Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013) 2013 Federal Register, 78 FR 51327-51379; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51327-51379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19713]

[[Page 51327]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 161

August 20, 2013

Part III

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

51327-51379

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 51328]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0001; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ24

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Austin Blind and Jollyville Plateau
Salamanders

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate critical
habitat for the Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) and
Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) under the Endangered
Species Act. In total, approximately 4,451 acres (ac) (1,801 hectares
(ha)) in Travis and Williamson Counties, Texas, fall within the
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The effect of this
regulation is to conserve the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau
salamanders' habitat under the Endangered Species Act.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on September 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: This final rule and final economic analysis are available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0001. 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
The coordinates, plot points, or both, from which the maps are
generated, are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/, and www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-
0001, and at the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting
information that we may develop for this critical habitat designation
will also be available at the three locations stated above.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act,
any species that is determined to be a threatened or endangered species
requires critical habitat to be designated, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable. Designations and revisions of critical
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
This rule will designate 4,451 ac (1,801 ha) of critical habitat
for the Austin blind salamander and Jollyville Plateau salamander. The
critical habitat is located across 33 units within Travis and
Williamson Counties, Texas. We are designating the following amount of
critical habitat for these two salamanders:

Austin Blind salamander: 120 ac (49 ha) in 1 unit
Jollyville Plateau salamander: 4,331 ac (1,753 ha) in 32 units

We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of
critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we have
prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the critical habitat
designations and related factors. We announced the availability of the
draft economic analysis (DEA) in the Federal Register on January 15,
2013 (78 FR 5385), allowing the public to provide comments on our
analysis. We have incorporated the comments and have completed the
final economic analysis (FEA) concurrently with this final
determination.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from 22 knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical
assumptions, analysis, and whether or not we had used the best
available information. These peer reviewers generally concurred with
our methods and conclusions and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. Information
we received from peer review is incorporated in this final revised
designation. We also considered all comments and information received
during the comment periods.

Previous Federal Actions

These actions are described in the Previous Federal Actions section
of the final listing rule published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register.

Background

For background information on the biology, taxonomy, distribution,
and habitat of the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders, see
the Background section of the final listing rule published on elsewhere
in today's Federal Register.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Austin blind salamander and
Jollyville Plateau salamander during two comment periods. The first
comment period associated with the publication of the proposed rule (77
FR 50768) opened on August 22, 2012, and closed on October 22, 2012. We
also requested comments on the proposed critical habitat designation
and associated draft economic analysis during a second comment period
that opened January 25, 2013, and closed on March 11, 2013 (78 FR
5385). We held public meetings and hearings on September 5 and 6, 2012,
in Round Rock and Austin, Texas, respectively. 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.
We received a total of approximately 416 comments during the public
comment periods for the proposed listing rule, proposed critical
habitat rule, and associated documents. All substantive information
provided during the comment periods has either been incorporated
directly into the final critical habitat rule or addressed below.
Comments from peer reviewers and state agencies are grouped separately
below. All other substantial public comments are grouped into general
issues specifically relating to the proposed critical habitat
designation for these two salamander species. Beyond the comments
addressed below, several commenters submitted additional reports and
references for our consideration, which were reviewed and incorporated
into the critical habitat 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

[[Page 51329]]

during the first comment period from 22 knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise with the hydrology, taxonomy, and ecology that is
important to these salamander species. We received responses from 13 of
the peer reviewers.
During the first comment period, we received public comments that
were in disagreement with our proposed rule, and we also developed new
information related to the listing decision. Therefore, we conducted a
second peer review on (1) salamander demographics and (2) urban
development and stream habitat. During this second peer review, we
solicited expert opinions from knowledgeable individuals with expertise
in the two areas identified above. We received responses from eight
peer reviewers.
Aside from the specific comments addressed below, peer reviewers
from both comment periods generally agreed that the best available
scientific information was used to develop the proposed rule and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) analysis of the available
information was scientifically sound.

Peer Reviewer Comments

(1) Comment: Several peer reviewers stated that there should be
larger subsurface areas designated as critical habitat considering that
these species heavily rely upon subterranean habitat. One suggested
that more emphasis be placed on the Barton Springs and the Northern
Edwards segments of the Edwards Aquifer because the recharge zones that
allow water to enter these segments of the aquifer support habitat for
these species. Another suggested that the recharge and contributing
zones of the aquifers be included in critical habitat.
Our Response: In accordance with section 3(5)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act (Act), we are designating critical habitat in specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of
listing that contain the physical and biological features essential for
the conservation of the species and which may require special
management. We acknowledge that the recharge zone of the aquifers
supporting salamander locations is very important to the conservation
of the species. However, our goal with this critical habitat
designation is to delineate the habitat that is physically occupied and
used by the species rather than delineate all land or aquatic areas
that influence the species. There is no evidence to support that the
entire recharge zone of the aquifers is occupied by the salamander
species.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the 984-foot (ft) (300-
meter (m)) extent of salamander populations within the subsurface could
be increased to 3,281 ft (1,000 m), because this is the distance that
larval Eurycea lucifiga (a related species) were found from a cave
entrance. Another reviewer stated this distance could be increased to
20,013 ft (6,100 m) because this is the distance across which E.
tridentifera (another related species) were observed in the subsurface.
Two reviewers stated that using one distance for all sites is flawed
because this distance does not consider site-specific hydrogeological
conditions and may greatly underestimate or overestimate the true
amount of subsurface habitat. One reviewer stated that the Service
should contract a basic hydrogeological study for each site. This study
should include examination and analysis of hydrogeological factors such
as lithology, fractures, morphologic features, related karst features,
flow rates and behavior, cave maps, and the development of a conceptual
model of the origin of each locality's groundwater drainage system.
Additionally the results of any groundwater tracer studies should be
included.
Our Response: The Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer is poorly
studied and site-specific hydrogeological information does not exist
for most of the salamander sites. However, we have reviewed the
available hydrogeological information and determined that there is not
enough information to modify our original 984-ft (300-m) circular
subsurface designation without further long-term study. We acknowledge
that related salamander species in Texas have subterranean populations
that extend further than our designation. However, we are delineating
the 984-ft (300-m) distance based upon the population extent of the
Austin blind salamander. We believe this species is the best
representation of the subterranean habits of the Jollyville Plateau
salamander due to its genetic relatedness and geographic proximity to
the Jollyville Plateau salamander. Due to time constraints and limited
fiscal resources, we are not able to conduct a hydrogeological study
for each site. Fully understanding all of the subsurface flow patterns
and connections for every salamander site will require numerous years
of research. In addition, peer reviewers agreed that it is acceptable
to use and apply ecological information on closely related species if
species-specific information is lacking. Therefore, as required by
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we used the best scientific data available
to designate critical habitat. If additional data become available in
the future, the Secretary can revise the designation under the
authority of section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, as appropriate.
(3) Comment: One reviewer provided site-specific hydrologic
information on Wheless Spring and Buttercup Creek-area caves that they
believed should be considered when delineating subsurface critical
habitat.
Our Response: We have reviewed the information and determined that
there is not enough information to modify our original 984-ft (300-m)
circular subsurface designation for these sites without further long-
term study. For example, knowing a general groundwater flow path of
Wheless Spring or Buttercup Creek caves does not preclude the flow of
groundwater and movement of salamanders in other directions to and from
the site, and our circular subsurface designation captures this
possibility.

Comments From States

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 Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau
salamanders are addressed below.
(4) Comment: State Representative Tony Dale, Texas Comptroller of
Public Accounts Susan Combs, United States Senator John Cornyn, and
United States Representative John Carter all stated that the draft
economic analysis (DEA) underestimates the economic impact of the
listing and critical habitat designation. These comments reference
impacts including increased cost of development, increased cost of
transportation projects, increased traffic congestion, and decreased
tax revenue as being omitted from the DEA.
Our Response: As described in Chapter 2 of the DEA, the analysis
qualitatively describes the baseline protections accorded the Austin
blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders absent critical habitat
designation (including the listing of these species) and monetizes the
potential incremental impacts precipitated specifically by the critical
habitat designation. The Service does not anticipate requesting
additional project modifications to avoid adverse modification of
critical habitat beyond those requested to avoid jeopardy to the
species. Therefore,

[[Page 51330]]

incremental impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat
are expected to be limited to administrative costs of section 7
consultation and do not include impacts, such as increased cost of
development, increased cost of transportation, and decreased tax
revenue.
(5) Comment: The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts stated that
the DEA should consider the impact of regulatory uncertainty.
Our Response: Chapter 2 of the DEA notes that indirect impacts due
to regulatory uncertainty may occur. The types of data necessary for
quantifying costs associated with regulatory uncertainty, such as
information linking public perceptions of regulation to economic
choices, are unavailable. As a result, potential impacts due to
regulatory uncertainty are described qualitatively but cannot be
monetized in the DEA.
(6) Comment: The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts stated that
the DEA should use a lower discount rate to reflect changes in the
economy over the last decade.
Our Response: In accordance with OMB Circular A-4, the DEA
evaluates incremental impacts using two discount rates. The body of the
report presents results using a 7 percent discount rate. Appendix B
presents results using a 3 percent discount rate for comparison.
(7) Comment: The Texas Department of Transportation asserts that
the DEA underestimates costs associated with future transportation
projects within critical habitat. Projects that occur within critical
habitat typically require significant engineering to avoid adverse
modification of critical habitat. As an example, one 2008 project in
Bexar County, Texas, resulted in incremental project modification costs
of approximately $2.3 million for the construction of a 400-ft (122-m)
section of road. The DEA does not estimate impacts associated with such
costs.
Our Response: The Service does not anticipate requesting additional
project modifications to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat
above those to avoid jeopardy to these species. As a result, any
project modification costs incurred for future transportation projects
are assumed to occur in the baseline and are not quantified in the
analysis. However, text has been added to Section 4.4 of the final
economic analysis (FEA) noting the potential for large incremental
costs if additional engineering is required to avoid adverse
modification of critical habitat by transportation projects beyond that
to avoid jeopardy.
(8) Comment: The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts states that
the DEA does not include a reasonable comparison of costs and benefits.
The DEA should use existing studies and procedures to describe
biological benefits in monetary terms.
Our Response: The primary purpose of this critical habitat
designation is to support the conservation of the Austin blind and
Jollyville Plateau salamander species. As described in Chapter 5 of the
DEA, quantification and monetization of this conservation benefit
requires information on the incremental change in the probability of
conservation resulting from the critical habitat designation. Such
information is not available, and as a result, monetization of the
primary benefit of critical habitat designation is not possible.
(9) Comment: The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts states that
the DEA is unclear about whether the proposed critical habitat
designation will result in any conservation benefit to the salamanders.
Our Response: The DEA discusses only economic benefits of the
critical habitat designation. Conservation benefits of the critical
habitat designation, such as Federal regulatory protection and public
education, are described in the Exclusions section of this final
critical habitat rule.
(10) Comment: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)
commented that the 984-ft (300-m) area proposed for subsurface critical
habitat and the 164-ft (50-m) area proposed for surface habitat may not
accurately represent the needs of the species. The methods of
delineation described in the proposed rule may over-represent habitat
in some case while under-representing it in others. Factors that must
be appropriately considered include ground water recharge, drainage
basins, flow routes, and springsheds directly relevant to salamanders'
known life history. This analysis will likely require evaluation of
information derived from GIS analysis of surface topography,
potentiometric studies, dye tracing, and data from the Texas
Speleological Survey database (primarily cave maps). Methods for the
delineation of hydrogeologic areas in karst of the Edwards Aquifer can
be found in Veni (2003).
Our Response: Due to time constraints and our limited fiscal
resources, we are not able to conduct a hydrogeological evaluation for
each site. Based on our review, the critical habitat areas constitute
our best assessment at this time of areas that are within the
geographical range occupied by at least one of the two salamander
species and are considered to contain features essential to the
conservation of these species. If additional data become available in
the future, the Secretary can revise the designation under the
authority of section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, as appropriate. Please
see our response to Comment 2 above.

Public Comments

Critical Habitat Designation
(11) Comment: Salamander critical habitat is not determinable. The
information sufficient to perform required analyses of the impacts of
the designation is lacking and the biological needs of the species are
not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as
critical habitat. The Service makes numerous admissions that it does
not understand the surface and subsurface habitat needs of the
salamanders, lacks specific ecological and hydrogeological data, fails
to understand the biological needs of the species, and repeatedly
requests information on how the critical habitat designation can be
improved for the final rule. Also, the Service does not have enough
species-specific information to determine what the needs of each of the
salamanders are and improperly uses other salamanders, amphibians, and
Eurycea species to determine critical habitat.
Our Response: While we recognize the uncertainty inherent in
identifying subsurface habitat boundaries for these two salamander
species, we used the best available scientific evidence at the time of
this final rule to designate critical habitat, as required by the Act.
Making a not determinable finding for critical habitat only delays the
decision for 1 year, after which we still have to designate critical
habitat, per the Act. Fully understanding all of the subsurface flow
patterns and connections for every salamander site will require
numerous years of research. In addition, peer reviewers agreed that it
is acceptable to use and apply ecological information on closely
related species if species-specific information is lacking.
(12) Comment: One commenter stated that because the Austin blind
salamander is unlike the Jollyville Plateau salamander in its exclusive
use of deep aquifer habitat it is inappropriate to use Austin blind
salamander ecological habits for the delineation of all the proposed
critical habitat units for the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
Our Response: We disagree that the Austin blind salamander is
unlike the Jollyville Plateau salamander,

[[Page 51331]]

considering that this species has cave populations that live
exclusively in subterranean habitats. Furthermore, peer reviewers
agreed that it is acceptable to use and apply ecological information on
closely related species if species-specific information is lacking.
(13) Comment: The Service has not demonstrated that salamanders
actually occupy the entirety of critical habitat units. Except where
the Service has actual data on downstream occupation, the only area it
can designate as critical habitat is the occupied spring outlet. There
is no evidence of the extent of occupied subterranean habitat. This
approach is legally insufficient and arbitrary because it circumvents
the Service's obligation to identify critical habitat that is occupied
at the time a species is listed.
Our Response: We believe the proposed and final critical habitat
rules are legally sufficient. Based on the best available scientific
evidence at the time of this final rule, the surface critical habitat
component was delineated by starting with the spring point locations
that are occupied by the salamanders and extending a line upstream and
downstream 262 ft (80 m), because this is the farthest a salamander has
been observed from a spring outlet. The subsurface critical habitat was
delineated based on evidence that suggests the salamander population
can extend at least 984 ft (300 m) from the spring opening through
underground conduits. We defined an area as occupied based upon the
reliable observation of a salamander species by a knowledgeable
scientist. Although we do not have data for every site indicating that
a salamander was observed 262 ft (80 m) downstream, we believe it is
reasonable to consider the downstream habitat occupied based on the
dispersal capabilities observed in individuals of the same species or
very similar species. See the Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat section in the final critical habitat rule for more
information.
(14) Comment: The proposed rule does not name the scientist who
identified salamanders at each site or the date that the observations
were made.
Our Response: We do not believe that this level of detail is needed
in the rulemaking. However, all materials used in preparation of this
rule are available for inspection, by appointment, during normal
business hours, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological
Services Field Office,10711 Burnet Rd, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; by
telephone 512-490-0057; or by facsimile 512-490-0974.
(15) Comment: It is improper and, in fact, damaging to both the
Service and the Act for the Service to cast critical habitat
designation over age-restricted, residential homes and then narratively
state that those homes are excluded from critical habitat. If the
Service does not intend to include improvements and developed areas in
critical habitat, it should draw them out on properly scaled maps.
Our Response: Removing developed areas from our critical habitat
maps is not practical with current mapping technologies. Because we are
unable to delineate specific stream segments on the map due to the
small size of the streams, we drew a circle with a 262-ft (80-m) radius
representing the extent the surface critical habitat of the site exists
upstream and downstream. Any such lands left inside surface critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been
excluded by text in the final rule and are not designated as critical
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation 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 underground or
surface critical habitat (see the Application of the ``Adverse
Modification'' Standard section of the final critical habitat rule). In
addition, most of our critical habitat is a subsurface designation and
only includes the physical area beneath any buildings on the surface.
(16) Comment: A study by the City of Austin suggests that obvious,
discrete spring orifices are not the sole habitat of the Jollyville
Plateau salamander. These salamanders have been documented to move at
least 262 ft (80 m) upstream and downstream from a spring opening,
which is significantly farther than reported in the proposed rule.
However, this 262-ft (80-m) distance is likely an underestimate of the
dispersal capabilities of these salamanders.
Our Response: We have incorporated this new information into our
final surface critical habitat designation. See the Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat section in the final critical habitat rule
for more information.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)
(17) Comment: The Service has improperly identified the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. PCE 1
is meaningless and legally insufficient because there are no parameters
describing what water quality levels actually exert lethal or sublethal
effects on the salamanders. PCE 2 does not actually say what size rock
is needed or how many such rocks are needed and in what configuration.
Our Response: Our description of the PCEs has been updated in the
final critical habitat rule, and we believe that they are accurate and
sufficiently detailed. While we have specified rock size needed by
these species, the changes we made do not address what water quality
levels actually exert lethal or sublethal effects on the salamanders or
the number or configuration of rocks because this information is
unknown.
(18) Comment: The proposed rule improperly designates critical
habitat units in heavily developed areas that the Service acknowledges
do not contain the necessary elements for the conservation of both
salamanders. The Service acknowledges that some critical habitat units
contain only some elements of the physical or biological features
necessary to support Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders.
It is legally improper for the Service to designate areas that do not
contain the PCEs as critical habitat at time of designation.
Our Response: Occupied critical habitat always contains at least
one or more of the physical or biological features that provide for
some life-history needs of the listed species. However, an area of
critical habitat may be in a degraded condition and not contain all
physical and biological features or PCEs at the time it is designated,
or those features or elements may be present but in a degraded or less
than optimal condition. In the case of a highly urbanized salamander
site, some PCEs such as rocky substrate and access to the subsurface
habitat may be present, even if the water quality PCE is not.
Salamander populations at degraded sites, such as these, have lower
probabilities of persistence than undeveloped sites; however, their
probabilities of persistence may increase where the ability exists to
develop, restore, or improve functionality of certain PCEs. We consider
these sites to meet the definition of critical habitat because they are
occupied at the time of listing and contain those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, which
may require special management considerations or protections.
(19) Comment: By drawing a circle with a radius of 984 feet (300 m)
around springs, the Service appears to be taking the position that
urban areas that contain 55 percent or more impervious cover are
beneficial and are essential for the conservation of the species. This
is in direct conflict with the threats analysis performed by the
Service. If a

[[Page 51332]]

highly urbanized area that has been developed for 30 to 40 years and
has more than 55 percent impervious cover with no water quality
controls is considered to contain features essential for the
conservation of the Jollyville Plateau salamander, then it is pretty
clear that this area does not require special management considerations
or protection.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 18 above. Special
management considerations or protection may be needed for highly
urbanized areas in order to develop, restore, or improve functionality
of certain PCEs.
(20) Comment: The proposed rule does not list or describe the PCEs
for subterranean critical habitat. Further, it does not describe how
subterranean critical habitat might be adversely modified or identify
the potential threats to the subterranean critical habitat.
Our Response: The PCEs have been clarified in this final rule to
reflect different PCEs for the surface and subsurface habitats. A
description of how critical habitat may be adversely modified is found
in the Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard section of
the final critical habitat rule. Regarding threats to the subsurface
habitat, we described different scenarios under which subsurface
habitat could be destroyed or degraded under Factor A: The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or
Range in the final listing rule that published elsewhere in today's
Federal Register.
(21) Comment: The Jollyville Plateau salamander is not confined to
springs discharging from only the Edwards formation. There is at least
one significant Jollyville Plateau salamander site in a spring that
discharges from the Walnut formation (Ribelin Spring), another in the
Glen Rose (Pit Spring), and another that appears to be alluvial (Lanier
Spring). Additionally, water from the Trinity aquifer and Blanco River
contribute to the Barton Springs segment discharge (Johnson et al.
2012), highlighting the importance of these water sources as well.
Tritium data documents that groundwater at the Edwards/Walnut contact
is pre-modern in age (recharged prior to about 1950) whereas the
springs and creeks generally contain modern water (recharged after
about 1950). This suggests that many springs are not directly connected
to the shallow groundwater table.
Our Response: We agree with this assessment and have edited the
language accordingly in the final listing and critical habitat rules.
(22) Comment: Water temperatures for Jollyville Plateau salamander
sites have a greater range than presented in the proposed rule. For
example, one undeveloped Jollyville Plateau salamander spring (Cistern)
has a temperature range from 66.4 to 73.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (19.1
to 23.0 degrees Celsius (C)).
Our Response: The PCEs for the Jollyville Plateau salamander have
been updated to incorporate this broader temperature range.
(23) Comment: On pg. 50809, the proposed rule stipulates: ``During
periods of drought or dewatering on the surface in and around spring
sites, access to the subsurface water table must exist to provide
shelter and protection.'' The Austin blind salamander is an almost
entirely subterranean species so subterranean habitat is critically
important, regardless of whether drought conditions exist or not.
However, we also believe this to be true for all proposed species, that
the subterranean habitat is a critical component necessary for survival
of each species. All central Texas Eurycea, with the possible exception
of Typholomolge (E. rathbuni, E. waterlooensis, E. robusta; Hillis et
al. 2001), depend heavily on both surface and subsurface habitat. This
dependency is evidenced by natural history observations such as (1)
absence of eggs laid in surface habitat (Nathan Bendik and Laurie
Dries, City of Austin, personal observation), (2) use of subterranean
habitat as refugia (Bendik and Gluesenkamp 2012, entire), as well as
the distribution of numerous ``surface'' species (i.e., have well-
developed eyes and pigmentation) occurring in both springs and caves
(Chippindale et al. 2000).
Our Response: These comments were incorporated in the final
critical habitat rule.
Uniform Critical Habitat Designations
(24) Comment: Several commenters stated that we did not take site-
specific hydrogeologic features into account when delineating critical
habitat.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 2 above.
(25) Comment: Several commenters stated that our critical habitat
designations were not sufficiently large enough to protect the species
from threats that could impact habitat from outside critical habitat
boundaries, such as urban development in the watershed.
Our Response: See our response to Comment 1 above. In addition, the
purpose of designating critical habitat is not to remove threats for
the species, but is instead to identify those areas occupied by the
species at the time it is listed on which are found those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management or protection. While our
designation of critical habitat does not remove the threat from urban
development, for example, it does identify those areas that are
critical to the conservation of the species, which provides awareness
about occupied sites to nearby landowners and land managers, and it
informs them that they should consider their impacts on those sites. A
critical habitat designation does not signal that areas outside the
designated area is unimportant or may not need to be managed or
conserved for recovery of the species. We acknowledge that areas
outside our critical habitat designations, such as the recharge zone of
the aquifers supporting salamander locations, are very important to the
conservation of the species. However, our goal with this critical
habitat designation is to delineate the habitat that is physically
occupied and used by the species rather than delineate all land or
aquatic areas that influence the species.
(26) Comment: Some commenters pointed out that dye trace studies
conducted by the City of Austin indicate subsurface flow in the
Jollyville Plateau area is generally to the north, east, and northeast.
Another dye trace study conducted by the City of Austin indicates that
groundwater flow is strongly influenced by the regional dip. By the
nature of water flow, elevations lower than the elevation of a spring
outlet in this area cannot recharge the spring. Furthermore, no
activities downgradient or downstream of a spring can adversely impact
that spring. Therefore, critical habitat should not be designated below
the elevation of a spring outlet.
Our Response: We are designating subsurface areas that may be
occupied by the salamander species, and we assume salamanders are
capable of moving upgradient (against subsurface flow) just as they
move upstream on the surface. In general, we agree that it is less
likely that downgradient activities would adversely change water
quality or quantity in a spring compared to upgradient activities.
However, because the subsurface is karst, the exact extent of
groundwater recharge areas is difficult to predict without extensive
long-term studies. In the absence of these types of studies, we cannot
be certain that an area a short distance downgradient does not contain
subsurface habitat connected to the

[[Page 51333]]

spring in some way. It is possible that activities downgradient of a
spring could impact that spring. For example, a pumping well on one
side of a drainage, if pumped long enough, or at a sufficiently high
rate (or a combination of these), can draw down the water table causing
a spring on the opposite side of a drainage to go dry or flow at a
lower rate.
(27) Comment: Krienke Springs has an additional recharge feature
located downstream, outside of the critical habitat Unit 1. We
recommend extending Jollyville Plateau salamander critical habitat Unit
1 downstream to include this recharge feature.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 1 regarding why we
are not designating critical habitat in areas that are both not
occupied by the species and do not contain the physical and biological
features essential for the conservation of the species.
Exclusions
(28) Comment: Several requests for exclusion and comments were made
about specific habitat conservation plans (HCPs):
(1) Four Points has voluntarily addressed the Jollyville Plateau
salamander in their HCP and employs measures to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate for potential impacts to the Jollyville Plateau salamander
that may occur on the property, thereby satisfying permit issuance
criteria under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act if the species were to
become listed in the future;
(2) the Buttercup Creek HCP is stated as not covering the
Jollyville Plateau salamander when in fact it does and with ``no
surprises'' assurances. Along with development of the Buttercup Creek
HCP, the Service and Forestar entered into a Permit Implementing and
Preserve Management Agreement, which fulfills the criteria in the
proposed rule to ameliorate threats to the Jollyville Plateau
salamander;
(3) the Grandview Hills HCP covers land within critical habitat
Unit 14, which contains three springs that are occupied by the
Jollyville Plateau salamander, which are covered under the Tomen-Parke
Associates, LTD 10(a)(1)(B) permit with ``no surprises'' assurances for
the Jollyville Plateau salamander; and
(4) Ribelin Ranch HCP covers a substantial portion of critical
habitat Unit 17, and although the Jollyville Plateau salamander is not
a covered species under this HCP, it does provide numerous conservation
measures that significantly benefit the species. Requests for exclusion
from critical habitat were made for Four Points, Buttercup Creek,
Grandview Hills, and Ribelin Ranch HCPs by the HCP permit holders.
Our Response: See the Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
section in the final critical habitat rule for our discussion related
to areas excluded under the Four Points, Buttercup Creek, and Grandview
Hills HCPs. Regarding the Ribelin Ranch HCP, the permittee permanently
preserved golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia) habitat
onsite, which includes Jollyville Plateau salamander occupied springs.
The permittee committed to xeriscaping and replanting developed areas
with native vegetation, installing fences between developed areas and
preserves, and restricting access to the preserves to authorized
personnel only. However, the Ribelin Ranch HCP does not include the
Jollyville Plateau salamander as a covered species and states that: (1)
stormwater runoff from developed areas will enter Bull Creek and West
Bull Creek (Section 3.5); (2) some degradation of water quality may
occur due to runoff, which may negatively impact the salamander
(Sections 5.1.1.2, 5.1.1.9, 5.1.2.7, 5.1.2.9); and (3) increased
impervious cover may result in a decrease in spring flows in Bull and
West Bull creek drainages (Section 5.1.1.7, 5.1.2.7). Additionally, the
commenter stated that the high school upstream of the spring will be
expanding in the future. Because the Jollyville Plateau salamander is
not a covered species under the Ribelin Ranch HCP and the conservation
measures do not significantly benefit the species, we determined that
the benefits of excluding Ribelin Ranch from critical habitat do not
outweigh the benefits of including this area.
(29) Comment: The Service ignores most HCPs already in place. Those
areas protected by HCPs, management plans, and water quality programs
do not require special management or protection because water quality
programs and other HCPs within the area provide substantial management
considerations and protection.
Our Response: In designating critical habitat, we identified areas,
per the definition of critical habitat in the Act, occupied by one of
these species of salamander on which are found physical or biological
features (a) essential to their conservation, and (b) which may require
special management considerations or protection. We did consider and
exclude all HCPs that specifically covered the Austin blind or
Jollyville Plateau salamanders in their HCP and for which the Service
issued a permit and provided ``No Surprises'' coverage. For more on the
weighing of the benefits of inclusion with the benefits of exclusion
for these areas, see the Exclusions section in the final critical
habitat rule.
(30) Comment: The City of Austin stated that there is no benefit to
excluding critical habitat for the Austin blind salamander based on the
plan area of the City of Austin's Barton Springs HCP.
Our Response: We agree with this assessment. At the time of the
proposed rule, we proposed critical habitat for the Austin blind
salamander in this area, but considered excluding lands under the
Barton Springs HCP. However, in accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we have determined not to exclude lands under the Barton Springs
HCP and to designate critical habitat for the Austin blind salamander
in this area in the final critical habitat rule.
(31) Comment: One commenter requested exclusion of the Knox Tract
in Jollyville Plateau salamander critical habitat Unit 30 because it is
not essential to the conservation of the species due to the amount of
development in the area, and the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. The benefits of exclusion include avoiding
financial impacts to a small developer.
Our Response: We have evidence that some of the PCEs are present at
this site, such as rocky substrate and access to subsurface habitat.
Special management is needed to protect the PCEs that are present
within this unit. Regarding whether or not Unit 30 is essential to the
conservation of Jollyville Plateau salamanders, salamander populations
at degraded sites such as these have lower probabilities of persistence
than undeveloped sites. The commenter did not specify the benefits of
including the unit in our critical habitat designation. We think those
benefits include educational and regulatory benefits afforded to all of
our critical habitat designations (see comment 28 above). We conducted
a final economic analysis that considered how small businesses might be
affected by the critical habitat designation. Based on the expected
number of consultations, this analysis estimated the cost per small
developer ranges from 0.05 to 0.09 percent of the annual revenue of the
average small developer ($4.6 million). Therefore, we concluded that
the final critical habitat rule would not result in a significant
economic impact on small developers. More specifically, our analysis
estimated the incremental impact to Unit 30 could be $940,000 over the
next 23 years, due to the administrative cost of consultation
(Industrial Economics

[[Page 51334]]

2013, p. 4-14). Furthermore, 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 consultation. 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.
(32) Comment: Several commenters requested exclusion of critical
habitat units (Units 3, 14, 17, and 31 for the Jollyville Plateau
salamander) due to significant economic impacts, stating that these
economic costs will far exceed any limited educational and regulatory
benefits.
Our Response: We have considered the economic impacts of
designation to all parties through an economic analysis and have
determined that this designation will not result in significant
economic impacts. According to our draft economic analysis, the total
economic cost of designating critical habitat Units 3 and 14 was
estimated to be $3.4 million and $120,000, respectively, over the next
23 years. The total economic cost of designating critical habitat Unit
17 was estimated to be $380,000 over the next 23 years. The total
economic cost of designating critical habitat Unit 31 was estimated to
be $930,000 over the next 23 years. All of these costs are
administrative in nature and result from the consideration of adverse
modification in section 7 consultations (Industrial Economics 2013,
Exhibit 4-5). In addition, we concluded that the critical habitat final
rule would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities (see Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) section in the final critical habitat rule).
(33) Comment: Clarify if a Four Points HCP exclusion includes the
location of the Four Points shaft.
Our Response: The Four Points HCP exclusion does not include the
Four Points shaft location because the shaft is not located within the
area that was proposed as critical habitat.
Draft Economic Analysis (DEA)
(34) Comment: The DEA should have been published at the same time
as the proposed rule.
Our Response: At the time the proposed rule was published for the
four central Texas salamanders on August 22, 2012, we lacked the
available economic information necessary to complete the draft economic
analysis. However, upon completion of the draft economic analysis, we
published a notice of availability of the draft economic analysis for
the designation of critical habitat for these species on January 25,
2013 (78 FR 5385) and reopened the public comment period for the
proposed designation. The draft economic analysis was available for
public review and comment for 45 days, beginning on January 25, 2013,
and ending on March 11, 2013.
Our current regulation at 50 CFR 424.19 states: ``The Secretary
shall identify any significant activities that would either affect an
area considered for designation as critical habitat or be likely to be
affected by the designation, and shall, after proposing designation of
such an area, consider the probable economic and other impacts of the
designation upon proposed or ongoing activities.'' The Service
interprets 'after proposing' to mean after publication of the proposed
critical habitat rule. While we have proposed a revision to these
regulations to change the timing of the economic analysis, we still
follow our current practice until such regulation revision is
finalized.
(35) Comment: Some commenters stated that the surface watersheds
draining into critical habitat areas were not delineated correctly in
the DEA. The DEA includes areas a great distance downgradient of
salamander habitat that are extremely unlikely to impact habitat.
Our Response: As described in the proposed rule, activities
occurring upstream of salamander habitat may result in increased flow
rates, sedimentation, contamination, changes in stream morphology and
water chemistry, and decreased groundwater recharge. Therefore,
economic activity may affect proposed critical habitat for the
salamanders even if the activity occurs beyond the boundary of the
proposed designation. The identification of upstream areas requires
detailed analysis of hydrologic and geographic information. This type
of analysis is beyond the scope of the DEA. However, to avoid
understating impacts, the DEA makes the simplifying assumption that
activities occurring throughout the entire watershed associated with
each proposed critical habitat unit may affect the salamanders and
their habitat. This assumption may overstate impacts in cases where
significant economic activity is forecast in areas downstream of
proposed critical habitat. Text has been added to Chapter 4 of the FEA
clarifying the uncertainty associated with this assumption.
For the purposes of assessing impacts to the sites from impervious
cover, the Service did revise the surface watersheds that were
presented in the proposed rule. The revised surface watersheds were
delineated to capture only the area draining directly into the surface
habitat of specific sites (Service 2013).
(36) Comment: One commenter believes that the DEA contradicts
itself by first indicating that water management activities are not a
threat to the Jollyville Plateau salamander but are a threat to the
Austin blind salamander (paragraph 26 of the DEA), then stating that
water management activities are a threat later (paragraph 135).
Our Response: Paragraph 26 of the DEA states that ``Construction of
dams and impoundments alter the natural hydrological regime and may
negatively affect salamander habitat. In particular, the entire range
of the Austin blind salamander has been affected by the construction of
impoundments for recreational purposes in the Barton Springs system.''
Providing this example for the Austin blind salamander was not meant to
downplay the significance of water management as a threat to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander. Clarifying language has been added to
the FEA.
(37) Comment: One commenter states that the DEA does not correctly
identify the watersheds associated with proposed critical habitat. In
particular, the proposed unit for the Austin blind salamander should be
associated with the Barton Creek watershed rather than the Lake Austin
watershed.
Our Response: The DEA verifies information provided in the proposed
rule using GIS data for HUC-12 watersheds. According to GIS data, the
proposed unit for the Austin blind salamander is located within the
Lake Austin HUC-12 watershed.
(38) Comment: One commenter notes that the DEA refers to the Town
Lake watershed, which has since been renamed the Lady Bird Lake
watershed.
Our Response: A footnote has been added to the FEA indicating that
Town Lake was renamed Lady Bird Lake by the City of Austin City Council
on July 26, 2007.
(39) Comment: One commenter notes that the DEA refers to the entire
range of the Austin blind salamander as being affected by impoundment
construction; however, the subterranean range is not

[[Page 51335]]

known. This comment suggests referring instead to ``the entire known
range.''
Our Response: The text of the FEA has been changed as suggested.
(40) Comment: One commenter provides clarification that the City of
Austin has submitted an amended Barton Springs HCP to the Service that
includes the Austin blind salamander as a covered species.
Our Response: Chapters 2 and 3 of the DEA note that the Barton
Springs Pool HCP is currently undergoing revision to add the Austin
blind salamander as a covered species.
(41) Comment: One commenter provides new information about the
Water Quality Protection Lands program overseen by the Wildlands
Conservation Division of the Austin Water Utility. This program
provides baseline protection to the Austin blind salamander by
purchasing open space within the Barton Springs Zone.
Our Response: Text has been added to Chapter 3 of the FEA
describing this conservation program.
(42) Comment: One commenter states that the DEA should not include
costs to protect the Austin blind salamander and its habitat that
result from protection of the co-occurring Barton Springs salamander
under the Barton Springs Pool HCP.
Our Response: Costs associated with baseline conservation, such as
that provided by the Barton Springs Pool HCP, are not quantified in the
DEA. To clarify, the DEA estimates present-value incremental impacts of
approximately $43,000 in the area currently covered by the Barton
Springs Pool HCP. Of this cost, approximately $42,000 is associated
with the ongoing programmatic reinitiation of consultation for the
Barton Springs Pool HCP. The remainder of forecast impacts is
associated with formal consultation on a small number of residential
development projects.
(43) Comment: The DEA mistakenly referred to Schlumberger, Ltd. as
the current permittee of the Concordia HCP.
Our Response: The most recent amendment to this HCP issued the
permit to Concordia University Texas at Austin, as noted in the
comment. The FEA has been revised accordingly.
(44) Comment: One commenter notes that the Edwards Aquifer
Protection Program established by the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality does not cover the Jollyville Plateau salamander's entire
habitat. In particular, the majority of the Bull Creek watershed is not
protected by this program.
Our Response: The DEA states that conservation measures implemented
as part of the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program may provide some
benefit to the Jollyville Plateau salamander and its habitat. The
information provided in the comment is consistent with this statement.
Additional clarification has been added to the FEA to indicate that not
all areas occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander will benefit
from this program.
(45) Comment: One commenter states that the DEA incorrectly claims
that the Jollyville Plateau salamander is not a covered species under
the Buttercup Creek HCP.
Our Response: The Jollyville Plateau salamander is identified as
``Eurycea new species'' in the Buttercup Creek HCP and was later
identified as the Jollyville Plateau salamander. This correction has
been made in the description of baseline protections in the FEA.
(46) Comment: One commenter states that the claim made in paragraph
92 of the DEA that ``there are currently no known local statutes or
regulations that directly protect the species'' is inaccurate and
contradicted later in Section 3.3 of the DEA.
Our Response: This statement is meant to convey the fact that at
the time the DEA was written, we were not aware of any statutes or
regulations with the primary purpose of protecting the Austin blind or
Jollyville Plateau salamanders. However, many local measures provide
ancillary protection to the species. This sentence has been removed
from the FEA.
(47) Comment: Multiple comments express concern that the DEA
overstates incremental costs associated with critical habitat
designation by forecasting reinitiations of section 7 consultations for
existing HCPs.
Our Response: The DEA conservatively assumes that consultations on
HCPs will be reinitiated to avoid underestimating costs associated with
the proposed designation. In some cases, HCP permittees may not decide
to amend their permits, thus not requiring the Service to reinitiate
consultation to include coverage of the salamanders and their
associated critical habitat. Language has been added to the FEA
indicating this possibility.
(48) Comment: Multiple commenters state that the DEA understates
the cost of section 7 consultation.
Our Response: The DEA relies on the best available information on
administrative costs. As described in Exhibit 2-1 of the DEA, the
consultation cost model is based on: data gathered from three Service
field offices (including a review of consultation records and
interviews with field office staff); telephone interviews with action
agency staff (for example, the Bureau of Land Management, Forest
Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); and telephone interviews with
private consultants who perform work in support of permittees. In the
case of Service and other Federal agency contacts, we determined the
typical level of effort (hours or days of work) required to complete
several different types of consultations, as well as the typical
Government Service (GS) level of the staff member performing this work.
In the case of private consultants, we interviewed representatives of
firms in California and New England to determine the typical cost
charged to clients for these efforts (for example, biological survey,
preparation of materials to support a Biological Assessment). The model
is periodically updated with new information received in the course of
data collection efforts supporting economic analyses and public comment
on more recent critical habitat rules. In particular, the
administrative costs used in the DEA were updated based on information
provided in the Service's incremental memorandum, included as Appendix
C of the DEA. In addition, the GS rates have been updated annually.
(49) Comment: One commenter states that formal section 7
consultations will take up to 4 years to complete and involve multiple
rounds of project review and revision, resulting in higher consultation
costs than those applied in the DEA.
Our Response: The length of the formal consultation process is
specified under the Act. In particular, the Federal action agency has
180 days to complete the biological assessment, the Service has 90 days
to formulate their biological opinion and incidental take statement,
and both parties have 45 days to review and finalize the biological
opinion. Therefore, in total we do not anticipate the formal
consultation process lasting longer than approximately 11 months.
(50) Comment: One commenter asserts that the DEA underestimates the
portion of the cost of section 7 consultation attributable to the
designation of critical habitat (that is, the incremental cost). The
commenter states that critical habitat designation will substantially
increase the time and effort involved in section 7 consultation. The
commenter bases this assertion on the fact that it is relatively simple
to arrive at a non-jeopardy opinion for projects affecting salamanders
at only one or two locations, but any action involving impacts to
critical habitat

[[Page 51336]]

would likely result in a finding of adverse modification.
Our Response: While the comment is noted by the Service, we do not
believe that the designation of critical habitat will substantially
increase the time and effort involved in section 7 consultation. In
particular, because the conditions under which jeopardy and adverse
modification may occur are so similar and closely related, the Service
does not expect the designation of critical habitat to substantially
increase the cost of consultation.
(51) Comment: One commenter indicates that in the context of
section 7 consultation on development activities, preparation of the
biological assessment will most likely be paid for by the private
developer or land owner. Assuming otherwise leads to an underestimate
of impacts to third parties in the DEA and an underestimate of impacts
to small businesses in the SBREFA analysis.
Our Response: In our 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
Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders and the designation of
critical habitat. The FEA has been modified to reflect the fact that
preparation of the biological assessment will most likely be paid for
by the third party participants to a consultation. This change leads to
an increase in the impact on small businesses in the SBREFA analysis.
The FEA estimates that 6,853 small developers across the study area
will be affected by this rule. Based on the expected number of
consultations, the cost per developer ranges from 0.05 to 0.09 percent
of the annual revenue of the average small developer ($4.6 million).
The FEA estimates that two small surface mining businesses will each
incur $880 in administrative costs. This represents less than 0.01
percent of their average annual revenue ($10 million). Finally, the FEA
estimates that nine small HCP permittees will be impacted by the rule
at a cost of approximately $6,925 per permittee. This cost represents
less than one percent of the annual revenues, assuming the average
annual revenue is $1.1 million (Industrial Economics 2013, pp. A-6, A-
7, A-8). Based on the above reasoning and currently available
information, we concluded that this rule would not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
(52) Comment: Two commenters note that the City of Cedar Park and
the surrounding area are rapidly growing. The commenters are concerned
that the designation of critical habitat will result in negative
impacts to existing and future development through the imposition of
burdensome Federal regulation. The commenters assert that these
regulations could potentially reduce the number of homes and businesses
built, increase the cost to own property, and decrease the city's tax
base.
Our Response: In Section 4.2, the DEA acknowledges that the City of
Cedar Park is rapidly growing and that potential effects on the
regional real estate market may occur. However, these effects would be
considered baseline impacts because conservation efforts recommended by
the Service are assumed to occur due to the listing of the species and
not the designation of critical habitat. The DEA focuses on the
incremental impacts of the critical habitat designation and does not
quantify impacts associated with the listing of the salamanders. As
described in Chapter 2 of the DEA, incremental impacts of the critical
habitat designation are limited to the administrative cost of section 7
consultation. These administrative costs are not considered high
relative to real estate development value, and therefore, are not
expected to have an effect on real estate markets.
(53) Comment: One comment states that the designation of critical
habitat could significantly affect the planned Leander Transit Oriented
Development by requiring low-density development to avoid adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Our Response: The DEA addresses impacts to development in Section
4.2. Because the Service does not anticipate requesting additional
project modifications to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat
beyond those requested to avoid jeopardy to the species, any impacts
resulting from restrictions on development density would occur in the
baseline due to the listing of the species. Therefore, such impacts are
not quantified in the DEA. Incremental impacts associated with the
designation of critical habitat are expected to be limited to
administrative costs of section 7 consultation.
(54) Comment: One commenter indicates that the assumption made in
the DEA that only vacant land develops is invalid. The commenter
explains that land currently classified for agriculture, ranch, and
farm uses may also be developed in the future.
Our Response: The development analysis has been modified in the FEA
to include agriculture, ranch, and farm land in addition to vacant land
as potentially developable. This change results in a forecast that
assumes more land being developed by 2035.
(55) Comment: One commenter takes issue with the use of the City of
Austin's data on site plan cases in the development analysis. The
commenter states that site plan cases are solely used for small,
nonresidential development, and use of this data ignores, and,
therefore, excludes all residential development from the analysis.
Our Response: As described in Section 4.2.3 of the DEA, the data on
development site plan cases is used only to calculate average project
size within the study area. This data is not used to limit the areas
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation or the type of
development affected by the proposed critical habitat designation.
Because of the narrow focus of site plan cases (that is, small,
nonresidential development), the FEA uses a modified assumption of
average project size.
(56) Comment: One commenter states that the DEA does not estimate
impacts associated with activities in upstream areas that may affect
critical habitat. The commenter goes on to state that the analysis
incorrectly excludes incremental impacts on over 90 percent of the
lands included in the study area.
Our Response: As first described in paragraph 3 of the executive
summary to the DEA, the study area for the analysis is defined as all
lands within the watersheds containing areas proposed for critical
habitat designation. This broad definition of the study area is meant
to capture the effect that conditions in the areas surrounding the
critical habitat units have on water quality and quantity in salamander
habitat. Exhibit 4-4 in the DEA provides information on the projected
acres of development within the watersheds outside of the proposed
critical habitat units as context for the area of land that may be
developed within the proposed designation. In the DEA, development is
restricted to vacant parcels not currently preserved in perpetuity.
(57) Comment: One comment states that the DEA underestimates
impacts to development activities by failing to consider the economic
impact of restricting development.
Our Response: Section 4.2 of the DEA does consider the economic
impact of restricting development. However, as described in this
section, all conservation efforts recommended as part of section 7
consultation would be recommended absent critical habitat designation.
These baseline conservation efforts may include restricting future
development within certain areas and establishing protected preserves
to offset water quality

[[Page 51337]]

impacts. The DEA focuses on quantifying the incremental impacts of the
critical habitat designation and, therefore, does not quantify the
economic impact of restricting development due to the listing of the
species.
Other Comments
(58) Comment: The Service has not met its burden for identifying
how the proposed critical habitat units may require special management.
The Service makes the same generic statement regarding special
management that it does for nearly all of the critical habitat units in
the proposed rule: ``This critical habitat unit requires special
management because of the potential for groundwater pollution from
current and future development in the watershed, potential for
vandalism, and depletion of groundwater.'' The Service does not
identify the sources of potential groundwater pollution or the
magnitude of this threat. This does not meet the burden under the Cape
Hatteras or Home Builders case, which stated ``Rather than discuss how
each identified PCE would need management protection, the Service lists
activities that once resulted in consultation and makes a conclusory
statement that dredging or shoreline management could result in
permanent habitat loss.'' The Service's critical habitat designation is
legally deficient without a more robust description as to why the
particular area requires special management or protection.
Our Response: Although we did not list activities that identify the
sources and magnitude of threats within each critical habitat unit, we
believe that the level of detail provided in the unit descriptions is
legally sufficient. The source and magnitude of threats for specific
sites is often unknown. In our critical habitat designation, we assess
whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain features that are essential to
the conservation of the species and which may require special
management considerations or protection. Each unit description states
whether or not the unit has the features that need special management.
Please see Special Management Considerations or Protections section of
the final critical habitat rule for particular management needs of the
physical or biological features.
(59) Comment: It is unclear what the impact will be to activities
outside of critical habitat that may impact water quality in critical
habitat areas.
Our Response: A critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not to be
managed or conserved for recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside
the critical habitat 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 ensure their actions are not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects outside of
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy or in
adverse effects on areas within critical habitat, if those activities
are affecting the critical habitat.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

During the second comment period (January 25 to March 11, 2013), we
notified the public of changes to the proposed critical habitat
designation based on additional information we received during the
first comment period (August 22 to October 22, 2012). On January 25,
2013 (78 FR 5385), we proposed to revise Units 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 17, 22,
23, and 28 for the Jollyville Plateau salamander. At that time and
along with numerous other changes, we combined proposed Units 3, 4, and
5 for the Jollyville Plateau salamander into one proposed critical
habitat unit, Unit 3 (Buttercup Creek Unit) based on eight new
locations. Please see the January 25, 2013, Federal Register document
(78 FR 5385) for additional changes to the proposed rule.
Based on additional information we received during the second
comment period regarding the source of water in Austin blind salamander
and Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat, we refined our description
of the primary constituent elements to more accurately reflect the
habitat needs of these two species. We also separated the primary
constituent elements into surface and subsurface habitat categories for
both salamander species in order to clarify the needs of the species.
In the proposed rule, surface critical habitat was delineated by
starting with the cave or spring point locations that are occupied by
the salamanders and extending a line downstream 164 ft (50 m) because
this was the farthest a salamander has been observed from a spring
outlet. However, in this final rule, we revised surface critical
habitat to include 262 ft (80 m) of stream habitat upstream and
downstream from known salamander sites. This revision is based on a
recent study completed by the City of Austin (Bendik 2013, pers. comm.)
and is the farthest a Jollyville Plateau salamander has been observed
from a spring outlet. Due to their similar life histories, this
knowledge was applied to the Austin blind salamander. Because the
surface designation is contained within the extent of the subsurface
critical habitat, this expansion did not increase the total acreage of
critical habitat.
Based on new information that we did not have at the time of
publication of the proposed rule or the revised proposed rule and
notice of availability on January 25, 2013, we made a number of changes
to our critical habitat units. We moved the location of Brushy Creek
Spring (Jollyville Plateau salamander critical habitat Unit 2)
approximately 98 ft (30 m) to more accurately mark the location of this
spring. We also removed several units, which has resulted in a
discontinuous list of unit numbers for the Jollyville Plateau
salamander (see TABLE 3 later in this document).
We removed Salamander Cave (Jollyville Plateau salamander critical
habitat Unit 29) based on new information that suggests this cave
opening had been filled about 20 years ago. Therefore, the exact
location of the cave is currently unknown. Finally, we added two
additional locations for the Jollyville Plateau salamander to critical
habitat (Downstream of Small Sylvia Spring 1, Downstream of Small
Sylvia Spring 2). These two new locations were within 213 ft (65 m) of
two existing critical habitat units (Units 22 and 33) and resulted in
the merging of those two units into a single unit (Unit 22). Total
critical habitat acreage for Unit 22 is 439 ac (178 ha) as a result of
this merging.
In response to comments, we conducted a weighing analysis of the
Grandview Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Four Points HCP, and
Buttercup Creek HCP and have excluded these areas from critical
habitat. As a result of these exclusions, critical habitat unit 3 for
the Jollyville Plateau salamander was split into five smaller subunits,
and the size of critical habitat units 14 and 19 was reduced by 44 ac
(18 ha) and 157 ac (64 ha), respectively.
Overall, the total amount of critical habitat designated decreased
by 603 ac (244 ha) in this final rule compared to the proposed rule,
including proposed changes announced in the January 25, 2013, Federal
Register notice (78 FR

[[Page 51338]]

5385). A summary of the changes in critical habitat acreage are
presented in Table 1.

Table 1--Summary of Changes in Critical Habitat Acreage for the Jollyville Plateau Salamander Species in the
Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
critical habitat Final critical Change in acres
Critical habitat units that changed in acres habitat in acres (hectares)
(hectares) (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Buttercup Creek Unit................................... 699 (283) * 323 (131) -376 (-152)
14. Kretschmarr Unit...................................... 112 (45) 68 (28) -44 (-18)
19. Bull Creek 3 Unit..................................... 254 (103) 97 (39) -157 (-64)
22. Sylvia Spring Area Unit............................... 238 (96) 439 (178) +201 (+81)
29. Salamander Cave Unit.................................. 68 (28) 0 (0) -68 (-28)
33. Tributary 4 Unit...................................... 159 (64) 0 (0) -159 (-64)
-----------------------------------------------------
Total of all units.................................... 5,054 (2,045) 4,451 (1,801) -603 (-244)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This represents the sum of the five subunits created from the exclusion.
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

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, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, 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 or 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 those
specific elements of the physical or biological features that 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. 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

[[Page 51339]]

species. Additional information sources may include 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. 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 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) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects outside the
designated critical habitat areas may still result in adverse effects
on areas within critical habitat, if those activities are affecting the
critical habitat. In addition, 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 these 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, 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 section 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 Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders from studies of
these 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 August 22, 2012 (77 FR
50768), and in the information presented below. Additional information
can be found in the final listing rule published elsewhere in today's
Federal Register. We have determined that the Austin blind and
Jollyville Plateau salamanders require the following physical or
biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Austin Blind Salamander
The Austin blind salamander has been found where water emerges from
the ground as a spring. However, this species is rarely seen at the
surface of the spring, so we assume that it is subterranean for most of
its life (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267). Supporting this assumption is
the fact that the species' physiology is cave-adapted, with reduced
eyes and pale coloration (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267). Most individuals
found on the surface near spring openings are juveniles (Hillis et al.
2001, p. 273), and it is unclear if this means adults are able to
retreat back into the aquifer or if juveniles are more likely to be
flushed to the surface habitat. Austin blind salamanders have been
found in the streambed a short distance (about 33 ft (10 m)) downstream
of Sunken Gardens Spring (Laurie Dries 2011, COA, pers. comm.).
However, Jollyville Plateau salamanders, a closely related species,
have been found farther from a spring opening in the Bull Creek
drainage. A recent study using mark-recapture methods found marked
individuals moved up to 262 ft (80 m) both upstream and downstream from
the Lanier Spring outlet (Bendik 2013, pers. comm.). This study
demonstrates that Eurycea salamanders can travel greater distances from
a discrete spring opening than previously thought, including upstream
areas, if suitable habitat is present. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify springs, associated streams, Barton
Springs pool, and underground spaces within the Barton Springs Segment
of the Edwards Aquifer to be the primary space essential for individual
and population growth and for normal behavior.
Jollyville Plateau Salamander
The Jollyville Plateau salamander occurs in wetted caves and where
water emerges from the ground as a spring-fed stream. Within the spring
ecosystem, proximity to the springhead is presumed important because of
the appropriate stable water chemistry and temperature, substrate, and
flow regime. Eurycea salamanders are rarely found more than 66 ft (20
m) from a spring source (TPWD 2011, p. 3). However, Jollyville Plateau
salamanders have been found farther from a spring opening in the Bull
Creek drainage. A recent study using mark-recapture methods found
marked individuals moved up to 262 ft (80 m) both upstream and
downstream from the Lanier Spring outlet (Bendik 2013, pers. comm.).
This study demonstrates that Eurycea salamanders can travel greater
distances from a discrete spring opening than previously thought,
including upstream areas, if suitable habitat is present. Jollyville
Plateau salamanders are also known to retreat underground to wetted
areas (such as the aquifer) for habitat when surface habitats go dry
(Bendik 2011a, p. 31). We presume that these salamanders also use
subsurface areas to some extent during normal flow conditions. Forms of
Jollyville Plateau salamander with cave morphology have been found in
several underground streams (Chippindale et al. 2000, pp. 36-37; TPWD
2011a, pp. 9-10). Therefore, based on the information above, we
identify springs, associated streams, and underground spaces within the
Trinity Aquifer, Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, and local
alluvial aquifers to be the primary space essential for individual and
population growth and for normal behavior.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Austin Blind Salamander
No species-specific dietary study has been completed, but the diet
of the Austin blind salamander is presumed to

[[Page 51340]]

be similar to other Eurycea species, consisting of small aquatic
invertebrates such as amphipods, copepods, isopods, and insect larvae
(reviewed in COA 2001, pp. 5-6). The feces of one wild-caught Austin
blind salamander contained amphipods, ostracods, copepods, and plant
material (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 273). In addition, flatworms were
found to be the primary food source for the co-occurring Barton Springs
salamander (Eurycea sosorum) (Gillespie 2013, p. 5), suggesting that
flatworms may also contribute to the diet of the Austin blind
salamander.
Austin blind salamanders are strictly aquatic and spend their
entire lives submersed in water from the Barton Springs Segment of the
Edwards Aquifer (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 273). Under drought conditions,
Barton Springs (particularly Sunken Gardens/Old Mill Spring) also
receives some recharge from the Blanco River (Johnson et al. 2012, p.
82), whose waters originate from the Trinity Aquifer. These
salamanders, and the prey that they feed on, require water at
sufficient flows (quantity) to meet all of their physiological
requirements. Flows at Barton Springs have never gone dry during the
worst droughts of Texas (Hauwert et al. 2005, p. 19). This water should
be flowing and unchanged in chemistry, temperature, and volume from
natural conditions. The average water temperature at Austin blind
salamander sites in Barton Springs is between 67.8 and
72.3[emsp14][deg]F (19.9 and 22.4 [deg]C) (COA 2011, unpublished data).
Concentrations of contaminants should be below levels that could exert
direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction,
growth, development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such
as effects to the Austin blind salamander's prey base).
Edwards Aquifer Eurycea species are adapted to a lower ideal range
of oxygen saturations compared to other salamanders (Turner 2009, p.
11). However, Eurycea salamanders need dissolved oxygen concentrations
to be above a certain concentration, as the co-occurring Barton Springs
salamander demonstrates declining abundance with declining dissolved
oxygen levels (Turner 2009, p. 14). Woods et al. (2010, p. 544)
observed a number of physiological effects to low dissolved oxygen
concentrations (below 4.5 milligrams of oxygen per liter (mg
L^-1)) in the related San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana),
including decreased metabolic rates and decreased juvenile growth
rates. Barton Springs salamander abundance is highest when dissolved
oxygen is between 5 to 7 mg L^-1 (Turner 2009, p. 12).
Therefore, we assume that the dissolved oxygen level of water is
important to the Austin blind salamander as well. The mean annual
dissolved oxygen (from 2003 through 2011) at Main Spring, Eliza Spring,
and Sunken Garden Spring was 6.36, 5.89, and 5.95 mg L^-1,
respectively (COA 2011, unpublished data).
The conductivity of water is important to salamander physiology
because it is related to the concentration of ions in the water.
Increased conductivity is associated with increased water contamination
and decreased Eurycea abundance (Willson and Dorcas 2003, pp. 766-768;
Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 117-118). The lower limit of observed
conductivity in developed Jollyville Plateau salamander sites where
salamander densities were lower than undeveloped sites was 800
microsiemens per centimeter ([micro]S cm^-1) (Bowles et al.
2006, p. 117). Salamanders were significantly more abundant at
undeveloped sites where water conductivity averaged 600 [micro]S
cm^-1 (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). Because of its similar
physiology to the Jollyville Plateau salamander, we assume that the
Austin blind salamander will have a similar response to elevated water
conductance. Although one laboratory study on the related San Marcos
salamander demonstrated that conductivities up to 2,738 [micro]S
cm^-1 had no measurable effect on adult activity (Woods and
Poteet 2006, p. 5), it remains unclear how elevated water conductance
might affect juveniles or the long-term health of salamanders in the
wild. Furthermore, higher conductivity in urban streams is well-
documented and is correlated with decreases in invertebrate species,
the prey base of this species (Coles et al. 2012, p. 63, 78). Based on
the best available information on the sensitivity of salamanders to
changes in conductivity (or other contaminants) in the wild, it is
reasonable to assume that salamander survival, growth, and reproduction
will be most successful when water quality is unaltered from natural
aquifer conditions. The average water conductance at Main Spring, Eliza
Spring, and Sunken Garden Spring is between 605 and 740 [micro]S
cm^-1 (COA 2011, unpublished data).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify aquatic
invertebrates and water from the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards
Aquifer with adequate dissolved oxygen concentration, water
conductance, and water temperature to be physical or biological
features essential for the nutritional and physiological requirements
of this species.
Jollyville Plateau Salamander
As in other Eurycea species, the Jollyville Plateau salamander
feeds on aquatic invertebrates that commonly occur in spring
environments (reviewed in COA 2001, pp. 5-6). A stomach content
analysis by the City of Austin demonstrated that this salamander preys
on varying proportions of ostracods, copepods, mayfly larvae, fly
larvae, snails, water mites, aquatic beetles, and stone fly larvae
depending on the location of the site (Bendik 2011b, pers. comm.). In
addition, flatworms were found to be the primary food source for the
related Barton Springs salamander (Gillespie 2013, p. 5), suggesting
that flatworms may also contribute to the diet of the Jollyville
Plateau salamander if present in the invertebrate community.
Jollyville Plateau salamanders are strictly aquatic and spend their
entire lives submersed in water sourced from the Northern Segment of
the Edwards Aquifer, the Trinity Aquifer, and local alluvium (loose
unconsolidated soils) (COA 2001, pp. 3-4; Bowles et al. 2006, p. 112;
Johns 2011, p. 5-6). These salamanders, and the prey that they feed on,
require water at sufficient flows (quantity) to meet all of their
physiological requirements. This water should be flowing and unchanged
in chemistry, temperature, and volume from natural conditions. The
average water temperature at Jollyville Plateau salamander sites with
undeveloped watersheds ranges from 65.3 to 73.4[emsp14][deg]F (18.5 to
23 [deg]C) (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 115; COA 2012, pers. comm.).
Concentrations of water quality contaminants should be below levels
that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to
reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes), or indirect
effects (such as effects to the Jollyville Plateau salamander's prey
base).
Edwards Aquifer Eurycea species are adapted to a lower range of
oxygen saturations compared to other salamanders (Turner 2009, p. 11).
However, Eurycea salamanders need dissolved oxygen concentrations to be
above a certain concentration, as the related Barton Springs salamander
demonstrates declining abundance with declining dissolved oxygen levels
(Turner 2009, p. 14). In addition, Woods et al. (2010, p. 544) observed
a number of physiological effects to low dissolved oxygen
concentrations (below 4.5 mg L^-1) in the related San Marcos
salamander, including decreased metabolic rates and decreased juvenile
growth rates. The average dissolved oxygen level of Jollyville Plateau

[[Page 51341]]

salamander sites with little or no development in the watershed ranges
from 5.6 to 7.1 mg L^-1 (Bendik 2011a, p. 10). Based on this
information, we conclude that the dissolved oxygen level of water is
important to the Jollyville Plateau salamander for respiratory
function.
The conductivity of water is also important to salamander
physiology because it is related to the concentration of ions in the
water. Increased conductivity is associated with increased water
contamination and decreased Eurycea abundance (Willson and Dorcas 2003,
pp. 766-768; Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 117-118). The lower limit of
conductivity in developed Jollyville Plateau salamander sites where
salamander densities were lower than undeveloped sites was 800 [micro]S
cm^-1 (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). Salamanders were
significantly more abundant at undeveloped sites where water
conductivity averaged 600 [micro]S cm^-1 (Bowles et al. 2006,
p. 117). The average water conductance of Jollyville Plateau salamander
sites with little or no development in the watershed ranges from 550 to
625 [micro]S cm^-1 (Bendik 2011a, p. 10, Bowles et al. 2006,
p.115). Although one laboratory study on the related San Marcos
salamander demonstrated that conductivities up to 2,738 [micro]S
cm^-1 had no measurable effect on adult activity (Woods and
Poteet 2006, p. 5), it remains unclear how elevated water conductance
might affect juveniles or the long-term health of salamanders in the
wild. Furthermore, higher conductivity in urban streams is well-
documented and is correlated with decreases in invertebrate species,
the prey base of this species (Coles et al. 2012, p. 63, 78). Based on
the best available information on the sensitivity of salamanders to
changes in conductivity (or other contaminants) in the wild, it is
reasonable to presume that salamander survival, growth, and
reproduction will be most successful when water quality is unaltered
from natural aquifer conditions.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify aquatic
invertebrates and water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards
Aquifer, including adequate dissolved oxygen concentration, water
conductance, and water temperature, to be physical or biological
features essential for the nutritional and physiological requirements
of this species.
Cover or Shelter
Austin Blind Salamander
The Austin blind salamander spends most of its life below the
surface in the aquifer, and may only be flushed to the surface
accidentally (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 273). This species should
therefore have access back into the aquifer through the spring outlets.
While on the surface near spring outlets, they move into
interstitial spaces (empty voids between rocks) within the substrate,
using these spaces for foraging habitat and cover from predators
similar to other Eurycea salamanders in central Texas (Cole 1995, p.
24; Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. 16-17). These spaces should have minimal
sediment, as sediment fills interstitial spaces, eliminating resting
places and also reducing habitat of the prey base (small aquatic
invertebrates) (O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). Austin blind salamanders
have been observed under rocks and vegetation (Dries 2011, COA, pers.
comm.).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify rocky
substrate, consisting of boulder, cobble, and gravel, with interstitial
spaces that have minimal sediment, to be an essential component of the
physical or biological features essential for the cover and shelter for
this species. Access to the aquifer is also an essential component of
these physical or biological features.
Jollyville Plateau Salamander
Similar to other Eurycea salamanders in central Texas, Jollyville
Plateau salamanders move an unknown depth into the interstitial spaces
(empty voids between rocks) within the substrate, using these spaces
for foraging habitat and cover from predators (Cole 1995, p. 24; Pierce
and Wall 2011, pp. 16-17). These spaces should have minimal sediment,
as sediment fills interstitial spaces, eliminating resting places and
also reducing habitat of the prey base (small aquatic invertebrates)
(O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34).
Jollyville Plateau salamanders have been observed under rocks, leaf
litter, and other vegetation (Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 114-116). There
was a strong positive relationship between salamander abundance and the
amount of available rocky substrate (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 114).
Salamanders were more likely to use larger rocks (larger than 2.5
inches (in) or 64 millimeters (mm)) compared to gravel (Bowles et al.
2006, p. 114, 116).
If springs stop flowing and the surface habitat dries up,
Jollyville Plateau salamanders are known to recede with the water table
and persist in groundwater refugia until surface flow returns (Bendik
2011a, p. 31). Access to subsurface refugia allows populations some
resiliency against drought events.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify rocky
substrate, consisting of boulder, cobble, and gravel, with interstitial
spaces that have minimal sediment, to be an essential component of the
physical or biological features essential for the cover and shelter for
this species. Access to the subsurface groundwater table is also an
essential component of these physical or biological features.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Austin Blind Salamander
Little is known about the reproductive habits of this species in
the wild. However, the Austin blind salamander is fully aquatic and,
therefore, spends all of its life cycles in aquifer and spring waters.
Eggs of central Texas Eurycea species are rarely seen on the surface,
so it is widely assumed that eggs are laid underground (Gluesenkamp
2011, TPWD, pers. comm.; Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. comm.).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify underground
spaces to be an essential component of the physical or biological
features essential for breeding and reproduction for this species.
Jollyville Plateau Salamander
Little is known about the reproductive habits of this species in
the wild. However, the Jollyville Plateau salamander is fully aquatic
and, therefore, spends all of its life cycles in aquifer and spring
waters. Eggs of central Texas Eurycea species are rarely seen on the
surface, so it is widely assumed that eggs are laid underground
(Gluesenkamp 2011, TPWD, pers. comm.; Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. comm.).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify underground
spaces to be an essential component of the physical or biological
features essential for breeding and reproduction for this species.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Austin Blind and Jollyville
Plateau Salamanders
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders in
areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features'
primary constituent elements. Primary constituent elements (PCEs) are
those specific elements of the physical or biological features that
provide for a species' life-history processes and are

[[Page 51342]]

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 primary constituent
elements specific to the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau
salamanders are:
Austin Blind Salamander
Surface Habitat PCEs
i. Water from the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
The groundwater is similar to natural aquifer conditions as it
discharges from natural spring outlets. Concentrations of water quality
constituents and contaminants are below levels that could exert direct
lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth,
development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as
effects to the Austin blind salamander's prey base). Hydrologic regimes
similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present,
with constant surface flow. The water chemistry is similar to natural
aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 67.8 to 72.3[emsp14][deg]F
(19.9 and 22.4 [deg]C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from 5 to 7 mg
L^-1, and specific water conductance from 605 to 740 [micro]S
cm^-1.
ii. Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the
substrate of the salamander's surface aquatic habitat are large enough
to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat
(larger than 2.5 in (64 mm)). The substrate and interstitial spaces
have minimal sedimentation.
iii. Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment
supports a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that includes
crustaceans, insects, and flatworms.
iv. Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table
exists to provide shelter, protection, and space for reproduction. This
access can occur in the form of large conduits that carry water to the
spring outlet or fissures in the bedrock.
Subsurface Habitat PCEs
i. Water from the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
The groundwater is similar to natural aquifer conditions.
Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants are below
levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as
effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes),
or indirect effects (such as effects to the Austin blind salamander's
prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the
specific sites are present, with continuous flow in the subterranean
habitat. The water chemistry is similar to natural aquifer conditions,
including temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific water
conductance.
ii. Subsurface spaces. Conduits underground are large enough to
provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat.
iii. Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat supports an
aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, or
flatworms.
Jollyville Plateau Salamander
Surface Habitat PCEs
i. Water from the Trinity Aquifer, Northern Segment of the Edwards
Aquifer, and local alluvial aquifers. The groundwater is similar to
natural aquifer conditions as it discharges from natural spring
outlets. Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants
should be below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal
effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or
metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander's prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar
to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present, with at
least some surface flow during the year. The water chemistry is similar
to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to
73.4[emsp14][deg]F (17.9 to 23 [deg]C), dissolved oxygen concentrations
from 5.6 to 8 mg L^-1, and specific water conductance from
550 to 721 [micro]S cm^-1.
ii. Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the
substrate of the salamander's surface aquatic habitat are large enough
to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat
(larger than 2.5 in (64 mm)). The substrate and interstitial spaces
have minimal sedimentation.
iii. Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment
supports a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that includes
crustaceans, insects, and flatworms.
iv. Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table
should exist to provide shelter, protection, and space for
reproduction. This access can occur in the form of large conduits that
carry water to the spring outlet or porous voids between rocks in the
streambed that extend down into the water table.
Subsurface Habitat PCEs
i. Water from the Trinity Aquifer, Northern Segment of the Edwards
Aquifer, and local alluvial aquifers. The groundwater is similar to
natural aquifer conditions. Concentrations of water quality
constituents and contaminants are below levels that could exert direct
lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth,
development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as
effects to the Jollyville Plateau salamander's prey base). Hydrologic
regimes similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are
present, with continuous flow. The water chemistry is similar to
natural aquifer conditions, including temperature, dissolved oxygen,
and specific water conductance.
ii. Subsurface spaces. Voids between rocks underground are large
enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging
habitat. These spaces have minimal sedimentation.
iii. Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat supports an
aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, or
flatworms.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of these species
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce
the following threats: water quality degradation from contaminants,
alteration to natural flow regimes, and physical habitat modification.
For these salamanders, special management considerations or
protection are needed to address threats. Management activities that
could ameliorate threats include (but are not limited to): (1)
Protecting the quality of groundwater by implementing comprehensive
programs to control and reduce point sources and non-point sources of
pollution throughout the Barton Springs and Northern Segments of the
Edwards Aquifer and contributing portions of the Trinity Aquifer, (2)
protecting the quality and quantity of surface water by implementing
comprehensive programs to control and reduce point sources and non-
point sources of pollution within the surface drainage areas of the
salamander spring sites, (3) protecting groundwater and spring flow
quantity (for example, by implementing water conservation and drought
contingency plans throughout the Barton Springs and Northern Segments
of the Edwards Aquifer and contributing portions of the Trinity

[[Page 51343]]

Aquifer), (4) fencing and signage to protect from human vandalism, (5)
protecting water quality and quantity from present and future
quarrying, and (6) excluding cattle and feral hogs through fencing to
protect spring habitats from damage.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available in determining areas that contain the
features that are essential to the conservation of the Austin blind and
Jollyville Plateau salamanders. During our preparation for designating
critical habitat for the two salamander species, we reviewed: (1) Data
for historical and current occurrence, (2) information pertaining to
habitat features essential for the conservation of these species, and
(3) scientific information on the biology and ecology of the two
species. We have also reviewed a number of studies and surveys of the
two salamander species that confirm historical and current occurrence
of the two species including, but not limited to, Sweet (1978; 1982),
Russell (1993), Warton (1997), COA (2001), Chippindale et al. (2000),
and Hillis et al. (2001). Finally, salamander site locations and
observations were verified with the aid of salamander biologists,
museum collection records, and site visits.
In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50
CFR 424.12(e), we consider 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 not designating any additional areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species, although we acknowledge that other areas, such
as the recharge zone of the aquifers supporting salamander locations,
are very important to the conservation of the species. We also
recognize that there may be additional occupied areas outside of the
areas designated as critical habitat that we are not aware of at the
time of this designation that are necessary for the conservation of the
species. For the purpose of designating critical habitat for the Austin
blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders, we define an area as occupied
based upon the reliable observation of a salamander species by a
knowledgeable scientist. It is very difficult to prove unquestionably
that a salamander population has been extirpated from a spring site due
to these species' ability to occupy the inaccessible subsurface
habitat. We therefore considered any site that had a salamander
observation at any prior time to be currently occupied, unless that
spring or cave site had been destroyed.
Based on our review, the critical habitat areas described below
constitute our best assessment at this time of areas that are within
the geographical range occupied by at least one of the two salamander
species and are considered to contain features essential to the
conservation of these species. The extent to which the subterranean
populations of these species exist belowground away from outlets of the
spring system is unknown. Because the hydrology of central Texas is
very complex and information on the hydrology of specific spring sites
is largely unknown, we will continue to seek information to increase
our understanding of spring hydrology and salamander underground
distribution to inform conservation efforts for these species. At the
time of this final critical habitat rule, the best scientific evidence
available suggests that a population of these salamanders can extend at
least 984 ft (300 m) from the spring opening through underground
conduits or voids between rocks.
We are designating as critical habitat areas that we have
determined are occupied by at least one of the two salamanders and
contain elements of physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species. We delineated both surface and subsurface
critical habitat components. The surface critical habitat component was
delineated by starting with the spring point locations that are
occupied by the salamanders and extending a line upstream and
downstream 262 ft (80 m) because this is the farthest a salamander has
been observed from a spring outlet (Bendik 2013, pers. comm.). When
determining surface critical habitat boundaries, we were not able to
delineate specific stream segments on the map due to the small size of
the streams. Therefore, we drew a circle with a 262-ft (80-m) radius
representing the extent the surface population of the site is estimated
to exist upstream and downstream. The surface critical habitat includes
the spring outlets and outflow up to the ordinary high water line (the
average amount of water present in non-flood conditions, as defined in
33 CFR 328.3(e)) and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat
(to the extent that this habitat is ever present), including the dry
stream channel during periods of no surface flow. We acknowledge that
some spring sites occupied by one of the two salamanders are the start
of the watercourse, and upstream habitat does not exist for these
sites. The surface habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) within
this circle.
We delineated the subsurface critical habitat unit boundaries by
starting with the cave or spring point locations that are occupied by
the salamanders. From these cave or spring points, we delineated an
area with a 984-ft (300-m) radius to create the polygons that capture
the extent to which we believe the salamander populations exist through
underground habitat. This radial distance comes from observations of
the Austin blind salamander, which is believed to occur underground
throughout the entire Barton Springs complex (Dries 2011, COA, pers.
comm.). The spring outlets used by salamanders of the Barton Springs
complex are not connected on the surface, so the Austin blind
salamander population extends a horizontal distance of at least 984 ft
(300 m) underground, as this is the approximate distance between the
farthest two outlets within the Barton Springs complex known to be
occupied by the species. This knowledge was applied to the Jollyville
Plateau salamanders due to its similar life history. The subsurface
polygons were then simplified to reduce the number of vertices, but
still retain the overall shape and extent. Once that was done, polygons
that were within 98 ft (30 m) of each other were merged together
because these areas are likely connected underground. Each new merged
polygon was then revised by removing extraneous divits or protrusions
that resulted from the merge process.
Developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and
other structures lack physical or biological features for the Austin
blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders. The scale of the maps we
prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed
lands. Any such lands left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on
the maps of this final rule have been excluded by text in the rule and
are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action
involving these lands will not trigger section 7 consultation 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 or subsurface critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying

[[Page 51344]]

regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the rule
portion. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the
critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will
make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based
available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS-R2-ES-2013-0001, on our Internet site (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ESA_Sp_Salamanders.html) and at the field
office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT above).

Final Critical Habitat Designation

We are designating a total of 33 units for designation for the
Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders based on essential
physical or biological features being present to support the
salamanders' life-history processes. The critical habitat areas
described below constitute our best assessment at this time of areas
that meet the definition of critical habitat. Some units contain all of
the identified elements of physical or biological features and support
multiple life-history processes. Some units contain only some elements
of the physical or biological features necessary to support Austin
blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders' particular use of that
habitat. In some units, the physical or biological features essential
for the conservation of these salamanders have been impacted at times,
and in some cases these impacts have had negative effects on the
salamander populations there. We recognize that some units have
experienced impacts and may have physical or biological features of
lesser quality than others. Special management considerations or
protection may be needed at these sites to provide for long-term
sustainability of the species at these sites. In addition, high-quality
sites need protection, and in some cases management, to maintain their
quality and ability to sustain the salamander populations over the long
term.
We are designating 1 unit as critical habitat for the Austin blind
salamander and 32 units as critical habitat for the Jollyville Plateau
salamander (33 units total). The critical habitat areas we describe
below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the Austin blind and Jollyville
Plateau salamanders. As previously noted, we are designating both
surface and subsurface critical habitat components. The surface
critical habitat includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the high
water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat, but
does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts,
runways, roads, and other paved areas); however, the subsurface
critical habitat may extend below such structures. The subsurface
critical habitat includes underground features in a circle with a
radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the cave and surface salamander
locations. The 33 units we are designating as critical habitat are
listed and described below, and acreages are based on the size of the
subsurface critical habitat component, because it encompasses the
surface critical habitat. All units described below are occupied by one
of the two salamander species.

Table 2--Critical Habitat Unit for the Austin Blind Salamander
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of unit in
Critical habitat unit Land ownership by acres
type (hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Barton Springs Unit........... City, Private...... 120 (49)
Total........................ ................... 120 (49)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries.

Table 3--Critical Habitat Units for the Jollyville Plateau Salamander
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of unit in
Critical habitat unit Land ownership by acres
type (hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Krienke Spring Unit........... Private............ 68 (28)
2. Brushy Creek Spring Unit...... Private............ 68 (28)
3A. Buttercup Creek Unit......... Private, City...... 260 (105)
3B. Buttercup Creek Unit......... Private............ 28 (11)
3C. Buttercup Creek Unit......... Private............ 3 (1)
3D. Buttercup Creek Unit......... Private............ 16 (6)
3E. Buttercup Creek Unit......... Private............ 17 (7)
6. Avery Spring Unit............. Private............ 237 (96)
7. PC Spring Unit................ Private............ 68 (28)
8. Baker and Audubon Spring Unit. Private............ 110 (45)
9. Wheless Spring Unit........... Private, County.... 145 (59)
10. Blizzard R-Bar-B Spring Unit. Private, County.... 88 (36)
11. House Spring Unit............ Private............ 68 (28)
12. Kelly Hollow Spring Unit..... Private............ 68 (28)
13. MacDonald Well Unit.......... Private, County.... 68 (28)
14. Kretschmarr Unit............. Private............ 68 (28)
15. Pope and Hiers (Canyon Creek) Private............ 68 (28)
Spring Unit.
16. Fern Gully Spring Unit....... Private, City...... 68 (28)
17. Bull Creek 1 Unit............ Private, City, 1,198 (485)
County.
18. Bull Creek 2 Unit............ Private, City, 237 (96)
County.
19. Bull Creek 3 Unit............ Private, City...... 97 (39)
20. Moss Gully Spring Unit....... City, County....... 68 (28)
21. Ivanhoe Spring Unit.......... City............... 68 (28)
22. Sylvia Spring Area Unit...... Private, City, 439 (178)
County.
24. Long Hog Hollow Unit......... Private............ 68 (28)
25. Tributary 3 Unit............. Private............ 68 (28)

[[Page 51345]]

26. Sierra Spring Unit........... Private............ 68 (28)
27. Troll Spring Unit............ Private, City...... 98 (40)
28. Stillhouse Unit.............. Private, City...... 203 (82)
30. Indian Spring Unit........... Private............ 68 (28)
31. Spicewood Spring Unit........ Private............ 68 (28)
32. Balcones District Park Spring Private, City...... 68 (28)
Unit.
Total........................ ................... 4,331 (1,753)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all
land within critical habitat unit boundaries.

We present below brief descriptions of all units and reasons why
they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Austin blind and
Jollyville Plateau salamanders. The function of each unit with respect
to species conservation is to contribute to the redundancy,
representation, and resiliency of its respective species, which
determines the species' probability of persistence. Redundancy means a
sufficient number of populations to provide a margin of safety to
reduce the risk of losing a species or certain representation
(variation) within a species. Representation means conserving ``some of
everything'' with regard to genetic and ecological diversity to allow
for future adaptation and maintenance of evolutionary potential.
Resiliency is the ability of a species to persist through severe
hardships (Tear et al. 2005, p. 841).

Austin Blind Salamander

Unit 1: Barton Springs Unit
The Barton Springs Unit consists of 120 ac (49 ha) of City and
private land in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas. Most of the
unit consists of landscaped areas managed as Zilker Park, which is
owned by the City of Austin. The southwestern portion of the unit is
dense commercial development, and part of the southern portion contains
residential development. Barton Springs Road, a major roadway, crosses
the northeastern portion of the unit. This unit contains Parthenia
Spring, Sunken Gardens (Old Mill) Spring, and Eliza Spring, which are
occupied by Austin blind salamander. The springs are located in the
Barton Creek watershed. Parthenia Spring is located in the backwater of
Barton Springs Pool, which is formed by a dam on Barton Creek; Eliza
Spring is on an unnamed tributary to the bypass channel of the pool;
and Sunken Gardens Spring is located on a tributary that enters Barton
Creek downstream of the dam for Barton Springs Pool. The unit contains
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the contributing and recharge zone for the Barton
Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer, depletion of groundwater,
runoff from impervious cover within the surface watershed into surface
habitat, and impacts of the impoundment (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection section). Special management may also be
needed to protect the surface from disturbance as part of the operation
of Barton Springs Pool, and this management is being provided as part
of the Barton Springs Pool HCP. Twenty-two ac (9 ha) of this unit are
covered by the Barton Springs Pool HCP, which covers adverse impacts to
the Barton Springs salamander and the Austin blind salamander.
The designation includes the underground aquifer in this area and
the springs and fissure outlets, and their outflows 262 ft (80 m)
upstream and downstream. The unit was further delineated by drawing a
circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the springs, representing
the extent of the subterranean critical habitat. We joined the edges of
the resulting circles. Because we did not have specific points for
species locations, we used the center of Eliza and Sunken Gardens
springs and the southwestern point of a fissure in Parthenia Springs as
the center point for the circles.

Jollyville Plateau Salamander

Unit 1: Krienke Spring Unit
Unit 1 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in southern
Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located just south of State
Highway 29. The northern part of the unit is under dense residential
development, while the southern part of the unit is less densely
developed. County Road 175 (Sam Bass Road) crosses the northern half of
the unit. This unit contains Krienke Spring, which is occupied by the
Jollyville Plateau salamander. The spring is located on an unnamed
tributary of Dry Fork, which is a tributary to Brushy Creek. The unit
contains primary constituent elements of the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, impacts of the impoundment, and
depletion of groundwater (see Special Management Considerations or
Protection section). Private landowners have shown interest in
conserving the area and are providing some management of the area.
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat.
Unit 2: Brushy Creek Spring Unit
Unit 2 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in southern
Williamson County, Texas. The unit is centered just south of Palm
Valley Boulevard and west of Grimes Boulevard. The northern part of the
unit is covered with commercial and residential development, while the
southern part is less densely developed. Some areas along the stream
are undeveloped. This unit contains Brushy Creek Spring, which is
occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The spring is near
Brushy Creek. The unit contains primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because

[[Page 51346]]

of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and future
development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover within
the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat.
Unit 3: Buttercup Creek Unit
In the proposed rule, Unit 3 consisted of 699 ac (283 ha) of City
of Austin, City of Cedar Park, State of Texas, and private land in
southern Williamson County and northern Travis County, Texas. Under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, certain lands in this unit have been
excluded from the final rule for critical habitat (see Application of
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). The remaining portions of
the unit not within the boundaries of the HCP were retained as critical
habitat subunits because these areas still contained subsurface primary
constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. We created five subunits following
the exclusion. All of the subunits are occupied by the Jollyville
Plateau salamander. A description of these subunits follows.
Subunit 3A
Subunit 3A consists of 260 ac (105 ha) of City of Austin, City of
Cedar Park, and private land in southern Williamson County and northern
Travis County, Texas. The subunit is located between Anderson Mill Road
and Lakeline Boulevard. The subunit is mostly covered with residential
property on the eastern half and undeveloped area of parks on the
western half. This subunit contains four caves, Hunter's Lane Cave,
Testudo Tube, Bluewater Cave 1, and Bluewater Cave 2,
which are all occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The
subunit contains subsurface primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Jollyville Plateau salamander.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, potential for vandalism, and
depletion of groundwater (see Special Management Considerations or
Protection section). These caves are currently gated and locked.
The critical habitat designation includes the cave openings. The
subunit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 984
ft (300 m) around the cave openings, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles. Those areas within the boundary of the Buttercup Creek HCP
were then excluded from the subunit.
Subunit 3B
Subunit 3B consists of 28 ac (11 ha) of private land in southern
Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located east of Anderson Mill
Road and west of Lakeline Boulevard. The unit is mostly under a quarry,
except for the eastern portion, which is covered by several buildings
and a parking lot. This subunit does not contain a cave opening. The
subunit contains subsurface primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Jollyville Plateau salamander.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, depletion of groundwater, and
potential impacts from quarry operations (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection section).
The subunit was delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 984
ft (300 m) around nearby cave openings, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles. Those areas within the boundary of the Buttercup Creek HCP
(including the cave openings) were then excluded from the subunit.
Subunit 3C
Subunit 3C consists of 3 ac (1 ha) of private land in southern
Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located east of Lakeline
Boulevard. The subunit is under residential development. This subunit
does not contain a cave opening. The subunit contains subsurface
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, and depletion of groundwater
(see Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The subunit was delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 984
ft (300 m) around nearby cave openings, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles. Those areas within the boundary of the Buttercup Creek HCP
(including the cave openings) were then removed from the subunit.
Subunit 3D
Subunit 3D consists of 16 ac (6 ha) of private land in southern
Williamson County, Texas. The subunit is located east of Lakeline
Boulevard and north of Buttercup Creek Boulevard. The subunit is under
residential development. This subunit does not contain a cave opening.
The subunit contains subsurface primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Jollyville Plateau salamander.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, and depletion of groundwater
(see Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The subunit was delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 984
ft (300 m) around nearby cave openings, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles. Those areas within the boundary of the Buttercup Creek HCP
(including the cave openings) were then removed from the subunit.
Subunit 3E
Subunit 3E consists of 17 ac (7 ha) of private land in southern
Williamson County, Texas. The subunit is located east of Lakeline
Boulevard. Buttercup Creek Boulevard crosses the subunit from east to
west. The subunit is under residential development. This subunit does
not contain a cave opening. The subunit contains subsurface primary
constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, and depletion of groundwater
(see Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The subunit was delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 984
ft

[[Page 51347]]

(300 m) around nearby cave openings, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles. Those areas within the boundary of the Buttercup Creek HCP
(including the cave openings) were then removed from the subunit.
Unit 6: Avery Springs Unit
Unit 6 consists of 237 ac (96 ha) of private land in southern
Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located north of Avery Ranch
Boulevard and west of Parmer Lane. The unit has large areas covered by
residential development. The developed areas are separated by fairways
and greens of a golf course. This unit contains three springs (Avery
Springhouse Spring, Hill Marsh Spring, and Avery Deer Spring) that are
occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The springs are located
on three unnamed tributaries to South Brushy Creek. The unit contains
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the three springs, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles.
Unit 7: PC Spring Unit
Unit 7 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in southern
Williamson County, Texas. State Highway 45, a major toll road, crosses
the north central part of the unit from east to west, and Ranch to
Market Road 620 goes under the toll road midway between the center and
the western edge. Except for roadways, the unit is undeveloped. This
unit contains PC Spring, which is occupied by the Jollyville Plateau
salamander. The spring is located on Davis Spring Branch. The unit
contains primary constituent elements of the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat.
Unit 8: Baker and Audubon Spring Unit
Unit 8 consists of 110 ac (45 ha) of private land in northern
Travis County, Texas. The unit is located south of Lime Creek Road and
southwest of the intersection of Canyon Creek Drive and Lime Springs
Road. The unit is wooded, undeveloped, and owned by Travis Audubon
Society and Lower Colorado River Authority. The entire unit is managed
as part of the Balcones Canyonlands HCP. This unit contains two springs
(Baker Spring and Audubon Spring) that are occupied by the Jollyville
Plateau salamander. The springs are in the drainage of an unnamed
tributary to Cypress Creek. The unit contains primary constituent
elements of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
The unit is within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve which serves
as mitigation for impacts to 35 species covered in the Balcones
Canyonlands HCP (Service 1996, p. 3). However, impacts to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander are not covered under this HCP. Special
management is being provided by the preserve because the surface
watersheds of these two springs are entirely contained within the
preserve. Special management may also be needed because of the
potential for groundwater pollution and depletion from current and
future development in the groundwater recharge area of the springs,
which may extend outside of the preserve. The surface habitat also
needs special management to protect it from potential physical
disturbance (see Special Management Considerations or Protection
section).
The designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the springs, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles.
Unit 9: Wheless Spring Unit
Unit 9 consists of 145 ac (59 ha) of private and Travis County land
in northern Travis County, Texas. The unit is located about 0.8 mi (1.3
km) west of Grand Oaks Loop. The unit is wooded and consists of totally
undeveloped land. The unit is managed as part of the Balcones
Canyonlands Preserve HCP. An unpaved two-track road crosses the unit
from north to south. This unit contains three sites (Wheless Spring,
Wheless 2 and Spring 25) that are occupied by the Jollyville Plateau
salamander. The springs are in the Long Hollow Creek drainage that
leads to Lake Travis. The unit contains primary constituent elements of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species.
The unit is within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, which serves
as mitigation for impacts to 35 species covered in the Balcones
Canyonlands HCP (Service 1996, p. 3). However, impacts to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander are not covered under this HCP. Some
special management is being provided by the preserve because the
surface watersheds of these three sites are entirely contained within
the preserve. Special management considerations or protection may be
required because of the potential for groundwater pollution and
depletion from current and future development in the groundwater
recharge area of the springs, which may extend outside of the preserve.
The surface habitat also needs special management to protect it from
potential physical disturbance (see Special Management Considerations
or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the springs, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles.
Unit 10: Blizzard R-Bar-B Spring Unit
Unit 10 consists of 88 ac (36 ha) of private and Travis County land
in northern Travis County, Texas. The unit is located west of Grand
Oaks Loop. The extreme eastern portion of the unit is on the edge of
residential development; a golf course (Twin Creeks) crosses the
central portion; and the remainder is wooded and undeveloped. This unit
contains three sites (Blizzard R-Bar-B Spring, Blizzard 2, and Blizzard
3) that are occupied by the Jollyville Plateau

[[Page 51348]]

salamander. The springs are located on Cypress Creek. The unit contains
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species.
The unit is within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, which serves
as mitigation for impacts to 35 species covered in the Balcones
Canyonlands HCP (Service 1996, p. 3). However, impacts to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander are not covered under this HCP. Some
special management is being provided by the preserve because the
surface watersheds of these three springs are partially contained
within the preserve. Special management considerations or protection
may be required because of the potential for groundwater pollution and
depletion from current and future development in the groundwater
recharge area of the springs, which may extend outside of the preserve.
The surface habitat also needs special management to protect it from
surface runoff from impervious cover outside of the preserve and
potential physical disturbance of the surface habitat (see Special
Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the sites, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles.
Unit 11: House Spring Unit
Unit 11 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern
Travis County, Texas. The unit is located just north of Benevento Way
Road. Dies Ranch Road crosses the extreme eastern part of the unit. The
entire unit is covered with dense residential development except for a
narrow corridor along the stream, which crosses the unit from north to
south. Several streets are located in the unit. This unit contains
House Spring, which is occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
The spring is located on an unnamed tributary to Lake Travis. The unit
contains primary constituent elements of the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the springs, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat.
Unit 12: Kelly Hollow Spring Unit
Unit 12 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern
Travis County, Texas. The unit is located southeast of the intersection
of Anderson Mill Road and Farm to Market Road 2769. With the exception
of a portion of Anderson Mill Road along the northern edge of the unit,
this unit is primarily undeveloped woodland. This unit contains Kelly
Hollow Spring, which is occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
The spring is located on an unnamed tributary to Lake Travis. The unit
contains primary constituent elements of the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the springs, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat.
Unit 13: MacDonald Well Unit
Unit 13 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private and Travis County land
in northern Travis County, Texas. The unit is centered near the
intersection of Grand Oaks Loop and Farm to Market Road 2769. Farm to
Market Road 2769 crosses the unit slightly north of its center. The
northern portion of the unit contains residential development and part
of Twin Creeks Golf Course. This unit contains MacDonald Well, which is
a spring occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The spring is
located on an unnamed tributary to Lake Travis. The unit contains
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species.
The unit is within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, which serves
as mitigation for impacts to 35 species covered in the Balcones
Canyonlands HCP (Service 1996, p. 3). However, impacts to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander are not covered under this HCP. Some
special management is being provided by the preserve because the
surface watershed of this spring is partially contained within the
preserve. Special management considerations or protection may be
required because of the potential for groundwater pollution and
depletion from current and future development in the groundwater
recharge area of the spring, which may extend outside of the preserve.
The surface habitat also needs special management to protect it from
surface runoff from impervious cover outside of the preserve and
potential physical disturbance of the surface habitat (see Special
Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the
subterranean critical habitat.
Unit 14: Kretschmarr Unit
Unit 14 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern
Travis County, Texas. The unit is located west of Ranch to Market Road
620. Wilson Parke Avenue crosses the unit along its southern border.
Most of the unit is undeveloped, with one commercial development near
the west-central portion. This unit contains two sites (Kretschmarr
Salamander Cave and Unnamed Tributary Downstream of Grandview) that are
occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. Kretschmarr Salamander
Cave is a cave, and Unnamed Tributary Downstream of Grandview is a
spring site. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, certain lands in this
unit have been excluded from the final rule for critical habitat (see
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). These lands
include approximately half of the surface habitat of Unnamed Tributary
Downstream of Grandview. This unit also contains approximately half of
the surface habitat of SAS Canyon, which is a spring outlet on the
Grandview Hills HCP. The unit contains primary constituent elements of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species.
Some special management is being provided by the Balcones
Canyonlands Preserve, which serves as mitigation for

[[Page 51349]]

impacts to 35 species covered in the Balcones Canyonlands HCP (Service
1996, p. 3), because the surface watersheds of these two springs are
partially contained within the preserve. However, impacts to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander are not covered under this HCP. Special
management considerations or protection may be required because of the
potential for groundwater pollution and depletion from current and
future development in the groundwater recharge area of the springs,
which may extend outside of the preserve. The surface habitat also
needs special management to protect it from surface runoff from
impervious cover outside of the preserve and potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection section).
The surface designation was delineated by drawing a circle with a
radius of 262 ft (80 m) around the spring outlets (including a nearby
occupied spring within the boundary of the HCP) and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring outlets (including a nearby occupied
spring within the boundary of the HCP) and cave, representing the
extent of the subsurface critical habitat. We connected the edges of
the resulting circles. Those surface and subsurface areas within the
boundary of the Grandview Hills HCP were then removed from the unit.
Unit 15: Pope and Hiers (Canyon Creek) Spring Unit
Unit 15 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern
Travis County, Texas. The unit is located between Bramblecrest Drive
and Winchelsea Drive. The unit contains dense residential development
on its northern, eastern, and western portions. The central portion of
the unit is an undeveloped canyon and is preserved in perpetuity as
part of a private preserve. This unit contains Pope and Hiers (Canyon
Creek) Spring, which is occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
The spring is located on Bull Creek Tributary 6. The unit contains
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed outside of the preserve into surface
habitat, potential physical disturbance of the surface habitat, and
depletion of groundwater (see Special Management Considerations or
Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the springs, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat.
Unit 16: Fern Gully Spring Unit
Unit 16 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private and City of Austin
land in northern Travis County, Texas. The unit is centered just south
of the intersection of Jenaro Court and Boulder Lane. The unit contains
dense residential development on much of its northern half. Most of the
southern half of the unit is undeveloped land managed by the City of
Austin as part of the Balcones Canyonlands HCP Preserve, and a portion
is part of the Canyon Creek preserve, a privately managed conservation
area. This unit contains Fern Gully Spring, which is occupied by the
Jollyville Plateau salamander. The spring is located on Bull Creek
Tributary 5. The unit contains primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
The unit is within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, which serves
as mitigation for impacts to 35 species covered in the Balcones
Canyonlands HCP (Service 1996, p. 3). However, impacts to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander are not covered under this HCP. Some
special management is being provided by the preserve because the
surface watershed of this spring is partially contained within the
preserve. However, special management considerations or protection may
be required because of the potential for groundwater pollution and
depletion from current and future development in the groundwater
recharge area of the spring, which may extend outside of the preserve.
The surface habitat also needs special management to protect it from
surface runoff from impervious cover outside of the preserve and
potential physical disturbance of the surface habitat (see Special
Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat.
Unit 17: Bull Creek 1 Unit
Unit 17 consists of 1,198 ac (485 ha) of private, City of Austin,
and Travis County land in northern Travis County, Texas. The unit
extends from the southeastern portion of Chestnut Ridge Road to 3M
Center, just north of Ranch to Market Road 2222. The unit contains some
residential development on the extreme edge of its northern portion and
part of Vandegrift High School near its southeastern corner. Most of
the remainder of the unit is undeveloped land managed by the City of
Austin and Travis County as part of the Balcones Canyonlands HCP
Preserve. This unit contains the following sites: Bull Creek Tributary
6 site 2, Bull Creek Tributary 6 site 3, Bull Creek Tributary 5 site 2,
Bull Creek Tributary 5 site 3, Tubb Spring, Broken Bridge Spring,
Spring 17, Tributary No. 5, Tributary 6 at Sewage Line, Canyon Creek,
Tributary No. 6, Gardens of Bull Creek, Canyon Creek Hog Wallow Spring,
Spring 5, Three Hole Spring, Franklin, Franklin Tract 2, Franklin Tract
3, Pit Spring, Bull Creek Spring Pool, Spring 1, Spring 4, Spring 2,
Lanier Spring, Cistern (Pipe) Spring, Spring 3, Lanier 90-foot Riffle,
Bull Creek at Lanier Tract, Ribelin/Lanier, Spring 18, Horsethief,
Ribelin, Spring 15, Spring 16, Spring 14, Lower Ribelin, Spring 13,
Spring 12, Upper Ribelin, Ribelin 2, Spring 10, and Spring 9. These
springs are occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander and are
located on Bull Creek and its tributaries. The unit contains primary
constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
The unit is within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, which serves
as mitigation for impacts to 35 species covered in the Balcones
Canyonlands HCP (Service 1996, p. 3). However, impacts to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander are not covered under this HCP. Some
special management is being provided by the preserve because the
surface watersheds of these springs are partially contained within the
preserve. However, special management considerations or protection may
be required because of the potential for groundwater pollution and
depletion from current and future development in the groundwater
recharge area of the springs, which may extend outside of the preserve.
The surface habitat also needs special management to protect it from
surface runoff from impervious cover outside of the preserve and
potential physical disturbance of the surface habitat (see Special
Management Considerations or Protection section).

[[Page 51350]]

The designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the sites, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles.
Unit 18: Bull Creek 2 Unit
Unit 18 consists of 237 ac (96 ha) of private, City of Austin, and
Travis County land in northern Travis County, Texas. The center of the
unit is near the eastern end of Concordia University Drive. Concordia
University is in the central and eastern parts of the unit. Much of the
rest of the unit is undeveloped land managed by the City of Austin and
Travis County as part of the Balcones Canyonlands HCP Preserve. This
unit contains six springs (Schlumberger Spring No. 1, Schlumberger
Spring No. 2, Spring 6, Spring 19, Concordia Spring X, and Concordia
Spring Y) that are occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The
springs are located on Bull Creek Tributary 7. The unit contains
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species.
The unit is within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, which serves
as mitigation for impacts to 35 species covered in the Balcones
Canyonlands HCP (Service 1996, p. 3). However, impacts to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander are not covered under this HCP. Some
special management is being provided by the preserve because the
surface watersheds of these springs are partially contained within the
preserve. However, special management considerations or protection may
be required because of the potential for groundwater pollution and
depletion from current and future development in the groundwater
recharge area of the springs, which may extend outside of the preserve.
The surface habitat also needs special management to protect it from
surface runoff from impervious cover outside of the preserve and
potential physical disturbance of the surface habitat (see Special
Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the springs, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles.
Unit 19: Bull Creek 3 Unit
Unit 19 consists of 97 ac (39 ha) of private and City of Austin
land in northern Travis County, Texas. The unit is just southeast of
the intersection of Ranch to Market Road 620 and Vista Parke Drive. The
unit contains some residential development on its western tip, but the
rest of the unit is undeveloped land. Much of the remainder of the unit
is managed by the City of Austin as part of the Balcones Canyonlands
Preserve HCP. This unit contains two sites (Hamilton Reserve West and
Gaas Spring) that are occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
The springs are located on Bull Creek. The unit contains primary
constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
The unit is partially within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve,
which serves as mitigation for impacts to 35 species covered in the
Balcones Canyonlands HCP (Service 1996, p. 3). However, impacts to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander are not covered under this HCP. Some
special management is being provided by the preserve because the
surface watersheds of these springs are partially contained within the
preserve. However, special management considerations or protection may
be required because of the potential for groundwater pollution and
depletion from current and future development in the groundwater
recharge area of the springs, which may extend outside of the preserve.
The surface habitat also needs special management to protect it from
surface runoff from impervious cover outside of the preserve and
potential physical disturbance of the surface habitat (see Special
Management Considerations or Protection section). Under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act, certain lands in this unit have been excluded from the
final rule for critical habitat under the Four Points HCP (see
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
The designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring outlets (including nearby occupied
spring outlets within the boundary of the Four Points HCP),
representing the extent of the subsurface critical habitat. We
connected the edges of the resulting circles. Those areas within the
boundary of the Four Points HCP were then excluded from the unit.
Unit 20: Moss Gully Spring Unit
Unit 20 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of City of Austin and Travis
County land in northern Travis County, Texas. The unit is just east of
the eastern end of Unit 19. The unit is all undeveloped woodland, and
it is managed by the City of Austin or Travis County as part of the
Balcones Canyonlands HCP Preserve. This unit contains Moss Gully
Spring, which is occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The
spring is located on Bull Creek. The unit contains primary constituent
elements of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
The unit is within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, which serves
as mitigation for impacts to 35 species covered in the Balcones
Canyonlands HCP (Service 1996, p. 3). However, impacts to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander are not covered under this HCP. Some
special management is being provided by the preserve because the
surface watershed of this site is entirely contained within the
preserve. However, special management considerations or protection may
be required because of the potential for groundwater pollution and
depletion from current and future development in the groundwater
recharge area of the spring, which may extend outside of the preserve.
The surface habitat also needs special management to protect it from
potential physical disturbance of the surface habitat (see Special
Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat.
Unit 21: Ivanhoe Spring Unit
Unit 21 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of City of Austin land in
northern Travis County, Texas. The unit is east of the northwest extent
of High Hollow Drive. The unit is all undeveloped woodland and is
managed by the City of Austin as part of the Balcones Canyonlands
Preserve HCP. This unit contains Ivanhoe Spring 2, which is occupied by
the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The spring is located on West Bull
Creek. The unit contains primary constituent elements of the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
The unit is within the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, which serves
as mitigation for impacts to 35 species covered in the Balcones
Canyonlands

[[Page 51351]]

HCP (Service 1996, p. 3). However, impacts to the Jollyville Plateau
salamander are not covered under this HCP. Some special management is
being provided by the preserve because the surface watershed of this
site is entirely contained within the preserve. However, special
management considerations or protection may be required because of the
potential for groundwater pollution and depletion from current and
future development in the groundwater recharge area of the spring,
which may extend outside of the preserve. The surface habitat also
needs special management to protect it from potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat.
Unit 22: Sylvia Spring Area Unit
Unit 22 consists of 439 ac (178 ha) of private, City of Austin, and
Williamson County land in northern Travis County and southwestern
Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located east of the intersection
of Callanish Park Drive and Westerkirk Drive, north of the intersection
of Spicewood Springs Road and Yaupon Drive, and west of the
intersection of Spicewood Springs Road and Old Lampasas Trail in the
Bull Creek Ranch community. Spicewood Springs Road crosses the unit
from southwest to east. Residential and commercial development is found
in most of the unit. An undeveloped stream corridor crosses the unit
from east to west. This unit contains 13 sites (Small Sylvia Spring,
Sylvia Spring Area 2, Sylvia Spring Area 3, Sylvia Spring Area 4,
Downstream of Small Sylvia Spring 1, Downstream of Small Sylvia Spring
2, Spicewood Valley Park Spring, Tributary 4 upstream, Tributary 4
downstream, Spicewood Park Dam, Tanglewood Spring, Tanglewood 2, and
Tanglewood 3) that are occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
Small Sylvia Spring, Sylvia Spring Area 2, Sylvia Spring Area 3, Sylvia
Spring Area 4, Downstream of Small Sylvia Spring 1, Downstream of Small
Sylvia Spring 2, Spicewood Valley Park Spring, Tributary 4 upstream,
Tributary 4 downstream, and Spicewood Park Dam are located on Tributary
4. Tanglewood Spring, Tanglewood 2, and Tanglewood 3 are located on
Tanglewood Creek, a tributary to Tributary 4. The unit contains primary
constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the springs, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat. We joined the edges of the resulting
circles.
Unit 24: Long Hog Hollow Unit
Unit 24 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern
Travis County, Texas. The unit is centered east of the intersection of
Cassia Drive and Fireoak Drive. Most of the unit is in residential
development. There are wooded corridors in the central and eastern
portion of the unit. This unit contains one spring (Long Hog Hollow
Tributary below Fireoak Spring) that is occupied by the Jollyville
Plateau salamander. The spring is located on Long Hog Hollow Tributary.
The unit contains primary constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat.
Unit 25: Tributary 3 Unit
Unit 25 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern
Travis County, Texas. The unit is centered between Bluegrass Drive and
Spicebush Drive. The eastern and western part of the unit is in
residential development. There are wooded corridors in the central part
of the unit, and scattered woodland in the eastern and western part.
There is a golf course in the north-central part of the unit. This unit
contains Tributary No. 3, which is occupied by the Jollyville Plateau
salamander. The spring is located on Bull Creek Tributary 3. The unit
contains primary constituent elements of the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat.
Unit 26: Sierra Spring Unit
Unit 26 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern
Travis County, Texas. The unit is located west of the intersection of
Tahoma Place and Ladera Vista Drive. The eastern and western part of
the unit is in residential development. A wooded corridor crosses the
central part of the unit from north to south. A facility that handles
automotive fluids is located in the northwest portion of the unit. This
unit contains Sierra Spring, which is occupied by the Jollyville
Plateau salamander. The spring is located on a tributary to Bull Creek.
The unit contains primary constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around

[[Page 51352]]

the spring, representing the extent of the subsurface critical habitat.
Unit 27: Troll Spring Unit
Unit 27 consists of 98 ac (40 ha) of City of Austin and private
land in northern Travis County, Texas. The unit is located west of the
intersection of Jollyville Road and Taylor Draper Lane. The eastern and
western part of the unit is in residential development. A wooded
corridor crosses the central part of the unit from north to south. This
unit contains two springs (Hearth Spring and Troll Spring) that are
occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The springs are located
on a tributary to Bull Creek. The unit contains primary constituent
elements of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlets up to the high water
line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat. The unit was
further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m)
around the springs, representing the extent of the subsurface critical
habitat. We connected the edges of the resulting circles.
Unit 28: Stillhouse Unit
Unit 28 consists of 203 ac (82 ha) of City of Austin and private
land in northern Travis County, Texas. The unit is centered due north
of the intersection of West Rim Drive and Burney Drive. The northern
and southern part of the unit is in residential development. A wooded
corridor crosses the central part of the unit from east to west. This
unit contains eight sites: Stillhouse Hollow, Barrow Hollow Spring,
Spring 20, Stillhouse Hollow Tributary, Stillhouse Tributary, Little
Stillhouse Hollow Spring, Stillhouse Hollow Spring, and Barrow Preserve
Tributary. All are occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The
springs are located on an unnamed tributary to Bull Creek. The unit
contains primary constituent elements of the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlets and outflows up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the sites, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat. We connected the edges of the resulting
circles.
Unit 30: Indian Spring Unit
Unit 30 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern
Travis County, Texas. The unit is centered just south of Greystone
Drive about halfway between its intersection with Edgerock Drive and
Chimney Corners Drive. Most of the unit is covered with residential
development except for a small wooded corridor that crosses the central
part of the unit from east to west. This unit contains Indian Spring,
which is occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The spring is
located on an unnamed tributary to Shoal Creek. The unit contains
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, and depletion of
groundwater (see Special Management Considerations or Protection
section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat.
Unit 31: Spicewood Spring Unit
Unit 31 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern
Travis County, Texas. The unit is centered just northeast of the
intersection of Ceberry Drive and Spicewood Springs Road, just
downstream of the bridge on Ceberry Drive. Most of the unit is covered
with commercial and residential development except for a small wooded
corridor along the stream, which crosses the unit from north to east.
This unit contains two sites, Spicewood Spring and Spicewood Tributary,
which are occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The springs
are located in an unnamed tributary to Shoal Creek. The unit contains
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, physical disturbance
of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see Special
Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around the sites, representing the extent of the
subsurface critical habitat.
Unit 32: Balcones District Park Spring Unit
Unit 32 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private and City of Austin
land in northern Travis County, Texas. The unit is centered about 1,411
ft (430 m) northeast of the intersection of Duval Road and Amherst
Drive. Most of the unit is in a city park (Balcones District Park) with
a swimming pool. A substantial amount of the park is wooded and
undeveloped. There is dense commercial development in the southern and
southeastern portions of the unit. This unit contains Balcones District
Park Spring, which is occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
The spring is located in the streambed of an unnamed tributary to
Walnut Creek. The unit contains primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and
future development in the recharge area, runoff from impervious cover
within the surface watershed into surface habitat, potential physical
disturbance of the surface habitat, and depletion of groundwater (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection section).
The designation includes the spring outlet and outflow up to the
high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat.
The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of
984 ft (300 m) around

[[Page 51353]]

the spring, representing the extent of the subsurface critical habitat.

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 to be listed under
the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
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 and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species 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 the Austin blind and
Jollyville Plateau salamanders. 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. The function of each unit
with respect to species conservation is to contribute to the
redundancy, representation, and resiliency of its respective species,
which affects the species' probability of persistence.
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 Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders.
These activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would physically disturb the spring or subsurface
habitat upon which these two salamander species depend. Such activities
could include, but are not limited to, channelization, removal of the
substrate, and other activities that result in the physical destruction
of habitat or the modification of habitat so that it is not suitable
for the species.
(2) Actions that would increase the concentration of sediment or
contaminants in the surface or subsurface habitat. Such activities
could include, but are not limited to, increases in impervious cover in
the surface watershed, inadequate erosion controls on the surface and
subsurface watersheds, and release of pollutants into the surface water
or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release
(non-point source). These activities could alter water conditions to
levels that are harmful to the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau
salamanders or their prey and result in direct, indirect, or cumulative
adverse effects to these salamander individuals and their life cycles.
Sedimentation can also adversely affect salamander habitat by reducing
access to interstitial spaces.
(3) Actions that would deplete the aquifer to an extent that
decreases or

[[Page 51354]]

stops the flow of occupied springs or that reduces the quantity of
subterranean habitat used by the species. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to water withdrawals from aquifers,
increases in impervious cover over recharge areas, and channelization
or other modification of recharge features that would decrease
recharge. These activities could dewater habitat or cause reduced water
quality to levels that are harmful to one of the two salamanders or
their prey and result in adverse effects to their habitat.

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.''
There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP
within or near the critical habitat designation. Therefore, we are not
exempting lands from this final designation of critical habitat for the
Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders pursuant to section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.

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 she determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she 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 her 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.
In the case of the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders,
the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the
species' presence and the importance of habitat protection and, in
cases where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for
the species due to the protection from adverse modification or
destruction of critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion and whether exclusion is
likely to result in implementation of a management plan that provides
equal or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would
provide, 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.
When considering the benefits of exclusion and whether exclusion is
likely to result in the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement
of partnerships, we consider a variety of factors including but not
limited to, whether or not the Service has entered into written
conservation agreements with landowners based on conservation
partnerships or issued permits with assurances covering the species.
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 will 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 received, we evaluated whether
certain lands were appropriate for exclusion from this final
designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. As a result, we are
excluding approximately 576 ac (233 ha) from the portions of Jollyville
Plateau salamander proposed critical

[[Page 51355]]

habitat Units 3, 14, and 19 that are covered under the Four Points,
Grandview Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCPs. The boundaries of these HCPs
did not cover the entirety of their respective critical habitat units;
therefore, the entire unit was not excluded. Table 3 below provides
approximate areas of lands that meet the definition of critical habitat
but have been excluded from our final designation. We are excluding
these areas because we believe that they are appropriate for exclusion
under the ``other relevant impacts'' provisions of section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. Please note that we identified some additional areas within
our proposed rule that we considered for exclusion, and we received
requests for exclusion of additional areas during the public comment
periods, but after further analysis we did not exclude these additional
areas from critical habitat. Explanations for our conclusions in these
cases can be found in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations
section of this final rule.

Table 4--Areas Excluded from the Designation of Critical Habitat by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas
excluded in
Critical habitat unit Specific area Basis for exclusion acres
(hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3..................................... Buttercup Creek.......... Buttercup Creek HCP/ 375 (152)
Partnership.
14.................................... Grandview Hills.......... Grandview Hills HCP/ 44 (18)
Partnership.
19.................................... Four Points.............. Four Points HCP/Partnership.. 157 (64)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. To consider
economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed
critical habitat designation and related factors (Industrial Economics
2013).
The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the
economic impacts of potential conservation efforts for the central
Texas salamanders; 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 (for example, under the Federal
listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline,
therefore, represents the estimated costs incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the estimated incremental impacts (costs) 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 above and
beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we consider in the final
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. The Service uses this information to assess whether the
effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or
economic sector. Finally, the FEA considers those costs that may occur
in the 23 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 23-year timeframe. The
FEA quantifies economic impacts of the Austin blind and Jollyville
Plateau salamanders' conservation efforts associated with the following
categories of activity: (1) Development, (2) Water management
activities, (3) Transportation projects, (4) Utility projects, (5)
Mining, and (6) Livestock grazing.
All incremental costs anticipated to result from the designation
are administrative in nature and result from the consideration of
adverse modification in section 7 consultations and reinitiation for
existing management plans. Consultations associated with development
activities account for approximately 98.7 percent of incremental
impacts in the FEA. Please refer to the FEA for a comprehensive
discussion of the potential impacts.
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs
that are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for
the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders. Consequently, we
have determined not to use 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,
Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0001.
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 none of the lands within the designation of
critical habitat for the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau
salamanders are owned and managed by the Department of Defense.
Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude
any areas from this final designation based on impacts on national
security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts 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

[[Page 51356]]

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.
Land and Resource Management Plans, Conservation Plans, or Agreements
Based on Conservation Partnerships
When considering the benefits of exclusion based on a current land
management or conservation plan (HCPs as well as other types), we
assess whether:
(1) The plan is complete and identifies how it provides for the
conservation of the essential physical or biological features;
(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 conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be
effective;
(4) 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; and
(5) whether the plan provides equal or more conservation than a
critical habitat designation would provide.
When considering the benefits of exclusion based on whether it is
likely to result in the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement
of partnerships, we assess whether:
(1) The Service has entered into a written conservation agreement
with a landowner based on a conservation partnership, or
(2) the Service has issued a permit with assurances covering the
species.
Based on consideration of these other relevant factors, we believe
the benefits of excluding the Four Points, Grandview Hills, and
Buttercup Creek HCP areas outweigh the benefits of including them.
Thus, we are excluding approximately 576 ac (233 ha) of non-Federal
lands in portions of Units 3, 14, and 19 under these HCPs. See further
discussion of our assessment below.

Four Points HCP Overview

The goals of the Four Points HCP are to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate for the potential negative effects of construction and
operation of mixed use (hotel, commercial, office, and retail) and
residential development near and adjacent to currently occupied habitat
of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler, endangered karst
invertebrates (Tooth Cave ground beetle (Rhadine persephone) and bone
cave harvestman), and the Jollyville Plateau salamander, and to
contribute to conservation of the covered species and other listed and
non-listed cave or karst fauna. The Jollyville Plateau salamander was
covered as a non-listed species in the HCP and the Service provided
``No Surprises'' assurances covering the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
The ``No Surprises'' rule (63 FR 8859, February 23, 1998) generally
states that the Service will not require additional commitment of land,
water, or financial compensation or restrictions on the use of land,
water, or other natural resources otherwise available for development
or use under the HCP for species covered by the permit under a properly
implemented conservation plan without the consent of the permittee. No
surprises assurances apply only to species adequately covered by the
HCP in question and only to those permittees who are in full compliance
with the terms of their HCP, incidental take permit, and other
supporting documents.
The Four Points HCP authorizes incidental take of the golden-
cheeked warbler and endangered karst invertebrates (in two caves).
Under the Four Points HCP, mitigation for take was implemented by
setting aside 179 ac (72 ha) of the property, which remain in a natural
undisturbed condition and are preserved in perpetuity for the benefit
of the listed and non-listed species. Specifically, one 52-ac (21-ha)
on-site preserve contains five caves (four with Tooth Cave ground
beetle and three with bone cave harvestman) and high-quality golden-
cheeked warbler habitat, and contributes to the maintenance of water
quality for Jollyville Plateau salamander springs downstream, both on
and offsite of Four Points. Another approximately 127-ac (51-ha) onsite
preserve supports high-quality golden-cheeked warbler habitat and
contributes to protection of the water quality of onsite Jollyville
Plateau salamander springs, Springs 21, 22, and 24. Additionally,
development within the upland area that is immediately adjacent to the
preserve lands with the Jollyville Plateau salamander will be sited to
avoid drainages that contain springs known to support Jollyville
Plateau salamanders. As part of the Four Points HCP, the permittee, New
TPG--Four Points, is required to protect and manage the preserve areas
in perpetuity in accordance with the permit, HCP, and conservation
needs of the species.
All of the approximately 157 ac (64 ha) of non-Federal lands under
the Four Points HCP in critical habitat Unit 19 that we are excluding
have either been authorized for development or preserved in perpetuity
for the conservation of the golden-cheeked warbler, Tooth Cave ground
beetle, bone cave harvestman, and Jollyville Plateau salamander. The
entirety of Unit 19 is not covered under this HCP, and thus, the entire
unit was not excluded.

Grandview Hills HCP Overview

The goals of the Grandview Hills HCP are to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate for the potential negative effects of construction and
operation of residential and commercial development near and adjacent
to Jollyville Plateau salamander, golden-cheeked warbler, black-capped
vireo, Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion (Tartarocreagris texana), and the
Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle (Texamaurops reddelli). The Jollyville
Plateau salamander was covered as a non-listed species in the HCP, and
the Service provided ``No Surprises'' assurances covering the
Jollyville Plateau salamander.
The Grandview Hills HCP authorizes incidental take of golden-
cheeked warbler, black-capped vireo, and karst invertebrates.
Implementation of the HCP will result in preservation of approximately
313 ac (127 ha), which includes golden-cheeked warbler and black-capped
vireo habitat, one endangered species karst invertebrate cave, and a
spring and spring run containing Jollyville Plateau salamanders.
Specifically, 266 ac (108 ha) of golden-cheeked warbler habitat will be
deeded to the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, 15 ac (6 ha) of black-
capped vireo habitat will be restored, 600-ft (183-m) setbacks will be
placed around Amber Cave, buffers will be placed around the Jollyville
Plateau salamander spring, and drainage will be routed away from the
Jollyville Plateau salamander site. As part of the Grandview Hills HCP,
69 Grandview LP (formerly Tomen-Parke Associates) is required to
protect and manage the onsite preserve areas in perpetuity in
accordance with the permit, HCP, and conservation needs of the species.
All of the approximately 44 ac (18 ha) of non-Federal lands under
the Grandview Hills HCP in critical habtat Unit 14 that we are
excluding have either been authorized for development or preserved in
perpetuity for the conservation of the golden-cheeked warbler, black-
capped vireo, Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion, Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle,
and Jollyville Plateau salamander. The entirety of Unit 14 is not
covered under this HCP, and thus, the entire unit was not excluded.

[[Page 51357]]

Buttercup Creek HCP Overview

The goals of the Buttercup Creek HCP are to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate for the potential negative effects of construction and
operation of single and multifamily residences and a school near and
adjacent to currently occupied habitat of the endangered Tooth Cave
ground beetle and other rare cave and karst species, including the
Jollyville Plateau salamander, and to contribute to conservation of the
listed and non-listed cave or karst fauna. The Jollyville Plateau
salamander was covered as a non-listed species in an Implementing
Agreement signed by the Service, and the Service provided ``No
Surprises'' assurances covering the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
The Buttercup Creek HCP authorizes incidental take of endangered
karst invertebrates, if encountered during construction. Under the
Buttercup Creek HCP, mitigation for take of the karst invertebrates was
implemented by setting aside 12 separate cave preserves (totaling 130
ac (53 ha) and encompassing 37 caves) and two greenbelt flood plains
(33 ac (13 ha)) for a total of 163 ac (66 ha), which remain in a
natural undisturbed condition and are preserved in perpetuity for the
benefit of the listed and non-listed species. There are 21 occupied
endangered karst invertebrate caves and 10 Jollyville Plateau
salamander caves in the preserves. The shape and size of each preserve
was designed to include surface drainage basins for all caves, the
subsurface extent of all caves, and connectivity between nearby caves
and features. Additionally, for those more sensitive cave preserves,
particularly with regard to recharge, 7 of the 12 preserves are to be
fenced off to restrict access for only maintenance, monitoring, and
research. All preserves are regularly monitored, fences and gates are
checked and repaired, and red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta)
controlled. Surface water drainage from streets and parking areas will
be diverted by permanent diversion structures to treatment systems and
detention ponds or will discharge down-gradient of the cave preserves.
An additional 3 to 4 in (76 to 102 mm) of topsoil are added in yards
and landscaped areas for additional filtration and absorption of
fertilizers, pesticides, and other common constituents. And an
education and outreach program informs homeowners about the proper use
of fertilizers and pesticides, the benefits of native landscaping, and
the disposal of household hazardous waste.
All of the approximately 375 ac (152 ha) of non-Federal lands under
the Buttercup Creek HCP in critical habitat Unit 3 that we are
excluding have either been authorized for development or preserved in
perpetuity for the conservation of the Tooth Cave ground beetle,
Jollyville Plateau salamander, and other non-listed species. The
entirety of Unit 3 is not covered under this HCP, and thus, the entire
unit was not excluded.
Benefits of Inclusion
The principal 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 critical 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 Jollyville Plateau salamander on lands covered under
the Four Points, Grandview Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCPs 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
Jollyville Plateau salamander and its habitat that reaches a wide
audience, including parties engaged in conservation activities, to be
valuable. Designation of critical habitat would provide educational
benefits by informing Federal agencies and the public about the
presence of listed species for all units.
In summary, we believe that the benefits of inclusion of lands
under the Four Points, Grandview Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCPs are
(1) a regulatory benefit when there is a Federal nexus present for a
project that might adversely modify critical habitat and (2)
educational benefits about the Jollyville Plateau salamander and its
habitat.
Benefits of Exclusion
The benefits of excluding lands from critical habitat designation
with properly implemented HCPs, such as the Four Points, Grandview
Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCPs, include relieving the permit holders
of any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed as a result
of the designation. A related benefit of exclusion is the continued
ability to maintain existing relationships and seek new partnerships
with future HCP 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 on our own. 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. We place great value on the partnerships
that are developed with HCPs.
The exclusion of lands under the Four Points, Grandview Hills, and
Buttercup Creek HCPs from critical habitat will help preserve the
partnership we have developed with the permittees, reinforce those
relationships we are building with other developers, and foster future
partnerships and development of future management plans. The preserve
lands under these HCPs are providing some protection for the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Therefore, exclusion of these lands under the Four Points, Grandview
Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCPs from critical habitat will help
preserve the partnerships and will foster future partnerships and
future conservation efforts. Excluding lands under these HCPs will show
that we are committed to our partners to further the conservation for
the Jollyville Plateau salamander and other endangered and threatened
species.

[[Page 51358]]

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
Four Points HCP
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion versus
exclusion from critical habitat of the Four Points HCP lands within
proposed critical habitat Unit 3. We acknowledge that the Four Points
development has not been completed within the watersheds of two of the
three springs onsite, and, therefore, there is potential for more
conservation benefit to this species at this site. In accordance with
their HCP, New TPG--Four Points is required to capture and route runoff
from development away from drainages that contain springs known to
support Jollyville Plateau salamanders. Additionally, by our issuance
of an incidental take permit under the HCP and covering the Jollyville
Plateau salamander, the Service has already determined that long-term
conservation benefits will result from the implementation of this HCP,
which will occur regardless of critical habitat designation. Inclusion
of the Four Points HCP lands in the critical habitat designation would
provide little additional regulatory protection under section 7 of the
Act because no additional future Federal actions that may affect the
critical habitat are foreseen. Any potential educational benefits
resulting from a critical habitat designation are reduced because the
HCP permit holders are already aware of the species' location, and
these benefits are outweighed by the benefits of exclusion.
While additional or different conservation measures may be included
in future section 7 consultations and HCPs, at the time of this HCP,
these conservation measures were considered appropriate to minimize,
mitigate, or avoid impacts to the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The
Service provided ``No Surprises'' assurances that the permit holders,
if appropriately implementing the HCP, would not incur additional
commitment of land, water, or financial compensation or restrictions on
the use of land, water, or other natural resources otherwise available
for development or use under the HCP for this species. Therefore, in
consideration of the relevant impact to current and future partnerships
as discussed under Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors above, we
determined for the Four Points HCP lands that the benefits of exclusion
(continuation, strengthening, and encouragement of conservation
partnerships) outweigh the benefits of critical habitat designation
(additional regulatory protections from activities with a Federal nexus
and educational benefits).
Grandview Hills HCP
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion versus
exclusion from critical habitat Unit 14 of the Grandview Hills HCP
lands. We acknowledge that the Grandview Hills development has not been
completed within the watershed of the two springs, and, therefore,
there is potential for more conservation benefit to this species at
this site. In accordance with their HCP, 69 Grandview LP is required to
capture and route runoff from development away from drainages that
contain springs known to support the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
Additionally, by our issuance of an incidental take permit under the
HCP and covering the Jollyville Plateau salamander, the Service has
already determined that long-term conservation benefits will result
from the implementation of this HCP, which will occur regardless of
critical habitat designation. Inclusion of the Grandview HCP lands in
the critical habitat designation would provide little additional
regulatory protection under section 7 of the Act because no additional
future Federal actions that may affect the critical habitat are
foreseen. Any potential educational benefits resulting from a critical
habitat designation are reduced because the HCP permit holders are
already aware of the species' location, and these benefits are
outweighed by the benefits of exclusion.
While additional or different conservation measures may be included
in future section 7 consultations and HCPs, at the time of this HCP,
these conservation measures were considered appropriate to minimize,
mitigate, or avoid impacts to the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The
Service provided ``No Surprises'' assurances that the permit holders,
if appropriately implementing the HCP, would not incur additional
commitment of land, water, or financial compensation or restrictions on
the use of land, water, or other natural resources otherwise available
for development or use under the HCP for this species. Therefore, in
consideration of the relevant impact to current and future partnerships
and conservation benefits as discussed under Exclusions Based on Other
Relevant Factors above, we determined for the Grandview Hills HCP lands
that the benefits of exclusion (continuation, strengthening, and
encouragement of conservation partnerships) outweigh the benefits of
critical habitat designation (additional regulatory protections from
activities with a Federal nexus and educational benefits).
Buttercup Creek HCP
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion versus
exclusion from critical habitat Unit 19 of the Buttercup Creek HCP
lands. First, the Buttercup Creek development has been completed around
each of the cave openings with Jollyville Plateau salamanders. Second,
in accordance with their HCP, the permit holder, Forestar, captures and
routes runoff from development away from the cave preserves. Finally,
by our issuance of an incidental take permit under the HCP and covering
the Jollyville Plateau salamander, the Service has already determined
that long-term conservation benefits will result from the
implementation of this HCP, which will occur regardless of critical
habitat designation. Inclusion of the Buttercup Creek HCP lands in the
critical habitat designation would provide little additional regulatory
protection under section 7 of the Act because no additional future
Federal actions that may affect the critical habitat are foreseen. Any
potential educational benefits resulting from a critical habitat
designation are reduced because the HCP permit holders are already
aware of the species' location, and these benefits are outweighed by
the benefits of exclusion.
While additional or different conservation measures may be included
in future section 7 consultations and HCPs, at the time of this HCP,
these conservation measures were considered appropriate to minimize,
mitigate, or avoid impacts to the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The
Service provided ``No Surprises'' assurances that the permit holders,
if appropriately implementing the HCP, would not incur additional
commitment of land, water, or financial compensation or restrictions on
the use of land, water, or other natural resources otherwise available
for development or use under the HCP for this species. Therefore, in
consideration of the relevant impact to current and future partnerships
and conservation benefits as discussed under Exclusions Based on Other
Relevant Factors above, we determined for the Buttercup Creek HCP lands
that the benefits of exclusion (continuation, strengthening, and
encouragement of conservation partnerships) outweigh the benefits of
critical habitat designation (additional regulatory protections from
activities with a Federal nexus and educational benefits).
In summary, impacts to the Jollyville Plateau salamander from the
HCP's

[[Page 51359]]

permitted activities within those areas being excluded have already
been analyzed and authorized. Once an HCP is permitted, implementation
of conservation measures will occur regardless of whether critical
habitat is designated within its plan boundaries. Furthermore, we
believe that the educational benefits of critical habitat designation
are not significant due to the ongoing conservation efforts. Also, we
are designating as critical habitat those lands surrounding lands
covered by the Four Points, Grandview Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCPs,
which already results in educational benefits for the Jollyville
Plateau salamander and its habitat without designating the HCP lands as
critical habitat. Thus, an inclusion of the Four Points, Grandview
Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCP lands would not provide any additional
educational benefits. As noted above, the exclusion of the Four Points,
Grandview Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCP lands will help to strengthen
the relationships between the Service and our partners and provide an
incentive for the voluntary development of effective management plans
that provide benefits to species. These partnership benefits are
significant, because they serve to provide protection and conservation
of species on private lands that would not otherwise occur.
The Exclusion Will Not Likely Result in Extinction of the Jollyville
Plateau Salamander
The exclusion from final critical habitat designation of the Four
Points, Grandview Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCP lands will not result
in extinction of the Jollyville Plateau salamander due, in part, to the
long-term conservation benefits that result from the implementation of
the HCPs. In addition, the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act
will also provide protection in occupied areas when there is a Federal
nexus. Therefore, based on the above discussion, the Secretary is
exercising her discretion to exclude 576 ac (233 ha) of land within the
boundaries of these three HCPs from this final critical habitat
designation.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.

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 Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau
salamanders 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.
Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify.
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial,
the Service may also certify.
The Service's current understanding of recent case law is that
Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential impacts of
rulemaking only on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking;
therefore, they are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to
those entities not directly regulated. The designation of critical
habitat for an endangered or threatened species only has a regulatory
effect where a Federal action agency is involved in a particular action
that may affect the designated critical habitat. Under these
circumstances, only the Federal action agency is directly regulated by
the designation, and, therefore, consistent with the Service's current
interpretation of RFA and recent case law, the Service may limit its
evaluation of the potential impacts to those identified for Federal
action agencies. Under this interpretation, there is no requirement
under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not
directly regulated, such as small businesses. However, Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent
feasible) and qualitative terms. Consequently, it is the current
practice of the Service to assess to the extent practicable these
potential impacts if sufficient data are available, whether or not this
analysis is believed

[[Page 51360]]

by the Service to be strictly required by the RFA. In other words,
while the effects analysis required under the RFA is limited to
entities directly regulated by the rulemaking, the effects analysis
under the Act, consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis
requirements, can take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable.
In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this
designation of critical habitat will directly regulate only Federal
agencies, which are not by definition small business entities. And as
such, we certify that, if promulgated, this designation of critical
habitat would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small business entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. However, though not necessarily required by
the RFA, in our final economic analysis for this rule we considered and
evaluated the potential effects to third parties that may be involved
with consultations with Federal action agencies related to this action.
Designation of critical habitat affects only 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 Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders.
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 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
Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders 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 of the analysis and evaluates the potential for economic
impacts related to: (1) Residential and commercial development, (2)
surface mining, and (3) habitat and species management.
The FEA analyzes the proposed designation as described in the
proposed rule and does not reflect changes to the proposed critical
habitat designation made in the final rule. In summary, we considered
whether this designation would result in a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities. Based on the currently
available information, we concluded that this rule would not result in
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
(Industrial Economics 2013, pp. A-2-A-8). Therefore, we are certifying
that the designation of critical habitat for Austin blind and
Jollyville Plateau salamanders will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.

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. 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.
The economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are
relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic
analysis, energy-related impacts associated with the Austin blind and
Jollyville Plateau salamanders' 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 would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it

[[Page 51361]]

is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. The FEA concludes incremental impacts may occur due to
administrative costs of section 7 consultations for development, water
management activities, transportation projects, utility projects,
mining, and livestock grazing; however, these are not expected to
significantly affect small governments. Incremental impacts stemming
from various species conservation and development control activities
are expected to be borne by the Federal Government, Texas Department of
Transportation, City of Austin, Lower Colorado River Authority, Travis
and Williamson Counties, Concordia University, and other entities,
which are not considered small governments. Consequently, we do not
believe that the critical habitat designation would 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 Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau
salamanders 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 6,864 small developers may be
affected by this designation, but the impact is less than 1 percent of
average annual sales of these businesses. 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. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat for the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders 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 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Texas Department of Transportation, Office of
the Governor, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, and the Texas
Department of Agriculture and have addressed them in the Summary of
Comments and Recommendations, which can be found on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0001. The designation of
critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the Austin blind and
Jollyville Plateau salamanders 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. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the Austin blind and
Jollyville Plateau salamanders. The designated areas of critical
habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options
for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information,
if desired.

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 Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau
salamanders 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

[[Page 51362]]

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 Austin blind and
Jollyville Plateau salamanders at the time of listing that contain the
physical or biological features essential to conservation of the
species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by the Austin blind and
Jollyville Plateau salamanders that are essential for the conservation
of the species. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for
the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders on tribal lands.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited is available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0001,
and http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/, and upon request from
the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author(s)

The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the
Austin Ecological Services Field Office with support from staff of the
Arlington 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; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Salamander,
Georgetown'' and ``Salamander, Salado'' in alphabetical order under
AMPHIBIANS to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as
follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Amphibians

* * * * * * *
Salamander, Austin blind......... Eurycea U.S.A. (TX) Entire............. E 817 17.95(d) NA
waterlooensis.

* * * * * * *
Salamander, Jollyville Plateau... Eurycea tonkawae.... U.S.A. (TX) Entire............. T 817 17.95(d) NA

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(d) by adding entries for ``Austin Blind Salamander
(Eurycea waterlooensis),'' and ``Jollyville Plateau Salamander (Eurycea
tonkawae)'' in the same alphabetical order in which the species appear
in the table at Sec. 17.11(h), to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Austin Blind Salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis)
(1) The critical habitat unit is depicted for Travis County, Texas,
on the map below.
(2) Within this area, the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Austin blind salamander consist of six components:
(i) Surface habitat PCEs.
(A) Water from the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
The groundwater is similar to natural aquifer conditions as it
discharges from natural spring outlets. Concentrations of water quality
constituents and contaminants are below levels that could exert direct
lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth,
development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as
effects to the Austin blind salamander's prey base). Hydrologic regimes
similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present,
with constant surface flow. The water chemistry is similar to natural
aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 67.8 to 72.3[emsp14][deg]F
(19.9 and 22.4 [deg]C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from 5 to 7 mg
L^-\1\, and specific water conductance from 605 to 740
[micro]S cm^-\1\.
(B) Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the
substrate of the salamander's surface aquatic habitat are large enough
to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat
(larger than 2.5 in (64 mm)). The substrate and interstitial spaces
have minimal sedimentation.
(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment supports
a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans,
insects, and flatworms.
(D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table
exists to provide shelter, protection, and space for reproduction. This
access can occur in the form of large conduits that carry water to the
spring outlet or fissures in the bedrock.

[[Page 51363]]

(ii) Subsurface habitat PCEs.
(A) Water from the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
The groundwater is similar to natural aquifer conditions.
Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants are below
levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as
effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes),
or indirect effects (such as effects to the Austin blind salamander's
prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the
specific sites are present, with continuous flow in the subterranean
habitat. The water chemistry is similar to natural aquifer conditions,
including temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific water
conductance.
(B) Subsurface spaces. Conduits underground are large enough to
provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat.
(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat supports an aquatic
invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, or
flatworms.
(3) Surface critical habitat includes the spring outlets and
outflow up to the high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and
downstream habitat, including the dry stream channel during periods of
no surface flow. The surface critical habitat does not include manmade
structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule; however, the subsurface critical habitat may extend below
such structures. The subsurface critical habitat includes underground
features in a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the
springs.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using a geographic information system (GIS), which included
species locations, roads, property boundaries, 2011 aerial photography,
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS. We delineated
critical habitat unit boundaries by starting with the cave or spring
point locations that are occupied by the salamanders. From these cave
or springs points, we delineated a circle with a 984-ft (300-m) radius
to create the polygons that capture the extent to which we believe the
salamander populations exist through underground conduits. The polygons
were then simplified to reduce the number of vertices, but still retain
the overall shape and extent. Subsequently, polygons that were within
98 ft (30 m) of each other were merged together. Each new merged
polygon was then revised to remove extraneous divots or protrusions
that resulted from the merge process. The maps in this entry, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries
of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or
both on which each map is based are available to the public at the
field office Internet site (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/), www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0001
and at the Service's Austin Ecological Services Field Office. You may
obtain field office location information by contacting one of the
Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Unit 1: Barton Springs Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of Unit
1 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 51364]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *
Jollyville Plateau Salamander (Eurycea tonkawae)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Travis and Williamson
Counties, Texas, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Jollyville Plateau salamander consist of six components:
(i) Surface habitat PCEs.
(A) Water from the Trinity Aquifer, Northern Segment of the Edwards
Aquifer, and local alluvial aquifers. The groundwater is similar to
natural aquifer conditions as it discharges from natural spring
outlets. Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants
should be below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal
effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or
metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander's prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar
to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present, with at
least some surface flow during the year. The water chemistry is similar
to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to
73.4[emsp14][deg]F (17.9 to 23 [deg]C), dissolved oxygen concentrations
from 5.6 to 8 mg L^-\1\, and specific water conductance from
550 to 721 [micro]S cm^-\1\.
(B) Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the
substrate of the salamander's surface aquatic habitat are

[[Page 51365]]

large enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging
habitat (larger than 2.5 in (64 mm)). The substrate and interstitial
spaces have minimal sedimentation.
(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment supports
a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans,
insects, and flatworms.
(D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table
should exist to provide shelter, protection, and space for
reproduction. This access can occur in the form of large conduits that
carry water to the spring outlet or porous voids between rocks in the
streambed that extend down into the water table.
(ii) Subsurface habitat PCEs.
(A) Water from the Trinity Aquifer, Northern Segment of the Edwards
Aquifer, and local alluvial aquifers. The groundwater is similar to
natural aquifer conditions. Concentrations of water quality
constituents and contaminants are below levels that could exert direct
lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth,
development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as
effects to the Jollyville Plateau salamander's prey base). Hydrologic
regimes similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are
present, with continuous flow. The water chemistry is similar to
natural aquifer conditions, including temperature, dissolved oxygen,
and specific water conductance.
(B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between rocks underground are large
enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging
habitat. These spaces have minimal sedimentation.
(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat supports an aquatic
invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, or
flatworms.
(3) Surface critical habitat includes the spring outlets and
outflow up to the high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and
downstream habitat, including the dry stream channel during periods of
no surface flow. The surface critical habitat does not include manmade
structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule; however, the subsurface critical habitat may extend below
such structures. The subsurface critical habitat includes underground
features in a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the
springs.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using a geographic information system (GIS), which included
species locations, roads, property boundaries, 2011 aerial photography,
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS. We delineated
critical habitat unit boundaries by starting with the cave or spring
point locations that are occupied by the salamanders. From these cave
or springs points, we delineated a 984-ft (300-m) buffer to create the
polygons that capture the extent to which we believe the salamander
populations exist through underground conduits. The polygons were then
simplified to reduce the number of vertices, but still retain the
overall shape and extent. Subsequently, polygons that were within 98 ft
(30 m) of each other were merged together. Each new merged polygon was
then revised to remove extraneous divots or protrusions that resulted
from the merge process. The maps in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which
each map is based are available to the public at the field office
Internet site (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/), http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0001 and at the
Service's Austin Ecological Services Field Office. You may obtain field
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 51366]]

(5) Index map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.001

[[Page 51367]]

(6) Unit 1: Krienke Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of
Unit 1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.002

[[Page 51368]]

(7) Unit 2: Brushy Creek Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map
of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.003

[[Page 51369]]

(8) Units 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E: Buttercup Creek Units, Williamson
and Travis Counties, Texas. Map of Units 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.004

[[Page 51370]]

(9) Unit 6: Avery Springs Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of
Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.005

[[Page 51371]]

(10) Unit 7: PC Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Unit
7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.006

[[Page 51372]]

(11) Unit 8: Baker and Audubon Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas,
Map of Unit 8 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.007

[[Page 51373]]

(12) Unit 9: Wheless Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of
Units 9 and 10 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.008

(13) Unit 10: Blizzard R-Bar-B Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas.
Map of Units 9 and 10 is provided at paragraph (12) of this entry.

[[Page 51374]]

(14) Unit 11: House Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of Units
11, 12, and 13 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.009

(15) Unit 12: Kelly Hollow Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map
of Units 11, 12, and 13 is provided at paragraph (14) of this entry.
(16) Unit 13: MacDonald Well Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of
Units 11, 12, and 13 is provided at paragraph (14) of this entry.

[[Page 51375]]

(17) Unit 14: Kretschmarr Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of Units
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.010

(18) Unit 15: Pope and Hiers Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map
of Units 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided at paragraph
(17) of this entry.
(19) Unit 16: Fern Gully Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of
Units 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided at paragraph (17)
of this entry.
(20) Unit 17: Bull Creek 1 Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of Units
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided at paragraph (17) of
this entry.
(21) Unit 18: Bull Creek 2 Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of Units
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided at paragraph (17) of
this entry.
(22) Unit 19: Bull Creek 3 Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of Units
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided at paragraph (17) of
this entry.
(23) Unit 20: Moss Gully Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of
Units 14,

[[Page 51376]]

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided at paragraph (17) of this
entry.
(24) Unit 21: Ivanhoe Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of
Units 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided at paragraph (17)
of this entry.
(25) Unit 22: Sylvia Spring Area Unit, Williamson and Travis
Counties, Texas. Map of Unit 22 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.011

[[Page 51377]]

(26) Unit 24: Long Hog Hollow Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of
Units 24, 25, 26, and 27 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.012

(27) Unit 25: Tributary 3 Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of Units
24, 25, 26, and 27 is provided at paragraph (26) of this entry.
(28) Unit 26: Sierra Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of
Units 24, 25, 26, and 27 is provided at paragraph (26) of this entry.
(29) Unit 27: Troll Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of Units
24, 25, 26, and 27 is provided at paragraph (26) of this entry.

[[Page 51378]]

(30) Unit 28: Stillhouse Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of Units
28, 30, and 31 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.013

(31) Unit 30: Indian Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of
Units 28, 30, and 31 is provided at paragraph (30) of this entry.
(32) Unit 31: Spicewood Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of
Units 28, 30, and 31 is provided at paragraph (30) of this entry.

[[Page 51379]]

(33) Unit 32: Balcones District Park Spring Unit, Travis County,
Texas. Map of Unit 32 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.014

* * * * *

Dated: August 6, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-19713 Filed 8-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C