave is the only one that contains the Bracken Bat Cave 
meshweaver. All four caves are known to contain R. infernalis, and all 
were occupied at the time of listing. This unit contains all the PCEs 
for the species.
    The unit requires special management because of the proximity of 
development, the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism, 
and the fragmentation of the surface community of plants and animals. 
Threats include potential future development, contamination of the 
subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of karst, reduction of 
nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around 
each of the four caves and connecting the edges of the overlapping 
circles. A small portion of the circle on the eastern edge in a high-
density development was removed from the unit. All of Unit 15 is Karst 
Zone 1.

Unit 16

    Unit 16 consists of 103 ac (42 ha) of private land in western Bexar 
County in the Culebra Anticline KFR. The unit contains several large, 
primarily undeveloped tracts of woodland, with Loop 1604, a major 
highway, to its east. With the exception of the cleared right-of-way of 
Loop 1604, most of the remainder of the unit is vegetated. However, 
some vegetation in the northern and northwestern part of the unit 
appears to have been cleared for livestock grazing. The area to the 
south of the unit is operated as a quarry. Caracol Creek Coon Cave is 
the only cave in this unit, and it is occupied by R. infernalis. The 
unit was occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains all the 
PCEs for the species.
    The unit requires special management because of the proximity of 
roads and potential future development. Threats include potential for 
destruction of habitat from vandalism, quarry operation, and potential 
new development; contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the 
unit; drying of karst; reduction of nutrient input; and infestation of 
fire ants.
    This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around 
the cave. The eastern part of the circle is not included in the unit 
because of the effects of Loop 1604 and the dense development to the 
east on nutrient input and mesocaverns, and we instead include 
undeveloped areas to the west. In addition, during the comment period, 
we received information that the subsurface drainage of the cave did 
not extend underneath Loop 1604, but inside the proposed area as 
previously thought. This information was credible and based on on-site 
studies. We expanded the unit outside the circle to the west and 
northwest to include at least 100 ac (40 ha) of vegetation adjacent to 
the cave opening. Most of Unit 16 is Karst Zone 1, except a small part 
of Karst Zone 2 on its western edge.

Unit 17

    Unit 17 consists of 96 ac (39 ha) of private land in northwest 
Bexar County east of Scenic Loop Road and south of Madla Ranch Road in 
the Helotes KFR. About 5 ac (2 ha) within this unit's boundary are not 
included in this designation of critical habitat (see explanation 
below). The unit contains some houses and paved roads in the eastern 
portion and one house in the southeastern portion. The unit contains 
one cave, Madla's Cave, which is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver and 
R. infernalis. The cave was occupied at the time of listing, and the 
unit has all the PCEs of the species.
    In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded from 
critical habitat designation in this unit Madla's Cave and the 
surrounding approximately 5 ac (2 ha), which has been acquired as a 
preserve in accordance with the La Cantera HCP (see Exclusions 
section). The cave and surrounding preserve land will be managed in 
perpetuity for the conservation of the species.
    The unit requires special management, because of the presence of 
residential development and potential future development within the 
unit. Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from new 
development and vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage 
area of the unit from future development, reduction of moisture and 
nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the cave and removing areas that are not Karst Zone 1 
from the northern and southwestern parts of the resulting

[[Page 8474]]

circle. The southern, eastern, and western portions of the circle were 
expanded to include 101 ac (40 ha) of undisturbed surface vegetation. 
However, we subtracted the 5-ac (2-ha) portion that we excluded under 
the La Cantera HCP in the middle of this unit to arrive at 
approximately 96 ac (39 ha) of designated critical habitat. A small 
area of Karst Zone 3 is included in the southwestern portion of the 
unit to reduce edge effects of drawing the boundary along Karst Zone 1.

Unit 19

    Unit 19 consists of 81 ac (33 ha) of private land in north-central 
Bexar County north of Loop 1604 and east of Oak Road in the Stone Oak 
KFR. A large part of the area surrounding the cave has been developed 
for residential and/or commercial uses. Several other minor roadways 
and parking lots are scattered through the unit, and part of a golf 
course is in the northwestern section of the unit. Some trees are left 
in a neighborhood in the northern part of the unit, and a few trees are 
on the golf course. In addition, there is some landscaped grass 
surrounding Genesis Cave, the only cave in this unit. This cave is 
occupied by R. infernalis and was occupied at the time of listing. This 
unit contains both PCEs.
    The unit requires special management, because of the high levels of 
residential and commercial development and the large amount of 
impervious cover in the unit. Threats include the potential for 
destruction of habitat from vandalism and future development, 
contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of 
karst from impervious cover and storm water diversion, reduced nutrient 
input, and infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the cave entrance and removing areas of Karst Zone 2 
from the southeastern part of the circle. Areas of Karst Zone 1 that 
have a large amount of impervious cover (close to 100 percent) and do 
not contain the PCE of sources of nutrient input were also removed from 
a large part of the southern portion of the circle, including part of 
the cave cricket foraging area. The portion of the subsurface drainage 
basin with high impervious cover was left in the circle because there 
are some entries for water and nutrients into the karst in that area. 
The circle was expanded to the north and west (out to the previous edge 
of proposed critical habitat) to include more sources of nutrients 
(vegetated areas); however, some of the area has a fairly high density 
of buildings. The unit is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 20

    Unit 20 consists of 247 ac (100 ha) of private land located in 
north-central San Antonio, south of Loop 410 West, and primarily along 
Nacogdoches Road northeast of Broadway in the Alamo Heights KFR. This 
unit contains one known occupied cave, Robber Baron Cave, which is the 
only known cave for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman. It is also one of 
only two caves known to be occupied by the Robber Baron Cave meshweaver 
(OB3 in Unit 25 is the other cave). Robber Baron Cave was occupied at 
the time of listing and is the longest cave in Bexar County, consisting 
of approximately 0.9 mi (1.5 km) of passages (Veni 2003, p. 19). The 
estimated footprint of the cave now underlies numerous residential and 
commercial developments. Veni (1997, p. 29) reported a slow decline in 
moisture in the cave over time. The Texas Cave Management Association 
(TCMA) now owns and manages the cave and about 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) 
surrounding the opening. The TCMA is a nonprofit organization dedicated 
to the study and management of Texas cave resources. Cave gates and 
modifications to the cave entrance have reduced airflow into the cave 
and the opportunity for cave crickets to move into and out of the cave. 
Installation of a new cave gate, removal of trash, and revegetation of 
a small area surrounding the entrance was completed in 2008 by TCMA 
(TCMA 2011, pp 2-3) and improved these issues for a portion of the 
cave. This unit was occupied at the time of listing and contains both 
PCEs.
    Surface vegetation within Unit 20 has been significantly reduced 
and degraded by urban development, although portions of primarily 
landscaped areas remain. The unit requires special management because 
of the high levels of residential and commercial development within the 
unit. Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from 
vandalism, soil compaction from cave visitation, lack of a nutrient 
sources, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, 
drying of karst, and infestation of fire ants. Because of the extensive 
development, high levels of impervious cover, and diversion of storm 
water over the cave, intensive management may be needed to provide 
nutrients and water to the karst environment.
    The unit was delineated to encompass the estimated extent of the 
surface and subsurface drainage and all of the contiguous Karst Zone 1. 
We did not use the standard procedure that we used to delineate other 
units because the cave footprint and contiguous Karst Zone 1 are long 
and narrow, and because the overall size exceeds 100 ac (40 ha).

Unit 21

    Unit 21 consists of 154 ac (62 ha) of private and City of San 
Antonio-owned land in northeast Bexar County, northeast of the 
intersection of Evans Road and Stone Oak Parkway. The unit contains 
several large tracts of undeveloped land. Mud Creek runs through the 
unit, and the majority of Unit 21 is the pool area of a flood control 
reservoir owned by the City of San Antonio. The rest of the unit is in 
private ownership. Vegetation in the lower elevations of the flood pool 
area is modified by periodic inundation and/or mechanical control by 
the City of San Antonio. Unit 21 contains three caves: Hornet's Last 
Laugh Pit, Kick Start Cave, and Springtail Crevice. All are currently 
occupied by R. exilis. While they were not known to be occupied at the 
time of listing, they likely were occupied at that time. Parts of the 
unit contain all the PCEs for the species.
    The unit requires special management because of adjacent 
residential development, surface contamination from runoff from urban 
areas in the surface watershed roadways, periodic inundation, and 
potential for new construction in the unit. The main threats include 
the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism, potential 
future development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of 
the unit, periodic flooding of caves and mesocaverns from stormwater 
retention, and infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around each of the three caves and joining the edges of the 
three overlapping circles. Some areas on the western side within the 
circles were removed from the designation, as they are developed. The 
entire unit is Karst Zone 1. One of three caves (Springtail Crevice) is 
located in the lower pool area of a flood control reservoir, and its 
surface drainage basin covers the entire watershed of Mud Creek 
upstream of the cave, which includes 5,675 ac (2,297 ha) of land and 
extends about 4.3 mi (6.9 km) upstream. We do not include the entire 
surface drainage area for the unit, as it is so large and extends so 
far from the cave and the 100 ac (40 ha) area around it. The unit 
designation includes about 2.7 percent of the entire surface watershed.

[[Page 8475]]

Unit 22

    Unit 22 consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of private and City of San 
Antonio's Woodland Hills land located in northwestern Bexar County, 
northeast of Babcock Road and northwest of Heuermann Road in the UTSA 
KFR. There are several unpaved roads and trails, including one within 
the cave cricket foraging area. The unit is mostly undeveloped 
woodland, but some areas appear to have been cleared in the past for 
ranching. Unit 22 is a combination of private land and the City of San 
Antonio's Woodland Hills Preserve for protection of the Edwards Aquifer 
recharge. Breathless Cave is the only cave in this unit. Breathless 
Cave is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver. The cave was not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing, but it is currently occupied. The cave 
likely was at the time of listing, but surveys sufficient to detect the 
species were not conducted before the listing. Therefore, we are 
considering it to be occupied at the time of listing. In addition, 
populations and known occurrences are so low that all need to be 
conserved. The unit contains all the PCEs for the species.
    The major threat in this unit is potential future development 
within the unit. Threats include the potential for destruction of 
habitat from new development and vandalism, contamination of the 
subsurface drainage area of the unit from future development, reduction 
of moisture and nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around Breathless Cave. The resulting unit is mostly Karst Zone 
1, except for a small sliver of Karst Zone 3 in its western portion, 
which we include because of its narrow width and the increased edge 
effects associated with removing this area.

Unit 23

    Unit 23 consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of private land and City of San 
Antonio's Crownridge Canyon Natural Area in northwestern Bexar County 
northeast of Luskey Road and east of the end of Fiesta Grande in the 
UTSA KFR. A large portion of the unit is the City of San Antonio's 
Crownridge Canyon Natural Area, which is open to hiking, nature study, 
and wildlife observation. Parts of the northern and northwestern edges 
of the unit are privately owned. Most of Unit 23 is in native woodland 
vegetation. The area west and southwest of the unit has been cleared 
for a residential subdivision, and some houses have been constructed. 
The clearing extends more than halfway into the western portion of the 
Crownridge Canyon Cave's cave cricket foraging area. Crownridge Canyon 
Cave is the only cave in this unit, and it is occupied by R. 
infernalis.
    The cave was not known to be occupied at the time of listing, but 
it is currently occupied. The cave was likely occupied at the time of 
listing, because surveys sufficient to detect the species had not yet 
been conducted by the time of listing. Therefore, we are considering it 
to be occupied at the time of listing. In addition, populations and 
known occurrences are so low that all need to be conserved. The unit 
contains all the PCEs for the species.
    The unit is primarily threatened by adjacent residential 
development, roadways, and potential for new construction in the unit. 
Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism 
and future development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area 
of the unit, drying of karst from impervious cover and diversion of 
storm water, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the cave. The area of the subdivision was removed from 
the western and southwestern parts of the circle. The remaining circle 
was expanded in all other directions to include 100 ac (40 ha) of 
vegetation. The unit is all Karst Zone 1.

Unit 25

    Unit 25 consists of 100 ac (41 ha) of private land located in north 
central San Antonio near the intersection of Shook Avenue and East 
Kings Highway in the Alamo Heights KFR. This unit contains cave OB3, 
occupied by the Robber Baron Cave meshweaver. The cave feature was 
discovered during excavation in 2009, after the Robber Baron Cave 
meshweaver had already been listed. However, the cave was likely 
occupied at the time of listing because surveys to detect the species 
had not been conducted prior to listing. Therefore, we are considering 
it to be occupied at the time of listing, and we believe it is 
essential for the conservation of the species, because a total of only 
two locations are known for the species and both have impacts to the 
surface habitat. The surface habitat around this feature has been 
highly modified and is covered with residential and commercial 
development, including numerous streets. Unit 25 also contains 
landscaped lawns and residential and commercial development. The 
vegetation within the unit provides nutrient input into the area 
occupied by the species and to features and mesocaverns.
    The unit is primarily threatened by high levels of residential and 
commercial development within the unit. Threats include the potential 
for destruction of habitat from vandalism and potential new 
development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, 
drying of the karst feature, reduction of nutrient input, and 
infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the feature. A small area of the south-central portion 
of the unit around a large church and parking lot and part of the west-
central portion of the circle around an athletic field and parking lots 
were removed because they contain a large amount of impervious cover 
and do not contain sources of nutrients. Because no listed species were 
known from this area of the Alamo Heights KFR when Karst Zones were 
delineated by Veni (2003, p. 12), the entire unit is located in Karst 
Zone 2.

Unit 26

    Unit 26 is 100 ac (40 ha) of private land in western Bexar County 
southwest of the extension of Stevens Ranch Parkway and south of Unit 
14 in the Culebra Anticline KFR. This unit is all undeveloped land. 
Woody vegetation has been thinned for ranching in the eastern portion 
of the unit, while the western portion has been more heavily cleared. 
There is one cave in this unit with two entrances, Max and Roberts 
Cave, and it currently contains R. infernalis. The cave was not known 
to be occupied at the time of listing, but it is currently occupied, 
and likely was at the time of listing, because surveys to detect the 
species had been not conducted prior to listing. Therefore, we are 
considering it to be occupied at the time of listing. In addition, 
populations and known occurrences are so low that all need to be 
conserved. The unit contains both PCEs for the species. Also, we 
believe the cave is essential for the conservation of the species, 
because only a small number of locations sufficient to recover the 
species are known within the Culebra Anticline KFR.
    The primary threats in this unit are potential future residential 
and commercial development and trespassing. Specific threats include 
the potential for destruction of surface vegetation and karst habitat 
from vandalism, contamination of the surface and subsurface drainage 
area of the unit, drying of karst habitat, reduction of

[[Page 8476]]

nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
    The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac 
(40 ha) around the cave entrance. Areas of Karst Zone 3 on the western 
and southern portions of the circle outside the boundaries are not 
included. Also, the entire surface drainage area of the cave is not 
entirely included in the unit, because it could not be delineated at 
the time of the proposed rule. Unit 26 is primarily Karst Zone 1, but 
the cave cricket foraging area and part of the surface drainage basin 
on the western part of the unit in Karst Zone 3 are included.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have 
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra 
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th 
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when 
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we 
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, 
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected 
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role 
for the species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded 
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for nine Bexar County 
invertebrates. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to 
support life-history needs of the species and provide for the 
conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the nine Bexar County invertebrates. These activities 
include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would result in removing, thinning, or destroying 
perennial surface vegetation. Such activities could include, but are 
not limited to, burning, wood cutting or other mechanical removal, 
grading, livestock practices that lead to excessive overgrazing, 
construction, road building, mining, and herbicide application. These 
activities could destroy or damage the native plant community and 
increase the number of nonnative plants and animals, including fire 
ants. The actions could also adversely affect cave crickets and other 
native animals on the surface that provide nutrients to the karst 
ecosystem, reduce other nutrient input (for example, leaf litter and 
roots), reduce water quality, reduce humidity of the cave, and change 
subterranean temperatures.
    (2) Actions that would alter the surface topography or subsurface 
geology, resulting in a disruption of

[[Page 8477]]

ecosystem processes necessary to sustain the karst environment. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to, filling cave 
entrances or otherwise reducing airflow in a way that limits oxygen 
availability; modifying cave entrances or creating new entrances that 
increase airflow in a way that results in drying of the karst features; 
altering natural drainage patterns, surface or subsurface, in a manner 
that alters the amount or quality or both of water entering the cave, 
karst feature, or mesocaverns; removing or disturbing native surface 
vegetation so that it alters the quality or quantity of water entering 
the karst environment; disturbing soil in such a way that it results in 
increased sedimentation in the karst environment or increased numbers 
of fire ants; increasing impervious cover that may decrease water 
quantity entering the karst environment or affect the temperature of 
karst below it or both within any critical habitat unit, such as paving 
over a vegetated area; building roads or other features that block 
movements of cave crickets, thereby reducing the available foraging 
area; and altering the entrance or opening of a cave or karst feature 
in a way that would disrupt movements of cave crickets or other animals 
that provide nutrient input or otherwise negatively altering the 
movement of nutrients into the cave or karst feature.
    (3) Actions that would introduce pollutants to the occupied 
features themselves, the surface and subsurface drainage basins, or the 
surrounding mesocaverns. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, discharge or dumping of chemicals, silt, pollutants, 
household or industrial waste, pesticides or herbicides, or other 
harmful material into or near critical habitat units that may affect 
surface plant and animal communities or that may affect the subsurface 
karst ecosystem or degrade subsurface water quality.
    (4) Activities within caves that would lead to soil compaction, 
changes in atmospheric conditions, or abandonment of the cave by bats 
or other fauna. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
excessive human traffic, destruction of cave features, enlargement of 
existing entrances, or creation of new entrances to karst features.
    (5) Activities that would attract or increase fire ants, 
cockroaches, or other invasive predators, competitors, parasites, or 
potential vectors for diseases into caves or karst features within the 
critical habitat units. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, dumping of garbage in or around caves or karst features.

Exemptions

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

    The Sikes Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
critical habitat designation for Rhadine exilis, R. infernalis, and 
Madla Cave meshweaver to determine if they are exempt under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act. Only these three species occur on Department of 
Defense lands and are included in the military's INRMP. The following 
areas are Department of Defense lands with completed, Service-approved 
INRMPs within the proposed critical habitat designation.
Approved INRMPs
Camp Bullis Military Reservation
    Camp Bullis Military Reservation (Camp Bullis) has an approved 
INRMP in place that provides benefits to Rhadine exilis, R. infernalis, 
and Madla Cave meshweaver. Again, only these three species occur on 
Camp Bullis' lands. Camp Bullis is a 43.7-square-mile (mi2) 
(113.3-square-kilometer (km2)) facility under the command of 
Fort Sam Houston, U.S. Army, Texas. The area contains 26 caves with 1 
or more of the 3 listed species. After the species were petitioned for 
listing, Camp Bullis began karst investigations to determine the extent 
of these species on their property and how best to manage them. A 
management plan was developed in 1999 (Veni and Associates 1999) and 
revised in 2002 (Veni et al. 2002a and 2002b) to eliminate, mitigate, 
and prevent harm to these and other rare species on Camp Bullis in 
perpetuity. The Veni et al. 2002a and 2002b reports became part of an 
INRMP in 2005. The INRMP was revised in 2007, and underwent an annual 
review and update in 2010.
    The INRMP provides for management of all caves occupied by Rhadine 
exilis, R. infernalis, and Madla Cave meshweaver. The Madla Cave 
meshweaver is only found in one cave within the interior of Camp 
Bullis. Management actions include protecting the cave footprint, 
surface and subsurface drainage areas associated with the occupied 
cave, cave cricket foraging area, and surface plant and animal 
community, and controlling fire ants. The plan includes in-cave 
biological surveys, cave gate construction, and preservation of karst 
management areas (KMAs) around cave entrances. The KMAs will be 
preserved in perpetuity within the limits possible through the 
authority of Camp Bullis and its operational and mission requirements. 
The INRMP stipulates that should Camp Bullis ever be transferred in 
whole or in part, local Army officials will request that the Secretary 
of the Army, or other appropriate authority, review and incorporate 
provisions from this management plan into the property disposal 
procedures. Those provisions would transfer responsibility for 
appropriate management of any former Camp Bullis karst management areas 
to

[[Page 8478]]

all subsequent owners by deed recordation or other binding instrument.
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands 
are subject to the Camp Bullis INRMP and that conservation efforts 
identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to Rhadine exilis, R. 
infernalis, and Madla Cave meshweaver occurring in habitats within or 
adjacent to Camp Bullis. Therefore, lands within this installation are 
exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the 
Act. We are not including approximately 4,104 ac (1,660 ha) of habitat 
in this final critical habitat designation because of this exemption.

Exclusions

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well 
as the legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor.
    In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the 
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the 
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the 
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may 
exercise his discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion 
would not result in the extinction of the species.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the 
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping 
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides 
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would 
provide. We also consider whether the plan protects the area from all 
threats, particularly those with a Federal nexus and whether additional 
protection would be provided with critical habitat.
    In the case of the nine Bexar County invertebrates, the benefits of 
critical habitat include public awareness of the invertebrates' 
presence and the importance of areas that need special management or 
protection for recovery of species survival, and, in cases where a 
Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the nine Bexar 
County invertebrates due to the protection from adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat.
    When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when 
considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of 
factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 
how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical or 
biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a 
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the 
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and 
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management 
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be 
adapted in the future in response to new information.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis 
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat would result 
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as additional public comments we received, we evaluated whether 
certain lands in the proposed critical habitat Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, 9, 
and 17 were appropriate for exclusion from this final designation 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are excluding from critical 
habitat designation approximately 232 ac (94 ha) in portions of Units 
1e, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 17 that are covered under the La Cantera HCP. Table 
4 below provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands that meet the 
definition of critical habitat but are being excluded under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat rule. We are 
excluding these areas because we believe that they are appropriate for 
exclusion under the ``other relevant factor'' provisions of section 
4(b)(2) of the Act.

               Table 4--Areas Excluded From Critical Habitat Designation by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Areas meeting the definition  Areas excluded from critical
           Unit                  Specific area          of critical  habitat, in          habitat, in acres
                                                            acres  (hectares)                (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1e.......................  La Cantera HCP Canyon      64 ac (26 ha)...............  64 ac (26 ha).
                            Ranch Preserve.
3........................  La Cantera HCP Helotes     25 ac (10 ha)...............  25 ac (10 ha).
                            Blowhole/Helotes Hilltop
                            Preserve.
6........................  La Cantera HCP John        4 ac (1.6 ha)...............  4 ac (1.6 ha).
                            Wagner Ranch Cave
                            Preserve.
8........................  La Cantera HCP Hills and   52 ac (21 ha)...............  52 ac (21 ha).
                            Dales Pit Preserve.
9........................  Area north of Highway      82 ac (33 ha)...............  82 ac (33 ha).
                            1604 covered by the La
                            Cantera HCP.
17.......................  La Cantera HCP Madla's     5 ac (2 ha).................  5 ac (2 ha).
                            Cave Preserve.
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Total................  .........................  232 ac (94 ha)..............  232 ac (94 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 8479]]

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis of the 
proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (Industrial 
Economics 2011). The draft analysis, dated June 24, 2011, was made 
available for public review and comment from August 2, 2011, through 
September 1, 2011 (76 FR 46234). Following the close of the comment 
period, a final analysis (dated November 14, 2011) of the potential 
economic effects of the designation was developed taking into 
consideration the public comments and any new information (Industrial 
Economics 2011).
    The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the 
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the nine 
Bexar County invertebrates; some of these costs will likely be incurred 
regardless of whether we designate critical habitat (baseline). The 
economic impact of the final critical habitat designation is analyzed 
by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without 
critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario 
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections 
already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and 
other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, 
represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated. The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the 
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts 
and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the 
designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the 
incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of 
critical habitat beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we 
consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis 
looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species 
was listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely 
to occur with the designation of critical habitat.
    The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to 
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional 
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and 
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy 
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether 
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group 
or economic sector. Finally, the FEA looks retrospectively at costs 
that have been incurred since 2000 (year of the species' listing) (65 
FR 81419), and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years 
following the designation of critical habitat, which was determined to 
be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning 
information was available for most activities to forecast activity 
levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. The FEA quantifies 
economic impacts of nine Bexar County invertebrates conservation 
efforts associated with the following categories of activity:
    (1) Development. The potential for future residential and 
commercial development constitutes a primary threat to invertebrate 
habitat. A healthy surface community of native plants and animals and 
surface water free of pollutants are primary constituent elements for 
the species that can be adversely affected by development activity.
    (2) Transportation projects. Road construction and improvement 
projects may negatively affect surface animal and plant communities and 
surface water quality within the habitat area.
    (3) Utility projects. Utility projects, including pipeline, water 
system, and transmission line construction/maintenance, may affect 
critical habitat by degrading the karst forming rock where the species 
live.
    (4) Species/habitat management. The invertebrates and their habitat 
are currently afforded some level of protection under various 
management plans, including the La Cantera HCP, Government Canyon State 
Natural Area Karst Management and Maintenance Plan, and Robber Baron 
Preserve Management Plan.
    The FEA estimates the incremental impact of designation for two 
scenarios. Under Scenario 1, all development projects in Karst Zones 1 
and 2 are assumed to reduce quality to low, and thus project 
modifications requested during consultation are considered baseline. 
Under Scenario 2, all development projects in Karst Zones 1 and 2 are 
assumed to reduce quality to medium, and thus project modifications 
requested during consultation are considered incremental. Impacts to 
development activities represent approximately 99.5 to 99.6 percent in 
Scenario 1, and 94 to 95 percent in Scenario 2, of the overall impacts 
to areas proposed for designation during the first 20 years. Between 
years 21 and 29, all incremental impacts are associated with 
development activities (as the timeframe for the analysis of impacts to 
other activities extends only through 20 years).
    Total incremental costs for 2012 to 2031 ranged from $2,590,000 to 
$3,530,000 for Scenario 1, and from $43,100,000 to $55,100,000 for 
Scenario 2. Annualized costs during that timeframe were $244,000 to 
$333,000 for Scenario 1, and $4,070,000 to $5,200,000 for Scenario 2. 
Total estimated incremental costs for years 2032 to 2040 were $24,100 
for Scenario 1, and $65,800 for Scenario 2. Estimated annualized costs 
were $3,700 and $10,100, respectively.
    The majority of the impacts to development activities are land 
value losses due to restrictions on future development (91.0 to 93.4 
percent of Scenario 1 development impacts and 96.5 to 97.3 percent of 
Scenario 2 development value impacts). The present value incremental 
impact to transportation activities in the areas proposed for 
designation range from $13,400 in Scenario 1 to $2,770,000 in Scenario 
2 (assuming a 7 percent discount rate). These figures represent an 
annualized impact of approximately $1,270 to $262,000. No incremental 
impacts are expected to utility project and species and habitat 
management.
    Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs 
that are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for 
the nine Bexar County invertebrates. Consequently, we have determined 
not to exert our discretion to exclude any areas from this designation 
of critical habitat based on economic impacts. A copy of the FEA with 
supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the Austin 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or by downloading them 
from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a 
national security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we 
have determined that the lands within the designation of critical 
habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates are not owned or 
managed by the Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no 
impact on

[[Page 8480]]

national security. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising his 
discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on 
impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts--Habitat Conservation Plans
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the 
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with Tribal entities. We 
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the 
designation.

Land and Resource Management Plans, Conservation Plans, or Agreements 
Based on Conservation Partnerships

    We consider a current land management or conservation plan (HCPs as 
well as other types) to provide adequate management or protection if it 
meets the following criteria:
    (1) The plan is complete and provides the same or better level of 
protection from adverse modification or destruction than that provided 
through a consultation under section 7 of the Act.
    (2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the 
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or 
regulations.
    (3) The plan provides conservation strategies and measures 
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
    We believe that portions of Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 17 under the 
La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which provides for the 
conservation of Madla Cave meshweaver and Rhadine exilis, fulfills the 
above criteria. Thus, we are excluding approximately 232 ac (94 ha) of 
non-Federal lands in portions of Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 17 under 
this HCP.

La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan

    The goals of the La Cantera HCP are to minimize and mitigate for 
the potential negative effects of constructing and operating 
commercial, light industrial, recreational, and residential development 
near and adjacent to currently occupied habitat of the endangered karst 
invertebrates, and to contribute to conservation of the covered species 
and other listed and non-listed cave or karst fauna.
    The La Cantera HCP authorizes take of listed species in La Cantera 
Cave No. 1 and La Cantera Cave No. 2 by allowing development to occur 
in areas surrounding these caves, which are adjacent to Unit 9. 
However, under the La Cantera HCP, mitigation for take within these 
caves was implemented by purchasing and conserving eight caves known to 
contain one or more of the nine Bexar County invertebrates. These 
mitigation caves are Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare Cave, Scenic 
Overlook Cave and the surrounding approximately 75 ac (30 ha) adjacent 
to Unit 1e; Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop Caves and the 
surrounding approximately 25 ac (10 ha) adjacent to Unit 3; John Wagner 
Ranch Cave No. 3 and the surrounding approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha) 
adjacent to Unit 6; Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding 
approximately 70 ac (28 ha) adjacent to Unit 8; and Madla's Cave and 
the surrounding approximately 5 ac (2 ha) within Unit 17 (through 
purchase of a conservation easement). As part of their HCP, La Cantera 
is required to protect and manage these areas in perpetuity in 
accordance with the conservation needs of the species.
    All of the approximately 232 ac (94 ha) of non-Federal lands under 
the La Cantera HCP in Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 17 that we are 
excluding have either been authorized for development or preserved in 
perpetuity for the conservation of Madla Cave meshweaver and Rhadine 
exilis. We did include in this critical habitat designation lands 
surrounding these occupied caves and associated management areas, as 
these lands provide physical and biological features that are essential 
to the conservation of the species.
The Benefits of Inclusion
    The principle benefit of including an area in critical habitat 
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure that 
actions that they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated 
critical habitat, which is the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must 
consult with the Service on actions that may affect a listed species, 
and refrain from actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of such species. The analysis of effects to critical habitat 
is a separate and different analysis from that of the effects to the 
species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses 
represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For some cases, 
the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to 
habitat will often result in effects to the species. However, the 
regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis investigates 
the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species, while the 
adverse modification analysis investigates the action's effects to the 
designated habitat's contribution to conservation. This will, in many 
cases, lead to different results and different regulatory requirements. 
Thus, critical habitat designation may provide greater benefits to the 
recovery of a species than listing would alone. Therefore, critical 
habitat designation may provide a regulatory benefit for the Madla Cave 
meshweaver and Rhadine exilis on lands covered under the La Cantera HCP 
when there is a Federal nexus present for a project that might 
adversely modify critical habitat.
    Another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat is 
public education regarding the potential conservation value of an area 
that may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation 
value for certain species. We consider any information about the nine 
Bexar County invertebrates and their habitats that reaches a wide 
audience, including parties engaged in conservation activities, is 
valuable. Designation as critical habitat of the preserve areas would 
provide educational benefits by informing Federal agencies and the 
public about presence of listed species for all units, including lands 
surrounding the La Cantera preserves. The process of designating 
critical habitat is valuable in prioritizing conservation and 
management of identified areas.
    In summary, we believe that the benefits of inclusion of lands 
under the La Cantera HCP are a regulatory benefit when there is a 
Federal nexus present for a project that might adversely modify 
critical habitat and educational benefits about the listed 
invertebrates and their habitat.
Benefits of Exclusion
    The benefits of excluding lands from critical habitat designation 
with properly implemented HCPs, such as the La Cantera HCP, include 
relieving landowners, communities, and counties of any additional 
regulatory burden that might be imposed as a result of the critical 
habitat designation. A related benefit of exclusion is the continued 
ability to maintain existing and seek

[[Page 8481]]

new partnerships with future plan participants, including States, 
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, private 
landowners, and developers, which together can implement conservation 
actions that we would be unable to accomplish without these partners. 
Not only are HCPs important for listed species, but they can help 
conserve many species that are not State or federally listed, which 
might not otherwise receive protection absent the HCPs. In most HCP 
cases, permittees agree to do more for the conservation of the species 
and their habitats on private lands than designation of critical 
habitat would provide alone. Therefore, we place great value on the 
partnerships that are developed with HCPs.
    We believe that the exclusion of La Cantera HCP lands from critical 
habitat will help preserve the partnership we have developed with the 
La Cantera Development Company, reinforce those relationships we are 
building with other developers, and foster future partnerships and 
development of future management plans. The La Cantera HCP was 
developed to provide specific protection and management for the 
conservation of Madla Cave meshweaver and Rhadine exilis by purchasing 
and conserving eight caves known to contain one or more of the nine 
Bexar County invertebrates for which take was being permitted. The 
preserve lands under the La Cantera HCP are providing protection for 
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species in a way that is equal to or better than designation of 
critical habitat would provide. Therefore, exclusion of these lands 
under the La Cantera HCP from critical habitat will help preserve the 
partnerships, and will foster future partnerships, and thus future 
conservation efforts.
    Additionally, the La Cantera Development Company has expressed a 
desire to not have lands under their HCP included in our critical 
habitat designation. The La Cantera Development Company asked 
specifically for the preserve lands to be excluded, because the lands 
do not require additional special protection or management. We believe 
that exclusion of the preserve areas will help maintain a good 
relationship with the preserve owner. Also, excluding lands under the 
La Cantera HCP will show that we are committed to our partners to 
further the conservation for the nine Bexar County invertebrates and 
other endangered and threatened species.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
    We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and the 
benefits of exclusion as critical habitat those lands included in the 
La Cantera HCP. We acknowledge that the La Cantera HCP provides 
authorization of incidental take caused by development in areas around 
La Cantera Cave No. 1 and La Cantera Cave No. 2, but we believe that 
there were greater long-term conservation benefits that resulted from 
the implementation of this HCP, because eight cave areas were bought 
and are being managed in perpetuity as preserve areas for conservation 
of the species. Implementation of the La Cantera HCP will occur 
regardless of critical habitat designation. We believe that including 
La Cantera HCP lands in the critical habitat designation will provide 
little additional regulatory protection under section 7(a) of the Act 
when there is a Federal nexus, and educational benefits will be 
redundant with those already achieved through listing, the previous 
critical habitat designation, and areas surrounding the La Cantera HCP 
lands that are being designated as critical habitat by this rule. 
Therefore, we see very little benefit to including the La Cantera HCP 
lands in the critical habitat designation.
    Subsequently, critical habitat may provide a regulatory benefit for 
the Madla Cave meshweaver and Rhadine exilis on lands covered under the 
La Cantera HCP when there is a Federal nexus present for a project that 
might adversely modify critical habitat. Thus, critical habitat 
designation could provide additional protection to the preserve areas 
from adverse impacts of future Federal actions (for example, 
condemnation by a federally funded road expansion project). Without 
this protection, Federal projects that would result in adverse 
modification could be allowed to degrade habitat in the preserves. 
However, the preserve areas under the La Cantera HCP are managed in 
perpetuity for the conservation of the Madla Cave meshweaver and 
Rhadine exilis. Also, the preserve areas are privately owned, and at 
this time, we do not anticipate any future projects that would involve 
a Federal nexus. Therefore, we believe that including the lands covered 
under the La Cantera HCP as critical habitat would provide very little 
regulatory protection.
    Additionally, once an HCP is permitted, implementation of 
conservation measures will occur, regardless of whether critical 
habitat is designated within its plan boundaries, and excluding the 
development areas will clarify the message to Federal agencies and to 
the public that these impacts have already been authorized. Designation 
would confuse Federal agencies and the public about the value of the 
area without providing any meaningful benefits. Designation as critical 
habitat would also mislead Federal agencies and the public that the 
development areas are essential for conservation of the species, while 
providing minimal protection from a Federal project involving land 
condemnation.
    Furthermore, we believe that the educational benefits of critical 
habitat designation on La Cantera HCP lands are not significant due to 
extensive past outreach and ongoing conservation efforts. Also, we are 
designating as critical habitat those lands surrounding lands covered 
by the La Cantera HCP, which already results in educational benefits 
for the listed invertebrates and their habitats without designating the 
La Cantera HCP lands as critical habitat. Thus, an inclusion of the La 
Cantera HCP lands would not provide any additional educational 
benefits.
    In summary, we find that the benefits of excluding the La Cantera 
HCP lands from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of inclusion, 
based on the conservation values outlined in the HCP and summarized 
above. In consideration of the relevant impacts to our relationships 
with non-Federal partners to develop effective management plans that 
provide benefits to species, we determined that the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion in critical habitat. We 
find that excluding lands under the La Cantera HCP will preserve our 
partnership and foster future habitat management and species 
conservation efforts with non-Federal entities. These partnership 
benefits are significant, because they provide protection and 
conservation of species on private lands that would not otherwise occur 
even with critical habitat designation. We believe that these 
partnership benefits outweigh the limited regulatory and educational 
benefits of including these lands in the final critical habitat 
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
    We determined that the exclusion from critical habitat designation 
for Madla Cave meshweaver and Rhadine exilis of approximately 232 ac 
(94 ha) of non-Federal land in Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 17, which are 
covered under the La Cantera HCP, will not result in extinction of 
these species. Under the La Cantera HCP, eight caves containing one

[[Page 8482]]

or more of the nine Bexar County invertebrates has been purchased and 
will be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of these species. 
Additionally, the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act and routine 
implementation of conservation measures through the section 7 process 
due to these species' occupancy and protection provided by the La 
Cantera HCP provide assurances that these species will not go extinct 
as a result of excluding these lands from the critical habitat 
designation. Therefore, based on the above discussion, the Secretary is 
exercising his discretion to exclude approximately 232 ac (94 ha) of 
lands managed by the La Cantera HCP from this final critical habitat 
designation.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

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

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must publish 
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. In this final rule, we are certifying that the critical 
habitat designation for the nine Bexar County invertebrates will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
    According to the Small Business Administration, 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; as well as small businesses. 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 economic impacts on 
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 could significantly affect a substantial 
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities 
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., small 
construction, housing builders, or subdividers). We apply the 
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine 
if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not 
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic 
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of 
small entities are affected by this designation, this analysis 
considers the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted 
in an area. In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat 
designations of limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries 
and consider whether the total number of small entities affected is 
substantial. In estimating the number of small entities potentially 
affected, we also consider whether their activities have any Federal 
involvement.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized, 
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities 
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be 
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is 
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under 
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
that may affect the nine Bexar County invertebrates. Federal agencies 
also must consult with us if their activities may affect critical 
habitat. Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could result in an 
additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to 
reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see Application 
of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard section).
    In our final economic analysis (FEA) of the critical habitat 
designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small 
business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the 
listing of the nine Bexar County invertebrates and the designation of 
critical habitat. The analysis is based on the estimated impacts 
associated with the rulemaking as described in Chapters 1 through 4 and 
Appendix A.1 of the FEA and evaluates the potential for economic 
impacts related to landowners that are small developers, including: (1) 
New single-family housing builders, (2) new multiple housing builders, 
(3) new housing operative builders, and (4) land subdividers.
    The FEA estimates that 20 to 149 small developers (up to 4.5 
percent) may be affected by this rule. Annualized perpetuity impacts 
per entity range from $8,910 to $15,500. This impact is less than 0.25 
percent of average annual sales of these businesses (average annual 
sales are $6.36 million) (Industrial Economics 2011, p. A-7).
    In summary, we considered whether this designation will result in a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
Based on the above reasoning and currently available information, we 
conclude that this rule will not result in a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we are 
certifying that the designation of critical habitat for nine Bexar 
County invertebrates will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required.

[[Page 8483]]

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has provided 
guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine 
outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when 
compared to not taking the regulatory action under consideration.
    As described in Chapter 4 of the FEA, critical habitat designation 
for the nine Bexar County invertebrates is anticipated to impact 
development and transportation activities. Resource extraction, energy 
production, and distribution are not expected to be affected. Because 
none of the outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse 
effect'' are relevant to this analysis, energy-related impacts within 
the critical habitat designation are not anticipated.
    The economic analysis finds that extraction, energy production, and 
distribution are not expected to be affected (Industrial Economics 
2011, p. A-8) and that none of the nine outcomes in OMB's guidance are 
relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic 
analysis, energy-related impacts associated with nine Bexar County 
invertebrates' conservation activities within critical habitat are not 
expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected 
to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
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.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply, nor will 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because the designation of critical habitat 
imposes no obligations on State or local governments. By definition, 
Federal agencies are not considered small entities, although the 
activities they fund or permit may be proposed or carried out by small 
entities. Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat 
designation will significantly or uniquely affect small government 
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), 
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating 
critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates in a takings 
implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of 
critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties 
that receive Federal funding, assistance, or require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency. The FEA found that this 
designation will not affect a substantial number of small entities, but 
there could be costs of development restrictions in the form of reduced 
land values. A number of the private landowners are not small 
businesses. However, we found that 20 of 149 small developers may be 
affected by this designation, but the impact is less than 0.25 percent 
of average annual sales of these businesses. However, based on 
information contained in the FEA and described within this document, it 
is not likely that economic impacts to a property owner will be of a 
sufficient magnitude to support a takings action. We anticipate that 
this critical habitat designation will result in insignificant takings 
implications on these lands. Therefore, the takings implications 
assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for nine 
Bexar County invertebrates does not pose significant takings 
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this rule 
does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism impact 
summary statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the 
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information 
from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation 
with appropriate State resource agencies in Texas. We received comments 
from the Texas State Comptroller and Texas Department of Transportation 
and have

[[Page 8484]]

addressed them in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section 
of this rule. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently 
occupied by the nine Bexar County invertebrates imposes no additional 
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little 
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities. 
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the 
areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements 
of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the 
species are specifically identified. This information does not alter 
where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it 
may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having 
them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable 
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are 
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the 
Act. This final rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies 
the elements of physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the nine Bexar County invertebrates within the 
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat 
needs of the species.

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

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

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating 
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). The designation of 
critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates is entirely 
within the 5th Circuit jurisdiction; therefore, we did not prepare an 
environmental analysis in connection with this critical habitat 
designation.

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

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, 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) by revising the entries for ``Meshweaver, 
Government Canyon Bat Cave'' and ``Spider, Government Canyon Bat Cave'' 
under ARACHNIDS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 8485]]



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


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95 by:
0
a. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the 
Cokendolpher Cave Harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri);
0
b. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the Braken 
Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina venii);
0
c. In paragraph (g), redesignating the critical habitat entry for the 
Kauai Cave Wolf Spider (Adelocosa anops) so that it is in the order in 
which it appears in the table at Sec.  17.11(h);
0
d. In paragraph (g), adding a critical habitat entry for the Government 
Canyon Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina vespera) in the same alphabetical 
order in which the species appears in Sec.  17.11(h);
0
e. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the Madla 
Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina madla);
0
f. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the Robber 
Baron Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina baronia);
0
g. In paragraph (g), adding a critical habitat entry for the Government 
Canyon Bat Cave Spider (Neoleptoneta microps) in the same alphabetical 
order in which the species appears in Sec.  17.11(h);
0
h. In paragraph (i), revising the critical habitat entry for the 
Helotes Mold Beetle (Batrisodes venyivi);
0
i. In paragraph (i), revising the critical habitat entry for the Beetle 
(no common name) (Rhadine exilis); and
0
j. In paragraph (i), revising the critical habitat entry for the Beetle 
(no common name) (Rhadine infernalis), to read as follows.


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (g) Arachnids.

Cokendolpher Cave Harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in Bexar 
County, Texas, occurs in Unit 20 as described in this entry and 
depicted on Map 1 (index map) and Map 2 in this entry.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the 
Cokendolpher Cave harvestman are:
    (i) Karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces (caves and 
connected mesocaverns) with stable temperatures, high humidities (near 
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and 
underneath rocks for foraging and sheltering) that are free of 
contaminants; and
    (ii) Surface and subsurface sources (such as plants and their 
roots, fruits, and leaves, and animal (e.g., cave cricket) eggs, feces, 
and carcasses) that provide nutrient input into the karst ecosystem.
    (3) Developed lands that do not contain the subsurface primary 
constituent elements (see paragraph (2)(i) of this entry) and that 
existed on the effective date of this rule are not considered to be 
critical habitat.
    (4) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (5) Index map of Bexar County invertebrates critical habitat units, 
Bexar County, Texas, follows:

[[Page 8486]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.001

    (6) Unit 20: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 552126, 3264361; 552287, 
3264522; 552357, 3264610; 552436, 3264673; 552536, 3264710; 552654, 
3264726; 552756, 3264714; 552840, 3264685; 552920, 3264644; 552991, 
3264506; 553001, 3264408; 552930, 3264263; 552813, 3264165; 552683, 
3264104; 552571, 3264018; 552485, 3263914; 552285, 3263659; 552175, 
3263484; 552124, 3263435; 552081, 3263341; 551949, 3263214; 551826, 
3263155; 551728, 3263159; 551639, 3263221; 551567, 3263343; 551569, 
3263474; 551606, 3263569; 551704, 3263739; 551777, 3263863; 551969, 
3264165; 552126, 3264361.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 20 follows:

[[Page 8487]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

Braken Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina venii)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Braken Bat Cave meshweaver in Bexar 
County, Texas, occurs in Unit 15, as described in this entry and 
depicted on Map 2 in this entry. Unit 15 is also depicted on Map 1 
(index map) provided at paragraph (5) of the entry for the Cokendolpher 
Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (2) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements 
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Braken Bat Cave 
meshweaver are identical to those set forth at paragraphs (2) and (3) 
of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph 
(g).
    (3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (4) Unit 15: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522689, 3256455; 522687, 
3256517; 522703, 3256601; 522765, 3256718; 522911, 3256823; 523046, 
3256851; 523177, 3256830; 523344, 3256801; 523479, 3256747; 523658, 
3256674; 523725, 3256656; 523834, 3256603; 523918, 3256523; 523969, 
3256419; 523978, 3256293; 523885, 3256159; 523885, 3256069; 523822, 
3256015; 523674, 3255915; 523547, 3255873; 523414, 3255874; 523281, 
3255933; 523201, 3256024; 523017, 3256131; 522987, 3256149; 522940, 
3256160; 522894, 3256168; 522869, 3256174; 522790, 3256246; 522722, 
3256345; 522689, 3256455.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 15 follows:

[[Page 8488]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.003

Government Canyon Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina vespera)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver 
in Bexar County, Texas, occurs in Unit 1b, as described in this entry 
and depicted on Map 2 in this entry. Unit 1b is also depicted on Map 1 
(index map) provided at paragraph (5) of the entry for the Cokendolpher 
Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (2) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements 
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Government 
Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver are identical to those set forth at 
paragraphs (2) and (3) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave 
harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (4) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522172, 3270656; 522202, 
3270794; 522259, 3270889; 522375, 3270977; 522521, 3271014; 522677, 
3270988; 522793, 3270905; 522880, 3270758; 522894, 3270605; 522843, 
3270457; 522724, 3270335; 522571, 3270287; 522401, 3270312; 522280, 
3270382; 522186, 3270538; 522172, 3270656.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f follows:

[[Page 8489]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.004

Madla Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina madla)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Madla Cave meshweaver in Bexar County, 
Texas, occurs in Units 1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 22, as 
described in this entry and depicted on Maps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in 
this entry. Units 1a, 1c, 1d, and 1e are depicted on Map 2, which is 
provided at paragraph (4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon 
Bat Cave meshweaver in this paragraph (g). Units 1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, 
5, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 22 are also depicted on Map 1 (index map) provided 
at paragraph (5) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in 
this paragraph (g).
    (2) Eight caves and their associated karst management areas 
established under the La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit are adjacent to or within the boundaries of Units 
1e, 3, 6, 8, and 17, but are not designated as critical habitat. These 
caves are Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare Cave, Scenic Overlook 
Cave and the surrounding approximately 75 ac (30 ha) adjacent to Unit 
1e; Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop Caves and the surrounding 
approximately 25 ac (10 ha) adjacent to Unit 3; John Wagner Cave No. 3 
and the surrounding approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha) adjacent to Unit 6; 
Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding approximately 70 ac (28 ha) 
adjacent to Unit 8; and Madla's Cave and the surrounding approximately 
5 ac (2 ha) within Unit 17.
    (3) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements 
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Madla Cave 
meshweaver are identical to those set forth at paragraphs (2) and (3) 
of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph 
(g).
    (4) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010

[[Page 8490]]

aerial photography, and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on 
the GIS.
    (5) Unit 1a: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522870, 3272900; 522872, 
3273024; 522919, 3273156; 523000, 3273241; 523124, 3273312; 523284, 
3273323; 523438, 3273258; 523618, 3273132; 523729, 3273041; 523797, 
3272836; 523784, 3272720; 523724, 3272603; 523633, 3272522; 523515, 
3272464; 523406, 3272460; 523276, 3272492; 523041, 3272654; 522939, 
3272737; 522870, 3272900.
    (ii) Note: Unit 1a is depicted on Map 2, provided at paragraph 
(4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver in 
this paragraph (g).
    (6) Unit 1c: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 524033, 3271973; 524063, 
3272110; 524119, 3272206; 524235, 3272294; 524382, 3272331; 524537, 
3272305; 524654, 3272222; 524740, 3272075; 524754, 3271922; 524703, 
3271773; 524585, 3271652; 524431, 3271604; 524262, 3271629; 524140, 
3271699; 524047, 3271855; 524033, 3271973.
    (ii) Note: Unit 1c is depicted on Map 2, provided at paragraph 
(4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver in 
this paragraph (g).
    (7) Unit 1d: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 524739, 3270323; 524739, 
3270454; 524798, 3270590; 524917, 3270699; 525091, 3270744; 525462, 
3270937; 525613, 3271016; 525757, 3271026; 525893, 3270977; 526000, 
3270883; 526059, 3270741; 526062, 3270603; 525980, 3270370; 525836, 
3270243; 525700, 3270206; 525289, 3270072; 525153, 3270020; 525016, 
3270023; 524883, 3270092; 524788, 3270191; 524739, 3270323.
    (ii) Note: Unit 1d is depicted on Map 2, provided at paragraph 
(4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver in 
this paragraph (g).
    (8) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 526403, 3273634; 526465, 
3273472; 526487, 3273282; 526506, 3273157; 526879, 3273092; 527025, 
3273129; 527180, 3273102; 527297, 3273019; 527383, 3272873; 527398, 
3272719; 527346, 3272571; 527228, 3272449; 527075, 3272402; 526905, 
3272426; 526783, 3272497; 526472, 3272434; 526435, 3272318; 526460, 
3272223; 526443, 3272077; 526356, 3271945; 526158, 3271842; 525997, 
3271842; 525854, 3271930; 525762, 3272044; 525703, 3272205; 525729, 
3272352; 525802, 3272494; 525890, 3272776; 525876, 3272894; 525858, 
3272918; 525912, 3272925; 525904, 3272945; 525903, 3272947; 525903, 
3272949; 525902, 3272950; 525902, 3272952; 525901, 3272954; 525901, 
3272956; 525900, 3272957; 525900, 3272959; 525899, 3272961; 525899, 
3272963; 525898, 3272965; 525898, 3272966; 525898, 3272968; 525898, 
3272970; 525897, 3272972; 525897, 3272974; 525897, 3272975; 525897, 
3272977; 525897, 3272979; 525897, 3272981; 525897, 3272983; 525897, 
3272985; 525897, 3272986; 525897, 3272988; 525897, 3272990; 525897, 
3272992; 525897, 3272994; 525897, 3272996; 525897, 3272997; 525898, 
3272999; 525898, 3273001; 525898, 3273003; 525899, 3273005; 525899, 
3273007; 525899, 3273008; 525900, 3273010; 525900, 3273012; 525901, 
3273014; 525901, 3273015; 525902, 3273017; 525902, 3273019; 525903, 
3273021; 525904, 3273022; 525904, 3273024; 525905, 3273026; 525906, 
3273027; 525906, 3273029; 525907, 3273031; 525908, 3273032; 525909, 
3273034; 525910, 3273036; 525911, 3273037; 525912, 3273039; 525913, 
3273040; 525914, 3273042; 525915, 3273044; 525916, 3273045; 525917, 
3273047; 525918, 3273048; 525919, 3273049; 525920, 3273051; 525921, 
3273052; 525923, 3273054; 525924, 3273055; 525925, 3273056; 525926, 
3273058; 525928, 3273059; 525929, 3273060; 525930, 3273062; 525932, 
3273063; 525933, 3273064; 525934, 3273065; 525936, 3273066; 525937, 
3273068; 525939, 3273069; 525940, 3273070; 525942, 3273071; 525943, 
3273072; 525945, 3273073; 525946, 3273074; 525948, 3273075; 525949, 
3273076; 525951, 3273077; 525953, 3273078; 525954, 3273078; 525956, 
3273079; 525958, 3273080; 526305, 3273293; 526303, 3273302; 526276, 
3273412; 526276, 3273412; 526254, 3273499; 526202, 3273564; 526023, 
3273523; 525917, 3273448; 525824, 3273382; 525786, 3273440; 525587, 
3273259; 525586, 3273260; 525572, 3273363; 525594, 3273505; 525693, 
3273659; 525876, 3273765; 526048, 3273798; 526253, 3273754; 526403, 
3273634.
    (ii) Note: Unit 1e is depicted on Map 2, provided at paragraph 
(4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver in 
this paragraph (g).
    (9) Unit 2: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 527508, 3276359; 527444, 
3276287; 527343, 3276226; 527229, 3276204; 527117, 3276216; 527116, 
3276253; 527085, 3276279; 527003, 3276270; 526933, 3276334; 526905, 
3276386; 526783, 3276386; 526851, 3276555; 526850, 3276556; 526864, 
3276662; 526908, 3276736; 526960, 3276801; 527010, 3276865; 527213, 
3277098; 527281, 3277166; 527392, 3277230; 527536, 3277252; 527711, 
3277190; 527805, 3277102; 527857, 3277003; 527869, 3276903; 527861, 
3276787; 527803, 3276674; 527699, 3276578; 527644, 3276515; 527643, 
3276397; 527630, 3276386; 527530, 3276384; 527508, 3276359.
    (ii) Note: Map 3 of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 8491]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.005

    (10) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529906, 3272892; 529975, 
3272934; 529993, 3272946; 529996, 3272945; 529998, 3272943; 530001, 
3272942; 530004, 3272940; 530006, 3272938; 530007, 3272938; 530020, 
3272926; 530026, 3272920; 530030, 3272917; 530032, 3272915; 530043, 
3272905; 530045, 3272903; 530045, 3272902; 530046, 3272901; 530047, 
3272900; 530049, 3272897; 530050, 3272895; 530050, 3272895; 530120, 
3272932; 530134, 3272895; 530165, 3272898; 530159, 3272895; 530124, 
3272875; 530112, 3272843; 530083, 3272805; 530081, 3272805; 530049, 
3272774; 530020, 3272734; 529995, 3272714; 529909, 3272671; 529790, 
3272649; 529688, 3272658; 529646, 3272723; 529589, 3272792; 529584, 
3272798; 529600, 3272911; 529558, 3272947; 529514, 3272978; 529473, 
3272968; 529445, 3273019; 529423, 3273086; 529449, 3273173; 529482, 
3273196; 529507, 3273216; 529496, 3273253; 529504, 3273344; 529564, 
3273416; 529676, 3273477; 529771, 3273499; 529870, 3273496; 529918, 
3273447; 529970, 3273351; 530058, 3273320; 530110, 3273233; 530105, 
3273183; 530099, 3273138; 530128, 3273120; 530096, 3273123; 530057, 
3273126; 530055, 3273143; 530048, 3273180; 530057, 3273190; 530057, 
3273190; 530049, 3273191; 530038, 3273192; 530002, 3273195; 529946, 
3273200; 529916, 3273202; 529898, 3273204; 529897, 3273204; 529680, 
3273221; 529753, 3273117; 529764, 3273100; 529836, 3272993; 529845, 
3272981; 529906, 3272892.
    (ii) Note: Map 4 of Units 3 and 4 follows:

[[Page 8492]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.006

    (11) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529536, 3275753; 529533, 
3275931; 529585, 3276056; 529741, 3276191; 529927, 3276249; 530112, 
3276208; 530275, 3276093; 530350, 3275987; 530318, 3275927; 530238, 
3275838; 530169, 3275776; 530109, 3275735; 529970, 3275629; 529950, 
3275603; 529936, 3275565; 529781, 3275523; 529719, 3275529; 529621, 
3275548; 529566, 3275611; 529536, 3275753.
    (ii) Note: Map 5 of Units 5, 6, and 17 follows:

[[Page 8493]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.007

    (12) Unit 6: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 531676, 3275515; 531639, 
3275342; 531576, 3275302; 531483, 3275283; 531331, 3275337; 531242, 
3275350; 531189, 3275346; 531193, 3275501; 531094, 3275501; 531094, 
3275378; 531072, 3275398; 530953, 3275478; 530909, 3275521; 530851, 
3275661; 530871, 3275702; 530981, 3275903; 531119, 3275970; 531335, 
3275950; 531512, 3275851; 531615, 3275701; 531676, 3275515.
    (ii) Note: Unit 6 is depicted on Map 5, provided at paragraph 
(10)(ii) of this entry.
    (13) Unit 8: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 535007, 3274657; 535063, 
3274624; 535096, 3274626; 535133, 3274610; 535173, 3274570; 535222, 
3274516; 535282, 3274478; 535302, 3274450; 535290, 3274359; 535238, 
3274250; 535215, 3274045; 535226, 3273947; 535209, 3273836; 535160, 
3273741; 535056, 3273640; 535027, 3273631; 535026, 3273654; 535022, 
3273714; 535018, 3273721; 535013, 3273730; 534992, 3273775; 534988, 
3273784; 534962, 3273838; 534962, 3273838; 534936, 3273892; 534909, 
3273947; 534909, 3273947; 534883, 3274002; 534856, 3274057; 534856, 
3274057; 534813, 3274142; 534708, 3274141; 534625, 3274140; 534519, 
3274140; 534389, 3274145; 534389, 3274132; 534168, 3274322; 534058, 
3274551; 533966, 3274645; 533893, 3274683; 533848, 3274736; 533839, 
3274809; 533853, 3274895; 533905, 3274965; 534037, 3275030; 534156, 
3275037;

[[Page 8494]]

534290, 3274997; 534292, 3274995; 534881, 3274809; 534894, 3274782; 
534931, 3274737; 534962, 3274695; 535007, 3274657.
    (ii) Note: Map 6 of Unit 8 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.008
    
    (14) Unit 9: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 536971, 3273194; 537058, 
3273204; 537958, 3273349; 538025, 3273049; 538011, 3273033; 537743, 
3272819; 537663, 3272828; 537645, 3272742; 537602, 3272707; 537551, 
3272712; 537500, 3272684; 537412, 3272713; 537309, 3272793; 537213, 
3272912; 537167, 3273017; 537121, 3273038; 537084, 3273013; 537008, 
3273129; 536943, 3273082; 536897, 3273099; 536879, 3273117; 536871, 
3273154; 536887, 3273183; 536971, 3273194.
    (ii) Note: Map 7 of Unit 9 follows:

[[Page 8495]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.009

    (15) Unit 17: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 528980, 3275191; 529043, 
3275247; 529120, 3275242; 529245, 3275219; 529327, 3275184; 529348, 
3275167; 529492, 3275167; 529613, 3275113; 529800, 3275081; 529870, 
3274953; 529819, 3274777; 529698, 3274627; 529486, 3274528; 529360, 
3274615; 529335, 3274712; 529174, 3274840; 528968, 3274859; 528957, 
3275049; 528980, 3275191.
    (ii) Not including land within and bounded by the following UTM 
Zone 14N, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 
529490, 3275008; 529490, 3275006; 529490, 3275005; 529490, 3275003; 
529490, 3275002; 529489, 3275001; 529489, 3274999; 529489, 3274998; 
529489, 3274997; 529489, 3274995; 529489, 3274994; 529488, 3274993; 
529488, 3274992; 529489, 3274991; 529489, 3274986; 529489, 3274983; 
529489, 3274982; 529482, 3274919; 529329, 3274930; 529337, 3274993; 
529337, 3274993; 529337, 3274994; 529336, 3274995; 529337, 3274997; 
529337, 3274998; 529336, 3274999; 529336, 3275001; 529336, 3275002; 
529336, 3275003; 529336, 3275005; 529336, 3275006; 529336, 3275008; 
529336, 3275009; 529336, 3275010; 529336, 3275012; 529336, 3275013; 
529336, 3275014; 529336, 3275016; 529337, 3275017; 529337, 3275018; 
529337, 3275020; 529337, 3275021; 529337, 3275022; 529338, 3275023; 
529338, 3275025; 529338, 3275026; 529339, 3275027; 529339, 3275029; 
529339, 3275030; 529340, 3275031; 529340, 3275033; 529341, 3275034; 
529341, 3275035; 529342, 3275036; 529342, 3275038; 529343, 3275039; 
529343, 3275040; 529344, 3275041; 529344, 3275042; 529345, 3275044; 
529346, 3275045; 529346, 3275046; 529347, 3275047; 529348, 3275048; 
529348, 3275049; 529349, 3275050; 529350, 3275052; 529351, 3275053; 
529351,

[[Page 8496]]

3275054; 529352, 3275055; 529353, 3275056; 529354, 3275057; 529355, 
3275058; 529356, 3275059; 529357, 3275060; 529358, 3275061; 529359, 
3275062; 529359, 3275063; 529360, 3275064; 529361, 3275065; 529362, 
3275066; 529363, 3275066; 529364, 3275067; 529366, 3275068; 529367, 
3275069; 529368, 3275070; 529369, 3275070; 529370, 3275071; 529371, 
3275072; 529372, 3275073; 529373, 3275073; 529374, 3275074; 529376, 
3275075; 529377, 3275075; 529378, 3275076; 529379, 3275077; 529380, 
3275077; 529382, 3275078; 529383, 3275078; 529384, 3275079; 529385, 
3275079; 529387, 3275080; 529388, 3275080; 529389, 3275081; 529390, 
3275081; 529392, 3275081; 529393, 3275082; 529394, 3275082; 529396, 
3275082; 529397, 3275083; 529398, 3275083; 529399, 3275083; 529401, 
3275083; 529402, 3275084; 529403, 3275084; 529405, 3275084; 529406, 
3275084; 529407, 3275084; 529409, 3275084; 529410, 3275084; 529412, 
3275084; 529413, 3275084; 529414, 3275084; 529416, 3275084; 529417, 
3275084; 529418, 3275084; 529420, 3275084; 529421, 3275084; 529422, 
3275084; 529424, 3275084; 529425, 3275083; 529426, 3275083; 529428, 
3275083; 529429, 3275083; 529430, 3275082; 529431, 3275082; 529433, 
3275082; 529434, 3275081; 529435, 3275081; 529437, 3275081; 529438, 
3275080; 529439, 3275080; 529440, 3275079; 529442, 3275079; 529443, 
3275078; 529444, 3275078; 529445, 3275077; 529447, 3275077; 529448, 
3275076; 529449, 3275075; 529450, 3275075; 529451, 3275074; 529452, 
3275073; 529454, 3275073; 529455, 3275072; 529456, 3275071; 529457, 
3275070; 529458, 3275070; 529459, 3275069; 529460, 3275068; 529461, 
3275067; 529462, 3275066; 529463, 3275066; 529464, 3275065; 529465, 
3275064; 529466, 3275063; 529467, 3275062; 529468, 3275061; 529469, 
3275060; 529470, 3275059; 529471, 3275058; 529472, 3275057; 529473, 
3275056; 529473, 3275055; 529474, 3275054; 529475, 3275053; 529476, 
3275052; 529477, 3275050; 529477, 3275049; 529478, 3275048; 529479, 
3275047; 529479, 3275046; 529480, 3275045; 529481, 3275044; 529481, 
3275042; 529482, 3275041; 529482, 3275040; 529483, 3275039; 529484, 
3275038; 529484, 3275036; 529485, 3275035; 529485, 3275034; 529486, 
3275033; 529486, 3275031; 529486, 3275030; 529487, 3275029; 529487, 
3275027; 529487, 3275026; 529488, 3275025; 529488, 3275023; 529488, 
3275022; 529489, 3275021; 529489, 3275020; 529489, 3275018; 529489, 
3275017; 529489, 3275016; 529489, 3275014; 529490, 3275013; 529490, 
3275012; 529490, 3275010; 529490, 3275009; 529490, 3275008.
    (iii) Note: Unit 17 is depicted on Map 5, provided at paragraph 
(11)(ii) of this entry.
    (16) Unit 22: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 533735, 3278278; 533765, 
3278416; 533821, 3278511; 533938, 3278599; 534084, 3278636; 534240, 
3278610; 534356, 3278527; 534443, 3278380; 534457, 3278227; 534406, 
3278079; 534287, 3277957; 534134, 3277909; 533964, 3277934; 533843, 
3278004; 533749, 3278160; 533735, 3278278.
    (ii) Note: Map 8 of Unit 22 follows:

[[Page 8497]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.010

Robber Baron Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina baronia)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Robber Baron Cave meshweaver in Bexar 
County, Texas, occurs in Units 20 and 25. Unit 20 is described as set 
forth, and depicted on Map 2 provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the entry 
for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g). Unit 25 is 
described in this entry and depicted on Map 3 in this entry. Units 20 
and 25 are also depicted on Map 1 (index map) provided in paragraph (5) 
of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph 
(g).
    (2) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements 
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Robber Baron 
Cave meshweaver are identical to those set forth in paragraphs (2) and 
(3) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph 
(g).
    (3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (4) Unit 20: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 552126, 3264361; 552287, 
3264522; 552357, 3264610; 552436, 3264673; 552536, 3264710; 552654, 
3264726; 552756, 3264714; 552840, 3264685; 552920, 3264644; 552991, 
3264506; 553001, 3264408; 552930, 3264263; 552813, 3264165; 552683, 
3264104; 552571, 3264018; 552485, 3263914; 552285, 3263659; 552175, 
3263484; 552124, 3263435; 552081, 3263341; 551949, 3263214; 551826, 
3263155; 551728, 3263159; 551639, 3263221; 551567, 3263343; 551569, 
3263474; 551606, 3263569; 551704, 3263739;

[[Page 8498]]

551777, 3263863; 551969, 3264165; 552126, 3264361.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 20 is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the 
entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (5) Unit 25: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 549856, 3258720; 549779, 
3258722; 549776, 3258797; 549750, 3258818; 549485, 3258818; 549451, 
3258796; 549450, 3258759; 549391, 3258759; 549302, 3258907; 549288, 
3259025; 549281, 3259323; 549294, 3259345; 549486, 3259471; 549700, 
3259499; 549933, 3259412; 549943, 3259217; 549819, 3259100; 549840, 
3259045; 549869, 3259019; 549861, 3258961; 549846, 3258934; 549846, 
3258909; 549891, 3258888; 549961, 3258869; 549968, 3258839; 549972, 
3258752; 549856, 3258720.
    (ii) Note: Map 3 of Unit 25 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.011
    
Government Canyon Bat Cave Spider (Neoleptoneta microps)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Government Canyon Bat Cave spider in 
Bexar County, Texas, occurs in Unit 1b, as described at paragraph 
(4)(i) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver in 
this paragraph (g). Unit 1b is also depicted on Map 1 (index map) 
provided at paragraph (5) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave 
harvestman in this paragraph (g), and on Map 2 (Unit 1b) provided at 
paragraph (4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave 
meshweaver in this paragraph (g).
    (2) The primary constituent elements of, and statements regarding 
developed lands in, critical habitat for the Government Canyon Bat Cave 
spider are

[[Page 8499]]

identical to those set forth at paragraphs (2) and (3) of the entry for 
the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
    (3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (4) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522172, 3270656; 522202, 
3270794; 522259, 3270889; 522375, 3270977; 522521, 3271014; 522677, 
3270988; 522793, 3270905; 522880, 3270758; 522894, 3270605; 522843, 
3270457; 522724, 3270335; 522571, 3270287; 522401, 3270312; 522280, 
3270382; 522186, 3270538; 522172, 3270656.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1b is provided at paragraph (4)(ii) in the 
entry for the Government Canyon Cave meshweaver in this paragraph (g).
* * * * *
    (i) Insects.
* * * * *

Helotes Mold Beetle (Batrisodes venyivi)

    (1) Critical habitat for the Helotes mold beetle in Bexar County, 
Texas, occurs in Units 1e, 3, and 5 as described in this entry and 
depicted on Maps 1 (index map), 2, 4, and 5 of this entry.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Batrisodes venyivi are:
    (i) Karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces (caves and 
connected mesocaverns) with stable temperatures, high humidities (near 
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and 
underneath rocks for foraging and sheltering) that are free of 
contaminants; and
    (ii) Surface and subsurface sources (such as plants and their 
roots, fruits, and leaves, and animal (e.g., cave cricket) eggs, feces, 
and carcasses) that provide nutrient input into the karst ecosystem.
    (3) Developed lands that do not contain the subsurface primary 
constituent elements (see paragraph (2)(i) of this entry) and that 
existed on the effective date of this rule are not considered to be 
critical habitat.
    (4) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a 
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations, 
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, 
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (5) Index map of Bexar County invertebrates critical habitat units, 
Bexar County, Texas, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.012

    (6) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 526403, 3273634; 526465, 
3273472; 526487, 3273282; 526506, 3273157; 526879, 3273092; 527025, 
3273129; 527180, 3273102; 527297, 3273019; 527383, 3272873; 527398, 
3272719; 527346, 3272571; 527228, 3272449; 527075, 3272402; 526905, 
3272426; 526783, 3272497; 526472, 3272434; 526435, 3272318; 526460, 
3272223; 526443, 3272077; 526356, 3271945; 526158, 3271842; 525997, 
3271842; 525854, 3271930; 525762, 3272044; 525703, 3272205; 525729, 
3272352; 525802, 3272494; 525890, 3272776; 525876, 3272894; 525858, 
3272918; 525912, 3272925; 525904, 3272945; 525903, 3272947; 525903, 
3272949;

[[Page 8500]]

525902, 3272950; 525902, 3272952; 525901, 3272954; 525901, 3272956; 
525900, 3272957; 525900, 3272959; 525899, 3272961; 525899, 3272963; 
525898, 3272965; 525898, 3272966; 525898, 3272968; 525898, 3272970; 
525897, 3272972; 525897, 3272974; 525897, 3272975; 525897, 3272977; 
525897, 3272979; 525897, 3272981; 525897, 3272983; 525897, 3272985; 
525897, 3272986; 525897, 3272988; 525897, 3272990; 525897, 3272992; 
525897, 3272994; 525897, 3272996; 525897, 3272997; 525898, 3272999; 
525898, 3273001; 525898, 3273003; 525899, 3273005; 525899, 3273007; 
525899, 3273008; 525900, 3273010; 525900, 3273012; 525901, 3273014; 
525901, 3273015; 525902, 3273017; 525902, 3273019; 525903, 3273021; 
525904, 3273022; 525904, 3273024; 525905, 3273026; 525906, 3273027; 
525906, 3273029; 525907, 3273031; 525908, 3273032; 525909, 3273034; 
525910, 3273036; 525911, 3273037; 525912, 3273039; 525913, 3273040; 
525914, 3273042; 525915, 3273044; 525916, 3273045; 525917, 3273047; 
525918, 3273048; 525919, 3273049; 525920, 3273051; 525921, 3273052; 
525923, 3273054; 525924, 3273055; 525925, 3273056; 525926, 3273058; 
525928, 3273059; 525929, 3273060; 525930, 3273062; 525932, 3273063; 
525933, 3273064; 525934, 3273065; 525936, 3273066; 525937, 3273068; 
525939, 3273069; 525940, 3273070; 525942, 3273071; 525943, 3273072; 
525945, 3273073; 525946, 3273074; 525948, 3273075; 525949, 3273076; 
525951, 3273077; 525953, 3273078; 525954, 3273078; 525956, 3273079; 
525958, 3273080; 526305, 3273293; 526303, 3273302; 526276, 3273412; 
526276, 3273412; 526254, 3273499; 526202, 3273564; 526023, 3273523; 
525917, 3273448; 525824, 3273382; 525786, 3273440; 525587, 3273259; 
525586, 3273260; 525572, 3273363; 525594, 3273505; 525693, 3273659; 
525876, 3273765; 526048, 3273798; 526253, 3273754; 526403, 3273634.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f follows:

[[Page 8501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.013

    (7) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529906, 3272892; 529975, 
3272934; 529993, 3272946; 529996, 3272945; 529998, 3272943; 530001, 
3272942; 530004, 3272940; 530006, 3272938; 530007, 3272938; 530020, 
3272926; 530026, 3272920; 530030, 3272917; 530032, 3272915; 530043, 
3272905; 530045, 3272903; 530045, 3272902; 530046, 3272901; 530047, 
3272900; 530049, 3272897; 530050, 3272895; 530050, 3272895; 530120, 
3272932; 530134, 3272895; 530165, 3272898; 530159, 3272895; 530124, 
3272875; 530112, 3272843; 530083, 3272805; 530081, 3272805; 530049, 
3272774; 530020, 3272734; 529995, 3272714; 529909, 3272671; 529790, 
3272649; 529688, 3272658; 529646, 3272723; 529589, 3272792; 529584, 
3272798; 529600, 3272911; 529558, 3272947; 529514, 3272978; 529473, 
3272968; 529445, 3273019; 529423, 3273086; 529449, 3273173; 529482, 
3273196; 529507, 3273216; 529496, 3273253; 529504, 3273344; 529564, 
3273416; 529676, 3273477; 529771, 3273499; 529870, 3273496; 529918, 
3273447; 529970, 3273351; 530058, 3273320; 530110, 3273233; 530105, 
3273183; 530099, 3273138; 530128, 3273120; 530096, 3273123; 530057, 
3273126; 530055, 3273143; 530048, 3273180; 530057, 3273190; 530057, 
3273190; 530049, 3273191; 530038, 3273192; 530002, 3273195; 529946, 
3273200; 529916, 3273202; 529898, 3273204; 529897, 3273204; 529680, 
3273221; 529753, 3273117; 529764, 3273100; 529836, 3272993; 529845, 
3272981; 529906, 3272892.
    (ii) Note: Map 4 of Units 3 and 4 follows:

[[Page 8502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.014

    (8) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529536, 3275753; 529533, 
3275931; 529585, 3276056; 529741, 3276191; 529927, 3276249; 530112, 
3276208; 530275, 3276093; 530350, 3275987; 530318, 3275927; 530238, 
3275838; 530169, 3275776; 530109, 3275735; 529970, 3275629; 529950, 
3275603; 529936, 3275565; 529781, 3275523; 529719, 3275529; 529621, 
3275548; 529566, 3275611; 529536, 3275753.
    (ii) Note: Map 5 of Units 5, 6, and 17 follows:

[[Page 8503]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.015

Beetle (No Common Name) (Rhadine exilis)

    (1) Critical habitat for the beetle (Rhadine exilis) in Bexar 
County, Texas, occurs in Units 1b, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11e, 
12, 13, and 21, and is depicted on Maps 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 18 
in this entry, and on Maps 2, 4, and 5, provided at paragraphs (6), 
(7), and (8) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph 
(i). The units are also depicted on Map 1 (index map) provided in 
paragraph (5) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i).
    (2) Eight caves and their associated karst management areas 
established under the La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit are adjacent to or within the boundaries of Units 
1e, 3, 6, 8, and 17, but are not designated as critical habitat. These 
caves are Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare Cave, Scenic Overlook 
Cave and the surrounding approximately 75 ac (30 ha) adjacent to Unit 
1e; Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop Caves and the surrounding 
approximately 25 ac (10 ha) adjacent to Unit 3; John Wagner Cave No. 3 
and the surrounding approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha) adjacent to Unit 6; 
Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding approximately 70 ac (28 ha) 
adjacent to Unit 8; and Madla's Cave and the surrounding approximately 
5 ac (2 ha) within Unit 17.
    (3) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements 
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for Rhadine exilis are 
identical to those set forth at paragraphs (2) and (3) of the entry for 
the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using a geographic 
information system (GIS), which included cave locations, karst zone 
maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, and USGS 
7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.

[[Page 8504]]

    (5) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522172, 3270656; 522202, 
3270794; 522259, 3270889; 522375, 3270977; 522521, 3271014; 522677, 
3270988; 522793, 3270905; 522880, 3270758; 522894, 3270605; 522843, 
3270457; 522724, 3270335; 522571, 3270287; 522401, 3270312; 522280, 
3270382; 522186, 3270538; 522172, 3270656.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1b is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (6) Unit 1d: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 524739, 3270323; 524739, 
3270454; 524798, 3270590; 524917, 3270699; 525091, 3270744; 525462, 
3270937; 525613, 3271016; 525757, 3271026; 525893, 3270977; 526000, 
3270883; 526059, 3270741; 526062, 3270603; 525980, 3270370; 525836, 
3270243; 525700, 3270206; 525289, 3270072; 525153, 3270020; 525016, 
3270023; 524883, 3270092; 524788, 3270191; 524739, 3270323.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1d is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (7) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 526403, 3273634; 526465, 
3273472; 526487, 3273282; 526506, 3273157; 526879, 3273092; 527025, 
3273129; 527180, 3273102; 527297, 3273019; 527383, 3272873; 527398, 
3272719; 527346, 3272571; 527228, 3272449; 527075, 3272402; 526905, 
3272426; 526783, 3272497; 526472, 3272434; 526435, 3272318; 526460, 
3272223; 526443, 3272077; 526356, 3271945; 526158, 3271842; 525997, 
3271842; 525854, 3271930; 525762, 3272044; 525703, 3272205; 525729, 
3272352; 525802, 3272494; 525890, 3272776; 525876, 3272894; 525858, 
3272918; 525912, 3272925; 525904, 3272945; 525903, 3272947; 525903, 
3272949; 525902, 3272950; 525902, 3272952; 525901, 3272954; 525901, 
3272956; 525900, 3272957; 525900, 3272959; 525899, 3272961; 525899, 
3272963; 525898, 3272965; 525898, 3272966; 525898, 3272968; 525898, 
3272970; 525897, 3272972; 525897, 3272974; 525897, 3272975; 525897, 
3272977; 525897, 3272979; 525897, 3272981; 525897, 3272983; 525897, 
3272985; 525897, 3272986; 525897, 3272988; 525897, 3272990; 525897, 
3272992; 525897, 3272994; 525897, 3272996; 525897, 3272997; 525898, 
3272999; 525898, 3273001; 525898, 3273003; 525899, 3273005; 525899, 
3273007; 525899, 3273008; 525900, 3273010; 525900, 3273012; 525901, 
3273014; 525901, 3273015; 525902, 3273017; 525902, 3273019; 525903, 
3273021; 525904, 3273022; 525904, 3273024; 525905, 3273026; 525906, 
3273027; 525906, 3273029; 525907, 3273031; 525908, 3273032; 525909, 
3273034; 525910, 3273036; 525911, 3273037; 525912, 3273039; 525913, 
3273040; 525914, 3273042; 525915, 3273044; 525916, 3273045; 525917, 
3273047; 525918, 3273048; 525919, 3273049; 525920, 3273051; 525921, 
3273052; 525923, 3273054; 525924, 3273055; 525925, 3273056; 525926, 
3273058; 525928, 3273059; 525929, 3273060; 525930, 3273062; 525932, 
3273063; 525933, 3273064; 525934, 3273065; 525936, 3273066; 525937, 
3273068; 525939, 3273069; 525940, 3273070; 525942, 3273071; 525943, 
3273072; 525945, 3273073; 525946, 3273074; 525948, 3273075; 525949, 
3273076; 525951, 3273077; 525953, 3273078; 525954, 3273078; 525956, 
3273079; 525958, 3273080; 526305, 3273293; 526303, 3273302; 526276, 
3273412; 526276, 3273412; 526254, 3273499; 526202, 3273564; 526023, 
3273523; 525917, 3273448; 525824, 3273382; 525786, 3273440; 525587, 
3273259; 525586, 3273260; 525572, 3273363; 525594, 3273505; 525693, 
3273659; 525876, 3273765; 526048, 3273798; 526253, 3273754; 526403, 
3273634.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1e is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (8) Unit 2: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 527508, 3276359; 527444, 
3276287; 527343, 3276226; 527229, 3276204; 527117, 3276216; 527116, 
3276253; 527085, 3276279; 527003, 3276270; 526933, 3276334; 526905, 
3276386; 526783, 3276386; 526851, 3276555; 526850, 3276556; 526864, 
3276662; 526908, 3276736; 526960, 3276801; 527010, 3276865; 527213, 
3277098; 527281, 3277166; 527392, 3277230; 527536, 3277252; 527711, 
3277190; 527805, 3277102; 527857, 3277003; 527869, 3276903; 527861, 
3276787; 527803, 3276674; 527699, 3276578; 527644, 3276515; 527643, 
3276397; 527630, 3276386; 527530, 3276384; 527508, 3276359.
    (ii) Note: Map 3 of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 8505]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.016

    (9) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529583, 3272798; 529599, 
3272911; 529557, 3272947; 529513, 3272978; 529473, 3272967; 529445, 
3273019; 529422, 3273086; 529448, 3273172; 529481, 3273196; 529507, 
3273216; 529496, 3273252; 529503, 3273343; 529563, 3273415; 529676, 
3273477; 529771, 3273498; 529870, 3273496; 529917, 3273446; 529970, 
3273350; 530057, 3273319; 530110, 3273232; 530104, 3273182; 530099, 
3273138; 530147, 3273107; 530178, 3273102; 530182, 3273047; 530190, 
3273009; 530208, 3272933; 530211, 3272920; 530159, 3272895; 530123, 
3272875; 530112, 3272843; 530083, 3272804; 530081, 3272804; 530049, 
3272773; 530020, 3272733; 529995, 3272713; 529909, 3272670; 529790, 
3272648; 529687, 3272657; 529646, 3272722; 529588, 3272791; 529583, 
3272798.
    (ii) Note: Units 3 and 4 are depicted on Map 4, which is provided 
at paragraph (7)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i).
    (10) Unit 4: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 530856, 3272567; 530829, 
3272537; 530779, 3272510; 530734, 3272516; 530717, 3272422; 530676, 
3272341; 530620, 3272272; 530531, 3272213; 530417, 3272180; 530271, 
3272194; 530240, 3272264; 530185, 3272283; 530180, 3272385; 530234, 
3272501; 530209, 3272542; 530206, 3272578; 530217, 3272624; 530247, 
3272658; 530294, 3272681; 530349, 3272685; 530367, 3272699; 530396, 
3272702; 530448, 3272698; 530442, 3272851; 530447, 3272909; 530473, 
3272992; 530595, 3273076; 530685, 3273138; 530683, 3273167; 530640, 
3273210; 530578, 3273224; 530471, 3273226; 530441, 3273259; 530396, 
3273326; 530369, 3273344; 530362, 3273412;

[[Page 8506]]

530385, 3273503; 530436, 3273540; 530493, 3273576; 530498, 3273608; 
530591, 3273684; 530668, 3273720; 530738, 3273733; 530903, 3273657; 
530959, 3273526; 530967, 3273452; 530973, 3273424; 531003, 3273401; 
531069, 3273343; 531081, 3273277; 531099, 3273245; 531134, 3273194; 
531222, 3273176; 531252, 3273111; 531282, 3273015; 531205, 3272961; 
531135, 3272916; 531056, 3272822; 530975, 3272780; 530909, 3272689; 
530855, 3272599; 530856, 3272567.
    (ii) Note: Units 3 and 4 are depicted on Map 4, which is provided 
at paragraph (7)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i).
    (11) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529536, 3275753; 529533, 
3275931; 529585, 3276056; 529741, 3276191; 529927, 3276249; 530112, 
3276208; 530275, 3276093; 530350, 3275987; 530318, 3275927; 530238, 
3275838; 530169, 3275776; 530109, 3275735; 529970, 3275629; 529950, 
3275603; 529936, 3275565; 529781, 3275523; 529719, 3275529; 529621, 
3275548; 529566, 3275611; 529536, 3275753.
    (ii) Note: Units 5, 6, and 17 are depicted on Map 5, which is 
provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle 
in this paragraph (i).
    (12) Unit 6: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 531676, 3275515; 531639, 
3275342; 531576, 3275302; 531483, 3275283; 531331, 3275337; 531242, 
3275350; 531189, 3275346; 531193, 3275501; 531094, 3275501; 531094, 
3275378; 531072, 3275398; 530953, 3275478; 530909, 3275521; 530851, 
3275661; 530871, 3275702; 530981, 3275903; 531119, 3275970; 531335, 
3275950; 531512, 3275851; 531615, 3275701; 531676, 3275515.
    (ii) Note: Units 5 and 6 are depicted on Map 5, which is provided 
at paragraph (8)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this 
paragraph (i).
    (13) Unit 7: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 531798, 3277694; 531828, 
3277832; 531885, 3277927; 532001, 3278016; 532148, 3278053; 532303, 
3278026; 532420, 3277943; 532506, 3277797; 532520, 3277643; 532469, 
3277495; 532351, 3277373; 532197, 3277326; 532028, 3277350; 531906, 
3277421; 531812, 3277576; 531798, 3277694.
    (ii) Note: Map 6 of Unit 7 follows:

[[Page 8507]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.017

    (14) Unit 8: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 535007, 3274657; 535063, 
3274624; 535096, 3274626; 535133, 3274610; 535173, 3274570; 535222, 
3274516; 535282, 3274478; 535302, 3274450; 535290, 3274359; 535238, 
3274250; 535215, 3274045; 535226, 3273947; 535209, 3273836; 535160, 
3273741; 535056, 3273640; 535027, 3273631; 535026, 3273654; 535022, 
3273714; 535018, 3273721; 535013, 3273730; 534992, 3273775; 534988, 
3273784; 534962, 3273838; 534962, 3273838; 534936, 3273892; 534909, 
3273947; 534909, 3273947; 534883, 3274002; 534856, 3274057; 534856, 
3274057; 534813, 3274142; 534708, 3274141; 534625, 3274140; 534519, 
3274140; 534389, 3274145; 534389, 3274132; 534168, 3274322; 534058, 
3274551; 533966, 3274645; 533893, 3274683; 533848, 3274736; 533839, 
3274809; 533853, 3274895; 533905, 3274965; 534037, 3275030; 534156, 
3275037; 534290, 3274997; 534292, 3274995; 534881, 3274809; 534894, 
3274782; 534931, 3274737; 534962, 3274695; 535007, 3274657.
    (ii) Note: Map 7 of Unit 8 follows:

[[Page 8508]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.018

    (15) Unit 9: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 536971, 3273194; 537058, 
3273204; 537958, 3273349; 538025, 3273049; 538011, 3273033; 537743, 
3272819; 537663, 3272828; 537645, 3272742; 537602, 3272707; 537551, 
3272712; 537500, 3272684; 537412, 3272713; 537309, 3272793; 537213, 
3272912; 537167, 3273017; 537121, 3273038; 537084, 3273013; 537008, 
3273129; 536943, 3273082; 536897, 3273099; 536879, 3273117; 536871, 
3273154; 536887, 3273183; 536971, 3273194.
    (ii) Note: Map 8 of Unit 9 follows:

[[Page 8509]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.019

    (16) Unit 11e: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 546476, 3280267; 546413, 
3280397; 546339, 3280604; 546323, 3280672; 546318, 3280792; 546318, 
3280907; 546549, 3280944; 546741, 3280974; 546842, 3280841; 546822, 
3280811; 546712, 3280817; 546741, 3280776; 546771, 3280674; 546768, 
3280534; 546737, 3280452; 546810, 3280337; 547036, 3280060; 546957, 
3280008; 546861, 3280061; 546745, 3280087; 546590, 3280148; 546541, 
3280150; 546515, 3280201; 546476, 3280267.
    (ii) Note: Map 10 of Unit 11e follows:

[[Page 8510]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.020

    (17) Unit 12: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 552033, 3278053; 551928, 
3278141; 551834, 3278139; 551807, 3278130; 551766, 3278160; 551687, 
3278290; 551673, 3278422; 551692, 3278521; 551714, 3278718; 551702, 
3278837; 551730, 3278937; 551771, 3279018; 551835, 3279091; 551959, 
3279147; 552097, 3279168; 552239, 3279127; 552334, 3279050; 552409, 
3278920; 552425, 3278785; 552399, 3278671; 552385, 3278483; 552385, 
3278343; 552354, 3278249; 552300, 3278162; 552188, 3278085; 552105, 
3278057; 552033, 3278053.
    (ii) Note: Map 11 of Unit 12 follows:

[[Page 8511]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.021

    (18) Unit 13: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 555466, 3278873; 555441, 
3278986; 555451, 3279067; 555662, 3279064; 555683, 3279069; 555689, 
3279087; 556071, 3279116; 556194, 3278972; 556178, 3278730; 556012, 
3278573; 555860, 3278513; 555655, 3278520; 555463, 3278576; 555318, 
3278702; 555289, 3278762; 555466, 3278873.
    (ii) Note: Map 12 of Unit 13 follows:

[[Page 8512]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.022

    (19) Unit 21: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 533735, 3278278; 533765, 
3278416; 533821, 3278511; 533938, 3278599; 534084, 3278636; 534240, 
3278610; 534356, 3278527; 534443, 3278380; 534457, 3278227; 534406, 
3278079; 534287, 3277957; 534134, 3277909; 533964, 3277934; 533843, 
3278004; 533749, 3278160; 533735, 3278278.
    (ii) Note: Map 18 of Unit 21 follows:

[[Page 8513]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.023

Beetle (No Common Name) (Rhadine infernalis)

    (1) Critical habitat for the beetle (Rhadine infernalis) in Bexar 
County, Texas, occurs in Units 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 1f, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 
10a, 10b, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, and 26. These units are depicted on 
Maps 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, and 22 in this entry; on Maps 2, 4, and 5 
provided at paragraphs (6)(ii), (7)(ii), and (8)(ii) of the entry for 
the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i); and on Maps 3 and 7 
provided at paragraphs (8)(ii) and (14)(ii) of the entry for the beetle 
(Rhadine exilis) in this paragraph (i). The units are also depicted on 
Map 1 (index map) provided in paragraph (5) of the entry for the 
Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (2) Eight caves and their associated karst management areas 
established under the La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit are adjacent to or within the boundaries of Units 
1e, 3, 6, 8, and 17, but are not designated as critical habitat. These 
caves are Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare Cave, Scenic Overlook 
Cave and the surrounding approximately 75 ac (30 ha) adjacent to Unit 
1e; Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop Caves and the surrounding 
approximately 25 ac (10 ha) adjacent to Unit 3; John Wagner Cave No. 3 
and the surrounding approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha) adjacent to Unit 6; 
Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding approximately 70 ac (28 ha) 
adjacent to Unit 8; and Madla's Cave and the surrounding approximately 
5 ac (2 ha) within Unit 17.
    (3) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements 
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Rhadine exilis 
are identical to those set forth at paragraphs (2) and (3) of the entry 
for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using a geographic 
information system (GIS), which included cave locations, karst zone

[[Page 8514]]

maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, and USGS 
7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
    (5) Unit 1a: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522870, 3272900; 522872, 
3273024; 522919, 3273156; 523000, 3273241; 523124, 3273312; 523284, 
3273323; 523438, 3273258; 523618, 3273132; 523729, 3273041; 523797, 
3272836; 523784, 3272720; 523724, 3272603; 523633, 3272522; 523515, 
3272464; 523406, 3272460; 523276, 3272492; 523041, 3272654; 522939, 
3272737; 522870, 3272900.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1a is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (6) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522172, 3270656; 522202, 
3270794; 522259, 3270889; 522375, 3270977; 522521, 3271014; 522677, 
3270988; 522793, 3270905; 522880, 3270758; 522894, 3270605; 522843, 
3270457; 522724, 3270335; 522571, 3270287; 522401, 3270312; 522280, 
3270382; 522186, 3270538; 522172, 3270656
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1b is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (7) Unit 1d: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 524739, 3270323; 524739, 
3270454; 524798, 3270590; 524917, 3270699; 525091, 3270744; 525462, 
3270937; 525613, 3271016; 525757, 3271026; 525893, 3270977; 526000, 
3270883; 526059, 3270741; 526062, 3270603; 525980, 3270370; 525836, 
3270243; 525700, 3270206; 525289, 3270072; 525153, 3270020; 525016, 
3270023; 524883, 3270092; 524788, 3270191; 524739, 3270323.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1d is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (8) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 526878, 3273091; 527025, 
3273128; 527180, 3273102; 527296, 3273019; 527383, 3272872; 527397, 
3272719; 527346, 3272571; 527228, 3272449; 527074, 3272401; 526905, 
3272426; 526783, 3272496; 526471, 3272434; 526435, 3272317; 526459, 
3272223; 526443, 3272076; 526355, 3271944; 526157, 3271842; 525996, 
3271842; 525853, 3271930; 525762, 3272043; 525703, 3272205; 525729, 
3272351; 525802, 3272494; 525890, 3272776; 525875, 3272893; 525758, 
3273054; 525692, 3273095; 525586, 3273259; 525571, 3273362; 525593, 
3273505; 525692, 3273659; 525875, 3273765; 526047, 3273798; 526252, 
3273754; 526403, 3273633; 526465, 3273472; 526487, 3273281; 526505, 
3273157; 526878, 3273091.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1e is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (9) Unit 1f: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 526537, 3271231; 526567, 
3271369; 526624, 3271464; 526740, 3271552; 526887, 3271589; 527042, 
3271563; 527159, 3271480; 527245, 3271333; 527259, 3271180; 527208, 
3271032; 527090, 3270910; 526936, 3270862; 526767, 3270887; 526645, 
3270958; 526552, 3271113; 526537, 3271231.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1f is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (10) Unit 2: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 527508, 3276359; 527444, 
3276287; 527343, 3276226; 527229, 3276204; 527117, 3276216; 527116, 
3276253; 527085, 3276279; 527003, 3276270; 526933, 3276334; 526905, 
3276386; 526783, 3276386; 526851, 3276555; 526850, 3276556; 526864, 
3276662; 526908, 3276736; 526960, 3276801; 527010, 3276865; 527213, 
3277098; 527281, 3277166; 527392, 3277230; 527536, 3277252; 527711, 
3277190; 527805, 3277102; 527857, 3277003; 527869, 3276903; 527861, 
3276787; 527803, 3276674; 527699, 3276578; 527644, 3276515; 527643, 
3276397; 527630, 3276386; 527530, 3276384; 527508, 3276359.
    (ii) Note: Map 3 of Unit 2 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of the 
entry for the beetle (Rhadine exilis) in this paragraph (i).
    (11) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529583, 3272798; 529599, 
3272911; 529557, 3272947; 529513, 3272978; 529473, 3272967; 529445, 
3273019; 529422, 3273086; 529448, 3273172; 529481, 3273196; 529507, 
3273216; 529496, 3273252; 529503, 3273343; 529563, 3273415; 529676, 
3273477; 529771, 3273498; 529870, 3273496; 529917, 3273446; 529970, 
3273350; 530057, 3273319; 530110, 3273232; 530104, 3273182; 530099, 
3273138; 530147, 3273107; 530178, 3273102; 530182, 3273047; 530190, 
3273009; 530208, 3272933; 530211, 3272920; 530159, 3272895; 530123, 
3272875; 530112, 3272843; 530083, 3272804; 530081, 3272804; 530049, 
3272773; 530020, 3272733; 529995, 3272713; 529909, 3272670; 529790, 
3272648; 529687, 3272657; 529646, 3272722; 529588, 3272791; 529583, 
3272798.
    (ii) Note: Map 4 of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (7)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (12) Unit 4: Bexar County, Texas
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 530856, 3272567; 530829, 
3272537; 530779, 3272510; 530734, 3272516; 530717, 3272422; 530676, 
3272341; 530620, 3272272; 530531, 3272213; 530417, 3272180; 530271, 
3272194; 530240, 3272264; 530185, 3272283; 530180, 3272385; 530234, 
3272501; 530209, 3272542; 530206, 3272578; 530217, 3272624; 530247, 
3272658; 530294, 3272681; 530349, 3272685; 530367, 3272699; 530396, 
3272702; 530448, 3272698; 530442, 3272851; 530447, 3272909; 530473, 
3272992; 530595, 3273076; 530685, 3273138; 530683, 3273167; 530640, 
3273210; 530578, 3273224; 530471, 3273226; 530441, 3273259; 530396, 
3273326; 530369, 3273344; 530362, 3273412; 530385, 3273503; 530436, 
3273540; 530493, 3273576; 530498, 3273608; 530591, 3273684; 530668, 
3273720; 530738, 3273733; 530903, 3273657; 530959, 3273526; 530967, 
3273452; 530973, 3273424; 531003, 3273401; 531069, 3273343; 531081, 
3273277; 531099, 3273245; 531134, 3273194; 531222, 3273176; 531252, 
3273111; 531282, 3273015; 531205, 3272961; 531135, 3272916; 531056, 
3272822; 530975, 3272780; 530909, 3272689; 530855, 3272599; 530856, 
3272567.
    (ii) Note: Map 4 of Unit 4 is provided at paragraph (7)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (13) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529536, 3275753; 529533, 
3275931; 529585, 3276056; 529741, 3276191; 529927, 3276249; 530112, 
3276208; 530275, 3276093; 530350, 3275987; 530318, 3275927; 530238, 
3275838; 530169, 3275776; 530109, 3275735; 529970, 3275629; 529950, 
3275603; 529936, 3275565; 529781, 3275523;

[[Page 8515]]

529719, 3275529; 529621, 3275548; 529566, 3275611; 529536, 3275753.
    (ii) Note: Map 5 of Unit 5 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (14) Unit 6: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 531676, 3275515; 531639, 
3275342; 531576, 3275302; 531483, 3275283; 531331, 3275337; 531242, 
3275350; 531189, 3275346; 531193, 3275501; 531094, 3275501; 531094, 
3275378; 531072, 3275398; 530953, 3275478; 530909, 3275521; 530851, 
3275661; 530871, 3275702; 530981, 3275903; 531119, 3275970; 531335, 
3275950; 531512, 3275851; 531615, 3275701; 531676, 3275515.
    (ii) Note: Map 5 of Unit 6 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of the 
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (15) Unit 8: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 535007, 3274657; 535063, 
3274624; 535096, 3274626; 535133, 3274610; 535173, 3274570; 535222, 
3274516; 535282, 3274478; 535302, 3274450; 535290, 3274359; 535238, 
3274250; 535215, 3274045; 535226, 3273947; 535209, 3273836; 535160, 
3273741; 535056, 3273640; 535027, 3273631; 535026, 3273654; 535022, 
3273714; 535018, 3273721; 535013, 3273730; 534992, 3273775; 534988, 
3273784; 534962, 3273838; 534962, 3273838; 534936, 3273892; 534909, 
3273947; 534909, 3273947; 534883, 3274002; 534856, 3274057; 534856, 
3274057; 534813, 3274142; 534708, 3274141; 534625, 3274140; 534519, 
3274140; 534389, 3274145; 534389, 3274132; 534168, 3274322; 534058, 
3274551; 533966, 3274645; 533893, 3274683; 533848, 3274736; 533839, 
3274809; 533853, 3274895; 533905, 3274965; 534037, 3275030; 534156, 
3275037; 534290, 3274997; 534292, 3274995; 534881, 3274809; 534894, 
3274782; 534931, 3274737; 534962, 3274695; 535007, 3274657.
    (ii) Note: Map 7 of Unit 8 is provided at paragraph (14)(ii) of the 
entry for the beetle (Rhadine exilis) in this paragraph (i).
    (16) Unit 10a: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 540276, 3277443; 540255, 
3277399; 540189, 3277302; 540076, 3277233; 539945, 3277214; 539851, 
3277226; 539717, 3277295; 539645, 3277377; 539617, 3277449; 539650, 
3277471; 539750, 3277551; 539905, 3277551; 540276, 3277443.
    (ii) Note: Map 9 of Units 10a and 10b follows:

[[Page 8516]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.024

    (17) Unit 10b: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 540684, 3277399; 541377, 
3277406; 541368, 3277355; 541302, 3277258; 541180, 3277158; 541037, 
3277126; 540890, 3277155; 540777, 3277226; 540702, 3277336; 540684, 
3277399.
    (ii) Note: Map 9 of Unit 10b is provided at paragraph (16)(ii) of 
this entry.
    (18) Unit 14: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 520081, 3258642; 520207, 
3258774; 520339, 3258764; 520542, 3258723; 520744, 3258618; 520822, 
3258502; 520847, 3258327; 521047, 3257873; 521048, 3257838; 521005, 
3257658; 520885, 3257494; 520710, 3257405; 520503, 3257379; 520290, 
3257468; 520158, 3257609; 520006, 3257810; 519891, 3257965; 519848, 
3258183; 519911, 3258441; 520081, 3258642.
    (ii) Note: Map 13 of Unit 14 follows:

[[Page 8517]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.025

    (19) Unit 15: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522689, 3256455; 522687, 
3256517; 522703, 3256601; 522765, 3256718; 522911, 3256823; 523046, 
3256851; 523177, 3256830; 523344, 3256801; 523479, 3256747; 523658, 
3256674; 523725, 3256656; 523834, 3256603; 523918, 3256523; 523969, 
3256419; 523978, 3256293; 523885, 3256159; 523885, 3256069; 523822, 
3256015; 523674, 3255915; 523547, 3255873; 523414, 3255874; 523281, 
3255933; 523201, 3256024; 523017, 3256131; 522987, 3256149; 522940, 
3256160; 522894, 3256168; 522869, 3256174; 522790, 3256246; 522722, 
3256345; 522689, 3256455.
    (ii) Note: Map 14 of Unit 15 follows:

[[Page 8518]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.026

    (20) Unit 16: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 527412, 3258337; 527348, 
3258534; 527379, 3258716; 527456, 3258844; 527623, 3258959; 527815, 
3258972; 527925, 3258857; 527933, 3258697; 527971, 3258605; 527986, 
3258452; 527934, 3258303; 527925, 3258186; 527663, 3258134; 527498, 
3258173; 527412, 3258337.
    (ii) Note: Map 15 of Unit 16 follows:

[[Page 8519]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.027

    (21) Unit 17: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 528980, 3275191; 529043, 
3275247; 529120, 3275242; 529245, 3275219; 529327, 3275184; 529348, 
3275167; 529492, 3275167; 529613, 3275113; 529800, 3275081; 529870, 
3274953; 529819, 3274777; 529698, 3274627; 529486, 3274528; 529360, 
3274615; 529335, 3274712; 529174, 3274840; 528968, 3274859; 528957, 
3275049; 528980, 3275191.
    (ii) Not including land within and bounded by the following UTM 
Zone 14N, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 
529490, 3275008; 529490, 3275006; 529490, 3275005; 529490, 3275003; 
529490, 3275002; 529489, 3275001; 529489, 3274999; 529489, 3274998; 
529489, 3274997; 529489, 3274995; 529489, 3274994; 529488, 3274993; 
529488, 3274992; 529489, 3274991; 529489, 3274986; 529489, 3274983; 
529489, 3274982; 529482, 3274919; 529329, 3274930; 529337, 3274993; 
529337, 3274993; 529337, 3274994; 529336, 3274995; 529337, 3274997; 
529337, 3274998; 529336, 3274999; 529336, 3275001; 529336, 3275002; 
529336, 3275003; 529336, 3275005; 529336, 3275006; 529336, 3275008; 
529336, 3275009; 529336, 3275010; 529336, 3275012; 529336, 3275013; 
529336, 3275014; 529336, 3275016; 529337, 3275017; 529337, 3275018; 
529337, 3275020; 529337, 3275021; 529337, 3275022; 529338, 3275023; 
529338, 3275025; 529338, 3275026; 529339, 3275027; 529339, 3275029; 
529339, 3275030; 529340, 3275031; 529340, 3275033; 529341, 3275034; 
529341, 3275035; 529342, 3275036; 529342, 3275038; 529343, 3275039; 
529343, 3275040; 529344, 3275041; 529344, 3275042; 529345, 3275044; 
529346, 3275045; 529346, 3275046; 529347, 3275047; 529348, 3275048; 
529348, 3275049; 529349, 3275050; 529350, 3275052; 529351, 3275053; 
529351,

[[Page 8520]]

3275054; 529352, 3275055; 529353, 3275056; 529354, 3275057; 529355, 
3275058; 529356, 3275059; 529357, 3275060; 529358, 3275061; 529359, 
3275062; 529359, 3275063; 529360, 3275064; 529361, 3275065; 529362, 
3275066; 529363, 3275066; 529364, 3275067; 529366, 3275068; 529367, 
3275069; 529368, 3275070; 529369, 3275070; 529370, 3275071; 529371, 
3275072; 529372, 3275073; 529373, 3275073; 529374, 3275074; 529376, 
3275075; 529377, 3275075; 529378, 3275076; 529379, 3275077; 529380, 
3275077; 529382, 3275078; 529383, 3275078; 529384, 3275079; 529385, 
3275079; 529387, 3275080; 529388, 3275080; 529389, 3275081; 529390, 
3275081; 529392, 3275081; 529393, 3275082; 529394, 3275082; 529396, 
3275082; 529397, 3275083; 529398, 3275083; 529399, 3275083; 529401, 
3275083; 529402, 3275084; 529403, 3275084; 529405, 3275084; 529406, 
3275084; 529407, 3275084; 529409, 3275084; 529410, 3275084; 529412, 
3275084; 529413, 3275084; 529414, 3275084; 529416, 3275084; 529417, 
3275084; 529418, 3275084; 529420, 3275084; 529421, 3275084; 529422, 
3275084; 529424, 3275084; 529425, 3275083; 529426, 3275083; 529428, 
3275083; 529429, 3275083; 529430, 3275082; 529431, 3275082; 529433, 
3275082; 529434, 3275081; 529435, 3275081; 529437, 3275081; 529438, 
3275080; 529439, 3275080; 529440, 3275079; 529442, 3275079; 529443, 
3275078; 529444, 3275078; 529445, 3275077; 529447, 3275077; 529448, 
3275076; 529449, 3275075; 529450, 3275075; 529451, 3275074; 529452, 
3275073; 529454, 3275073; 529455, 3275072; 529456, 3275071; 529457, 
3275070; 529458, 3275070; 529459, 3275069; 529460, 3275068; 529461, 
3275067; 529462, 3275066; 529463, 3275066; 529464, 3275065; 529465, 
3275064; 529466, 3275063; 529467, 3275062; 529468, 3275061; 529469, 
3275060; 529470, 3275059; 529471, 3275058; 529472, 3275057; 529473, 
3275056; 529473, 3275055; 529474, 3275054; 529475, 3275053; 529476, 
3275052; 529477, 3275050; 529477, 3275049; 529478, 3275048; 529479, 
3275047; 529479, 3275046; 529480, 3275045; 529481, 3275044; 529481, 
3275042; 529482, 3275041; 529482, 3275040; 529483, 3275039; 529484, 
3275038; 529484, 3275036; 529485, 3275035; 529485, 3275034; 529486, 
3275033; 529486, 3275031; 529486, 3275030; 529487, 3275029; 529487, 
3275027; 529487, 3275026; 529488, 3275025; 529488, 3275023; 529488, 
3275022; 529489, 3275021; 529489, 3275020; 529489, 3275018; 529489, 
3275017; 529489, 3275016; 529489, 3275014; 529490, 3275013; 529490, 
3275012; 529490, 3275010; 529490, 3275009; 529490, 3275008.
    (iii) Note: Map 5 of Unit 17 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of 
the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
    (22) Unit 19: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 548980, 3276370; 549011, 
3276172; 548992, 3276167; 549001, 3276139; 548992, 3276099; 548960, 
3276076; 548867, 3276071; 548767, 3276012; 548725, 3276018; 548608, 
3276046; 548499, 3276055; 548429, 3275955; 548326, 3275856; 548274, 
3276042; 548285, 3276194; 548374, 3276384; 548503, 3276497; 548601, 
3276538; 548815, 3276541; 548963, 3276489; 548980, 3276370.
    (ii) Note: Map 16 of Unit 19 follows:

[[Page 8521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.028

    (23) Unit 23: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 535851, 3276414; 535640, 
3276401; 535639, 3276467; 535670, 3276630; 535613, 3276734; 535616, 
3276844; 535568, 3276883; 535433, 3276912; 535314, 3277003; 535342, 
3277121; 535427, 3277203; 535617, 3277255; 535763, 3277242; 535884, 
3277190; 536017, 3277082; 536080, 3276928; 536088, 3276708; 536003, 
3276539; 535851, 3276414.
    (ii) Note: Map 20 of Unit 23 follows:

[[Page 8522]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.029

    (24) Unit 26: Bexar County, Texas.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 520192, 3257071; 520300, 
3257163; 520493, 3257203; 520672, 3257162; 520816, 3257024; 520870, 
3256906; 520901, 3256737; 520865, 3256567; 520821, 3256487; 520710, 
3256440; 520638, 3256540; 520556, 3256555; 520490, 3256557; 520363, 
3256547; 520290, 3256566; 520195, 3256648; 520166, 3256776; 520200, 
3256878; 520268, 3256943; 520228, 3257000; 520192, 3257071.
    (ii) Note: Map 21 of Unit 26 follows:

[[Page 8523]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.030

* * * * *

    Dated: January 24, 2012.
 Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-2195 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C