Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 4(d) Rule for the Georgetown Salamander, 47418-47428 [2015-19335]
Download as PDF
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47418
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
tuberculosis, fungal diseases),
radiotherapy, tracheal surgery, trauma,
congenital, and inflammatory or
autoimmune diseases will not be
considered post-intubation tracheal
stenosis. Post-intubation tracheal
stenosis requires either tracheostomy
with placement of a tracheostomy tube
or endotracheal intubation. Diagnosis
requires symptoms of upper airway
obstruction such as stridor (inspiratory
wheeze) or exertional dyspnea
(increased shortness of breath with
exertion), and positive radiologic
studies showing abnormal narrowing of
the trachea or bronchoscopic evaluation
that demonstrates abnormal narrowing.
(6) Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
(VAP) and Ventilator-Associated
Tracheobronchitis (VAT). (i) VAP is
defined as an iatrogenic pneumonia
caused by the medical treatment of
mechanical ventilation. Similarly, VAT
is an iatrogenic infection of the trachea
and/or bronchi caused by mechanical
ventilation. The initial manifestation of
VAP and VAT must occur more than 48
hours after intubation (placement of the
breathing tube) and up to 48 hours after
extubation (removal of the breathing
tube). VAP will be considered to be
present when the patient demonstrates
a new or progressive radiographic
infiltrate that is in the lungs and
consistent with pneumonia, fever,
leukocytosis (increased white blood cell
count) or leucopenia (decreased white
blood cell count), purulent (containing
pus) tracheal secretions from a tracheal
aspirate, and a positive lower
respiratory tract culture. The positive
lower respiratory tract culture is a
diagnostic requirement only if there has
not been a change in antibiotics in the
72 hours prior to collection of the
culture. In addition, a tracheal aspirate
that does not demonstrate bacteria or
inflammatory cells in a patient without
a change in antibiotics in the previous
72 hours is unlikely to be VAP and shall
not be considered a condition set forth
in the Table.
(ii) VAT will be considered to be
present when the patient demonstrates
fever, leukocytosis or leukopenia,
purulent tracheal secretions, and a
positive tracheal aspirate culture in the
absence of a change of antibiotics within
the 72 hours prior to culture. Tracheal
colonization with microorganisms is
common in intubated patients, but in
the absence of clinical findings is not a
sign of VAT.
(7) Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury
(VILI). VILI results from mechanical
trauma such as volutrauma leading to
rupture of alveoli (air sacs in the lungs
where oxygen and carbon dioxide are
exchanged with the blood) with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
subsequent abnormal leakage of air. VILI
manifests as iatrogenic pneumothorax
(abnormal air from alveolar rupture in
the pleural space), pneumomediastinum
(abnormal air from alveolar rupture in
the mediastinum (middle part of the
chest between the lungs)), pulmonary
interstitial emphysema (abnormal air in
the lung interstitial space between the
alveoli), subpleural air cysts (an extreme
form of pulmonary emphysema where
the abnormal air in the interstitial space
has pooled into larger pockets),
subcutaneous emphysema (abnormal air
from alveolar rupture that has dissected
into the skin), pneumopericardium
(abnormal air from alveolar rupture that
has traveled to the pericardium
(covering of the heart)),
pneumoperitoneum (abnormal air from
alveolar rupture that has moved into the
abdominal space), or systemic air
embolism (abnormal air from alveolar
rupture that has moved into the blood).
To qualify as Table injuries, these
manifestations must occur in patients
who are being mechanically ventilated
at the time of initial manifestation of the
VILI.
(8) Bleeding events. Bleeding events
are defined as excessive or abnormal
bleeding in patients who are under the
pharmacologic effects of anticoagulant
therapy provided for extracorporeal
membrane oxygenation (ECMO)
treatment.
(c) Covered countermeasures. The
Office of the Secretary publishes
Secretarial declarations on the following
covered countermeasures in the Federal
Register:
(1) Pandemic influenza vaccines;
(2) Tamiflu;
(3) Relenza;
(4) Peramivir;
(5) Personal respiratory protection
devices;
(6) Respiratory support devices;
(7) Diagnostic testing devices.
ACTION:
Final rule.
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2014–0008;
4500030113]
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, finalize a rule under
authority of section 4(d) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, that provides measures that
are necessary and advisable to provide
for the conservation of the Georgetown
salamander (Eurycea naufragia), a
species that occurs in Texas. This final
4(d) rule will provide the Service the
opportunity to work cooperatively, in
partnership with the local community
and State agencies, on conservation of
the Georgetown salamander and the
ecosystems on which it depends.
This 4(d) rule is necessary and
advisable to provide for the
conservation of the Georgetown
salamander because it strengthens water
quality protection measures throughout
the species’ range, allows for
consideration of new information to
optimize conservation measures, and
furthers conservation partnerships that
can be leveraged to improve the status
of the Georgetown salamander.
DATES: This rule is effective September
8, 2015.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, the final
environmental assessment, and a list of
references cited are available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2014–
0008, or by mail from the Austin
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Comments and materials we received
are available for public inspection at
https://www.regulations.gov. All of the
comments, materials, and
documentation that we considered in
this rulemaking are available by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the Austin Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
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; telephone 512–490–0057;
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:
RIN 1018–BA32
Previous Federal Actions
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 4(d) Rule for the
Georgetown Salamander
On August 22, 2012, we published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register
(77 FR 50768) to list the Georgetown
salamander (Eurycea naufragia), Salado
salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis),
Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea
[FR Doc. 2015–19228 Filed 8–6–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07AUR1.SGM
07AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
tonkawae), and Austin blind
salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) as
endangered species and to designate
critical habitat for these species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1533 et seq.).
The Federal lists of endangered and
threatened species and other protective
regulations for listed species under the
Act are in part 17 of title 50 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR). On
February 24, 2014, we published a final
determination to list the Georgetown
salamander and the Salado salamander
as threatened species under the Act (79
FR 10236) and a proposed rule under
section 4(d) of the Act (a proposed 4(d)
rule) for the Georgetown salamander (79
FR 10077) at 50 CFR 17.43. On April 9,
2015, we revised the proposed 4(d) rule
for the Georgetown salamander and
reopened the public comment period for
30 days, ending May 11, 2015 (80 FR
19050). Please see the final listing
determination (79 FR 10236) for
additional information concerning
previous Federal actions for the
Georgetown salamander.
Background
The Georgetown salamander is
entirely aquatic and depends on water
from the Edwards Aquifer in sufficient
quantity and quality to meet the species’
life-history requirements for survival,
growth, and reproduction. Degradation
of habitat, in the form of reduced water
quality and quantity and disturbance of
spring sites, is the main threat to this
species. For more information on the
Georgetown salamander and its habitat,
please refer to the February 24, 2014,
final listing determination (79 FR
10236).
The Act does not specify particular
prohibitions, or exceptions to those
prohibitions, for threatened species.
Instead, under section 4(d) of the Act,
the Secretary of the Interior has the
discretion to issue such regulations as
she deems necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of such
species. The Secretary also has the
discretion to prohibit by regulation,
with respect to any threatened wildlife
species, any act prohibited under
section 9(a)(1) of the Act. Exercising this
discretion, the Service developed
general prohibitions (50 CFR 17.31) and
exceptions to those prohibitions (50
CFR 17.32) under the Act that apply to
most threatened wildlife species.
Alternately, for other threatened
species, under the authority of section
4(d) of the Act, the Service may develop
specific prohibitions and exceptions
that are tailored to the specific
conservation needs of the species. In
such cases, some of the prohibitions and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
authorizations under 50 CFR 17.31 and
17.32 may be appropriate for the species
and incorporated into a rule under
section 4(d) of the Act. However, these
rules, known as 4(d) rules, will also
include provisions that are tailored to
the specific conservation needs of the
threatened species and may be more or
less restrictive than the general
provisions at 50 CFR 17.31.
Summary of Changes From the Revised
Proposed Rule
Based on information we received in
both public comment periods on the
proposed 4(d) rule (see Summary of
Comments and Recommendations), we
revised the provisions of the 4(d) rule to
provide greater clarity around the
activities that are covered and not
covered by this rule.
Provisions of the 4(d) Rule for the
Georgetown Salamander
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the
Secretary may publish a rule that
modifies the standard protections for
threatened species and that contains
prohibitions tailored to the conservation
of the species and that are determined
to be necessary and advisable. Under
this 4(d) rule, the Service provides that
all of the prohibitions under 50 CFR
17.31 and 17.32 are necessary and
advisable and, therefore, apply to the
Georgetown salamander, except as
noted below. This 4(d) rule will not
remove or alter in any way the
consultation requirements under section
7 of the Act.
City of Georgetown Unified
Development Code (UDC)
For activities outside of habitat
occupied by the Georgetown
salamander, the final 4(d) rule provides
that take of Georgetown salamanders
that is incidental to regulated activities
(as defined in title 30, Texas
Administrative Code, section 213.3(28))
that are conducted consistent with the
water quality regulations contained in
chapter 11.07 of the City of Georgetown
Unified Development Code (UDC 11.07)
(https://udc.georgetown.org/) will not be
prohibited under the Act. The water
quality regulations in UDC 11.07 were
finalized on February 24, 2015. Chapter
11.07 of the UDC describes stream and
spring buffers, water quality best
management practices, and geologic
assessments that are required for
property development within the
Northern Edwards Aquifer Recharge
Zone and the City of Georgetown.
‘‘Regulated activities’’ are defined in
title 30, Texas Administrative Code,
section 213.3(28) as any constructionrelated or post-construction activities on
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47419
the Recharge Zone of the Edwards
Aquifer having the potential for
polluting the Edwards Aquifer and
hydrologically connected surface
streams. ‘‘Regulated activities’’ do not
include the clearing of vegetation
without soil disturbance, agricultural
activities, oil and gas activities, routine
maintenance of existing structures that
does not involve additional site
disturbance, and construction of singlefamily residences on lots larger than 2
hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac)). More specific
details on spring and stream buffers can
be found in sections 11.07.003A. and B.
of the UDC.
When a property owner submits a
development application for a regulated
activity on a tract of land located over
the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone,
that individual is required to submit a
geologic assessment to the City of
Georgetown. The geologic assessment
identifies and describes all springs and
streams on any subject property, and the
UDC establishes buffer zones around
identified springs and streams. For
springs, the buffer encompasses 50
meters (m) (164 feet (ft)) extending from
the approximate center of the spring
outlet that is identified in a geologic
assessment. For streams, the boundaries
of the buffer must coincide with either
the boundaries of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) one percent floodplain or a
calculated one percent floodplain,
whichever is smaller. In the absence of
a FEMA floodplain or calculated one
percent floodplain, these stream buffers
may be no smaller than 61 m (200 ft)
wide with at least 23 m (75 ft) from the
centerline of the stream. Section
11.07.003 of the UDC states that no
‘‘regulated activities’’ may be conducted
within the spring and stream buffers.
In addition to the establishment of
these spring and stream buffers, the
UDC outlines water quality best
management practices designed to
minimize sediment runoff, increase the
removal of total suspended solids,
prevent an increase in flow rates, and
ensure spill containment for new or
expanded roadways. These regulations
in chapter 11.07 of the UDC are
designed to reduce water quality
degradation that may occur as a result
of development. By reducing further
water quality degradation that may
result from development, these
protective measures are also expected to
reduce degradation to Georgetown
salamander habitat that may occur.
The UDC 11.07 also outlines
exemptions from the requirement to
prepare a geologic assessment, the
process by which a landowner may
request a variance to the spring and
E:\FR\FM\07AUR1.SGM
07AUR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47420
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
stream buffer requirements, and
exemptions to the spring and stream
buffer requirements of section
11.07.003. Small (less than 2-ha (5-ac))
single-family and two-family residential
developments are exempt from
submitting a geologic assessment;
however, these developments are
required to implement UDC water
quality measures. Landowners may
request to the City of Georgetown a
variance from the spring and stream
buffer requirements in UDC 11.07 if:
The variance is not contrary to the
public interest; due to special
conditions, a literal enforcement of the
ordinance would result in unnecessary
hardship; and the spirit of the ordinance
is observed and substantial justice is
done, in accordance with UDC section
2.05.010.A.6. These variances and
exemptions apply only to sites not
occupied by Georgetown salamanders.
Properties with a site occupied by the
Georgetown salamander are exempt
from the spring and stream buffer
requirements in chapter 11.07. Rather,
UDC Appendix A outlines conservation
measures (which are voluntary under
the UDC) to be implemented when
undertaking regulated activities that
occur on a tract of land with an
occupied site or within 984 ft (300 m)
of an occupied site. An ‘‘occupied site’’
is defined in the UDC as any spring
identified as a critical habitat unit by
the Service for the Georgetown
salamander and includes the following
sites: Cobb Well, Cobb Springs, Cowen
Creek Spring, Bat Well Cave, Walnut
Spring, Twin Spring, Hogg Hollow
Spring, Cedar Hollow Spring, Knight
(Crockett Garden) Spring, Cedar Breaks
Hiking Trail Spring, Water Tank Cave,
Avant’s (Capitol Aggregates), Buford
Hollow Springs, Swinbank Spring,
Shadow Canyon, San Gabriel Spring,
and Garey Ranch Springs. For the
purposes of this 4(d) rule, however, we
define an occupied site to be any site
where Georgetown salamanders have
been found in the past or new sites
found in the future.
For activities involving habitat
occupied by the Georgetown
salamander, the final 4(d) rule provides
that take of the Georgetown salamander
that is incidental to regulated activities
that are conducted consistent with the
guidelines described in Appendix A of
the UDC will not be prohibited under
the Act. Similar to chapter 11.07 of the
UDC, the guidelines in Appendix A
establish stream and spring buffers and
allowable activities within those buffers;
however, the measures described in
Appendix A create larger, more
protective buffers than those that appear
in chapter 11 for unoccupied sites. First,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
Appendix A establishes a ‘‘NoDisturbance Zone’’ in the stream or
waterway into which a spring drains
directly; this zone extends 80 m (264 ft)
upstream and downstream from the
approximate center of the spring outlet
of an occupied site and is bounded by
the top of the bank. No regulated
activities may occur within the ‘‘NoDisturbance Zone.’’ In addition,
Appendix A establishes a ‘‘MinimalDisturbance Zone’’ for the subsurface
area that drains to the spring(s) at an
occupied site; this zone consists of the
area within 300 m (984 ft) of the
approximate center of the spring outlet
of an occupied site, except those areas
within the ‘‘No-Disturbance Zone.’’
Most regulated activities are also
prohibited in the ‘‘Minimal-Disturbance
Zone,’’ but single-family developments,
limited parks and open space
development, and wastewater
infrastructure will be allowed. For
additional details on the buffers around
occupied sites and prohibited actions,
please refer to the UDC Appendix A.
In general, this 4(d) rule does not
apply to deviations from the water
quality measures in UDC 11.07 and
Appendix A. Any variance from the
measures and guidelines described in
UDC 11.07 (non-occupied sites) is not
covered by this final 4(d) rule, unless
that variance has been granted by the
City of Georgetown. In addition,
variances from the spring and stream
buffer requirements of UDC 11.07 may
be granted by the City of Georgetown
only if the variance is not contrary to
the public interest, if due to special
conditions a literal enforcement of the
ordinance would result in unnecessary
hardship, and if the spirit of the
ordinance is observed and substantial
justice is done, in accordance with UDC
section 2.05.010.A.6. Projects involving
habitat occupied by the Georgetown
salamander (which are not eligible for
variances) where the project proponent
chooses not to follow the voluntary
guidelines in Appendix A of the UDC,
may work with the Service to pursue
take coverage by developing a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) in accordance
with section 10 of the Act.
Section 11.07.008 of the UDC also
establishes an Adaptive Management
Working Group (Working Group) that is
responsible for reviewing data on a
regular basis and making
recommendations for specific changes
in the management directions related to
the voluntary conservation measures for
occupied sites in Appendix A. Adaptive
management for preservation of the
Georgetown salamander is one of the
duties tasked to the Working Group. The
adaptive management described in the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
UDC specifically applies to the
guidelines (i.e., conservation measures)
found in Appendix A; therefore, the
guidelines described in Appendix A
may change over time if they would
result in equal or better conservation
benefits to the Georgetown salamander,
as determined by the Service. For
example, if experience gained during
implementation of the guidelines or
new scientific information suggests that
a buffer distance was either too small,
or larger than needed, to achieve the
intended benefits, that buffer distance
could be modified. However, the
activities covered under Appendix A
(i.e., regulated activities) are not subject
to change under the adaptive
management provisions described in the
UDC. In other words, exercising of
adaptive management under this 4(d)
rule cannot expand the scope of the
covered activities beyond regulated
activities (as defined in title 30, Texas
Administrative Code, section 213.3(28)).
The Working Group will develop an
annual report regarding the preservation
of the Georgetown salamander,
continuous monitoring of the
Georgetown salamander, assessment of
research priorities, and the effectiveness
of the water quality regulations and
guidelines. Copies of the February 24,
2015, dated UDC 11.07 and Appendix A
are available at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2014–0008. Any revisions
to Appendix A will be made available
at https://udc.georgetown.org/udcamendments/.
Determination
Section 4(d) of the Act states that ‘‘the
Secretary shall issue such regulations as
[s]he deems necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation’’ of species
listed as threatened species.
Conservation is defined in the Act to
mean ‘‘to use and the use of all methods
and procedures which are necessary to
bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which
the measures provided pursuant to [the
Act] are no longer necessary.’’
The courts have recognized the extent
of the Secretary’s discretion under this
standard to develop rules that are
appropriate for the conservation of a
species. For example, the Secretary may
find that it is necessary and advisable
not to include a taking prohibition, or to
include a limited taking prohibition. See
Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or.
2007); Washington Environmental
Council v. National Marine Fisheries
Service, and 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432
(W.D. Wash. 2002). In addition, as
affirmed in State of Louisiana v. Verity,
E:\FR\FM\07AUR1.SGM
07AUR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988), the rule
need not address all the threats to the
species. As noted by Congress when the
Act was initially enacted, ‘‘once an
animal is on the threatened list, the
Secretary has an almost infinite number
of options available to him [her] with
regard to the permitted activities for
those species. [S]he may, for example,
permit taking, but not importation of
such species,’’ or she may choose to
forbid both taking and importation but
allow the transportation of such species,
as long as the prohibitions, and
exceptions to those prohibitions, will
‘‘serve to conserve, protect, or restore
the species concerned in accordance
with the purposes of the Act’’ (H.R. Rep.
No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
Section 9 prohibitions make it illegal
for any person subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States to take (including
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or
attempt any of these), import or export,
ship in interstate commerce in the
course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any wildlife species listed as
an endangered species, without written
authorization. It also is illegal under
section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
such wildlife that is taken illegally.
Prohibited actions consistent with
section 9 of the Act are outlined for
threatened wildlife in 50 CFR 17.31(a)
and (b). For the Georgetown salamander,
the Service has determined that a 4(d)
rule tailored to its specific conservation
needs is necessary and advisable, as
discussed below. This final 4(d) rule
provides that all prohibitions in 50 CFR
17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the
Georgetown salamander, except as
described below.
Under this final 4(d) rule, incidental
take of the Georgetown salamander will
not be considered a violation of section
9 of the Act if the take occurs on any
non-Federal land and from regulated
activities that are conducted consistent
with the water quality protection
measures contained in chapter 11.07
and Appendix A of the City of
Georgetown Unified Development Code.
This final 4(d) rule refers to the
definition of ‘‘regulated activities’’ in
title 30, Texas Administrative Code,
section 213.3(28), which is any
construction-related or postconstruction activities on the recharge
zone of the Edwards Aquifer having the
potential for polluting the Edwards
Aquifer and hydrologically connected
surface streams. We have determined
that this provision is necessary and
advisable for the conservation of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
Georgetown salamander, as explained in
the paragraphs that follow.
The local community in the City of
Georgetown and Williamson County has
expressed a desire to design and
implement a local solution to
conserving the natural resources in their
county, including water quality and the
Georgetown salamander (City of
Georgetown Resolution No. 082812–N).
All currently known locations for the
Georgetown salamander are within the
jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown,
making the city an appropriate entity to
manage conservation measures that
protect Georgetown salamander habitat.
Because impervious cover levels within
most of the watersheds known to be
occupied by the Georgetown salamander
are still relatively low, a window of
opportunity exists to design and
implement measures to protect water
quality and, therefore, conserve the
salamander. The City and County’s
approach for accomplishing this
conservation goal includes regulatory
and non-regulatory actions, as described
below. Regulatory actions include
passage of the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone Water Quality Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 2013–59) by the
Georgetown City Council on December
20, 2013, and the revisions to their UDC
(chapter 11.07) finalized on February
24, 2015. Their approach also includes
non-regulatory actions, such as the
technical guidance provided in
Appendix A of the UDC, which outlines
additional conservation measures to
protect water quality and to avoid direct
destruction of occupied sites.
Habitat modification, in the form of
degraded water quality and quantity and
disturbance of spring sites, is the
primary threat to the Georgetown
salamander. The conservation measures
in both chapter 11.07 and Appendix A
of the UDC provide a variety of water
quality protection measures, such as the
creation of buffers around springs and
streams where regulated activities are
prohibited, designed to lessen impacts
to the water quality of springs and
streams in the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone. The UDC is applied
throughout the watersheds that contain
the Georgetown salamander. Absent this
4(d) rule, the status quo would be to
address development impacts through
traditional tools (that is, sections 7 and
10 of the Act) that are generally applied
at the project-by-project scale. The
watershed-level approach in UDC 11.07
and Appendix A works to avoid
incremental environmental degradation
that may go unnoticed on a small,
individual project scale. Through this
final 4(d) rule, we can achieve a greater
level of conservation for the Georgetown
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47421
salamander than we could without it
because it encourages rangewide
implementation of water quality
protective measures that are aimed at
addressing the primary threat of habitat
modification and degradation for
Georgetown salamanders. The majority
of Georgetown salamanders occur
within 164 ft (50 m) of a spring outlet
(Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294; TPWD 2011,
p. 3); this coincides with the spring and
stream buffers for unoccupied sites. We
also believe the salamander populations
exist through underground conduits that
may extend 300 m (984 ft) around cave
or spring points; this area coincides
with the size of the ‘‘MinimalDisturbance Zones’’ for occupied sites.
By limiting development activities
within these respective areas, the
measures in the UDC 11.07 and
Appendix A are expected to limit water
quality degradation in areas that may
provide suitable surface or subsurface
habitat for the Georgetown salamander
now and in the future.
Although the areas that provide
recharge and the source water for
specific areas occupied by the
salamander have not been precisely
delineated, the watershed-level
approach makes it likely that unknown
recharge areas are receiving water
quality protection under the UDC. This
is because the UDC prohibits regulated
activities within buffers around all
streams located within the recharge
zone and the City of Georgetown
jurisdiction. In karst aquifer systems,
streams often contain important
recharge features called swallow holes
or swallets, which allow the stream to
continue flowing underground in a
conduit and feed the larger aquifer or
even small springs directly (White 1998,
p. 172). For example, in the Barton
Springs Segment of the Edwards
Aquifer, hydrologists generally agree
that most of the aquifer’s recharge
comes via these streambed recharge
features (Mahler et al. 2011, p. 4).
Although similar research is lacking in
the Northern Segment of the Edwards
Aquifer, it is likely that the aquifer
feeding Georgetown salamander habitat
works in a similar way because both
areas are karst aquifer systems, thereby
making the stream buffers of the UDC
crucial in protecting groundwater
quality.
This watershed-level approach also
includes an adaptive management
component that will allow the Adaptive
Management Working Group (Working
Group) to evaluate the response of
salamander populations to management
actions and quickly respond and
recommend adjustments, if necessary, to
management strategies to protect water
E:\FR\FM\07AUR1.SGM
07AUR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47422
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
quality consistent with conserving the
Georgetown salamander. The UDC
formalizes the Working Group with
representatives from the City of
Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality,
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
university scientists, private real estate
developers, and the Service. The role of
the Working Group is to:
• Review scientific information to
understand the latest science on
watershed management practices and
the conservation of the Georgetown
salamander;
• Recommend support for additional
Georgetown salamander scientific
studies and oversee a long-term
monitoring program to ensure that
salamander abundance at monitored
locations is stable or improving;
• Conduct and evaluate water quality
trend analysis as part of its long-term
monitoring program to ensure water
quality conditions do not decline and,
in turn, result in impacts to salamander
abundance; and
• Develop recommendations for
changes to the UDC Appendix A for
occupied sites if scientific and
monitoring information indicates that
water quality and salamander protection
measures need changes to minimize
impacts to salamander populations and
to help attain the goal of species
conservation.
While a window of opportunity exists
to design and implement conservation
measures to conserve the Georgetown
salamander, human population levels
and development are expected to
increase rapidly in Williamson County
(Texas State Data Center 2012, pp. 166–
167). The success of the local
community’s efforts depends on their
robust adaptive management program.
The program is designed to monitor and
quickly assess the effectiveness of the
identified conservation measures and
strategies and to be able to respond
quickly and adapt the conservation
measures and strategies to provide equal
or better conservation benefits to the
Georgetown salamander. The adaptive
management approach will ensure that
the water quality protective measures
are serving their intended purpose of
conserving the Georgetown salamander,
thereby providing for the conservation
of the species. Changes to UDC
Appendix A that are agreed upon by the
Working Group through the adaptive
management process, provide equal or
greater conservation benefits to the
Georgetown salamander, and approved
by the Service would be covered under
this 4(d) rule.
By not prohibiting incidental take
resulting from regulated activities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
conducted in accordance with the UDC
11.07 and Appendix A, the Service is
supporting and encouraging a local
solution to conservation of the
Georgetown salamander. This final 4(d)
rule will provide the Service the
opportunity to work cooperatively, in
partnership with the local community
and State agencies, on conservation of
the Georgetown salamander and the
ecosystems on which it depends.
Leveraging our conservation capacity
with that of the State, local
governments, and the conservation
community at large may make it
possible to attain biological outcomes
larger than those we could attain
ourselves due to the watershed-scale
protection the UDC requires. Further,
our local partners are best able to design
solutions that minimize socioeconomic
impacts, thereby encouraging
participation in measures that will
protect water quality and conserve the
Georgetown salamander. In addition, by
not prohibiting incidental take resulting
from regulated activities conducted in
accordance with UDC 11.07 and
Appendix A, the Service is providing a
streamlining mechanism for compliance
with the Act for those project
proponents who comply with the
protective measures in UDC 11.07 and
Appendix A and, thus, are considered
covered by this final 4(d) rule. Project
proponents who comply with these
protective measures, as outlined in this
final rule, can implement their projects
without any potential delay from
seeking incidental take coverage from
the Service, while also minimizing
water quality degradation. This
approach provides greater regulatory
certainty and streamlines compliance
for project proponents and thus is likely
to result in increased implementation of
water quality protective measures that
benefit salamanders.
In summary, this 4(d) rule is
necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of the Georgetown
salamander because it strengthens water
quality protection measures throughout
the species’ range, allows for
consideration of new information to
optimize conservation measures, and
furthers conservation partnerships that
can be leveraged to improve the status
of the Georgetown salamander.
Implementation of water quality
protection measures throughout the
range of the species will provide greater
protection for the species than would
project-by-project efforts, and provide
protections to recharge areas that we
may not be able to protect under our
traditional tools (e.g., sections 7 and 10
of the Act). Further, water quality
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
protection is a crucial element of
conservation for the Georgetown
salamander. Because the best available
information does not allow us to
determine the exact amount of water
quality protection needed to satisfy the
life requirements of the Georgetown
salamander, the adaptive management
approach incorporated into UDC
Appendix A provides a pathway to
achieving our conservation goals for the
species in the face of scientific
uncertainty. Finally, this approach also
encourages further cooperation between
the Service and local government
entities, enhancing our ability to work
collaboratively with partners to further
Georgetown salamander conservation.
If an activity that may affect the
species is not regulated by UDC 11.07 or
is not in accordance with UDC 11.07
and Appendix A, or a person or entity
is not in compliance with all terms and
conditions of UDC 11.07 and Appendix
A and the activity would result in an act
that would be otherwise prohibited
under 50 CFR 17.31, then the general
provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32
for threatened species apply. In such
circumstances, the prohibitions of 50
CFR 17.31 would be in effect, and
authorization under 50 CFR 17.32
would be required. In addition, nothing
in this 4(d) rule affects in any way other
provisions of the Act, such as the
designation of critical habitat under
section 4, recovery planning provisions
of section 4(f), and consultation
requirements under section 7.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
We requested written comments from
the public on the proposed 4(d) rule for
the Georgetown salamander during two
comment periods: February 24 to April
25, 2014, and April 9 to May 11, 2015.
We also contacted appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies; scientific
organizations; and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on
the proposed 4(d) rule, draft
environmental assessment, and chapter
11.07 and Appendix A of the UDC
during the respective comment periods.
Over the course of the two comment
periods, we received 39 comment
submissions. All substantive
information provided during these
comment periods has either been
incorporated directly into this final rule
or is addressed below. Comments from
peer reviewers and State agencies are
grouped separately.
Peer Review Comments
In accordance with our peer review
policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinion
E:\FR\FM\07AUR1.SGM
07AUR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
from five knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that are familiar
with the species, the geographic region
in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We
received responses from two of the five
peer reviewers. We reviewed all
comments received from the peer
reviewers for substantive issues and
new information. These comments are
addressed in the following summary
and incorporated into the final rule as
appropriate.
(1) Comment: An additional buffer
specifically associated with where
Georgetown salamanders are found, to
minimize direct impacts by people (and
domestic pets), is critical. Fencing is
often an effective way to mark the
boundaries (and potentially reduce their
footprint) of such a protective buffer.
Our response: We agree that
additional measures to protect
Georgetown salamanders from the threat
of trampling by people, pets, feral hogs,
and livestock may contribute to the
conservation of the species. However, as
noted above, this 4(d) rule does not
provide incidental take authority for all
types of activities that may constitute
take or harm of Georgetown
salamanders. Rather, the 4(d) rule will
promote the conservation of the species
by helping to alleviate negative impacts
that can occur from the threat of water
quality degradation as a result of
urbanization.
(2) Comment: I am uncertain as to
whether the fixed-width buffers are
appropriate in all localities to achieve
the desired level of protection.
Protection of surface and groundwater
resources in karstified area can be quite
challenging, and, therefore, simplified
metrics such as horizontal setbacks may
not achieve the desired results.
Adequate buffers would require an
understanding of both the detailed
hydrogeology and the dispersal patterns
of the listed species. For the former, I
would expect that areas upgradient of
springs (a more immediate source of
recharge) would be more important than
downgradient areas, all else being equal,
to the maintenance of adequate
springflow. For the latter, I would
expect that downgradient areas (where
the emergent surface water flows) would
be more important than upgradient
areas for the direct support of habitat.
How these two attributes interact to
define a truly ‘‘critical’’ area of
influence is undoubtedly complex, and
a fixed-width buffer may be the best
alternative at the present time. However,
I would hope that improved
understanding of these interactions
would be a focus of the adaptive
management effort.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
Our response: We agree and expect
that improving the understanding of the
detailed hydrogeology and dispersal
patterns of the species will be a focus of
the Working Group. Please see our
response to Comment #8.
(3) Comment: The stormwatermanagement requirements for
protection of the Edwards Aquifer
(UDC) are laudable, but they lag behind
the current understanding, and readily
available applications, of what
constitutes stormwater ‘‘best
management practices’’ of the 21st
century. Particularly given the
importance of maintaining aquifer
recharge, I would expect to see on-site
retention of the 95th percentile storm
(as is already mandated for federal
facilities) rather than just 85 percent
reduction in total suspended solids.
Our response: Because the on-site
retention of the 95th percentile storm is
a different type of stormwater
measurement than 85 percent reduction
in total suspended solids, it is difficult
to compare the two in terms of water
quality protection. However, we
recognize that there may be more
stringent water quality regulations that
aim to remove more contaminants from
stormwater runoff than the UDC. The
adaptive management process will
monitor the status of the species in
response to implementation of the UDC
and modify the regulations if more
protective measures are needed to
further reduce impacts to the species. At
this time, we have determined that the
UDC and Appendix A, which include
the 85 percent reduction, are necessary
and advisable for the conservation of the
species (see Determination section
above).
(4) Comment: I recommend that there
should be no exemptions to the water
quality regulations. Every proposed
change in land use should have some
form of review to ensure compatibility
with management goals.
Our response: In general, deviations
from the water quality regulations
described in UDC 11.07 and the
voluntary guidelines described in
Appendix A of the UDC will not be
covered under this 4(d) rule. Nonregulated activities, for example, are
exempt from UDC 11.07 and are,
therefore, not covered under this 4(d)
rule. However, variances from UDC
11.07 may be granted by the City of
Georgetown in special circumstances.
These variances from the spring and
stream buffer requirements apply only
to non-occupied sites and undergo
review by the City of Georgetown staff
and may be granted only if the variance
is not contrary to the public interest,
due to special conditions a literal
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47423
enforcement of this regulation would
result in unnecessary hardship, and the
spirit of the regulation is observed and
substantial justice is done, in
accordance with UDC Section
2.05.010.A.6. No variances to Appendix
A, which covers all occupied sites, of
the UDC will be covered under this 4(d)
rule. Individual variances to UDC 11.07
that have been approved by the City of
Georgetown can be tracked by the
Working Group and incorporated into
their discussions and recommendations
on the adaptive management needed to
attain conservation goals.
(5) Comment: Geologic and soil
studies should be performed by the
community to delineate locations where
shallow soil cover prevents
conventional onsite wastewater
disposal. Green infrastructure and lowimpact development should be required
everywhere in Georgetown, Texas. This
includes new development,
redevelopment, and restoration projects.
Our response: We agree that
groundwater vulnerability studies and
low-impact development will be
beneficial for the Georgetown
salamander and its habitat. These are
helpful suggestions for the Working
Group to consider as they evaluate the
effectiveness of the UDC conservation
measures.
(6) Comment: The community should
track water quality and flow at selected
springs and streams in order to develop
long-term databases able to detect
changes.
Our response: We agree that water
quality and quantity monitoring
conducted in a manner that is able to
detect changes needs to be a priority for
the Working Group. Williamson County
is currently monitoring salamander
abundance and basic water chemistry
(for example, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and specific conductance) at
three sites with plans to add more
monitoring sites in the future.
Comments From States
(7) Comment: We urge the Service to
finalize and implement this proposed
rule as efficiently as possible while
following a transparent process in order
to provide regulatory certainty.
Our response: By requesting input
from the public on this 4(d) rule during
two public comment periods, one 60day and a second 30-day, we believe the
rulemaking process has been
transparent.
(8) Comment: Spring buffers and other
water quality protection policies should
be aligned with the hydrogeology that
most directly influences conditions for
the species’ survival. It also appears that
the current buffer strategy may unduly
E:\FR\FM\07AUR1.SGM
07AUR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47424
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
restrict landowners in some areas that
do not influence survival conditions for
the species while potentially not
affording protection to other areas that
do influence survival conditions. We
believe the proposed rule affords the
[Adaptive Management] Working Group
the latitude to study these spring buffers
and offer alternative recommendations
if new science dictates that changes
should be made.
Our response: The specific
hydrogeology (for example, recharge
area) for each site occupied by the
Georgetown salamander has not been
determined. The Act requires that we
use the best available information and
does not require that we conduct
research to develop new science. In the
absence of this information, we believe
a fixed-width buffer is the best
alternative for protecting these sites. As
new information is discovered, the
conservation measures can be modified
through the adaptive management
process.
(9) Comment: Conservation measures
detailed in the UDC are limited to
‘‘Occupied Sites’’ with currently known
populations. Conservation measures
would not apply to newly discovered
occupied sites. Since newly discovered
sites could be important to the recovery
of the species, we request that the
Service clarify the applicability of the
4(d) rule to these sites and the role the
Working Group should play in this
regard.
Our response: In this final rule, we
have clarified that any site determined
to be occupied by Georgetown
salamanders in the future will be
considered ‘‘occupied’’ and the
protective measures outlined in
Appendix A of the UDC must be
followed in order to be covered under
this 4(d) rule. We recommend that the
Working Group make efforts to survey
suitable habitat within the range of the
Georgetown salamander to identify all
sites occupied by the species.
(10) Comment: It is unclear whether a
landowner owning a newly discovered
site occupied by Georgetown
salamanders outside the City of
Georgetown’s extra-territorial
jurisdiction would be covered for
incidental take if [s]he were to conduct
activities consistent with the
conservation measures contained in the
UDC. Regulatory predictability and
incidental take coverage for all affected
landowners are important for the
ultimate recovery of the species.
Our response: Regulated activities
located outside of the City of
Georgetown’s jurisdiction are not
covered by the UDC. Therefore, only
incidental take from those activities that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
are in the City of Georgetown’s
jurisdiction are potentially exempt from
take prohibitions through this 4(d) rule.
All currently known Georgetown
salamander sites are covered by the
UDC.
Public Comments
(11) Comment: The proposed revised
4(d) rule states that the boundaries of
the stream buffer coincides with the
boundaries of the FEMA or calculated
floodplain, but may be no smaller than
[61 m (200 ft)] in width. It should be
noted that, while the stream buffer
varies depending on the size of the
stream (size of the stream is based on
the size of the drainage area, which
influences the size of the floodplain),
there may be situations under the UDC
where the stream buffer is smaller than
[61 m (200 ft)] in width.
Our response: Per the UDC 11.07,
only stream buffers without FEMA or
calculated floodplains may be no
smaller than 61 m (200 ft) in width. We
have made the appropriate clarification
in this final rule.
(12) Comment: The proposed
exemption from prohibitions, as it will
be outlined in § 17.43(e)(2) of [title 50
of] the CFR, states that ‘‘incidental take
of the Georgetown salamander will not
be considered a violation of section 9 of
the Act if the take occurs on privately
owned, State, or county land. . . .’’
This exemption must include, at a
minimum, city-owned property.
Our response: We have edited the
exemption to include all non-Federal
land.
(13) Comment: The proposed rule, if
finalized, could not be amended
substantially unless and until the
Service allowed for public comment and
input. Public input would not be
allowed to a greater degree in
connection with an incidental take
permit than it has been in connection
with the proposed rule.
Our response: This is correct. Future
changes to the content of this 4(d) rule
require a public notice and comment
period. However, future changes related
to the conservation of the Georgetown
salamander may be made to the
conservation measures in UDC
Appendix A, without public notice and
comment, if they are agreed upon by the
Working Group through the adaptive
management process outlined in the
UDC, provide equal or greater
conservation benefits to the Georgetown
salamander, and are approved by the
Service.
(14) Comment: The proposed rule
does not exempt any set of activities in
the ‘‘red zone.’’ The proposed rule does
not pick apart who is regulated or not.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Rather, it focuses on actual
implementation of water quality
measures consistent with those set forth
in the UDC and listed in the proposed
rule. A non-regulated entity can
presumably meet the standard set forth
in the proposed rule, not because such
an activity is exempt from regulations,
but because it would have affirmatively
implemented the water quality measure
set forth in the proposed rule and UDC.
While it is true that the UDC applies
only to regulated activities, the
exemption from take in the proposed
rule applies to all activities (and only
those activities), regulated or not, that
are consistent with the conservation
measures in the UDC; that is, activities
for which the project proponent has
performed a geologic assessment, abided
by the limitations described in the UDC
for no-disturbance and minimaldisturbance zones, established buffers
around springs and streams, etc.
Our response: The UDC 11.07 and
Appendix A were specifically designed
for regulated activities. Other kinds of
non-regulated activities could have
different impacts not addressed with
this set of measures. Non-regulated
activities that voluntarily follow the
UDC 11.07 or Appendix A are not
covered by this final 4(d) rule, and
project proponents may choose to work
with the Service to obtain take coverage.
(15) Comment: The Service should
permit take under section 10 rather than
adopt a special 4(d) rule because the
resulting HCP cannot be weakened
through amendment (unlike the City of
Georgetown UDC), the section 10
process provides greater protections for
the salamanders compared to the City of
Georgetown UDC, and the process
provides an open process in which the
public can be involved.
Our response: Section 10 permits are
voluntary, are tailored towards
individual applicants, would only cover
known occupied sites, and have
different criteria for permit issuance
than the Act requires for issuance of a
4(d) rule. It is not certain that the
Service would receive applications for
section 10 permits that would provide
greater protections for the Georgetown
salamander over the entire range of the
species. The 4(d) rule provides a
landscape-level approach that is
consistently implemented throughout
the range of the Georgetown
salamander, including unoccupied sites.
While it is true that the conservation
measures in UDC Appendix A may be
revised, those changes would not be
covered under this 4(d) rule unless they
are agreed upon by the Working Group
through the adaptive management
process outlined in the UDC, provide
E:\FR\FM\07AUR1.SGM
07AUR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
equal or greater conservation benefits to
the Georgetown salamander, and are
approved by the Service. In addition, we
have a ‘‘No Surprises’’ policy for section
10 incidental take permits, which states,
if unforeseen circumstances occur
during the life of an HCP, the Service
will not require additional lands,
additional funds, or additional
restrictions on lands or other natural
resources released for development or
use, from any permittee, who in good
faith is adequately implementing or has
implemented an approved HCP. This
policy makes HCPs less flexible in terms
of requiring more stringent conservation
measures over time in response to new
information. Given the amount of
uncertainty in how best to protect
Georgetown salamander habitat quality
at individual sites, the flexibility
provided in the adaptive management
approach of the UDC is desirable.
We believe the development of this
4(d) rule has been an open process
comparable to that of a section 10
permit process. In addition, the process
of amending the UDC is very
transparent, involving monthly
meetings of the Unified Development
Code Advisory Committee that are open
to the public with minutes and agendas
posted online (https://
government.georgetown.org/unifieddevelopment-code-advisory-board-2/).
(16) Comment: The 4(d) rule allows
degradation of water quality and,
therefore, is not necessary and advisable
for the conservation of the Georgetown
salamander.
Our response: The protective
measures provided for in the 4(d) rule
are intended to address the threat of
water quality degradation from
urbanization throughout the range of the
species. We have found that the 4(d)
rule positively contributes to the
recovery of the Georgetown salamander
by addressing the primary threat to the
species and that these measures are
‘‘necessary and advisable for the
conservation’’ of the Georgetown
salamander (see Determination section
above).
(17) Comment: Numerous activities
that may degrade water quality are
entirely exempted and, therefore,
allowed within the zones and buffers
described in the City of Georgetown
UDC. The Service should exempt only
‘‘regulated activities’’ because those are
the only activities that are actually
regulated by the UDC. In this way,
threats such as oil and gas activities,
agricultural operations, and residential
developments on lots greater than 2 ha
(5 ac), which are currently unregulated
and, therefore, do not contribute to the
conservation of the salamander, would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
not receive the benefit of protection
from incidental take.
Our response: We agree and have
clarified this issue in the final 4(d) rule.
Also, please see our response to
Comment #14.
(18) Comment: Because the proposed
special rule references the Ordinance
instead of prescribing all the necessary
conservation measures, the City could
receive the benefits of protection from
section 9 even if the City weakens the
Ordinance through amendment. To
solve this problem, the Service must use
the section 10 process, describe all the
necessary conservation measures in the
Ordinance, or modify the 4(d) rule to
state on its face what is and what is not
authorized. At a bare minimum, the
agency must specifically reference the
version of the Ordinance adopted on
December 20, 2013.
Our response: The final rule clarifies
that modifications to UDC Appendix A
are covered under the 4(d) rule only if
they are agreed upon by the Working
Group through the adaptive
management process, provide equal or
greater conservation benefits to the
Georgetown salamander, and are
approved by the Service. In order to
allow this important adaptive
management process to be
implemented, we have revised the final
4(d) rule to note that the provisions
apply only to Service-endorsed versions
of UDC 11.07 and Appendix A.
(19) Comment: It concerns us that the
proposed 4(d) special rule is proceeding
without scientific peer review.
Our response: Although our February
24, 2014, proposed 4(d) rule announced
that we were not conducting a peer
review, we did conduct a peer review of
the proposed 4(d) rule during the
second comment period (April 9, 2015,
to May 11, 2015). We requested peer
review from five water quality
protection experts and received reviews
from two of the five. The peer reviews,
along with the other comments and
materials we received, are available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2014–0008.
(20) Comment: The UDC will not
protect the quantity of spring flows or
threats to water quality from points
more distant than 50–300 m (164–984 ft)
from spring sites. The UDC on which
the proposed 4(d) rule is based does not
adequately protect groundwater quality,
including recharge features, caves,
conduits, or local aquifers. The only
substantive contribution made by the
UDC is to decrease the probability of
wholesale destruction by physical
disturbance of occupied springs, but
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47425
that is just one of many threats to the
species.
Our response: We believe the
regulations in the UDC provide some
protections to recharge features and
water quality in the aquifer as a whole,
primarily through the required stream
buffers. Although the UDC addresses
water quality, regulating every threat to
the species is outside the scope of the
UDC. In addition, as affirmed in State of
Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th
Cir. 1988), the rule need not address all
the threats to the species. Activities that
are not covered by this 4(d) rule and
that may result in take to the species
would need to be covered through
sections 7 or 10 of the Act.
(21) Comment: The UDC does not
specify whether any new population
discoveries in the future will be treated
as ‘‘Edwards Springs’’ with a 50-m (164ft) buffer or as occupied sites with a
300-m (984-ft) buffer. Furthermore, the
UDC does not require population
surveys for salamander presence in
currently occupied sites or at sites that
are currently thought to be unoccupied.
Therefore, it provides zero protection
for spring sites that are determined in
the future to be occupied by
salamanders.
Our response: We have clarified in the
final 4(d) rule that any site determined
to be occupied by Georgetown
salamanders in the future will be
considered ‘‘occupied’’ and require the
protective measures outlined in
Appendix A of the UDC to be covered
under this 4(d) rule.
(22) Comment: Under the 4(d) rule,
the Service should allow the City of
Georgetown to conduct all technical
reviews related to compliance with the
UDC, including review and approval of
subdivision plats, site plans, or other
plans to be in compliance with the UDC.
The UDC already requires that all
development within the salamanders’
known distribution may not begin until
a geologic assessment has been
conducted and accepted by the City and
all project plats, site plans, and
infrastructure construction plans reflect
occupied springs and required buffers.
The City of Georgetown is the logical
entity to conduct this review under the
UDC, as City staff are the most
knowledgeable about local codes,
ordinances, and environmental
conditions and will ensure technical
reviews comply with the UDC.
Our response: The City of Georgetown
will implement and enforce the
regulations in chapter 11.07 of the UDC.
The City, with assistance of the Working
Group (comprising representatives from
the City of Georgetown, Williamson
County, Texas Commission on
E:\FR\FM\07AUR1.SGM
07AUR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47426
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Environmental Quality, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, university
scientists, private real estate developers,
and the Service), will also review and
approve projects that wish to follow the
guidelines described in Appendix A of
the UDC. The Service has no intention
of reviewing individual projects unless
the developers wish to obtain an
incidental take permit through section
10, or if a Federal nexus exists through
section 7, instead of following the UDC.
(23) Comment: The required buffers
will not infringe too seriously on
Georgetown residents. The ‘‘MinimalDisturbance Zone’’ will allow those who
wish to live near rivers and springs that
are the salamander’s habitats to do so,
as long as the residential areas are low
density. Recreational activities like
fishing or boating would not be severely
limited either, as the ‘‘No-Disturbance
Zone’’ on the river stretches only [80 m
(262 ft)] in either direction. This is a
significant buffer for the salamander,
but it is not a far distance for humans
to traverse.
Our response: The ‘‘No-Disturbance
Zone’’ of Appendix A of the UDC does
not apply to recreation activities. Only
regulated activities (as defined in title
30, Texas Administrative Code, section
213.3(28)) are prohibited within this
zone.
(24) Comment: Stream buffers of at
least 23 m (75 ft) may not be large
enough to considerably reduce water
pollution. Salamanders are affected by
slight changes in pH and increase of
chemicals in the water. The small
population sizes of Georgetown
salamanders greatly increase their risk
of extinction. Therefore, more studies
on the biology and population
demographics of this species should be
performed before additional urban
development is allowed near these
crucial habitat sites.
Our response: The adaptive
management process is a component of
chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the
UDC that allows changes to the
regulations in response to new
information. If there is adequate
evidence that the current regulations are
not protective enough for the
Georgetown salamander, the Working
Group will recommend changes to the
UDC that meet the overall management
goals.
(25) Comment: This plan essentially
provides a loophole for developers to
continue construction if they survey the
area themselves. There is no outside
authority to check if salamander habitat
will be disturbed. This could potentially
allow for corrupt results of the
investigation to be passed off as
legitimate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
Our response: This 4(d) rule does not
provide a loophole, because all
individual project proponents continue
to be responsible for determining
impacts on listed species and seeking
the appropriate take coverage based on
their determination.
(26) Comment: If the development is
single-family residential, two-family
residential, or on a lot smaller than 2 ha
(5 ac), the assessment from the Federal
Government would be waived. Any
construction, no matter how small it
may be, will have an impact on the
environment.
Our response: There is no Federal
Government assessment that would be
waived from residential developments.
Geologic assessments (which have to be
completed under the UDC 11.07
regulations) are not required to be
submitted to the City of Georgetown if
the proposed development is a small
(less than 2-ha (5-ac)) single-family and
two-family residential development
located in a small (25.9-ha (64-ac))
watershed. However, these
developments are required to
implement all other UDC water quality
measures.
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. OIRA 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 final 4(d) rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1996), whenever an agency must
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. SBREFA amended the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis
to be required, impacts must exceed a
threshold for ‘‘significant impact’’ and a
threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of
small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Based on the information that is
available to us at this time, we certify
that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The following discussion explains our
rationale.
On February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10236),
we published the final determination to
list the Georgetown salamander as a
threatened species. That rule became
effective on March 26, 2014. As a result,
the Georgetown salamander is currently
covered by the full protections of the
Act, including the full section 9
prohibitions that make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or attempt to engage
in any such conduct), import or export,
ship in interstate commerce in the
course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any wildlife species listed as
an endangered species, without written
authorization. It also is illegal under
section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
such wildlife that is taken illegally.
Prohibited actions consistent with
section 9 of the Act are outlined for
threatened species in 50 CFR 17.31(a)
and (b). This final 4(d) rule states that
all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and
(b) will apply to the Georgetown
salamander, except regulated activities
that are conducted consistent with the
water quality protective measures
contained in Chapter 11.07 and
Appendix A of the Unified
Development Code, which would result
in a less restrictive regulation under the
Act, as it pertains to the Georgetown
E:\FR\FM\07AUR1.SGM
07AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
salamander, than would otherwise exist.
For the above reasons, we certify that
the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Therefore, a
final regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This final 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 [T]ribal
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 [T]ribal 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; AFDC 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.’’
(b) This 4(d) rule promulgates that all
prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b)
will apply to the Georgetown
salamander, except activities that are
conducted consistent with the water
quality protection measures contained
in Chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the
Unified Development Code, which
would result in a less restrictive
regulation under the Act, as it pertains
to the Georgetown salamander, than
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
would otherwise exist. As a result, we
do not believe that this rule would
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not
required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order
12630, this final rule will not have
significant takings implications. We
have determined that the rule has no
potential takings of private property
implications as defined by this
Executive Order because this 4(d) rule
will result in a less-restrictive regulation
under the Endangered Species Act than
would otherwise exist. A takings
implication assessment is not required.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order
13132, this final 4(d) rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A
federalism summary impact statement is
not required. This rule will not have
substantial direct effects on the State, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and the State, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order
12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this final rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
(Executive Order 13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires
agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking
actions that significantly affect energy
supply, distribution, and use. For
reasons discussed within this final rule,
we believe that the rule will not have
any effect on energy supplies,
distribution, and use. Therefore, this
action is not a significant energy action,
and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain collections
of information that require approval by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47427
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have prepared a final
environmental assessment, as defined
under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. For
information on how to obtain a copy of
the final environmental assessment, see
ADDRESSES, above.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
We determined that there are no known
tribal lands within the range of the
Georgetown salamander.
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule
are the staff members of the Austin
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
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]
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.
E:\FR\FM\07AUR1.SGM
07AUR1
47428
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
2. Amend § 17.43 by adding paragraph
(e) to read as follows:
■
§ 17.43
Special rules—amphibians.
*
*
*
*
(e) Georgetown salamander (Eurycea
naufragia).
(1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section, all
prohibitions and provisions of §§ 17.31
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
and 17.32 apply to the Georgetown
salamander.
(2) Exemptions from prohibitions.
Incidental take of the Georgetown
salamander will not be considered a
violation of section 9 of the Act if the
take occurs on non-Federal land from
regulated activities that are conducted
consistent with the water quality
protection measures contained in
chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
City of Georgetown (Texas) Unified
Development Code (UDC), as endorsed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: July 28, 2015.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–19335 Filed 8–6–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\07AUR1.SGM
07AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47418-47428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19335]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BA32
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 4(d) Rule for the
Georgetown Salamander
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, finalize a rule under
authority of section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander (Eurycea
naufragia), a species that occurs in Texas. This final 4(d) rule will
provide the Service the opportunity to work cooperatively, in
partnership with the local community and State agencies, on
conservation of the Georgetown salamander and the ecosystems on which
it depends.
This 4(d) rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the Georgetown salamander because it strengthens water
quality protection measures throughout the species' range, allows for
consideration of new information to optimize conservation measures, and
furthers conservation partnerships that can be leveraged to improve the
status of the Georgetown salamander.
DATES: This rule is effective September 8, 2015.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, the final environmental assessment, and a
list of references cited are available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008, or by mail
from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Comments and materials we received are available
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. All of the
comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this
rulemaking are available by appointment, during normal business hours
at the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
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; telephone 512-490-0057;
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:
Previous Federal Actions
On August 22, 2012, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (77 FR 50768) to list the Georgetown salamander (Eurycea
naufragia), Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis), Jollyville
Plateau salamander (Eurycea
[[Page 47419]]
tonkawae), and Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) as
endangered species and to designate critical habitat for these species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C.
1533 et seq.). The Federal lists of endangered and threatened species
and other protective regulations for listed species under the Act are
in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). On
February 24, 2014, we published a final determination to list the
Georgetown salamander and the Salado salamander as threatened species
under the Act (79 FR 10236) and a proposed rule under section 4(d) of
the Act (a proposed 4(d) rule) for the Georgetown salamander (79 FR
10077) at 50 CFR 17.43. On April 9, 2015, we revised the proposed 4(d)
rule for the Georgetown salamander and reopened the public comment
period for 30 days, ending May 11, 2015 (80 FR 19050). Please see the
final listing determination (79 FR 10236) for additional information
concerning previous Federal actions for the Georgetown salamander.
Background
The Georgetown salamander is entirely aquatic and depends on water
from the Edwards Aquifer in sufficient quantity and quality to meet the
species' life-history requirements for survival, growth, and
reproduction. Degradation of habitat, in the form of reduced water
quality and quantity and disturbance of spring sites, is the main
threat to this species. For more information on the Georgetown
salamander and its habitat, please refer to the February 24, 2014,
final listing determination (79 FR 10236).
The Act does not specify particular prohibitions, or exceptions to
those prohibitions, for threatened species. Instead, under section 4(d)
of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior has the discretion to issue
such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of such species. The Secretary also has the discretion
to prohibit by regulation, with respect to any threatened wildlife
species, any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act.
Exercising this discretion, the Service developed general prohibitions
(50 CFR 17.31) and exceptions to those prohibitions (50 CFR 17.32)
under the Act that apply to most threatened wildlife species.
Alternately, for other threatened species, under the authority of
section 4(d) of the Act, the Service may develop specific prohibitions
and exceptions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of
the species. In such cases, some of the prohibitions and authorizations
under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 may be appropriate for the species and
incorporated into a rule under section 4(d) of the Act. However, these
rules, known as 4(d) rules, will also include provisions that are
tailored to the specific conservation needs of the threatened species
and may be more or less restrictive than the general provisions at 50
CFR 17.31.
Summary of Changes From the Revised Proposed Rule
Based on information we received in both public comment periods on
the proposed 4(d) rule (see Summary of Comments and Recommendations),
we revised the provisions of the 4(d) rule to provide greater clarity
around the activities that are covered and not covered by this rule.
Provisions of the 4(d) Rule for the Georgetown Salamander
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may publish a rule
that modifies the standard protections for threatened species and that
contains prohibitions tailored to the conservation of the species and
that are determined to be necessary and advisable. Under this 4(d)
rule, the Service provides that all of the prohibitions under 50 CFR
17.31 and 17.32 are necessary and advisable and, therefore, apply to
the Georgetown salamander, except as noted below. This 4(d) rule will
not remove or alter in any way the consultation requirements under
section 7 of the Act.
City of Georgetown Unified Development Code (UDC)
For activities outside of habitat occupied by the Georgetown
salamander, the final 4(d) rule provides that take of Georgetown
salamanders that is incidental to regulated activities (as defined in
title 30, Texas Administrative Code, section 213.3(28)) that are
conducted consistent with the water quality regulations contained in
chapter 11.07 of the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code (UDC
11.07) (https://udc.georgetown.org/) will not be prohibited under the
Act. The water quality regulations in UDC 11.07 were finalized on
February 24, 2015. Chapter 11.07 of the UDC describes stream and spring
buffers, water quality best management practices, and geologic
assessments that are required for property development within the
Northern Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and the City of Georgetown.
``Regulated activities'' are defined in title 30, Texas
Administrative Code, section 213.3(28) as any construction-related or
post-construction activities on the Recharge Zone of the Edwards
Aquifer having the potential for polluting the Edwards Aquifer and
hydrologically connected surface streams. ``Regulated activities'' do
not include the clearing of vegetation without soil disturbance,
agricultural activities, oil and gas activities, routine maintenance of
existing structures that does not involve additional site disturbance,
and construction of single-family residences on lots larger than 2
hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac)). More specific details on spring and
stream buffers can be found in sections 11.07.003A. and B. of the UDC.
When a property owner submits a development application for a
regulated activity on a tract of land located over the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone, that individual is required to submit a geologic
assessment to the City of Georgetown. The geologic assessment
identifies and describes all springs and streams on any subject
property, and the UDC establishes buffer zones around identified
springs and streams. For springs, the buffer encompasses 50 meters (m)
(164 feet (ft)) extending from the approximate center of the spring
outlet that is identified in a geologic assessment. For streams, the
boundaries of the buffer must coincide with either the boundaries of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) one percent floodplain
or a calculated one percent floodplain, whichever is smaller. In the
absence of a FEMA floodplain or calculated one percent floodplain,
these stream buffers may be no smaller than 61 m (200 ft) wide with at
least 23 m (75 ft) from the centerline of the stream. Section 11.07.003
of the UDC states that no ``regulated activities'' may be conducted
within the spring and stream buffers.
In addition to the establishment of these spring and stream
buffers, the UDC outlines water quality best management practices
designed to minimize sediment runoff, increase the removal of total
suspended solids, prevent an increase in flow rates, and ensure spill
containment for new or expanded roadways. These regulations in chapter
11.07 of the UDC are designed to reduce water quality degradation that
may occur as a result of development. By reducing further water quality
degradation that may result from development, these protective measures
are also expected to reduce degradation to Georgetown salamander
habitat that may occur.
The UDC 11.07 also outlines exemptions from the requirement to
prepare a geologic assessment, the process by which a landowner may
request a variance to the spring and
[[Page 47420]]
stream buffer requirements, and exemptions to the spring and stream
buffer requirements of section 11.07.003. Small (less than 2-ha (5-ac))
single-family and two-family residential developments are exempt from
submitting a geologic assessment; however, these developments are
required to implement UDC water quality measures. Landowners may
request to the City of Georgetown a variance from the spring and stream
buffer requirements in UDC 11.07 if: The variance is not contrary to
the public interest; due to special conditions, a literal enforcement
of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship; and the spirit
of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done, in
accordance with UDC section 2.05.010.A.6. These variances and
exemptions apply only to sites not occupied by Georgetown salamanders.
Properties with a site occupied by the Georgetown salamander are
exempt from the spring and stream buffer requirements in chapter 11.07.
Rather, UDC Appendix A outlines conservation measures (which are
voluntary under the UDC) to be implemented when undertaking regulated
activities that occur on a tract of land with an occupied site or
within 984 ft (300 m) of an occupied site. An ``occupied site'' is
defined in the UDC as any spring identified as a critical habitat unit
by the Service for the Georgetown salamander and includes the following
sites: Cobb Well, Cobb Springs, Cowen Creek Spring, Bat Well Cave,
Walnut Spring, Twin Spring, Hogg Hollow Spring, Cedar Hollow Spring,
Knight (Crockett Garden) Spring, Cedar Breaks Hiking Trail Spring,
Water Tank Cave, Avant's (Capitol Aggregates), Buford Hollow Springs,
Swinbank Spring, Shadow Canyon, San Gabriel Spring, and Garey Ranch
Springs. For the purposes of this 4(d) rule, however, we define an
occupied site to be any site where Georgetown salamanders have been
found in the past or new sites found in the future.
For activities involving habitat occupied by the Georgetown
salamander, the final 4(d) rule provides that take of the Georgetown
salamander that is incidental to regulated activities that are
conducted consistent with the guidelines described in Appendix A of the
UDC will not be prohibited under the Act. Similar to chapter 11.07 of
the UDC, the guidelines in Appendix A establish stream and spring
buffers and allowable activities within those buffers; however, the
measures described in Appendix A create larger, more protective buffers
than those that appear in chapter 11 for unoccupied sites. First,
Appendix A establishes a ``No-Disturbance Zone'' in the stream or
waterway into which a spring drains directly; this zone extends 80 m
(264 ft) upstream and downstream from the approximate center of the
spring outlet of an occupied site and is bounded by the top of the
bank. No regulated activities may occur within the ``No-Disturbance
Zone.'' In addition, Appendix A establishes a ``Minimal-Disturbance
Zone'' for the subsurface area that drains to the spring(s) at an
occupied site; this zone consists of the area within 300 m (984 ft) of
the approximate center of the spring outlet of an occupied site, except
those areas within the ``No-Disturbance Zone.'' Most regulated
activities are also prohibited in the ``Minimal-Disturbance Zone,'' but
single-family developments, limited parks and open space development,
and wastewater infrastructure will be allowed. For additional details
on the buffers around occupied sites and prohibited actions, please
refer to the UDC Appendix A.
In general, this 4(d) rule does not apply to deviations from the
water quality measures in UDC 11.07 and Appendix A. Any variance from
the measures and guidelines described in UDC 11.07 (non-occupied sites)
is not covered by this final 4(d) rule, unless that variance has been
granted by the City of Georgetown. In addition, variances from the
spring and stream buffer requirements of UDC 11.07 may be granted by
the City of Georgetown only if the variance is not contrary to the
public interest, if due to special conditions a literal enforcement of
the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, and if the spirit
of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done, in
accordance with UDC section 2.05.010.A.6. Projects involving habitat
occupied by the Georgetown salamander (which are not eligible for
variances) where the project proponent chooses not to follow the
voluntary guidelines in Appendix A of the UDC, may work with the
Service to pursue take coverage by developing a habitat conservation
plan (HCP) in accordance with section 10 of the Act.
Section 11.07.008 of the UDC also establishes an Adaptive
Management Working Group (Working Group) that is responsible for
reviewing data on a regular basis and making recommendations for
specific changes in the management directions related to the voluntary
conservation measures for occupied sites in Appendix A. Adaptive
management for preservation of the Georgetown salamander is one of the
duties tasked to the Working Group. The adaptive management described
in the UDC specifically applies to the guidelines (i.e., conservation
measures) found in Appendix A; therefore, the guidelines described in
Appendix A may change over time if they would result in equal or better
conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander, as determined by
the Service. For example, if experience gained during implementation of
the guidelines or new scientific information suggests that a buffer
distance was either too small, or larger than needed, to achieve the
intended benefits, that buffer distance could be modified. However, the
activities covered under Appendix A (i.e., regulated activities) are
not subject to change under the adaptive management provisions
described in the UDC. In other words, exercising of adaptive management
under this 4(d) rule cannot expand the scope of the covered activities
beyond regulated activities (as defined in title 30, Texas
Administrative Code, section 213.3(28)). The Working Group will develop
an annual report regarding the preservation of the Georgetown
salamander, continuous monitoring of the Georgetown salamander,
assessment of research priorities, and the effectiveness of the water
quality regulations and guidelines. Copies of the February 24, 2015,
dated UDC 11.07 and Appendix A are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008. Any revisions to
Appendix A will be made available at https://udc.georgetown.org/udc-amendments/.
Determination
Section 4(d) of the Act states that ``the Secretary shall issue
such regulations as [s]he deems necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation'' of species listed as threatened species.
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean ``to use and the use of all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to [the Act] are no longer necessary.''
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, the Secretary may find that it
is necessary and advisable not to include a taking prohibition, or to
include a limited taking prohibition. See Alsea Valley Alliance v.
Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington
Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, and 2002
U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 2002). In addition, as affirmed in
State of Louisiana v. Verity,
[[Page 47421]]
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988), the rule need not address all the threats
to the species. As noted by Congress when the Act was initially
enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has
an almost infinite number of options available to him [her] with regard
to the permitted activities for those species. [S]he may, for example,
permit taking, but not importation of such species,'' or she may choose
to forbid both taking and importation but allow the transportation of
such species, as long as the prohibitions, and exceptions to those
prohibitions, will ``serve to conserve, protect, or restore the species
concerned in accordance with the purposes of the Act'' (H.R. Rep. No.
412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
Section 9 prohibitions make it illegal for any person subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States to take (including harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt
any of these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the
course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any wildlife species listed as an endangered
species, without written authorization. It also is illegal under
section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport,
or ship any such wildlife that is taken illegally. Prohibited actions
consistent with section 9 of the Act are outlined for threatened
wildlife in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b). For the Georgetown salamander, the
Service has determined that a 4(d) rule tailored to its specific
conservation needs is necessary and advisable, as discussed below. This
final 4(d) rule provides that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and
(b) will apply to the Georgetown salamander, except as described below.
Under this final 4(d) rule, incidental take of the Georgetown
salamander will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act
if the take occurs on any non-Federal land and from regulated
activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality
protection measures contained in chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the
City of Georgetown Unified Development Code. This final 4(d) rule
refers to the definition of ``regulated activities'' in title 30, Texas
Administrative Code, section 213.3(28), which is any construction-
related or post-construction activities on the recharge zone of the
Edwards Aquifer having the potential for polluting the Edwards Aquifer
and hydrologically connected surface streams. We have determined that
this provision is necessary and advisable for the conservation of the
Georgetown salamander, as explained in the paragraphs that follow.
The local community in the City of Georgetown and Williamson County
has expressed a desire to design and implement a local solution to
conserving the natural resources in their county, including water
quality and the Georgetown salamander (City of Georgetown Resolution
No. 082812-N). All currently known locations for the Georgetown
salamander are within the jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown,
making the city an appropriate entity to manage conservation measures
that protect Georgetown salamander habitat. Because impervious cover
levels within most of the watersheds known to be occupied by the
Georgetown salamander are still relatively low, a window of opportunity
exists to design and implement measures to protect water quality and,
therefore, conserve the salamander. The City and County's approach for
accomplishing this conservation goal includes regulatory and non-
regulatory actions, as described below. Regulatory actions include
passage of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Water Quality Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 2013-59) by the Georgetown City Council on December 20,
2013, and the revisions to their UDC (chapter 11.07) finalized on
February 24, 2015. Their approach also includes non-regulatory actions,
such as the technical guidance provided in Appendix A of the UDC, which
outlines additional conservation measures to protect water quality and
to avoid direct destruction of occupied sites.
Habitat modification, in the form of degraded water quality and
quantity and disturbance of spring sites, is the primary threat to the
Georgetown salamander. The conservation measures in both chapter 11.07
and Appendix A of the UDC provide a variety of water quality protection
measures, such as the creation of buffers around springs and streams
where regulated activities are prohibited, designed to lessen impacts
to the water quality of springs and streams in the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone. The UDC is applied throughout the watersheds that
contain the Georgetown salamander. Absent this 4(d) rule, the status
quo would be to address development impacts through traditional tools
(that is, sections 7 and 10 of the Act) that are generally applied at
the project-by-project scale. The watershed-level approach in UDC 11.07
and Appendix A works to avoid incremental environmental degradation
that may go unnoticed on a small, individual project scale. Through
this final 4(d) rule, we can achieve a greater level of conservation
for the Georgetown salamander than we could without it because it
encourages rangewide implementation of water quality protective
measures that are aimed at addressing the primary threat of habitat
modification and degradation for Georgetown salamanders. The majority
of Georgetown salamanders occur within 164 ft (50 m) of a spring outlet
(Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294; TPWD 2011, p. 3); this coincides with the
spring and stream buffers for unoccupied sites. We also believe the
salamander populations exist through underground conduits that may
extend 300 m (984 ft) around cave or spring points; this area coincides
with the size of the ``Minimal-Disturbance Zones'' for occupied sites.
By limiting development activities within these respective areas, the
measures in the UDC 11.07 and Appendix A are expected to limit water
quality degradation in areas that may provide suitable surface or
subsurface habitat for the Georgetown salamander now and in the future.
Although the areas that provide recharge and the source water for
specific areas occupied by the salamander have not been precisely
delineated, the watershed-level approach makes it likely that unknown
recharge areas are receiving water quality protection under the UDC.
This is because the UDC prohibits regulated activities within buffers
around all streams located within the recharge zone and the City of
Georgetown jurisdiction. In karst aquifer systems, streams often
contain important recharge features called swallow holes or swallets,
which allow the stream to continue flowing underground in a conduit and
feed the larger aquifer or even small springs directly (White 1998, p.
172). For example, in the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards
Aquifer, hydrologists generally agree that most of the aquifer's
recharge comes via these streambed recharge features (Mahler et al.
2011, p. 4). Although similar research is lacking in the Northern
Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, it is likely that the aquifer feeding
Georgetown salamander habitat works in a similar way because both areas
are karst aquifer systems, thereby making the stream buffers of the UDC
crucial in protecting groundwater quality.
This watershed-level approach also includes an adaptive management
component that will allow the Adaptive Management Working Group
(Working Group) to evaluate the response of salamander populations to
management actions and quickly respond and recommend adjustments, if
necessary, to management strategies to protect water
[[Page 47422]]
quality consistent with conserving the Georgetown salamander. The UDC
formalizes the Working Group with representatives from the City of
Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, university scientists,
private real estate developers, and the Service. The role of the
Working Group is to:
Review scientific information to understand the latest
science on watershed management practices and the conservation of the
Georgetown salamander;
Recommend support for additional Georgetown salamander
scientific studies and oversee a long-term monitoring program to ensure
that salamander abundance at monitored locations is stable or
improving;
Conduct and evaluate water quality trend analysis as part
of its long-term monitoring program to ensure water quality conditions
do not decline and, in turn, result in impacts to salamander abundance;
and
Develop recommendations for changes to the UDC Appendix A
for occupied sites if scientific and monitoring information indicates
that water quality and salamander protection measures need changes to
minimize impacts to salamander populations and to help attain the goal
of species conservation.
While a window of opportunity exists to design and implement
conservation measures to conserve the Georgetown salamander, human
population levels and development are expected to increase rapidly in
Williamson County (Texas State Data Center 2012, pp. 166-167). The
success of the local community's efforts depends on their robust
adaptive management program. The program is designed to monitor and
quickly assess the effectiveness of the identified conservation
measures and strategies and to be able to respond quickly and adapt the
conservation measures and strategies to provide equal or better
conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander. The adaptive
management approach will ensure that the water quality protective
measures are serving their intended purpose of conserving the
Georgetown salamander, thereby providing for the conservation of the
species. Changes to UDC Appendix A that are agreed upon by the Working
Group through the adaptive management process, provide equal or greater
conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander, and approved by the
Service would be covered under this 4(d) rule.
By not prohibiting incidental take resulting from regulated
activities conducted in accordance with the UDC 11.07 and Appendix A,
the Service is supporting and encouraging a local solution to
conservation of the Georgetown salamander. This final 4(d) rule will
provide the Service the opportunity to work cooperatively, in
partnership with the local community and State agencies, on
conservation of the Georgetown salamander and the ecosystems on which
it depends. Leveraging our conservation capacity with that of the
State, local governments, and the conservation community at large may
make it possible to attain biological outcomes larger than those we
could attain ourselves due to the watershed-scale protection the UDC
requires. Further, our local partners are best able to design solutions
that minimize socioeconomic impacts, thereby encouraging participation
in measures that will protect water quality and conserve the Georgetown
salamander. In addition, by not prohibiting incidental take resulting
from regulated activities conducted in accordance with UDC 11.07 and
Appendix A, the Service is providing a streamlining mechanism for
compliance with the Act for those project proponents who comply with
the protective measures in UDC 11.07 and Appendix A and, thus, are
considered covered by this final 4(d) rule. Project proponents who
comply with these protective measures, as outlined in this final rule,
can implement their projects without any potential delay from seeking
incidental take coverage from the Service, while also minimizing water
quality degradation. This approach provides greater regulatory
certainty and streamlines compliance for project proponents and thus is
likely to result in increased implementation of water quality
protective measures that benefit salamanders.
In summary, this 4(d) rule is necessary and advisable to provide
for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander because it
strengthens water quality protection measures throughout the species'
range, allows for consideration of new information to optimize
conservation measures, and furthers conservation partnerships that can
be leveraged to improve the status of the Georgetown salamander.
Implementation of water quality protection measures throughout the
range of the species will provide greater protection for the species
than would project-by-project efforts, and provide protections to
recharge areas that we may not be able to protect under our traditional
tools (e.g., sections 7 and 10 of the Act). Further, water quality
protection is a crucial element of conservation for the Georgetown
salamander. Because the best available information does not allow us to
determine the exact amount of water quality protection needed to
satisfy the life requirements of the Georgetown salamander, the
adaptive management approach incorporated into UDC Appendix A provides
a pathway to achieving our conservation goals for the species in the
face of scientific uncertainty. Finally, this approach also encourages
further cooperation between the Service and local government entities,
enhancing our ability to work collaboratively with partners to further
Georgetown salamander conservation.
If an activity that may affect the species is not regulated by UDC
11.07 or is not in accordance with UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, or a
person or entity is not in compliance with all terms and conditions of
UDC 11.07 and Appendix A and the activity would result in an act that
would be otherwise prohibited under 50 CFR 17.31, then the general
provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 for threatened species apply. In
such circumstances, the prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 would be in
effect, and authorization under 50 CFR 17.32 would be required. In
addition, nothing in this 4(d) rule affects in any way other provisions
of the Act, such as the designation of critical habitat under section
4, recovery planning provisions of section 4(f), and consultation
requirements under section 7.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 4(d)
rule for the Georgetown salamander during two comment periods: February
24 to April 25, 2014, and April 9 to May 11, 2015. We also contacted
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment
on the proposed 4(d) rule, draft environmental assessment, and chapter
11.07 and Appendix A of the UDC during the respective comment periods.
Over the course of the two comment periods, we received 39 comment
submissions. All substantive information provided during these comment
periods has either been incorporated directly into this final rule or
is addressed below. Comments from peer reviewers and State agencies are
grouped separately.
Peer Review Comments
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion
[[Page 47423]]
from five knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that are
familiar with the species, the geographic region in which the species
occurs, and conservation biology principles. We received responses from
two of the five peer reviewers. We reviewed all comments received from
the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information. These
comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into
the final rule as appropriate.
(1) Comment: An additional buffer specifically associated with
where Georgetown salamanders are found, to minimize direct impacts by
people (and domestic pets), is critical. Fencing is often an effective
way to mark the boundaries (and potentially reduce their footprint) of
such a protective buffer.
Our response: We agree that additional measures to protect
Georgetown salamanders from the threat of trampling by people, pets,
feral hogs, and livestock may contribute to the conservation of the
species. However, as noted above, this 4(d) rule does not provide
incidental take authority for all types of activities that may
constitute take or harm of Georgetown salamanders. Rather, the 4(d)
rule will promote the conservation of the species by helping to
alleviate negative impacts that can occur from the threat of water
quality degradation as a result of urbanization.
(2) Comment: I am uncertain as to whether the fixed-width buffers
are appropriate in all localities to achieve the desired level of
protection. Protection of surface and groundwater resources in
karstified area can be quite challenging, and, therefore, simplified
metrics such as horizontal setbacks may not achieve the desired
results. Adequate buffers would require an understanding of both the
detailed hydrogeology and the dispersal patterns of the listed species.
For the former, I would expect that areas upgradient of springs (a more
immediate source of recharge) would be more important than downgradient
areas, all else being equal, to the maintenance of adequate springflow.
For the latter, I would expect that downgradient areas (where the
emergent surface water flows) would be more important than upgradient
areas for the direct support of habitat. How these two attributes
interact to define a truly ``critical'' area of influence is
undoubtedly complex, and a fixed-width buffer may be the best
alternative at the present time. However, I would hope that improved
understanding of these interactions would be a focus of the adaptive
management effort.
Our response: We agree and expect that improving the understanding
of the detailed hydrogeology and dispersal patterns of the species will
be a focus of the Working Group. Please see our response to Comment #8.
(3) Comment: The stormwater-management requirements for protection
of the Edwards Aquifer (UDC) are laudable, but they lag behind the
current understanding, and readily available applications, of what
constitutes stormwater ``best management practices'' of the 21st
century. Particularly given the importance of maintaining aquifer
recharge, I would expect to see on-site retention of the 95th
percentile storm (as is already mandated for federal facilities) rather
than just 85 percent reduction in total suspended solids.
Our response: Because the on-site retention of the 95th percentile
storm is a different type of stormwater measurement than 85 percent
reduction in total suspended solids, it is difficult to compare the two
in terms of water quality protection. However, we recognize that there
may be more stringent water quality regulations that aim to remove more
contaminants from stormwater runoff than the UDC. The adaptive
management process will monitor the status of the species in response
to implementation of the UDC and modify the regulations if more
protective measures are needed to further reduce impacts to the
species. At this time, we have determined that the UDC and Appendix A,
which include the 85 percent reduction, are necessary and advisable for
the conservation of the species (see Determination section above).
(4) Comment: I recommend that there should be no exemptions to the
water quality regulations. Every proposed change in land use should
have some form of review to ensure compatibility with management goals.
Our response: In general, deviations from the water quality
regulations described in UDC 11.07 and the voluntary guidelines
described in Appendix A of the UDC will not be covered under this 4(d)
rule. Non-regulated activities, for example, are exempt from UDC 11.07
and are, therefore, not covered under this 4(d) rule. However,
variances from UDC 11.07 may be granted by the City of Georgetown in
special circumstances. These variances from the spring and stream
buffer requirements apply only to non-occupied sites and undergo review
by the City of Georgetown staff and may be granted only if the variance
is not contrary to the public interest, due to special conditions a
literal enforcement of this regulation would result in unnecessary
hardship, and the spirit of the regulation is observed and substantial
justice is done, in accordance with UDC Section 2.05.010.A.6. No
variances to Appendix A, which covers all occupied sites, of the UDC
will be covered under this 4(d) rule. Individual variances to UDC 11.07
that have been approved by the City of Georgetown can be tracked by the
Working Group and incorporated into their discussions and
recommendations on the adaptive management needed to attain
conservation goals.
(5) Comment: Geologic and soil studies should be performed by the
community to delineate locations where shallow soil cover prevents
conventional onsite wastewater disposal. Green infrastructure and low-
impact development should be required everywhere in Georgetown, Texas.
This includes new development, redevelopment, and restoration projects.
Our response: We agree that groundwater vulnerability studies and
low-impact development will be beneficial for the Georgetown salamander
and its habitat. These are helpful suggestions for the Working Group to
consider as they evaluate the effectiveness of the UDC conservation
measures.
(6) Comment: The community should track water quality and flow at
selected springs and streams in order to develop long-term databases
able to detect changes.
Our response: We agree that water quality and quantity monitoring
conducted in a manner that is able to detect changes needs to be a
priority for the Working Group. Williamson County is currently
monitoring salamander abundance and basic water chemistry (for example,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance) at three sites
with plans to add more monitoring sites in the future.
Comments From States
(7) Comment: We urge the Service to finalize and implement this
proposed rule as efficiently as possible while following a transparent
process in order to provide regulatory certainty.
Our response: By requesting input from the public on this 4(d) rule
during two public comment periods, one 60-day and a second 30-day, we
believe the rulemaking process has been transparent.
(8) Comment: Spring buffers and other water quality protection
policies should be aligned with the hydrogeology that most directly
influences conditions for the species' survival. It also appears that
the current buffer strategy may unduly
[[Page 47424]]
restrict landowners in some areas that do not influence survival
conditions for the species while potentially not affording protection
to other areas that do influence survival conditions. We believe the
proposed rule affords the [Adaptive Management] Working Group the
latitude to study these spring buffers and offer alternative
recommendations if new science dictates that changes should be made.
Our response: The specific hydrogeology (for example, recharge
area) for each site occupied by the Georgetown salamander has not been
determined. The Act requires that we use the best available information
and does not require that we conduct research to develop new science.
In the absence of this information, we believe a fixed-width buffer is
the best alternative for protecting these sites. As new information is
discovered, the conservation measures can be modified through the
adaptive management process.
(9) Comment: Conservation measures detailed in the UDC are limited
to ``Occupied Sites'' with currently known populations. Conservation
measures would not apply to newly discovered occupied sites. Since
newly discovered sites could be important to the recovery of the
species, we request that the Service clarify the applicability of the
4(d) rule to these sites and the role the Working Group should play in
this regard.
Our response: In this final rule, we have clarified that any site
determined to be occupied by Georgetown salamanders in the future will
be considered ``occupied'' and the protective measures outlined in
Appendix A of the UDC must be followed in order to be covered under
this 4(d) rule. We recommend that the Working Group make efforts to
survey suitable habitat within the range of the Georgetown salamander
to identify all sites occupied by the species.
(10) Comment: It is unclear whether a landowner owning a newly
discovered site occupied by Georgetown salamanders outside the City of
Georgetown's extra-territorial jurisdiction would be covered for
incidental take if [s]he were to conduct activities consistent with the
conservation measures contained in the UDC. Regulatory predictability
and incidental take coverage for all affected landowners are important
for the ultimate recovery of the species.
Our response: Regulated activities located outside of the City of
Georgetown's jurisdiction are not covered by the UDC. Therefore, only
incidental take from those activities that are in the City of
Georgetown's jurisdiction are potentially exempt from take prohibitions
through this 4(d) rule. All currently known Georgetown salamander sites
are covered by the UDC.
Public Comments
(11) Comment: The proposed revised 4(d) rule states that the
boundaries of the stream buffer coincides with the boundaries of the
FEMA or calculated floodplain, but may be no smaller than [61 m (200
ft)] in width. It should be noted that, while the stream buffer varies
depending on the size of the stream (size of the stream is based on the
size of the drainage area, which influences the size of the
floodplain), there may be situations under the UDC where the stream
buffer is smaller than [61 m (200 ft)] in width.
Our response: Per the UDC 11.07, only stream buffers without FEMA
or calculated floodplains may be no smaller than 61 m (200 ft) in
width. We have made the appropriate clarification in this final rule.
(12) Comment: The proposed exemption from prohibitions, as it will
be outlined in Sec. 17.43(e)(2) of [title 50 of] the CFR, states that
``incidental take of the Georgetown salamander will not be considered a
violation of section 9 of the Act if the take occurs on privately
owned, State, or county land. . . .'' This exemption must include, at a
minimum, city-owned property.
Our response: We have edited the exemption to include all non-
Federal land.
(13) Comment: The proposed rule, if finalized, could not be amended
substantially unless and until the Service allowed for public comment
and input. Public input would not be allowed to a greater degree in
connection with an incidental take permit than it has been in
connection with the proposed rule.
Our response: This is correct. Future changes to the content of
this 4(d) rule require a public notice and comment period. However,
future changes related to the conservation of the Georgetown salamander
may be made to the conservation measures in UDC Appendix A, without
public notice and comment, if they are agreed upon by the Working Group
through the adaptive management process outlined in the UDC, provide
equal or greater conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander,
and are approved by the Service.
(14) Comment: The proposed rule does not exempt any set of
activities in the ``red zone.'' The proposed rule does not pick apart
who is regulated or not. Rather, it focuses on actual implementation of
water quality measures consistent with those set forth in the UDC and
listed in the proposed rule. A non-regulated entity can presumably meet
the standard set forth in the proposed rule, not because such an
activity is exempt from regulations, but because it would have
affirmatively implemented the water quality measure set forth in the
proposed rule and UDC. While it is true that the UDC applies only to
regulated activities, the exemption from take in the proposed rule
applies to all activities (and only those activities), regulated or
not, that are consistent with the conservation measures in the UDC;
that is, activities for which the project proponent has performed a
geologic assessment, abided by the limitations described in the UDC for
no-disturbance and minimal-disturbance zones, established buffers
around springs and streams, etc.
Our response: The UDC 11.07 and Appendix A were specifically
designed for regulated activities. Other kinds of non-regulated
activities could have different impacts not addressed with this set of
measures. Non-regulated activities that voluntarily follow the UDC
11.07 or Appendix A are not covered by this final 4(d) rule, and
project proponents may choose to work with the Service to obtain take
coverage.
(15) Comment: The Service should permit take under section 10
rather than adopt a special 4(d) rule because the resulting HCP cannot
be weakened through amendment (unlike the City of Georgetown UDC), the
section 10 process provides greater protections for the salamanders
compared to the City of Georgetown UDC, and the process provides an
open process in which the public can be involved.
Our response: Section 10 permits are voluntary, are tailored
towards individual applicants, would only cover known occupied sites,
and have different criteria for permit issuance than the Act requires
for issuance of a 4(d) rule. It is not certain that the Service would
receive applications for section 10 permits that would provide greater
protections for the Georgetown salamander over the entire range of the
species. The 4(d) rule provides a landscape-level approach that is
consistently implemented throughout the range of the Georgetown
salamander, including unoccupied sites.
While it is true that the conservation measures in UDC Appendix A
may be revised, those changes would not be covered under this 4(d) rule
unless they are agreed upon by the Working Group through the adaptive
management process outlined in the UDC, provide
[[Page 47425]]
equal or greater conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander,
and are approved by the Service. In addition, we have a ``No
Surprises'' policy for section 10 incidental take permits, which
states, if unforeseen circumstances occur during the life of an HCP,
the Service will not require additional lands, additional funds, or
additional restrictions on lands or other natural resources released
for development or use, from any permittee, who in good faith is
adequately implementing or has implemented an approved HCP. This policy
makes HCPs less flexible in terms of requiring more stringent
conservation measures over time in response to new information. Given
the amount of uncertainty in how best to protect Georgetown salamander
habitat quality at individual sites, the flexibility provided in the
adaptive management approach of the UDC is desirable.
We believe the development of this 4(d) rule has been an open
process comparable to that of a section 10 permit process. In addition,
the process of amending the UDC is very transparent, involving monthly
meetings of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee that are
open to the public with minutes and agendas posted online (https://government.georgetown.org/unified-development-code-advisory-board-2/).
(16) Comment: The 4(d) rule allows degradation of water quality
and, therefore, is not necessary and advisable for the conservation of
the Georgetown salamander.
Our response: The protective measures provided for in the 4(d) rule
are intended to address the threat of water quality degradation from
urbanization throughout the range of the species. We have found that
the 4(d) rule positively contributes to the recovery of the Georgetown
salamander by addressing the primary threat to the species and that
these measures are ``necessary and advisable for the conservation'' of
the Georgetown salamander (see Determination section above).
(17) Comment: Numerous activities that may degrade water quality
are entirely exempted and, therefore, allowed within the zones and
buffers described in the City of Georgetown UDC. The Service should
exempt only ``regulated activities'' because those are the only
activities that are actually regulated by the UDC. In this way, threats
such as oil and gas activities, agricultural operations, and
residential developments on lots greater than 2 ha (5 ac), which are
currently unregulated and, therefore, do not contribute to the
conservation of the salamander, would not receive the benefit of
protection from incidental take.
Our response: We agree and have clarified this issue in the final
4(d) rule. Also, please see our response to Comment #14.
(18) Comment: Because the proposed special rule references the
Ordinance instead of prescribing all the necessary conservation
measures, the City could receive the benefits of protection from
section 9 even if the City weakens the Ordinance through amendment. To
solve this problem, the Service must use the section 10 process,
describe all the necessary conservation measures in the Ordinance, or
modify the 4(d) rule to state on its face what is and what is not
authorized. At a bare minimum, the agency must specifically reference
the version of the Ordinance adopted on December 20, 2013.
Our response: The final rule clarifies that modifications to UDC
Appendix A are covered under the 4(d) rule only if they are agreed upon
by the Working Group through the adaptive management process, provide
equal or greater conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander,
and are approved by the Service. In order to allow this important
adaptive management process to be implemented, we have revised the
final 4(d) rule to note that the provisions apply only to Service-
endorsed versions of UDC 11.07 and Appendix A.
(19) Comment: It concerns us that the proposed 4(d) special rule is
proceeding without scientific peer review.
Our response: Although our February 24, 2014, proposed 4(d) rule
announced that we were not conducting a peer review, we did conduct a
peer review of the proposed 4(d) rule during the second comment period
(April 9, 2015, to May 11, 2015). We requested peer review from five
water quality protection experts and received reviews from two of the
five. The peer reviews, along with the other comments and materials we
received, are available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008.
(20) Comment: The UDC will not protect the quantity of spring flows
or threats to water quality from points more distant than 50-300 m
(164-984 ft) from spring sites. The UDC on which the proposed 4(d) rule
is based does not adequately protect groundwater quality, including
recharge features, caves, conduits, or local aquifers. The only
substantive contribution made by the UDC is to decrease the probability
of wholesale destruction by physical disturbance of occupied springs,
but that is just one of many threats to the species.
Our response: We believe the regulations in the UDC provide some
protections to recharge features and water quality in the aquifer as a
whole, primarily through the required stream buffers. Although the UDC
addresses water quality, regulating every threat to the species is
outside the scope of the UDC. In addition, as affirmed in State of
Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988), the rule need not
address all the threats to the species. Activities that are not covered
by this 4(d) rule and that may result in take to the species would need
to be covered through sections 7 or 10 of the Act.
(21) Comment: The UDC does not specify whether any new population
discoveries in the future will be treated as ``Edwards Springs'' with a
50-m (164-ft) buffer or as occupied sites with a 300-m (984-ft) buffer.
Furthermore, the UDC does not require population surveys for salamander
presence in currently occupied sites or at sites that are currently
thought to be unoccupied. Therefore, it provides zero protection for
spring sites that are determined in the future to be occupied by
salamanders.
Our response: We have clarified in the final 4(d) rule that any
site determined to be occupied by Georgetown salamanders in the future
will be considered ``occupied'' and require the protective measures
outlined in Appendix A of the UDC to be covered under this 4(d) rule.
(22) Comment: Under the 4(d) rule, the Service should allow the
City of Georgetown to conduct all technical reviews related to
compliance with the UDC, including review and approval of subdivision
plats, site plans, or other plans to be in compliance with the UDC. The
UDC already requires that all development within the salamanders' known
distribution may not begin until a geologic assessment has been
conducted and accepted by the City and all project plats, site plans,
and infrastructure construction plans reflect occupied springs and
required buffers. The City of Georgetown is the logical entity to
conduct this review under the UDC, as City staff are the most
knowledgeable about local codes, ordinances, and environmental
conditions and will ensure technical reviews comply with the UDC.
Our response: The City of Georgetown will implement and enforce the
regulations in chapter 11.07 of the UDC. The City, with assistance of
the Working Group (comprising representatives from the City of
Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas Commission on
[[Page 47426]]
Environmental Quality, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, university
scientists, private real estate developers, and the Service), will also
review and approve projects that wish to follow the guidelines
described in Appendix A of the UDC. The Service has no intention of
reviewing individual projects unless the developers wish to obtain an
incidental take permit through section 10, or if a Federal nexus exists
through section 7, instead of following the UDC.
(23) Comment: The required buffers will not infringe too seriously
on Georgetown residents. The ``Minimal-Disturbance Zone'' will allow
those who wish to live near rivers and springs that are the
salamander's habitats to do so, as long as the residential areas are
low density. Recreational activities like fishing or boating would not
be severely limited either, as the ``No-Disturbance Zone'' on the river
stretches only [80 m (262 ft)] in either direction. This is a
significant buffer for the salamander, but it is not a far distance for
humans to traverse.
Our response: The ``No-Disturbance Zone'' of Appendix A of the UDC
does not apply to recreation activities. Only regulated activities (as
defined in title 30, Texas Administrative Code, section 213.3(28)) are
prohibited within this zone.
(24) Comment: Stream buffers of at least 23 m (75 ft) may not be
large enough to considerably reduce water pollution. Salamanders are
affected by slight changes in pH and increase of chemicals in the
water. The small population sizes of Georgetown salamanders greatly
increase their risk of extinction. Therefore, more studies on the
biology and population demographics of this species should be performed
before additional urban development is allowed near these crucial
habitat sites.
Our response: The adaptive management process is a component of
chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the UDC that allows changes to the
regulations in response to new information. If there is adequate
evidence that the current regulations are not protective enough for the
Georgetown salamander, the Working Group will recommend changes to the
UDC that meet the overall management goals.
(25) Comment: This plan essentially provides a loophole for
developers to continue construction if they survey the area themselves.
There is no outside authority to check if salamander habitat will be
disturbed. This could potentially allow for corrupt results of the
investigation to be passed off as legitimate.
Our response: This 4(d) rule does not provide a loophole, because
all individual project proponents continue to be responsible for
determining impacts on listed species and seeking the appropriate take
coverage based on their determination.
(26) Comment: If the development is single-family residential, two-
family residential, or on a lot smaller than 2 ha (5 ac), the
assessment from the Federal Government would be waived. Any
construction, no matter how small it may be, will have an impact on the
environment.
Our response: There is no Federal Government assessment that would
be waived from residential developments. Geologic assessments (which
have to be completed under the UDC 11.07 regulations) are not required
to be submitted to the City of Georgetown if the proposed development
is a small (less than 2-ha (5-ac)) single-family and two-family
residential development located in a small (25.9-ha (64-ac)) watershed.
However, these developments are required to implement all other UDC
water quality measures.
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. OIRA 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 final 4(d) rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses,
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the RFA to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory
flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold
for ``significant impact'' and a threshold for a ``substantial number
of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Based on the information that
is available to us at this time, we certify that this regulation will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
On February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10236), we published the final
determination to list the Georgetown salamander as a threatened
species. That rule became effective on March 26, 2014. As a result, the
Georgetown salamander is currently covered by the full protections of
the Act, including the full section 9 prohibitions that make it illegal
for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct), import or export,
ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any wildlife
species listed as an endangered species, without written authorization.
It also is illegal under section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that is taken
illegally. Prohibited actions consistent with section 9 of the Act are
outlined for threatened species in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b). This final
4(d) rule states that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) will
apply to the Georgetown salamander, except regulated activities that
are conducted consistent with the water quality protective measures
contained in Chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the Unified Development
Code, which would result in a less restrictive regulation under the
Act, as it pertains to the Georgetown
[[Page 47427]]
salamander, than would otherwise exist. For the above reasons, we
certify that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a final
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This final 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 [T]ribal 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 [T]ribal 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; AFDC 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.''
(b) This 4(d) rule promulgates that all prohibitions in 50 CFR
17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the Georgetown salamander, except
activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality
protection measures contained in Chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the
Unified Development Code, which would result in a less restrictive
regulation under the Act, as it pertains to the Georgetown salamander,
than would otherwise exist. As a result, we do not believe that this
rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this final rule will not
have significant takings implications. We have determined that the rule
has no potential takings of private property implications as defined by
this Executive Order because this 4(d) rule will result in a less-
restrictive regulation under the Endangered Species Act than would
otherwise exist. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this final 4(d) rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. This rule will not have substantial direct
effects on the State, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the State, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this final rule does not unduly burden
the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (Executive Order 13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking actions that significantly affect
energy supply, distribution, and use. For reasons discussed within this
final rule, we believe that the rule will not have any effect on energy
supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain collections of information that require
approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. 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.)
We have prepared a final environmental assessment, as defined under
the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. For
information on how to obtain a copy of the final environmental
assessment, see ADDRESSES, above.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. We determined that there are no known
tribal lands within the range of the Georgetown salamander.
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the
Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
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.
[[Page 47428]]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.43 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.43 Special rules--amphibians.
* * * * *
(e) Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia).
(1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, all prohibitions and provisions of Sec. Sec. 17.31 and 17.32
apply to the Georgetown salamander.
(2) Exemptions from prohibitions. Incidental take of the Georgetown
salamander will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act
if the take occurs on non-Federal land from regulated activities that
are conducted consistent with the water quality protection measures
contained in chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the City of Georgetown
(Texas) Unified Development Code (UDC), as endorsed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
* * * * *
Dated: July 28, 2015.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-19335 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P